"ewing theory" in hockey

[MuzikMachine]

i think the crux of the theory is that with an unquestioned alpha dog, guys sometimes do less looking to and deferring to their star for the heavy lifting. that works when you star is jordan, not so much when it's ewing. but with him out, the other guys play better as a team and take more accountability for and control of the team.

you see this sometimes with non-playoff teams making an unexpected run for the 8th seed after trading their impending UFA star at the deadline, or going on a win streak after their best player packs it in for the year after they are mathematically eliminated. but the better and more interesting case, of course, is always in the playoffs.

Taking a different angle on the Ewing Theory, I think you see this is hockey on a more game-by-game basis when a team will play an inexperienced backup goaltender over their #1 goaltender - there can be a tendency to play better team defense.

Maybe that theory can apply to the Detroit Red Wings when they went from having Hasek to Osgood (both experienced, but going froma Vezna superstar to lesser decorated)- they won a Stanley Cup. Granted they were a 100+ pt team and had good players in front of Osgood, but the perceived weakness was goaltending.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I don't think it's as black-and-white as that.

Mark Messier in the last 7 years of his career is the textbook example of a player who was played far too much to the detriment of his team. Demanded star icetime and simply couldn't deliver the goods 5-on-5. Both Vancouver and NYR got worse when he arrived and better when he left.

Daniel Alfredsson this year was a guy the Ottawa offense was built around, and he simply couldn't deliver at a first-line level anymore.

But this probably happens most often with goalies. This has come up in the Richter/Joseph thread, but Richter and Ranford were two guys who were treated as 'top starters' for 5 years after regressing to mediocre goalies.

The thing is, the Ewing theory isn't so much about one player being a cancer, as much as it is about how a team comes together and steps up to a level they didn't realize they had when they lose a star.

 

[MuzikMachine]

Another possibility was the 2005-06 Anaheim Mighty Ducks, they traded a supposed #1 centre in Sergei Fedorov to Columbus and ended up going to the Western Conference Finals.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

.... or simply have a better superstar than the other team.

well, looking at where the NBA has gone since the celtics won their championship, maybe the key now is to have more superstars than the other team.

i'm looking forward to seeing whether the heat win this year. i hope they don't. i want to believe that basketball is a sport where you can't just put two superstars and an all-star together and where guys have to know their roles and to know how to play as a team. you saw that even with jordan, who was arguably the greatest individual talent the game had ever seen. he never won until 1. he had pippen, grant, and deadeye shooters like paxson or kerr and 2. until he learned how and when to trust his teammates and when to take over a game all by himself.

but, to respond to someone who mentioned goalies, i think a goalie is the only player in hockey who can do what, say, dirk or lebron can do in basketball. but if we apply "ewing theory" to a goalie, it raises interesting questions about how and when guys will play for their goalie. for example, roloson won a game in '99 when hasek went down. what if hasek had been hurt for the rest of the playoffs? i don't think he was well-liked, but on the other hand having hasek back there must have made his team play with an unbelievable amount of confidence.

 

[overpass]

The thing is, the Ewing theory isn't so much about one player being a cancer, as much as it is about how a team comes together and steps up to a level they didn't realize they had when they lose a star.

Yep. Ewing wasn't exactly a cancer, but he could only play one way - slow it down. He'd hold the ball after defensive rebounds so he'd have time to get down the court and into the halfcourt set, so the team didn't score transition points. And once he was there, he demanded the ball in the post a high % of the time, where the offence would stall as he went 1-on-1. At some point in his career he just wasn't good enough to justify all that, and his team had more success with him out as they could play a faster style of play.

Not sure if this applies to hockey as much, because individual playing styles aren't as distinctive as in basketball. In theory it could apply on the power play, which is more like basketball in some ways, but that's just a part of the game, and it's easy to reduce a player's power play role.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I call it the "Sundin" theory.

 

[tarheelhockey]

but if we apply "ewing theory" to a goalie, it raises interesting questions about how and when guys will play for their goalie.

How about Michael Leighton going a combined 41-24-8 with a save % close to .920 last year, despite evidently being an AHL talent?

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

The thing about the Ewing Theory that the OP doesn't do a great job of explaining is that the team bands together and immediately goes on some form of run in response to whatever removes the "Ewing" from the lineup. Simmonds actually joked about renaming it the "Tiki Theory" after the Super Bowl in 2007 for example. Some of the guys named here are just good players on bad teams.

A textbook example of this would be Derek Roy's season. PPG on a team that was bottom 2 in the league at time and the Sabres made the playoffs after his injury.

 

[Big Phil]

He played Pippen to Brind'Amour's Jordan. That Canes team was very deep; Staal was an accessory piece for sure. A very nice accessory, but an accessory nonetheless. He's come into his own as a great player, but I can understand the criticism of Staal as a Ewing-type.

This thread screams Ilya Kovalchuk.

Really you think?

2006 playoffs:
Staal 28 pts
Brindy 18 pts

Granted, BrindAmour had 12 goals and scored some huge ones including 4 game winners to Staal's 1 that spring, but there are a lot of people on here who would have given the Conn Smythe to Staal that year, over Ward and over BrindAmour

 

[reckoning]

The thing about the Ewing Theory that the OP doesn't do a great job of explaining is that the team bands together and immediately goes on some form of run in response to whatever removes the "Ewing" from the lineup. Simmonds actually joked about renaming it the "Tiki Theory" after the Super Bowl in 2007 for example. Some of the guys named here are just good players on bad teams.

A textbook example of this would be Derek Roy's season. PPG on a team that was bottom 2 in the league at time and the Sabres made the playoffs after his injury.

Exactly. The Sabres turnaround had more to do with Lindy Ruff rallying the team to pick up the slack in Roy's absence than the notion that they were a better team without him. A similar example would be Detroit going on their best run of the season in 87-88 immediately after Yzerman's injury. It not a statement on the worth of the player as much as the character of the team.

I'm not sure that there couldn't be examples of the "Ewing factor" in hockey, but few come to mind. Like you said, a lot of the guys mentioned in this thread were just good players on bad teams.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so how about marc savard? without him boston seems to have become a much grittier, and more dominating even strength team.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

I don't know if I'd consider Mats Sundin a "franchise player" or "superstar". Maybe. I'm really torn on that because he's my all time favourite player, but I feel like he was very rarely top 5 at his position. If he's to be considered a superstar, then he definitely fits the bill. The Leafs heavily invested in him and made him "the guy" the day they traded one of the most beloved players in team history for him. Yeah, Gilmour was there, but it was very obvious that Sundin was the future.

Eventually, some above average teams were built around him. From 99 to 04, the Leafs were legitimate contenders with solid goaltending, some very good defensemen in Markov, McCabe, Yushekevich, Berard and Kaberle, and a passable offense that included Mats, Thomas, Berezin, Roberts, Perreault, Tucker and Mogilny. But they just couldn't get it done.

Often throughout his career, the Leafs relied heavily on Sundin to get the work done. Even with those players around him, he was expected to carry the offense. Understandable, given his clutch play in close games and his ability to dominate with the size and skill he had. But the few times he went down to injury, other players were more inclined to step up their games to replace him while he was gone. Roberts, Lindros, even Stajan to name a few.

And then, I think the last bit of criteria, is that when he signed with Vancouver, that was it. With Mats, there was always a shot. The Leafs were usually within spitting distance of the playoffs at the very least. Without him, they became cellar dwellers and we all knew that would happen.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

necroing this thread for steven stamkos. thoughts?

 

[Big Phil]

necroing this thread for steven stamkos. thoughts?

They do pretty good without him though don't they? Last year he wasn't "the guy" en route to the Cup final either. In 2011 both St. Louis and Lecavalier outperformed him en route to the semi final. It isn't even as if he has ever been "the guy" during a long playoff run, which is weird.

I hate to say it, but is Ovechkin this guy now?

 

[Killion]

I hate to say it, but is Ovechkin this guy now?

You liking Alex Big Guy?

 

[Big Phil]

You liking Alex Big Guy?

I've always enjoyed Ovechkin. I try to do it as his career is happening instead of saying in 20 years "Man, you should have SEEN that guy!" I feel Ovechkin is one of those types. But yeah, the team has revolved around him for quite some time, 11 years, with minimal results in the postseason. Sooner or later he has to be "that" guy.

 

[Killion]

I've always enjoyed Ovechkin. I try to do it as his career is happening instead of saying in 20 years "Man, you should have SEEN that guy!" I feel Ovechkin is one of those types. But yeah, the team has revolved around him for quite some time, 11 years, with minimal results in the postseason. Sooner or later he has to be "that" guy.

"When"?.

 

[Killion]

Waiting Phil...

 

[Boxscore]

Rick Nash.

Never impressed me and always thought his teams were better or just as good (bad) without him.

 

[Killion]

Rick Nash.

Good example.... Id add just about 1st Round Top 3 Pick from every Draft since about 1975 to that compilation. Not conducive, not pro-active in terms of player development even with the ELC.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Mark Messier in the last 7 years of his career is the textbook example of a player who was played far too much to the detriment of his team. Demanded star icetime and simply couldn't deliver the goods 5-on-5. Both Vancouver and NYR got worse when he arrived and better when he left.

Wasn't Vancouver's record without Messier in the lineup substantially worse than when he was in the lineup? Doesn't seem like it fits as a Ewing example.

EDIT: Yikes. Old thread.

 

[VanIslander]

...basically the nuts and bolts of ewing theory is that the team has a superstar or franchise player who isn't in the upper echelon of elite players. they build the team around him...

A equals not-A?

So is he a superstar or not? Is he upper echelon or not?

Are you trying to suggest that Ewing was a "pretender" in basketball and not really one of the greats? And that we should identify likewise in hockey?

Is it about hyped but lame producers?

This thread is not clear in its intent.

I feel slime.

 

[Moose Head]

McDavid. The oilers record was significantly better when he wasn't in the lineup

 

[Canadiens1958]

Others

Foremost, the Sedin twins in Vancouver. Basic issue is that the team was never willing or the twins would not accept being split to create two #1(a+b) lines. Net result remained the same. It was very easy to play/plan against the Canucks.

The Wild Connection, Mikko Koivu, Zach Parise, Ryan Suter. Individually attractive pieces that under certain circumstances could be stars. Collectively never seem to mesh into a team concept long term.

Keith Tkachuk, very attractive island. Never part of the mainland.

Mike Gartner. Talented, ideal template winger with stats, quietest 700+ goal scorer ever.

Adam Oates. Talented, ideal RHS center, playmaker, acceptable defensively but ...

 

[Big Phil]

Waiting Phil...

How about now? 11 years is quite a bit of time to have a big sample size of results. I don't think never getting out of the 2nd round is what I would call great results. Ovechkin is very much a "Ewing" type if you ask me.