"ewing theory" in hockey

[Killion]

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.

My God Phil. Finally. Been staring at the screen for hours, fugue state, and yes, agreed.... mind you... how McPhee kept his J.O.B. all those years just no idea.... here he has one of the most dynamic players of all time and he cant (pun intended) capitalize?... Guess Georgie Boy there thought Quinn when he was his Assistant in Vancouver was a genius in his mishandling of Pavel Bure, never able to find complimentary Centers or Wingers really, figured he'd pull the same stunt in Washington with Ovi.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching

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.

Actually the first period of last night's Tampa Bay/Pittsburgh game should have explained the Ovechkin issue in Washington - coaching. Knowing how to prepare the on ice product for play and making the in game adjustments.

 

[Ishdul]

Ewing Theory was ridiculously stupid in basketball and is a pretty poor example in particular for Ewing because his team got to a tight Game 7 of the Finals with him as their clear best player and the Knicks not being all that great besides him. It's like you're just supposed to ignore that when bringing up Ewing for this thing. It was used with A-Rod before 2009, Dirk before 2011, etc. Simmons brought up Bourque as an example. A poster in this topic literally brought up Chara a month and change before the Bruins won the Cup.

It's a garbage theory that's been disproven a hundred times over.

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?

What's the point of listing Ovechkin? We haven't seen the Capitals without him and he's been really good in most playoff runs. If you think this is some Ewing theory then there should be at least some attempt to explain it. This year it looks like their depth scoring died including Kuznetsov going from near 77 point player to 2 points in 12 games is what sunk them. Is that meant to be Ovechkin's fault?

 

[Ishdul]

Ewing in college is an even worse example, since Georgetown was a thoroughly dominant team making 3 title games and winning 1 when he was there, including beating a much more loaded Houston team with Olajuwon and Drexler, and losing by a possession to a UNC team with Jordan and Worthy where Ewing was the best player in the game as a freshman. You'd have to be a total lunatic to watch Ewing on Georgetown and have negative conclusions about him.

 

[Voight]

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.

Why on earth would they split up if they have such amazing chemistry together? You don't split up guys who have been playing side by side literally their entire life.

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.
.

Sure they got worse.... but then they came back and won the cup.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

My God Phil. Finally. Been staring at the screen for hours, fugue state, and yes, agreed.... mind you... how McPhee kept his J.O.B. all those years just no idea.... here he has one of the most dynamic players of all time and he cant (pun intended) capitalize?... Guess Georgie Boy there thought Quinn when he was his Assistant in Vancouver was a genius in his mishandling of Pavel Bure, never able to find complimentary Centers or Wingers really, figured he'd pull the same stunt in Washington with Ovi.

Remember, this is the same McFail that traded Forsberg for Erat

 

[Boxscore]

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.

I think Ovechkin is an odd bird in terms of the "Ewing theory."

To me, I don't think he is a prime candidate because I honestly don't believe the Caps are as good or better without him. Remove Ovechkin and the Caps are a far less dangerous team. The opposition heads into every game focused on containing Ovechkin, especially on the PP. When teams do this, other Caps draw weaker assignments and have more space to operate. Remove Ovechkin and the Caps aren't nearly as scary.

That said, I think Ovechkin is the ultimate "secret weapon" come playoff time as opposed to "franchise carrier" (aka Gretzky, Lemieux, LaFleur, Orr, Richard, Howe, etc.). Ovechkin reminds me a lot of Brett Hull in that regard - he's a nuke bomb who can be kept under wraps but the fear of detonation is always there.

Ovechkin can't carry the Caps on his back come playoff time. He's not a centerman and his game isn't versatile enough to make him an impact player if he's not scoring, like a Forsberg, Toews, Bergeron, Kopitar, Gainey, etc.

To me, a guy like Rick Nash is a "Ewing Theory" poster boy. All sizzle and no substance... regular season and even worse in the playoffs. Remove Nash, his game, and his salary from your team and you're better off. You can accomplish the same or more with players that have far less raw skill than him. This isn't Ovie for me. Ovechkin is a legit difference-maker... it just doesn't come as easy in the playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sedins

Why on earth would they split up if they have such amazing chemistry together? You don't split up guys who have been playing side by side literally their entire life.

Offensively only, but their TOI and zone starts are severely managed to the point that together they play roughly 10-15% less than most #1 lines do. No one ever speaks about their defensive chemistry or acumen.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/sedinhe01.html

Using Henrik as a base, most first line forwards play app. 20-21 minutes per game.

Split the two Sedins, with appropriate linemates compensationg for their defensive game - say Daniel with pre trade Ryan Kesler who was actually playing #1 center minutes with Vancouver, Henrik with Burrows. Complete the lines and the opposition has to defend the Sedins offensively for roughly 40-42 minutes per game.

Big difference.

 

[Big Phil]

What's the point of listing Ovechkin? We haven't seen the Capitals without him and he's been really good in most playoff runs. If you think this is some Ewing theory then there should be at least some attempt to explain it. This year it looks like their depth scoring died including Kuznetsov going from near 77 point player to 2 points in 12 games is what sunk them. Is that meant to be Ovechkin's fault?

Oh hey, I mean, it isn't Ovechkin's fault for the last 11 years or so. No argument there. There are other times when another player deserves the blame. This year it is for sure Kuznetsov. Others such as Ovechkin, Backstrom, Oshie, Carlson all did their parts. Holtby is another one who played well I thought. There is always Justin Williams in the mix. All I am saying for a player of Ovechkin's magnitude is that there should have been better results by now. Not trying to compare Crosby to him or anything because that's been done, but this is his 4th time in the semi finals this year compared to Ovechkin's 0.

We do the same thing to Joe Thornton don't we? All those years, so many very good teams and for whatever reason no results. There has to be something different he can do.

The best thing here is to take a contemporary and put him right in Ovechkin's place. Patrick Kane for example. Is Washington still just as bad in the playoffs with Kane in Ovechkin's place? I am asking, really. Because that is the best way to know if a star player could do more or not.

Actually the first period of last night's Tampa Bay/Pittsburgh game should have explained the Ovechkin issue in Washington - coaching. Knowing how to prepare the on ice product for play and making the in game adjustments.

Boudreau and Trotz are capable coaches though.

 

[steve141]

The Avs' 2001 run might be an example. Forsberg was a playoff warrior, but his team won the SC without him.

 

[ecemleafs]

ewing just was unfortunate to play in an era that had jordan's bulls. he went to 2 nba finals. one as a superstar and got to game 7. ewing never had that elite sidekick that so many nba championship teams had. as for ovechkin, hes not the player he was when he was younger when he just dominated all assets of the attack. hes still the best goal scorer but when he was younger he just had so much more to his game offensively. i dont think the capitals teams back then were that great around him though despite the gaudy regular season point totals.

 

[Dooman]

The best example I can think of, is Paul Coffey post-Edmonton

 

[Mr. Fancy Pants]

The thing with this theory and Ovechkin is that we have no idea how the Caps would play without him because he has never been injured for an extended period of time. I count only 29 missed games in 11 seasons. He's an iron man. If we had a sample of 10-20 games where he was injured and the Caps did just as well or better then I could see the theory fitting but until that happens, it's tough to say.

It's an interesting theory. I've never heard of it before but now that I think of it there have been plenty of cases where the superstar on the team gets injured and everyone thinks they're done but somehow the team carries on. I wonder if a smart GM would think to trade the superstar in that situation since his market value is probably high or if it could just be a temporary situation where everyone realises they need to pull their weight because Superstar is out. Maybe it wouldn't carry over permanently.

 

[The Panther]

The best example I can think of, is Paul Coffey post-Edmonton

Are you referring to his Stanley Cup win in 1991, or his Canada Cup win the same year?

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.

[MOD] Where's your evidence for his "demand(ing) star icetime"? And why wouldn't he get star ice time in 1997-98, at least, since he was, in fact, a star? He was also voted the team's MVP in his last season in Vancouver. The Canucks' record with him out his last two seasons was worse than with him in the line-up, with renders your mentioning him in this thread irrelevant. His ice-time with the Rangers 2000-2004 was less than other centers like Lindros, Holik, and Nedved. As far as 5-on-5 goes, Messier's plus/minus in the disastrous 1997-98 Canucks' season is mediocre, but better than Babych, Linden, Sillinger, or Noonan. In his last season, at 43, his plus/minus is 5th-best on the team of players who played a full season.

These were very mediocre seasons, for sure, for Messier, but a larger question might be: Why would you be even mentioning a guy who was a legend until age 36, and then why would you use his final seasons as a stick to beat him with? Are you going to do this with every player, or only with Messier? Trevor Linden, for example, had about 6 or 7 great seasons total (that would be half or less than Messier had, but with less winning and less scoring points), and then was an under-performing 'minus' player starting from age 27 and lasting until he retired. Yet, strangely, Vancouver fans never mention this....

 

[MarkStone]

Keep in mind also that the year the Knicks went to the final without Ewing was a lockout shortened season (50 games being played instead of 82).
On another note, I'm a huge Simmons fan but have always felt the Ewing Theory was kind of unfair. When the guy wasn't out of the lineup with an injury he had to slug it out against GOAT Celtics, Pistons, Bulls and Rockets teams with ice-packs taped on his knees and with John Starks as his shooting guard.

 

[VanIslander]

... have always felt the Ewing Theory was kind of unfair. When the guy wasn't out of the lineup with an injury he had to slug it out against GOAT Celtics, Pistons, Bulls and Rockets teams with ice-packs taped on his knees and with John Starks as his shooting guard.

I think this whole thread is unfair likewise. It IMPLIES without overtly claiming that Ewing was a 'loser' who cost his teams the championship, and we are to consider NHLers who were great but RESPONSIBLE by virtue of their situation / results, for their team's failings.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

I think this whole thread is unfair likewise. It IMPLIES without overtly claiming that Ewing was a 'loser' who cost his teams the championship, and we are to consider NHLers who were great but RESPONSIBLE by virtue of their situation / results, for their team's failings.

It's more a pshycological phenomena of the team relying too much on one player to the point there is no success because they always instead of stepping up themselves, they naturally grabs the second fiddle and assumes that the star of the team will take the reigns and give the team success.

It's actually qiuet common in most team-sports. I myself have experienced it when playing soccer/football aswell. You can see it in Team Sweden during the international plays in soccer aswell, as they have players who actively looks for their star-player to win the game for them. Which is qiuet hilarious as the team usually does better without their star.

And it's mostly in cases where either the star-player has been given too much stroke from the coach or management, or in cases of the star player is that much better or have a strong personality that in turn creates this kind of situation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Carey Price

Canadiens with a healthy Carey Price and without Carey Price are a prime example.

Roster is populated with players who have never had leadership roles elsewhere and when the recognized team leader is hurt drift towards the bottom.

 

[tjcurrie]

Tyler Seguin 2016

Many wrote the Stars off when he went down, and the next day I argued with a popular local media/sports radio host who said on-air that the Stars now have a 0% chance of winning the division/conference.

I said to watch, we'll play a certain way now and we'll be fine.

Well.....

That's not to say we couldn't have used his presence on the PP vs the Blues, but our team pulled together and played how they needed to play to win the division/conference and go as far as they did, not to mention our best player was still in the lineup, so there's that.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's more a pshycological phenomena of the team relying too much on one player to the point there is no success because they always instead of stepping up themselves, they naturally grabs the second fiddle and assumes that the star of the team will take the reigns and give the team success.

It's actually qiuet common in most team-sports. I myself have experienced it when playing soccer/football aswell. You can see it in Team Sweden during the international plays in soccer aswell, as they have players who actively looks for their star-player to win the game for them. Which is qiuet hilarious as the team usually does better without their star.

And it's mostly in cases where either the star-player has been given too much stroke from the coach or management, or in cases of the star player is that much better or have a strong personality that in turn creates this kind of situation.

yes, this is my understanding of ewing theory.

let's please not turn this into a "no fair, he did his best on bad teammates" thread.

and also, maybe some of you are going to hate on this but how about steve yzerman in '88? yzerman gets hurt at the beginning of march and his team, which had just lost four straight, goes on a nine game unbeaten streak, with eight of those being wins. then they plow through the norris in the playoffs without yzerman, only to lose to the oilers in 5 as yzerman comes back for the third round (same result as the previous year). not to say that team had any chance against the dynasty oilers with or without yzerman but still: look at how other guys stepped up in his absence: oates, probert, and klima, with john chabot catching lightning in a bottle, not just the yzerman and gallant show.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Canadiens with a healthy Carey Price and without Carey Price are a prime example.

Roster is populated with players who have never had leadership roles elsewhere and when the recognized team leader is hurt drift towards the bottom.

That's not an example at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a team stepping up in a star players absence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Please Read

That's not an example at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite of a team stepping up in a star players absence.

The seminal post definition:

A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).

That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.
When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory.

Price receives and inordinate amount of media and fan attention in Montréal.Price has been hurt twice. Eastern final against the Rangers and this season. Even when Price is healthy have the Canadiens won anything substantial?

For the following season or the rest of the playoff series or the ongoing season is one and the same.

No one ever stepped up, media and fans went into panic mode, team coached and played tentative.

 

[Ishdul]

The seminal post definition:

A star athlete receives an inordinate amount of media attention and fan interest, and yet his teams never win anything substantial with him (other than maybe some early-round playoff series).

That same athlete leaves his team (either by injury, trade, graduation, free agency or retirement) -- and both the media and fans immediately write off the team for the following season.
When those elements collide, you have the Ewing Theory.

Price receives and inordinate amount of media and fan attention in Montréal.Price has been hurt twice. Eastern final against the Rangers and this season. Even when Price is healthy have the Canadiens won anything substantial?

For the following season or the rest of the playoff series or the ongoing season is one and the same.

No one ever stepped up, media and fans went into panic mode, team coached and played tentative.

The Ewing theory is supposed to be that the team does better without him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Short Term

The Ewing theory is supposed to be that the team does better without him.

Short term they did, after Price was initially hurt in the 11th game against Edmonton.

When the injury went from day-to day to six weeks is when the team started losing.When it became obvious that it was going beyond six weeks it became a free fall.

With Price they lost two regulation games. First two loses with Condon were OT/SO loses. When the oops Carey Price is not day to day, sky is falling mindset set in then the whole season went south, starting with the loss to Colorado, brief Price comeback hope then the OT/SO lose to NJ.

Similar to the 1999 Knicks against Indiana with Rik Smits at center,able to cobble together a series winning performance. San Antonio with Tim Duncan, totally different story

Likewise with Tokarski against the Rangers in 2014. A few sparks but no way was the fire going to catch.

Ewing Theory or go back a bit and call it the Willis Reed Theory almost 30 years earlier, maybe a series but a very short shelf life.

 

[Boxscore]

The best example I can think of, is Paul Coffey post-Edmonton

I don't see this as a good example. Post-Oil, Coffey was a key part of a Cup win in PIT and was never "the main superstar" after that. In DET, PHI, etc. he was a complimentary piece as a veteran Blueliner - players like Yzerman, Lindros were the leaders. Even in EDM & PIT he wasn't "the man."