For the Sharks to win the cup, you have to believe...

[OrrNumber4]

You are right that the stars have to produce, but lack of depth can hurt that. I remember TMac rolling three lines in the playoffs frequently because the the 4th line of grinders wasn't cutting it. After one or two rounds of running three lines, our top six was likely more banged up and gassed than our opposition.

Don't get depth confused with deployment. A lot of teams that role 4 lines don't necessarily have great depth, they just spread their talent around their lineup; star players can carry the other players. The Sharks don't really do that. They play their stars with their other stars.

The solution seems easy; start putting those stars somewhere else. But consider that the Sharks's top lines, stacked and all, get crushed by the other teams' weaker lines. For example, Kopitar was flanked by Gaborik and Brown, and he ground both Thortnon (with Burns, Pavelski, and Hertl) and Couture (with Marleau and Nieto) into the dirt. You replace those top players with role players, and it would presumably be an even worse situation.

And in any case, those bottom line players, at best, get 10ish minutes a game, with very modest production. Were Mike Brown and Andrew Desjardins supposed to score the 3 goals/game the Sharks needed to beat LA?

I think the team only broke through Anderson because that Avalanche team was a paper tiger. The team also did decently against Elliot (Colin freakin' White scored on him for God's sake), but that playoff series was doomed from the start due to a poor PK and lack of forward depth. I'm not going to go through each other team one by one, but I will say that they were decent to good to great, and there were plenty of other factors that could have changed history.

I agree with you that the Blues were a much stronger team than the Sharks. But a lot of the teams the Sharks lost to, they could or should have beaten. And they always seem to miss glorious opportunities and don't play up to their potential. For example, Chicago was the favourite in 2010, as was Vancouver in 2011. But the Sharks should definitely have won one or two games vs. Chicago. They certainly shot themselves in the foot against Vancouver.

I often say that there are teams you should beat, you could beat, and you probably couldn't beat. The Sharks only win when they are the favourite to win...if it is a push or if the Sharks are the underdog, forget about it!

It is clear that we agree on a lot. I think much of the disagreement comes from where we each place the blame. I think you tend put it on DW for not getting the assets and TMac for the strategy, while I tend to put it on the players for not executing.

Obviously, there are times where DW could have gotten more help, or TMac could have used better lineups (in particular!), but the Sharks often don't play to their capability. The coach isn't the one who plays on the ice...and at least in 2014, the players mentioned that Tmac was talking even though they weren't listening.

I have to absolutely agree again. Not finishing teams off early leads to injuries and gassing your best players. I'm not sure if that is a player-leadership issue or a coaching issue, but it needs to get solved.

It is a combination of both. How much each (and the management) is to blame, we will never really know. From what I have observed, including the "smoke" we have seen over the year, I tend to fault the players a lot more than many others. You mention leadership, and, well, a lot of that is Thornton, Marleau, etc. The top players on the team. Since 2008, only JT, Marleau, Vlasic, and DW remain with the team.

 

[Alwalys]

Don't get depth confused with deployment.

Speaking of confusing things for deployment, the #1 reason why your entire basis for complaint fails is your failure to consider deployment. Lack of depth directly affects star player deployment and that directly affects their offensive output. Our stars are tasked with more defense than any of the most successful teams in the modern NHL. Our stars get outproduced by other teams' stars because their stars get to be deployed favorably against our stars, since our depth players cannot drive play well enough to set up our stars with favorable deployment. Deployment is HEAVILY influenced by how well depth lines play.

The Sharks lack depth simply because of their position as an up and coming team peaking around the time of the 04 lockout. That absolutely screwed them over when the cap kicked in by depriving them of the high picks that subsequently drove the success of teams in the decade since.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Speaking of confusing things for deployment, the #1 reason why your entire basis for complaint fails is your failure to consider deployment. Lack of depth directly affects star player deployment and that directly affects their offensive output. Our stars are tasked with more defense than any of the most successful teams in the modern NHL.

But that just isn't true. Firstly, when it comes to the playoffs, corsi is highly flawed. For example, Jonathon Toews has a very high Corsi in the playoffs, while he has faced "incredibly poor" competition. But in reality, he's often matched up against the other teams's top lines. He just manages to crush them so effectively, that their corsi is poor, and hence, his competition looks like garbage when it is really Toews who makes them look like garbage.

Plenty of top players on other teams play very tough minutes, with a lot of defensive zone starts, and with worse teammates. I can also unequivocally say that the Sharks's forwards have also had great linemates relative to other star players in the league.

Our stars get outproduced by other teams' stars because their stars get to be deployed favorably against our stars, since our depth players cannot drive play well enough to set up our stars with favorable deployment. Deployment is HEAVILY influenced by how well depth lines play.

Looking at it the way you are doing it...is silly. Why is it that depth players have to set up star players, but not the other way around? My observation is that when your star players are killing it, the rest of the team looks so much better. The star players, with their 40+ minutes of ice time, have to set up the depth to succeed, not the other way around.

The Sharks lack depth simply because of their position as an up and coming team peaking around the time of the 04 lockout. That absolutely screwed them over when the cap kicked in by depriving them of the high picks that subsequently drove the success of teams in the decade since.

Right. Blame luck, the refs, the league, the coaching, the management, blame anything before blaming the actual players playing the game.

I am sure you will leave the other points in my other point unaddressed.

 

[Zarzh]

But that just isn't true. Firstly, when it comes to the playoffs, corsi is highly flawed. For example, Jonathon Toews has a very high Corsi in the playoffs, while he has faced "incredibly poor" competition. But in reality, he's often matched up against the other teams's top lines. He just manages to crush them so effectively, that their corsi is poor, and hence, his competition looks like garbage when it is really Toews who makes them look like garbage.

Plenty of top players on other teams play very tough minutes, with a lot of defensive zone starts, and with worse teammates. I can also unequivocally say that the Sharks's forwards have also had great linemates relative to other star players in the league.



Looking at it the way you are doing it...is silly. Why is it that depth players have to set up star players, but not the other way around? My observation is that when your star players are killing it, the rest of the team looks so much better. The star players, with their 40+ minutes of ice time, have to set up the depth to succeed, not the other way around.



Right. Blame luck, the refs, the league, the coaching, the management, blame anything before blaming the actual players playing the game.

I am sure you will leave the other points in my other point unaddressed.

Is there anywhere that has advanced stats by round for the playoffs? Because it atleast seems like Toews (understandably) does worse against other stars than guys like Koivu and Nashville's centers.

 

[Sleepy]

Meh. In some years, the bottom-6 absolutely let us down. For this coming year though, I think we all realize two things:

1. The top 6 isn't going to change much from the last few years
2. The top 6 isn't going to be better than Getzlaf/Perry/Kesler or Kane/Toews/Hossa

Thus, a key to getting past those teams is the bottom 6 being a competitive advantage because it has the potential to do so.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

It's nice to talk about the playoffs and the matchups but they'll need to get there first and they have a few significant gambles that need to pay off before they worry about the playoffs. New coach with a new system doesn't always work out for the talent involved. Their depth overall is still fairly young and consistency will be an issue. They don't have a proven starter. This could easily be a worse year than last year.

 

[Alwalys]

Plenty of top players on other teams play very tough minutes, with a lot of defensive zone starts, and with worse teammates. I can also unequivocally say that the Sharks's forwards have also had great linemates relative to other star players in the league.

******** walks. This information is available online.

2014 playoffs
Toews 55% 5v5 o-zone starts
Kane 73.6% (!!! Kane is one of the most deployment-protected players in the entire league)
Kopitar 57.3%
Carter 58.6%
Marleau 40.7% (WTF?)
Thornton 31.9% (seriously WTF? probably the most defensively tasked star in the entire league. Bergeron was at 45.3%)

2013 playoffs
Toews 60.3%
Kane 68.6% (!!! again one of the most protected stars)
Kopitar 42.9% (very defensive and the kings really were outplayed in many games they ended up winning; they probably should not have made the conference finals)
Carter 48.6%
Thornton 55.4%
Marleau 46.5%

2012 playoffs
Toews 66.1%
Kane 63.0%
Kopitar 50.4%
Carter 45.7%
Thornton 61.1% (STL series, not sure how much we can draw from deployment here. but JT did score >ppg with this deployment)
Marleau 57.1%

2011 playoffs
Toews 51.7%
Kane 50.7%
Thornton 48.0%
Marleau 47.2%

2010
Toews 62.9%
Kane 75.9% (!!!!!!)
Thornton 55.2%
Marleau 51.9%

So basically, players like Toews and Kane enjoy a significant deployment advantage over our stars and as a result see more success. But determining whether this is simply protection or driven by depth play requires looking at how the depth compares in start vs finish numbers and you can see that Chicago's depth players drive play to a high degree compared to the Sharks'.

 

[hohosaregood]

Have the Sharks ever competed in the playoffs? There's a thinker.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Have the Sharks ever competed in the playoffs? There's a thinker.

Yes...the times they win, they competed. The times they lost, they didn't compete. They only ever lost because they decided that they didn't want to win.

 

[OrrNumber4]

******** walks. This information is available online.

2014 playoffs
Toews 55% 5v5 o-zone starts
Kane 73.6% (!!! Kane is one of the most deployment-protected players in the entire league)
Kopitar 57.3%
Carter 58.6%
Marleau 40.7% (WTF?)
Thornton 31.9% (seriously WTF? probably the most defensively tasked star in the entire league. Bergeron was at 45.3%)

2013 playoffs
Toews 60.3%
Kane 68.6% (!!! again one of the most protected stars)
Kopitar 42.9% (very defensive and the kings really were outplayed in many games they ended up winning; they probably should not have made the conference finals)
Carter 48.6%
Thornton 55.4%
Marleau 46.5%

2012 playoffs
Toews 66.1%
Kane 63.0%
Kopitar 50.4%
Carter 45.7%
Thornton 61.1% (STL series, not sure how much we can draw from deployment here. but JT did score >ppg with this deployment)
Marleau 57.1%

2011 playoffs
Toews 51.7%
Kane 50.7%
Thornton 48.0%
Marleau 47.2%

2010
Toews 62.9%
Kane 75.9% (!!!!!!)
Thornton 55.2%
Marleau 51.9%

So basically, players like Toews and Kane enjoy a significant deployment advantage over our stars and as a result see more success. But determining whether this is simply protection or driven by depth play requires looking at how the depth compares in start vs finish numbers and you can see that Chicago's depth players drive play to a high degree compared to the Sharks'.

And you have to look at the other things as well...production, linemates, etc. Even by your own zone-starts measures show that players like Kopitar and Carter have it tough...and of course, zone-starts don't take into account that teams will put a player out for a faceoff before replacing him.

And, Chicago's depth players have better numbers because they play with better linemates. Bickell was not one of their top-9 forwards, yet he played with Toews. Handzus was on the second line, etc. Players like Toews, Kane, and Keith can carry their linemates.

 

[Barrie22]

******** walks. This information is available online.

2014 playoffs
Toews 55% 5v5 o-zone starts
Kane 73.6% (!!! Kane is one of the most deployment-protected players in the entire league)
Kopitar 57.3%
Carter 58.6%
Marleau 40.7% (WTF?)
Thornton 31.9% (seriously WTF? probably the most defensively tasked star in the entire league. Bergeron was at 45.3%)

2013 playoffs
Toews 60.3%
Kane 68.6% (!!! again one of the most protected stars)
Kopitar 42.9% (very defensive and the kings really were outplayed in many games they ended up winning; they probably should not have made the conference finals)
Carter 48.6%
Thornton 55.4%
Marleau 46.5%

2012 playoffs
Toews 66.1%
Kane 63.0%
Kopitar 50.4%
Carter 45.7%
Thornton 61.1% (STL series, not sure how much we can draw from deployment here. but JT did score >ppg with this deployment)
Marleau 57.1%

2011 playoffs
Toews 51.7%
Kane 50.7%
Thornton 48.0%
Marleau 47.2%

2010
Toews 62.9%
Kane 75.9% (!!!!!!)
Thornton 55.2%
Marleau 51.9%

So basically, players like Toews and Kane enjoy a significant deployment advantage over our stars and as a result see more success. But determining whether this is simply protection or driven by depth play requires looking at how the depth compares in start vs finish numbers and you can see that Chicago's depth players drive play to a high degree compared to the Sharks'.

The thornton 39.1% was against the kings. And if i remember correctly thornton ended that series with something like a 55% possession number and a 60+% offensive zone finish.

 

[Linkster]

1. Vezina contender: Martin Jones
2. Coach firing, mid-November: Roy Sommer
3. Deadline acquisition: John ******* Scott

 

[Alwalys]

And you have to look at the other things as well...production, linemates, etc. Even by your own zone-starts measures show that players like Kopitar and Carter have it tough...and of course, zone-starts don't take into account that teams will put a player out for a faceoff before replacing him.

Obvious cherrypicking is obvious. Anyone with any kind of honesty knows that the Sharks studs are relied upon defensively to a tremendous degree. And that in order to get off the ice after a faceoff, a player needs to move the play out of the zone.

When the kings find their studs in heavy defensive deployment, they are getting outplayed and often lose. The Kings studs' production also drops off when defensively deployed.

And, Chicago's depth players have better numbers because they play with better linemates. Bickell was not one of their top-9 forwards, yet he played with Toews. Handzus was on the second line, etc. Players like Toews, Kane, and Keith can carry their linemates.

False narrative. To the extent that the top lines can "carry" other players, effective protection via favorable deployment is a major reason. The numbers for the actual 3rd and 4th lines tell the same story, particularly players like Kreuger, Frolik, Bollig, even Ben Smith, who btw is a great depth pickup for the Sharks.

 

[hohosaregood]

By the truthly phrases "seeing is believing" and "lies, damned lies, and statistics", I have to pronounce ON5 the winner in this discussion. Case closed, let's never talk about the Sharks and playoffs ever again. Even if the Sharks get to the playoffs, let's just talk about offseason rosterbation. We'll only talk about the Sharks in the playoffs if they get to game 7 of the Stanley cup...hahahaha that'll never happen.


Somebody told me that after a sports season is done, there's something called "the playoffs". But I'm pretty sure he's lying. I've been watching sports for quite a while now and have yet to watch "playoff sports".

 

[Painful Quandary]

Don't get depth confused with deployment. A lot of teams that role 4 lines don't necessarily have great depth, they just spread their talent around their lineup; star players can carry the other players. The Sharks don't really do that. They play their stars with their other stars.

The teams that are able to roll 4 lines generally don't have the number anchors the Sharks have had in years past. At least this year the only anchor the Sharks have on their roster seems to be Mike Brown.

The solution seems easy; start putting those stars somewhere else. But consider that the Sharks's top lines, stacked and all, get crushed by the other teams' weaker lines. For example, Kopitar was flanked by Gaborik and Brown, and he ground both Thortnon (with Burns, Pavelski, and Hertl) and Couture (with Marleau and Nieto) into the dirt. You replace those top players with role players, and it would presumably be an even worse situation.

Ah, the infamous LA series. I think a huge reason Kopitar was able to wallop our top two lines is because he was being back by Doughty, while our top pair became Justin Braun and Brad Stuart once Vlasic went down. It was a while ago, but didn't Rehger get injured around game 5 or so, which tremendously helped LA? I remember Nieto blowing past him like a turnstile in games 1-3.

My ultimate point is that the defense matchups also matter for deployment. It can also work the other way around, for example, the Blackhawks last playoffs were able to mask that they were essentially running 4 defensemen for games because their forward depth was absolutely ridiculous.

And in any case, those bottom line players, at best, get 10ish minutes a game, with very modest production. Were Mike Brown and Andrew Desjardins supposed to score the 3 goals/game the Sharks needed to beat LA?

I don't expect the 4th lines to score, I expect them to eat up minutes and keep the other team's depth from scoring. This really matters come overtime. And anyways, rolling four lines keeps the stars fresh and at least the chance to execute.

I agree with you that the Blues were a much stronger team than the Sharks. But a lot of the teams the Sharks lost to, they could or should have beaten. And they always seem to miss glorious opportunities and don't play up to their potential. For example, Chicago was the favourite in 2010, as was Vancouver in 2011. But the Sharks should definitely have won one or two games vs. Chicago. They certainly shot themselves in the foot against Vancouver.

I often say that there are teams you should beat, you could beat, and you probably couldn't beat. The Sharks only win when they are the favourite to win...if it is a push or if the Sharks are the underdog, forget about it!

That is sadly so true. The Sharks lost two series against the Kings, which were statistically coinflips. The Sharks weren't favored against Vancouver, but that was because they shot themselves in the foot by taking too long to finish off two very physical teams (Kings, Wings), as well as many times within the series. I also agree the Sharks should have won at least one game at home (in fact, they needed both) in that Chicago series, especially since Coach Q is all about matchups.

It is clear that we agree on a lot. I think much of the disagreement comes from where we each place the blame. I think you tend put it on DW for not getting the assets and TMac for the strategy, while I tend to put it on the players for not executing.

Obviously, there are times where DW could have gotten more help, or TMac could have used better lineups (in particular!), but the Sharks often don't play to their capability. The coach isn't the one who plays on the ice...and at least in 2014, the players mentioned that Tmac was talking even though they weren't listening.

I think you nailed it, I am apt to blame the generals before blaming the footsoldiers. A great example of this seems to be that DW set up a roster that could only fail, TMac misused players like Burns (I'm not talking about converting him back to defense, I'm talking about having him pass the puck rather than carry it through the NZ, as well as using him in the D-Zone more than the O-Zone), which only added to the issue, so its no wonder that players had tuned him out when the season began to slip away. 2014 was a great example that the fish rots from the head.

It is a combination of both. How much each (and the management) is to blame, we will never really know. From what I have observed, including the "smoke" we have seen over the year, I tend to fault the players a lot more than many others. You mention leadership, and, well, a lot of that is Thornton, Marleau, etc. The top players on the team. Since 2008, only JT, Marleau, Vlasic, and DW remain with the team.

That is one frustrating thing as a fan, there clearly are some leadership issues, but since we are outside looking in, we can't really say who in particular. I also have to add a fifth name to that list: Pavelski. It really is tough looking at those five names and wondering about leadership when JT, Vlasic, and Pavs are so critical to our team, and Marleau is one of the few players, that at least under TMac, that could easily enter the O-zone. Also, I know I criticize DW a lot, but there are some many bad and mediocre GMs (current and past during DW tenure) that if feels like such a dangerous gamble to start the "fire DW" chant.

 

[Painful Quandary]

Meh. In some years, the bottom-6 absolutely let us down. For this coming year though, I think we all realize two things:

1. The top 6 isn't going to change much from the last few years
2. The top 6 isn't going to be better than Getzlaf/Perry/Kesler or Kane/Toews/Hossa

Thus, a key to getting past those teams is the bottom 6 being a competitive advantage because it has the potential to do so.

I think you are over estimating the Ducks top-6; Kesler has been declining. I will say that I am more worried about the number good, young defensemen they have. I also have say, even with some of their departures, the Blackhawks seem like the main hurdle in the west, with the Kings being the second one I'm worried about (they still have Kopitar and Doughty with Sutter as coach).

 

[matt trick]

On the zone starts, I'd guess Kane is so high because Kruger and Toews typically neutralize the top two teams offensive lines. I would guess (and I am not someone who is real adept at reading advanced stats), that the Hawks start in the offensive zone at a ridiculously high clip.

Stats wizards, am I wrong?

 

[Alwalys]

On the zone starts, I'd guess Kane is so high because Kruger and Toews typically neutralize the top two teams offensive lines. I would guess (and I am not someone who is real adept at reading advanced stats), that the Hawks start in the offensive zone at a ridiculously high clip.

Stats wizards, am I wrong?

Nope you are right. Kreuger in particular is ****ing amazing. He may honestly be the best player on their team, in terms of how he plays the situations he plays. He is certainly a large key to their success, if not the largest. There are better individual players but Kreuger provides arguably the largest relative advantage vs other teams.

 

[weastern bias]

It's nice to talk about the playoffs and the matchups but they'll need to get there first and they have a few significant gambles that need to pay off before they worry about the playoffs. New coach with a new system doesn't always work out for the talent involved. Their depth overall is still fairly young and consistency will be an issue. They don't have a proven starter. This could easily be a worse year than last year.

This

 

[OrrNumber4]

Nope you are right. Kreuger in particular is ****ing amazing. He may honestly be the best player on their team, in terms of how he plays the situations he plays. He is certainly a large key to their success, if not the largest. There are better individual players but Kreuger provides arguably the largest relative advantage vs other teams.

You can't be serious.

This is what happens when you only look at stats....

 

[Alwalys]

You can't be serious.

This is what happens when you only look at stats....

Lol now you cherrypick reading.

You read that as well as you analyze.

 

[hohosaregood]

You can't be serious.

This is what happens when you only look at stats....

He's the best player in the league, in his role

 

[OrrNumber4]

Lol now you cherrypick reading.

You read that as well as you analyze.

Your whole statement is equally ridiculous. He's Chicago's biggest advantage? Horsepuckey. He's the largest key to their success? An inane comment.

Saying he's the best relative to his role is a nonsensical statement....John Scott is the best player in the league relative to his role (enforcer). It means nothing.

 

[hohosaregood]

Your whole statement is equally ridiculous. He's Chicago's biggest advantage? Horsepuckey. He's the largest key to their success? An inane comment.

Saying he's the best relative to his role is a nonsensical statement....John Scott is the best player in the league relative to his role (enforcer). It means nothing.

Scott's not a very good enforcer.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The thornton 39.1% was against the kings. And if i remember correctly thornton ended that series with something like a 55% possession number and a 60+% offensive zone finish.

I was waiting for Phu to call you out on this, since he's the one so invested in the stats, but no, you are misremembering. Thornton's offensive-zone finish was 38%. There were plenty of players with better corsi numbers than Thornton, including studs like James Sheppard and Matt Nieto.

Obvious cherrypicking is obvious. Anyone with any kind of honesty knows that the Sharks studs are relied upon defensively to a tremendous degree. And that in order to get off the ice after a faceoff, a player needs to move the play out of the zone.

So are Crosby and Malkin. So are Kopitar, Carter, and Doughty. So are Toews and Keith. So are Datsyuk and Zetterberg.

Being relied upon in all three zones on the ice is par-for-the course in the NHL.

Your last statement ignores times players will take offensive zone faceoffs before changing, and the fact that if you win a faceoff, it becomes considerably easier for the team to move the puck out of the zone.

When the kings find their studs in heavy defensive deployment, they are getting outplayed and often lose. The Kings studs' production also drops off when defensively deployed.

So what you are basically saying that if a team finds itself starting in the defensive zone, they will lose more often. Not because their playing badly resulted in them being in the defensive zone. I see the symptom as a result of their play, you see the play as a result of the symptom.

False narrative. To the extent that the top lines can "carry" other players, effective protection via favorable deployment is a major reason.

You act as if Chicago's fourth line matches up with other teams's top lines. Toews typically gets his team's hardest matchups. Same with Kopitar. The fact is they crush those matchups even with sub-par linemates (Hossa is great, Gaborik is OK, but don't go around telling me that Brown and Bickell are studs).