Post-Game Talk: Game 2 Plus-Minus Thread

[Dipsy Doodle]

Just some things on my mind....

- at what point does Malkin understand situational hockey? He's suppose to be a leader and set an example. That behind the back pass, from behind his own net that went right to an Isle in front, really makes you wonder what goes through his head.

I know people make excuses because he creates so much, but so does Dats. However, you rarely ever see Dats do stupid **** in his own zone. The thing is, you know DB has more than likely had multiple discussions with him about it. Yet every playoff season it's the same thing...

Just odd that he doesn't get it because Malkin has such a high hockey IQ.

- I'm glad the Isles humbled this fan base... Reading the sweep talk and lack of respect for the Isles was shocking. This team throttled Mon in game one a couple of yrs back, how did that turn out?

This team hasn't proven anything. They have been rolled in their last three playoff series and have a losing record in their last 30 playoff games. Where exactly is this arrogance from our fan base coming from?

Certainly not from anything this team has done in the playoffs the last three years.

This isn't the 93 Pens who were two time champions and won 14 straight playoff games. At least then I could understand the overconfidence those guys had.

- not one Penguin has outplayed Okposo. Props and respect.

- it's not the system; it's the execution.

- the Pens were being pissed on by the Isles all night, "the fight" didn't change anything.

- I rarely rag on MAF, but I admit he is a flakey dude and I thought it was funny as hell he found a way to score on himself again. He's like a box of chocolates...

On board with pretty much everything here. Well, that's boring.

 

[Slabber Chops]

Only saw the end so little to add aside from Ithat I hope that the old Duke Nukem adage: "It's time to kick .. and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of gum" is their motto for game 4

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

To the guy claiming the fight meant nothing:

To the guy who didn't see the game and believes in silly cliches that players love to repeat:

Pens were getting dominated before and after the fight. The Isles came out of the locker room pissed off and intent on proving something. From the drop of the puck they out skated and out worked the Pens.

The fight didn't change a damn thing because the Isles were already severely out playing the Pens.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Well, that's boring.

I couldn't find my too tight diamond shoes this morning...

 

[Malkin4Top6Wingerz]

Jiggy you're wrong. The Isles got a huge boost after seeing that bully Matt Niskanen put in his place.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Marc-Andre Fleury is apparently the unluckiest goalie in NHL history with how many weird goals that have gone in that were not his fault.

On a completely unrelated note, Dan Cloutier would have had a couple of Vezinas in his trophy case if it weren't for his awful luck. Poor guy, only luck separated him from having Brodeur's career.

 

[Tender Rip]

To the guy claiming the fight meant nothing:

This stuff is irrational. It shouldn't matter. There is not much tangible you can point to that it did. Except that the team overturning a 3-1 deficit say they feel that way and consider it a rallying point...

Ultimately I agree with Jiggy that the game itself didn't change at all in any way other than the scoreline.

I put as much stock into players considering it a reason one way or another as I do almost any other post-game line they come up with, ie. none.

 

[MtlPenFan]

This stuff is irrational. It shouldn't matter. There is not much tangible you can point to that it did. Except that the team overturning a 3-1 deficit say they feel that way and consider it a rallying point...

Ultimately I agree with Jiggy that the game itself didn't change at all in any way other than the scoreline.

I put as much stock into players considering it a reason one way or another as I do almost any other post-game line they come up with, ie. none.

Two biggest myths in hockey:

1) A fight that changes the momentum of a game. I can guarantee that there are countless more examples of games NOT turning around after a fight than vice versa. The games that do turn around after a fight, probably would have turned around anyway.

2) Calling a timeout to "calm your team down". Funny that there are three TV timeouts during each period, but nobody ever seems to point to that when a team turns a game around after a break. I can't tell you how many times I've seen coaches call a 30 second TO when they're due a TWO MINUTE break literally after the next whistle. Somehow, 30 seconds to tell your team to calm their **** down is somehow smarter and more poignant than treading water for a minute or two until it's time for a break that lasts 90 seconds longer.

 

[JTG]

Geno's puck management in this game was about as bad as I've seen.

 

[nTsplnk*]

To the guy who didn't see the game and believes in silly cliches that players love to repeat:

Pens were getting dominated before and after the fight. The Isles came out of the locker room pissed off and intent on proving something. From the drop of the puck they out skated and out worked the Pens.

The fight didn't change a damn thing because the Isles were already severely out playing the Pens.

I wouldn't say that it didn't change anything. You're right that it wouldn't have mattered anyway, we were clearly being dominated before and after the fight. But I do think the fight added some energy to the Islanders.

It was essentially a microcosm of the game. Domination. The Pens aren't that tough. That's what that game, and that fight, told the Islander's bench.

 

[nTsplnk*]

Jiggy's analysis is close to being spot on as always, but a few points:

1.) Execution was obviously an issue last game, but consider that Bylsma's system leads to these types of outings. The defense is instructed to get the puck up right away. This leads to bad passes and dangerous turnovers. It needed an adjustment in that game and never got one.

There's a reason why Bylsma's system has failed playoff after playoff. It's easy to shut down by faster teams. This frustrates the team, especially when they start losing battles and no one gets open. A small adjustment may have led to a stolen win.

2.) On Malkin. Bylsma is a players coach. He doesn't discipline his players as much as Therrien did and it shows now. When the team is losing battles, everyone just does what they want and it's a disaster.

Malkin just isn't there this year. And Bylsma and the roster are equally at fault. There was never a line for Geno this year. It was constantly changed, either by injury or line juggling, and it shows.

3.) On Fleury. He was making strong save after strong save, and then he just let in some iffy goals. He could've stole that game and we needed him too, imo. Can't blame him 100% on the loss. It would've been very hard on the Isle's if they lost a game where they clearly outworked us.

Maybe I just miss Fleury of 2008.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I couldn't find my too tight diamond shoes this morning...

You're comfortable and lucid.

 

[vikingGoalie]

one thought from game 2, how much did Crosby's return effect the game in a negative way. Not because of anything Crosby did.

But we stopped hammering Tavares, was that because we felt like if we did that Crosby would get hammered. Game 1 Tavares didn't get a shot and spent most of them game on his ass, Game 2 he was a threat all game long and had waaay to much space and time.

I go as far to say that if Crosby doesn't start game 2 we win it. Team more focused, and play more physical.

I'm a big Sid fan, and I'm not saying any of this is his fault but I'm throwing this thought out there for possible ridicule that Crosby returning diminished our physical play and focus.

Also what the hell happened to the keep it simple speech that Vokoun gave a while back. Someone needed to do that again, Crosby needs to not make friends at that point in time and call out Geno and anyone else who is doing idiotic things. Put the puck behind their D and put the hammer down, rinse, repeat....

 

[shizno*]

To the guy who didn't see the game and believes in silly cliches that players love to repeat:

Pens were getting dominated before and after the fight. The Isles came out of the locker room pissed off and intent on proving something. From the drop of the puck they out skated and out worked the Pens.

The fight didn't change a damn thing because the Isles were already severely out playing the Pens.

No, clearly YOU didn't watch the game! Also, if you don't agree with me, well then, you must be as stupid as professional hockey analyst XYZ!

Ah yes relying on logical fallacies for arguments is so nice eh? To claim the fight had no impact on this game is so claim Talbots fight had no impact on the Philly series. You also must come up with some other excuse as to why fighting drops to almost non existant levels in the playoffs and why it's always the leading team who walks away.

 

[Malkin4Top6Wingerz]

To claim the fight had no impact on this game is so claim Talbots fight had no impact on the Philly series.

It really didn't, it's just a nice narrative for the media to shove down our throats.

You also must come up with some other excuse as to why fighting drops to almost non existant levels in the playoffs and why it's always the leading team who walks away.

Players whose primary role is to drop the gloves don't often dress in key playoff games. Players are also far less willing to take an instigator penalty in the playoffs because in a close matchup one crucial goal can be the difference in a series.

In most of the games where we've either blown leads or made comebacks of our own there was no fight that you could point to as a turning point. If teams come back in games without needing to fight, it stands to reason that a lot of the fights in games before a comeback took place were not the driving force behind it. Perhaps it has some small effect on occasion, but it's incredibly simplistic to attribute it as a governing factor in a win.

If you want to actually find out how much it impacts a game you'd need hard data to back it up, otherwise confirmation bias comes into play and any conclusion you come to is pretty sketchy.

 

[cassius]

'edit wrong thread