TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Do you remember what was said?
So, there was a game. I believe it was against Chicago. In fact, I know it was against Chicago, late in the season, where SJ won in a shootout. As I remember it, the 4th line of Barclay Goodrow-Eric Fehr-Jannik Hansen was on the ice for 1 goal against as a trio. There were 2 other goals; one Shark goal which was scored with 2/3 of them on the ice due to line shuffling, and one Blackhawk goal which was scored with 2/3 of them on the ice due to line shuffling. Jannik Hansen was part of the 2/3 that was on the ice in both events.
In the post game, Peter DeBoer was asked what he thought of his 3rd line. He responded that he was glad that they scored a goal, but they also gave one up, so he was indifferent. This was completely incorrect because if you considered the goal against with 2/3 of that line on the ice a “goal against for the 4th line”, then you must have also considered the goal for to be a “goal for for the 4th line.”
A lot of Sharks fans told me that I was making a mountain out of a molehill, but when have you ever heard a coach botch the facts in a manner that reduces the credit given to one of his players? I have heard countless coaches botch the facts, or completely disregard them, in order to give more credit to their players.
It was a strange situation and you should look into the game (look up Kevin LaBanc shootout winner and go from there) if you want to see more. It may not have been much but it showed a clear bias from Peter DeBoer against Jannik Hansen.