majormajor
Registered User
- Jun 23, 2018
- 24,179
- 28,646
Who was the primary goalie when they finished 2nd in goals against that season?
Hence why I don't expect them to get 108 points. Or 98, for that matter.
Who was the primary goalie when they finished 2nd in goals against that season?
Hence why I don't expect them to get 108 points. Or 98, for that matter.
You voted in the 94-102 group. While that doesn’t necessarily mean 98, you believe in this team.
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Save Percentage Goals Against Goal Differential Points Projection 0.92 200 50 107 0.915 212.5 37.5 103 0.91 225 25 99 0.905 237.5 12.5 95 0.9 250 0 91 0.895 262.5 -12.5 87 0.89 275 -25 83
You voted in the 94-102 group. While that doesn’t necessarily mean 98, you believe in this team.
I'm on record saying 96 pts (95?), but I've maintained that it all depends on goaltending, which I don't like to make predictions on. I'm not sure what you mean by "believe", I like most of this team, but I certainly don't believe in this goaltending. I was an advocate of signing Robin Lehner. I've maintained that I don't know what to expect from this goalie duo, it could be anything for all I know. I even made a handy little chart to show off the range of outcomes and how it depends on goaltending:
I didn't say it was a bad thing.
I don’t know, man. Your post had a lot of “J’accuse!” in it.
Comparing this year’s team to 2016 sounds logical until you deep dive it.
That 2016 team had a version of Wennberg as our second leading scorer with 59 points.
Brandon Saad as our third leading scorer with 53 points.
Sam Gagner as our fifth leading scorer with 50 points.
Scott Hartnell as our 9th leading scorer with 37 points.
Foligno and Dubinsky were also top 10 scorers on that team.
And of course, as mentioned, had Vezina Bob that year.
That team had five player with 50+ points and eight players with 40+. Heck, we only had six pre-deadline last year with 40+ and were obviously top heavy with Panarin.
At this stage I can’t confidently find any 50 point locks and only four guys who will be locks for 40+ in Atkinson, Jones, Nyquist, and Werenski — assuming healthy years.
I wavered on Nyquist as Torts has to actually play the guy but came to conclude he will have no choice.
I was tempted to put Anderson in that group since he did it last year and is in a contract year but I can just as easily see him in that 30 point range.
Dubois has to show he can do it without Panarin. Bjorkstrand has to show he can do it for 82 games. Jenner is a 30 point guy. So is Foligno at this point in his career. Wennberg I have zero confidence in. And then there is the rookies in Texier and Bemstrom — we may get one to hit thirty points.
To have ANY shot to compete this team needs a couple 50+ years from the 40 point locks (doable with Atkinson and Jones) and more importantly need to find career years from Dubois, Bjorkstrand, Anderson and have a rookie hit 40+. Wennberg needs to at least be a 40 point guy too.
Then of course there is the goaltending. Need a lot more than just a career .906 save % out of Korpisalo.
The fact I’m only talking forty to fifty point years is a very telling sign of just how much we lack top end talent in the forward ranks.
- That's 9 guys with 40+ pts, the average club has 5 or 6! Carolina had 4 40+ pt guys last year, playing in front of McBackup, and they competed all the way to the conference finals.
How about we take a look at ALL the playoff teams instead of just cherry-picking Carolina (nice try btw):
Tampa: Nine 40+ guys -- THREE of those are 90+ guys
Calgary: Six 40+ guys -- FOUR of those are 70+ guys
Boston: Six 40+ guys -- FOUR of those are 70+ guys
Washington: Eight 40+ guys -- FOUR Of those are 70+ guys
Islanders: Four 40+ guys -- ONE of those are 60+ guys
San Jose: Nine 40+ guys -- FIVE of those are 60+ guys
Toronto: Eight 40+ guys -- FOUR of those are 70+ guys
Nashville: Six 40+ guys -- ONE of those are 60+ guys
Pittsburgh: Five 40+ guys -- FOUR of those are 70+ guys
Winnipeg: Six 40+ guys -- THREE of those are 80+ guys
Carolina: Four 40+ guys -- TWO of those are 70+ guys
St. Louis: Five 40+ guys -- TWO of those are 60+ guys
Columbus: Six 40+ guys -- THREE of those are 60+ guys
Dallas: Four 40+ guys -- TWO of those are 70+ guys
Vegas: Seven 40+ guys -- ZERO of those are 60+ guys
Colorado: Six 40+ guys -- THREE of those are 70+ guys
So on average the playoff teams from last year had SIX 40+ guys. Out of those, there is an average of THREE (rounding up from 2.8) 60+ point scorers per team.
My forecast called for NINE 40+ guys with ONE 60+ player (Dubois career year) which is the very definition of scoring by committee since we don't have top end forwards (70+ guys). If you call that "overshooting by a country mile" to compete for a playoff spot given the numbers above then you're once again out to lunch.
try to come up with total goals that are not above league average.
Hon? In a league where 16 of 31 teams (more than half) make the playoffs, "league average" is playoff contention.What are you talking about? The whole point of this exercise is to be above league average and make the playoffs.
Hon? In a league where 16 of 31 teams (more than half) make the playoffs, "league average" is playoff contention.
What are you talking about? The whole point of this exercise is to be above league average and make the playoffs.
So if we are scoring above league average, which is what I was forecasting, we have a very good chance of competing for the playoffs.
Let's back up a second. You were saying that x level of scoring is the bare minimum for the team to have any shot at competing.
Your logical fallacy is special pleadingAnd I certainly stand by it given the cold hard numbers provided as we aren’t going to defend our way into the playoffs with
.833 save percentages.
Your logical fallacy is special pleading
Generally, if there's a problem with the goaltending, the optimal solution is to, y'know, fix the goaltending, not turn the offense into a juggernaut.