Is it better to have balanced team and not top heavy talent?

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,941
43,020
Having a superstar doesn't change whether you are top heavy or well balanced though so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
I don't think it is.

I think that the Pronger example clearly illustrates how important superstars are. Pronger took the Oilers past the Ducks and into the finals. Next season he joins the Ducks and takes them to the cup.

People who think that superstars don't have a huge impact don't know what they're talking about. They can't do it all by themselves but good luck winning without one.
 

hockeyfan2k11

Registered User
Jun 11, 2011
12,150
6
I'm watching the Hawks and I'd take them over a lunchpail type team any day of the week. You need studs to win cups IMO. We have a few (Price, PK, Max, Chuckie)...then there complimentary, character guys you need like Prust, Moen, etc...but we need more. I think we're a few pieces away from being a contender.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
Yeah sorry about Thomas. But you still get what I mean and I might think you're nitpicking here. Thomas didnt play one game in the NHL until he was with the Bruins in the early 2000s. They did build around Chara who was young at the time but what are the odds you fall on a Chara in free agency?

Look at the last big FA signing... Suter, Parise, Richards, Gaborik, Komisarek, Hossa, Cammaleri, Havlat, Gionta....
It's all players who are great but its not player you really ''build'' around.

I think you can build around Parise. Arguably Richards, Gaborik, and Suter as well.

Komisarek, Gionta, Havlat weren't the big FA signings of their respective years.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
I don't think it is.

I think that the Pronger example clearly illustrates how important superstars are. Pronger took the Oilers past the Ducks and into the finals. Next season he joins the Ducks and takes them to the cup.

People who think that superstars don't have a huge impact don't know what they're talking about. They can't do it all by themselves but good luck winning without one.

How is it relevant to whether a team is well balanced or top heavy?
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
One of the things I will point out is that "balance" and "top heavy" are not necessarily mutually exclusive. An elite player like Crosby can "create" scoring depth from his teammates. Just because it's Crosby "creating" scoring depth doesn't make it any less important.

And of course, special teams and defense are important too.

If one player is creating that scoring depth then it's top heavy since everything is reliant on that one player. But you're right they aren't mutually exclusive because if you surround Crosby with a bunch of other really good players then have a balanced team.
 

SirClintonPortis

ProudCapitalsTraitor
Mar 9, 2011
18,546
4,421
Maryland native
I didn't realize you meant forwards since you said players. Yes 30 points for a 3rd liner is good. But they also had a couple guys playing with Malkin and Crosby and only putting up 30-40 pts which is not very good. I would fully expect Moen to get 30-40 pts playing with Malkin or Crosby he was on pace for 27 playing with Eller and Kostitsyn on the 3rd line.

I don't think we had scoring depth that was the point, we we're close to the number you gave and clearly didn't have depth. Though now that you cleared up the forward only it's not quite as close :)

But when your 3rd best point producer doesn't even have half as many points as the either of the top 2 guys, then yes you are a top heavy team (That's both reg season and playoffs).

Hmm, I think I've found the discrepancy in our lines of though. I'm was thinking more about line performance being well-balanced, regardless of the talent distribution. Whether we're "well balanced" or "top heavy" in terms of talent, I don't care as much. In terms of talent distribution, I just don't want "well balanced" to mean the same as everyone sucks or is mediocre, because such a team is going to go nowhere.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
It's more evidence of what I said... good luck winning without a superstar. You need top talent to win.

And does having a superstar mean you can't be well-balanced as well? If not then it has no bearing on whether top-heavy vs well-balanced is better since both can have them.
 

Mrb1p

PRICERSTOPDAPUCK
Dec 10, 2011
87,764
53,495
Citizen of the world
Sort of like:

Carter-Richards-Williams
Or
Chara-Horton-Thomas
Or
Hossa-sharp-Campbell


Yeah, try again.

Then you think about it...
The kings had Quick, Kopitar, Brown, Doughty ahead of those guys. So yeah, it fits my bill.
The bruins had Krejci, Bergeron, Lucic and Chara and Thomas are practically homegrown so, yeah it fits my bill.
And the Hawks had Toews, Keith, Seabrook, Kane, Bolland and Niemi apart of their core too... So yeah it fits!
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,782
20,934
Having a superstar doesn't change whether you are top heavy or well balanced though so it's irrelevant to the discussion.
It does.

Top-heavy means you take on an 8 million dollar player and two 1 million dollar player over three 3.33 million dollar players.

That's what top heavy means. The penguins ate a great example. Habs are a great counterexample.
 
Last edited:

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
Komisarek got 4m, Gionta got 5 and Havlat got 5 too.. Big signings are big.

That year Bouwmeester, the Sedins, Hossa, Gaborik, and Cammalleri were the cream of the crop. Komisarek, Gionta and Havlat were the second tier guys.
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,782
20,934
And does having a superstar mean you can't be well-balanced as well?

Welcome to the salary cap.

A balanced team in the context if this thread means a team of approximate equals.

Can't do that with supestars on the roster.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
It does.

Top-heavy means you take on an 8 million dollar player and two 1 million dollar player over three 3.33 million dollar players.

That's what top heavy means. The penguins ate a great example. Has are a great counterexample.

I disagree, the cap is high enough that you could have an 8 million dollar player, 2 guys at 6m, 3 guys at 5m, 6 guys at 3m, another 6 at 2m, and 4 guys at 1m.

That's not top heavy, not too mention there are plenty of superstars at 5-6 million dollar cap hits. Not too mention the ones on cheap RFA deals or ELCs.
 

Sorinth

Registered User
Jan 18, 2013
10,938
5,394
Welcome to the salary cap.

A balanced team in the context if this thread means a team of approximate equals.

Can't do that with supestars on the roster.

The OP was talking about the Habs scoring by committee, doesn't mean Plekanec is equal to White, or Markov is the an equal to Bouillon. There will always be a large variance.
 

Teufelsdreck

Registered User
Sep 17, 2005
17,709
170
Absolutely not. You can gradually upgrade your depth but elite players don't grow on trees. The Habs were fortunate to have drawn a lottery pick that enabled them to draft Price.
 

HatTricK09

Registered User
Jun 23, 2012
3,782
0
A team needs a talented player to succeed, but they also need some balanced lines to backup the talents.
Having 6+ players that scores 20-25 goals is nice and all but we also need a player to count on during key situations
It's a fine balance between having stars and good depth that makes a team win.
 

Lafleurs Guy

Guuuuuuuy!
Jul 20, 2007
73,941
43,020
A team needs a talented player to succeed, but they also need some balanced lines to backup the talents.
Having 6+ players that scores 20-25 goals is nice and all but we also need a player to count on during key situations
It's a fine balance between having stars and good depth that makes a team win.
Exactly. You need both. A superstar can't do it alone, but it's very difficult to do it without stars.
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,782
20,934
The OP was talking about the Habs scoring by committee, doesn't mean Plekanec is equal to White, or Markov is the an equal to Bouillon. There will always be a large variance.

Right, but some variances are larger than others.

Habs have a lot of balance, no one player stands out except Price.

Our 1st line is relatively weak, we have no stars in our top 6, but we have a very good 3rd line, and also no bums in our top 6.
 

Hoople

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
16,193
121
You need talent. Its always great to have a superstar or two.

The most important ingredient, as vokiel mentioned earlier, is a coach who is able to implement a system that exploits its strengths and is able to adjust that system to face a variety of different opponents with different styles.

That is why we lost to Philly. We could not/did not adjust.

Coaching matters. A lot more than what a lot of people are giving credit to.

Look at what Therrien is doing compared to Martin. And for real proof, look at what Carlyle is doing in Toronto.

And all it took for the Kings was to have their coach replaced and went from an 8th place finish to the Cup.
 

DAChampion

Registered User
May 28, 2011
29,782
20,934
And for real proof, look at what Carlyle is doing in Toronto.

And all it took for the Kings was to have their coach replaced and went from an 8th place finish to the Cup.

Also the JVR and Carter trades gave those teams a missing ingredient.
 

Hoople

Registered User
Mar 7, 2011
16,193
121
Also the JVR and Carter trades gave those teams a missing ingredient.

Agree.

The Leafs looked scary good last night. Lots of speed and lots of toughness. And they are taking aggressive hockey to the next level. Almost to the point of making the Bruins look like a passive team.

Carlyle is taking full advantage of who he has on his bench.
 

hockeyfan2k11

Registered User
Jun 11, 2011
12,150
6
Agree.

The Leafs looked scary good last night. Lots of speed and lots of toughness. And they are taking aggressive hockey to the next level. Almost to the point of making the Bruins look like a passive team.

Carlyle is taking full advantage of who he has on his bench.

And they fired the guy that built them up to that point. Glad Burke is gone so I can start liking him again.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->