Player Discussion Kevin Fiala

[thestonedkoala]

Fiala - Chouinard - Kaprizov

Trick question! Which Choiunard?

 

[MuckOG]

Trick question! Which Choiunard?

Marc

 

[thestonedkoala]

Marc

I'd put Eric there. He's due to develop!

 

[TaLoN]

I'd put Eric there. He's due to develop!

Yeah, but Marc Chouinard once had 6 goals in 3 games.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

It’s not just the numbers with Fiala, it’s just that for the 1st time in a long time, we have a player who, when they have the puck on their stick, you prop up a little higher in your seat. Your eyes get wider.

 

[fentonsbrainchild]

It’s not just the numbers with Fiala, it’s just that for the 1st time in a long time, we have a player who, when they have the puck on their stick, you prop up a little higher in your seat. Your eyes get wider.

Exactly. Honestly has nothing to do with the numbers, it’s been like this for a while now but it’s nice to see him rewarded with points.

 

[Uberdachen]

It’s not just the numbers with Fiala, it’s just that for the 1st time in a long time, we have a player who, when they have the puck on their stick, you prop up a little higher in your seat. Your eyes get wider.

He's TV-MA. Put the kids to bed and keep that shit peeled, there's gonna be some f***in' and they don't blur any of it.

 

[StateofCelly]

It’s not just the numbers with Fiala, it’s just that for the 1st time in a long time, we have a player who, when they have the puck on their stick, you prop up a little higher in your seat. Your eyes get wider.

He was absolutely flying last night, and his back checking was just as beautiful as the forechecking

 

[TaLoN]

14 goals, 26 points in his last 18 games.

 

[AKL]

13 games left to get 16 more points to hit 70. That's a 101 point 82-game pace.

 

[MuckOG]

Already salivating for the OT 3x3 group of Kaprizov - Spurgeon - Fiala

 

[Nino Noderreiter]

There was an article I read recently that talked about a phenomenon in sports, but especially in hockey, where it suggested that teams, coaches, (and fans) are hyper-sensitive and biased to one-type of risk without properly factoring in another type of risk.

What I mean by that is that teams (and fans) heavily criticize players like Dumba and Fiala (before his recent run) for their aggressive/high-risk/high-skill play style that tends to lead towards turnovers--negative risk connotations and the idea that the player should play less risky.

However, while more conservative playstyles do manage negative risk they do so at the expense of the value added from the upside of playing aggressively (i.e. carrying the puck into high value scoring areas while risking a turnover) which essentially is a risk management choice as well.

What I mean to say is that there is actually risk from playing conservatively; the risk that you won't get as many high value scoring chances and ultimately goals.

Further, most turnovers don't actually lead to a super negative outcome (a goal against)... especially turnovers in the offensive zone and the negative risk of most turnovers as opposed to the positive risk associated with scoring chances and goals means that teams should actually in many cases play more aggressively and fans should try and properly manage their bias against the emotional reaction to the negative risk understanding the positive risk associated with that playstyle.

The reason I bring this up is because watching games... Fiala can and will still turn the puck over quite a bit.. but his willingness to try and play aggressively and into high-scoring chance areas is hugely positive and should continue to be incentivized in a positive way.

 

[AKL]

There was an article I read recently that talked about a phenomenon in sports, but especially in hockey, where it suggested that teams, coaches, (and fans) are hyper-sensitive and biased to one-type of risk without properly factoring in another type of risk.

What I mean by that is that teams (and fans) heavily criticize players like Dumba and Fiala (before his recent run) for their aggressive/high-risk/high-skill play style that tends to lead towards turnovers--negative risk connotations and the idea that the player should play less risky.

However, while more conservative playstyles do manage negative risk they do so at the expense of the value added from the upside of playing aggressively (i.e. carrying the puck into high value scoring areas while risking a turnover) which essentially is a risk management choice as well.

What I mean to say is that there is actually risk from playing conservatively; the risk that you won't get as many high value scoring chances and ultimately goals.

Further, most turnovers don't actually lead to a super negative outcome (a goal against)... especially turnovers in the offensive zone and the negative risk of most turnovers as opposed to the positive risk associated with scoring chances and goals means that teams should actually in many cases play more aggressively and fans should try and properly manage their bias against the emotional reaction to the negative risk understanding the positive risk associated with that playstyle.

The reason I bring this up is because watching games... Fiala can and will still turn the puck over quite a bit.. but his willingness to try and play aggressively and into high-scoring chance areas is hugely positive and should continue to be incentivized in a positive way.

It’s the misconception that “defense wins championships”

 

[dBoon]

It’s the misconception that “defense wins championships”

Well, goaltending sure the hell can.

 

[AKL]

Well, goaltending sure the hell can.

Yeah it can if it’s exceedingly above average. Otherwise it’s not going to be that much of a difference over your opponent.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

It’s the misconception that “defense wins championships”

Of course we'd see this take on HfBoards where we don't care about defense because we don't have good stats for it and it's "boring".

Toronto and Tampa did great last year? Sure Pittsburgh and Washington won the cup but they were doing well defensively, had great grinders, players that would wear the other teams out and adequate goaltending when they won... on top of having really, really good offensive players.

There's a reason why Tampa put in work to get hard-working players like a Coleman because having an all-skill team isn't cutting it. I'm willing to believe defense and goaltending doesn't win championships until we actually have consistent proof of it. The non-grinding skill players often get worn out by the other teams and the lack of power plays takes some of their impact away.

Of course you need offense too or you're not gonna score, but Fiala-esque players wasn't what brought Boston and St Louis to the finals last year.

Players like O'Reilly often stand out while guys like Tarasenko don't.

 

[AKL]

Of course we'd see this take on HfBoards where we don't care about defense because we don't have good stats for it and it's "boring".

Toronto and Tampa did great last year? Sure Pittsburgh and Washington won the cup but they were doing well defensively, had great grinders, players that would wear the other teams out and adequate goaltending when they won... on top of having really, really good offensive players.

There's a reason why Tampa put in work to get hard-working players like a Coleman because having an all-skill team isn't cutting it. I'm willing to believe defense and goaltending doesn't win championships until we actually have consistent proof of it. The non-grinding skill players often get worn out by the other teams and the lack of power plays takes some of their impact away.

Of course you need offense too or you're not gonna score, but Fiala-esque players wasn't what brought Boston and St Louis to the finals last year.

Players like O'Reilly often stand out while guys like Tarasenko don't.

Boston and St. Louis were two of the higher scoring teams in the playoffs last season. O’Reilly outscored everyone on his team.

Tarasenko and Pastrnak both played crucial roles on their team, but if your only point is that we need a 1C like O’Reilly or Bergeron, I agree.

If your point is that these teams and these players stood out despite their offense, then no. 5/7 games in the finals, the winning team had 4 or more goals, and 7/7 games the losing team had 2 or less.

Can’t win if you don’t score.

 

[teravaineSAROS]

Boston and St. Louis were two of the higher scoring teams in the playoffs last season. O’Reilly outscored everyone on his team.

Tarasenko and Pastrnak both played crucial roles on their team, but if your only point is that we need a 1C like O’Reilly or Bergeron, I agree.

If your point is that these teams and these players stood out despite their offense, then no. 5/7 games in the finals, the winning team had 4 or more goals, and 7/7 games the losing team had 2 or less.

Can’t win if you don’t score.

Of course you can't win if you don't score, ideally you need a bit of everything which is usually the case for whoever wins it. There's definitely a reason to why players like Slavin are such difference makers though.

You're right, right now when the scoring is up you'll see offensive players have a bigger role (which I didn't consider) and in Minnesotas case yea you need to add more scoring threats. I just don't think relying on too many Kaprizovs and Fialas to carry the team will give you consistently deep playoff runs.

 

[Wild11MN]

Of course you can't win if you don't score, ideally you need a bit of everything which is usually the case for whoever wins it. There's definitely a reason to why players like Slavin are such difference makers though.

You're right, right now when the scoring is up you'll see offensive players have a bigger role (which I didn't consider) and in Minnesotas case yea you need to add more scoring threats. I just don't think relying on too many Kaprizovs and Fialas to carry the team will give you consistently deep playoff runs.

Sadly, having probably the best defensive forward in the game (Koivu, as of a few years ago) as their 1C didn't really work either.

 

[57special]

A Cup winning team is usually a balanced team. They have a strong D, some elite forwards(usually two), and a strong goaltender. They can usually play both a finesse game and be physical.
Even the 1980's Gretzky led Oilers, had a HOF goaltender in Fuhr, and some solid dmen like Lowe and Gregg, besides their offensive threat, Coffey. Both Kurri and Messier were also known for being excellent two way players, as well as great offensive players.

The classic take is that is that Defense will keep you in games, offense will win you games, and goaltending will steal you games. All are necessary. IMO, our defense is of Cup winning caliber. We need two more first line players, assuming that Fiala is the real thing. If Kaprizov is also a 1st liner, then we need one more. We have enough good forward depth, I think, depending on how Kunin, Greenway, JEE and others progress. Parise and Staal can add quality vet depth...hopefully Zuccarello, too. It really sucks that our money is tied up in a guy who looks to be a 3rd line player, on a team with mediocre forwards.

We need a goalie.

 

[DANOZ28]

if fiala is the real deal and turns into a consistent 25/30G scorer plus kaprizov i really think we're only a stud goalie and #1 & #2 C away from being a contender. im still really happy with our D core.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

if fiala is the real deal and turns into a consistent 25/30G scorer plus kaprizov i really think we're only a stud goalie and #1 & #2 C away from being a contender. im still really happy with our D core.

I think this is a sentiment that’s common among fans. The only issue is: how easy is it to add those pieces. Most teams are “just a few peices from contention”, it just comes down to how confident you are the your GM can get those peices.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I think we already have the stud goalie in-house, and probably the #2C. This is why I'm very open to giving up picks for the right #1C.

 

[AKL]

I think we already have the stud goalie in-house, and probably the #2C. This is why I'm very open to giving up picks for the right #1C.

Not to beat a dead horse or open a can of worms, but this is the same logic that us pro-tankers have been using all season. We’re not the typical team that drafts high. Great D, good wingers, good prospect pool. lots of pieces in house, just need to get that 1C. If we could have been bad for this one year, gotten the right guy at the top of the draft, we could have been real good as soon as next season. Now we’ll have to find the C another way. I just hope there’s an avenue to get it, or we’ll be wasting next year too.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Not to beat a dead horse or open a can of worms, but this is the same logic that us pro-tankers have been using all season. We’re not the typical team that drafts high. Great D, good wingers, good prospect pool. lots of pieces in house, just need to get that 1C. If we could have been bad for this one year, gotten the right guy at the top of the draft, we could have been real good as soon as next season. Now we’ll have to find the C another way. I just hope there’s an avenue to get it, or we’ll be wasting next year too.

Sort of the same logic, I guess, but being willing to give up future picks isn't quite the same as wanting to construct a team with the purpose of doing poorly.