Past Playoff Performances

[sharkbyte]

Apologies if this brings up bad memories for people. It's just something that's been on my mind that I figure I'd start a discussion about.

Putting aside the people who love to push the "Sharks are chokers!!" narrative and Jeremy Roenick, who seems to think everything is Marleau's fault, I'm trying to put a finger on what really contributed to the Sharks never getting over the hump during the 2004-2019 stretch of this team being damn good. Like, was it something mental/psychological at some point with some of the top players? Look at some of the losses that have occurred in this stretch:

2006, blow a 2-0 lead and lose 4 straight to Edmonton
2007, blow a 2-1 lead that was awfully close to being 3-1 and lose 3 straight to Detroit
Lose in the first round in 2009 after winning the President's Trophy
Win a combined ONE game in back to back CF's in 2010/2011
2014, we all know what happened

I want to believe that it just sadly never came together all at the right time during the Thornton/Marleau era. Even in 2016 when things finally broke right, we run into a goddamn Pittsburgh juggernaut that has Kessel and Bonino and Hagelin on the third line. It seems like the talent was always there but it just never worked out. Any thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Nolan11]

Apologies if this brings up bad memories for people. It's just something that's been on my mind that I figure I'd start a discussion about.

Putting aside the people who love to push the "Sharks are chokers!!" narrative and Jeremy Roenick, who seems to think everything is Marleau's fault, I'm trying to put a finger on what really contributed to the Sharks never getting over the hump during the 2004-2019 stretch of this team being damn good. Like, was it something mental/psychological at some point with some of the top players? Look at some of the losses that have occurred in this stretch:

2006, blow a 2-0 lead and lose 4 straight to Edmonton
2007, blow a 2-1 lead that was awfully close to being 3-1 and lose 3 straight to Detroit
Lose in the first round in 2009 after winning the President's Trophy
Win a combined ONE game in back to back CF's in 2010/2011
2014, we all know what happened

I want to believe that it just sadly never came together all at the right time during the Thornton/Marleau era. Even in 2016 when things finally broke right, we run into a goddamn Pittsburgh juggernaut that has Kessel and Bonino and Hagelin on the third line. It seems like the talent was always there but it just never worked out. Any thoughts?

Several reasons come to mind.

1 - big holes in our team design. Never had the goalie, defense and forward depth on the same team at once. For most of it, defense wasn't there. (Reason for all the fireplug trades like polak)

2 - too clean of a team. Our team culture has been to play fair. When the zebras put the whistles away, it has favored our opponents more than us. (As an example, Blues head hunting without ramifications. ).

3 - coaching. Great coaches make systems to maximize strengths of the roster and to exploit the weaknesses of the other teams. They also adjust quickly. Team teal has not had that, IMO, ever.

 

[OrrNumber4]

1) Beating a mummified horse, but a big problem was their best players underperforming. Sometimes that was Nabokov or Niemi following a Vezina-quality RS with an underwhelming second season, but quite often, it was Joe Thornton having a Hart-quality season followed by a playoff run that would look poor on the resume of Marco Sturm...or Marleau having an elite-quality season but looking like a decent second-liner in the playoffs. More than anything, this completely shook the team's chemistry...when your expectations get flipped on their head everyone is just scrambling to find answers.

2) The team simply not being as good as advertised. Half the teams in the league make the playoffs. In hindsight, maybe fans (and the players) were in a bit of a bubble...

3) Tied to the first two points, but a general overrating of SJ's best players. Fans kept on thinking Thornton's playoff failures as aberrations rather than endemic of his true ability. Certainly, I am guilty of thinking of Marleau, in his prime and at his best, as one of the top players in the game, when in reality he was (at best) in the tier below. Nabokov was often heralded as a top-5 goaltender; in reality, for much of his career, he was in the 5-15 range. Dan Boyle was an excellent defenseman and a fan favourite, but he couldn't hold a candle against the Lidstroms, Doughtys, and Keiths of the NHL. That's not to say that the depth players were fine or not an issue, but trotting out Thornton, Marleau, Boyle, and Nabokov, when the other teams have Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, and Osgood or Toews, Kane, Keith, and Niemi, is a much bigger issue than them having Rozsival or Lebda while the Sharks have Kent Huskins on the third-paring. Indubitably, this extends to the off-ice stat...thinking Ron Wilson or TMac were great coaches or that DW was one of the top-GMs in the league.

The last issue may be infecting us today. Are fans fooling themselves thinking that Karlsson isn't on the decline? Is Burns really an elite defenseman (compare him to players like Josi, Carlson, Pietrangelo, and Doughty)? How good are Hertl, Couture, and Meier? Is Labanc someone the Sharks can build around? Are the expectations being placed on prospects like Merkley, Blichfeld, Chmelevski, etc. appropriate?

 

[Pavelski2112]

Several reasons come to mind.

1 - big holes in our team design. Never had the goalie, defense and forward depth on the same team at once. For most of it, defense wasn't there. (Reason for all the fireplug trades like polak)

2 - too clean of a team. Our team culture has been to play fair. When the zebras put the whistles away, it has favored our opponents more than us. (As an example, Blues head hunting without ramifications. ).

3 - coaching. Great coaches make systems to maximize strengths of the roster and to exploit the weaknesses of the other teams. They also adjust quickly. Team teal has not had that, IMO, ever.

This, one pretty much all three points.

1. Those teams in the late 00s/early 10s had serious issues with depth, and were often very top-heavy.

2. The Sharks have definitely fallen victim to certain other teams' ideas of "if we commit enough infractions, we can get away with a good deal of those" *cough*Kings/Blues/Knights*cough*. The one time they are able to take advantage of calls going their way, everyone jumps on them for it.

3. I'd argue PDB was that coach in 2016, then he felt he had to keep up with a quickening pace of the game, which was not what the Sharks' strength was. TMac was certainly not a great coach, but I don't think those early 10s teams would've won either way - the Hawks and Nucks were too good in 10/11. 2009 you can make an argument for with a better coach.

 

[one2gamble]

It was pretty much always depth, a few times it's been coaching

 

[sharkbyte]

It was pretty much always depth, a few times it's been coaching

Yeah this makes sense. Looking back, the 2006 and 2007 teams had very little after Thornton/Marleau/Cheechoo. Even in 2014 when they blew it against LA, they had a pretty garbage bottom 6 from what I recall. Just sucks that the one year things seemed to come together we have to face that juggernaut Pittsburgh team, although even that year the Dillon-Polak pairing got exposed.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Yeah this makes sense. Looking back, the 2006 and 2007 teams had very little after Thornton/Marleau/Cheechoo. Even in 2014 when they blew it against LA, they had a pretty garbage bottom 6 from what I recall. Just sucks that the one year things seemed to come together we have to face that juggernaut Pittsburgh team, although even that year the Dillon-Polak pairing got exposed.

In 2014, once Vlasic got injured, our #1LHD was Brad f***ing Stuart. That defense was absolute garbage, Niemi was terrible, and the bottom-6 was questionable (although the 4th line had a solid first couple games of the series).

 

[sharkbyte]

In 2014, once Vlasic got injured, our #1LHD was Brad f***ing Stuart. That defense was absolute garbage, Niemi was terrible, and the bottom-6 was questionable (although the 4th line had a solid first couple games of the series).

I still hate Jarret Stoll for that hit. Who knows, if Vlasic is in, maybe we win of those games. It seemed like the combination of the Kings waking up and the Sharks forgetting how to play hockey at the same time. I remember thinking we really needed to win that Game 5 at home, and if we didn't then we'd be in trouble.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Boggles my mind that people still blame the depth....James Sheppard led the team in scoring in 2014. What more do you want?

 

[WSS11]

Who knows what happens in the rest of the playoffs but I still feel that the b.s. suspension of Torres in round 2 vs LA cost us that series in 2013. It went to 7 games and every game but one after the suspension was a one goal game. Torres was an absolute force on the forecheck and was causing turnovers at will after we acquired him. Who knows if we beat Chicago and/or Boston afterwards but I definitely think we knock out LA.

 

[Harbessix]

I still think our best shot other than 2016 was the 04’ team. IMO that team had depth and a good coach. I think that team would have given Tampa as much of a fight as Calgary did.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Boggles my mind that people still blame the depth....James Sheppard led the team in scoring in 2014. What more do you want?

LA was a defensive powerhouse with a prime Doughty getting played against those top lines, and again, once Vlasic went down, the Sharks' defense turned into Swiss cheese. Niemi had something like an .883 sv%.

But of course, just blame Jumbo and Patty like always because obviously hockey is just like basketball where one or two guys can carry a whole team.

 

[OrrNumber4]

LA was a defensive powerhouse with a prime Doughty getting played against those top lines, and again, once Vlasic went down, the Sharks' defense turned into Swiss cheese. Niemi had something like an .883 sv%.

But of course, just blame Jumbo and Patty like always because obviously hockey is just like basketball where one or two guys can carry a whole team.

I think Thornton had one more point than Brown in all 7 games? Marleau, Thornton, Burns, Pavelski, and Couture had like a combined 3 points in the final four games, and one in the final 3? With an embarrassing +/- rating... I'm not asking Thornton or Marleau to carry the team on their back for the whole series (although top players HAVE done that in the past). But win them a game or two. Carry their weight; don't be a liability on the ice. Did losing Vlasic make them go like 0/30 on the PP? Did it make their offense completely impotent?

Your best players play like they are your best players, and you'll be surprised how much better your depth looks.

 

[tiburon12]

I think Thornton had one more point than Brown in all 7 games? Marleau, Thornton, Burns, Pavelski, and Couture had like a combined 3 points in the final four games, and one in the final 3? With an embarrassing +/- rating... I'm not asking Thornton or Marleau to carry the team on their back for the whole series (although top players HAVE done that in the past). But win them a game or two. Carry their weight; don't be a liability on the ice. Did losing Vlasic make them go like 0/30 on the PP? Did it make their offense completely impotent?

Your best players play like they are your best players, and you'll be surprised how much better your depth looks.

You can give some credit to the Kings for playing good shutdown hockey, though. Quick was a beast and Kopitar and Doughty lead a strong possession and shutdown game. Look at Game 6, for example. Tie game in the 3rd, Williams "scores" an illegal goal and then the Kings just shut it down. Sharks had 26 shots that whole game! The Kings won the cup that year, so this isnt like a fluke thing where we lost to a bad team.

After game 2 the Kings played a different style of hockey and the Sharks coaching staff didnt adjust. Yes, you can look at Jumbo and Couture and Burns scoring 3 points as a failure, but Marleau had 7 in 7 and Pavs and 6 in 7. point being, 2014's failure is a good mix of the 3 point you made earlier in this thread

 

[DG93]

I think Thornton had one more point than Brown in all 7 games? Marleau, Thornton, Burns, Pavelski, and Couture had like a combined 3 points in the final four games, and one in the final 3? With an embarrassing +/- rating... I'm not asking Thornton or Marleau to carry the team on their back for the whole series (although top players HAVE done that in the past). But win them a game or two. Carry their weight; don't be a liability on the ice. Did losing Vlasic make them go like 0/30 on the PP? Did it make their offense completely impotent?

Your best players play like they are your best players, and you'll be surprised how much better your depth looks.

I think once LA woke up, it was like watching boys against men. The Kings were just so much better.

 

[sharkbyte]

Who knows what happens in the rest of the playoffs but I still feel that the b.s. suspension of Torres in round 2 vs LA cost us that series in 2013. It went to 7 games and every game but one after the suspension was a one goal game. Torres was an absolute force on the forecheck and was causing turnovers at will after we acquired him. Who knows if we beat Chicago and/or Boston afterwards but I definitely think we knock out LA.

Yep, and also you have to think if we have that Game 7 at home we win. Neither team could buy a win in the other team's building at that point. I think the Hawks that year were unstoppable though.

I still think our best shot other than 2016 was the 04’ team. IMO that team had depth and a good coach. I think that team would have given Tampa as much of a fight as Calgary did.

I think this is proof that depth and chemistry and good coaching really matter. The farthest we ever went before the 16 run was in 2004. Nothing close to a star player on that team, but they had a collection of guys like Marleau, Damphousse, Sturm, Ricci, Rathje, Stuart, Hannan, etc who had all been together for several years and were used to playing with each other, not to mention solid goaltending from Nabokov.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

A combination of the teams not being good enough and lucky enough at the same time is really what it boils down to. I would argue they were good enough in 2010, but simply ran into a better Hawks team; good enough in 2014, but losing Vlasic was too much for them to overcome, and that they were good enough in 2016, but simply ran into a better Penguins team.

 

[Nolan11]

A combination of the teams not being good enough and lucky enough at the same time is really what it boils down to. I would argue they were good enough in 2010, but simply ran into a better Hawks team; good enough in 2014, but losing Vlasic was too much for them to overcome, and that they were good enough in 2016, but simply ran into a better Penguins team.

I argree with your post and am just piling on to your thoughts here. For 2016, at the time I felt the series was over when Hertl went down. He was the straw stirring the drink for us. Had the same feeling in 2014 when Vlasic got injured. Reality is, that is a problem in depth. We can't recover when we lose one key player.

One of my earlier points in this thread is also pertinent here. Specifically, we design our team and culture to play by the rules (mostly). So we go in to play-offs expecting to have a certain amount of time and space. But play-offs are called differently. Refs swallow whistles, letting teams blatantly interfere (and head hunt some). Teams designed for the regular season often lose effectiveness when the style of play (reffing), shifts to play-off mode. This, I think, is as much to do with our top players being less effective than anything else (IMO).

 

[boredatwork]

I think you also have to include circumvention contracts into this conversation. Those Kings (Carter), Blackhawks (Keith, Hossa), and Penguins (Crosby) teams were loaded, in part, due to them. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, but, in my opinion, the Sharks wisely did not offer those type of deals and the league was inconsistent at enforcing any type of standard on them.

Recently, teams with less depth or depth that steps up, such as the Capitals and Blues, have been winning. I would attribute this to 8 year max contracts, which brings more parity even if they are poor long-term investments.

 

[Pavelski2112]

I think you also have to include circumvention contracts into this conversation. Those Kings (Carter), Blackhawks (Keith, Hossa), and Penguins (Crosby) teams were loaded, in part, due to them. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, but, in my opinion, the Sharks wisely did not offer those type of deals and the league was inconsistent at enforcing any type of standard on them.

Recently, teams with less depth or depth that steps up, such as the Capitals and Blues, have been winning. I would attribute this to 8 year max contracts, which brings more parity even if they are poor long-term investments.

Last year's Blues had plenty of depth. The Capitals I could agree with you on.

 

[OrrNumber4]

One of my earlier points in this thread is also pertinent here. Specifically, we design our team and culture to play by the rules (mostly). So we go in to play-offs expecting to have a certain amount of time and space. But play-offs are called differently. Refs swallow whistles, letting teams blatantly interfere (and head hunt some). Teams designed for the regular season often lose effectiveness when the style of play (reffing), shifts to play-off mode. This, I think, is as much to do with our top players being less effective than anything else (IMO).

That's fair, but to the extent that that is the case, it has been the case for a long time. To me, putting this as a reason for past playoff performances is like saying "the competition is better", or "there are fewer powerplays", or "the team can't adapt in a seven-game-series".

 

[Pavelski2112]

That's fair, but to the extent that that is the case, it has been the case for a long time. To me, putting this as a reason for past playoff performances is like saying "the competition is better", or "there are fewer powerplays", or "the team can't adapt in a seven-game-series".

Is it really that hard to believe that the Sharks just haven't been the best team in the league at any given point? Hell, look at all the times this team actually had solid coaching and good depth - they made it either within a couple wins of the Final or just made it to the Final.

You say that your leaders playing better makes your depth look better, but I'd argue the opposite. When your depth can share the load, it gives more space for your top players to play better. If the depth can't do anything, the top players have so much more that they have to make up for - just look at the Final in 2016, when Jumbo's line, already handicapped by Hertl's injury, had to babysit the Dillon-Polak pairing. Look at 2014, when the defense couldn't move the puck or defend in their own zone.

 

[OrrNumber4]

You say that your leaders playing better makes your depth look better, but I'd argue the opposite.

......

Lucky for Crosby that he gets to play with Conor Sheary and have legendary depth players Evan Rodrigues and Jared McCann behind him. We need to ask ourselves how inflated Austin Matthews's stats are from playing with Zach Hyman and in front of Kyle Clifford and Alexander Kerfoot.

When your depth can share the load, it gives more space for your top players to play better. If the depth can't do anything, the top players have so much more that they have to make up for - just look at the Final in 2016, when Jumbo's line, already handicapped by Hertl's injury, had to babysit the Dillon-Polak pairing. Look at 2014, when the defense couldn't move the puck or defend in their own zone.

This comes down to narrative-picking. Jumbo's line was horrible not because it was babying Dillon-Polak, but because Pittsburgh shut down Thornton-Pavelski. Dillon-Polak aren't the reason the Sharks lost the series; Thornton, Pavelski, and Burns going cold is the reason. Let me give you a hypothetical:

1) Sharks get Maatta-Lovejoy (Pittsburgh's second pairing); Penguins get Dillon-Polak.
or
2) Sharks get Evgeni Malkin (their second-line center); Penguins get Thornton.

Under #1, I think it is a serious question whether or not the outcome really changes
Under #2, the only serious question is what the parade route in San Jose will be.

When your top players win their matchups, they create the room for everyone else on the roster. Joe Thornton has gotten his teeth kicked in by Rob Niedermayer and Jarred Stoll...not to mention Toews, Kopitar, or Getzlaf. That creates a huge gap for your bottom lines to overcome. If your depth players are supposed to make your top players look better, then what does being a top player even mean?

 

[Pavelski2112]

......

Lucky for Crosby that he gets to play with Conor Sheary and have legendary depth players Evan Rodrigues and Jared McCann behind him. We need to ask ourselves how inflated Austin Matthews's stats are from playing with Zach Hyman and in front of Kyle Clifford and Alexander Kerfoot.



This comes down to narrative-picking. Jumbo's line was horrible not because it was babying Dillon-Polak, but because Pittsburgh shut down Thornton-Pavelski. Dillon-Polak aren't the reason the Sharks lost the series; Thornton, Pavelski, and Burns going cold is the reason. Let me give you a hypothetical:

1) Sharks get Maatta-Lovejoy (Pittsburgh's second pairing); Penguins get Dillon-Polak.
or
2) Sharks get Evgeni Malkin (their second-line center); Penguins get Thornton.

Under #1, I think it is a serious question whether or not the outcome really changes
Under #2, the only serious question is what the parade route in San Jose will be.

When your top players win their matchups, they create the room for everyone else on the roster. Joe Thornton has gotten his teeth kicked in by Rob Niedermayer and Jarred Stoll...not to mention Toews, Kopitar, or Getzlaf. That creates a huge gap for your bottom lines to overcome. If your depth players are supposed to make your top players look better, then what does being a top player even mean?

Thornton had as many points as Crosby did in the Final. Would you say that Crosby was bad in the Final? And the Penguins' whole game plan was based on speed and a quick counterattack, so yes, I would argue that them having Dillon-Polak would've made a big difference because those guys can't play that kind of game (you could argue Dillon could later on, but at the time it wasn't one of his strengths).

Your depth isn't supposed to "make your top players look better"; that's a strawman. They're supposed to be able to play hockey as well. If your depth can't keep up against the other team's depth, then your top players have to do more, that's just a fact.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Thornton had as many points as Crosby did in the Final. Would you say that Crosby was bad in the Final? And the Penguins' whole game plan was based on speed and a quick counterattack, so yes, I would argue that them having Dillon-Polak would've made a big difference because those guys can't play that kind of game (you could argue Dillon could later on, but at the time it wasn't one of his strengths).

Your depth isn't supposed to "make your top players look better"; that's a strawman. They're supposed to be able to play hockey as well. If your depth can't keep up against the other team's depth, then your top players have to do more, that's just a fact.

In general, if you compare the Sharks to winning teams teams in the past, the gap in goal shares with their top players on the ice has been larger than the gap in goal shares with their depth players on the ice. In other words, our depth guys have played more comparably to the depth players on successful teams than our top players have played comparably to the top players on other teams.

The team’s 5V5 GF% with Thornton on the ice, in the playoffs, over the past ~12 years is about the same as it is with Thornton on the bench. IIRC, it might actually be lower. Those numbers may be inaccurately unflattering to some degree, but they still tell a big part of the story.

At 5-on-5, the Sharks held even with the Penguins with Thornton on the bench; it was on the ice where he got crushed.