How much production do you want from the bottom-6? They got plenty of production from the bottom-6 in 2014. Like I said, typically, a huge chunk of your scoring comes from a handful of players. The notion that players like James Sheppard and Raffi Torres need to be putting up 10+ points a series is ridiculous.
First off I've never commented on how many points I expect a bottom 6 to get, so your silly exaggeration that I think a bottom 6 player needs to score 10 points a series is insultingly attempting to put words in my mouth.
Second, other than your one year example, our bottom 6 has never come close to producing at a respectable rate. I spent some time looking at stats for every cup winning team since 2005-06. I then separated them into top 6 , bottom 6 , defense and goaltending.
The average bottom 6 produces 1.92 points pg, and .75 goals pg. Our bottom six has been above that average exactly once, conveniently it was the one year you pointed out. Our bottom 6 average ( generously leaving in 2014) is 1.12 points per game, and .46 goals per game. Not close. If I take that year out it is .91 and .38 respectively. That's not even close to good enough.
It is actually easy to do, as I and others have, in this thread, tried to do. You can simply watch the games, and can identify problems and issues. Moreover, with the way statistics are provided, you can somewhat isolate players.
You're still missing the point, I'll try again. I understand, and agree that you can look at stats, and watch games, and notice issues with the team. What I'm saying is, you cannot prove which issue is the biggest one, because there are too many variables. To determine a cause you have to remove variables, or control them, so you can isolate each problem and find out what the cause is. In hockey, and specifically with the Sharks, you can't prove that if Thornton/marleau were on a team as complete as the Hawks, or LA, that they wouldn't win.
This is a loaded question, as you are making the Sharks's D to to have been worse than it really is. Obviously, it was very poor in 2014 once Vlasic went down, but they've had a strong defense during several iterations.
Carolina, Detroit, Pittsburgh, LAx2....
I'll give you Carolina, they were a not very good team, that the top 6 massively outplayed their bottom 6, and their defense didn't do much offensively, but was solid defensively. However points production wise it wasn't close.
Detroit is laughable, they had one of the most complete teams in memory. Their defense was amazing and osgood was amazing their cup year. Dats/zetts did not drag that team to a cup even if they personally did well.
Pitt is close because they got some rough goaltending from fluerry, and Crosby/malkin did some heavy lifting, but they also got good production from their d and bottom 6.
LA again is just silly, they had amazing goaltending one year, and the second cup their defense and bottom 6 were among the top two rates of production in the last decade. So no, kopitar/? did not drag that team to a cup either.
You are perverting the argument. It isn't like you JUST need two star players to win a cup. You do need support. But you're never going to have Anze Kopitar on the fourth line. Pittsburgh's issues can be traced to shoddy goaltending and a very poor defense, but one can also point to the fact that Crosby and Malkin are often neutralized come playoff time. Crosby in particular struggles against large, long-spanned defensemen.
I'm glad you admit two star players can't force a team to a cup. That's basically all I've been saying this whole time, and it's why I find all the whining about Thornton/marleau not being good enough to win a cup, or that this team will never win one while their here, absurd. So thank you for admitting that.
So the real question is though, have they actually ever had proper support? I argue no. Not once has this team had adequate top 6, bottom six, defense, and goaltending all in the same year. We've had the goaltending once, the defense and top 6 production a couple times, and bottom 6 once.
Again, no one is saying that JT and Marleau ALONE are sufficient to win a cup...that's why players like Bourque and Iginla get some leeway. But, no matter how much you want to deny it, JT and Marleau have at times been surrounded by a lot of great talent, and have had many opportunities to eliminate opponents that they didn't take advantage of...given some pretty good horses, they didn't fare so well in the race.
I don't deny that they have had some decent players around them, never have. I do deny that we have have ever had a COMPLETE team around them. So I say it's stupid to argue it's their fault this team hasn't won a cup, when it would have required a lucky run like Pitt or Carolina had, instead of expected results like Chicago, boston, Detroit, LA(especially the second one) and Anaheim.
By the way, to switch gears a little, while compiling stats tonight, I noticed just how bad this team did under Mclellan. Specifically the defense. Boyle and mclellan came in the same year, every single year after, our defense was negative in the playoffs, and was positive the three years prior. I never did really believe in Mclellan, specifically after the St. Louis series, but never really looked at it closely. I'm hoping our new coach/system, improved bottom 6, fat free defense, along with hopeful bounce back years from guys like marleau, nieto and hertl will lead to great things. Biggest question to me at this point is what jones/stalock can do.
Lastly, for all the ****holes in the thread trying derail, or belittle the content of the thread, get the **** out. If you are so annoyed or bored by the topic then just ignore the thread, stop being self centered ***** who think just because you don't want to talk about something, who cares that others might want to.
