The Pens' supposed "playoff embarassment" since '09

Ragamuffin Gunner

Lost in the Flood
Aug 15, 2008
34,551
6,736
Boston
Det blew a 3-1 lead last year, why do they get a pass for that?

1 - Who they lost to.

2 - They put up a hell of a fight and got to OT in game 7.


A lower seed losing after being up 3-1 to the Presidents Cup winner and eventual Cup winner is not even close to the same as losing to a lower seeded team who hadn't made the POs in years.

And, TBH, I don't care that other teams have lost 3-1 or 3-0. Just because other teams have had embarrassing exits doesn't make it ok that the Pens get embarrassed too. the last time I checked no other team had to two best players in the world.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,530
21,073
1 - Who they lost to.

2 - They put up a hell of a fight and got to OT in game 7.

Don't look at who the Pens were missing in 2010 though. Or the score of their Game 7 that year. Shh.

A lower seed losing after being up 3-1 to the Presidents Cup winner and eventual Cup winner is not even close to the same as losing to a lower seeded team who hadn't made the POs in years.

And, TBH, I don't care that other teams have lost 3-1 or 3-0. Just because other teams have had embarrassing exits doesn't make it ok that the Pens get embarrassed too. the last time I checked no other team had to two best players in the world.

That's right. It doesn't matter that other teams Ragamuffin has said are better than the Pens in the playoffs since '09 have had similar series to the ones he's criticizing the Pens for. Because.
 

Ragamuffin Gunner

Lost in the Flood
Aug 15, 2008
34,551
6,736
Boston
Which is more important? Results or style? I'm starting to think this board believes the latter.



Gotcha.

If one's inclined to believe that, then there are 5 teams since '09 who have been more successful than the Pens. If not, then there are only 4. On what planet is that "embarrassing", especially since one of those years was a virtual write-off because of who we were missing?



Indeed.



The results don't require excuses. It shows the Pens are among the best in the league even when using your most convenient cutoff point.



Again, you ignore the concrete numbers because they don't fit your argument, so you try to cloud the issue with your subjective (and often dubious) take on the way we lost.



Again, there's no need to make excuses for actual results that put the Pens near the very top of the league. I've never attempted to make excuses. Repeating it like a mindless parrot doesn't make it true.



There's nothing convenient about it. They missed the playoffs, a fate that would push most fans here to the nearest bridge.



2 teams who haven't even made it to the playoffs each year (on top of which the Devils were ousted in 5 games in Round 1 in 2010, and the Flyers went out in 4 against the Bruins in Round 2 in 2011 and 5 games in Round 2 in 2012...100% not embarrassing) and another that not only suffered a 5 game rout in Round 1 vs. the Preds but blew a 3-1 series lead last year with a healthy team (which also wasn't embarrassing I'm sure, for some totally not-arbitrary-ad-hoc reason :rolleyes:), but hasn't made Round 3 since '09.

What a joke. :laugh:



You don't want to hear anything that deals with facts.

You whole "argument" is based on misleading facts, lol. "Round 3 is better than round 2 so the Pens are better than the Wings!!!!!"

If you want to look at two bills and say they're better than one bill, w/o looking too closely at them that's your prerogative. But don't expect everyone to be fooled by your "stats".

You keep going on and on about results, but what are the results exactly? How many PO wins to the Pens have against quality opponents? How many PO wins to the Pens have past the 2nd round? How many PO wins to the Pens have against teams that didn't get knocked out in the next round? Those are the results that matter. Beating 7th and 8th seeds aren't results that a team with the two best players in the world, or their fans, should be bragging about.
 

Ragamuffin Gunner

Lost in the Flood
Aug 15, 2008
34,551
6,736
Boston
Don't look at who the Pens were missing in 2010 though. Or the score of their Game 7 that year. Shh.



That's right. It doesn't matter that other teams Ragamuffin has said are better than the Pens in the playoffs since '09 have had similar series to the ones he's criticizing the Pens for. Because.

1 - They got ****ing shutout in game 7. Not a great accomplishment. And the Pens were missing Sid and Geno all year and made the 4th seed, so don't pull the "look who was missing" card. If they were lost just before the POs you'd have a point.

2 - No it doesn't matter what other teams have done. When your mom caught you drinking in high school did she care that the other kids were drinking too? Bad POs from other teams doesn't give the Pens a free pass to have bad POs, too.


Cute thread title BTW, way to not show your bias.
 
Last edited:

SHOOTANDSCORE

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Sep 25, 2005
10,952
4,675
Which is more important? Results or style? I'm starting to think this board believes the latter.
They aren't mutually exclusive. Style in this sense is an additional measure of the team's performance. Much like how you can't just look at stats to evaluate a player, you also use the eye test. Same thing with this.



Gotcha.

If one's inclined to believe that, then there are 5 teams since '09 who have been more successful than the Pens. If not, then there are only 4. On what planet is that "embarrassing", especially since one of those years was a virtual write-off because of who we were missing?
Well, again, I'm not arguing that the team is embarrassing. As Jaded said you have to consider the talent level of this team. Being 5th or 6th out of a group of 8 is unsatisfactory.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,530
21,073
You whole "argument" is based on misleading facts, lol. "Round 3 is better than round 2 so the Pens are better than the Wings!!!!!"

Round 3 is better than Round 2. The Pens have been more successful than the Wings.

If you want to look at two bills and say they're better than one bill, w/o looking too closely at them that's your prerogative. But don't expect everyone to be fooled by your "stats".

Well, if one bill is a higher denomination, then it's worth more.

It's a clumsy analogy to begin with, but that would be the way to use it.

You keep going on and on about results, but what are the results exactly? How many PO wins to the Pens have against quality opponents? How many PO wins to the Pens have past the 2nd round? How many PO wins to the Pens have against teams that didn't get knocked out in the next round? Those are the results that matter. Beating 7th and 8th seeds aren't results that a team with the two best players in the world, or their fans, should be bragging about.

"Quality" is subjective. If you were to judge the 2012 Kings based on seeding, you'd say they were easy pickings. Was that the case? You say the Sens didn't qualify as quality opponent, but they dusted the #2 seed Habs in 5 games.

That's why going by rounds over time is the most reliable way to judge success. It takes subjective quality out of the equation. There's also the matter of the Pens earning the right to play lower seeds by putting together successful regular seasons. It wasn't handed to them. They were rewarded for being a good team over a large sample size.

1 - They got ****ing shutout in game 7. Not a great accomplishment.

And they only allowed one. I'm not seeing the difference between the Wings' "great accomplishment" of taking a Game 7 to OT, and the Pens' Game 7 one-goal loss.

And the Pens were missing Sid and Geno all year and made the 4th seed, so don't pull the "look who was missing" card. If they were lost just before the POs you'd have a point.

The Pens were missing Sid and Geno for half the year. But it doesn't matter when they were lost. Bylsma was still coaching a team that was without it's two main cogs.

2 - No it doesn't matter what other teams have done. When your mom caught you drinking in high school did she care that the other kids were drinking too? Bad POs from other teams doesn't give the Pens a free pass to have bad POs, too.

If you want to call a team embarrassing, don't expect to do it in a vacuum where it's forbidden to compare them to other teams to determine the legitimacy of the claim.

Cute thread title BTW, way to not show your bias.

I explicitly made the thread to show how misguided the idea was. I never made claims to anything else.
 

Dipsy Doodle

Rent A Barn
May 28, 2006
76,530
21,073
They aren't mutually exclusive. Style in this sense is an additional measure of the team's performance. Much like how you can't just look at stats to evaluate a player, you also use the eye test. Same thing with this.

But stats alone tell enough to guarantee something. There are no embarrassing 100 point NHL players, no matter what an eye-test tells you.

Well, again, I'm not arguing that the team is embarrassing. As Jaded said you have to consider the talent level of this team. Being 5th or 6th out of a group of 8 is unsatisfactory.

Then we're really not arguing. We know we can be better, but we've been much better than most. The "group of 8 teams" is an artificial construct...there are 30 teams. Being part of those 8 teams is a success in and of itself. Being 5th or 6th is even better.
 

Ragamuffin Gunner

Lost in the Flood
Aug 15, 2008
34,551
6,736
Boston
Round 3 is better than Round 2. The Pens have been more successful than the Wings.

Well, if one bill is a higher denomination, then it's worth more.

It's a clumsy analogy to begin with, but that would be the way to use it.

You're like talking to a child. Round 3 is not always better than round 2, because not every series is the same, just like not every bill is the same.

"Quality" is subjective. If you were to judge the 2012 Kings based on seeding, you'd say they were easy pickings. Was that the case? You say the Sens didn't qualify as quality opponent, but they dusted the #2 seed Habs in 5 games.

That's why going by rounds over time is the most reliable way to judge success. It takes subjective quality out of the equation. There's also the matter of the Pens earning the right to play lower seeds by putting together successful regular seasons. It wasn't handed to them. They were rewarded for being a good team over a large sample size.

Wrong. You need to look at each round individually to judge their worth. This is not a math problem, where numbers and stats are the only thing that matters. This is the real world. Not every series is equal and not every opponent is equal.

And they only allowed one. I'm not seeing the difference between the Wings' "great accomplishment" of taking a Game 7 to OT, and the Pens' Game 7 one-goal loss.

Clearly. That's your problem.

The Pens were missing Sid and Geno for half the year. But it doesn't matter when they were lost. Bylsma was still coaching a team that was without it's two main cogs.

They were used to laying w/o SId and Geno. They had their own identity w/o them and they won many games w/o them. They didn't have to suddenly adjust to playing w/o them as the POs started. It makes a huge difference.

If you want to call a team embarrassing, don't expect to do it in a vacuum where it's forbidden to compare them to other teams to determine the legitimacy of the claim.

I never said that other teams losses weren't embarrassing, I said that it didn't ****ing matter. The Hawks lose the in the 1st round for the next 10 POs after being up 3-0 and it wouldn't change how good or bad the Pens' wins or losses are.

"Mom, everyone was drinking so it's ok that was drinking too!"

I explicitly made the thread to show how misguided the idea was. I never made claims to anything else.

That's your opinion, not a fact. And the fact that you have resort to childish, misleading thread titles to try to "prove" your opinions shows how weak your "argument" is.

Had you put up a neural title then argued you side on the OP you would have had at least some credibility. Instead you decided to go the childish rout.
 

mpp9

Registered User
Dec 5, 2010
32,613
5,067
I'm disappointed because we haven't beat a contending team in a long time. We've beat the Senators twice and the Isles. 3 series wins in 4 years. Not good enough.
 

Al Smith

Registered User
Apr 28, 2012
7,116
3,714
The problem, to me, isn't a matter of how far they got in the playoffs, it's that they've played very poorly in all of the series in which they've been eliminated. I'll give the team a pass for 2011, when they were playing with a duct-taped roster, but they were embarrassed by (what should have been) inferior teams in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

You're deluded if you think the B's were an inferior team last year. The Pens and the Bs were the two best teams in the conference for most of the year, and the B's played a great series plus had a little bit of luck on their side.
 

AjaxTelamon

Registered User
Jul 8, 2011
6,068
1,821
I would not consider the last few years to be all that awful aside from the Flyers series, really. And that could have easily gone the other way if the refs could learn to call offsides. I think we win that series if that doesn't happen in Game 1.

But all that aside, you can't completely condemn the Pens for the last few years as we have almost never had our two stars healthy at the same time during that time. This past year Malkin was playing with one shoulder, and Sid had just had his jaw busted. We found out that our #1 D Martin had been playing with a serious injury.

To win in the SCF you need to be darn good, darn lucky, and darn healthy. The Bruins and the Hawks were the luckiest and healthiest teams at the end. Don't even get me started on that Bruins v. Toronto game 7. The Bruins were lucky to even make it out of the first round. And Chicago somehow getting out of being down 3-1 to Detroit.
 

SHOOTANDSCORE

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe
Sep 25, 2005
10,952
4,675
But stats alone tell enough to guarantee something. There are no embarrassing 100 point NHL players, no matter what an eye-test tells you.
Maybe, but there are underachieving or one dimensional players who are called elite. The stats may tell you that they are talented but you'll never know what kind of player they are without watching them. Would you rather have Yzerman or Kovalchuk? Both were elite but only one is a winner.


Then we're really not arguing. We know we can be better, but we've been much better than most. The "group of 8 teams" is an artificial construct...there are 30 teams. Being part of those 8 teams is a success in and of itself. Being 5th or 6th is even better.
We certainly agree on some things, I see some good points on both sides.

Unfortunately, there is no trophy for being in the elite 8. For a team this talented I don't see much success in being 5th loser. Don't lose sight of the goal here, win the conference, win the Cup. When people criticize this team it isn't because it is fun, it is because they see weaknesses that they believe are holding the Pens back.

Before someone mentions it, it isn't about fans being spoiled, entitled, or not recognizing that there are 16 other teams trying just as hard. The fans just recognize that this team is immensely talented and the clock is ticking on the "core." The next few years could be our only chance at another Cup in our lifetimes.

Consider the Sharks. According to your metric, they have been much more successful than us in the playoffs in the last 4 years. They have 2 conference finals appearances and 5 series wins to our 3. Yet the Sharks have become known as perennial playoff failures and are the butt of jokes every April. They even picked up the wonderful nickname the "Chokes." Their fans certainly don't feel like being in those 8 teams is a success in and of itself. We shouldn't be happy with it either.
 
Last edited:

BigBenSF*

Guest
Why should fans feel satisfied with being let down by the supposed Stanley Cup champion every single year? They don't give trophies for effort. They give it for success. We have the two best players in the world plus an outstanding supporting cast, and yet, during this 09-13 "peak", we've come up with nothing to show for it.

Why would anyone be satisfied with losing?
 

IcedCapp

Registered User
Aug 7, 2009
35,855
11,225
Tell me how you can boil down the rightness or wrongness of an organization's decisions to a net positive/negative, outside of actual results. How do you weight opinion?



Isn't that pretty much exactly what we did with Cooke?



We're talking about the same Bruins who sat Dougie Hamilton in the playoffs, and only "made time for" Bartkowski and Krug after injuries hit their blueline, right?

The same Pens who are incorporating Bennett onto the 2nd or 3rd line and likely putting Bortuzzo on the 3rd pairing, with Despres' fate yet TBD?



Oh, is that what the data in this thread suggests?



Betting on the field against one team. Bold.


You're delusional, man. This is a team that is capable of fielding "the two best players in the world" for ~67% of a game. If they're as good at coaching and GM as you keep vomiting relentlessly, then I'm pretty sure they should be capable of winning more than 1 cup in their tenure. Not doing so would be a complete and utter failure.

Re: Cooke - probably the only veteran they had who was 1) good in his role, 2) great in the playoffs in his role, 3) should have been brought back.

I would much rather have:

Kunitz - Crosby - Bennett
Jokinen - Malkin - Neal
Cooke - Sutter - Dags
something-something-something

That actually is balanced and makes sense!

And I would much rather move Niskanen, who hasn't been good on the left side or in a bottom-6 role since being with the Penguins.

Re: young players. I don't think you actually read what I said. We're talking about replacing 4th liners who have little-to-no value with younger players. Apparently the only young players you think are capable or worthy of stepping in are top-end draft picks. The Penguins letting go of Glass and Adams would actually be much less risky than what the Bruins are doing.

But I do like how you'll support the Penguins and the basis of your support is saying that the Bruins had to let those kids play in the playoffs due to injury.

Yep.

And those kids stepped up and performed over a very small sample. And the Bruins said, "WE HAVE TO DO THIS."

You know what the Penguins did? They put Bennett on the 2nd line last year. They saw he performed. How did they react?

They gave a prospect away for an out-of-gas Brenden Morrow. They traded for Iginla. They kept trading for players until they had moved Bennett to the press box completely. Now they have him on the 3rd line when he's the most complete, well-rounded top-6 winger on the team.

By the way, since you're God's gift to hockey minds, what's cheaper/easier to fill? A well-rounded top-6 player or a 3rd liner?

It's almost as if letting Pascal Dupuis go and sliding Beau Bennett into the top-6 would have given the Penguins enough money to put together a proper bottom-6.

Not in RRP land, where results are all that matter.

Okay, RRP, let's talk about results. If you're going to be beholden to them, then you're a hypocrite. The Penguins had the best record in hockey last year. They outplayed the Bruins completely in the regular season. And when the playoffs came around, they crumbled.

They dominated the Islanders in the regular season, too, and how close did they come to an embarrassing exit at the hands of a bunch of kids and some "should have been out of the NHL a few years ago"?

If results are all that matter, stop hiding behind the empty meaninglessness of the regular season.

You know who cares about regular season records? People who don't win anything. The results that matter in sports are playoff results. What's your playoff record. How many championships do they win.

You want to judge the Penguins on results, then do it honestly. Don't hide behind stats and records no one cares about.
 

Ragamuffin Gunner

Lost in the Flood
Aug 15, 2008
34,551
6,736
Boston
Good post IC.

Fo all of the "results" that the Pens have had since the Cup, they have ZERO wins past the 2nd round. That's all that really matters.
 

lastcupever75

Phive cups PA.
May 14, 2009
5,728
247
the tampa series wasnt an embaraassment. the injuries left them short handed. stone hands was our 1st line center for christ's sake


the other 3 playoff exits could be placed right on MAF's shoulders. 2 directly with horrible series vs. the habs and flyers and last year indirectly sitting on the bench eating up 5M + in cap space
 

sf expat71

Registered User
Nov 10, 2008
3,038
8
Atlantic Ocean
Simply, embarrassments are a result of failure to meet expectations. Are our expectations what the OP wrote, 1 third round, 1 second round, 2 first round exits? Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I would expect a little better with our collection of talent.
We keep spinning the excuse wheel for our defeats, Halak was hot, Sid and Geno were injured, MAF was otherworldly bad, Boston had a few more bounces go there way, etc. Well, that same Halak was beaten in the following round by a team with real forward depth. We couldn't score a goal in game 7 against Tampa because we lacked the necessary scoring depth to overcome our injuries. As bad as MAF was, Bryz was almost equally bad, and we fully lost our composure. In a nearly even matchup between us and the B's, yes they got the bounces in games 3 and 4, but we pretty much spotted them the first 2 games.
I just don't see how we achieved our expectations or even overachieved in the last 4 years. I see we've had better results in summation than most of the other 29 teams, but shouldn't that always be the case with the talent and budget on hand?
 

sf expat71

Registered User
Nov 10, 2008
3,038
8
Atlantic Ocean
the tampa series wasnt an embaraassment. the injuries left them short handed. stone hands was our 1st line center for christ's sake


the other 3 playoff exits could be placed right on MAF's shoulders. 2 directly with horrible series vs. the habs and flyers and last year indirectly sitting on the bench eating up 5M + in cap space

Which begs the question, are you embarrassed by our playoff exits in the other 3 years? Keep in mind we still employ said goalie...
 

TheSniper26

Registered User
Oct 2, 2005
4,782
687
Youngstown
except for the stanley cups we've won. One of which came more recently than 26 teams in the league.

Apparently anything less than unprecedented success is considered an embarrassing failure. I mean look at it this way, the Pens went to two Cup finals in '08 and '09. So what is the criticism? That we haven't been back since? Ok well, if we had been, that would have been 3 finals appearances in 5 years. Sorry, but that's a level of dominance that is pretty unrealistic to expect. Especially in today's NHL. Hope for it, sure, but to characterize anything less as an "embarrassment" is absurd.

It seems like drafting Crosby/Malkin really ****ed with the minds of Pens fans in a very bad way. Yes, they're the top two players in the world, but anybody that thought that guaranteed dominance is delusional. The 95-96, 96-97 and 00-01 Pens teams all had the top two players in the world too. Still didn't lead to a Cup. People need to stop going into every year thinking a finals appearance should be a given because of Sid and Geno. Other great players and teams do exist.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->