The Pens' supposed "playoff embarassment" since '09

[Ogrezilla]

So, in trying to formulate a general historical judgment, hypothetical questions aren't allowed and specific excuses don't count unless needed as a crutch. I follow you now. Makes perfect sense.

Ignoring actual history and using hypothetical questions seems like a silly way to judge history. You keep calling everything that happened an excuse, I call it history. Considering we are discussing history, looking at what actually happened makes sense to me. You keep calling this extra stuff excuses even when I use it to make the loss seem even more negative such as acting like children against Philly.

Take that stuff out and just look at results and I come to a similar if not more positive conclusion than I do with my extra stuff added in. Based on results, we are one of the only teams to make the playoffs every year. A handful of teams have done better than us and I think we should have an extra series win or two. But it also lets me ignore how embarrassing the loss to Philly was and to me that is by far the worst thing that has happened in our recent history.

 

[KIRK]

Only bad historians give much weight to hypotheticals.

1. History is written by the victors. The Pens have failed in the playoffs in the last four years. It is rewritten by those seeking to rationalize the results. In another life, you might have been a founder of The Lost Cause or The Flat Earth Society. Those are the types of places where people who try to rationalize what happened or ignore what's staring them in the face seek solace.

2. Many historians ask the WHAT IF questions. Alternate history hypotheticals are the subject of many interesting books, some of which you might have read if the font weren't less than 24. But, by all means, I'm sure your CV provides ample foundation for you to continue to pontificate on this subject.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

I'm a historian and archivist. Trashy History Channel documentaries and best sellers written by journalists aren't good reflections of proper historical scholarship.

History is the interpretation of what has actually happened. Nothing more.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I've soured on MAF since the NYI series. I was willing to give him a pass on the Philly series as the whole team ******** the bed, but to do it vs the Isles was my tipping point. I don't hate him like many do but I don't have faith in him anymore. He was my favorite player so I did a bit of the RRP excuse generator for him, but that's done.

I also used to be a card holing member of the In Shero We Trust crew, but that's in the past as well.

You keep saying this, but the whole premise of the thread shows that the Pens' record over those 4 years requires no excuses. I have not made any excuses, yet you keep repeating it. Are you in an alternate reality right now? Because that's the only explanation for interpreting a thread that outlines a team's playoff successes relative to the league as excuses.

If you were to make a case for Fleury by outlining his successes relative to other goalies around the league over the last 4 years, then that wouldn't be "excuses" either. Of course, nobody could do that.

So, let's end it. RRP, Sniper26, and anyone else here who is desperate to whitewash the Pens playoff history since 2009:

Go back in the time machine to June 2009. Kirk the psychic is telling you that the Pens will win two playoff series against the Sens, one against the Isles, and have one ECF series in which they were swept to show for the next four year's of Sid and Geno's careers.

First off, KIRK, I'll say this is a flawed premise to begin with. Ask the fanbase of any team with a talented young core right after a Cup win how they think they'll fare in the coming years, and it's not rocket science to figure out that the expectations are going to be unreasonably high. How would Chicago fans have reacted if in June 2010, you told them that they were going to be eliminated in the 1st round the next two playoffs, and be down 3-1 in the 2nd round the third playoffs?

Exactly.

But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't have considered the results through 2013 embarrassing, because I know how hard it is to win in the league. Disappointing, but not embarrassing. And that isn't just a semantic issue. It's a question of how close a one comes to fulfilling their highest potential, and how well they fare relative to others. Victor Hedman was a #2 overall pick in '09. He's been disappointing relative to the absurdly high expectations, but hardly embarrassing. That's the difference.

Putting our playoff record since '09 into context isn't whitewashing, it should be sobering. Particularly since some people have a tendency of looking at this organization in a total vacuum.

 

[KIRK]

I'm a historian and archivist. Trashy History Channel documentaries and best sellers written by journalists aren't good reflections of proper historical scholarship.

History is the interpretation of what has actually happened. Nothing more.

Ignoring actual history and using hypothetical questions seems like a silly way to judge history. You keep calling everything that happened an excuse, I call it history. Considering we are discussing history, looking at what actually happened makes sense to me.

If Lee hadn't fought at Gettysburg, then what happens? If the Japanese hadn't combed Pearl Harbor? End of the day, the questions don't matter, only the results.

What if Malkin hadn't been hurt? Questions like THAT are what both of you are using as a crutch. Your suggesting that things would've been better IF certain things hadn't happened. So, really, I'm not the one asking the WHAT IF questions here. People like both of you are. And, how dare anyone else follow suit just once, yes?

I'm saying it doesn't matter. The Pens have 3 playoff series wins and one ECF in which they were swept to show for the four years since winning the cup. In June 2009, I'd have expected more than that.

You keep saying this, but the whole premise of the thread shows that the Pens' record over those 4 years requires no excuses. I have not made any excuses, yet you keep repeating it. Are you in an alternate reality right now? Because that's the only explanation for interpreting a thread that outlines a team's playoff successes relative to the league as excuses.

If you were to make a case for Fleury by outlining his successes relative to other goalies around the league over the last 4 years, then that wouldn't be "excuses" either. Of course, nobody could do that.



First off, KIRK, I'll say this is a flawed premise to begin with. Ask the fanbase of any team with a talented young core right after a Cup win how they think they'll fare in the coming years, and it's not rocket science to figure out that the expectations are going to be unreasonably high. How would Chicago fans have reacted if in June 2010, you told them that they were going to be eliminated in the 1st round the next two playoffs, and be down 3-1 in the 2nd round the third playoffs?

Exactly.

But to answer your question, no, I wouldn't have considered the results through 2013 embarrassing, because I know how hard it is to win in the league. Disappointing, but not embarrassing. And that isn't just a semantic issue. It's a question of how close a one comes to fulfilling their highest potential, and how well they fare relative to others. Victor Hedman was a #2 overall pick in '09. He's been disappointing relative to the absurdly high expectations, but hardly embarrassing. That's the difference.

Putting our playoff record since '09 into context isn't whitewashing, it should be sobering. Particularly since some people sound like they've slugged back a drink or ten when discussing the Pens' "embarrassing" results over that period.

You do realize that I actually came down on your side in the debate as to whether 'disappointing' is a more appropriate choice of words than 'embarrassing'.

BTW, who's to say that the Pens would've won one more series IF Sid and/or Geno hadn't been hurt? You can say it's likely that they would've. BUT, you can't on the one hand say 'results matter' and then say, in effect, 'they don't matter if I can hypothetically argue that things could've transpired different'. Chicago didn't lose to Detroit this year. Boston didn't lose to Toronto this year. And, since 2009, a Pens team with a cup, so much promise, and Sid and Geno not even in their primes has 3 playoff wins and being swept in the ECF to show for the four years since.

THAT is the result that matters. And, on that greater level, WHO, WHAT, WHY, and HOW are as immaterial as questions about why Rome fell. In the end, it happened. What might have been doesn't matter, because what might have been didn't happen.

 

[Ogrezilla]

I would have too. But not by much. Winning in the NHL is incredibly hard. And I never once said we would have done better in any different situation. I have even pointed out how watching the team has made us look worse than the pure results do. But keep on talking about me using excuses as a crutch to whitewash our disappointments that I have mentioned repeatedly as disappointments.

 

[Abashaw]

Like someone mentioned before, it's not so much the result that is disappointing me but the process that was taken to get these results. While the result of the past playoffs didn't meet expectations, it was the process taken that was a real disappointment for me.

If for example, the right personnel was chosen and those players were put into positions to succeed or adjustments were made when things weren't going right, then the process that was taken would have been good and I'm sure people here wouldn't be as disappointing as they are now. Had the right process been taken or different things were tried, the results would have been different cause we all know the potential this team had if the right choices were made.

Its like studying in school, if you study right (and find different ways to study in which case you'll find the best method), the results on your test will speak for themselves, if you don't study right yet don't change your method of studying and you get a poor result yet continually make excuses about it then you'll never see what the real problems are. I think what's happening to this organization right now is the latter of the two. It's not only the lack of choices being made and the wrong process being taken but also the lack of willingness to figure out whats wrong and changing what doesn't work.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

There are people saying teams who aren't even making the playoffs yearly have been more successful than us. There are people on the cusp of denouncing the penguins as their team because they are so upset with how they've done.

Really? I saw the argument about a couple of teams who missed the playoffs one season being more successful overall. I don't know that I agree but it wasn't that bad of an argument.

Who are the people on the cusp of renouncing the Pens as their team? I've seen plenty of people say that their expectations have lowered or that their enthusiasm isn't what it used to be but I haven't seen what you describe.

And for whatever reason every single one of these arguments has to start at 4 years ago instead of 5 or 6 because for whatever reason it is unfair to include our successes in arguments about how unsuccessful we have been.

This is RRP's thread and he framed the argument from some posts in another thread about this specific timeframe. People understand how extremely successful we were in those 2 years and they want to know what has happened since then. This is why the 4 years are being analyzed. It is precisely the context of those 2 years that is the foundation of the discussion.

Those 2 years = 7 series wins
The following 4 years = 3 series wins

Before we can figure out what the problem is, we have to admit that we have a problem.

 

[HandshakeLine]

Before we can figure out what the problem is, we have to admit that we have a problem.

Which is a complete and utter strawman every time it's posted by people. Find me one person that's saying we don't have problems.

It's hard to take the outrage here seriously when people won't even make an effort to discuss in good faith.

 

[SHOOTANDSCORE]

Which is a complete and utter strawman every time it's posted by people. Find me one person that's saying we don't have problems.

It's hard to take the outrage here seriously when people won't even make an effort to discuss in good faith.

Speaking of a strawman.

I honestly ask, does anyone in this thread feel like I am not discussing this in good faith?

Every team has problems. I'm talking about a very specific problem, relating to playoff performance, which started 4 years ago. It could be the makeup of the team, it could be systematic, it could be coaching, it could be something else entirely. The point is, we don't know. This is why we are debating results which may indicate the existence of a specific problem.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

You keep saying this, but the whole premise of the thread shows that the Pens' record over those 4 years requires no excuses. I have not made any excuses, yet you keep repeating it. Are you in an alternate reality right now? Because that's the only explanation for interpreting a thread that outlines a team's playoff successes relative to the league as excuses.

If you were to make a case for Fleury by outlining his successes relative to other goalies around the league over the last 4 years, then that wouldn't be "excuses" either. Of course, nobody could do that.

I really think that your definition of "successful" is pretty off. You say, "the Pens' record over those 4 years requires no excuses" yet you keep making excuses for their failures (MAF, injuries, Halak, ect). The fact that you need to make excuses for those losses shows that they, in fact, require an excuse.

Fine, let's move into you're black and white world. Please explain to me how 3 PO wins in the 4 years after winning a Cup, with the core that we have had, is a success. You say it needs no excuse so I expect not to hear any.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You do realize that I actually came down on your side in the debate as to whether 'disappointing' is a more appropriate choice of words than 'embarrassing'.

I didn't. Got the impression you thought it was semantics, but the two have very different meanings, IMHO. My bad if I misunderstood.

BTW, who's to say that the Pens would've won one more series IF Sid and/or Geno hadn't been hurt? You can say it's likely that they would've. BUT, you can't on the one hand say 'results matter' and then say, in effect, 'they don't matter if I can hypothetically argue that things could've transpired different'. Chicago didn't lose to Detroit this year. Boston didn't lose to Toronto this year. And, since 2009, a Pens team with a cup, so much promise, and Sid and Geno not even in their primes has 3 playoff wins and being swept in the ECF to show for the four years since.

I didn't. It's easy to imagine that the Pens could've won more had Sid and Geno been healthy, but I only talked about the Pens' playoff results as they were, and how those compared to other teams.

My whole point, as outlined in the OP, is that when you strip away the hysteria surrounding the way we lost the last two years (and strip away the "what if Sid and Geno were healthy" too, while we're at it), the Pens' playoff results were among the best in the league anyway.

Which is a complete and utter strawman every time it's posted by people. Find me one person that's saying we don't have problems.

It's hard to take the outrage here seriously when people won't even make an effort to discuss in good faith.

If you're not tearing out your hair and beating your breast like a mourner in a Greek tragedy over this Pens' team, you're in denial man!

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I really think that your definition of "successful" is pretty off. You say, "the Pens' record over those 4 years requires no excuses" yet you keep making excuses for their failures (MAF, injuries, Halak, ect). The fact that you need to make excuses for those losses shows that they, in fact, require an excuse.

Fine, let's move into you're black and white world. Please explain to me how 3 PO wins in the 4 years after winning a Cup, with the core that we have had, is a success. You say it needs no excuse so I expect not to hear any.

I said very clearly in the OP that even without considering those factors, we got good playoff results relative to the rest of the league.

It's pretty cut-and-dried on that front, Gunner. We're among the best in the league in the playoffs over those 4 years, your arguments for the likes of playoff also-rans like Jersey and Philly notwithstanding.

We didn't perform up to our highest potential over that span, but we still did very well. That's why I would classify our results as "disappointing", but never "embarrassing".

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I didn't. It's easy to imagine that the Pens could've won more had Sid and Geno been healthy, but I only talked about the Pens' playoff results as they were, and how those compared to other teams.

My whole point, as outlined in the OP, is that when you strip away the hysteria surrounding the way we lost the last two years (and strip away the "what if Sid and Geno were healthy" too, while we're at it), the Pens' playoff results were among the best in the league anyway.

Your comparison vs other teams in favor of the Pens.

if results are all that matter, then how can you disqualify a team that has a SCF appearance and 5 PO wins from the list of successful teams, when the Pens only have 3 PO wins and no SCF appearances?

If results are all that matters then the Pens are at two 1st round wins and one 2nd round win. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now compare that to other teams over the same period of time and see where the Pens rank.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Your comparison vs other teams in favor of the Pens.

if results are all that matter, then how can you disqualify a team that has a SCF appearance and 5 PO wins from the list of successful teams, when the Pens only have 3 PO wins and no SCF appearances?

If results are all that matters then the Pens are at two 1st round wins and one 2nd round win. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now compare that to other teams over the same period of time and see where the Pens rank.

Because they didn't make the playoffs every year. If we're trying to establish quality over time, that seems a pretty basic requirement.

But if you feel otherwise - ad hoc as it seems - more power to you. You can do the leg work to see where the Pens rank according to your method if you believe it's more representative .

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

Because they didn't make the playoffs every year. If we're trying to establish quality over time, that seems a pretty basic requirement.

But if you feel otherwise - ad hoc as it seems - more power to you. You can do the leg work to see where the Pens rank according to your method if you believe it's more representative .

You're moving the goalposts.

You keep saying that results over time so I show you a team that has better results than the Pens. You then say It's all about "quality over time" and disqualify that team because they missed the POs once in those 4 years.

If results are all that matter then the team that has the most wins and the deeper run should be considered above the team with less wins and a shorter run. The fact that you need to create arbitrary guidelines, which exclude teams with more success than the Pens, shows how weak your argument is.

In your black and while world, I don't see how you can say the Pens have been more successful than the Flyers who have more win, a SCF appearance AND a win over the Pens.

Also, would you still try to exclude NJ and PHI had they won the Cup?

 

[Shockmaster]

You're moving the goalposts.

You keep saying that results over time so I show you a team that has better results than the Pens. You then say It's all about "quality over time" and disqualify that team because they missed the POs once in those 4 years.

If results are all that matter then the team that has the most wins and the deeper run should be considered above the team with less wins and a shorter run. The fact that you need to create arbitrary guidelines, which exclude teams with more success than the Pens, shows how weak your argument is.

In your black and while world, I don't see how you can say the Pens have been more successful than the Flyers who have more win, a SCF appearance AND a win over the Pens.

The Penguins have two playoff series wins over the Flyers, two Cup finals appearances, and one Stanley Cup.

Pretty easy to see actually.

Oh I forgot, the world didn't start until 2010.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

The Penguins have two playoff series wins over the Flyers, two Cup finals appearances, and one Stanley Cup.

Pretty easy to see actually.

Oh I forgot, the world didn't start until 2010.

Are you just choosing to not read the thread title or do you not understand what this discussion is about?

 

[Shockmaster]

Are you just choosing to not read the thread title or do you not understand what this discussion is about?

I think you're points about some of those teams you listed having more playoff success than the Penguins in the last 4 years are really silly.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

I think you're points about some of those teams you listed having more playoff success than the Penguins in the last 4 years are really silly.

So tell us what you think is silly and why.

Don't hide behind childish statements about what happened before the time we're discussing.

 

[KIRK]

I didn't. Got the impression you thought it was semantics, but the two have very different meanings, IMHO. My bad if I misunderstood.



I didn't. It's easy to imagine that the Pens could've won more had Sid and Geno been healthy, but I only talked about the Pens' playoff results as they were, and how those compared to other teams.

My whole point, as outlined in the OP, is that when you strip away the hysteria surrounding the way we lost the last two years (and strip away the "what if Sid and Geno were healthy" too, while we're at it), the Pens' playoff results were among the best in the league anyway.



If you're not tearing out your hair and beating your breast like a mourner in a Greek tragedy over this Pens' team, you're in denial man!

1. On one level, I have a problem with a debate of 'embarrassment' versus 'disappointment', not because the distinction isn't important but because it's used as a device not to address the actual question. I similarly see as problematic efforts from others to cite injuries or anything else, as if that was the difference between what the Pens accomplished and what the Pens should've accomplished.

2. Within that abstract theoretical context highlighted in bold above, I agree that the choice of the word 'disappointment' is most appropriate. The thing is that I disagree with the asserted validity of the standard itself. In June 2009, I'd have expected a lot more than what's come from the Pens in the last four years (a sweep in the ECF, a 2nd round playoff loss getting blown out at home in game seven, and two first round exits). I think Hawks and B's fans have gotten what they reasonably could've expected after the Cup wins. The Ducks didn't, and that team went through a partial rebuild and a coaching change. The jury remains out on the Kings, but me thinks if they follow this year's 2nd round exit blowing a 3-1 first round lead (even with heavy injuries), then going into a meltdown in a first round loss to say the Ducks or Sharks, then Daryl Sutter probably is done before he gets another bite at the apple.

3. The Greek Tragedy reference is appropriate, as some of us often look back four years and look at where the Pens are now and think what might have been.

 

[billybudd]

Like someone mentioned before, it's not so much the result that is disappointing me but the process that was taken to get these results. While the result of the past playoffs didn't meet expectations, it was the process taken that was a real disappointment for me.

If for example, the right personnel was chosen and those players were put into positions to succeed or adjustments were made when things weren't going right, then the process that was taken would have been good and I'm sure people here wouldn't be as disappointing as they are now. Had the right process been taken or different things were tried, the results would have been different cause we all know the potential this team had if the right choices were made.

This is probably about where I'm at. Had the Penguins been the Red Wings and lost exactly the same way to Chicago, I'd feel a lot less sour than I do about that Boston series.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

You're moving the goalposts.

You keep saying that results over time so I show you a team that has better results than the Pens. You then say It's all about "quality over time" and disqualify that team because they missed the POs once in those 4 years.

No goalposts have changed. Believe it or not, actually making the playoffs is a measure of success, one that Philly hasn't had every year.

But as I said, if you think your standard is a better representation of success, you're more than welcome to post your findings. That's not moving goalposts, that's inviting discussion if you care to do the work, rather than simply mentioning it offhand and expecting others to make your argument for you.

By all means, share how the Pens rate against the league by your standard.

In your black and while world, I don't see how you can say the Pens have been more successful than the Flyers who have more win, a SCF appearance AND a win over the Pens.

Also, would you still try to exclude NJ and PHI had they won the Cup?

A Cup win is always a trump card.

 

[KIRK]

No goalposts have changed. Believe it or not, actually making the playoffs is a measure of success, one that Philly hasn't had every year.

But as I said, if you think your standard is a better representation of success, you're more than welcome to post your findings. That's not moving goalposts, that's inviting discussion if you care to do the work, rather than simply mentioning it offhand and expecting others to make your argument for you.

By all means, share how the Pens rate against the league by your standard.



A Cup win is always a trump card.

Absolutely, and if in June 2009 you'd told me that the Pens would get no closer than half way to another trump card over the next four years, then I'd have said 'no way'.

Out of respect for you and the more limited discussion that I think you'd hoped to start in this thread, I'm leaving the who, why, and how assessments out of the equation and just looking at what merely is. No way to see THAT as anything but a disappointing and tragic failure.

I'm not sure how one finds solace in saying 'well, it's no worse than anyone outside of Boston or Chicago' (and LA, I'd suppose, if one adopts RagamuffinGunner's standard). When one has Crosby and Malkin and people who are supposed to be among the best managers and coaches in hockey, I just can't see it. I only see waste.

 

[Garbage Goal]

Embarrassing is probably the wrong word to describe the playoff performances of the Pens over the last four seasons but "good" also isn't a way to describe those performances. Embarrassing is a matter of perspective so I won't phrase it that way, I'll just say that the Pens have massively underachieved in the last four seasons in more ways then one.

Here's one indisputable fact to me. The Pens have the two best hockey players in the world (and have had them for a long time now and look to continue to have them for a very long time) at their dispersal with a quality supporting cast for the most part and the financial assets and reputation to make deals as they please. This automatically puts them ahead of any other team on paper to me. No other team can make a boast like that. So one Cup and four straight seasons of not getting to the SCF is underachieving enough to the point where some could argue it to be embarrassing.

So there's the first thing going against them. The other is the way the team has gone out throughout the last few seasons. In 09-10 they lost in the 2nd round in 7 games to an 8th seed that got destroyed by the Flyers who, in turn, lost to the Blackhawks. In 2010-2011 they don't even get past the first round although, granted, it's to a team that did well in the playoffs and almost got to the SCF. In 2011-2012 they humiliate themselves and lose badly to the Flyers in the 1st round (who got destroyed by the Devs the round after). In 2012-2013 they finally approach living up to their playoff potential in terms of playoff advancement but then they get absolutely destroyed in a sweep against the Bruins in the 3rd round which was the first legitimate contender they faced in those playoffs. So that doesn't look good on them.

I really don't see how you can rationalize a team with a base of Crosby, Malkin, Letang, and Neal losing in the 1st round two of the three past seasons and getting absolutely destroyed in a sweep to the first contender they faced in the third season. That's all without even talking about the fact they haven't sniffed the SCF since they won it all five seasons ago. Now, to me, that's unacceptable if I'm a Pens fan and although I wouldn't call it embarrassing to get destroyed by a contender or have a couple down playoffs it's very underachieving for this team.

The third and final thing people have to admit is the bad management from the GM level down to the coaching level. Obviously the coach is at least partly responsible for the playoff failures since the Cup win. However, Shero and possibly Bylsma have a tendency to stick to players and have loyalty to players for too long when they don't deserve it. Mainly Fleury though you could argue guys like Glass as well. Coming from a Flyers fan, for a team like the Flyers or Pens finding a quality starting goalie that you can count on is tough, really tough. Possibly the toughest thing in hockey if you're a team like the Flyers or Pens. So going into the season with no real backup plan to Fleury is a really not so good idea. Beyond that, there's the fact that neither the goaltending position nor winger position nor 4th line has really been properly faced by management over a 5 year length.

So, you guys can argue all you want, but coming from an unbiased outside fan I really don't see how you can argue that the Pens haven't underachieved. Embarrassing is a matter of perspective and you can bicker and nitpick with it, but it's pretty undeniable they should be doing better then this. Both in terms of problems that should have been solved by now and in terms of even potential for the current roster.