Winter Eclipse
Registered User
Got criticized for focusing on "gotcha" comments and not explaining myself in a post that then closed the thread, lol. So...
Another metric closely tied to goaltending...
We need to employ the talent we have better.
DD 1st line C.
Sekac scratched.
Galchenyuk in a 2-way role.
Weise in the Top 3.
Eller marginalized.
We take 3rd and 4th line talent, give it 1st and 2nd line minutes, and laud it when it produces at 2nd and 3rd line rates.
We take 1st and 2nd line talent, give it 2nd and 3rd line minutes, and punish it when it doesn't produce at a 1st line pace.
That's not a talent issue.
Our goaltender has a .938 sv % and a 1.98 GAA.
We'd essentially have to be Buffalo to have a bad 5 v. 5 ratio.
Is this the metric that uses a completely opaque methodology?
Yeah, except it misses the part where I say our entire roster is more talented than the "offensively challenged" crowd give t credit for, and that the argument is that CP and the talent level of misused players is what's compensating for MT.
Aside from that, bang on summary.
our pk is awesome, I know, I know, it's all price, but if you watch the pk, you know it's pretty good.
Another metric closely tied to goaltending...
Our defense in markov/subban help alleviate some missing pieces up front, but in order to score more goals we need more talent on offense or open up the play a bit and see if this impacts Price in the meantime.
We need to employ the talent we have better.
DD 1st line C.
Sekac scratched.
Galchenyuk in a 2-way role.
Weise in the Top 3.
Eller marginalized.
We take 3rd and 4th line talent, give it 1st and 2nd line minutes, and laud it when it produces at 2nd and 3rd line rates.
We take 1st and 2nd line talent, give it 2nd and 3rd line minutes, and punish it when it doesn't produce at a 1st line pace.
That's not a talent issue.
Goal ratio at 5vs5 is good
Our goaltender has a .938 sv % and a 1.98 GAA.
We'd essentially have to be Buffalo to have a bad 5 v. 5 ratio.
Actual possession time is good, at least according to one metric.
Is this the metric that uses a completely opaque methodology?
I know it's much more reasonable to think one guy has been carrying the team on his own for 2.5 years. No credit anywhere else, we're winning despite our coach and only one player is contributing to the wins because of how negatively the coach has impacted our superior roster. Does that about sum it up for you?
Yeah, except it misses the part where I say our entire roster is more talented than the "offensively challenged" crowd give t credit for, and that the argument is that CP and the talent level of misused players is what's compensating for MT.
Aside from that, bang on summary.