Vegas Cinderella story is over

FalcorMulch

Registered User
Aug 29, 2018
718
447
Not everyone. I know most of our fans were pissed we lost Neal from the beginning.

And there were a number of threads here last summer saying the were going to be better than most thought.

I don't know if you saw them or not, but they were here.

There were definitely some teams that felt the pinch but by and large Vegas was built on scraps that other teams wanted to get rid of. You could argue that Vegas benefited long-term from the rules because they grabbed a bunch of picks for agreeing to take those scraps but that didn't really affect last year's team.

There will always be people who look like geniuses when something unexpected happens. Maybe they actually saw something we didn't or maybe they just wanted to be contrarians and got lucky. The opinion of the vast majority, including virtually everyone who is actually paid to have a hockey opinion, was that the team was going to be bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChanceVegas

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,408
5,064
What is a PDO?
Intro To Advanced Statistics - PDO

PDO is the sum of a team's On-Ice SV% and On-Ice SH%. typically quoted as 10 x the percentage. For reference we usually look at the Even Strength PDO as the vast majority of ice time is spent in this game state. Usually the number regresses towards the NHL average of 1000 over the course of a season, though for some teams their sustainable PDO will be higher due to excellent goaltending or consistently good shooters.
PDO = 10 x (On-Ice SV% + On-Ice SH%)​

Over a long enough numbers of games no team get out of a 100% PDO by that much (97 to 103 is pretty much the max) so team that over a small amount of games are having a 96 or 105 kind of PDO are bound to regress to the norm, it is a way to see how sustainable a team success is, looking at how much it is possibly driven by luck or badluck.

PDO is not just a measurement of luck, a strong goaltender able to separate itself from the pack year's after year's combined with a group of elite shooter/power plays players (like the Caps were with Holtby for a while or the Luongo Canucks) can sustain good PDO for a while but it is hard and not by that big of an amount.
 
Last edited:

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,399
2,980
McPhee is an idiot. All he had to do was leave the team alone and they would have been good this year as well. Acquiring Tatar for what he gave up. Trading Tatar for what he got. Letting Neal and other players walk. Signing Stastny, etc. The reason Vegas had success is because they had a bunch of 2nd and 3rd liners and rolled out all 4 lines and 6 D equally, they played who was playing better and approached the game much differently than other teams. Everyone played the same way, they were fast and came in waves, now they seem like a typical team, the grinders seem unmotivated with limited roles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Puckstop40

BelovedIsles

Registered User
Oct 22, 2005
20,062
5,365
A little premature. They may not teach 110 points again, but they are looking better, returning to form. Schmidt is back, Stastny and Haula out. They’ll be fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZeroPucksGiven

Crede777

Deputized
Dec 16, 2009
14,611
4,123
You're looking at this with a homer's perspective and such a limited scope. At the end of the day, any major sports league is about the money, and a successful franchise in Vegas equals more profit. The entertainment value and everything else comes second. Now you can argue that a better quality product equals more profit, which is also true.

Right now, the league is profitable and growing because there is a high level of parity and the new expansion draft rules reflect that, along with the salary cap. The Avs got screwed when they introduced the salary cap. With your logic, it would be akin to saying that because the salary cap keeps rising, the league is acknowledging they set the salary cap too low when they introduced it, and now the league owes the Avalanche for the past mistake.

The league evolves. When Nashville, Atlanta, Columbus, and Minnesota entered the league, there were true powerhouses, a few wildcards and a bunch of bottom feeders. Today, a team can go from finishing last in one season to making the playoffs the next season. Would you really prefer if the league stayed the same when those 4 teams entered the league where there was no salary cap?
As soon as it becomes about the money you undermine the validity of the league itself. By that logic, the most profitable teams should be more likely to win the more marketable players in the draft lottery. McDavid in Edmonton is costing the league millions and tons of exposure versus having him in a major market and on a competitive team. Such a thing may well occur in the NBA but not the NHL. Rather than do what is arguably in its best financial interest, the league attempts to maintain transparency and equality, allowing the ability of managers and ownership to dictate team quality rather than financial interests.

Yes the league changes over time but that doesn't mean teams which were slighted shouldn't receive compensation in hindsight. Even preference for an outdoor game would likely suffice.

Speaking to the risk Vegas ownership took - T-Mobile arena was already well under construction by the time Vegas was even granted a team. The NBA wasn't in talks at all about going there. What's Vegas going to do? Sit on an empty arena? No, the NHL owners were in a position with all of the leverage. Vegas was already too committed to back out especially over a few more protection slots.
 
Last edited:

Dicky113

Registered User
Oct 30, 2007
4,393
3,251
Intro To Advanced Statistics - PDO

PDO is the sum of a team's On-Ice SV% and On-Ice SH%. typically quoted as 10 x the percentage. For reference we usually look at the Even Strength PDO as the vast majority of ice time is spent in this game state. Usually the number regresses towards the NHL average of 1000 over the course of a season, though for some teams their sustainable PDO will be higher due to excellent goaltending or consistently good shooters.
PDO = 10 x (On-Ice SV% + On-Ice SH%)​

Over a long enough numbers of games no team get out of a 100% PDO by that much (97 to 103 is pretty much the max) so team that over a small amount of games are having a 96 or 105 kind of PDO are bound to regress to the norm, it is a way to see how sustainable a team success is, looking at how much it is possibly driven by luck or badluck.

PDO is not just a measurement of luck, a strong goaltender able to separate itself from the back year's after year's combined with a group of elite shooter/power plays players (like the Caps were with Holtby for a while or the Luongo Canucks) can sustain good PDO for a while but it is hard and not by that big of an amount.
Thank you very much for such a thorough reply, I appreciate it a lot.
 

traparatus

Registered User
Oct 19, 2012
2,845
3,049
I've caught a few games this season. They looked... good.

They are going through a serious string of injuries without having enough depth to overcome it. I was surprised Vegas did not choose to address their defensive depth in the off-season. Engelland is not a 20min/night d-man and Jon Merrill might not be an NHL player, period. Schmidt suspension hurts.

Love their 1st and 4th lines. All in all, better goaltending and better luck should put them in a playoff spot when it's all said and done.

This thread is the who is who of bitter, jealous posters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChanceVegas

3074326

Registered User
Apr 9, 2009
11,574
10,969
USA
Good. What a mockery they made of the league last season.

The league gave them every one of their players. Was Vegas supposed to just lose because they're new? Next expansion team needs to learn how to lose before it is allowed to win?

I hope this is sarcasm. If it's not, it's just pathetic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbuffalo313

puckIuck

Registered User
Jan 11, 2018
840
440
A little premature. They may not teach 110 points again, but they are looking better, returning to form. Schmidt is back, Stastny and Haula out. They’ll be fine.

Calgary used them as toilet paper last night. how is that returning to form?
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
So much revisionist history. Yeah, they had more favorable rules than past expansions but past expansion teams were literally a joke. Everyone and their mother was predicting that Vegas would be a bottom 5 team before the season started last year. Then they were good and, would you look at that, all of a sudden the rules are unfair.

The funniest part is that more than half their best players weren't even a product of favorable draft rules. They either got them directly through a trade or were paid to take them.
Most of the predictions were based off what past expansion teams did, and not the team Vegas assembled. They had more talent than half the league. I think they had 4 1st round picks on that roster and one of them was a 1st overall.
Someone did a Nashville roster with Vegas expansion rules and that team looked down right deadly compared to the scraps we actually had. Look at the roster of those teams and tell me that Vegas wasn’t given a gold mine.
Nashville Predators 1998-99 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com

Minnesota Wild 2000-01 roster and scoring statistics at hockeydb.com
 

Vegan Knight

Registered User
Feb 16, 2018
5,145
2,701
As soon as it becomes about the money you undermine the validity of the league itself. By that logic, the most profitable teams should be more likely to win the more marketable players in the draft lottery. McDavid in Edmonton is costing the league millions and tons of exposure versus having him in a major market and on a competitive team. Such a thing may well occur in the NBA but not the NHL. Rather than do what is arguably in its best financial interest, the league attempts to maintain transparency and equality, allowing the ability of managers and ownership to dictate team quality rather than financial interests.

Yes the league changes over time but that doesn't mean teams which were slighted shouldn't receive compensation in hindsight. Even preference for an outdoor game would likely suffice.

Speaking to the risk Vegas ownership took - T-Mobile arena was already well under construction by the time Vegas was even granted a team. The NBA wasn't in talks at all about going there. What's Vegas going to do? Sit on an empty arena? No, the NHL owners were in a position with all of the leverage. Vegas was already too committed to back out especially over a few more protection slots.

This is literally the opposite of what is true. The business side is the only thing that makes the league valid. There would be no league without it.

Also, the salary cap (the only thing that allows teams like Columbus, or many others, to be competitive) is a business decision. It is "unfair" to some teams but not to your team so you don't determine it to undermine how valid the league may be.

And an arena in Vegas would do absolutely fine even without a pro sports tenant. Not that it has anything to do with anything, the league doesn't grant teams to cities only to try to extract bad deals for them to make them struggle.
 

Crede777

Deputized
Dec 16, 2009
14,611
4,123
This is literally the opposite of what is true. The business side is the only thing that makes the league valid. There would be no league without it.

Also, the salary cap (the only thing that allows teams like Columbus, or many others, to be competitive) is a business decision. It is "unfair" to some teams but not to your team so you don't determine it to undermine how valid the league may be.

And an arena in Vegas would do absolutely fine even without a pro sports tenant. Not that it has anything to do with anything, the league doesn't grant teams to cities only to try to extract bad deals for them to make them struggle.
That's not at all true.

Validity comes from transparency and allowing team management and on-ice play to be the sole determinants of team quality and success. If it came out that the league was favoring certain teams or acting behind the scenes to elicit financially beneficial outcomes, the whole league would lose legitimacy.

The owners had the opportunity to get a deal that was more in their own self interests and failed to do so. That's on them.

Additionally, the salary cap was implemented to control overall player revenue growth rather than simply preventing teams from buying wins. But even if it were, a system in which teams can buy wins also loses legitimacy.

The only legitimate system is one where team success is determined solely by the ability to draft, develop, and trade. If McPhee cannot adequately do that or manage the capspace available to him, then even the most favorable ED scenario does not help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gnashville

Vegan Knight

Registered User
Feb 16, 2018
5,145
2,701
That's not at all true.

Validity comes from transparency and allowing team management and on-ice play to be the sole determinants of team quality and success. If it came out that the league was favoring certain teams or acting behind the scenes to elicit financially beneficial outcomes, the whole league would lose legitimacy.

The owners had the opportunity to get a deal that was more in their own self interests and failed to do so. That's on them.

The owners did get a deal that was in their own self interests. They got a team making more money that makes them more money. Every industry is about this.

Also, that's naive to think those are the only factors to success in sports. Teams enjoy advantages other teams don't, it doesn't make the league less valid.

And team management and on-ice play were exactly the main determinants (not sole determinants, it never is for any team) to Vegas success last season.
 

Newsworthy

Registered User
Jan 28, 2018
4,253
982
USA
Vegas paid $500 mil to get a team. Nashville paid $80 mil ($124 million today).

Vegas basically paid 4x more to get a team, and there are 17 NHL franchises that are worth less than what Vegas paid for. They should be given a bit better start than what Nashville had to deal with, but a bunch of teams decided to give out top 6 players like candy (i.e. Florida).
I don't agree with your logic. Vegas is paying because that is the fee. No need to be gifted a team.
 

Newsworthy

Registered User
Jan 28, 2018
4,253
982
USA
Exactly
Minnesota has won 4 playoff series in it’s history 2 was a real Cinderella run to the Conference Finals in their 3rd year.
Atlanta/Winnipeg had never won a playoff series until last season and lost to Vegas in the Conference Finals
Columbus has NEVER won a playoff series
Nashville is the only team to make the Stanley Cup Finals and it took 20 years to get there.
I could list the rosters of these teams in their 1st year and they were laughable at best.

Now Seattle is knocking on the door and my team is going to have to surrender a top 4 defensemen, our highly regarded backup goalie, or another Top 6 forward.
Or a high draft pick or two.
 

Gnashville

HFBoards Hall of Famer
Jan 7, 2003
13,683
3,510
Crossville
I don't agree with your logic. Vegas is paying because that is the fee. No need to be gifted a team.
Everyone forgets that the league was not looking to expand and it was Vegas that was asking to join. The NHL opened up bids and set that price just to see how serious people were.
Honestly it is the Knights that will be hurt in the long run. Expansion teams get a 5 year grace period with fans in which losing is expected now they expect a Cup Finals every season. What’s going to happen with fan apathy in 5 years when the foundation isn’t there they have traded young talent and draft picks to be competitive early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newsworthy

PAZ

.
Jul 14, 2011
17,357
9,702
BC
As soon as it becomes about the money you undermine the validity of the league itself. By that logic, the most profitable teams should be more likely to win the more marketable players in the draft lottery. McDavid in Edmonton is costing the league millions and tons of exposure versus having him in a major market and on a competitive team. Such a thing may well occur in the NBA but not the NHL. Rather than do what is arguably in its best financial interest, the league attempts to maintain transparency and equality, allowing the ability of managers and ownership to dictate team quality rather than financial interests.

Yes the league changes over time but that doesn't mean teams which were slighted shouldn't receive compensation in hindsight. Even preference for an outdoor game would likely suffice.

Speaking to the risk Vegas ownership took - T-Mobile arena was already well under construction by the time Vegas was even granted a team. The NBA wasn't in talks at all about going there. What's Vegas going to do? Sit on an empty arena? No, the NHL owners were in a position with all of the leverage. Vegas was already too committed to back out especially over a few more protection slots.

So you're saying that 31 owners, who are all billionaires own a NHL team just for the hell of it? Honestly, some of them are, but most of them own a team because they see it as a long term investment. You can point to any product, piece of entertainment, etc. and at the end of the day it boils down to profits and capitalism. It's simply the society we live in, too believe anything else is just being naive.

The product you see on the ice is there because the owners, with the help of Bettman. The current structure which 'maintains transparency and equality' boils down to maximizing their profits while minimizing their costs. They realize that the NHL isn't anywhere close to leapfrogging the NFL, NBA, or MLB in terms of popularity. By having a hard salary cap and a floor, every team in theory will have the same chance to win the Stanley Cup. The league has such a high degree parity a team riding a wave of confidence and have a cohesive group can have an amazing run one year, and look terrible the next. Ottawa did in 2016-17, and so far Vegas is following that trend.

The expansion draft rules didn't gift Vegas a Stanley Cup winning team, far from it. It gave them a decent base with a competent GM they might have the opportunity to put together a contender within 5 years with good management. Other GMs just expedited that process along with Gallant being the perfect coach so it all became a perfect storm. If you show me one post before Vegas entered the league stating that William Karlsson was going to be a PPG #1C, Vegas was going to make the Stanley Cup finals, Marchessault was going to be a franchise player, i'll gladly conceded this argument to you. There were posts out there stating Vegas would be better than expected, but the context of those posts were about Vegas potentially being a wildcard team instead of being a bottom 5 lottery team.
 

ZeroPucksGiven

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
6,338
4,275
I don't agree with your logic. Vegas is paying because that is the fee. No need to be gifted a team.

What if I told you that every time there was an expansion in the NHL, the rules were different for each iteration/season?

The rules for the Sharks 25 years ago were different from Columbus and Minnesota and so on.

This isn't a new phenomenon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bigbuffalo313

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->