What “Common Wisdom” Do You Doubt or Disagree With?

[Montreal Shadow]

Absolutely! I have no issue with someone trying to tell me that Roy and Hasek are above Brodeur on the all time list. Just don't use Hasek's Harts or Roy's Conn Smythes as the backbone of your argument because it's an extremely flawed method to try and validate your argument.

The rewards handed out by objective means such as the Art Ross and Rocket are worth more to me because they're definitive, and undisputable. Bobby Orr being the only d-man to lead the league in points is extremely powerful.



Agreed. However, there is a difference between Kucherov's Art Ross and Jamie Benn's Art Ross.



Also agreed. Andy Greene is still an effective player.



He never used the word "meaningless" in his post.



Also agreed. It does provide useful information. That's the whole point of stats in the first place.



Personally, I think the league should make it a rule that players without sticks are not allowed to hit anybody. By definition, this could be a form of interference.



Yep. SV% is just as much of a team stat as GAA. The whole idea that it tells us more about a goalie than GAA is false.

He said they aren’t valid arguments lol.

 

[Sugi21]

Nah, Tkachuk broke the code. He should have answered the bell after taking runs at Kassian. He didn't, he didn't even look at him, so Kassian ragdolled him a little bit.

Your original post you stated “you don’t jump anyone, let alone players who don’t want to fight” pretty much what Kassian did

 

[Oneiro]

I think the majority of players are dumber (not necessarily worse) today than in the past. They understand systems better, have better nutrition, better physical and technical acumen, but in terms of making efficient, naturally intelligent decisions and coming up with new ways to win? They're worse off. The majority of them have been coached into uniformity. The abundance of information and technique has just created a higher average of mediocrity and very little innovation. And even the best get distracted and lose focus given the nature of our world.

The independent, creative thinkers who can take training and coaching with a touch of skepticism and stay somewhat free of doctrine are the ones who will destroy in every single field.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

PIT kind of proved that a couple years ago when they won with a rag tag group of d-men

That has nothing to do with whether they played good defense or not.

 

[GlitchMarner]

I think the majority of players are dumber (not necessarily worse) today than in the past. They understand systems better, have better nutrition, better physical and technical acumen, but in terms of making efficient, naturally intelligent decisions and coming up with new ways to win? They're worse off. The majority of them have been coached into uniformity. The abundance of information and technique has just created a higher average of mediocrity and very little innovation. And even the best get distracted and lose focus given the nature of our world.

The independent, creative thinkers who can take training and coaching with a touch of skepticism and stay somewhat free of doctrine are the ones who will destroy in every single field.

Wouldn't that mean they're less creative and intuitive? Creativity and intelligence aren't the same thing.

 

[MadLuke]

I imagine it could be really common, but instead of save percentage being a stats it would be much clearer to have % of shot that a goaltender let pass.

The difference between .925 and .940 is a giant one, but the number used to tell the story is just 1.62% bigger, making it look at first not that impressive.

But you let in 60 goal on 1000 shots instead of 75 goal goal on 1000 shot(one goaltender give 25% more goal), give it more it's just value, similar to having a 62 goal scorer instead of a 40 goal scorer on your team (all else being equal between them) for an high volume of game goaltender

Breakdown that stats for even strength/power play would also do a lot of good in goaltender perception.

 

[nowhereman]

That team trophies/medals can't be used to help judge a player's career value, especially when that player played an integral role in winning that trophy/medal. The absolute worst is when someone uses a player like Mike Keane or Chris Kunitz as an example of why team trophies don't mean anything, purposely ignoring context in favor of intellectual laziness.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

I don't know if too many people truly believe this.

What I don't like personally is the notion that it matters how a player would do in a different time period.

Younger hockey fans seem to bring it up quite often. Any player playing in a substantially different environment than the one he played in during his career would obviously be at an inherent disadvantage. It's impressive enough that he was as good as he was during his time; he shouldn't have to be just as good 50 years later to prove anything to anyone.

Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid or whoever your favorite player is wouldn't be nearly as good in the year 2070. Does that really matter?

Believe me, A LOT of people in here seem to think this.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't know if too many people truly believe this.

I would imagine quite a bit, considering Bourque was still one of the best when he retired, Robinson was not much worst than him when they were both in the same league, Potvin was much better than him when they were both in the league and you can go back that chain like that until back the 50s without any issue.

 

[Oneiro]

Wouldn't that mean they're less creative and intuitive? Creativity and intelligence aren't the same thing.

For me, intelligence has two components: one is being able to separate signal from noise and the other is synthesis. Synthesis is to see connections between ideas that others haven't identified.

Knowing the right high percentage play (IQ) and being able to capitalize on it in a unique way are actually not very different from each other.

Classic example in hockey is Gretzky's office. Puck carriers have an immediate problem of pressure from the checker and that was one way of creating separation. No coach or trainer was ever going to come up with that for the same reason that no coach ever tells their players to shoot between their legs off a net front pass, as Kyle Connor did the other night.

And notice how when Svechnikov does the lacrosse goal, Forsberg does it later. Not unlike Roger Bannister breaking the 4 minute mile. There are heights we haven't seen in hockey because the flow of information has gotten so fast that it's accelerated the process of people becoming sheep, as opposed to facilitating more invention. But once something becomes a real executable advantage, it can get added to the vocabulary of the game. I don't think there's enough of it right now, relative to the abundance of info.

 

[SladeWilson23]

this seems contradictory. wouldn't you want to pay the most important position the most money? attract and retain talent, etc?

Good goalies are a easy to find. They're the running backs of the NHL.

 

[SladeWilson23]

He said they aren’t valid arguments lol.

Not the same thing as "meaningless". Trophy counting is a weak argument to use as a "backbone" for any argument.

 

[Montreal Shadow]

Not the same thing as "meaningless". Trophy counting is a weak argument to use as a "backbone" for any argument.

And you’re moving the goalposts by stating things that were never said. He didn’t say it was weak. He literally called it invalid as in not even an argument aka useless or meaningless. You’re arguing semantics. If it’s not valid it’s not usable which makes it meaningless.

 

[KCbus]

When a player loses or breaks his stick in the defensive zone, he should stand around like a useless idiot rather than skating to the bench and changing with someone else or sprinting back with a new stick.

This. I've said for a while... I'd like to see some team that's been eliminated from contention, late in a season, do an experiment where any guy who loses/breaks a stick goes to the bench, either for a change or a new twig.

Being shorthanded for ten seconds isn't ideal, but it might be better than having a guy with no stick for an entire shift.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Don't burn a year.

I think teams should. Get to that second contract sooner.
Closest examples recently were Pastrnak, Draisatl and McAvoy whom never played full seasons their first year so signed their second contracts earlier, before they had as much of a track record. Then look at the contracts they signed.

Yup, totally. If you can sign a guy when he's an emerging star rather than an established or actual star you can save a few bucks on the cap for sure

 

[Ratatoskr]

That NHL referees suck. I think officiating in the NHL is basically OK and generally as good as it gets. Expecting perfect consistency and infallibility is foolishness. Hockey is a fast,unstructured and chaotic sport - more so than most or possibly any others. Can't have 100% accountable refereeing coming with that. Accept it and you'll live a happier life, people.

 

[Tweed]

... or switch to linebacker mode.

 

[Cotton McKnight]

Thank. You.

Worse than useless - throws off the other defenders who could go into a PK box or diamond formation. 4V5 can kill most 2 minute penalties, they can cover for the 5 seconds it takes to get a stick/replacement.

I like this, coaches can drill this idea into the teams head. You would also likely find teams penalty killing ability for all of their players would improve.

 

[Hasa92]

That powerplay goals don't matter as much as even strength ones.

 

[SotasicA]

That powerplay goals don't matter as much as even strength ones.

They do but they are easier to score.

 

[LMFAO]

The game has lost it's passion and soul with the removing of fights and hitting.

 

[HanSolo]

Not so much common wisdom as I feel like either I'm dumb or people have redefined a term I thought I understood but I grew up under the impression that "generational" meant the players so talented that they stood as icons that defined a generation of hockey. Now it feels like it's been constrained to just 1 or maybe 2 of the best players of a generation. Which to me feels silly, especially when to some that might mean that either Ovechkin or Crosby were generational but not both.

Another not necessarily conventional wisdom one is that I find that generally people have put too much value in offense from a defender. Like many consider in all seriousness Brent Burns to be one of the best defensemen in hockey. But that ignores that very often he can be an outright turnstile defensively. His production makes him a good hockey player but I think all too often people ignore defensive ability in defensemen and that's their primary job.

The game has lost it's passion and soul with the removing of fights and hitting.

Let's be real. This is the socially acceptable way for people to complain that they don't get to see players' brains get scrambled by a big hit to the head anymore.

 

[eramosat]

That blocked shots are simply an indication that you are deficient on defense, the rationale being you were actually in a position to have to block a shot so you must be doing something wrong. So whenever you block a shot...it's like a flare going up that you suck.

 

[SomeDude]

Standing around like a useless turd when you break your stick. Just take the 5 seconds to run back to the bench to change or get a new twig.

 

[shelbysdad]

That on a carryover penalty the team on the PP has an advantage due to the "clean sheet of ice"

Seems at times its too fast , passes are too hot, and easier to clear for the D since the puck slides so easily