What if they had been healthy?
- Thread starter SCB502
- Start date
And I'll bet that every one of those teams, as well as all others in the league, have had the excuse, at one time or another, of excessive injuries torpedoing a season. There is a difference between "excuse" and "reason" and it is linked to degree, as well as to timing and who it is that is injured. Injuries are not the excuse for fifteen years of bad hockey, but they go a long way toward explaining the results of this past season.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
The "injuries are no excuse" cliche applies if you're in the middle of that mishmash of teams in the left-of-middle (normally middle), because virtually everybody goes through that (as is clearly visible by the clustering) - that's "routine". Folks who normally complain about injuries would be on the upper and rightmost outskirts of that mishmash - teams like Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Anaheim, et cetera. That's "exceptional". We are so far beyond that we get to be our own special category of horror all by ourselves. (Colorado probably isn't happy either, but they at least mostly lost lower-in-the-lineup depth players. We were not so fortunate.)
Look at where teams like Carolina, Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and even Philadelphia are on that graph. If that's where we were, you would have a definite point. That is not where we are.
Last edited by a moderator:
We went through a stretch in which we lost a ton when we were relatively healthy; fairly close to what we looked like at the end of the season. We fought to an 82 point pace with a much less healthy team and then just caved.
Who knows what would have happened with this team. Bob, for example, was all over the place and was better the last two months but he was still around that 2.4 GAA those two months. Good, but not elite by any stretch.
The "injuries are no excuse" cliche applies if you're in the middle of that mishmash of teams in the left-of-middle (normally middle), because virtually everybody goes through that (as is clearly visible by the clustering) - that's "routine". Folks who normally complain about injuries would be on the upper and rightmost outskirts of that mishmash - teams like Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Anaheim, et cetera. That's "exceptional". We are so far beyond that we get to be our own special category of horror all by ourselves. (Colorado probably isn't happy either, but they at least mostly lost lower-in-the-lineup depth players. We were not so fortunate.)
Look at where teams like Carolina, Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and even Philadelphia are on that graph. If that's where we were, you would have a definite point. That is not where we are.
That graph is similar to CHIP (Cap Hit of Injured Players) in which we paid over $17 million (cap payroll) to players who did not play in games. By far the most in the league.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
The "injuries are no excuse" cliche applies if you're in the middle of that mishmash of teams in the left-of-middle (normally middle), because virtually everybody goes through that (as is clearly visible by the clustering) - that's "routine". Folks who normally complain about injuries would be on the upper and rightmost outskirts of that mishmash - teams like Pittsburgh, New Jersey, Anaheim, et cetera. That's "exceptional". We are so far beyond that we get to be our own special category of horror all by ourselves. (Colorado probably isn't happy either, but they at least mostly lost lower-in-the-lineup depth players. We were not so fortunate.)
Look at where teams like Carolina, Edmonton, Toronto, Arizona, and even Philadelphia are on that graph. If that's where we were, you would have a definite point. That is not where we are.
That graph is very telling, indeed...
Solid find.
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 200
SuperGenius
For Duty & Humanity!
- Mar 18, 2008
- 4,639
- 200
How do you "prepare" to lose half your roster, or a few key guys at once?
The CBJ's lack of NHL ready depth surely took center stage, but the result wasn't due to lack of preparation. It was simply not being ready. While the CBJ haven't undergone a complete rebuild, the team has indeed been overhauled quite a bit, and while the NHLers at the top layer have had some success, the next layer of players is all very young and inexperienced. The only thing that fixes this is time.
Lack of preparation? Nah, just normal development. This season was a perfect storm that no one could predict or prepare for. The alternative I guess would be to have less young guys and more mid level experienced guys, but that, to me, is a lack of preparation for the future - which is a lot more important than one season.
Maybe buy insurance on expensive contracts - let's keep in mind Horton (and his contract and replacement) counted for 74 of those games lost by my calculations. At least that way you would have $4M or so to get a quality replacement.
Have enough depth that you have some guys that can comfortable play up a line if injuries occur - IMO not a problem with our forwards but a "quality depth" problem with d-men (I still don't see a top pairing guy on our roster for 2014-15, likely 2-3 or so guys who were 2nd pairing guys and all the others).
Don't bet that a young d-man (Murray) who wasn't healthy the prior year would be a guy you could plug into the top 4 this year. Much less rush him back too early.
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
Congrats. That covers the first three or four or so. (above average, more or less, for a team). We had that settled. Now triple the number of times folks have to move up. How do you "prepare" for that? 'Cause that's what we were up against.
Congrats to you glad you had that settled! What ever that means...
Simply thing of it like this:
Goalies - Bob is never going to be an iron man, he misses games each year being dinged up as well as the rest of the normal injuries. He missed 23 games which is more than normal. But some of man games lost came from Forsberg being called up.
Forwards - Looks like only 2 top 9 forwards missed more than 10 games w injuries - Jenner (40) and Anisimov (30). Skille (31), Morin (25), Clarkson (18), etc were 13th forwards at best. Letestu (28) and Calvert (25) are 4th liners. Again the timing definitely hurt here (as well as volume) but Jenner and Anisimov both hurt and having Letestu and Calvert out at same time hurt, but the production of the forwards wasn't so much an issue this year (at least compared to productivity of prior years CBJ forwards).
Also the top guys were healthy - Ry-Jo (0 injuries), Foligno (3 games), Hartnell (5), Dubi (9), Atkinson (3).
D-men - Again problem is we didn't start off the year (on the roster) with enough quality d-men. We had a guy who had never proven himself plugged into the top 4 - and losing Murray for 61 games certainly hurt but was a foolish decision to have him figured in that mightily. Couple other 10+ injury guys - Golu (16) was 3rd pairing guy at best and Tyutin (15) hurt. Lot of guys missing less than 10 game - Wiz (5), Prout (9), Connouten (6) with both Wiz and Prout being viewed as important cogs in the beginning of season (I think the hope was Prout was 2nd pairing at first of year).
Again bottom line here was one major loss but the team did not have enough top 4 depth to replace an unproven Murray. Outside of that and Tyutin not sure if anyone else was higher than expected. Issue was we just had no depth - and IMO even with Murray we were at least 1 guy short in the top 4 even if he was healthy.
Again if you look at man games lost there is a lot of guys in that statistic who were injury call ups or likely healthy scratches - Skille (31), Morin (25), Gibbons (23), Clarkson (18), Golu (16), Bourque (9), Connouten (6).
Even with the injuries our forwards were fine - it was the blue line that regressed and it was as much staffing (not having enough quality) and it was injuries/depth. It's just blaming injures is a heck of a lot easier to sell than "umm we didn't have enough good players".
Where are you getting these numbers from? Dubi, Jenner, and Bob missed a lot more games than what you have listed here.
If you can directly address the TMITT score that Viqsi shared, that might help clear this up. As far as I'm concerned it makes it an open and shut case that we suffered more key injuries than an average team can handle.
Arch City Zach
Registered User
Jenner missed 51 games.
Dubinsky missed 35.
Atkinson missed 5.
Hartnell missed 6.
Calvert missed 26.
Cyclones Rock
Registered User
- Jun 12, 2008
- 10,601
- 6,526
After watching most of the Montreal and Ottawa series, all I can say is patience.
A healthy CBJ team is so much better than these two teams that it's not even funny.
A healthy CBJ team is so much better than these two teams that it's not even funny.
I think we can roll four lines better than either of those teams. The rub is three players: Subban, Karlsson, and Price. We don't have a game-changer at that level.
Sore Loser
Sorest of them all
When healthy, I think Bobrovsky can play at that level ... especially if the Jackets can ice a more competent defense in front of him next year. He might not put up the dominant numbers that Price has, but he's a guy that's capable of giving the team a chance to win every single night.
MM, you make a good point...but I think we can answer 2 and 3 in the next 2-3 years.
RyJo on track to equal Karlsson (yes, some ways to go, not exactly same roles/position, but imo on track as a similar difference maker).
Bob can be for CBJ what Price is for MTL, but Price likely more talented as of now. Need to see more consistency from Bob (a relatively injury-free season for Bob and an average injury season for the team in front of Bob would help). If Bob isn't the answer, then CBJ has big issues. Not only with finding the right G, but already has significant $$$ and cap space tied up with Bob that would make him hard to move if he isn't the guy. I'm fine with C-Mac as backup assuming Bob is the guy. I'm not sold on the G depth, but there is still time for development of Forsberg, etc.. assuming Bob is the answer for the next 4 years. If Bob is not a franchise goalie (not necessarily top 5, but top 10), then CBJ needs to start working on next G. I think he is the answer, it appears FO thinks he's the answer, but understand some trepidation.
We clearly don't have a Subban, or anything close yet. We haven't even had the #2 D man to go with a Subban. Murray may likely be the #2 D man, but hasn't been healthy enough to provide that and thus we don't know for sure. D corp is where CBJ needs the most improvement for long-term. Not just the #1, but all D. Getting a top-notch #1D would help slot everyone else appropriately, but still in need of Murray stepping up (health especially), and also finding another #3-#4 with shut down potential and puck protection/zone exit skills. I like Savard's progress, more is needed. Cotton, has skills, does he have the ability to stop people? Golo, more time needed to analyze. Tyutin - ok but needing more from him or from that position. Prout - #7, not a regular imo. JJ- mystery man. Oct-Jan JJ, or the Mar-April JJ? If Mar-April, then he's a solid 3-4, but my goodness he appears discombobulated for too long at times, like he's confused.
D-men are more likely to be found in draft picks than a trade or FA signing, and thus a one-summer fix is not likely. If Hannifan is THE D-man of the future, and NHL ready, then imo CBJ should move up to get him, knowing that they will need to have Forwards protecting a weaker D in order to do damage in the short run. Longer-term view is that CBJ also should be looking to draft an additional D-man somewhere in the draft for 3-4 slot, with plan to develop him at AHL for 2 years.
We may be able to make a run with what we have + Hanifan for 2 years, but not after that. Or is Poporov (or some other D draftee) going to be equal to Hanifan in 2 years?
Last edited:
Re: injuries - it's pretty simple. What were the two worst stretches? November and February (more or less)? When was Bob hurt? There's your answer.
We Want Ten
Make Chinakov Great Again
The Jones Zone
Registered User
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 5Staked: $11,677.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 6 Boston Bruins @ Toronto Maple Leafs - Boston leads series 3-2Wagers: 16Staked: $93,324.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
