Why the Sharks have not won a Cup

[bigwillie]

I've said it once before and I'll say it again:

If Doug Wilson had pulled the trigger on the deal for Chris Pronger (Michalek/Bernier, Carle, 1st) when he was asking out of Edmonton, the San Jose Sharks would have at least one Cup. He was the missing piece. A truly elite, truly #1 defenseman.

There are other reasons they failed over the longer term. Hockeyball's post is probably the best summary of the Sharks' failures the past decade I've seen on this site. But if you want to boil it down to one reason, I pick that trade.

Plus, for the idiots that want to blame Thorton as the tinman or chocking or lack of heart or some stupid bull**** about them not knowing how to win, whatever the **** that means, you can argue that Pronger brings those gritty intangibles that makes everyone's heart grow three times in size.

I hated Pronger and loved to boo him back in the day, but he was the missing piece.

 

[TheHockeyRant]

Long way of saying top tier defense wins more cups. Here's the actuals:

2015 - CHI #2 defense
2014 - LAK #1
2013 - CHI #1
2012 - LAK #2
2011 - BOS #3
2010 - CHI #5
2009 - PIT #17
2008 - DET #1
2007 - ANA #7
2006 - CAR #19
2004 - TB #10
2003 - NJ #1
2002 - DET #3
2001 - COL #3

Times Sharks had a top-5 defense...
#5 in 2013-14,
#3 in 2008-09,
#3 in 2007-08,
#5 in 2006-07,
#4 in 2003-04,
#3 in 2000-01 (tied with COL).

So this is interesting. Sharks did field top tier defense in 6 of those years. Let's look closer at each year.

2013-14 - #5 in defense and #6 in offense, and playoff ending by top-tier choking in the 1st round.
2008-09 - #3 in defense and #6 in offense, and playoff ending in 1st round... choking?
2007-08 - #3 in defense but #17 in offense, and playoff ending in 2nd round against Dallas, choked again?
2006-07 - #5 in defense and #6 in offense, and playoff ending in 2nd round against Detroit, looks like they choked in the last three games of the 6-game series, letting Detroit come from a series deficit of 1-2 and win.
2003-04 - #4 in defense but #11 in offense, conference finals but they should have taken out Calgary but instead lost every home game in that series. No real excuse for this year not being their first appearance in the SCF.
2000-01 - #3 in defense but #17 in offense.

It appears that the Sharks had good chances. Plenty of them, but they failed to capitalize on those chances.

They choke, simply as that. They don't have a winner's drive to do what is needed to win. Perhaps they believe the championship is done by coronation, not by earning it with blood, sweat, and hard work regardless of the situation.

They have not embraced what's needed to win the Stanley Cup. This is not just accepting a reputation of being a champion among themselves, but embrace it, and relish it. By stepping out on the ice every game to do whatever it takes to prove it. Even it if means turning an inevitable loss into a win by the end of the game.

That's how championship teams are born out of mediocre years.

Kind of a dumb way to look at things.
A number of those years the Sharks lost to better teams.
Hell 2004 was the biggest fluke year in Sharks history coming off the 03 disaster.

01 the Blues were the higher seed and better team
07 the Wings were the higher seed and better team
08 the Sharks were the higher seed but you call #17 offense choking? vs Marty Turco putting on a clinic?
09...moving on
14 the Sharks were the higher seed but could you call them the better team?

Remember seeding is sometimes determined by 1 or 2 points too. Hell those defensive stats may be determined by just a few goals. So suggesting that = better team is just plain stupid.

In nearly every example the Sharks LOST to the higher seeded team. The Sharks were NOT the favorite to win.

 

[Sleepy]

This is a contention that is not born out of reality, IMO. The Sharks have, plenty of times, lost to teams they *should* and *could* have beaten, on-paper. Other than St.Louis and Chicago, I can't think of a post-lockout-series SJ has played in where they were the "underdogs".

As always, I contend that it starts from the top.

LAK 2014, Vancouver WCF, Chicago WCF, StL 1st Round, Calgary WCF. Sharks were underdogs in all those series that they lost.

The Vancouver, Chicago, and 2x LAK years they were playing against the four best teams post-lockout IMO. I'm not arguing that the Sharks shouldn't have found a way to win a cup by now, but I am saying that they've never been the best playoff team in the Western Conference, except maybe that Edmonton year. Even then, Detroit was better than them they just lost to Edmonton the same way SJS did.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Hopefully next July we can say it was Martin Jones & Paul Martin. Not having them is why we never won the cup!

 

[stator]

Kind of a dumb way to look at things.
A number of those years the Sharks lost to better teams.
Hell 2004 was the biggest fluke year in Sharks history coming off the 03 disaster.

01 the Blues were the higher seed and better team
07 the Wings were the higher seed and better team
08 the Sharks were the higher seed but you call #17 offense choking? vs Marty Turco putting on a clinic?
09...moving on
14 the Sharks were the higher seed but could you call them the better team?

Remember seeding is sometimes determined by 1 or 2 points too. Hell those defensive stats may be determined by just a few goals. So suggesting that = better team is just plain stupid.

In nearly every example the Sharks LOST to the higher seeded team. The Sharks were NOT the favorite to win.

Problem with using "better" is that it is very subjective. Who's the better team? Well, the only way to objectively say that is through the playoff system, obviously. The winner is the better team, regardless of their seeding... (Kings).

Perhaps you can dig through the stats and see how many times victories came to the higher seeded team versus not to remove some of that subjectiveness? Problem doing so, is that seeding is dependent upon the quality of the teams each faced which is not identical for all teams.

You honestly believe that in 2014, there was no choking involved on the Sharks? Going up 3-0 and then cannot find a way to beat the Kings in 1 game out of 4? I think HFboard members would universally agree this is one of the all-time chokes in modern NHL history.

 

[Sleepy]

Problem with using "better" is that it is very subjective. Who's the better team? Well, the only way to objectively say that is through the playoff system, obviously. The winner is the better team, regardless of their seeding... (Kings).

I agree, but I'd say Vegas does a good job of trying to predict which team will win the series. I'd argue that the Vegas winner is the expected winner factoring everything in. And the Sharks have been the dogs in most of the series they've lost, with a few obvious exceptions such as Anaheim and Edmonton. IMO, the Anaheim year the Sharks were the best in the NHL and choked in epic proportions. That's the year that got away, similar to Vancouver in 2011 where they were the best team in the NHL and choked vs Boston.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Problem with using "better" is that it is very subjective. Who's the better team? Well, the only way to objectively say that is through the playoff system, obviously. The winner is the better team, regardless of their seeding... (Kings).

Perhaps you can dig through the stats and see how many times victories came to the higher seeded team versus not to remove some of that subjectiveness? Problem doing so, is that seeding is dependent upon the quality of the teams each faced which is not identical for all teams.

You honestly believe that in 2014, there was no choking involved on the Sharks? Going up 3-0 and then cannot find a way to beat the Kings in 1 game out of 4? I think HFboard members would universally agree this is one of the all-time chokes in modern NHL history.

I agree 06-07 they should have gone all the way (didn't even see that they were#5 in d and #6 in O). All I remember from that series is Rissmillar with the puck in the corner and all he had to do was keep it along the boards and he threw a stupid pass back towards the blueline and Detroit ended up scoring (the tying goal?) and went on to win.

 

[sjshrky27]

There are a variety of reasons we have not won a cup, there is also a variety of ways to win a cup. If you want my opinion it's this:

1) The Sharks built a team around Joe Thornton and Joe Thornton is too predictable a player to build a team around. He's an amazing player, hall of famer, but is a victim of his own success. Everyone knows exactly what Joe is going to do at all times. He's going to pass. It's a testament to his skill that he still manages to get those passes off even though everyone knows what's coming, but in the end once you get down to the top 4-8 teams in the league, that's not enough. Those teams are well disciplined and skilled enough to stop that pass almost every time. This causes the Sharks 1st line to break down and even if Thornton has two high skill wingers, they've become so accustomed to being fed passes by Joe that they do not have time to adjust and are unable to create for themselves. Once Joe has been neutralized the focus can be placed on stifling the other lines and the Sharks scoring goes down the drain. Frustration kicks in, the Sharks take a more offensive stance, and start allowing goals. They then become flustered and frustrated and collapse.

Blaming one player on the team is preposterous. More playoff games then not, JT was one of the the best players on the ice. Yes, you can point out his style of play to a degree, but the reason that the Sharks never made much of a run for the cup is because they were never built for a deep playoff run. They have always lacked the edginess and the killer instinct to finish.

That falls on DW.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Blaming one player on the team is preposterous. More playoff games then not, JT was one of the the best players on the ice.

Really? That doesn't jive with my recollection. I'd say he's about 50:50, if not a little worse.

Yes, you can point out his style of play to a degree, but the reason that the Sharks never made much of a run for the cup is because they were never built for a deep playoff run. They have always lacked the edginess and the killer instinct to finish.

That falls on DW.

Do you not think that JT contributes to that lack of edginess and killer instinct?

Think about your blame of DW...you fault him for not building the team with those qualities. Indirectly, you are faulting the players on the team. You can't criticize DW for building a poor roster and then praise the players on said roster.

 

[OrrNumber4]

LAK 2014, Vancouver WCF, Chicago WCF, StL 1st Round, Calgary WCF. Sharks were underdogs in all those series that they lost.

The Vancouver, Chicago, and 2x LAK years they were playing against the four best teams post-lockout IMO. I'm not arguing that the Sharks shouldn't have found a way to win a cup by now, but I am saying that they've never been the best playoff team in the Western Conference, except maybe that Edmonton year. Even then, Detroit was better than them they just lost to Edmonton the same way SJS did.

LAK 2014, prior to the series, it was considered incredibly even. SJ was barely favoured due to the home-ice advantage. When SJ went up 3-0, everyone thought the series was theirs. They had a great opportunity, and failed to seal the deal.

Again LA in 2013, same deal...very close series. LA had the slightest of edges due to home ice advantage. Vancouver 2011, it was considered dead even.

Yes, against St. Louis and Chicago, SJ was the clear underdog. Though I think everyone expected them to win a game or two against Chicago and play St.Louis better than they did.

Lastly, against Calgary in the WCF...even Calgary fans were picking SJ to win it. When the Sharks tied the series at two, everyone thought the wheels had fallen off for the Flames; the Sharks had figured Kipper out and it was history.

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

i see several reasons, they are all related..

1) we don't have good enough players to win,
2) we don't have a GM that wants to tinker with the core to keep it fresh and winning (at least until now)... he waited until the team misses the playoffs to start this process, now he's having to catch up for the last 3-4 years of decline all at once.

 

[seekritdude]

Irbe never stole game for the sharks or was capable? Wtf?? Irbe played those 94 playoffs with a broken ankle. And durning the regular season that year greztky said he thought he was the best player in the NHL. Irbe also was the best goalie in the league imo his first year in the canes, if not for the teams collapse those last 2 weeks he was leading the league in stats actually. Of course irbe gets talked about a lot during his 02 run. But whatever the case irbe was great for san jose, its sad but after his injury he was never the same aggressive goaltender after his dog beat his hand. I dunno how many people remember games back then but irbe use to have these patented moves, super agressive, then poke check with a full split. He would do that thing all over the place. But after his hand got ****ed up, he just couldnt do that move anymore, became less agressive and it took him awhile to get back on his game...


Anyway I say sharks cursed themselves for trading away all their players that made them what they were that first 93-94 playoffs. Got rid of over half the team in less then a year. Lots of locker room drama, and it played out in the media with everyone very unhappy, GM saying he loves larionov hes super important and he will always have a home in san jose, then Constantine benching larionov saying that he is a bad infulence on the team, so they trade everyone away larionov refuses to be assistnt captain for the team blah blah..

Sharks cursed themselves. Or well honestly I dont believe in karma, but if it exists, its because of how they treated all the players back then.


Anyway i think you guys need to go back and watch the games if you think that irbe had a defense that helped him out. I mean come on... seriously? The sharks may have played a defensive style in some of those years(besides ov line that was more of a puck possession thing obviously)but they played defensive becasue they just did not have enough out right skilled players most the time to keep up with many teams. Especially those irbe years, one of those years irbe was averaging I thought it was 36-39 shots against every 60 mins was it? Been so long I dont remember the stats anymore but it was stupid at one time.

 

[Sleepy]

LAK 2014, prior to the series, it was considered incredibly even. SJ was barely favoured due to the home-ice advantage. When SJ went up 3-0, everyone thought the series was theirs. They had a great opportunity, and failed to seal the deal.

Again LA in 2013, same deal...very close series. LA had the slightest of edges due to home ice advantage. Vancouver 2011, it was considered dead even.

Yes, against St. Louis and Chicago, SJ was the clear underdog. Though I think everyone expected them to win a game or two against Chicago and play St.Louis better than they did.

Lastly, against Calgary in the WCF...even Calgary fans were picking SJ to win it. When the Sharks tied the series at two, everyone thought the wheels had fallen off for the Flames; the Sharks had figured Kipper out and it was history.

I think it's tough to discuss a moving target and picking a random point within a series. Going up 3-0 or 3-2 and losing to a better team isn't the same as losing a series vs a worse team, which is my beef with the teams that lost to Anaheim/Edmonton.

I looked it up, you are right Vegas had SJ as a pretty good favorite to win the 2014 series. I guess I was just projecting my anecdotal experience as everyone I knew expected the Kings to win and my recommendations to friends betting the series was to put money on LA. From what I can tell off random websites, the Kings had a 55/45 advantage in bets placed (at a much better payout) so it's likely the betters knew more here than the oddsmakers did. In terms of winning the cup, they had almost identical futures from what I can see (10:1 vs 9:1) which is weird given the series payout spread.