Why were the Sharks only 5th

[C-TownWing 0]

ummm.. Hate to say it but your math is a little faulty.

There are 2 ways your math is faulty.

1. The Sharks had 20 points in 12 games against the Wing's divisional opponents. This works out to a 1.666PPG

The Wings had 35 points in 24 games against their own division for a 1.46PPG.

So if that pattern were to hold, the Sharks would have more points if they swapped places with the Wings and the Wings would have less.

So why are we only considering one side of the equation? We're swapping right? Not just moving SJ into the Central.

Toss in Detroit's record vs. Anaheim and Dallas with the one vs. LA/Phoenix, extrapolate to 8 games each, and we have 50 division points compared to the 48 we got in the Central. Cut our Central points in half (that's no longer our division), and you get 74 points. Obviously, you don't have to touch SJ, the Northwest or the Eastern Conference, still playing them the same number of times. So 74 points vs. "affected teams" vs. the 73 we actually got. Seems to me we'd actually be a point better in the Pacific.

Do the same for San Jose vs. Nashville toss in their CLB/CHI/STL record, and we have 44, compared to the 37 they got in the Pacific. Cut their actual Pacific points in half and you get a projected 62.5 points against "affected teams" vs. the 59 they actualy got. So they're up 3.5 points for a net gain of 2.5 on us.

Problem is, we were 6 points ahead of them. So we're still ahead.

The thing I don't get--when we argue about strong division/weak division, why do we pretend like teams play against some control group opponent in a vacuum and treat head-to-head like the end-all? Matchups matter. Rivalry matters. Tendencies matter.

Fact: Detroit owned Nashville (6-1-1 or 1.625 PPG), didn't own the rest of the division quite as strongly (1.46 PPG).

Faulty conclusion: Nashville is the worst team in the division.

Fact: Detroit owned Dallas and broke even with Anaheim, the two best teams San Jose has to play in their division. San Jose struggled with both.

Faulty conclusion: Detroit is better than San Jose. Well, ok, we are, just not for that reason. Anyway, you get my point.

Edited May 4, 2007 by C-TownWing

[theman19 47]

Fact: Detroit owned Nashville (6-1-1 or 1.625 PPG), didn't own the rest of the division quite as strongly (1.46 PPG).

Faulty conclusion: Nashville is the worst team in the division.

Fact: Detroit owned Dallas and broke even with Anaheim, the two best teams San Jose has to play in their division. San Jose struggled with both.

Faulty conclusion: Detroit is better than San Jose. Well, ok, we are, just not for that reason. Anyway, you get my point.

someone debated in high school, nice.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

1 z - DETROIT* 113

2 y - ANAHEIM* 110

3 y - VANCOUVER* 105

4 x - NASHVILLE 110

5 x - SAN JOSE 107

6 x - DALLAS 107

7 x - MINNESOTA 104

8 x - CALGARY 96

17 points seperate Detroit from Calgary. 9 from Minneosta. I think people are forgetting just how close, and good the entire Wester Conference playoff race was. And how good ALL of the playoff teams are. No one is a push over.

[Defenseman13 0]

I knew the Sharks were better than their record before this series started. But now that we're four games in, this team is even better than I thought they were. Their forecheck is absolutely brutal. It takes everything the Wings have just to clear the zone sometimes. Their top line is fierce. Probably the best line the league. So I knew these guys weren't your average 5 seed, but when these guys are on, they look like the best team in the league. So why did they finish so low?

Because we have this uncanny ability to just not show up to games.

I've watched EVERY game this season, some twice or more. I freelance graphic design BTW, so the TV(s) are right above my head set up with Center Ice. Try being in a relationship with hockey on from 4-10 every night...good times.

Anyways, the youth of the Sharks was easy to rattle. All any team had to do was come in hitting hard, and we would fold. The big reasons Guerin and Rivet are in is to add a veteran presence and leadership. From experience, having someone on the bench and in the locker room to talk you through tough periods can make the difference.

Midway through the season, the Coyotes beat us something like 8-0. All the players fathers were there, and after the game the GM got on the bus and had a good chewing. After that, we started kicking ass.

BUT... the Sharks A.D.D. kicked in. After trouncing the Coyotes with physical play and a great fight or two....

http://www.teamblueline.com/SJPHX.wmv (might have to download to desktop...from my FTP, safe)

the very next game, we lost to the Canucks 0-1. Flat, no fighting, no physical play. WHich is horrible! So many countless examples of hits and fight turning games around, and after three periods of flat play, nobody put 1 and 1 together. Wilson NEVER calls a time out, and I feel that he doesn't do enough to rile our players up.

While we played better than we did pre-PHX, we still blew games. We hadn't lost three in a row since the Big Joe, but we sure did halfway through this season. Inexuseable losses to crappy teams too. Shark fans I believe were genuinely worried about even making the playoffs at one point, and thank god Clagary and COL fought tooth and nail for that last spot which was like 10-15 points below us. It was pretty amazing that we got up to 5th in my opinion.

That being said, my biggest fear about the Sharks is not showing up. Not one or two players, but for some reason the entire team does it. I love them, and every player is amazingly talented in his own way... but you've all seen us blow the lead twice.

We'll see Saturday. crap, 11am here? That means I have to start drinking at 10am.....

[Henkka 0]

SJ was the 5 seed only because they couldn't force games into OT. They had alot of regulation losses.

Hopefuly that continues two (or three) more games.

[calfan 0]

The Sharks could be the class of the NHL, but this series demonstrates clearly the problems with the team. They can't play 60 minutes of hockey, they don't have a killer instinct and they don't handle adversity very well. When the Sharks have been on their game, they have completely dominated the Wings and what little offensive opportunities the Wings get are limited to outside shots with no traffic in front of Nabby. The moment they lapse (ADD was suggested - like that), its just a matter of time.

I was chatting on RWC during game 2 and early in the third I told everyone to calm down, the Wings were going to score in the last 2 minutes - they did. During game 3, everyone was asking me for the same prediction and I said I didn't see a red and white goal upcoming. During game 4, I was too lazy to get my laptop. If I had I would have once again said the Wings would score late in the period. It's as obvious as flipping a switch. When the Sharks turn it off, its off.

[JaketheShark 0]

Detroit was 2-8 in shoot outs, while San Jose was 2-2.

right, which means Detroit got 12 points from shoot-outs and regulation ties (2*2) + (8*1) vs. 6 shootout/OT points for San Jose (2*2) + (2*1), which is exactly the difference in the standings.

San Jose also had 51 wins, tied for second with Nashville. Only Buffalo with 53 had more wins. But if you look at regulation losses San Jose had 26 and Detroit only 19 so Detroit, even though they did poorly in shootouts, were at least able to get more of their games into OT so they still got a point.

However, even under the old pre-OT system of 2 points for a win and 1 for a tie, Detroit and San Jose would still be 6 points apart since they would both lose the "extra" two points for the two shootout wins. The shootout is a gimmick since it doesn't mean a thing in the playoffs but teams that are good in shootouts can gain a lot of "bonus points" that count the same as a regulation win and improve their seeding. I say get rid of the three point games. WTF is wrong with a regular season tie? Save OT for the playoffs. But what do you expect when you put a basketball lawyer in charge of the NHL? I dread the day when playoff games are decided by shootouts or the basketball lawyer and his cronies come up with some other weird gimmick.

[Covenant 0]

We'll see Saturday. crap, 11am here? That means I have to start drinking at 10am.....

Cheers! Again, appreciate your posts here Defenseman13. Well thought out as usual. Good analysis. In the end, while this series can certainly swing either way, I'd rather have that veteran presence you're talking about. It beats out youth sometimes.. (as witnessed by coming back from 2 goal defecits in both of our wins)

The Sharks could be the class of the NHL, but this series demonstrates clearly the problems with the team. They can't play 60 minutes of hockey, they don't have a killer instinct and they don't handle adversity very well.

Hey Calfan! What up. Good post, but was wondering if you had any theories behind the above quote. Why can't they play 60 minutes? WHY don't they have a killer instinct. I agree, when they were firing on all cylinders, the Wings looked hopeless.. Does it maybe go back to Big Joe's questionable leadership qualities that the Boston newspapers frequently slandered him with? Maybe accurate?

I know their Captain hasn't done f***-all..

[calfan 0]

Cheers! Again, appreciate your posts here Defenseman13. Well thought out as usual. Good analysis. In the end, while this series can certainly swing either way, I'd rather have that veteran presence you're talking about. It beats out youth sometimes.. (as witnessed by coming back from 2 goal defecits in both of our wins)

Hey Calfan! What up. Good post, but was wondering if you had any theories behind the above quote. Why can't they play 60 minutes? WHY don't they have a killer instinct. I agree, when they were firing on all cylinders, the Wings looked hopeless.. Does it maybe go back to Big Joe's questionable leadership qualities that the Boston newspapers frequently slandered him with? Maybe accurate?

I know their Captain hasn't done f***-all..

Cov - are you callin me out? I'm not a sports psychologist - don't ask me.

I think its at least part leadership and maybe its Joe, no let me fix that, part of the leadership problem is Joe. I don't know if he's a dressing room guy, but it does seem when he decides to use his size, strenght and reach consistently then the rest of them get going. If he takes a shift off or a string of shifts off, then the rest of them seem to ease up as well.

The next part is the lack of other guys willing to take up the cause. I haven't done a comparison of Marleau before and after Joe, but I don't think he's as dominant as he could be. If Joe isn't going, it would be nice to think Patty is stepping up and saying follow me. I'm sure there was lots of evidence of that in the regular season, so don't flame me Sharks fans, but I haven't been that impressed with him in this series. When Iginla went down in January, I thought the Flames might go on a slide. Instead Langkow, Juice and Ritchie noticeably stepped up their game and the Flames had an excellent record while he was away. He came back and Ritchie disappeared. Lanks and Juice still did well, but if they had carried over what they were doing in his absence, Calgary could have been battling Vancouver for the division instead of the Av's for tee times. Nobody on the Sharks is stepping up to lead when Joe abdicates. Last year I blamed some of the Wings woes on the fact that Yzerman was out and nobody was able to fill his shoes (how do you replace a legend). Now he' gone and I think Lidstrom has really stepped into the void and said this is my team at the same time that Hank has done much the same, so the Wings don't lack for leadership.

I think the other lack of leadership has to be hung on the coach. What is he doing to find guys with something to give and getting them out on the ice. You see lots of coaches ride unusual horses when they've got something going. How many times do you see Draper's line flying and all of a sudden they start getting double shifted for a while to build the momentum. If the coach just keeps putting out good shift/bad shift, the team never builds momentum. Hockey is all about momentum.

When I was watching the other night, it occurred to me the Sharks weren't blocking shots. They might skate out to a shooter and hope the puck hit them in the pads, but you didn't see guys throwing themselves in the way of a shot. Look at the Flames - in Calgary there were guys constantly diving to block shots, in Detroit, not so much. Funny how they couldn't win on the road, isn't it. This isn't about reducing scoring chances, this is about giving everything you've got to win. Gretzky said after they lost to the Islanders in 83, the Oilers felt like they could've played another series or two while the Islanders were completely beat up and didn't look like they could get up and walk out of the dressing room. He said that's when the Oilers learned what winning was about. In the SCF, you have to give everything you've got because there's no tomorrow if you don't. The Sharks are still not willing to sacrifice everything as individuals to win as a team. Flames beat the Wings in 04 by being the better team. The Wings were man for man better, but they were a collection of individuals. While they all played the same game and played it very well, they weren't willing to die for each other.

[Defenseman13 0]

I'm trying to remember how many shootouts we did win this year, just out of curiosity. Two, I think? One against Colorado, and one against Nashville.

Then we lost like, ten or so.

I believe the Sharks went an NHL record 49 games in a row without going to overtime.