79 replies to this topic

[Grypho]

Sure "rust" can be an issue...but the "rest" actually helped the Wings get healthy, so there was a big benefit to having 9 days off.

I can see that. My only question is that if 9 days rest helped Mule and Z to heal, but was that at the expense of the entire team's playoff capacity as a whole? (And I don't mean that as a rhetorical question.)

Let's look at two extremes for a second.

Somewhere between one day off and one month off there are two extremes that are detrimental to any team's playoff capacity. A single day's rest after a grueling series could be absolutely disastrous for any team. Likewise, an entire month off would not just be "somewhat detrimental", but downright disastrous. I think you would be hard pressed to find an athlete from any endurance sport who would argue that to the contrary. For example, my nephew is an MMA fighter. If he goes three days without training or fighting, he thinks he's screwed for at least a week.

So I am really only asking a three part question, one that I think is universal, and not specific to any team, but to average NHL players in general:

How little is too little rest, at one end, and how much is too much rest at the other? Then, somewhere between those two points, what is the optimal window? That's it. It may not be easy to answer, but that does not mean there aren't any specific answers to be had, because we could at least qualitatively identify the extremes.

Many fans described the Wings' Game 1 play using different synonyms for "lethargic" (implying physical limitations), while twice now in this thread that same play was referred to as "passive", which implies a mental state, obviously meant to infer that it was a kind of deliberateness on the parts of the players, and therefore within their control -- like a strategic move, of sorts ("Trying more to 'weather the storm' than increase our lead."). It didn't look that way to me, but if that is true, then I find that very sad for the Wings. If that is true, then Babcock has every reason to be angry at the majority of players on the team (all but, what, three?) for not "deciding" to flip that [purely mental] switch, and for essentially giving the Sharks' defense most of the night off!

[jellytoast]

Groan they sucked last night. If they can't get better the sharks will crush us.

[Shady Ultima]

I would like to bring up a certain fact that may change your theory. Albeit I do not have the number of layoff days, the past three years the Cup champion has swept at least one team.

2010 - Chicago sweeps San Jose
2009 - Pittsburgh sweeps Carolina
2008 - Detroit sweeps Colorado

So... though your position holds some evidence, there is also evidence that the rest is effective in helping teams down the road.

I know that Pittsburgh also lost games one and two in 2009.

I think the combination of the sweep and then being the ROAD team is what killed us. Pittsburgh swept Carolina, had to go to Detroit, lost one and two.

But, for both Chicago and for Detroit, we were the home team in game one and two. There may be something to Grypho's theory if you are the away team. Because going into an arena that is pounding after a rest should get the adrenaline going, especially in your own building.

If we can win game 2, we have a chance at this series. The Joe has been rocking lately, so we'll get a lot more energy going.

Honestly, if we shoot the puck more and test Niemi, we win. The Sharks are heavily frontloaded, but their defense and goaltending are suspect. Niemi was pulled twice against the Kings, and we're a much better offensive team than they are.

[Buppy]

... There may be something to Grypho's theory ...

It's not 'his' theory. It is literally discussed every single time any team has a long layoff in the playoffs, even before the very game we're discussing. I'd say it's even common knowledge. Give a team a week off, they'll probably be a little rusty.

...Many fans described the Wings' Game 1 play using different synonyms for "lethargic" (implying physical limitations), while twice now in this thread that same play was referred to as "passive", which implies a mental state, obviously meant to infer that it was a kind of deliberateness on the parts of the players, and therefore within their control -- like a strategic move, of sorts ("Trying more to 'weather the storm' than increase our lead."). It didn't look that way to me, but if that is true, then I find that very sad for the Wings. If that is true, then Babcock has every reason to be angry at the majority of players on the team (all but, what, three?) for not "deciding" to flip that [purely mental] switch, and for essentially giving the Sharks' defense most of the night off!

Don't be so melodramatic. It's not like the Sharks dominated the entire game. It was a portion of one period. Teams sit back all the time, especially when leading on the road. The home team comes out firing, the road team gets over-cautious...no one wants to be the guy that makes a mistake, or takes a penalty that leads to a tying goal. Every single team in the league does it at times. We got better toward the end of the second and in the third. That wouldn't have been possible if it was all some physical handicap from the layoff, as you seem to think.

The layoff was probably a small factor, mostly for Zetterbarg, who hadn't played in over 3 weeks. Next game it shouldn't really be a factor at all. You're acting like the Wings are doomed and incapable of playing with the Sharks. You weren't half as dominant as you seem to think. You didn't blow us out. You didn't even score during your most dominant stretch.

It was a very close game that could have easily gone either way. A little more luck and the Wings would have won, and there'd probably be a thread here on how much good the layoff did us.

[SDavis35]

I know that Pittsburgh also lost games one and two in 2009.

I think the combination of the sweep and then being the ROAD team is what killed us. Pittsburgh swept Carolina, had to go to Detroit, lost one and two.

But, for both Chicago and for Detroit, we were the home team in game one and two. There may be something to Grypho's theory if you are the away team. Because going into an arena that is pounding after a rest should get the adrenaline going, especially in your own building.

If we can win game 2, we have a chance at this series. The Joe has been rocking lately, so we'll get a lot more energy going.

Honestly, if we shoot the puck more and test Niemi, we win. The Sharks are heavily frontloaded, but their defense and goaltending are suspect. Niemi was pulled twice against the Kings, and we're a much better offensive team than they are.

That's true too... it could even depend on when they land in the destination of their next opponent lol. Lots of variables, but you're right only the next game matters right now. Niemi hasn't done anything to prove to me he's all that great, felt like he was just "along for the ride" last year in Chicago. We just need to get to the rebounds and we'll be scoring plenty. Props to the sharks for getting those loose pucks though.

[jerm8352]

I don't care how many days off anyone had. Show up and play. We didn't, they did and they won.

It is 100% Detroit's fault. Whose else could it be?

[SouthernWingsFan]

Wasn't the majority wanting the Wings to finish the Coyotes quickly to have a break?

Now we're complaining that there was too long of a layoff as a result?

You can't have it both ways.

[Broken 16]

Wasn't the majority wanting the Wings to finish the Coyotes quickly to have a break?

Now we're complaining that there was too long of a layoff as a result?

You can't have it both ways.

The only one I see pushing this notion hard is a Sharks fan.

[sleepwalker]

Wasn't the majority wanting the Wings to finish the Coyotes quickly to have a break?

Now we're complaining that there was too long of a layoff as a result?

You can't have it both ways.

I don't see it as complaining, as much as pointing out the obvious. Did the Wings need the time off to get healthy? Yes. Were they going to be slightly rusty as a result of such a long time off? Inevitably, any team would be. Was the "rust" the reason they lost game one? No. They lost game one because the Sharks are divers and the refs are idiots who fall for that s*** time and time again.

[Grypho]

Don't be so melodramatic. It's not like the Sharks dominated the entire game.

....

It was a very close game that could have easily gone either way. A little more luck and the Wings would have won, and there'd probably be a thread here on how much good the layoff did us.

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing.

And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

[SpIkE]

Lol did you try using "playoff intensity" into a noun?

For real though, if you think the Wings lost their "playoff intensity" over a 9 day break and are now going to sit back and take it from the sharks, well you are sadly mistaken sir. Remember, you are playing a team that has been in the postseason 20 consecutive times, I think they know how to manage their time off right.

Edited by SpIkE, 01 May 2011 - 01:43 PM.

[Buppy]

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing.

And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

By melodrama I was referring more to the quoted text as a whole; with all the emphasis, defining of terms, and implications that the Wings committed some unforgivalbe, unimaginable sin by deliberately not playing their best.

You're a hockey fan, I'm sure you're well aware of what I meant. I'm sure you've seen it from the Sharks, the Wings, and every other team. I'm sure you know I meant nothing even similar to way you chose to couch it in your reply.

And you can say you're not referring to the result or score, but when you're saying things like "NOT the Wings' fault" and talking about "what happened in the game" then I think what actually happened in the game is pretty relevent.

[Grypho]

By melodrama I was referring more to the quoted text as a whole; with all the emphasis, defining of terms, and implications that the Wings committed some unforgivalbe, unimaginable sin by deliberately not playing their best.

Go back and read what I wrote, as I expressly argued the opposite. It was a Wings fan that implied that this was a case of being "passive" (mental, therefore under your control, or deliberate), as opposed to lethargic (physical, as in a limitation completely apart from anything mental). It was a Wings fan who implied that lethargy was really 'passiveness', as if there was a lack of decision or commitment on the Wings' parts (overall) to play their best. I don't ever, EVER assume such a thing, and I would never even imply it, let alone say such a thing outright.

By "what happened" (in the Game) I am referring only to physical performance levels (speed, stamina, aggression, sustaining capacity, etc.,) relative to the opponent, and also relative to the Wings themselves, as compared to the Wings we saw in the series against Phoenix. Forget what you think I implied, because I am clarifying that now, for the record. Again. In other words, I am talking only about what everyone else saw, and described in different ways, regardless of their conclusions about why it "happened".

There were fans in the GDT who talked about the insult of the Wings pouring it on only at the end, for the last 5 mins. of the game. That somehow showed them that the Wings really did "have it in them" the whole time, but didn't "decide" to bring it on until the end. I absolutely disagree. I saw it as a nothing more than fast, 120% energy sprint at the end of a marathon, where you literally pour EVERY LAST THING you have left into the final stretch. What fans don't see, because the game is over, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT after you do that! IF the Wings had done that, say, in the second period, or any time prior to the last five minutes, they would have had nothing leftover, and as a result of that hypothetical stupidity, they would have opened up a shooting gallery for the Sharks - for which they would have had nothing left to defend with.

[Broken 16]

Wtf are you talking about?

Holy self indulgence... Please stop.

[Grypho]

Holy self indulgence... Please stop.

I can't. It's like eating chocolate, which I am doing right now. No will power, I can't help but shovel it by the bar into my mouth.

[MDCard]

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing.

And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

Grypho, my answer would be that i think having 9 days off should be an advantage in my opinion for the Wings...a team that has older veterans who may need that rest. As well as to have a couple of our best players recover from injury. It's not like they took the whole summer off or something. It's 9 days after an 82 game season and 4 playoff games. Babs should have had them ready and "de-rusted" for game 1. Maybe other teams would see a 9 day layoff as a disadvantage...but given the Wings situation, it should have been an advantage. I think it really is dependent on the team, injury situation, average age of players on the team etc. as to whether a 9 day lay off is an advantage or disadvantage.

Now, the Wings have lost two games. Close games. I think we were a bit better in game two, but we will need to turn it up a notch to make this a series. I expect that we will do better in game 3. If we lose, then it is looking a bit like last year. Sharks looked pretty good today cycling the puck in our zone. We made it a game at the end, but too little too late. Wings need to play with a bit more urgency for 60 mins in my opinion.

[Klunzo]

The days off should have helped this team...which it probably did with injury/illness, etc. On the other hand...the Detroit that we have learned to love has suddenly resurfaced to play 5-10 minutes of dominant hockey a game.

Whether or not the days off had anything to do with it or not, I'm not entirely sold.

[Buppy]

Go back and read what I wrote, as I expressly argued the opposite. It was a Wings fan that implied that this was a case of being "passive" (mental, therefore under your control, or deliberate), as opposed to lethargic (physical, as in a limitation completely apart from anything mental). It was a Wings fan who implied that lethargy was really 'passiveness', as if there was a lack of decision or commitment on the Wings' parts (overall) to play their best. I don't ever, EVER assume such a thing, and I would never even imply it, let alone say such a thing outright.

By "what happened" (in the Game) I am referring only to physical performance levels (speed, stamina, aggression, sustaining capacity, etc.,) relative to the opponent, and also relative to the Wings themselves, as compared to the Wings we saw in the series against Phoenix. Forget what you think I implied, because I am clarifying that now, for the record. Again. In other words, I am talking only about what everyone else saw, and described in different ways, regardless of their conclusions about why it "happened".

There were fans in the GDT who talked about the insult of the Wings pouring it on only at the end, for the last 5 mins. of the game. That somehow showed them that the Wings really did "have it in them" the whole time, but didn't "decide" to bring it on until the end. I absolutely disagree. I saw it as a nothing more than fast, 120% energy sprint at the end of a marathon, where you literally pour EVERY LAST THING you have left into the final stretch. What fans don't see, because the game is over, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT after you do that! IF the Wings had done that, say, in the second period, or any time prior to the last five minutes, they would have had nothing leftover, and as a result of that hypothetical stupidity, they would have opened up a shooting gallery for the Sharks - for which they would have had nothing left to defend with.

Wow. Ok, let me rephrase that. You implied (and still are) that being passive is some deliberate, conscious act. I know you weren't suggesting the Wings were passive, because I was the one that originally called them that. You misinterpreted that and tried to make it look as if I intended your meaning, and you're still doing it even after I tried to clarify.

I'll try again. Passive = Not aggressive. The Wings were not aggressive. Not because they chose not to be. Not because it was their strategy. Not because they lack heart or determination.

My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts.

You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks.

So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years. Long layoffs can be harmful. Just try not to be so impressed with yourself that you overlook all the other factors as well.

[Grypho]

Wow. Ok, let me rephrase that. You implied (and still are) that being passive is some deliberate, conscious act. I know you weren't suggesting the Wings were passive, because I was the one that originally called them that. You misinterpreted that and tried to make it look as if I intended your meaning, and you're still doing it even after I tried to clarify.

I'll try again. Passive = Not aggressive. The Wings were not aggressive. Not because they chose not to be. Not because it was their strategy. Not because they lack heart or determination.

My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts.

You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks.

So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years. Long layoffs can be harmful. Just try not to be so impressed with yourself that you overlook all the other factors as well.

I did misunderstand you, apologies, and I stand corrected. Where we disagree now:

My opinion is that it had a lot more to do with the Sharks coming out strong, being aggressive themselves, than anything else. Being on the road and having a lead that I'm sure was in the back of everyone's mind probably played a part. And the layoff probably had a role as well, as I've said in each of my previous posts.

You seem to believe it was all some physical inability to perform. As though the Wings were just incapable of playing with the Sharks. That not only ignores what actually happened in the game, but also does a disservice to the Sharks.

To clarify further, scratch "incapable of playing with the Sharks" entirely, and put instead (despite other factors, and having NOTHING to do with the Sharks):

It is my opinion that after nine days of time off between playoff games, the Wings were absolutely physically incapable of performing at nearly the same level they were at (relative only to themselves) just three days after they finished their sweep of the Coyotes.

Furthermore, IF the series had started three or even four days after your Game 4 against Phoenix, I would not be at all surprised if the Wings played much faster, and had far more stamina and aggression than the Sharks, regardless of the rest had by the Sharks - even to the point of being able to sweep them.

Either there is something to it or there is not. I know that you see the "rust factor" as real, and that everyone is aware of it, and that, in your mind, it "probably played a role". I am suggesting that it plays a substantial role. Not "all". Substantial. I don't think their subpar play (relative to themselves) was a result of the Sharks coming on strong. I think that if they could have matched that intensity, they more than would have.

So congratulations on 'discovering' something the rest of the hockey world has known about for 100 years.

Thank you, and full attribution would obviously be appreciated when citing my breakthrough discovery in your papers.

[RedWingsRox]

Would have been nice to get a split but we'll just have to channel the Boston Bruins from round 1. They were down 2 in their own building!