• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

kliq

Red Wings at the Halfway Point

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That Larkin point is true. He doesn't have experience which could hurt us. But I also think that Mrazek has vastly improved this year, which could be a game changer for the team.

I too hadn't considered this, but can you imagine what this kid could do if he actually has a switch to flip? I'd be happy with him continuing his current level of play into the post season, but playoff Larkin could be truly amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyquist only played half of that season so if he scored 22.% of the total year's goals that a lot more of the team scoring than Larkin currently who has played roughly the same amount of games as the rest of the team. But I agree that the rest of the team needs to start producing

That's just a cliche - some team's have more injuries. Bergerons' broken ribs were a little more banged up in that final than the usual aches and pains of the playoffs

It's really not though. After 82 games of physical Hockey, you are not 100%.

That's fine. You can say "well it doesn't matter what the season record is - they're the complete package".

All that's being pointed out is facts and statistics for the current season. And the fact of the matter is the record between Detroit and Washington is what it is. 2 wins to Washington in OT/SO and 1 win for Detroit in regulation. It's facts and figures that's proof. What is or what could be or what happened between Boston and Detroit doesn't correlate with what happened this season with Washington/Detroit.

Going into the playoffs, hockey analysts aren't going to base their arguments off of "well let's ignore the season meetings between these two because 05/06 Detroit was number 1 and you know how that went". Instead they'll look at the season match up between Detroit and Washington and use that as an indicator. Now is that the only indicator? Obviously not. Injuries among other things could also be a determining factor.

Hockey analysts are not going to predict a series win off of what happened in the season, you cannot honestly believe that. It's not an accurate measure of anything. They can bring up the fact that Detroit beat them in the season series but they don't have to assume Washington can't win because of that.

Also the fact is Washington is better then Detroit, not sure why you are arguing that. They have better defense, offense and goaltending. Facts are in the stats and standings.

Edited by DatsyukianDekes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really not though. After 82 games of physical Hockey, you are not 100%.

Hockey analysts are not going to predict a series win off of what happened in the season, you cannot honestly believe that. It's not an accurate measure of anything. They can bring up the fact that Detroit beat them in the season series but they don't have to assume Washington can't win because of that.

Also the fact is Washington is better then Detroit, not sure why you are arguing that. They have better defense, offense and goaltending. Facts are in the stats and standings.

They always look at the season head to head matchup. It's just watch they do. They don't completely throw it to the side.

And I'm not arguing that Washington is better or worse. I'm simply stating what the head to head matchup is and statistically speaking we've given them a good challenge in the season. They've blown almost everyone else out in head to head matchups out of the top 8 eastern teams.

We were looking at who Detroit's biggest challenges will be and then mentioned who Washington's biggest challenges will be. To me out of all the teams Detroit will be Washington's biggest challenge (as I stated before 2 pages ago), regardless how big that challenge is (could be a tiny one). Detroit's biggest challenge will be any team that will rattle them as Boston did 2 years ago and most teams that have out-muscled them this year.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really not though. After 82 games of physical Hockey, you are not 100%.

Hockey analysts are not going to predict a series win off of what happened in the season, you cannot honestly believe that. It's not an accurate measure of anything. They can bring up the fact that Detroit beat them in the season series but they don't have to assume Washington can't win because of that.

Also the fact is Washington is better then Detroit, not sure why you are arguing that. They have better defense, offense and goaltending. Facts are in the stats and standings.

Washington has been at or near the top of the heap for the last few seasons and look what thats got them, f***all. They have a cream puff division so its easier to look great when you are playing crap teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington has been at or near the top of the heap for the last few seasons and look what thats got them, f***all. They have a cream puff division so its easier to look great when you are playing crap teams.

Washington hasn't had a team like they have this year, they are the complete team. I watch them a lot so I know for sure its not because you think they have a easy division that's an insult to there team.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by DatsyukianDekes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington hasn't had a team like they have this year, they are the complete team. I watch them a lot so I know for sure its not because you think they have a easy division that's an insult to there team.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll keep that quote in mind when they are upset again in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington hasn't had a team like they have this year, they are the complete team. I watch them a lot so I know for sure its not because you think they have a easy division that's an insult to there team.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree they're solid. Nobody in the league is even close to them in the standings, and everyone else has like 3 games in hand on them, too. Washington has a solid team firing on all cylinders right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you angry Washington is good or something lol ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they blow it out their ass just like the Sharks. I don't give two craps about the Caps, but they are chokers so there is really nothing to worry about with them, maybe other than getting the Presidents trophy or home ice in the first round.

Edited by Cali-Wing-Nut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. If we looked at just the second half of the season when Nyquist was in the lineup then that would be true, but when Nyquist wasn't on the active roster the Wings still had to score goals (and did). Regardless of when Nyquist was brought up or how many games he played, 78% of the goals scored that year Nyquist wasn't involved in. In other words, the Wings had demonstrated they were capable of scoring without relying on him. Now, its true that in the second half everyone was injured and Nyquist had to shoulder the load, but injuries are a different issue altogether. Right now the Wings are pretty healthy, and the heavy reliance on Larkin is still there.

But even if Nyquist was involved in 100% of the goals that year, my point still stands that isn't a good thing to have all your eggs in one basket (that's a rookie), and it sounds like we're in agreement on that aspect.

It just doesn't feel right to calculate Nyquist's percentage of the goals and not take into account the fact that he only played 57 games. Then again, Franzen, Datsyuk, and Z, Helm, Sheahan, Jurco, and Bertuzzi all played close to half the year so It would be a hard case to account for these things for scoring percentage. It was a year of injuries and call-ups so it doesn't lend itself to clear stats in this consideration. Also, perhaps it's not an issue we can seperate from injury since Z, Alfie, missed playoff games that does put more load on those remaining - and that's what we're talking about - the load on rookies.

But, yeah, we're agreeing on the same issue - relying on rookies with no playoff experience. This year we are relying on Larkin, but Tatar has just as many goals and Abby and Nyquist have 1 less. Plus Z and Pav are still there to contribute. That seems somewhat insulated from the effect of playoff inexperience. Pulkkinen could get amongst our contributors, but he would be another inexperienced in the NHL playoffs.

I stand by my original point, though: that year we had Gus, Tat, Sheahan, Jurco, Glendening, Dekeyser, Oullett(1 game) all playing in their first NHL playoff series. This year we'll have Larkin and Pulkinnen. I don't think many will count playoff inexperience as a factor as much this year as for 2013-14.

It's really not though. After 82 games of physical Hockey, you are not 100%.

Yeah, but some are 65%, some are 90%, and some are 0% because they aren't able to play. Some are playing with bone shards in their ankle some might just have bruises. GMRWings had a thread a while ago comparing team's success and man games lost and showing how much it correlates. In these days of parity, levels of injury will matter more and more for success. If you're team's captan plays less than half the games and is just coming back from back surgery that's going to be a hit to your team. Alfie (a 18 goal scorer for us that year) also missed games and was dealing with injuries. The Bruins were pretty healthy and had no major players missing from their lineup. From a health standpoint, they had the advantage. I know some don't want to acknowledge injuries, call it an excuse, and have the "suck it up" attitude, but that's not a realist view. To say " but everyone is banged up at that point of the year" just glosses over those considerations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just doesn't feel right to calculate Nyquist's percentage of the goals and not take into account the fact that he only played 57 games. Then again, Franzen, Datsyuk, and Z, Helm, Sheahan, Jurco, and Bertuzzi all played close to half the year so It would be a hard case to account for these things for scoring percentage. It was a year of injuries and call-ups so it doesn't lend itself to clear stats in this consideration. Also, perhaps it's not an issue we can seperate from injury since Z, Alfie, missed playoff games that does put more load on those remaining - and that's what we're talking about - the load on rookies.

But, yeah, we're agreeing on the same issue - relying on rookies with no playoff experience. This year we are relying on Larkin, but Tatar has just as many goals and Abby and Nyquist have 1 less. Plus Z and Pav are still there to contribute. That seems somewhat insulated from the effect of playoff inexperience. Pulkkinen could get amongst our contributors, but he would be another inexperienced in the NHL playoffs.

I stand by my original point, though: that year we had Gus, Tat, Sheahan, Jurco, Glendening, Dekeyser, Oullett(1 game) all playing in their first NHL playoff series. This year we'll have Larkin and Pulkinnen. I don't think many will count playoff inexperience as a factor as much this year as for 2013-14.

Yeah, but some are 65%, some are 90%, and some are 0% because they aren't able to play. Some are playing with bone shards in their ankle some might just have bruises. GMRWings had a thread a while ago comparing team's success and man games lost and showing how much it correlates. In these days of parity, levels of injury will matter more and more for success. If you're team's captan plays less than half the games and is just coming back from back surgery that's going to be a hit to your team. Alfie (a 18 goal scorer for us that year) also missed games and was dealing with injuries. The Bruins were pretty healthy and had no major players missing from their lineup. From a health standpoint, they had the advantage. I know some don't want to acknowledge injuries, call it an excuse, and have the "suck it up" attitude, but that's not a realist view. To say " but everyone is banged up at that point of the year" just glosses over those considerations.

They are still not 100% is what I'm saying. We don't know the raw data but let's not us use that as an excuse for why we lost to Boston. We got absolutely destroyed, and our small guys didn't play too good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are still not 100% is what I'm saying. We don't know the raw data but let's not us use that as an excuse for why we lost to Boston. We got absolutely destroyed, and our small guys didn't play too good.

There's some very straight forward raw data we do know: Z missed 3 games and Alfie missed 2 games due to injury. Who from the Bruins missed games? None that I can see. The only players who didn't play their full 12 playoff games that year were prospects (Mezaros, Kevin Miller) and were most likely scratched

Excuse vs. Explanation is the difference of view point we have. I don't get why many don't want to look at injury as a consideration. I assume you think having Z is a good thing. If yes, not having him might have made us a worse team and played a part in us losing.

Why do most people think the Habs have sunk in the standings? Should we not consider their lack of Price?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some very straight forward raw data we do know: Z missed 3 games and Alfie missed 2 games due to injury. Who from the Bruins missed games? None that I can see. The only players who didn't play their full 12 playoff games that year were prospects (Mezaros, Kevin Miller) and were most likely scratched

Excuse vs. Explanation is the difference of view point we have. I don't get why many don't want to look at injury as a consideration. I assume you think having Z is a good thing. If yes, not having him might have made us a worse team and played a part in us losing.

Why do most people think the Habs have sunk in the standings? Should we not consider their lack of Price?

Zetterberg was the best player that year (yes even better than Datsyuk). Missing him that season was a big part of why we were so s***** and barely got into the playoffs - let alone suck the entire series. Datsyuk showed up for the playoffs (as in he was our MVP) but that still was not enough. Having a healthy Z wuda been nice. Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean is - missing your best player is worse than just some bruises that players get in the playoffs. Your best players win you games and they drive everyone to victory.

This is why I think at the halfway point - Larkin being our MVP - has to continue to shine and continue his play well into the playoffs (hopefully). Or we won't be getting far. (Also Mrazek will be key)

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just doesn't feel right to calculate Nyquist's percentage of the goals and not take into account the fact that he only played 57 games. Then again, Franzen, Datsyuk, and Z, Helm, Sheahan, Jurco, and Bertuzzi all played close to half the year so It would be a hard case to account for these things for scoring percentage. It was a year of injuries and call-ups so it doesn't lend itself to clear stats in this consideration. Also, perhaps it's not an issue we can seperate from injury since Z, Alfie, missed playoff games that does put more load on those remaining - and that's what we're talking about - the load on rookies.

Factoring in how many games Nyquist played and the points he collected in those games is a good way to compare individual productivity relative to another individual, and in this case the numbers clearly show Nyquist was way more productive per game during that span than Larkin is now, or anyone else for that matter from a couple years back. But my point wasn't to compare overall individual productivity, but rather how much each individual player contributes to overall team productivity, and if we are to accurately measure the productivity of the entire team we have to use goals scored for the entire season. Neglecting part of the season means neglecting a percentage of the goals scored by Wings that year and doesn't accurately depict what the team as a whole is capable of. When Nyquist was playing, many other Wings were injured and thus out of the lineup, so it inaccurately depicts the distribution of scoring on the team and in this case heavily skews it toward Nyquist and away from injured players like Zetterberg and Alfredson (which means the numbers would be interpreted as saying Zetterberg and Alfredson don't contribute to the offense of the team, which is an obvious falacy. Back when they were healthy they were scoring plenty. So using the whole season helps balance that out because everyone who is capable of contributing over an 82 game season usually will at some point). That's not to say that Nyquist wasn't super productive, or even that he wasnt responsible for the bulk of scoring in that span when he was playing (because he was), but we can't make the leap and say that any success the Wings had was due to Nyquist year round, regardless of injuries or any other factors. In other words the Wings were able to rely on others at other points of the season, so it implies they were at least built to not be a one trick pony. Injuries, however, messed that up and we got a first round beating out of it as a result.

But that's why I went with comparing individual points with team goals over the entire season instead of just during one point in the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some very straight forward raw data we do know: Z missed 3 games and Alfie missed 2 games due to injury. Who from the Bruins missed games? None that I can see. The only players who didn't play their full 12 playoff games that year were prospects (Mezaros, Kevin Miller) and were most likely scratched

Excuse vs. Explanation is the difference of view point we have. I don't get why many don't want to look at injury as a consideration. I assume you think having Z is a good thing. If yes, not having him might have made us a worse team and played a part in us losing.

Why do most people think the Habs have sunk in the standings? Should we not consider their lack of Price?

Boston was the better team, we weren't beating them with the team we had even with injured Zetterberg playing in the other 3 games, they are a bad matchup for us. I don't get what is so hard to understand. If both teams were 100% healthy, Boston was still the better team. I get being a homer/bias but come on, other teams are in fact better then the Wings. We don't win every playoff matchup.

You cannot evaluate who was injured or not either, just because Alfie and Z missed games and the Bruins didn't doesn't mean they weren't injured.

Edited by DatsyukianDekes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston was the better team, we weren't beating them with the team we had even with injured Zetterberg playing in the other 3 games, they are a bad matchup for us. I don't get what is so hard to understand. If both teams were 100% healthy, Boston was still the better team. I get being a homer/bias but come on, other teams are in fact better then the Wings. We don't win every playoff matchup.

You cannot evaluate who was injured or not either, just because Alfie and Z missed games and the Bruins didn't doesn't mean they weren't injured.

I was talking about why they were better. If you look at my original posts I was mostly talking about the playoff inexperience of our rookies that year. And, yes, I thought injuries were a factor that made us worse. I like looking in depth at the individual factors. You can call me a homer or question my ability to understand your stance if you want, but I'm not arguing that if we had Z we would have beat them - This is all in the context of discussing the current team. Somebody brought up then 13-14 playoffs and I shared my reasons why I thought we lost (or why we weren't as good as the Bruins) and why I think our current team is in a better position to do with those factors.

Then you jumped on the injury comment and now we're sidetracked in this discussion. If we have 2 of our top 6 out of the lineup and they have none, we are more injured in most people's view, I would think. You're arguing against the fact that having top 6 players out of your lineup hurts your team? Nowhere have I said that just because the Bruins "didn't doesn't mean they weren't injured." injured is not a yes or no question to me. It's levels of injuries - I have do doubt that everyone is somewhat injured at playoff time (to paraphrase the initial cliche), but that has no bearing on my point. We had players missing and some other significant injuries that players were dealing with that year. I'm not claiming it's the only reason we lost, but to look at the whole picture you have to consider it.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some very straight forward raw data we do know: Z missed 3 games and Alfie missed 2 games due to injury. Who from the Bruins missed games? None that I can see. The only players who didn't play their full 12 playoff games that year were prospects (Mezaros, Kevin Miller) and were most likely scratched

Excuse vs. Explanation is the difference of view point we have. I don't get why many don't want to look at injury as a consideration. I assume you think having Z is a good thing. If yes, not having him might have made us a worse team and played a part in us losing.

Why do most people think the Habs have sunk in the standings? Should we not consider their lack of Price?

Excellent point. It is very frustrating when a person is trying to figure out what went wrong, and someone throws "Don't make excuses" at you. In 2015 if you are not trying to analyze why you lost, then you are not going to get better. Granted, sometimes you do lose because the team you faced was simply better then you, but you have to look at every loss with an open mind, evaluate what went wrong, why it went wrong, and most importantly how can you prevent it from going wrong in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now