PDA

View Full Version : Stanley Cup Final Hangover? Not So Fast!



AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 09:40 AM
We hear a lot about the teams facing a Stanley Cup Finals hangover after competing for the cup, so I went looking to see what teams have played for the Stanley Cup in back to back years. I figured 25 years was a good enough history. That put us in 1989 with 50 different teams competing for the cup.

1991 & 1992 saw the Pittsburgh Penguins hoist the cup two years in a row.
1997 & 1998 The Detroit Redwings matched what the Penguins did.
1999 & 2000 saw the Dallas Stars win and then Lose in back to back seasons.
2000 & 2001 the Devils did the same as the Stars.
2008 & 2009 saw the Red Wings and Penguins both go back to back, each winning a cup.

While it's true that in the 5 Stanley Cup finals since 2009, no team has gone to the finals back to back, we have seen the Blackhawks, Bruins and Kings each play in 2 finals over those 5 seasons. That means only 4 teams (Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Rangers) of the last 10 to go to the Stanley Cup Finals haven't gotten back to them since, and one of them (us) hasn't had that opportunity yet.

What are these numbers? 15 of 50 teams (30%) over the past 25 years have gotten two shots at a cup if not in back to back years, then within a few years, and each of those 15 teams walked away with at least one cup win.

So it would seem that the Stanley Cup Finals Hangover is a bit of a myth. Teams good enough to compete for a Stanley Cup, win or lose, almost 1/3 of the time get back for another shot at them in short order.

Mike
08-12-2014, 09:49 AM
Great post. Complete myth. Stanley Cup winners, and finalists have told me they want nothing more than to get back there again and win. Why wouldn't you want to be part of something legendary as much as you could? Small window for these guys.

Pete
08-12-2014, 09:50 AM
We hear a lot about the teams facing a Stanley Cup Finals hangover after competing for the cup, so I went looking to see what teams have played for the Stanley Cup in back to back years. I figured 25 years was a good enough history. That put us in 1989 with 50 different teams competing for the cup.

1991 & 1992 saw the Pittsburgh Penguins hoist the cup two years in a row.
1997 & 1998 The Detroit Redwings matched what the Penguins did.
1999 & 2000 saw the Dallas Stars win and then Lose in back to back seasons.
2000 & 2001 the Devils did the same as the Stars.
2008 & 2009 saw the Red Wings and Penguins both go back to back, each winning a cup.

While it's true that in the 5 Stanley Cup finals since 2009, no team has gone to the finals back to back, we have seen the Blackhawks, Bruins and Kings each play in 2 finals over those 5 seasons. That means only 4 teams (Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Rangers) of the last 10 to go to the Stanley Cup Finals haven't gotten back to them since, and one of them (us) hasn't had that opportunity yet.

What are these numbers? 15 of 50 teams (30%) over the past 25 years have gotten two shots at a cup if not in back to back years, then within a few years, and each of those 15 teams walked away with at least one cup win.

So it would seem that the Stanley Cup Finals Hangover is a bit of a myth. Teams good enough to compete for a Stanley Cup, win or lose, almost 1/3 of the time get back for another shot at them in short order.

They key variable you're missing here is turnover rate. We lost 5 players. 4 were pretty significant roles. Not sure we filled those voids adequately. Time will tell.

CreaseCrusader91
08-12-2014, 09:57 AM
They key variable you're missing here is turnover rate. We lost 5 players. 4 were pretty significant roles. Not sure we filled those voids adequately. Time will tell.
CHI is a good example. They won and had to shed depth and it took them a few seasons to get back.

They have more star power granted, but turnover is a big thing to overcome.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 10:57 AM
They key variable you're missing here is turnover rate. We lost 5 players. 4 were pretty significant roles. Not sure we filled those voids adequately. Time will tell.

Most of these teams had turnover. That Pittsburgh team that went back to back had more turnover than we did. LA is the one team that didn't have any. Chicago had a bunch. Boston had some. Turnover isn't a deal breaker. It's how that turnover is replaced by both new players and younger players developing.

Pete
08-12-2014, 11:07 AM
Most of these teams had turnover. That Pittsburgh team that went back to back had more turnover than we did. LA is the one team that didn't have any. Chicago had a bunch. Boston had some. Turnover isn't a deal breaker. It's how that turnover is replaced by both new players and younger players developing.

I'm surprised at you, Dave.

What's that thing you always like to say? "If we're going to do this, let's do it right."

We need to know who each team lost, what their role was, how many goals did each team lose, etc. This is far to arbitrary to prove anything at all.

Slobberknocker
08-12-2014, 11:18 AM
Every team sees turnover year to year. Getting back to the finals has several variables most of which you can control, i.e. hard work, dedication and some you cannot, injuries on your squad and others as well as getting the usual breaks.

Having a good room is paramount as well. Good leadership that holds the room together and total buy in to the coaching strategy.

It really is the beauty of sports. No one gave us a shot in hell of making the finals last year judging on how our season began. Can we do it again.... I can see a scenario for that. I can also see a scenario for falling short as well.

Phil in Absentia
08-12-2014, 11:20 AM
Yes, every team sees turnover. Not every team sees 25% or more turnover. Healthy turnover rate is basically 10-15%, or 2-3 players on a 23-man roster.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 12:38 PM
I'm surprised at you, Dave.

What's that thing you always like to say? "If we're going to do this, let's do it right."

We need to know who each team lost, what their role was, how many goals did each team lose, etc. This is far to arbitrary to prove anything at all.

I don't have time to do the hours worth of research it would take to get you all the details, but I can quickly look at some guys who were on their teams the first run, but not the second.

Pittsburgh:
Hossa
Malone
Whitney
Ruutu
Laraque
Adam Hall

Chicago:
Byfuglien
Cambpell
Ladd
Madden
Niemi

Boston:
Ryder
Recchi
Kaberle
Tim Thomas

LA:
Scuderi
Penner
Richardson
Fraser

The Detroit teams that went back to back had very little turnover at all.

Slobberknocker
08-12-2014, 12:42 PM
interesting quick compilation, but on the surface i see very few what i would term ''key departures''

would you label any of the guys we lost as being irreplaceable? i have a hard time believing they are.

Phil in Absentia
08-12-2014, 12:48 PM
Malone was a top-6 forward with PIT, as was Hossa.

Byfuglien, Campbell and Ladd all played very important roles for the Hawks.

The Boston and LA losses are minimal.

Pete
08-12-2014, 12:50 PM
Folks, there are a handful of players in the NHL that aren't "replaceable". Define to me what "replaceable" is?

In October Pouliot was a healthy scratch, and he's a player I feel we are going to have a very hard time filling in his departure.

The term "replaceable" is so arbitrary and vague.

Phil in Absentia
08-12-2014, 12:55 PM
Almost every player in the NHL is "replaceable". To be replaced says nothing of whether or not your replacement is better, the same, or worse. The key here isn't to discuss who is or isn't "replaceable". It's to determine whether the replacements signed, traded for or promoted are actually improvements over what you had.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 01:01 PM
Malone was a top-6 forward with PIT, as was Hossa.

Byfuglien, Campbell and Ladd all played very important roles for the Hawks.

The Boston and LA losses are minimal.

With Boston Ryder (17p) and Recchi (14p) can be compared to Pouliot and Richards. Kaberle had 11a and of course Thomas was lights out in their cup win.

LA was definitely more minimal, but Penner and Scuderi is probably the equivalent of Pouliot and Stralman.

Pete
08-12-2014, 01:02 PM
With Boston Ryder (17p) and Recchi (14p) can be compared to Pouliot and Richards. Kaberle had 11a and of course Thomas was lights out in their cup win.

LA was definitely more minimal, but Penner and Scuderi is probably the equivalent of Pouliot and Stralman.

And in LA's case they kind of upgraded with guys like Gaby over Penner...

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 01:10 PM
Almost every player in the NHL is "replaceable". To be replaced says nothing of whether or not your replacement is better, the same, or worse. The key here isn't to discuss who is or isn't "replaceable". It's to determine whether the replacements signed, traded for or promoted are actually improvements over what you had.

Actually, the discussion here that I started was to show that the Hangover part, the short layoff between seasons, isn't always a death sentence for a Stanley Cup Finals participant. Every one of those teams had some turnover. What is important is who replaces the players that leave as well as who steps up. Having a player fill a minor role in one role and then step up and fill a more major one in a second run is also significant. It remains to be seen if someone like JT Miller for instance, not much a factor last year, could step up and contribute more.

You look at a team like LA. Slava Voynov had 1g, 2a 3p 19:30 in their first run. 2g, 7a, 9p and 23:00+ per game in their second. Martinez too increased his production and role. Tyler Toffoli, Jake Muzzin and Tanner Pearson played significant roles as well but weren't around on the first run. There was plenty of transition there, even if the actual turnover wasn't as big a deal.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 01:10 PM
And in LA's case they kind of upgraded with guys like Gaby over Penner...

Yes absolutely, but at the trade deadline. We have no clue what moves we may be able to make at that time. We will no doubt need to make some for depth, more scoring or both.

Pete
08-12-2014, 01:26 PM
Yes absolutely, but at the trade deadline. We have no clue what moves we may be able to make at that time. We will no doubt need to make some for depth, more scoring or both.

I have a bit of a clue what we can give at the deadline and I have a clue what that gets you. This is what I've been saying all summer. When your team needs role players, that's one thing. When you need a Gaborik, that's quite another, and we got our Gaborik last year is MSL. We're still short a top 9 winger, and our "best" winger might as well be a 4th line PK guy come playoff time. They don't have the assets to upgrade significantly. Unless our 2018 1st rounder is in play...

Slobberknocker
08-12-2014, 01:48 PM
i agree with you in knowing what we know now. on the surface the only guy that can fetch a decent return would be staal. this is also why i think this training camp is most important for our young nucleus. if any of these guys can take the next step it changes things dramatically. Argue whether or not if you think they can but if i just single out JT Miller I really think this is a very important camp for him.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 01:50 PM
I have a bit of a clue what we can give at the deadline and I have a clue what that gets you. This is what I've been saying all summer. When your team needs role players, that's one thing. When you need a Gaborik, that's quite another, and we got our Gaborik last year is MSL. We're still short a top 9 winger, and our "best" winger might as well be a 4th line PK guy come playoff time. They don't have the assets to upgrade significantly. Unless our 2018 1st rounder is in play...

That all depends. We'll see where we're at come the trade deadline. Some people were willing to package a Chris Kreider among others in order to get Nash when we were a contender a couple of years ago. So if we have to move Skjei, Duclair or some other prospects in order to get a necessary piece, we can explore that.

And keep in mind, LA was going no where fast before they caught lightining in a bottle with the Gaborik trade. They were at the bottom of the league in scoring as a team. We'll only need to move up from the middle of the pack (most likely). So it's not a Gaborik or an MSL we may be trying to find. It might be another 2nd tier scorer. My money's on Bobby Ryan.

Pete
08-12-2014, 01:53 PM
That all depends. We'll see where we're at come the trade deadline. Some people were willing to package a Chris Kreider among others in order to get Nash when we were a contender a couple of years ago. So if we have to move Skjei, Duclair or some other prospects in order to get a necessary piece, we can explore that.Fair point.


And keep in mind, LA was going no where fast before they caught lightining in a bottle with the Gaborik trade. They were a bottom of the league in scoring team. We'll only need to move up from the middle of the pack (most likely). So it's not a Gaborik or an MSL we'll may be trying to find. It might be another 2nd tier scorer. My money's on Bobby Ryan.LA was never built as a powerhouse scoring team, though. My bet is if Dustin Brown and Mike Richards were playing to par, that trade doesn't happen. Or Maybe it does, who knows.

I shudder at the package it'd take to get Ryan.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 02:01 PM
Fair point.

LA was never built as a powerhouse scoring team, though. My bet is if Dustin Brown and Mike Richards were playing to par, that trade doesn't happen. Or Maybe it does, who knows.

I shudder at the package it'd take to get Ryan.

As a rental from an Ottawa team that will be bottom feeding? It'll depend on who else is available, but I'm guess something like a high prospect, a more NHL ready one and a fringe NHL with some upside. So a combination like:

Duclair, J. Moore and Fast
C. Allen, Kristo and Lindberg
McIlrath, Haggerty and Fast
Skjei, Kristo and Fast

Somewhere in those ballparks.

fletch
08-12-2014, 02:15 PM
With Boston, LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I felt that those teams were largely intact and could conduct a legitimate title defense.

With the Rangers I feel like we're trying to get back to the finals with some new untested personnel added on the fly.

And, there's a big difference between talking about Detroit or LA mounting a title defense versus Tampa Bay or Carolina defending a title. Detroit and LA had a long period of sustained excellence... TB and Carolina put together great runs where everything fell into place. So just looking at the percentage of teams that had a repeat performance ignores recent history for the franchise, which would help inform how probable/improbable a follow-up performance would be.

Time will tell whether the Rangers are truly capable of a long period of sustained excellence or whether we're just capable of making inspired playoff run(s).

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 02:51 PM
With Boston, LA, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, etc. I felt that those teams were largely intact and could conduct a legitimate title defense.

With the Rangers I feel like we're trying to get back to the finals with some new untested personnel added on the fly.

And, there's a big difference between talking about Detroit or LA mounting a title defense versus Tampa Bay or Carolina defending a title. Detroit and LA had a long period of sustained excellence... TB and Carolina put together great runs where everything fell into place. So just looking at the percentage of teams that had a repeat performance ignores recent history for the franchise, which would help inform how probable/improbable a follow-up performance would be.

Time will tell whether the Rangers are truly capable of a long period of sustained excellence or whether we're just capable of making inspired playoff run(s).

I listed the guys that were on the first run for the most recent teams who weren't on the second teams. LA and Detroit were certainly the most intact, but Boston, Chicago and Pittsburgh all got back to a cup final in short order with a good amount of turnover. As far as looking at Tampa or Carolina, our recent history isn't like their's were. We got to a Conference Final, A Semi Final and the Stanley Cup Finals over the past three years. We've had turnover each of those years and managed to still be competitive in the playoffs. Of course, we don't know how this team will fair with the changes that just took place. All of it will depend on who fills the vacancies and how they do.

Pete
08-12-2014, 03:01 PM
I mean the lockout shortened year...Yea we made the second round, but that's really sugar coating it. We got past an imploding Caps team that didn't show up in game 7, and got our asses handed to us by the Bruins.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 03:58 PM
I mean the lockout shortened year...Yea we made the second round, but that's really sugar coating it. We got past an imploding Caps team that didn't show up in game 7, and got our asses handed to us by the Bruins.

Sure, but Tampa missed the playoffs, made the semi finals, won the cup, then got bounced in the first round in 5 and 6 in consecutive years.

fletch
08-12-2014, 03:58 PM
I listed the guys that were on the first run for the most recent teams who weren't on the second teams. LA and Detroit were certainly the most intact, but Boston, Chicago and Pittsburgh all got back to a cup final in short order with a good amount of turnover. As far as looking at Tampa or Carolina, our recent history isn't like their's were. We got to a Conference Final, A Semi Final and the Stanley Cup Finals over the past three years. We've had turnover each of those years and managed to still be competitive in the playoffs. Of course, we don't know how this team will fair with the changes that just took place. All of it will depend on who fills the vacancies and how they do.

Average age of Stanley Cup teams in the last 48 years in last 48 years is 27.2.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/analyzing-the-average-age-of-stanley-cup-winning-teams.aspx

Our roster's average age (by my calculations) is 27.88, with our top 9 scorers from last year plus goalie is 27.6 (a metric also used in the article, I know we lost Richards which makes us younger). So we're not as aged as I thought, but there is a real immediacy given MSL, Nash, etc. Competing and replacing on the fly is a tough balancing act, optimistic that by getting younger on our third and fourth lines we can get some fresh energy.

Phil in Absentia
08-12-2014, 04:04 PM
Average age of Stanley Cup teams in the last 48 years in last 48 years is 27.2.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/analyzing-the-average-age-of-stanley-cup-winning-teams.aspx

Our roster's average age (by my calculations) is 27.88, with our top 9 scorers from last year plus goalie is 27.6 (a metric also used in the article, I know we lost Richards which makes us younger). So we're not as aged as I thought, but there is a real immediacy given MSL, Nash, etc. Competing and replacing on the fly is a tough balancing act, optimistic that by getting younger on our third and fourth lines we can get some fresh energy.

The immediacy would come in in the context of the talent of the team versus age, I'd think. The most important pieces of this club, as it's constructed today, are on the wrong side of 30.

Pete
08-12-2014, 04:08 PM
Sure, but Tampa missed the playoffs, made the semi finals, won the cup, then got bounced in the first round in 5 and 6 in consecutive years.

I don't know what that shows. I'm talking about you referencing the 2013 year as "a trip to the conference semis". We all know what it was. IT wasn't any kind of success, by any meaning of the word. We eek'd out a first round win and got trounced. We were never really "in" it.

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 04:46 PM
I don't know what that shows. I'm talking about you referencing the 2013 year as "a trip to the conference semis". We all know what it was. IT wasn't any kind of success, by any meaning of the word. We eek'd out a first round win and got trounced. We were never really "in" it.

Well, to be fair, I was replying to someone who was contrasting our recent play to that of other cup winners recently that only got to the finals one time (Tampa, Carolina). So that was the comparison. You kind of jumped in to comment on one of the three post seasons, our weakest. It still compares favorably to Tampa, that got bounced in 5 games in the first round the season following their cup win. I'm not sure how they fared in their semi finish the year prior to their cup win.

As to what that year was, it wasn't a success by the team's standard, no. But that's precisely because the bar has been raised recently for the New York Rangers. They had a solid run in 11/12, they had a disappointing finish in 12/13 and a heck of a run last year. If we get back to the Stanley Cup Finals and lose again, I'd venture that it would be looked at now as a failure, even as last year, having the same result would be considered a success. It's all relative to your expectations.

Pete
08-12-2014, 04:48 PM
Well, to be fair, I was replying to someone who was contrasting our recent play to that of other cup winners recently that only got to the finals one time (Tampa, Carolina). So that was the comparison. You kind of jumped in to comment on one of the three post seasons, our weakest. It still compares favorably to Tampa, that got bounced in 5 games in the first round the season following their cup win. I'm not sure how they fared in their semi finish the year prior to their cup win.

As to what that year was, it wasn't a success by the team's standard, no. But that's precisely because the bar has been raised recently for the New York Rangers. They had a solid run in 11/12, they had a disappointing finish in 12/13 and a heck of a run last year. If we get back to the Stanley Cup Finals and lose again, I'd venture that it would be looked at now as a failure, even as last year, having the same result would be considered a success. It's all relative to your expectations.Oh, gotcha. I see what you mean now.

Yea, I just kind of jumped the gun. Sorry.

:cheers:

AmericanJesus
08-12-2014, 04:50 PM
Average age of Stanley Cup teams in the last 48 years in last 48 years is 27.2.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/analyzing-the-average-age-of-stanley-cup-winning-teams.aspx

Our roster's average age (by my calculations) is 27.88, with our top 9 scorers from last year plus goalie is 27.6 (a metric also used in the article, I know we lost Richards which makes us younger). So we're not as aged as I thought, but there is a real immediacy given MSL, Nash, etc. Competing and replacing on the fly is a tough balancing act, optimistic that by getting younger on our third and fourth lines we can get some fresh energy.

Well, immediacy as in 2-3 years. Nash is still at a reasonable age. MSL is pretty damn old, but he's a freak. Boyle remains to be seen. Hank still looks like he's in his prime, that shelf life is probably a few more seasons at least. What's imperative is that we continue to infuse youth. It's why I hope guys like Miller, Fast, Lindberg, etc crack the lineup over some of the older pieces we've brought in.

fletch
08-12-2014, 05:47 PM
I'd love to see the younger guys work themselves into the lineup over the next few years. But it's easier to rely on veterans on your third and fourth lines when making a Cup run - more consistent performance from players that have been there. Not to say that youth can't contribute and be an asset during a run. But there's a difference between young and inexperienced vs young and competent. We need our young players to be competent contributors if we hope to have playoff success this year.

Pete
08-12-2014, 07:11 PM
I feel like we lost in the SCF because our vets, not youth, didn't deliver.

Ranger Lothbrok
08-12-2014, 10:18 PM
Huh. I had never heard the whole "Cup hangover" thing. I had always heard the thing about having to get there and lose before you can get there and win. For me, since LA won Game 5, it's been a distinct possibility in my mind that we're back there next year. Of course that's probably just blue-colored optimism.

Slobberknocker
08-13-2014, 12:26 PM
a fair point. there are many teams in history of all sports that needed to go through the process once in order to fully understand the intensity and commitment it takes to win. Hockey is probably more intense than any other sport just from the continued physicality that must be dished out and absorbed over a potential 28 game playoff system.

One other player that really needs to take the next step this year is Krieder. If his game continues to develop, he is physical on a more consistent basis and he lowers the amount of offensive zone penalties he takes, it could go along way to covering this teams shortcomings. He achieves this on a line with Zuccs and Brass it could be a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Vodka Drunkenski
08-13-2014, 04:50 PM
IMO Pouliot's departure is going to hurt us dearly. Not only will we lose his production but I believe Brassrd and Zucchini will suffer greatly. That line just clicked, going to be hard to replicate IMO.

EdMc28
08-13-2014, 05:13 PM
IMO Pouliot's departure is going to hurt us dearly. Not only will we lose his production but I believe Brassrd and Zucchini will suffer greatly. That line just clicked, going to be hard to replicate IMO.

What do you think of the idea of slotting Nash in Pouliot's spot ? Try that as a second type line with MSL/Kreider on the top line.

Vodka Drunkenski
08-13-2014, 05:18 PM
Same body type but different games. Pouliot was a physical presence, made space with his big body for Brassard and Zucc to do their thing. Nash doesn't offer that part of the game.

AmericanJesus
08-13-2014, 08:57 PM
Same body type but different games. Pouliot was a physical presence, made space with his big body for Brassard and Zucc to do their thing. Nash doesn't offer that part of the game.

Pouliot also didn't want to hold onto the puck much. He was always looking to move the puck to the better passers and go to areas. I think Kreider fits as a replacement better.

Vodka Drunkenski
08-13-2014, 09:01 PM
Agreed, Nash isn't a front of the net, screen, deflection, rebound type of player.

Respecttheblue
08-14-2014, 12:18 AM
We hear a lot about the teams facing a Stanley Cup Finals hangover after competing for the cup, so I went looking to see what teams have played for the Stanley Cup in back to back years. I figured 25 years was a good enough history. That put us in 1989 with 50 different teams competing for the cup.

1991 & 1992 saw the Pittsburgh Penguins hoist the cup two years in a row.
1997 & 1998 The Detroit Redwings matched what the Penguins did.
1999 & 2000 saw the Dallas Stars win and then Lose in back to back seasons.
2000 & 2001 the Devils did the same as the Stars.
2008 & 2009 saw the Red Wings and Penguins both go back to back, each winning a cup.

While it's true that in the 5 Stanley Cup finals since 2009, no team has gone to the finals back to back, we have seen the Blackhawks, Bruins and Kings each play in 2 finals over those 5 seasons. That means only 4 teams (Flyers, Canucks, Devils, Rangers) of the last 10 to go to the Stanley Cup Finals haven't gotten back to them since, and one of them (us) hasn't had that opportunity yet.

What are these numbers? 15 of 50 teams (30%) over the past 25 years have gotten two shots at a cup if not in back to back years, then within a few years, and each of those 15 teams walked away with at least one cup win.

So it would seem that the Stanley Cup Finals Hangover is a bit of a myth. Teams good enough to compete for a Stanley Cup, win or lose, almost 1/3 of the time get back for another shot at them in short order.

Thanks for this.

I began to put together a thread beginning post on the Stanley Cup appearance Hangover (even for the losers) subject a while back, can't even remember if I even posted it, as it was shortly after the season ended. At the time, I felt in my gut at that time (before all the deals and steals) that a "hangover" season of some sort might be a distinct possibility. But my research was more or less came to the same conclusion as yours. The only difference, I intuitively felt is that some teams have more of that dynastic feel to them, and the one-shot wonders seem to be mostly one shot-wonders. But here we don't tend to look favorably on intuition, so I think I ditched it.

That said, I think the NYR has gone about building the teams of recent years in a somewhat more sustainable way than 1994; which gives a little hope for some longevity of the S.C. window. More to the point; I think the individuals and the way they play together (chemistry) and their faults and foibles, will play a larger role. That/that/said/said I am concerned that players like Pouliot helped make the MZA Brassard Pouls line successful, and Boyle, on his line. So, same way we missed the unique fit on this team that was Prust, or even Fedotenko, I think we stand to miss the unique fit that Pouliot was there, and to a slightly lesser extent, Boyle. Make any sense? No, I didn't think so. But YKWIM

AmericanJesus
08-14-2014, 08:06 AM
Thanks for this.

I began to put together a thread beginning post on the Stanley Cup appearance Hangover (even for the losers) subject a while back, can't even remember if I even posted it, as it was shortly after the season ended. At the time, I felt in my gut at that time (before all the deals and steals) that a "hangover" season of some sort might be a distinct possibility. But my research was more or less came to the same conclusion as yours. The only difference, I intuitively felt is that some teams have more of that dynastic feel to them, and the one-shot wonders seem to be mostly one shot-wonders. But here we don't tend to look favorably on intuition, so I think I ditched it.

That said, I think the NYR has gone about building the teams of recent years in a somewhat more sustainable way than 1994; which gives a little hope for some longevity of the S.C. window. More to the point; I think the individuals and the way they play together (chemistry) and their faults and foibles, will play a larger role. That/that/said/said I am concerned that players like Pouliot helped make the MZA Brassard Pouls line successful, and Boyle, on his line. So, same way we missed the unique fit on this team that was Prust, or even Fedotenko, I think we stand to miss the unique fit that Pouliot was there, and to a slightly lesser extent, Boyle. Make any sense? No, I didn't think so. But YKWIM

Sum greater than the parts. Absolutely. I think one thing the team's I mentioned did well was to keep what chemistry they could but also find new fits that gave similar results. The obvious one is Gaborik in LA. Columbus all but threw him away even though they were on their own playoff run. Had they held on to him LA likely doesn't win the Cup. We had a similar thing happen with MSL.

Sometimes it makes no sense, like Hossa hopping from contender to contender and watching his former team win cups after losing a world class player.

Solid cores contend when they can catch some lightning in a bottle. We will no doubt need to do some of that again.

Pete
08-14-2014, 08:23 AM
Lighting in a bottle is Eric Staal with 100 point season and Cam Ward winning a Conn Smythe.

I feel like that's where we are at. Our top 6 forward core is tier 2. Our D after our top 3 is iffy at best. We have Lundqvist, who's usually our edge.

Doesn't seem like we had a problem with depth last year. Our top 6 couldn't score.

AmericanJesus
08-14-2014, 08:29 AM
Lighting in a bottle is Eric Staal with 100 point season and Cam Ward winning a Conn Smythe.

I feel like that's where we are at. Our top 6 forward core is tier 2. Our D after our top 3 is iffy at best. We have Lundqvist, who's usually our edge.

Doesn't seem like we had a problem with depth last year. Our top 6 couldn't score.

Well through circumstance, MSL was that lightning we caught. I suspect that if we are going to win a cup we will need a similar acquisition or Nash to have a career year that carries through the post season.

Pete
08-14-2014, 09:00 AM
Well through circumstance, MSL was that lightning we caught. I suspect that if we are going to win a cup we will need a similar acquisition or Nash to have a career year that carries through the post season.

That's why Nash is so infuriating. Along with the talk about him playing well defensively. We need production. Tangible results. Not JUST effort. Moral victory is for January, not June.

Vodka Drunkenski
08-14-2014, 09:04 AM
Nash nets 40 this year

AmericanJesus
08-14-2014, 09:14 AM
That's why Nash is so infuriating. Along with the talk about him playing well defensively. We need production. Tangible results. Not JUST effort. Moral victory is for January, not June.

Absolutely. But the ability is there. He will either be embarrassed that his lack of next gear helped to cost his teammates and himself a Stanley Cup and want to do every thing he can to help rectify that or we will need to run him out of town.

Slobberknocker
08-14-2014, 09:36 AM
i think you try to slot krieder on the zucc/brass line for starters. I think his maturization, speed and physicality will help those two guys out more especially in the playoffs. This is such a big year for him.

Nash was disappointing last year for sure in the playoffs. I dont know how much of his game was impacted by his head injury or if he was just totally snake bit. Infuriating for sure.

I think MSL will be fine. The benefit of the full camp will have him finding a comfort zone and i don't think we will see the 20 game scoring drought next year.

Ba Ba Bluey
08-14-2014, 09:39 AM
Absolutely. But the ability is there. He will either be embarrassed that his lack of next gear helped to cost his teammates and himself a Stanley Cup and want to do every thing he can to help rectify that or we will need to run him out of town.

Sad part is that he hasn't really shown anything that makes me believe the former...

fletch
08-14-2014, 02:44 PM
Absolutely. But the ability is there. He will either be embarrassed that his lack of next gear helped to cost his teammates and himself a Stanley Cup and want to do every thing he can to help rectify that or we will need to run him out of town.

Nash is what he is. I wouldn't expect his playoff performance to change.

AmericanJesus
08-14-2014, 03:39 PM
Nash is what he is. I wouldn't expect his playoff performance to change.

I would disagree only because we've seen a different player at different times. We've seen him use his big frame to protect the puck in traffic and drive the net and we've seen him over handle pucks on the perimeter and get manhandled.

He undeniably has the ability to be more effective in the playoffs. What he hasn't shown is the desire.

That said, his regular season shooting percentage over his career of 12% dropped to 3.5% in the post season. Just as when a player suddenly has a 20% shooting percentage over the course of a season and puts up a ridiculous amount of goals, this drought too shouldn't be sustainable. Had he even matched his 10% shooting percentage in the regular season, he would have put up 8 goals to go along with his 7 assists. 15 points over 25 games wouldn't have been great, but those 5 extra goals very well might have been the difference in some close games.

Phil in Absentia
08-14-2014, 03:57 PM
I would disagree only because we've seen a different player at different times. We've seen him use his big frame to protect the puck in traffic and drive the net and we've seen him over handle pucks on the perimeter and get manhandled.

He undeniably has the ability to be more effective in the playoffs. What he hasn't shown is the desire.

That said, his regular season shooting percentage over his career of 12% dropped to 3.5% in the post season. Just as when a player suddenly has a 20% shooting percentage over the course of a season and puts up a ridiculous amount of goals, this drought too shouldn't be sustainable. Had he even matched his 10% shooting percentage in the regular season, he would have put up 8 goals to go along with his 7 assists. 15 points over 25 games wouldn't have been great, but those 5 extra goals very well might have been the difference in some close games.

In the regular season.

In the playoffs, in both stints, we've seen largely the exact same player.

I'm curious, what was his shooting percentage between regular and playoffs in each individual year with the Rangers in the playoffs? Also, just out of curiosity, what it was with the only year Columbus made it as well?

AmericanJesus
08-14-2014, 04:42 PM
In the regular season.

In the playoffs, in both stints, we've seen largely the exact same player.

I'm curious, what was his shooting percentage between regular and playoffs in each individual year with the Rangers in the playoffs? Also, just out of curiosity, what it was with the only year Columbus made it as well?

If only there was a website that had that information (http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8470041).

This is a conversation losing context. I said that one possibility for the Rangers to catch a similar "Lightning in a Bottle" performance like LA got with Gaborik and most cup winners need would be for Nash to play significantly better in the post season than he has. That's all. It wasn't that I expect it or thought that Nash suddenly would, just that he does have that ability.

Gaborik, for example, had 9g, 9a, 18p in 37 playoff games since the lockout (.49 PPG). He put up 14g, 8a, 22p in 26 games last year (0.85 PPG).

By contrast, Nash has 5g, 13a, 18p in 41 playoff games since the lockout (.44 PPG).

Phil in Absentia
08-14-2014, 05:00 PM
If only there was a website that had that information (http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8470041).

This is a conversation losing context. I said that one possibility for the Rangers to catch a similar "Lightning in a Bottle" performance like LA got with Gaborik and most cup winners need would be for Nash to play significantly better in the post season than he has. That's all. It wasn't that I expect it or thought that Nash suddenly would, just that he does have that ability.

Gaborik, for example, had 9g, 9a, 18p in 37 playoff games since the lockout (.49 PPG). He put up 14g, 8a, 22p in 26 games last year (0.85 PPG).

By contrast, Nash has 5g, 13a, 18p in 41 playoff games since the lockout (.44 PPG).

Understood. There's a pretty stark difference between regular season and playoffs though, including between the players you are comparing (even loosely) here.

Nash


2008-09 [CBJ] — 15.2 S% Regular Season, 7.7 S% Playoffs
2011-12 [NYR] — 11.9 S% Regular Season, 2.4 S% Playoffs
2013-14 [NYR] — 10.1 S% Regular Season, 3.6 S% Playoffs

Even if you account for the smaller sample size over number of years he's appeared, generally speaking, he shows more than a 50% drop-off in shooting percentage in every single appearance. Most certainly a negative trend, and one for a player approaching the wrong side of 30. Not exactly encouraging for that lightning in a bottle (I see what you did there, by the way) theory, unless you are assuming that any player, regardless of trend, is technically capable of the same.

This all in comparison to Gáborík:


2006-07 [MIN] — 15.3 S% RS, 16.7 S% PS
2007-08 [MIN] — 15.1 S% RS, 0.0% S% PS
2010-11 [NYR] — 11.5 S% RS, 5.0 S% PS
2011-12 [NYR] — 14.9 S% RS, 8.3 S% PS
2013-14 [LAK] — 8.9 S% RS, 17.9 S% PS

All-in-all I'd argue that the likelihood is small, if not improbable, and I'd have argued the same for Gáby prior to this past playoffs.

fletch
08-14-2014, 06:00 PM
I would disagree only because we've seen a different player at different times. We've seen him use his big frame to protect the puck in traffic and drive the net and we've seen him over handle pucks on the perimeter and get manhandled.

He undeniably has the ability to be more effective in the playoffs. What he hasn't shown is the desire.

That said, his regular season shooting percentage over his career of 12% dropped to 3.5% in the post season. Just as when a player suddenly has a 20% shooting percentage over the course of a season and puts up a ridiculous amount of goals, this drought too shouldn't be sustainable. Had he even matched his 10% shooting percentage in the regular season, he would have put up 8 goals to go along with his 7 assists. 15 points over 25 games wouldn't have been great, but those 5 extra goals very well might have been the difference in some close games.

For me it's not undeniable he can be more effective in the playoffs. Playoff hockey is different than regular season hockey, just like All-Star game hockey is different, Olympic hockey is different, etc. Some offensive moves, while effective in some formats, are ineffective in other formats. It's a helluva lot harder to be big and stickhandle to the net in the playoffs, then say, the All-Star Game. So it just may be that Nash is destined to be more productive in the regular season than the playoffs because his style of play is better suited for the regular season.

And I'm not sure how we can assess desire. Just my two cents.

Respecttheblue
08-14-2014, 10:19 PM
With a little distance now from the season, I look back and the gestalt I get from Nash is a player who in the playoffs becomes a player too aware of himself, too self-conscious, overthinking it a bit, taking too much on himself, gets in his own way a bit, and not trusting moving the puck quickly and not shooting immediately while the chance is still fresh. Wait and it's over, these goalies at this playoff level are too good if you give them time to see, position or react.

AmericanJesus
08-15-2014, 10:04 AM
With a little distance now from the season, I look back and the gestalt I get from Nash is a player who in the playoffs becomes a player too aware of himself, too self-conscious, overthinking it a bit, taking too much on himself, gets in his own way a bit, and not trusting moving the puck quickly and not shooting immediately while the chance is still fresh. Wait and it's over, these goalies at this playoff level are too good if you give them time to see, position or react.

I think this is all true. The reason I talk about determination or desire is that I think he gets his moves closed off a few times and suddenly, you see what you see, him on the perimeter. Like you said, he's thinking too much so rather than trying to still make holes for himself, he's looking for the holes more first.

He's still getting knocked off the puck playing on the outside and then he's frequently looking up at the ref as if he's waiting for a penalty to be called. Keep driving towards the net. If what worked 1 out of 10 times only works 1 out of 15 or 20, you're still going to create more than by being a perimeter player. And you'll draw more penalties doing this. In the playoffs, when you get hauled down along the boards, it doesn't often get called. When you get hauled down going to the net, it's a different story.

That style is going to hurt more. Be more demanding physically. It's also going to wear down defenders more, making it easier for you as a series wears on or for your teammates. He seemed to get some of that as the run went on. He started banging some bodies at least.

Respecttheblue
08-15-2014, 11:04 PM
I think this is all true. The reason I talk about determination or desire is that I think he gets his moves closed off a few times and suddenly, you see what you see, him on the perimeter. Like you said, he's thinking too much so rather than trying to still make holes for himself, he's looking for the holes more first.

He's still getting knocked off the puck playing on the outside and then he's frequently looking up at the ref as if he's waiting for a penalty to be called. Keep driving towards the net. If what worked 1 out of 10 times only works 1 out of 15 or 20, you're still going to create more than by being a perimeter player. And you'll draw more penalties doing this. In the playoffs, when you get hauled down along the boards, it doesn't often get called. When you get hauled down going to the net, it's a different story.

That style is going to hurt more. Be more demanding physically. It's also going to wear down defenders more, making it easier for you as a series wears on or for your teammates. He seemed to get some of that as the run went on. He started banging some bodies at least.

Yes. In a very un-BSBH way ;) I agree. (Kinda boring of me, I know :O, so I'll stop ;))

One thing I was going to add, but had to go to work before I could add on to the post was, that I do hold out a little hope that he might be able to get over himself, get over the tentativeness and hesitation that comes when the stakes get high and the bodies fly, and really play the way he could play.

I'm not sure what the chances of that happening are, but now he's got a few playoff seasons in, maybe those chances go up, just a bit.

Thayer
08-16-2014, 01:08 AM
Hopefully we'll be even better this year.