Teams that Pickup the Rotten Core

[TrueBlueGED]

A good point. My question then is this, why did all of those teams, with the same flaws DR Sabres had post Black Friday, make the same exact mistakes we did? All of the right teams, with the right holes filled (legit 1-2 centers, 1-2 d-men) didn't go near our guys

 

I just think teams get stuck without many viable alternatives. I'm sure Minnesota recognized their need for center upgrades and would have preferred to have acquired O'Reilly over Pominville, but were they supposed to spin their tires for three years in the hopes that their ideal upgrade could be had down the line? Put another way, I don't think the Wild chose Pominville over a #1 center, I think they chose Pominville over not trying to get better--and I think it was a perfectly reasonable choice. Filling the primary hole is of course the ideal, but filling the secondary holes is still better than not filling any (get your minds out of the gutter, you perverts, I'm talking about filling holes in a hockey lineup!).

 

And I also think it's important to note that teams brought in former Sabres to be additions to an already existing core, not to be the core entirely. So I really just don't agree that they made the same mistakes the Sabres did.

[WildCard]

I just think teams get stuck without many viable alternatives. I'm sure Minnesota recognized their need for center upgrades and would have preferred to have acquired O'Reilly over Pominville, but were they supposed to spin their tires for three years in the hopes that their ideal upgrade could be had down the line? Put another way, I don't think the Wild chose Pominville over a #1 center, I think they chose Pominville over not trying to get better--and I think it was a perfectly reasonable choice. Filling the primary hole is of course the ideal, but filling the secondary holes is still better than not filling any (get your minds out of the gutter, you perverts, I'm talking about filling holes in a hockey lineup!).

 

And I also think it's important to note that teams brought in former Sabres to be additions to an already existing core, not to be the core entirely. So I really just don't agree that they made the same mistakes the Sabres did.

There are other teams that had the same needs, such as wingers or a offensive-defense man, and they chose different routes. 

 

True, they were brought into an existing core. But they were/are certainly big parts of those cores, and so make-up the core. Being the core entirely would mean taking all of them to a new team and starting fresh, which of course couldn't happen. 

[TrueBlueGED]

There are other teams that had the same needs, such as wingers or a offensive-defense man, and they chose different routes. 

 

True, they were brought into an existing core. But they were/are certainly big parts of those cores, and so make-up the core. Being the core entirely would mean taking all of them to a new team and starting fresh, which of course couldn't happen. 

 

Well the argument seems to be that adding pieces of the old core is, by default, a mistake. I just can't get to that point. You don't want Vanek/Pommer/Myers to be the best players at their respective positions on a team, but the acquiring teams weren't in that situation--they had better players across the board. At best the Sabres' old core was being added piecemeal elsewhere as peripheral core pieces. If they can't even be peripheral core, what are they? 3rd liners? I flat out reject that position--60 point forwards, regardless of how much failure we associate them with here, are more than spare parts.

[WildCard]

Well the argument seems to be that adding pieces of the old core is, by default, a mistake. I just can't get to that point. You don't want Vanek/Pommer/Myers to be the best players at their respective positions on a team, but the acquiring teams weren't in that situation--they had better players across the board. At best the Sabres' old core was being added piecemeal elsewhere as peripheral core pieces. If they can't even be peripheral core, what are they? 3rd liners? I flat out reject that position--60 point forwards, regardless of how much failure we associate them with here, are more than spare parts.

They took majorly flawed players and put them in major roles. The only team that has worked out so far was Nashville, where Goose is in a minor role

[TrueBlueGED]

They took majorly flawed players and put them in major roles. The only team that has worked out so far was Nashville, where Goose is in a minor role

 

But again, what roles are these players supposed to play in the NHL? Vanek has been a high end offensive player who doesn't play much defense--is there really no room for that in a top-6 group? And what is Pominville's major flaw, other than he's on the wrong side of 30? Dude's been a consistent 60-point forward who plays a quality defensive game. Myers...well, yea, but they got rid of Bogosian in that deal!

Edited February 18, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[WildCard]

But again, what roles are these players supposed to play in the NHL? Vanek has been a high end offensive player who doesn't play much defense--is there really no room for that in a top-6 group? And what is Pominville's major flaw, other than he's on the wrong side of 30? Dude's been a consistent 60-point forward who plays a quality defensive game. Myers...well, yea, but they got rid of Bogosian in that deal!

They belong in those roles, sure. But bringing in years of failures and habitual losing/listless play is a mistake. And every one of those players comes with that mark

[TrueBlueGED]

They belong in those roles, sure. But bringing in years of failures and habitual losing/listless play is a mistake. And every one of those players comes with that mark

 

And this is where we agree to disagree. I just don't believe in any of that sort of thing :)

[WildCard]

And this is where we agree to disagree. I just don't believe in any of that sort of thing :)

Damn stats man to the bone  :lol:

 

So what do you think of the Capitals' addition of Justin Williams? 

[TrueBlueGED]

Damn stats man to the bone  :lol:

 

So what do you think of the Capitals' addition of Justin Williams? 

 

Dreamy  :wub:

 

After all, in the season predictions thread the Caps were my Cup pick. Williams and Oshie were such good moves for them.

[WildCard]

Dreamy  :wub:

 

After all, in the season predictions thread the Caps were my Cup pick. Williams and Oshie were such good moves for them.

But his winning ways, clutch play, doesn't come into play here in your evaluation of him? 

[TrueBlueGED]

But his winning ways, clutch play, doesn't come into play here in your evaluation of him? 

 

Nope. His analytics were off the charts good and he came at a bargain price on short term. Perfect. He could have come from Edmonton and my opinion would not have been changed at all.

[WildCard]

Nope. His analytics were off the charts good and he came at a bargain price on short term. Perfect. He could have come from Edmonton and my opinion would not have been changed at all.

Not sure we'll ever agree on this then. I think winning ways and clutch play are invaluable.

[TrueBlueGED]

Not sure we'll ever agree on this then. I think winning ways and clutch play are invaluable.

 

There is no agreement to be had :lol:

 

I think emphasizing winning (a team achievement) causes people to underrate good players on bad teams and overrate bad-average players on good teams. And as far as clutch play goes, I think there's a giant wall between clutch performance and clutch ability. The former surely exists, but it is usually confused for the latter (which I think is nearly impossible to actually observe), and I think the latter is simply a different way of saying "good player." I probably have a half dozen diatribes on this, which I'd be happy to link if I wasn't below replacement level with the search function.

[WildCard]

There is no agreement to be had :lol:

 

I think emphasizing winning (a team achievement) causes people to underrate good players on bad teams and overrate bad-average players on good teams. And as far as clutch play goes, I think there's a giant wall between clutch performance and clutch ability. The former surely exists, but it is usually confused for the latter (which I think is nearly impossible to actually observe), and I think the latter is simply a different way of saying "good player." I probably have a half dozen diatribes on this, which I'd be happy to link if I wasn't below replacement level with the search function.

You really don't think clutch ability exists? That the same players just happen to repeat clutch performances again and again? 

[TrueBlueGED]

You really don't think clutch ability exists? That the same players just happen to repeat clutch performances again and again? 

 

I leave open the possibility it exists (people do handle stress differently, after all). I reject the notion we can readily observe it for what it's claimed to be. 

 

Toews and Kane are known to be clutch, yet their postseason performances are statistically indistinguishable from their regular season performances. How can we say they're clutch? Aren't they just great? They're great because they're great, and they're clutch because they're great; they're not great because they're clutch. That's how I view the causal chain. 

 

How many non-great players repeat clutch performances? Guys like Bickell go on a tear for a playoff run, get labeled as clutch performers, and morph into salary cap albatrosses because they can't repeat it. If "clutch" actually meant "clutch ability" then shouldn't it be repeatable, even for lesser players? How many great players repeatedly fail in the clutch often enough where you can conclude it's not just bad timing on a slump?

[WildCard]

I leave open the possibility it exists (people do handle stress differently, after all). I reject the notion we can readily observe it for what it's claimed to be. 

 

Toews and Kane are known to be clutch, yet their postseason performances are statistically indistinguishable from their regular season performances. How can we say they're clutch? Aren't they just great? They're great because they're great, and they're clutch because they're great; they're not great because they're clutch. That's how I view the causal chain. 

 

How many non-great players repeat clutch performances? Guys like Bickell go on a tear for a playoff run, get labeled as clutch performers, and morph into salary cap albatrosses because they can't repeat it. If "clutch" actually meant "clutch ability" then shouldn't it be repeatable, even for lesser players? How many great players repeatedly fail in the clutch often enough where you can conclude it's not just bad timing on a slump?

The counter to that of course is, how many great players don't show up in clutch moments, repeatedly? If I gather you right, you want to say that clutch isn't really an aspect, but rather the failure of a great player in big moments to play as they usually would? How many times does that failure have to be repeated until we can say that that player doesn't show up in big moments, instead of just writing it off as a fluke?

Edited February 18, 2016 by WildCard

[TrueBlueGED]

The counter to that of course is, how many great players don't show up in clutch moments, repeatedly? If I gather you right, you want to say that clutch isn't really an aspect, but rather the failure of a great player in big moments to play as they usually would? How many times does that failure have to be repeated until we can say that that player doesn't show up in big moments, instead of just writing it off as a fluke?

 

To the first, that's precisely my point. I don't think that's even remotely common. If 90% of great players show up in clutch moments, are we really so sure that they're clutch, or just great players doing what they do all the time? Speaking to your second question, maybe performing "when it counts" isn't actually a positive trait so much as lack of a negative trait. So the standard expectation would be performing in key moments the same as one does in "regular" situations--I don't think there's anything special about meeting this expectation. I get the sense that most people do think there's something special about it. Even if a player performs better in the playoffs than the regular season (I don't think this happens often, but Briere comes to mind as someone who did this)...is that a sign of being clutch, or is it simply that player giving lower than 100% effort the rest of the time?

 

As to your last question, although fair, I don't have a particularly good answer for it beyond "a lot." Which is, of course, a bad answer. I think the real answer lies in a number that is almost certainly larger than a quantity we would actually observe. After all, even players like Kane and Toews who go on long playoff runs seemingly yearly, still have over 5x the number of regular season games played as they do playoff games. I'm not sure I could reasonably get to the point where I'm comfortable weighing 1/5 or 1/10 of a player's games played more heavily than the other 80-90% for the purpose of evaluating their psyche. And this is all without even getting into a debate over whether situations are truly dichotomously clutch or not clutch, and whether the impact of pressure situations is linear or has a strong impact early on and the impact lessens as the player is exposed to it more frequently, and so on.

[Eleven]

To the first, that's precisely my point. I don't think that's even remotely common. If 90% of great players show up in clutch moments, are we really so sure that they're clutch, or just great players doing what they do all the time? Speaking to your second question, maybe performing "when it counts" isn't actually a positive trait so much as lack of a negative trait. So the standard expectation would be performing in key moments the same as one does in "regular" situations--I don't think there's anything special about meeting this expectation. I get the sense that most people do think there's something special about it. Even if a player performs better in the playoffs than the regular season (I don't think this happens often, but Briere comes to mind as someone who did this)...is that a sign of being clutch, or is it simply that player giving lower than 100% effort the rest of the time?

 

As to your last question, although fair, I don't have a particularly good answer for it beyond "a lot." Which is, of course, a bad answer. I think the real answer lies in a number that is almost certainly larger than a quantity we would actually observe. After all, even players like Kane and Toews who go on long playoff runs seemingly yearly, still have over 5x the number of regular season games played as they do playoff games. I'm not sure I could reasonably get to the point where I'm comfortable weighing 1/5 or 1/10 of a player's games played more heavily than the other 80-90% for the purpose of evaluating their psyche. And this is all without even getting into a debate over whether situations are truly dichotomously clutch or not clutch, and whether the impact of pressure situations is linear or has a strong impact early on and the impact lessens as the player is exposed to it more frequently, and so on.

 

I think some social scientist addressed this and came up with some evidence of what I will call clutchiness.

[TrueBlueGED]

I think some social scientist addressed this and came up with some evidence of what I will call clutchiness.

 

You dirty tease, you.

[Eleven]

You dirty tease, you.

 

Just google "clutch" on bing and I'm sure you'll find something.

[TrueBlueGED]

Just google "clutch" on bing and I'm sure you'll find something.

 

:unsure:  ;)  :P

[Norcal]

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/montreal-canadiens-legend-guy-lafleur-blames-max-pacioretty-thomas-vanek-for-failure-to-reach-final

 

 

 

 

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/2014/05/21/dustin_tokarski_to_start_in_goal_again_for_canadiens_in_game_3_of_eastern_conference_final.html

 

Haha sounds like the perfect nickname

[Eleven]

:unsure:  ;)  :P

 

If you search for bing on yahoo it has directions.

Haha sounds like the perfect nickname

 

Yeah, someone here came up w/ it too:  http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/16760-thomas-vanish/

[TrueBlueGED]

If you search for bing on yahoo it has directions.

Well played :lol:

[nfreeman]

As for the clutchness argument:  I think it's important to consider that regular-season games and playoff games -- especially the later rounds -- are not an apples-to-apples comparison.  Everyone's intensity is dialed up in the playoffs and the talent/coaching/productivity of the opposition is higher -- i.e. the conditions are simply more challenging.  I think there are quite a few players (like, for example, the failed core that is the subject of the OP) that are able to produce when the opposition is at a certain level, but not when the opposition is at a higher level.