Around the NHL: 2024-2025 Season

[ska-T Chitown]

31 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I am finding it weird, but also quite amusing how quickly the Bruins fan site has turned into the same type of conversations that we have had here for years. It's a large and diverse group with many opinions but the "arguments" now are the same. Fire the GM, culture is broken, lazy country club locker room, tear it down and start over. Almost everything read here is now over there. 

Also Sweeney quoted with "players that want to be here will stay". How familiar is that!

Now the only problem for me is the Sabres aren't winning yet. The flip is missing that part of the equation. I really don't want to go looking for a 3rd team to enjoy hockey.

This gives me even more pause for all of these arguments that are cast out here. There is no way that a Bruins team that is what - 2 year removed from the best record ever? - that has not had significant roster turnover - can have "a bad culture". Am I supposed to believe that between last year (they made the playoffs easily) and this year that everything they had worked for and built just came crumbling down and now their culture is trash and they are lazy?? C'mon. I have a hard time accepting that when it is tossed out for the Sabres, but the Broons? C'mon.

I get that "bad culture" and "lazy country club locker room" are really just euphemisms for "no one is really pushing that extra little bit so they can start to reach the next level", but it is so condescending (not directing this at you, PF, if that is not clear), ill-informed, and dismissive. 

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, ska-T Chitown said:

This gives me even more pause for all of these arguments that are cast out here. There is no way that a Bruins team that is what - 2 year removed from the best record ever? - that has not had significant roster turnover - can have "a bad culture". Am I supposed to believe that between last year (they made the playoffs easily) and this year that everything they had worked for and built just came crumbling down and now their culture is trash and they are lazy?? C'mon. I have a hard time accepting that when it is tossed out for the Sabres, but the Broons? C'mon.

I get that "bad culture" and "lazy country club locker room" are really just euphemisms for "no one is really pushing that extra little bit so they can start to reach the next level", but it is so condescending (not directing this at you, PF, if that is not clear), ill-informed, and dismissive. 

It’s because most fans are the same just like the coaches and players we watch. We all have cliches and typical talking points; we all have extremely depressed and overly positive fans; we all have grievances with our ownership. It’s just sports fandom 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, ska-T Chitown said:

This gives me even more pause for all of these arguments that are cast out here. There is no way that a Bruins team that is what - 2 year removed from the best record ever? - that has not had significant roster turnover - can have "a bad culture". Am I supposed to believe that between last year (they made the playoffs easily) and this year that everything they had worked for and built just came crumbling down and now their culture is trash and they are lazy?? C'mon. I have a hard time accepting that when it is tossed out for the Sabres, but the Broons? C'mon.

I get that "bad culture" and "lazy country club locker room" are really just euphemisms for "no one is really pushing that extra little bit so they can start to reach the next level", but it is so condescending (not directing this at you, PF, if that is not clear), ill-informed, and dismissive. 

The "best culture" comes from having really good hockey players during their peak years.  Good coaching helps; but that's really at the heart of it.

[shrader]

6 hours ago, LabattBlue said:

Ovie out week to week with a leg injury. 😞

 

Too bad as he is off to a great start and 27 goals away from overtaking Gretzky. 
 

I am sure some don’t want the record broken,  but I look forward to it “possibly” happening. 

And with Matthews out, the league is missing a ton of goal scoring ability. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, thewookie1 said:

It’s because most fans are the same just like the coaches and players we watch. We all have cliches and typical talking points; we all have extremely depressed and overly positive fans; we all have grievances with our ownership. It’s just sports fandom 

Yes I think that's what it proves. Ultimately it's just about winning. If you win then everything is fine. The coach is clever, the GM made good deals, the mistakes are excused, the culture is strong and everything is wonderful. When you don't win, all those same things are some level of garbage. The switch from hero to zero can happen quickly. 

After 13 years of it though, things do get cynical quickly. Bruins fans, on the other hand, are spoiled rotten and aren't used to it so for them the sky is truly falling. 

[ska-T Chitown]

3 hours ago, Taro T said:

The "best culture" comes from having really good hockey players during their peak years.  Good coaching helps; but that's really at the heart of it.

That kinda gets at the heart of it for me. I never made it past collegiate level (wrestling ... I barely even played intramural floor hockey for the longest time), so i know it is not a 1:1 - but we were bad for a while and none of us were Chris Drury or anything like that ... but a few guys pulled out some wins and things built from there.

I don't think the issue with the Sabres is talent, but a fair amount of the time there seems to be a 'hockey IQ' problem? Like, dumb plays. Careless plays that are too risky (dangles near the blueline when there is no one behind you to back you up?) and frankly not likely to work in the NHL where the talent gap for most players is not that big. So, having the smarts and the maturity to take the safe play - or at least the less risky play - is something that seems to be missing when I watch the "bad" games.

I am sure there is a lot of room to argue that the really talented, well-coached (for a longer period of time), or physical teams are throwing the Sabres off and contributing to "dumb" plays, cuz when they are ON, they are ON, ask the Rags.

[Flashsabre]

Leafs have won 6 of 7 since Matthews has been out

[French Collection]

49 minutes ago, Flashsabre said:

Leafs have won 6 of 7 since Matthews has been out

Dressing room cancer.

[mjd1001]

20 hours ago, ska-T Chitown said:

This gives me even more pause for all of these arguments that are cast out here. There is no way that a Bruins team that is what - 2 year removed from the best record ever? - that has not had significant roster turnover - can have "a bad culture". Am I supposed to believe that between last year (they made the playoffs easily) and this year that everything they had worked for and built just came crumbling down and now their culture is trash and they are lazy?? C'mon. I have a hard time accepting that when it is tossed out for the Sabres, but the Broons? C'mon.

I get that "bad culture" and "lazy country club locker room" are really just euphemisms for "no one is really pushing that extra little bit so they can start to reach the next level", but it is so condescending (not directing this at you, PF, if that is not clear), ill-informed, and dismissive. 

Which is why many of us think 'culture' is over-rated.  Yes, if you have a TOXIC culture its bad and that is possible. But if you don't have that, then a lot of times a 'good' culture is there simply because you are winning.   I know if I'm playing on a team that is winning, or working for a company that is doing really, REALLY well, that will cover up for a lot of 'bad' things going on.   When you are losing, or your company is failing, the little things that can add up to a 'bad culture' no longer are getting swept under the rug.

[mjd1001]

14 hours ago, French Collection said:

Dressing room cancer.

Not that Matthews is a bad player at all, but its not just this year....Through his entire career, the team has actaully played better in games that he has missed than in games that he has played.

The last numbers I saw is that the team plays at a nearly 110 point pace when he doesn't play, and that is with over 60 games of a sample size. I'm not sure if that included this years numbers or not..but if it didn't then those point totals would be even higher.

Some if it is luck. Some of it is 'small sample size'. But over his career that sample size is growing and it keeps going the same way.

It could simply be without him in the lineup, maybe other guys who are 'damned good players' step up and take more of a leadership role in the room (which HE steps into when he is in the room) or other guys feel 'more free' on the ice to 'play their game' vs when Matthews is there and a lot of things are deferred to him or have to run through him?

Again, I'd much rather have him than not, but maybe his impact on the team in a posisitve way is a tad bit less in reality than his stats would make you belelive.

Edited Thursday at 06:28 PM by mjd1001

[French Collection]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

Not that Matthews is a bad player at all, but its not just this year....Through his entire career, the team has actaully played slightly better in games that he has missed than in games that he has played.

The last numbers I saw is that the team plays at a nearly 110 point pace when he doesn't play, and that is with over 60 games of a sample size. I'm not sure if that included this years numbers or not..but if it didn't then those point totals would be even higher.

Some if it is luck. Some of it is 'small sample size'. But over his career that sample size is growing and it keeps going the same way.

It could simply be without him in the lineup, maybe other guys who are 'damned good players' step up and take more of a leadership role in the room (which HE steps into when he is in the room) or other guys feel 'more free' on the ice to 'play their game' vs when Matthews is there and a lot of things are deferred to him or have to run through him?

Again, I'd much rather have him than not, but maybe his impact on the team in a posisitve way is a tad bit less in reality than his stats would make you belelive.

I know I am biased towards hating the Leafs and especially Matthews but he always gave me the “me first and $$$ vibe”. Turning pro in Europe vs CHL or NCAA. More goals than assists every year while playing C. Not finding that extra gear in the playoffs, when you’re playing for the crest and the pay checks are not coming. Being a part of taking Tavares’ C, not that I like Tavares but he has 1 year left and has been a good soldier.

[shrader]

I just heard a Sharks' reporter on XM refer to Craig Rivet as "a broadcasting icon in Buffalo".🤢

[Weave]

28 minutes ago, shrader said:

I just heard a Sharks' reporter on XM refer to Craig Rivet as "a broadcasting icon in Buffalo".🤢

I think he might be the only person to refer to Rivet as “iconic” outside of his mother, maybe.

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, French Collection said:

I know I am biased towards hating the Leafs and especially Matthews but he always gave me the “me first and $$$ vibe”. Turning pro in Europe vs CHL or NCAA. More goals than assists every year while playing C. Not finding that extra gear in the playoffs, when you’re playing for the crest and the pay checks are not coming. Being a part of taking Tavares’ C, not that I like Tavares but he has 1 year left and has been a good soldier.

Statistics aren't always giving you 100% of the story, but they can paint a pretty good picture.  As far as playoff production goes:

Draisaitl:  23% MORE points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season.

McDavid: 4% MORE points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season (and that regular season total is very high to start with)

McKinnon:  12% MORE points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season

Kucherov:  6% LESS points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season.

 

Matthews: 24% LESS points per game in the playoffs than in the regular season. And its not just points. Goals scored is down 35% in the playoffs vs the regular season.

 

Add to that the fact that his team, over 60+ games, has a better record (point percentage) when he doesn't play vs when he does play...and you have yourself a VERY talented, very good player that has something major missing.

Edited Thursday at 08:22 PM by mjd1001

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, French Collection said:

I know I am biased towards hating the Leafs and especially Matthews but he always gave me the “me first and $$$ vibe”. Turning pro in Europe vs CHL or NCAA. More goals than assists every year while playing C. Not finding that extra gear in the playoffs, when you’re playing for the crest and the pay checks are not coming. Being a part of taking Tavares’ C, not that I like Tavares but he has 1 year left and has been a good soldier.

More goals than assists every year as a negative? I do see the bias you mentioned considering TT haha

As for talk of Matthews “missing” something intangible: that’s absurd 

Edited Thursday at 08:58 PM by Thorner

[ska-T Chitown]

31 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Add to that the fact that his team, over 60+ games, has a better record (point percentage) when he doesn't play vs when he does play...and you have yourself a VERY talented, very good player that has something major missing.

No science here, but the "loaves do better without Matthews" because they are a more balanced team without him? If their general strategy is "get the puck to 34", they may pass up otherwise good opportunities for themselves? Perhaps, in their enthusiasm for Matthews, they pass up better chances believing his superior skills are more likely to score. Without him, they perhaps take their own shots and cash in at a slightly better rate? It could be that other players are more "locked in" knowing they don't have St. Matthews to carry them? 

As someone pointed out, he has more goals than assists (Ovie, anyone?) - so perhaps his supreme confidence in his high-end talents cause him to shoot a little more often when he should actually pass, so when he is out of the lineup that pass is made and maybe they are better chances and convert at better rates?

I'd be really interested in their GPG/for and GPG/against with him in vs out of the lineup ... but not enough to actually try to google it myself, lol

[Thorner]

Just now, ska-T Chitown said:

No science here, but the "loaves do better without Matthews" because they are a more balanced team without him? If their general strategy is "get the puck to 34", they may pass up otherwise good opportunities for themselves? Perhaps, in their enthusiasm for Matthews, they pass up better chances believing his superior skills are more likely to score. Without him, they perhaps take their own shots and cash in at a slightly better rate? It could be that other players are more "locked in" knowing they don't have St. Matthews to carry them? 

As someone pointed out, he has more goals than assists (Ovie, anyone?) - so perhaps his supreme confidence in his high-end talents cause him to shoot a little more often when he should actually pass, so when he is out of the lineup that pass is made and maybe they are better chances and convert at better rates?

I'd be really interested in their GPG/for and GPG/against with him in vs out of the lineup ... but not enough to actually try to google it myself, lol

Ewing theory.

Yes, it predates Auston Matthews 

[ska-T Chitown]

Just now, Thorner said:

Ewing theory.

Yes, it predates Auston Matthews 

Like ... Patrick Ewing? Crossing sports here, eh? I just remember the Knicks as the team Jordan beat all the time, lol.

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said:

Like ... Patrick Ewing? Crossing sports here, eh? I just remember the Knicks as the team Jordan beat all the time, lol.

Often a team missing their best player elevates due to the loss of one player but the combined increase in output of the “rest.”

I’d imagine it’d be even more prominent in hockey as one player makes much less difference than in basketball 

And Mario Lemieux’s points per game dropped by 15% in the playoffs. He’s missing something! 

Good player tho. Not everyone can be the epitome of intangibles and elevated play like Jack Eichel is, for example, putting Mario to shame by INCREASING his points per game in the playoffs by 16%

Edited Thursday at 09:10 PM by Thorner

[ska-T Chitown]

12 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Often a team missing their best player elevates due to the loss of one player but the combined increase in output of the “rest.”

I’d imagine it’d be even more prominent in hockey as one player makes much less difference than in basketball 

And Mario Lemieux’s points per game dropped by 15% in the playoffs. He’s missing something! 

Good player tho. Not everyone can be the epitome of intangibles and elevated play like Jack Eichel is, for example, putting Mario to shame by INCREASING his points per game in the playoffs by 16%

It was a sad and lonely time around here without your snark, wit, and insight while you were off on a walk about (or masquerading as Idemo!!)

Because of you, I would lobby pretty hard to allow a single user to react multiple ways to a single post.

Edited Thursday at 09:20 PM by ska-T Chitown

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said:

It was a sad and lonely time around here without your snark, wit, and insight while you were off on a walk about (or masquerading as Idemo!!)

Because of you, I would lobby pretty hard to allow a single user to react multiple ways to a single post.

I don’t think I’m prepared for the amount of red X / green vomit one-two punch combos I’d find coming my way, but you are a gentleman and scholar - and I showed my mom your post. It’s going up on the fridge! 

[mjd1001]

6 minutes ago, Thorner said:

I don’t think I’m prepared for the amount of red X / green vomit one-two punch combos I’d find coming my way, but you are a gentleman and scholar - and I showed my mom your post. It’s going up on the fridge! 

There you go, gave you one immediately above in case you were missing it.

[mjd1001]

33 minutes ago, ska-T Chitown said:

No science here, but the "loaves do better without Matthews" because they are a more balanced team without him? If their general strategy is "get the puck to 34", they may pass up otherwise good opportunities for themselves? Perhaps, in their enthusiasm for Matthews, they pass up better chances believing his superior skills are more likely to score. Without him, they perhaps take their own shots and cash in at a slightly better rate? It could be that other players are more "locked in" knowing they don't have St. Matthews to carry them? 

As someone pointed out, he has more goals than assists (Ovie, anyone?) - so perhaps his supreme confidence in his high-end talents cause him to shoot a little more often when he should actually pass, so when he is out of the lineup that pass is made and maybe they are better chances and convert at better rates?

I'd be really interested in their GPG/for and GPG/against with him in vs out of the lineup ... but not enough to actually try to google it myself, lol

Interesting article here:  https://www.hockeypatrol.com/nhl-team/toronto-maple-leafs/are-the-maple-leafs-actually-better-without-auston-matthews-the-shocking-reasons-behind-the-debate

Again, very small sample size, but they author puts up some videos and makes some points to support his point of view. 

Some items of note:

Watching Mitch Marner play without Matthews has been a revelation, to say the least. He's controlling the offense more, he's playing incredible defense (proving those critics wrong) and has been riding an 8-game point streak and leads the team with 20. Marner seems to have a bit more patience without Matthews and doesn't look like he's trying to force an extra pass or not taking shots in favor of letting Matthews score. For example, his goal against Montreal on Saturday: (embedded video) Marner took the puck into the zone and passed it to David Kampf, who patiently waited for Marner to reposition himself for the easy goal. If Matthews were in Kampf's position, Marner would have more than likely passed it, cycled around, and waited to make more passes.

Letting Matthews pass a bit more isn't a bad thing, and getting both McMann and Robertson on a hot streak can only lead to benefits, and could pay off huge come playoff time.

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Interesting article here:  https://www.hockeypatrol.com/nhl-team/toronto-maple-leafs/are-the-maple-leafs-actually-better-without-auston-matthews-the-shocking-reasons-behind-the-debate

Again, very small sample size, but they author puts up some videos and makes some points to support his point of view. 

Some items of note:

Watching Mitch Marner play without Matthews has been a revelation, to say the least. He's controlling the offense more, he's playing incredible defense (proving those critics wrong) and has been riding an 8-game point streak and leads the team with 20. Marner seems to have a bit more patience without Matthews and doesn't look like he's trying to force an extra pass or not taking shots in favor of letting Matthews score. For example, his goal against Montreal on Saturday: (embedded video) Marner took the puck into the zone and passed it to David Kampf, who patiently waited for Marner to reposition himself for the easy goal. If Matthews were in Kampf's position, Marner would have more than likely passed it, cycled around, and waited to make more passes.

Letting Matthews pass a bit more isn't a bad thing, and getting both McMann and Robertson on a hot streak can only lead to benefits, and could pay off huge come playoff time.

Good breakdown of how Ewing theory manifests 

[shrader]

1 hour ago, ska-T Chitown said:

Like ... Patrick Ewing? Crossing sports here, eh? I just remember the Knicks as the team Jordan beat all the time, lol.

JR Ewing actually😁