Quote:
Originally Posted by FanIn80
For the anti-Peluso crowd: it really shouldn’t be this difficult to understand that the guy doesn’t actually need to do anything to be effective. Just the knowledge that he’s there is usually enough to prevent anything stupid from happening. You’ll still get the Matt Cookes of the world trying things, but even some of them will still pull up a little bit knowing Peluso’s around.
Literally, Peluso only has to accomplish two things in order to have a positive impact on the game:
1. Be in the lineup.
2. Not directly cost us the game.
The second one is a bit tricky, but even if he’s on the ice for a bad goal against, it’s not going to directly cost us the game unless that goal is in OT or the final minute of regulation in a tie game.
Having said everything above, and when you consider that the only coach on the planet who would put Peluso out there in 3v3 OT is Marc Crawford, I’d conclude we’re pretty safe to have Peluso in the line up from time to time.
|
Except players with zero skills can suck the offensive capabilities out of the entire line.
Remember when Chiasson played with Johnny and Monahan? The entire line suffered. because the puck always died on Chiasson's stick.
Plus, the league is very full of parity. Even the smallest differences can result in wins or losses.
Imagine a 4th line with 3 Tom Kostopulous's. He got 22 points (amazingly consistent) every year. That's 66 points coming from a 4th line.
Imagine a 4th line with 3 Peluso's. They each get 3 points a year. That's 9 points total.
In a league with parity, the team with 3 Kostopulous's can and will win a lot more games. The difference between a 92% goaltending and a 91% goaltender is huge. Same goes for the difference between a Peluso and a Jankowski.