Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Can you identify a correlation between "pizzas that you've seen" and... literally any fact-based aspect of performance?
Hockey fans key in on events
such as turnovers up the middle, lost board battles, and failed toedrags precisely because when they go bad, there might be a goal event, which is emotionally triggering.
But it is impossible to remove that emotional reaction from the non-emotional evaluation of a player's body of work, it you are evaluating based on subjective criteria (with skewed sample sizes of "your favourite team" at that)
Top players almost always find themselves in situations where failed attempts at plays are glaringly obvious. It's their original ability to make those plays, which lesser players would not attempt, that makes them highly effective.
Someone mentioned in another thread they would not want Erik Karlsson on this team because he's not a defensive-minded defenseman. The guy who at least a few days ago was literally tied with Sidney Crosby for first in the NHL in even strength scoring, and a guy who has a positive (+5) goal differential at 5v5 despite playing on a bottom feeding team with an AHL-calibre partner and poor goaltending.
Why? Because they saw some goal events againdt that made EK look bad.
Even Cale Makar would look worse without Devon Toews next to him.
Even Nathan MacKinnon has Taylor Hall style moments in games.
Whether it's Weegar, or Huberdeau, or Kadri, or Kylington, the players on this team most likely to make visually egregious plays are not the problem that needs fixing. It's just the problem you notice.
|
I was the guy who said I don't want Karlsson because he's paid 11 million to be a defenceman not a right wing.
He sucks defensively and his offensive contributions don't saw off his poor defensive plays.
He contributes to both teams when he is on the ice.