If you want to be a top line, you have to play against top lines. you can’t improve on that without getting thrown in. He’s asking for more from them.
That's true, but it is also true that if you want to be a top line, you don't have a player of Brett Ritchie's level on it. Hopefully all of the cap maneuvering that has gone on will allow them to bring another skilled RW in, because they really need one.
Truth is we don't really have a top line at the moment and just have to win as a team, and rely on our 3-4 lines to kick in with offence. Once we can get a top line established I think we're capable of a real run.
Last edited by Yobbo; 03-19-2021 at 08:47 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Yobbo For This Useful Post:
Truth is we don't really have a top line at the moment and just have to win as a team, and rely on our 3-4 lines to kick in with offence. Once we can get a top line established I think we're capable of a real run.
That's why I think bringing back Tkachuk/Backlund/Mangiapane would be ideal. We KNOW that's a top line. It's one of the best lines in the league.
__________________
Need a great deal on a new or pre-owned car? Come see me at Platinum Mitsubishi — 2720 Barlow Trail NE
The Following User Says Thank You to TheScorpion For This Useful Post:
I don't think that's completely accurate, but I'll go back and look at their shifts.
I know that on Wednesday, that line attempted just eight controlled zone entries all game. Three ended with Ritchie turnovers.
They dumped the puck in 15 times and came away with possession twice. So... if Ritchie is supposed to be the one on that line retrieving pucks, he's not doing his job at all.
Not sure that's Ritchie's job as much as being F1 and separating guys from the puck so either 13 or 23 can retrieve it and make a play with space. It kinda sorta works, just not well enough. Looch does a better job of that on his line.
He fed them to the wolves, and they got eaten alive by the wolves lol they were massacred every time they stepped foot on the ice
Not only you, but I find it strange how when describing analytical results there is often a tendency to use hyperbolic metaphors like "massacre" or "caved in" or "crushed".
Is it because analytics acolytes are worried that people won't get the meaning if they don't exaggerate?
I have no idea what Monahan's %CF was tonight, but where is the defining line of being massacred? Like is that less than 50%, or 40%, 30%? Is being caved in better or worse than being massacred? These technical terms can be confounding.
Not only you, but I find it strange how when describing analytical results there is often a tendency to use hyperbolic metaphors like "massacre" or "caved in" or "crushed".
Is it because analytics acolytes are worried that people won't get the meaning if they don't exaggerate?
I have no idea what Monahan's %CF was tonight, but where is the defining line of being massacred? Like is that less than 50%, or 40%, 30%? Is being caved in better or worse than being massacred? These technical terms can be confounding.
0G
0A
-7 combined
1 SOG combined
Massacred, caved in, crushed? You be the judge.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red For This Useful Post:
Not only you, but I find it strange how when describing analytical results there is often a tendency to use hyperbolic metaphors like "massacre" or "caved in" or "crushed".
Is it because analytics acolytes are worried that people won't get the meaning if they don't exaggerate?
I have no idea what Monahan's %CF was tonight, but where is the defining line of being massacred? Like is that less than 50%, or 40%, 30%? Is being caved in better or worse than being massacred? These technical terms can be confounding.
I usually stick to words like "dominated", "destroyed", etc.. they all mean the same thing, but the Gaudreau-Monahan-Ritchie line had one of the worst performances I've seen over the last year or so which is why I went the extra mile lol
Using your example of Monahan, the Flames were out-attempted 15-3 (16.67%), out-shot 6-1 (14.29%), out-scored 2-0, out-chanced 10-1 (9.09%) and out-high danger chanced 5-0 with him on the ice, which is why I used "massacred" because it was a truly horrible performance.
Usually, the way I look at things when it comes to analytics (obviously very general without going too much into detail or taking game context into perspective):
65%+ = pure domination
60% = phenomenal
55% = excellent
50% = average
45% = below average
40% = horrible
35% and less = pathetic
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to AustinL_NHL For This Useful Post:
