Re: Kreji possibilities
posted at 5/11/2012 9:54 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Kreji possibilities
In Response to Re: Kreji possibilities : [...] 2. I don't care what Krejci did two playoffs ago. 3. I don't use "point per ice time" to measure. I use my eyeballs. [...] 5. Consistency is very important. Hey, maybe you're right. If the B's had made it to the second round, maybe Krejci would have lit it up. Too bad we'll never know because in the first round, he stunk it up.
Posted by Not-A-Shot
I edited out #1 because I'm undecided about Seguin as the #1C at this juncture, and that was the original point. I edited out #4 because I don't need to talk about coaching.
#2 - Agreed. What has he done for us lately? But I'll add this - he wasn't a one-year wonder. He was dominating the Flyers two years ago before he was injured, he had 8 points in 11 games the year before that, and he had 5 points in the 7 game series vs. Montreal that announced the Bruins had really turned a corner. His points/game is higher in the playoffs. Prior to this year, he was scoring at a 0.86 p/g pace in the playoffs vs. 0.72 in the regular season. This year brought his playoff pace down to 0.7966. Wait to rip this for #3.
#3 - This is fair enough, but tell me your eyeballs didn't see a special player against the Flyers in the last two playoffs, or a constant threat vs. the Lightning last year. I had a look at his game logs earlier because I thought it would confirm that he had a down year. It did to a degree - especially his inflated numbers against the Leafs - but it also showed that he was consistently good for more games than he was consistently invisible. It was about 60-40 in favour of games where he performed like a 100pt. scorer. Granted, he had games where he looked meh and still had points, but I remember more than one game where he was creative and active, but he walked away with nothing. You started a thread about Lucic not burying pillowy feeds after/during one of them. Maybe the impression left by his invisible games is simply stronger than the impression from good games because more is expected of a #1C?
Which brings us to #5. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines" and Billy Beane and the sabremetrics geeks who drank the moneyball kool-aid. Consistency is important but you have to be specific about what you mean by it. It's consistency of threat (for a scoring forward) rather than consistency of results. I don't know if you're better off with a guy who chugs along scoring one point in 3 of every 4 games than with a guy who drops a three point night in every fourth game. I think consistency of threat means the gaps between hot, average, and cold are smaller, and hopefully the hot streaks are longer than the cold streaks so that the overall average performance is elevated. That's where I think your eyes, like mine, would jibe with DK's game log. The cold streaks were long, dead spells. When he was good, he went long stretches with points in almost every game. When he was down, he was goose eggs for 5-6-7 games at a time. Once a year, well, that sh-- happens. Three or four times? Not acceptable.