Does Experience Really Mean Anything?
Matt Bodenschatz | National Hockey League
May 24, 05:30 PM | Hype this story!
Throughout the week we have read and heard numerous breakdowns, previews and predictions, some of which proclaim the Penguins’ youth will prevail, and others which proclaim experience is essential.
While I can’t argue with those who predict the Red Wings will win the series — it’s far from a foregone conclusion that either team will win — I do have a bone to pick with those who suggest anything other than hockey will determine the winner.
The most common phrase I hear/read is: “You have to lose before you can win.”
What does that mean?
By my calculations, you have to win before you can win. I think that makes a little more sense.
But, assuming the saying is true, haven’t the Penguins lost a bit?
- They were knocked around and knocked out of the first round of the playoffs in five games a year ago.
- They started the 2007-08 campaign losing quite a few games and didn’t find their rhythm until late November or early December.
- They lost Marc-Andre Fluery and Sidney Crosby to long-term injuries at the beginning of the calendar year.
- And they have lost two games this post-season.
That seems like a decent amount of losing — both literally and figuratively.
Do they have to lose in the Stanley Cup Finals to eventually win?
The Tampa Bay Lightning won the Stanley Cup in 2002-03. It was their first appearance. The Colorado Avalanche won in 2000-01. It was their second appearance; the first also resulted in a win.
If losing was the first thing a team needs to do to win the Cup, shouldn’t the Ottawa Senators be in line for a victory parade after being lambasted by the Anaheim Ducks a year ago?
Then there is the ever-common, “you have to know how to win.”
How dumb is that?
As if finishing second place in the Eastern Conference didn’t prove that the Penguins know how to win, you would think their 12-2 record in the post-season would speak volumes to their “knowledge of winning.”
I also hear that, since they haven’t been to the Stanley Cup Finals, this young Penguins team doesn’t know what to expect.
What are they playing? Football? Baseball?
Last time I checked they were still playing hockey and the same set of rules applied to the game.
Are the finals more intense? Of course. More draining? For sure. Tougher mentally? Without a doubt.
But as the playoffs progress, everything ratchets up incrementally. It’s not like we’re talking about a team that was plopped into the finals after a few meaningless scrimmages.
And just this morning, I read that Detroit has won the Cup before and their previous experience makes them the favorite.
So winning the Cup in 2001-02 gives them the “favorite” position? How long does “favorite” last? The Penguins won the Cup in 1991-92. Doesn’t that mean they too should be a “favorite?”
I care not what the Red Wings have done in the past. They call it history for a reason.
If Detroit’s experience was all they needed, shouldn’t they have won a Cup in at least one of the four seasons since 2001-02?
What this series comes down to is who is playing the best hockey right now and which team is the better team right now.
I don’t care what either team did six years ago. I don’t care what either team did six months ago. And I don’t care what either team did six weeks ago.
What I care about is what these teams are doing now.
Experience means nothing. “Knowing how to win” means nothing. And “having to lose before you win” is stupid, to put it mildly.
One team will walk away from this best-of-seven series with the ultimate prize, and I’m quite certain it will be determined on the ice, not by crazy, made-up notions.
Comments
Tom
May 24, 06:56 PM
Everyone
WHY THE PENS WILL DOMINATE THE WINGS.
The Wings average five years older than the Pens. Senior citizens include Lidstrom (38), Drake (39), Draper (36), Holmstrom (35), Maltby (35), McCarty (36), Chelios (46), Rafalski (34), Hasek (43) and Osgood (35). The Pens senior citizens include Sydor (36), Gonchar (34) and Roberts (41). All of the Wings’ senior citizens start except Hasek and Maltby. Only Gonchar and at times Roberts start for the Pens. Therefore, the Wings are an older team by far and many of their most important players are aging (Osgood, Lidstrom, Holmstrom, Rafalski and McCarty).
The Wings are smaller by an average of ten pounds per player. With the exception of Kronwall, they are not a physical team. They rely upon their vaunted, but not realistic against the Pens, speed advantage.
Speed, skating: Letang, Staal, Crosby, Malkin, Hossa, Dupuis, Kennedy, Talbot and Gonchar are all extremely fast skaters and unmatched by the Wings’ fastest skaters. The Pens are a young, healthy and swift club. The Wings have fast skaters, but they barely outlasted the Preds, beat the sorry (due to injuries and health problems) Avs, and got all they could handle from the Stars.
Experience, about which I agree with Matt, is the sole advantage the Wings have, and that has now been overcome with a Pens’ 12 to 2 record in this year’s playoffs. It’s what have you done lately” Does anyone believe, for example, that
Zetterberg’s speed will overcome Gonchar or Letang or that Gill, Orpik or Letang will allow Holmstrom, Draper or Frazen (if he plays) to own the crease in front of Flower as they did to Turco. When does experience cease and old age take over?
Stats are claimed for Wing supporters, but as I previously pointed out the Pens played a far more difficult division schedule (three playoff teams besides the Pens) than the Wing’s cakewalk through Chicago, St.Louis, Columbus and Nashville (one playoff team besides the Wings). Stats are never adjusted to reflect the team’s opponent’s abilities when those stats are run up.
The Wings have not played well against aggressive, trapping defense minded teams (e.g. Ducks, Devils). They have barely been a .500 team during the second half of the season.
The Pens’ offensive attack is incomparable. The Wings have no answer for Crosby, Malkin, Hossa, Malone, Sykora, Staal, Dupuis, Laraque, Gonchar, Letang and Whitney. The Wings have only one outstanding line.
Finally, as pointed out by Scotty Bowman, the Pens’ defensive prowess began when the kid, Letang, began playing for the team. He has skills not been recognized to date. It is when paired with Letang that Whitney, Gill and, earlier, Orpik began to shine. Others have come and shone playing for the Pens, but only since Letang, an underrated player, has been playing for the Pens have they flourished as a defensive team, according to Bowman.
Finally, the worship of Lidstrom as super defender is silly. He is not the finest defender in the NHL. That honor goes to Chris Pronger. Lidstrom may be better offensively, but Pronger and his clone Letang, excell defensively. Watch Letang demonstrate, under Lidstrom’s eyes, that he is an elite player. Philadelphia scored no goals while Letang was on the ice in the entire series.
If the Pens play a fast paced, hard hitting aggressive, physical game and play the trap against the Wings’ top line, they will win regardless of matchups. Remember, the third period belongs to the young, fast, aggressive players, not older slower, tired, hurting, playoff weary big names.
PENS IN FOUR.
Dabich
May 24, 07:27 PM
I like your article, Tom, but 4??? No way, Jose!
Ashley Gallant
May 24, 11:00 PM
Tom – yeah, I can see that the Red Wings are too old to win a game…wait..
Matt Bodenschatz
May 24, 11:33 PM
Tom, I have to say that tonight, your predictions have come to haunt you. Letang got his shot on the power play and was victimized by Cleary for a shorthanded goal. Detroit out-muscles the Penguins with a more physical game, they had the quicker feet, they played the trap well, and they certainly had an extremely dominant second half of the game. They are not losing steam and they will not lose steam.
I still pick the Penguins in six, it’s going to be very, very difficult.
Tom
May 25, 02:20 PM
Matt, Well, While I agree that the Wings did not lose steam, it was, perhaps, due to the dismal Pens effort. Letang’s being beaten by Cleary ought to be looked at again, Letang kept Cleary from getting a good shot and Flower should have stopped it. The pens lost the game for several reasons:
First they failed to obtain and maintain puck possession.
Second, they did not play a physical game. The first penalty against Letang for interference set the tone. Had the same standard been applied to Kronwall, the Pens would have had six more PPs. It seems that the zebras are watching Holmstrom and Letang more closely than others.
Third, our stars (Crosby, Malkin, Hossa, Malone and Staal) have to show up. Our offense was abysmal. Nine evenhanded shots on goal????
Fourth, the Gill / Scuderi pairing is not working. Both are slow. Neither moves the puck out of the defrensive zone. Neither has the recovery ability to play against the faster Wings or Fleas (as I previously pointed out that against the Fleas they allowed seven of the Fleas’ nine goals). I do not think that pairing Scuderi with Whitney is the answer as it failed before. Perhaps Orpik / Whitney, Gonchar / Scuderi and Gill / Letang? Speed is essential in each pairing as is the ability to move the puck.
The Pens are a younger, larger and faster team. They have world class talent. They need to play up to their potential.
Tom
May 25, 02:25 PM
Ashley, We shall see how long the Wings can maintain a fast paced, physical game. I thought their best player was Kronwall (Kronvall). He was their only dominant player and far outplayed Lidstrom or Rafalski. Our only forward that can hit with him are BGL and Roberts. He absolutely destroyed Staal. I suspect that Orpik and Letang are his equal if the zebras call hitting equal.
Ashley Gallant
May 25, 04:58 PM
Sorry Tom, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think that the Red Wings are a lot better than you are giving them credit for, and I don’t think they won last night just because the Pens were so bad in the 2nd and 3rd periods.
I hope I’m wrong, though. I really, truly do – it’s been known to happen on more occasions than not :)
Commenting is closed for this article.