Champions of Nothing Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Oh, and all 10 of Bieksa's points and +18 of that +21 on the season against bottom feeders have come against: EDM (5 pts and +5) OTT (0 pts and +3) NYI (1 pts and +2) COL (2 pts and +5) TOR (2 pts and +3) In terms of points, that seems to make sense. He's have a really good season, but realistically he doesn't add near as much offensively as Ehrhoff. But for +/-, while he may have racked up his +'s against the bottom feeders, he hasn't countered it with -'s vs. playoff teams. I'd argue that any night Bieksa is an even against a top team is a successful night for him (or any other defenceman who isn't depended on for offence and plays more of a shut-down role). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 In terms of points, that seems to make sense. He's have a really good season, but realistically he doesn't add near as much offensively as Ehrhoff. But for +/-, while he may have racked up his +'s against the bottom feeders, he hasn't countered it with -'s vs. playoff teams. I'd argue that any night Bieksa is an even against a top team is a successful night for him (or any other defenceman who isn't depended on for offence and plays more of a shut-down role). People are saying he DOES add just as much offensively as Ehrhoff though......that is the point of why I posted those stats. The stats clearly show otherwise. Beating up on cellar dwelling teams while playing most of your 5 on 5 time with either the Sedin line or the Kesler line is not exactly the toughest thing in the world. Your argument should apply at least somewhat to Ehrhoff as well. I mean, many are widely suggesting that he is terrible defensively next to Bieksa, aren't they? He has been good against the top teams too. Better than Bieksa in fact, if +/- against top teams is what you want to use to gauge success defensively of course. His quality of opposition is not significantly lower than Bieksa's. A bit lower for sure, but not as much as many suggest. Also, given the other responsibilities Ehrhoff has to generate offense and keep the PP rolling, I think he does his part defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 People are saying he DOES add just as much offensively as Ehrhoff though......that is the point of why I posted those stats. The stats clearly show otherwise. Beating up on cellar dwelling teams while playing most of your 5 on 5 time with either the Sedin line or the Kesler line is not exactly the toughest thing in the world. Your argument should apply at least somewhat to Ehrhoff as well. I mean, many are widely suggesting that he is terrible defensively next to Bieksa, aren't they? He has been good against the top teams too. Better than Bieksa in fact, if +/- against top teams is what you want to use to gauge success defensively of course. His quality of opposition is not significantly lower than Bieksa's. A bit lower for sure, but not as much as many suggest. Also, given the other responsibilities Ehrhoff has to generate offense and keep the PP rolling, I think he does his part defensively. Well those people are silly. But don't make it sound like Bieksa has breezed his way to a league leading +/-. He has still had to relatively shutdown the opposition most nights. He has actually only been a minus player 3 times since the disaster game vs. CHI. And while he may have racked up some serious +'s against the bottom feeders, he also has a + rating against Detroit, Phoenix, San Jose, Dallas, Calgary and Anaheim. Minnesota and LA are the only other Western teams he is a minus player against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Well those people are silly. But don't make it sound like Bieksa has breezed his way to a league leading +/-. He has still had to relatively shutdown the opposition most nights. He has actually only been a minus player 3 times since the disaster game vs. CHI. And while he may have racked up some serious +'s against the bottom feeders, he also has a + rating against Detroit, Phoenix, San Jose, Dallas, Calgary and Anaheim. Minnesota and LA are the only other Western teams he is a minus player against. I am not trying to suggest that he has not played well this season and has not done pretty well in a shutdown role. Nor am I saying he has breezed to anything. He definitely deserves credit for his improved defensive play this season and for being a big contributor to the team's success. My stats were for all the idiots on here who want to suggest that Bieksa is somehow carrying the team all by himself though by virtue of his league leading +/- and that guys like Ehrhoff and Ballard are just riding his coattails defensively. It is just plain not true and drives me nuts. Against teams that matter, our entire D is similar in +/- and that suggests a team effort defensively against the better teams. That is a good sign for sure but let's not say it is ALL Bieksa like some of these morons want to do. Bieksa's numbers are good because of his own improved play and also because of the much better supporting cast around him. Just like it is with everyone else on the team. It also does not hurt that he has had Hamhuis as his steady partner all season long, which has undoubtedly helped him at least to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I am not trying to suggest that he has not played well this season and has not done pretty well in a shutdown role. Nor am I saying he has breezed to anything. He definitely deserves credit for his improved defensive play this season and for being a big contributor to the team's success. My stats were for all the idiots on here who want to suggest that Bieksa is somehow carrying the team all by himself though by virtue of his league leading +/- and that guys like Ehrhoff and Ballard are just riding his coattails defensively. It is just plain not true and drives me nuts. Against teams that matter, our entire D is similar in +/- and that suggests a team effort defensively against the better teams. That is a good sign for sure but let's not say it is ALL Bieksa like some of these morons want to do. Bieksa's numbers are good because of his own improved play and also because of the much better supporting cast around him. Just like it is with everyone else on the team. It also does not hurt that he has had Hamhuis as his steady partner all season long, which has undoubtedly helped him at least to some degree. Well I can't really disagree with any of that. G'night! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Well those people are silly. But don't make it sound like Bieksa has breezed his way to a league leading +/-. He has still had to relatively shutdown the opposition most nights. He has actually only been a minus player 3 times since the disaster game vs. CHI. And while he may have racked up some serious +'s against the bottom feeders, he also has a + rating against Detroit, Phoenix, San Jose, Dallas, Calgary and Anaheim. Minnesota and LA are the only other Western teams he is a minus player against. Ehrhoff is only a minus player against DET, NSH, EDM, and ANA. Not really that much different, imo. Both guys are minuse players against 3 potential playoff opponents. Sometimes good +/- numbers and shutdown D comes as a result of dominating other teams top lines OFFENSIVELY and not giving them the opportunity to generate offense themselves. Shutdown defense through dominating and aggressive offense. I think this is part of the reason we have such good +/- numbers on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Interesting evolution of a thread. At the beginning of the season it was a horde of "haters" talking about how bad Bieksa was, and how the team would be better off without him. Meanwhile, a select few of us were arguing that he wasn't nearly as bad as they all seemed to think. Fast forward five months later, and everyone is on the Bieksa bandwagon except Wally and CANUCKELION, who are arguing that Juice isn't nearly as good as everyone thinks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Ehrhoff is only a minus player against DET, NSH, EDM, and ANA. Not really that much different, imo. Both guys are minuse players against 3 potential playoff opponents. Sometimes good +/- numbers and shutdown D comes as a result of dominating other teams top lines OFFENSIVELY and not giving them the opportunity to generate offense themselves. Shutdown defense through dominating and aggressive offense. I think this is part of the reason we have such good +/- numbers on this team. Alright, I like that argument. But as I said before I wasn't trying to prove Bieksa was as good as Ehrhoff offensively. I was just trying to argue he is not as bad as everyone makes him seem offensively. Also, I just want people to acknowledge him for his defensive play. Even if they can't do that, they need to at least hold other d-men to the ridiculous standards they have when judging Bieksa. For example, CANUCKLELION said tanev or suave could easily replace Bieksa's role next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Interesting evolution of a thread. At the beginning of the season it was a horde of "haters" talking about how bad Bieksa was, and how the team would be better off without him. Meanwhile, a select few of us were arguing that he wasn't nearly as bad as they all seemed to think. Fast forward five months later, and everyone is on the Bieksa bandwagon except Wally and CANUCKELION, who are arguing that Juice isn't nearly as good as everyone thinks.... Just because I criticized his inconsistent and at times terrible play over the first 5 years of his career (and rightfully so) does not make me a hater at all. If you need to paint me that way, so be it. You make a good point about people being on the bandwagon. I, for one, have never claimed he was as terrible as many of the haters did. I have had criticisms of his play, and even with his improved play this season my previous arguments about him are still valid based on how he did play. My argument has not changed all that much other than he has played a lot better this season than he has in the past which I have given him full credit for. He still has to prove to me that: 1. He can play up to his potential in anything but a contract year, and 2. That he can play this way in the playoffs and be a net positive in a series rather than an enigmatic hot and cold type who makes costly mistakes at critical times. If he gets another contract from MG, I hope he proves #1 from day 1. I hope he proves #2 in the playoffs this year. Would anyone who actually hates him for no reason as you suggest I do ever say they hope to be proven wrong about him? No, they would just never admit they were ever proven wrong, wouldn't they? While you all suggest that there are only two people left who "hate" him, how many will there be that will resurface if he cannot prove those 2 things to them? At least I stick to my argument and do not jump back and forth based on half a season. He still has a lot to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Alright, I like that argument. But as I said before I wasn't trying to prove Bieksa was as good as Ehrhoff offensively. I was just trying to argue he is not as bad as everyone makes him seem offensively. Also, I just want people to acknowledge him for his defensive play. Even if they can't do that, they need to at least hold other d-men to the ridiculous standards they have when judging Bieksa. For example, CANUCKLELION said tanev or suave could easily replace Bieksa's role next year. I have already acknowledged his improved defensive play many times. As you can see by RUPERT's comments though, unless I agree that he is without flaw, I will never receive any credit or recognition for that fact, not that it matters to me at all. I think realistically Ballard could adequately replace Bieksa's role next season if he is not here for whatever reason. He is more similar to Bieksa's style of play than either Tanev or Sauve are plus he has the experience and has already proven he can do that role at the NHL level. Either Tanev or Sauve could make some push for a role on the D next season, but I doubt it would be in a top 4 role unless Bieksa, Ehrhoff, and Salo all leave and MG cannot replace any of them through trade or free agency. Highly unlikely, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I have already acknowledged his improved defensive play many times. As you can see by RUPERT's comments though, unless I agree that he is without flaw, I will never receive any credit or recognition for that fact, not that it matters to me at all. I think realistically Ballard could adequately replace Bieksa's role next season if he is not here for whatever reason. He is more similar to Bieksa's style of play than either Tanev or Sauve are plus he has the experience and has already proven he can do that role at the NHL level. Either Tanev or Sauve could make some push for a role on the D next season, but I doubt it would be in a top 4 role unless Bieksa, Ehrhoff, and Salo all leave and MG cannot replace any of them through trade or free agency. Highly unlikely, imo. Don't worry, I don't put you in the same category as CANUCKLELION. He is completely out to lunch. Your criticisms are fair for the most part, and like you said you haven't waivered from them all season. I may not agree with everything you say on him, but at least I can comprehend how someone could come to such a conclusion, unlike others. Personally, I just can't comprehend how a supposed fan of this team can "hate" a player to the extent that CANUCKLELION does with Bieksa. Or Sanford with Raymond. Or Tatoes with Luongo. There are many others, and it's very sad. If you are a fan of a team, you should inherently be a fan of it's players, no? I don't mean you should be blind to their flaws, which is the other extreme, but you shouldn't hate the player to the point of hoping and expecting them to fail. There have been lots of players that played for the Canucks over the years that I didn't like as players playing the roles they were supposed to play, simply because they were not good enough. You could insert a lot of forwards from the Nonis era here (Isbister, Chouinard, Bulis, ect). But I had no problem with them personally. I wanted them to do better but because they didn't, I didn't like them in their role. The only exception to this was Matt Cooke. I wish that dirty little weasel never put on a Canucks uniform. But there are obvious reasons for that hate, and neither Bieksa nor Raymond nor any other Canuck has come close to the justification that Cooke did. Anyways, that's my rant on some "fans" around here. Nothing to do with you Wally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Just because I criticized his inconsistent and at times terrible play over the first 5 years of his career (and rightfully so) does not make me a hater at all. If you need to paint me that way, so be it. Maybe you need to re-read my post. I didn't categorize you as a "hater". (Although I do believe that CANUCKELION is, and will remain so even if Juice wins the Conn Smythe) I was merely pointing how the focus of this thread has shifted away from a few defending Bieksa from the many who claimed he was terrible, to the few refuting the many that are now claiming the opposite. However, I disagree with the bracketed "rightfully so". It's true that he had some struggles in past seasons, but I maintain (and always will) that many of those problems were exacerbated by circumstances beyond his control. I also completely disagree with the "contract year" theory that is so prevalent in this thread. I know former pros personally and I don't believe it's in their makeup at all to "try less" once they have signed a new contract. I think people look at guys like Alexei Yashin, and believe that his sort of situation in common. What is more common is that players are rewarded for having career years, and are unable to duplicate their performance in subsequent years. I also firmly believe that the Kevin Bieksa we are currently watching is the real McCoy. Not the guy from past seasons that you are so afraid will be back as soon as he signs a new deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
لني Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The argument of "contract year" would hold water if the issue was of effort. Unless people believe Bieksa is trying harder this year than over the past 3. The contract year argument holds more water when discussing players that once signed tend not to put forth the same effort. Working smarter or working harder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I also find a problem with the way people are throwing around the term "contract year" as supposedly the only reason why he's playing well. What about Ehrhoff? I mean, at this point last season, like many have mentioned, his +/- was amongst league tops. But there's been an drop in his +/- this season, despite his minutes with the Sedins. Whichever way you put it, you can't argue against the fact that there's been a drop in his defensive ability as well (even before his minutes skyrocketed due to blueline injuries). This is his contract year too, should he not play to his fullest to showcase his full value, offensive and defensive? Now, before people may or may not jump on me for this post, it's not meant to be a dig at Ehrhoff. It's meant to shine the light on the fact that "contract year" is, IMO, really just a deflated, lazy way to write off how well Bieksa has improved his game. He's done what he's asked of, and so far, has passed with flying colours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The phenomenon of the "contract year" and the letdown once security is achieved is mostly subconscious and psychological. It is NOT (in most cases anyway) a conscious lack of effort by a player or them purposely not "trying as hard". It is simply a materialization of the psychological makeup of a person and what motivates them. There are many reasons why some players perform better in contract years and to others it seems to make no difference. It is highly personal and it is impossible to lump all players together one way or another. I am sure MG or any other GM pays attention to the psychological makeup and motivational triggers for ALL of their players. Gaining an understanding of which players perform better with short term contracts as opposed to long term big money deals is realistically something they would try to evaluate in preparation for contract talks. Bieksa has shown previously and this season that he can play better when in a contract year. Is he consciously choosing to do so? Probably not, but the fact is what it is and the result has so far been the same. Dismiss it if you must. It is all psychology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChaosCanucks Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The phenomenon of the "contract year" and the letdown once security is achieved is mostly subconscious and psychological. It is NOT (in most cases anyway) a conscious lack of effort by a player or them purposely not "trying as hard". It is simply a materialization of the psychological makeup of a person and what motivates them. There are many reasons why some players perform better in contract years and to others it seems to make no difference. It is highly personal and it is impossible to lump all players together one way or another. I am sure MG or any other GM pays attention to the psychological makeup and motivational triggers for ALL of their players. Gaining an understanding of which players perform better with short term contracts as opposed to long term big money deals is realistically something they would try to evaluate in preparation for contract talks. Bieksa has shown previously and this season that he can play better when in a contract year. Is he consciously choosing to do so? Probably not, but the fact is what it is and the result has so far been the same. Dismiss it if you must. It is all psychology. We're not playing scrabble here, you don't have to prove you have access to a thesaurus. Your argument summed up is... a NHL player can become significantly better by altering their state of mind. My opinion resides with that although psychological factors are important to consider, it boils down to the natural skill set of the player and the training/experience involved in building that player. We'd like to attribute psychology with performance, but more often than not it's a synonym for "Not sure what's going on". ESPECIALLY when you further claim it's a subconcious affect. Yes, a player's motivation and mental state are important, but one has to refrain from over thinking what they're thinking. Another poster here posted what I think is especially true for pro athletes - They are generally paid for career years (perhaps even a stat.outlyer) and blamed for not matching or exceeding that play. Competitive sports leagues don't work on growth projections, they have many more factors involved in determining the outcome of a player. It'd be nice to snatch a bargain player/prospect who's exceeding his previous output consistently - but that's unlikely unless he started out as a pylon. But back to the topic, with his recent play, we as fans should be happy and live the moment, support the players playing for our team and keep our eyes on the ultimate prize. Spending time debating their mental state or the "reasons" (with little or no basis for argument) on why particular players are exceeding expectations is detrimental to the fan community as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 We're not playing scrabble here, you don't have to prove you have access to a thesaurus. Your argument summed up is... a NHL player can become significantly better by altering their state of mind. My opinion resides with that although psychological factors are important to consider, it boils down to the natural skill set of the player and the training/experience involved in building that player. We'd like to attribute psychology with performance, but more often than not it's a synonym for "Not sure what's going on". ESPECIALLY when you further claim it's a subconcious affect. Yes, a player's motivation and mental state are important, but one has to refrain from over thinking what they're thinking. Another poster here posted what I think is especially true for pro athletes - They are generally paid for career years (perhaps even a stat.outlyer) and blamed for not matching or exceeding that play. Competitive sports leagues don't work on growth projections, they have many more factors involved in determining the outcome of a player. It'd be nice to snatch a bargain player/prospect who's exceeding his previous output consistently - but that's unlikely unless he started out as a pylon. But back to the topic, with his recent play, we as fans should be happy and live the moment, support the players playing for our team and keep our eyes on the ultimate prize. Spending time debating their mental state or the "reasons" (with little or no basis for argument) on why particular players are exceeding expectations is detrimental to the fan community as a whole. How I communicate and the words I use are simply what they are. No need to insult me for trying to present things in an intelligent way. A player's mental state and motivation are EXTREMELY important in the grand scheme of things. Just because you do not believe that psychology plays an important role in evaluating players does not make that true. If you want to live in the moment and not discuss these things, then why did you even bother typing a response? I mean, why not just go to the feel good threads and comment there? I am more than happy with how Bieksa is playing this season. That really is not the point of what I was saying. I suspect you already know that though and are just trying to be a dick. People are suggesting that the contract year phenomenon in sports is a conscious decision by the player to suddenly suck once they have their money. I was refuting that assumption. In effect, I was actually supporting Bieksa by doing so, stating that although he has shown himself to be one of those guys who seems to play better in contract years, that I was not trying to suggest he was doing so on purpose. EDIT: And actually, no my argument cannot be summed up as you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANUCKLELION Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 We're not playing scrabble here, you don't have to prove you have access to a thesaurus. Your argument summed up is... a NHL player can become significantly better by altering their state of mind. My opinion resides with that although psychological factors are important to consider, it boils down to the natural skill set of the player and the training/experience involved in building that player. We'd like to attribute psychology with performance, but more often than not it's a synonym for "Not sure what's going on". ESPECIALLY when you further claim it's a subconcious affect. Yes, a player's motivation and mental state are important, but one has to refrain from over thinking what they're thinking. Another poster here posted what I think is especially true for pro athletes - They are generally paid for career years (perhaps even a stat.outlyer) and blamed for not matching or exceeding that play. Competitive sports leagues don't work on growth projections, they have many more factors involved in determining the outcome of a player. It'd be nice to snatch a bargain player/prospect who's exceeding his previous output consistently - but that's unlikely unless he started out as a pylon. But back to the topic, with his recent play, we as fans should be happy and live the moment, support the players playing for our team and keep our eyes on the ultimate prize. Spending time debating their mental state or the "reasons" (with little or no basis for argument) on why particular players are exceeding expectations is detrimental to the fan community as a whole. I think it is human nature to relax a bit after achieving the ultimate goal. That goal for an individual pro athlete being... to achieve a multi year multi million $$ contract. To assume the ultimate goal is the Stanley Cup is a bit too simplistic, it is a compatible objective but is a team objective not necessarily an individual players objective. The only ultimate prize an individual can control is the level of compensation his play rewards him with. So why has BXa having his best year ever I ask? Is he bigger? nope, he is still a small NHL Dman. Is he faster? Nope speed is still not an asset that BXa possesses. Has he developed a hard accurate shot? Nope, his shot is still one of the softest, least accurate on the team. IMO the catalyst to Bxa's improved play is that it is a contract year, that and his teammates are better and thus are the 'enabler's', especially Hamhuis, of creating the scenario/mirage of Bxa actually playing better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marinated.pea Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 The phenomenon of the "contract year" and the letdown once security is achieved is mostly subconscious and psychological. It is NOT (in most cases anyway) a conscious lack of effort by a player or them purposely not "trying as hard". It is simply a materialization of the psychological makeup of a person and what motivates them. There are many reasons why some players perform better in contract years and to others it seems to make no difference. It is highly personal and it is impossible to lump all players together one way or another. I am sure MG or any other GM pays attention to the psychological makeup and motivational triggers for ALL of their players. Gaining an understanding of which players perform better with short term contracts as opposed to long term big money deals is realistically something they would try to evaluate in preparation for contract talks. Bieksa has shown previously and this season that he can play better when in a contract year. Is he consciously choosing to do so? Probably not, but the fact is what it is and the result has so far been the same. Dismiss it if you must. It is all psychology. I don't necessarily disagree with you. It's impossible to explain why things are they way they are as clear-cut black and white. However, the point in my post doesn't quite relate, nor does it seem that it disagrees with your assessment. My problem is with those who believe that Bieksa has only played well due to it being a contract year, whether it is subconscious or not. I mean, simply put, the pressure of showcasing yourself must bear down on a player at some point, however, it shouldn't take away from the fact that Bieksa's game itself has improved, due to him individually as well as other factors. I find it to be completely off-putting and lazy to attribute all of Bieksa's ongoing improvements as simply because of a contract year, and that he'll simply "revert back to poor play" once this season is over. He's found a steady role, a steady partner, and a very good defensive chemistry. There is nothing to prove that he won't play just as well if he finally stays in this consistent state. If doubters can look into the future, or alter the past so that Bieksa doesn't get sliced open twice, then I think it's easier to have a case. However, since most can't, my opinion stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
لني Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 How I communicate and the words I use are simply what they are. No need to insult me for trying to present things in an intelligent way. A player's mental state and motivation are EXTREMELY important in the grand scheme of things. Just because you do not believe that psychology plays an important role in evaluating players does not make that true. If you want to live in the moment and not discuss these things, then why did you even bother typing a response? I mean, why not just go to the feel good threads and comment there? I am more than happy with how Bieksa is playing this season. That really is not the point of what I was saying. I suspect you already know that though and are just trying to be a dick. People are suggesting that the contract year phenomenon in sports is a conscious decision by the player to suddenly suck once they have their money. I was refuting that assumption. In effect, I was actually supporting Bieksa by doing so, stating that although he has shown himself to be one of those guys who seems to play better in contract years, that I was not trying to suggest he was doing so on purpose. EDIT: And actually, no my argument cannot be summed up as you suggest. Thanks Dr. Wally. Lol WTF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.