Saturday, May 5, 2012

Championships=every player in right role at right time


                                      Stop asking if the player(s) choked or lacked character.
Start asking if every player was in the right role at the right time of his career.

In the midst of disappointing playoff defeat, it's easy—if more often than not a logical fallacy—to attribute unexpected playoff losses to teams or players "choking" or "lacking character." But, more often than not, there's something else going on when a player who has previously won a championship suddenly appears to be "choking" or a team's core that isn't quite ready to win a championship just appears to have all sorts of "character" issues that cause them to "choke" or "underperform" in the postseason.


Let's look at some historical examples:
  • Prior to 1991, Mario Lemieux was considered a player who wasn't as good as Gretzky. Lemieux hadn't won a single championship, let alone multiple championships. In 1991, however, Lemieux finally got a championship team around him, and the result was two consecutive championships. Lemieux, thrown into the playoffs with no help=his team chokes and he lacks character and can't win big games.   Lemieux, in the playoffs with a supporting cast=he is full of character and the captain of a champion and a player who comes through in the clutch.  
  • Prior to Detroit's Cup victories in the nineties, Steve Yzerman and his Red Wings were considered historical underachievers.   Yet Yzerman got help in the form of a deep supporting cast, and, suddenly, the Red Wings were the elite team in the NHL.  Suddenly, Yzerman was a great leader, full of character, who helped his team win. Yet Yzerman, like Lemieux, finally got help—and when help arrived, well, so did Stevie Y as a hockey leader.
  • Wayne Gretzky won four championships as an Oiler. He remained a great player, but he never had other players, playing the right roles at the right times, to win another championship.
  • Mark Messier, considered the leader of leaders, required the right players in the right roles at the right time to win championships. When Messier was surrounded by players playing the right roles at the right times in their careers, he won. And when Messier wasn't surrounded by such players, he didn't win championships—a pattern that's held true for every Hockey Hall of Famer throughout history because hockey is a team game.


Now, let's look at some examples from this playoff season:
  • In Los Angeles, Mike Richards and Jeff Carter are complementary players who do not have to be the faces of the franchise. Suddenly, Richards is free to play the role at the NHL level he's best suited to play: stalwart second line center. Suddenly, it seems, "Dry Island" wasn't really the issue. Instead, it seems the Los Angeles Kings have players such as Richards and Carter playing the right roles—very important complementary ones—at the right time in their careers. (Philadelphia made the right move in determining these players weren't best suited to be face-of-the-franchise players, but the Kings also made the right move in slotting them in their proper roles as complementary stars.)
  • The current core of the Washington Capitals has been accused of "choking" or lacking "character" a lot in previous postseasons. Never mind facts about Alexander Ovechkin's career points-per-game average in the playoffs. Never mind that Washington has never had a true number one shutdown defenseman or true number one goalie. No, it's always about "character" or "choking." Suddenly, however, when John Carlson and Karl Alzner have matured into defensemen who can play a shutdown role (and if you think they're good now, just watch them in a couple of years), when Ovechkin's job can simply be to generate offense, when a very good goalie can stop the puck, and when Mike Green doesn't have to be a #1 defenseman but can do his thing offensively and on the power play—the Capitals look like a very, very good team because, for the first time, ever, they may actually have players in the roles they are best suited to play. (And when Alzner and Carlson get Cup rings—and they will—it won't be because they suddenly grew "character" but because they were playing the roles they were suited to play on a team that was fit to win it all. And if by some chance those players don't get rings, it won't be because they lacked character, but because they had the misfortune of playing on teams not constructed with every player playing the right role at the right time in his career.)
  • If you watched Game 3 of the Pittsburgh-Philadelphia series, you watched former Stanley Cup champions Sidney Crosby, Marc-Andre Fleury, and Kris Letang have mini-implosions that made it look those players were simply choking. If you watched, at best you thought none of those players had any composure, and, at worst, you thought they lacked character, big-time. If you looked back to when they won the Cup in 2009 (when these players, three years younger, looked like they had composure and character in spades), you'd discover that a well-conditioned Crosby beat Philadelphia with two large physical wingers on each side of him. You'd discover a defense that insulated Marc-Andre Fleury a lot better and a defense that ran eight deep, helped each other, and didn't force any one defenseman (even Gonchar) to do everything by himself—and you'd note that Crosby, Fleury, and Letang no longer had the help they'd had when the 2009 Pittsburgh team won it all.


When you look at facts, you see how silly it is to attribute playoff losses to issues of character and choking.


Throw any great player into the playoffs with no help. His team chokes. He lacks character. He can't win big games.

Surround a great player with a team that can win it all. He has lots of character. He wins the big games.

Memo: Mario Lemieux was the same player, with the same character, before 1991 and after 1992. Ditto Jaromir Jagr after 1992 (in fact, Jagr got better as a player). When Lemieux and Jagr lost, in later years, look at the goaltending they didn't get. Look at the defensive help they didn't have. They were the same players, winners and champions, but they didn't have the right help at the right time, and they only won two championships because their later teams didn't give them the right help at the right time, with every player in the right role at the right time in his career, to capture another championship.


The harsh truth: it's about the right role at the right time. So, what does that harsh truth mean for general managers who are charged with putting teams together? What does it mean for coaches? What does it mean for analysts and fans?


General managers have to figure out what roles their players are best suited to play at this point in their careers, and surround those players with the help they need to play those roles. If your superstar center needs a big wing, make sure he has one. If your stalwart defenseman happens to be smaller than average, make sure you have some body-bangers on defense who can do what he physically can't. If your goalie can make the big save at the right time but needs some help to do so, make sure your team is properly insulating him. If your team is full of emotional players who wear their hearts on their jerseys and care so much they can lose their minds, make sure you surround them with some steady-as-she-goes guys who care just as much but are by nature temperamentally a little calmer. (Memo to Pittsburgh GM Ray Shero: I think I may have stated some of the help I believe your core players need.)


Coaches need to put players in the best position to succeed. There's a reason young defensemen tend to play protected minutes—it's for the team's good, and their good. Sometimes a GM forces a coach's hand, and a coach is forced to put players in positions where they can't succeed. But coaches need to know. My center needs this winger. My goalie needs this support defensively. I can't run my top two defensemen into the ground if I want them to play at an elite level game in and game out.


For analysts and fans, it means that most "analysis" (save for silliness like players staying out until 4 AM the night before a playoff game) should not be about "character" or "choking"—because, historically, it's just rare the actual core issue has much to do with "character" and "choking." Character and choking, as it turns out, have a lot to do with players being in the wrong role at the wrong time of their careers, or being in the right role at the right time of their careers but with no help to perform that right role at the right time.


If you watched Pittsburgh's first round series with Philadelphia this spring, you saw meltdowns. Ray Shero said it wasn't about character. And I agreed with him. It was about players not having the help they needed to play the roles they were asked to play.


Right roles, right times of career, with the right help=a team that wins a Stanley Cup 


Wrong roles, wrong times of career=a team that won't win the Stanley Cup


Right role, right time of career, but no help to play that role=a team that "should" win the Cup on paper, but is never going to win the Cup


For players that have won championships before or will win championships in the future, it's all about the right roles and the wrong roles and the right help or insufficient help. This year, it's about Jaromir Jagr, at age 40, not being expected to carry a team on his back like he did in his twenties. In 2009, it's about Kris Letang, in his second year in the league, being expected to play a complementary role on the power play, but not run the power play, on a team that wins a championship. Last year, it was about John Carlson and Karl Alzner—character guys and talented players—not yet being the shutdown guys they would be a mere one year later. (Seriously, if Washington was truly going to win it all in 2011, what in the world were they thinking having two very talented but very young and inexperienced players—kids— in the role of shutdown defensemen?)


Being real forces us to admit that talk of character and choking should be dismissed as the joke it usually is, and that, instead, we should turn our attention to the real question: Do I have the right players in the right roles at the right time of their careers, surrounded by the help they need to perform those roles well, so much that my team can win a championship?


That's the only question that matters. And those meltdowns—they're often about caring, albeit "too much" or a "wrong" manifestation of caring. And they belie a greater issue: Which of these roles does this team need to address in order to capture a championship?

Injecting Some Sanity into Speculation

Two questions must be asked, and those questions aren't about the cap

For teams whose NHL seasons have ended—and even for some teams whose seasons have yet to end—speculation has already begun. Speculation about free agents staying or leaving. Speculation about trades. Speculation about the upcoming CBA and the salary cap and how that will impact which players will remain with or leave certain teams.

Let's be honest. Most of this speculation is just that: speculation. It's idle speculation at best, and, for the most part, it's not based on any real knowledge. But, by starting with the salary cap, it's fundamentally wrong. Since speculation will always happen, let's speculate by asking the two questions teams should be asking themselves when constructing a roster:

Question 1: What's our timetable?

Question 2: What do we need to achieve our timetable?

The salary cap is the framework in which these questions get asked, but, fundamentally, the salary cap is just that: the framework in which everything happens. The hockey questions must be answered within the context of the salary cap, but the above questions are the questions teams must first and foremost ask themselves when they go about constructing their rosters.

The "What's our timetable?" question is critical. Because, if you're speculating about a trade between a team in "Win now while the opportunity is available" mode and a team that "Young and developing, but we're a couple of years from being a serious Cup contender," any "responsible" speculation should acknowledge the reality of teams in different circumstances and the different needs of a developing team and a team that's built to go capture the crown, now.

Which leads, of course, to the second question teams must ask themselves—and the reality that most idle speculation is just that precisely because that particular player or proposal is not going to help each team answer question 2 affirmatively.

So, let's talk about some of this "idle" speculation. A team built to win it all, and win it all now, based on this team's most recently playoff performance, needs to improve its defensive play and special teams. A team that's young and developing has lots of skills up front but has no one on defense who is in any way comparable to their young, offensive stars.

Now suggest a trade that improves the contender's offense while diminishing its defense. Now suggest a trade that meets a "nice to have" component for the young, developing team if it were a contending team, but not a truly "transformational" piece that takes that young and developing team to a contending team.

Now explain how this proposal would make sense for either organization--neither of which would be helping themselves to meet key areas of need.

BUT THE CAP!

Yet, if a hockey organization is wise, they're looking at the first two questions, and then they're figuring out how to deal with the cap constraints. The contender is looking at the reality that offense is not a problem, but defensive play certainly is, and so are special teams. If the contender is making a wise trade while remaining in "win it all now" mode, aren't they looking to improve areas of weakness rather than add to areas of strength?

Now, let's look at the young and developing organization, already rife with elite offensive talent. If one examines this team, they'll note there's not yet an elite defenseman on the team or in the pipeline. The team, as is, could be a couple of years away from seriously contending. The team could try to go and get an elite defenseman now—which is problematic because the small number of teams in "win now" mode that possess elite defensemen are likely going to want an elite defenseman to replace the one they're giving up, and you don't have an elite defenseman to offer them in return. Or your organization could draft an elite defenseman to grow up with the offensive talent up front. But, what you probably don't want to do is give up the elite talent that you might later need to obtain an elite defenseman in a trade for a player who's not going to meet your area of deepest need.

Simply stated, speculation that's based on solely on the salary cap misses huge points. It misses that the Pittsburgh Penguins, offensively, were fine and dandy; it misses that the Pittsburgh Penguins really need to fix special teams and defense if they hope to win another Stanley Cup. It misses the reality that the Edmonton Oilers' major need—now and for the future—isn't a Selke nominee (sure that would be nice), but an elite, minute-munching defenseman who can control the game at both ends of the ice. (The Selke nominee is a secondary need, but improving the defensemen themselves is more critical and would prove far more transformational to take the team to the next level.)

It is true, of course, that hockey organizations don't always behave rationally. It's true that the salary cap—whatever it winds up being in the new CBA—will always be the framework in which the hockey questions must be asked and answered.

But, when you're speculating about a player going here or going there, Hockey Consultant would dare to suggest you think like a wise hockey organization should and ask the hockey questions.

So, the next time you're talking about free agency or a trade, remember these questions:

  • What's the timetable?
  • What is needed to achieve that timetable?

More often than not, you're going to find most speculation is just that—speculation that is not likely to play out as speculated. Simply because, as it turns out, well-run hockey teams ask the hockey questions….and then try to make trades or sign free agents that will help them achieve their goals. And, more often than not, though you have to give to get, a team is not going to be giving up a player that helps them win if that team is not getting a return in their area of deepest need.


 

The Convenient Cop-out of Character & Choking


History Lesson 1: The 1992 Chicago Blackhawks
Why cries of "No Character!" and "They choked!" are most often a fallacy

It's springtime, which means it is NHL playoff season. Which means it's time for an annual rite of spring: teams favored to win the Stanley Cup are eliminated, earlier than they were supposed to be. Teams that were built to win it all disappear in the first or second round of the playoffs. And then comes the alleged analysis—otherwise known as fans, journalists, and former players now making their living as analysts trying to figure out what went so wrong with teams favored by Vegas to win hockey's holy grail. And, almost automatically, attributions about a "lack of character" and/or "choking" arrive. For a team with so many All-Star players, with a team that won so many games so easily during the regular season, surely the only explanation for an early round playoff exit is the lack of character of said team's star players and, likewise, the inability of that team's star players to perform in the clutch.


Rather than deal with the logical fallacies of "lack of character" when it comes to players who have been proven their character many previous times in their careers and the blatant idiocy of stating that key contributors to previous championships are completely incapable of coming through in the clutch, I want to take a look at a team that broke an NHL record for most consecutive wins in one playoff season. I am not talking about the Stanley Cup champion 1992 Pittsburgh Penguins, who actually tied a playoff record first set by the team they would ultimately face in the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals, the Chicago Blackhawks.


Let's examine the highlights of the roster of the 1992 Chicago Blackhawks. (You can view the entire roster here).


Goalies: Ed Belfour, Dominik Hasek
Defensemen: Chris Chelios, Steve Smith, Igor Kravchuk
Forwards: Jeremy Roenick, Dirk Graham, Steve Larmer, Steve Thomas, Brent Sutter, Michel Goulet.

 

So, Chris Chelios won multiple Stanley Cups and Norris Trophies in his career. Did he "choke" as a member of a team that let a 3-0 lead in Game 1 slip away? Did those players who performed on championship teams all choke? And did those guys who were known for their character and grittiness for the duration of their careers lack character? Looking at other players, up and down the roster, it seems clear that the Blackhawks were an excellent hockey team, full of character players, guys who had won or would win Cups or medals, who were winners.


So what in the world happened to a team that was swept in the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals? 


The 1992 Blackhawks had to play against the 1992 Pittsburgh Penguins. The excellent Chicago team that broke the record for most consecutive wins in one playoff year earned the privilege of playing against three Hall-of-Fame centers, a Hall-of-Fame defenseman, and 4 wingers who would combine to score thousands of goals in their NHL careers. 


The Blackhawks had to play against Mario Lemieux, Ron Francis, Bryan Trottier, Jaromir Jagr, and Larry Murphy.  They had to play against Rick Tocchet and Kevin Stevens when they were in the prime of their careers as power forwards. They had to play against a hot goaltender, Tom Barrasso, in his prime. They had to play against defensive stalwarts named Samuelsson and bottom-line grinders who had come up through the system and gone through losing and learned how to win and it likely mentions reiterating: well—the offensive skill of that 1992 juggernaut Pittsburgh team speaks for itself.


Years later, Hockey Consultant still believes that 1992 Blackhawks team was the best team Jeremy Roenick ever played on. She still believes that 1992 Chicago team was the best chance Jeremy Roenick ever really had to win a Stanley Cup. (There's only one other team that's won 11 consecutive games in a single playoff year.)


Yet, what happens in hockey happens in hockey. Match-ups matter. And a team, full of character guys who had previously won Cups and many of whom would go on to win still more championships, was swept by the Pittsburgh Penguins after "choking" away a 3-0 lead in the first game of the 1992 Cup Finals.


But the Blackhawks didn't choke. Ed Belfour and Dominik Hasek didn't choke. Chris Chelios and Jeremy Roenick didn't choke. Dirk Graham, the captain of that Chicago team, cared as much as any player on the 1992 Penguins.


That Blackhawks team had the misfortune of encountering one of the best hockey teams assembled in the past quarter century, with half a roster full of players who could legitimately be considered for a place in the Hockey Hall of Fame. And the Blackhawks lost, and lost badly in close, tight games—they were swept.


Yet, if you look at the careers of the players on that Blackhawks team, you won't find players who lacked the "character" needed to win Cups or medals, and you won't find an entire team of guys with a record of "choking" (it's worth noting both those Blackhawks goalies eventually won Stanley Cups). You'll find great guys who comprised an excellent team and who played tremendously—and who just got beat by a better team— the only team, in fact, that has ever matched their record of winning 11 consecutive games in a single playoff year.


More often than not, a player who makes it to the NHL is not one with a track record of "bad" character, nor is that player one who "always chokes" during big games: most players with any of those issues simply simply don't get or manage to stay in the NHL if those are their issues. And crying "bad" character or "always chokes" of a player who's contributed to championships, well, clearly this is not a pattern of "bad" character or "choking" if that player has contributed to championship teams. More often than not, crying "no character!" and "they choked!" is a lazy, all-too-convenient cop-out for people too lazy to do actual analysis of why a team they presumed was so great ended up losing a playoff series.


Two decades later—when it's easy to analyze actual hockey because the raw emotions have dissipated and history tells us about the career trajectory of those Blackhawks and Penguins—it's simple merely to look at the video, rosters, and box scores, and come to the conclusion that the 1992 Chicago Blackhawks being swept by the Pittsburgh Penguins in the Stanley Cup final wasn't about choking or character at all.


That it was just about hockey, and one hockey team, full of character guys who had won, beating another team, also full of character guys who had won and would win still more.


So, a simple request: The next time you're prompted to scream "Character!" or "Choking!" to attribute the cause of an unexpected playoff loss, would you consider redirecting the conversation to something that's actually related to hockey, rather than—let's be honest—imaginary issues about players who—on the whole— care deeply about winning championships?