cabber24 said:
If we take players off the PK every time they're on for a goal against we're going to run out of players pretty quickly.
Game 3: Bruins @ Leafs - Apr. 15th, 7:00pm - CBC, Fan 590
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
If we take players off the PK every time they're on for a goal against we're going to run out of players pretty quickly.
cabber24 said:
I mean it's already sorta been explained. Muzzin took the penalty, he wasn't an option. Zaitsev was of course out with Muzzin at the time and checking the time sheet he was coming off a 1:29 shift, so again not an option at least to start. That leaves 4 options to start the PK: Rielly, Dermott, Hainsey, Gardiner.
Leafs had last change, and they saw Boston send out their PP2 since the Bergeron unit was out when the penalty was called. So I'm assuming the idea was send out Rielly and Dermott for the first part and then change up with Zaitsev and Hainsey when Boston's PP1 came out. He's the 5th option among Leafs defencemen to get PK time but the circumstances warranted him being out there at that time.
Also for whatever it's worth among defencemen with at least 60 minutes of PK time in the regular season Dermott had the 3rd lowest goals against per 60 minutes rate in the entire league. It's a very limited sample size and I'm sure he was mostly used in small bursts against PP2's but that's still somewhat promising.
louisstamos
Active member
cabber24 said:
Worth remembering that Dermott missed most of those games due to injury, hence why his minutes might be so low.
herman
Well-known member
Also worth remembering that Boston is a good PP team and Grzelcyk made a really nice play and Dermott was covering his proper mark but got outnumbered in the sort out. We don?t blame the defense when Matthews rips a good one top shelf. This one was a smart play and solid effort to execute the set play.
Anyone else find it a little annoying that all the news headlines claiming 'Matthews leads club to victory' and there is little mention of Johnnson who seemed to be the driving force on the line all night and set up Matthews perfectly for his goal. That finish by Johnnson on PP was unreal.
Highlander
Active member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:Good article in the Athletic on this very subject...Dermott is his best friend and told him to turn up the energy for game 3...he didgunnar36 said:
I agree 110%. Was thinking exactly the same thing when I read the tsn game story last night. The default is to interview the anointed stars even when they weren't the best player that game. No disrespect to Matthews he was good. But Mango was better.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
What is "anointed" supposed to mean here? That somehow Matthews isn't one of the stars on the team? That we only consider Matthews to be a star because experts say he is?
I mean, I get the point that you for some reason don't like that reporters will look to talk up team's better players instead of role players who have a good game but how is Matthews' stardom in any way fraudulent or the product of hype?
ZBBM
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
* unnecessary snide alert *
I mean that the media is obsessed with anointing stars to populate their overly simplistic storylines that generally revolve around a lone hero meme (X "carries the team to victory" even though in this case non-anointed Y had more to do with it and it's you know a team game anyway). It's a go-to formula that treats a hockey game more like a script proposal for the latest Marvel Comics movie franchise.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Even if that were true, Matthews is not the team's star by virtue of some sort of declaration or acclamation. He's the team's star player by virtue of being the team's best player(or however you want to rank him among their best players) which is something we see night in and night out.
Beyond that, though, I'm not really sure you understand how the media will function in any sort of setting like this. Getting media attention isn't some sort of reward a player earns by virtue of having a good game. Most players actually dislike media attention and would rather not have it. That's why, traditionally, it's seen not as a privilege but rather a responsibility of a team's leadership structure.
From the media's side of things, none of these guys are actually saying particularly interesting things and if Kapanen or Brown or whoever score a few goals it doesn't actually make for much more compelling reading if you get the same old cliches from a secondary player instead of the star. The reason that they interview people like Matthews instead of Brown isn't a commentary on their view of the game, it's in the hope that people are more interested in the bigger names and what they say about their game, good or bad. It's like how even if it's a character actor who gives the best performance in a small role in a given film, the media still tends to want to interview the star whose face is on the poster.
So, yeah, it's not a great point you're trying to make but even then you can just say "star". The media didn't choose which Leafs are the most compelling.
ZBBM
Active member
Why did you insert "yeah" in your last sentence? Affirming that you've managed to convince yourself?
I guess I cling to the quaint notion that reporters, even sports reporters, are supposed to tell us the "news," not bolster a narrative. Maybe Johnsson will dish out quotes just as anodyne as Matthews (not to mention JT, who sets the bar in that respect), but how will we ever know if they don't feature him after his big game on the big stage, when he deserves it?
In any case, the headline gunnar36 was referring to was simply wrong.
I guess I cling to the quaint notion that reporters, even sports reporters, are supposed to tell us the "news," not bolster a narrative. Maybe Johnsson will dish out quotes just as anodyne as Matthews (not to mention JT, who sets the bar in that respect), but how will we ever know if they don't feature him after his big game on the big stage, when he deserves it?
In any case, the headline gunnar36 was referring to was simply wrong.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Actually it was to indicate moving on from the digression into your sketchy understanding of how the media works back to the original point about whether Matthews receives media attention because he's sold to us as a star vs. him being a star because of all of those pesky goals he scores.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
The idea the sports media ever operated without an eye to attracting the most eyeballs isn't a quaint longing for the principles of yesteryear, it's just rewriting the history of the profession. Babe Ruth had a cadre of reporters following him around regardless of what Earle Combs or Bob Meusel did on a given day.
If Johnsson was given to saying anything remotely interesting, we'd have heard it by now. You're not seeing the editing going on. Reporters talk to players off camera, get a sense of whether they're interesting or not . Believe it or not stars saying boring things is the most interesting thing they can report on.
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
Again, headlines(which are usually an editors responsibility, not a reporter's) are and always have been about driving clicks or whatever the old-timey equivalent would be.
For instance, in the actual TSN story you referred to where Johnsson supposedly gets "little mention".
Here, he gets his own paragraph:
Then, a little while later, he gets a quote:
Here, then, are four more paragraphs on Johnsson, including quotes from Babcock and Matthews about Johnsson:
The idea that the actual article, which is where the reporting is actually going on, held up Matthews as some sort of singlular force solely responsible for the outcome just isn't true. The article is actually very good reporting that lays out a comprehensive detailing of how the game went. Matthews gets top billing as the main attraction but the idea that it fails to account for other things going on would only hold sway for people who failed to read past the headline.
Kin
New member
Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:
It's not, actually. The article makes a pretty compelling case for focusing on Matthews both for how he played and also the importance of him having a big game. I think most of us know that for the Leafs to get past Boston they need Matthews to be on his A game, something that is less true of Johnsson. Matthews did lift the Maple Leafs, his good play was a key factor in the Leafs' win. Where you're confused is that the word "lift" does not imply anything was done single-handedly.
I get that it's tough to read past a headline but it really does make for a better understanding of a story.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Especially because the focus immediately after game 2 and right up until the start of game 3 was about how poorly Matthews was playing. Which wasn't true.