Frank E said:
I hope you excuse the rant Frank but I wanted to write a bit about Anaheim and how "surprising they've been this year and you've given me a good jump-off point".
For most of the season we've gone along with how shocking it was that Anaheim was bad and I've generally agreed with it. After all, we saw Anaheim go deep into the playoffs last year and lots of people in the media predicted them to be good this year. I, sort of without thinking, parroted that and chose Anaheim as my prediction to finish second in the west.
The problem is, I didn't really base that on anything other than Anaheim looking pretty good in the handful of playoff games I saw last year. Did the stats bear it out? Here's how the Ducks last year ranked in various traditioal categories:
GF: 11th
GA: 11th
PP: 28th
PK: 15th
Goal differential: 16th(+10)
Digging into traditional numbers, it's really hard to see what everyone was so excited about. Their top scorer, Getzlaf, had 70 points. Next came Corey Perry with 55. Then Ryan Kesler with 47. So their top three scorers had 172 points. By contrast the Maple Leafs top three scorers had 166.
Their starting goalie, whose name I probably couldn't have told you at gunpoint, had a .914 SV%. None of their defensemen received even a fifth place vote for the Norris.
Did they make any big additions in the off-season? Not really. They lost Matt Beleskey and Francois Beauchemin and added Kevin Bieksa and Carl Hagelin which seems like, at best, a push. Were they a young team? Sort of. Did they have superstar prospects in the wings? Your Nick Ritchie mileage may vary.
So it must have been the new stats, right? The ones I resisted for so long and that do a much better job of explaining the game?
If so then I, and my admittedly entry-level understanding of these things can't figure it out. Their CF% ranked 17th(which was right in line with other metrics of the sort). Their PDO was 100.4 which, the way I understand it, means they weren't especially lucky or unlucky. Their shooting percentage was unremarkable, they were 13th in GF%. Their team save percentage ranked 20th.
They were, however, 9th in face-off percentage. Which is either meaningful or not, I can't keep track.
So how were they world beaters last year? How did they win the conference, finish 4 points off of the President's trophy and take the Blackhawks to 7 games in the conference finals?
This wasn't Calgary last year or Colorado from a few years ago. Smart people didn't look at them and say their house was built on sand. A lot of smart people, here and elsewhere, looked at them and said "They're going to be one of the elite teams in the league". And I bought it, in part because I don't watch Western Conference hockey much and in part because, well, I'm an idiot who listens to what the experts say.
I don't know, maybe this is just more old man "back in my day" nostalgia or residual bitterness about how I don't like how the cap has changed the league but what does it even mean any more to be a good hockey team? Is parity so enveloping that a team that's just not notably terrible in any one area is as good a team as any in the league? Is that really enjoyable?
Anyways, that's my morning rant.