There's been enough talk about this in other threads - I thought I'd start this one.
Here's my premise:
it's almost IMPOSSIBLE - or, let's say, at least very rare - for a team that's outplayed to win.
The reason? You're arbitrarily assigning the meaning of "team" to "the skaters of that team". Usually, in those cases, *the skaters of a team* are badly outshot, outhustled, outhit, but *the goalie on that team* saves the asses of *the whole team*.
In that case, it's unfair to say *the team* was outplayed, because the goaltender certainly wasn't, and *the team* includes the goaltender. In fact, the goaltender probably played well enough that you could say *the team* actually outplayed the losing team, by virtue of a strong goaltending performance.
The performance of a team - how well a team *plays* - must include the performance of the goaltender. Sorry, but that's the way hockey works.
When you hear commentators on TV say "The Chiefs were outplayed", usually, they're implicitly implying "the skaters". Fine. It's understood.
When I make my point in here, and people abjectly fail to understand it, it really boggles the mind. If I explained this to Ron McLean, or Scott Oak, or Bob McKenzie, or even Don Cherry - well, okay, that last one may be a stretch - I'm sure they'd grasp what I was saying.
When I talk about how well a team plays, I'm talking about the whole team - the performance of "the team" including the goaltender.
It's too easy for fans of losing teams to fall back on this tired cliche. It makes it seem like winning a game by goaltending is something the other team shouldn't be proud of - "he *stole* one" - it diminishes everyone's performance, instead of praising the winning goaltender's.
If you're going to post a response, please try to make it more intelligent / interesting than "You just don't get it."
Thank you.
Here's my premise:
it's almost IMPOSSIBLE - or, let's say, at least very rare - for a team that's outplayed to win.
The reason? You're arbitrarily assigning the meaning of "team" to "the skaters of that team". Usually, in those cases, *the skaters of a team* are badly outshot, outhustled, outhit, but *the goalie on that team* saves the asses of *the whole team*.
In that case, it's unfair to say *the team* was outplayed, because the goaltender certainly wasn't, and *the team* includes the goaltender. In fact, the goaltender probably played well enough that you could say *the team* actually outplayed the losing team, by virtue of a strong goaltending performance.
The performance of a team - how well a team *plays* - must include the performance of the goaltender. Sorry, but that's the way hockey works.
When you hear commentators on TV say "The Chiefs were outplayed", usually, they're implicitly implying "the skaters". Fine. It's understood.
When I make my point in here, and people abjectly fail to understand it, it really boggles the mind. If I explained this to Ron McLean, or Scott Oak, or Bob McKenzie, or even Don Cherry - well, okay, that last one may be a stretch - I'm sure they'd grasp what I was saying.
When I talk about how well a team plays, I'm talking about the whole team - the performance of "the team" including the goaltender.
It's too easy for fans of losing teams to fall back on this tired cliche. It makes it seem like winning a game by goaltending is something the other team shouldn't be proud of - "he *stole* one" - it diminishes everyone's performance, instead of praising the winning goaltender's.
If you're going to post a response, please try to make it more intelligent / interesting than "You just don't get it."
Thank you.