Hockey Folks, Explain the SJ Sharks' Last 8 Seasons

The Game Room
1

The Sharks just got eliminated by the Oilers. Another disappointing season for San Jose. Since 2010, and I’m sure before, they almost always underperform in the playoffs. Why is that? It’s almost as if a losing mentality has ingrained itself into the players and coaches. I’m looking for those who know and love the game to explain their annual failures.

Why 8 seasons? In April of 2010 I specifically discussed with friends that of the main franchises in the Bay Area, the Sharks were most likely to be the first to win a championship. Yet since then the Giants won in 2010 and now are 3x World Series champions. The Warriors have won one, they really should have won a second, and are poised to win it all this year. And even the 49ers have come close.

But the Shatks get into the playoffs and keep losing. Why?

2

Well for one thing, in baseball for most of that period 8 of 30 teams made it to the playoffs (It’s now 10 with 4 wildcard teams.) while 16 of 30 teams made it into the hockey and basketball playoffs. If it’s a 50-50 shot on winning a post-season series, you’d expect to win the whole thing half as often in basketball and hockey given you made it to the playoffs.

More specifically as 16 teams make it into the playoffs each year, the naive expected number of Stanley Cups in 8 years of making the playoffs is 1/2. SO little more than chance is needed to explain the Sharks failures.

3

Thank you, OldGuy. Makes sense from a probabilistic angle. But in terms of the Sharks’ game – their offense, defense, goaltending, physical aggressiveness, passing accuracy, and other aspects of the game for which my lack of good hockey knowledge limits me from even asking the right questions, why have the Sharks not succeeded in the Stanley Cup playoffs?

4

In those eight seasons they’ve won more playoff series as they have lost, actually. No, really. And won more games than they’ve lost. So they have played well - just never well enough to hoist the Cup.

They have not done any one thing more wrong than anything else. It’s just how the chips have fallen.

5

The Sharks have also had the misfortune of being pretty good at the same time that two other franchises in their division (Anaheim and Los Angeles) have also generally been pretty good. The Kings have won the Stanley Cup twice in the past ten seasons, and the Ducks have won once.

In addition, they’re in a conference in which the Blackhawks have also had an extended string of good seasons, and have won the Stanley Cup three times in the past eight seasons.

So, simply in order to make it to the Cup Finals, the Sharks would need to make it past those three teams, which have accounted for six of the past 10 Cups.

6

Additionally, in those past 10 cups, the Red Wings appeared in the finals twice as a Western Conference team. Meaning the Sharks would have had to get past them at the tail end of their dynasty run.

So over the past ten years the Sharks have had to face in their own conference dynasties or mini-dynasties in the form of the Kings, the Red Wings, and the Blackhawks. Then when they do breakthrough to the finals, they run into the Eastern conference powerhouse Penguins.

It would seem that the Sharks have had the bad luck to be a merely consistently good team in a time of others being at least sporadically great.

7

To put it in some perspective, the Sharks aren’t even the team with the best record in the Western Conference over the last 8-9 years to not win the Cup. The Blues have 772 points since the 2009-2010 season compared to the Sharks’ 768 (it’s even more lopsided if you only go back to the 2010-2011 season).

At least the Sharks made the Cup Finals once.

8

It’s also worth noting that there isn’t THAT much in common on the same franchise’s teams eight years apart. The Sharks have some players from eight years ago, but most of the team is different. The coach they had eight years ago isn’t the coach now.

When talking about a sports franchise’s history, there is sometimes a bit of a tendency to forget that over time you’re not really talking about the same team. Talk of “curses” and claims that a certain franchise is forever doomed or blessed neglects the fact that that 2016 Cubs had nothing in common with any of the Cubs teams from 1909 to the late 2000s, and not even much then, except the fact they were called the “Cubs” and played in Chicago.

So were one to ascribe a “reason” to the Sharks not winning the Stanley Cup in 2010 that was true in 2011, 2012 and on up to 2017, you’d have to explain some sort of systematic problem with the way the team was designed, or coached, or something, and there’s just no good reason to think that’s true.

9

To go back to the Blues example in my previous post there was a common thread to all of those teams - Ken Hitchcock (at least post-2011). And he has since been fired.

Of course, Hitchcock has also won a Stanley Cup before, so it’s a bit disingenuous to pin all of the blame on him.

Other scapegoats have included: TJ Oshie and David Backes.

10

I had dinner with a good friend last night, and he knows hockey. He said the Sharks know how to skate and they know how to score. But other than Vlasic and Burns, on defense they are and have been fundamentally flawed.

Here is their current defensive roster.

Defense

Sh Ht Wt Born Birthplace

61: Justin Braun R 6’ 2" 205 Feb 10, 1987 Minneapolis, MN, USA
88: Brent Burns R 6’ 5" 230 Mar 9, 1985 Barrie, ON, CAN
74: Dylan DeMelo R 6’ 1" 195 May 1, 1993 London, ON, CAN
4: Brenden Dillon L 6’ 4" 230 Nov 13, 1990 New Westminster, BC, CAN
7: Paul Martin L 6’ 1" 200 Mar 5, 1981 Minneapolis, MN, USA
5: David Schlemko L 6’ 0" 190 May 7, 1987 Edmonton, AB, CAN
44: Marc-Edouard Vlasic L 6’ 1" 205 Mar 30, 1987 Montreal, QC, CAN

Historically the Sharks have gotten big names for goalies and offense. To me, Antti Niemi, Teemu Selänne, Steve Shields, and Mikkel Boedker come to mind. But he says their defense does not play very well as a unit. But the Sharks played Connor McDavid well in the series – McDavid only scored 1 point when teams were at even strength. But overall the Sharks’ defense sagged against the Oilers.

As the old adage goes, Offense Sells Tickets, but Defense Wins Championships. Can this be a key for San Jose’s recent history?

Here is NHL.com history, goals against, season by season for the Sharks.

2016-17: 200, 5th-best in the league
2015-16: 207, 10th-best in the league
2014-15: 226, 24th-best in the league
2013-14: 193, 5th-best in the league
2012-13: 112, 6th-best in the league
2011-12: 205, 9th-best in the league
2010-11: 208, 10th-best in the league
2009-10: 209, 8th-best in the league

So they’ve been in the top third each season, and twice in the top sixth. Pretty good, right? Not ever being in the top three might be part of the story.

Then what is it about their game?

11

Goaltending has never been a particular strength of the Sharks. Steve Shields was a journeyman backup. Niemi is a lower-tier starter – there’s a reason why both Chicago and San Jose were willing to let him walk. Nabokov was a good starter for Sharks for a long time, but he was never a top-tier goalie.

Top 5 is a great defensive team. There have been plenty of recent Cup winners who weren’t at the very top:

2016 (Penguins): 6th
2015 (Blackhawks): 2nd
2014 (Kings): 1st
2013 (Blackhawks): 1st
2012 (Kings): 2nd
2011 (Bruins): 2nd
2010 (Blackhawks): 5th
2009 (Penguins): 17th
2008 (Red Wings): 1st
2007 (Ducks): 7th
2006 (Carolina): 19th

12


Two of the best defensemen in the game is more than most teams can say. Of course you aren’t going to have other guys as good as Brent Burns. NOBODY except for Erik Karlsson is that good.

13

It could be worse, you could be a Caps fan.