Credit Where Credit is Due (Hitchcock)

[SteenMachine]

Hitch's ego is always going to be his biggest weakness. He's convinced he's the best coach in the NHL and that "system" hockey is the ultimate form of success. He lives in this dreamworld where anyone who lost a game under him is at fault and he couldn't have possibly helped them succeed. "If only they would listen to me...", is his response to every failure.

He tried making Backes into a #1 center and Oshie into a top line winger for 3 years straight and then blamed them for not buying in. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he spent that entire time coaching teams to "not lose" and never giving them a plan to win right? The same guy who talks about offense like it's all "puck luck" and "good bounces" and winning games behind his own blue line instead of on the attack. The same guy who sat there and watched Thornton and Pavelski run a set play over and over and over and thought, it's my players fault for not responding to that, that damn Tarasenko just isn't backchecking enough. How the hell you go 6 games in against a team that's forechecking that hard and putting forwards that deep into your own zone and still can't even create an odd-man rush or breakaway is mind blowing. Unless of course you see that no matter who has the puck the game plan is always "throw it as far away from you as possible to the winger on the opposite end of the ice and hope that in the 80 feet separating you a single stick isn't on the ice waiting for it."

An entire season of 2nd period blowouts and collapses and we're talking about his "record" in the regular season. 90+ games of the same problem and it's the players fault? Really? The players were on a carousel all year long with injuries and call ups and the result was painfully consistent.

We beat Chicago by 1 goal. Despite shutting down their best players. We still got lit up by Shaw because he exploited our team the same way half of the San Jose skaters were doing it. We let the most top heavy team in the league drag us into game 7 despite missing their best player. That's what Hitch's system hockey does; it gives an opposing coach so many opportunities to exploit because you're so goddamn predictable that no amount of line changes and player swaps is going to fix it.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

His moves likely cost us the series. I hated the goalies bs he pulled. So did the players.

You're an apologist, always have been.

You can label me, but I can give reasons for my opinions. I think Hitchcock has been a good coach. I also think this team will respond well to a coaching change with an adjustment in style that is more aggressive offensively. But it doesn't have to be splitting where its all good or all bad. Hitchcock is just like every coach, some good and some bad.

I thought he really did a good job handling the post-season on the whole. I loved his 28 second press conference, which got the focus on him instead of the players being interviewed about, "What new way will you choke this year" at the beginning of the Chicago series. His comments about the number of hits similarly kept the focus off of putting more pressure on players.

He integrated an Ott that was off for MONTHS with injury, Jaskin who had struggled, Reaves and even Paajarvi into the line-up effectively. He tried some things on the defensive pairings that didn't work that well, but the fact is that 2 of our 6 regular D-men were rookies who were trying to play way beyond the usual rookie wall. There just wasn't a perfect solution to that, especially when Shattenkirk was so mediocre on his off-side.

I agreed with giving Allen the start in Game 4. I think you could argue either way about Game 5, but I think there was good reason to think that Allen would have had a better performance than Game 4.

Call me an apologist, I just liked the way Hitchcock stayed even keel and interacted with the press. I thought his interviews during games were interesting. Even his last practice before Game 6 where he sat back and just let the players take the responsibility, rather than trying to beat it into them.

I can appreciate his good points without being single-minded about it. I think this group of players is ready for a system that applies more offensive pressure, engages the defense more effectively into the offense, and relies on the goalie to make saves when needed. The Blues will probably give up a bit more, but I think it will be an effective style. This team will never just stop playing defense, and the next coach can take advantage of that for a couple years.

If Hitch did come back for another year, I'd be curious to see if his message wasn't stale. But I wouldn't automatically boo the choice. I think that's unlikely (that he's back) but I also don't know who the alternative is. I have a strong suspicion Armstrong already has a short list.

The season just ended, and my suspicion is so did Hitchcock's coaching career. I appreciate what he's done for St Louis. There is far too much reactionary posting on here, from people who experience no consequences of whatever decisions they are promoting. I tend to temper that type of thing in my own opinions.

 

[Total Bender]

I agree 2mm. While I think it may be time to move on from hitch. I think he's been very good here. There will be lots of teams calling if we don't resign him, and that's because he is a good coach.

Losing sucks and I want to find a reason why we lost as well but I don't think it's as simple as "hitch blows".

 

[TheDizee]

ducks will sign hitch and win the cup in the first year, beat us along the way, and you guys will be saying WOW the new coach is awful, why did we get rid of hitch?

 

[StLHokie]

Hitch's ego is always going to be his biggest weakness. He's convinced he's the best coach in the NHL and that "system" hockey is the ultimate form of success. He lives in this dreamworld where anyone who lost a game under him is at fault and he couldn't have possibly helped them succeed. "If only they would listen to me...", is his response to every failure.

He tried making Backes into a #1 center and Oshie into a top line winger for 3 years straight and then blamed them for not buying in. It couldn't possibly be the fact that he spent that entire time coaching teams to "not lose" and never giving them a plan to win right? The same guy who talks about offense like it's all "puck luck" and "good bounces" and winning games behind his own blue line instead of on the attack. The same guy who sat there and watched Thornton and Pavelski run a set play over and over and over and thought, it's my players fault for not responding to that, that damn Tarasenko just isn't backchecking enough. How the hell you go 6 games in against a team that's forechecking that hard and putting forwards that deep into your own zone and still can't even create an odd-man rush or breakaway is mind blowing. Unless of course you see that no matter who has the puck the game plan is always "throw it as far away from you as possible to the winger on the opposite end of the ice and hope that in the 80 feet separating you a single stick isn't on the ice waiting for it."

An entire season of 2nd period blowouts and collapses and we're talking about his "record" in the regular season. 90+ games of the same problem and it's the players fault? Really? The players were on a carousel all year long with injuries and call ups and the result was painfully consistent.

We beat Chicago by 1 goal. Despite shutting down their best players. We still got lit up by Shaw because he exploited our team the same way half of the San Jose skaters were doing it. We let the most top heavy team in the league drag us into game 7 despite missing their best player. That's what Hitch's system hockey does; it gives an opposing coach so many opportunities to exploit because you're so goddamn predictable that no amount of line changes and player swaps is going to fix it.

Maybe Hitch's beliefs have something to do with the fact that he has the 4th most wins all time. His system IS extremely effective. He has consistently won games with less than perfect teams that play to his system.

And your Pittsburgh comment is comical. Mike Johnston, prior to being named head coach of the Penguins, was last found coaching in the NHL in 2008. That is not an NHL caliber coach. The guy that replaced him, Mike Sullivan, has been coaching in the NHL since 2003 (other than his short stint as HC of Wilkes-Barrie/Scranton) That is a massive change in head coaching experience. The resulting change that has occurred is more due to the fact that Johnston was horrible than it is Sullivan being good. Pittsburgh has two of the best players in the world. They should be in the conference finals every year based on that fact.

Replacing Hitch will not bring that change because there are a grand total of maybe 2 or three coaches that are comparable to him. And I'm also not sure why you brought up the Penguins, as right now the difference between the Blues and the Penguins is 1 win. And somehow you are praising one coach, but state the other should be fired.

 

[rumrokh]

I think Hitch is great. Flawed, like nearly every coach, and those flaws start to seem bigger the longer you go (like with absolutely every coach), but he's still an obviously fantastic coach.

However, I'm okay with moving on because the roster is also great and I don't think it's going to fall apart without Hitch.

 

[BlueDream]

If the Blues don't bring back Hitch, they will be the only team in the league to remove the 3 of the top 4 winningest coaches in NHL history from the position. And folks wonder why we haven't won the cup.

Hitch just took us further than any other coach has in 49 years. And it seems like half the fan base wants him gone. That is completely illogical. The main complaints being the system that he wants the players to play. Ridiculous.

Fact of the matter is, Hitch is a great coach and his system has proven to work. The Blues playing "Blues hockey" ala the Hitchcock style resulted in the best performances the team had in the postseason. (Multiple games aginst Chicago, 3 games against Dallas, and game 4 against the Sharks) When the Blues got away from that style, they looked terrible. His system works, and the players have finally gotten back into the mindset that it does, after taking a few years off. The team just needs to work on developing more consistency within the system.

It's so frustrating to have people comment on Hitch needing to go, when it is so clear that they have never played a day of competitive hockey in their lives. Coaching in hockey is basically just trying to calculate response to chaos and unpredictability. A team's success is much more dependent upon the players than it is on the coach. Our team had 3 or 4 new faces this year with a same coach, and there was a dramatic difference in play from previous years. With the logic that Hitch is the cause of all the failures, the Blues should never have made it out of the first round. They shouldn't have had a winning record on the road for the first time in years. But they did. Why? Because the players were different. There is only so much a coach can do. Hitch clearly has proven that he can contribute just as much as any other coach in the league and there is no valid reasoning in trying to force him out of his position.

I'm so glad the coaching expert is here.

 

[rumrokh]

A team's success is much more dependent upon the players than it is on the coach. Our team had 3 or 4 new faces this year with a same coach, and there was a dramatic difference in play from previous years. With the logic that Hitch is the cause of all the failures, the Blues should never have made it out of the first round. They shouldn't have had a winning record on the road for the first time in years. But they did. Why? Because the players were different. There is only so much a coach can do. Hitch clearly has proven that he can contribute just as much as any other coach in the league and there is no valid reasoning in trying to force him out of his position.

I think Hitch is very good, so don't misunderstand what I'm saying as disagreement with your supporting him.

That said, do you even watch the Blues? Fully one third of the lineup was different this season.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Hitch's ego is always going to be his biggest weakness. He's convinced he's the best coach in the NHL and that "system" hockey is the ultimate form of success. He lives in this dreamworld where anyone who lost a game under him is at fault and he couldn't have possibly helped them succeed. "If only they would listen to me...", is his response to every failure.

Shouldn't that be more of an indictment on Armstrong than on Hitch? While I get your criticism re:system hockey, the Blues don't have forwards who have played at or near a PPG average aside from Tarasenko in a full season.

 

[Meatball]

It's simply time to move on.

 

[Majorityof1]

Shouldn't that be more of an indictment on Armstrong than on Hitch? While I get your criticism re:system hockey, the Blues don't have forwards who have played at or near a PPG average aside from Tarasenko in a full season.

How many point per game players do you expect a team to have? There were only 19 players this year with a .9 or more over 50+games. That's not enough for 1 per team, much less multiple ones. Sure Pittsburgh, Washington and San Jose have 3, but they drafted most those guys when they sucked. We don't lose enough to get draft picks that high. Even if we did, its hard for our players to rack up the points in the coach's system. So how is it Armstrong's fault that he can't find PPG players in free agency or trade when that happens once in a blue moon?

 

[SteenMachine]

Shouldn't that be more of an indictment on Armstrong than on Hitch? While I get your criticism re:system hockey, the Blues don't have forwards who have played at or near a PPG average aside from Tarasenko in a full season.

Armstrong froze his contract negotiation with Hitch so he could bid on Babcock and try to convince him we could win big with a new head coach. You can argue the value of Babcock to this team, but clearly Armstrong wanted to move on if he could and took the guy he already had saying yes to a 1-year deal when Toronto got crazy with their money.

 

[trevorftw]

I think Hitch is a great coach and really don't buy the idea that the blues win in spite of him. He's taken the team pretty far in his tenure. I wouldn't at all be disappointed if he was retained for another year.

I also think it might be time to move forward though. I feel like Hitch has thoroughly instilled the defensive work ethic in these players, and I'd like to see someone bring a new dynamic to the team. Hitchcock deserves to be retained, but I don't know if this is as far as he can take the team.

Either way, I won't be too disappointed.

 

[Vladdy the Impaler]

I just wonder if Tarasenko really was injured (I suppose we will find out in the coming weeks), or if it had something to do with him and Hitch having a conflict of interests. Remember the little scuffle between him and Hitch in the Chicago series? After that it just seemed like Vladdy wasn't all there mentally. Perhaps he's getting tired of playing in Hitch's physically exhausting forechecking system.


I appreciate all Hitch has done, but it's time to move on.

 

[Louie the Blue]

How many point per game players do you expect a team to have? There were only 19 players this year with a .9 or more over 50+games. That's not enough for 1 per team, much less multiple ones. Sure Pittsburgh, Washington and San Jose have 3, but they drafted most those guys when they sucked. We don't lose enough to get draft picks that high. Even if we did, its hard for our players to rack up the points in the coach's system. So how is it Armstrong's fault that he can't find PPG players in free agency or trade when that happens once in a blue moon?

Of those 19 players, 6 of them play on the two teams that remain in the POs (3 on each team, with one on each team being a defenseman).

And none of the 3 players on SJ were acquired via tanking. Burns and Thornton were acquired through trades and Pavelski was drafted in the 7th round.

I'm not saying for Armstrong to go out and acquire two player for peanuts, but to get at least one high scoring playing through trading assets(i.e.:Shattenkirk).

I think if Hitch is given the tools, as seen in Dallas, he can win a cup here. I think his system here tries to over compensate for the lack of fire power offensively through depending on the strength of the team, the blue line. Give him another player in his arsenal who performs at a level similar to Tarasenko and I think things would be different.

Armstrong froze his contract negotiation with Hitch so he could bid on Babcock and try to convince him we could win big with a new head coach. You can argue the value of Babcock to this team, but clearly Armstrong wanted to move on if he could and took the guy he already had saying yes to a 1-year deal when Toronto got crazy with their money.

I wouldn't say Armstrong wanted to "clearly" move on. If he did, Hitchcock wouldn't have been brought back. And Hitchcock since the 2013-2014(I think) has been one a 1 year contract as he learned the value in that from La Russa, as in, getting to leave on your time.

 

[Majorityof1]

Of those 19 players, 6 of them play on the two teams that remain in the POs (3 on each team, with one on each team being a defenseman).

And none of the 3 players on SJ were acquired via tanking. Burns and Thornton were acquired through trades and Pavelski was drafted in the 7th round.

I'm not saying for Armstrong to go out and acquire two player for peanuts, but to get at least one high scoring playing through trading assets(i.e.:Shattenkirk).

I think if Hitch is given the tools, as seen in Dallas, he can win a cup here. I think his system here tries to over compensate for the lack of fire power offensively through depending on the strength of the team, the blue line. Give him another player in his arsenal who performs at a level similar to Tarasenko and I think things would be different.



I wouldn't say Armstrong wanted to "clearly" move on. If he did, Hitchcock wouldn't have been brought back. And Hitchcock since the 2013-2014(I think) has been one a 1 year contract as he learned the value in that from La Russa, as in, getting to leave on your time.

San Jose has had those players for years. Thornton was acquired in '03-04, Pavelski since 07-08, and Burns since 11-12. So they all three have been together for 5 years and this is literally the first time they have made the Cup Finals. So using their playoff success this year is disingenuous. If you were to ask anybody 3 months ago if they envy San Jose's roster, many teams wouldn't have. They also lucked into Pavalski and Burns. Burns career high was in the 40s when he was traded, and I think as a winger. So predicted he'd be a 70+ point d-man is ludicrous. Pavelski was a 7th, and those panning out is luck even with the best scouting. Players like Thornton are traded once a decade (and usually by Boston), so again, its not common.

Pittsburgh has also had those players for awhile. And they got theirs by tanking (except Letang). But it is Kessel, Bonino and Hagelin propelling that ship. Kessel is the only one who has ever been close to a point per game player, and he wasn't this year. So depth is important as well. Couture has been instrumental for San Jose too. You can't package all your depth for a couple PPG players and expect to win the cup every year. Ask Pittsburgh every year between their last cup and this run, or Chicago this year.

Those two teams also have a more offensive minded system too (as evident by their D being point per game players). Stastny, Steen, Schwartz and Backes have all scored 60 points before. Stastny had a .98 season with the Avs. Maybe if they had less defensive responsibilities and a more wide open system, they could score more. Tarasenko was able to hit .9+ in Hitch's system but only because the reins were loosened on him quite a good bit.

I am not an Armstrong fan. He has made several mistakes. But not having 3 point per game players is not one of them. That is just a rare thing in today's NHL and would be next to impossible in our system, even if we went out and got guys talented enough to do it (which we do have).

Finally, Hitch did win a Cup in Dallas. But as you said, that was a super stacked team. That was also 16 years ago. The game and management was a lot different then.

 

[Louie the Blue]

San Jose has had those players for years. Thornton was acquired in '03-04, Pavelski since 07-08, and Burns since 11-12. So they all three have been together for 5 years and this is literally the first time they have made the Cup Finals. So using their playoff success this year is disingenuous. If you were to ask anybody 3 months ago if they envy San Jose's roster, many teams wouldn't have. They also lucked into Pavalski and Burns. Burns career high was in the 40s when he was traded, and I think as a winger. So predicted he'd be a 70+ point d-man is ludicrous. Pavelski was a 7th, and those panning out is luck even with the best scouting. Players like Thornton are traded once a decade (and usually by Boston), so again, its not common.

Pittsburgh has also had those players for awhile. And they got theirs by tanking (except Letang). But it is Kessel, Bonino and Hagelin propelling that ship. Kessel is the only one who has ever been close to a point per game player, and he wasn't this year. So depth is important as well. Couture has been instrumental for San Jose too. You can't package all your depth for a couple PPG players and expect to win the cup every year. Ask Pittsburgh every year between their last cup and this run, or Chicago this year.

Those two teams also have a more offensive minded system too (as evident by their D being point per game players). Stastny, Steen, Schwartz and Backes have all scored 60 points before. Stastny had a .98 season with the Avs. Maybe if they had less defensive responsibilities and a more wide open system, they could score more. Tarasenko was able to hit .9+ in Hitch's system but only because the reins were loosened on him quite a good bit.

I am not an Armstrong fan. He has made several mistakes. But not having 3 point per game players is not one of them. That is just a rare thing in today's NHL and would be next to impossible in our system, even if we went out and got guys talented enough to do it (which we do have).

Finally, Hitch did win a Cup in Dallas. But as you said, that was a super stacked team. That was also 16 years ago. The game and management was a lot different then.

Wilson traded for a PPG player in Thornton. And you're right, it's unfair to assume that people foresaw Pavelski develop into the type of player that he has. Same with Burns.

As for the reigns being loosened on Backes, I don't think he'll ever be near a PPG offensively in part due to his age and his style of play. Additionally, I don't think he's that gifted offensively. Stastny you might have a case for. However, I don't think that happens unless another offensive stud is brought in.

My wishlist for Armstrong is to make the home run trade to get another bonafide offensive threat similar to Tarasenko via trade through trading Shattenkirk and more (if need be).

 

[SteenMachine]

Finally, Hitch did win a Cup in Dallas. But as you said, that was a super stacked team. That was also 16 years ago. The game and management was a lot different then.

Which again, was by 1 goal, in OT, on a play that only counted that season and would not have any year prior. He had a 50/50 chance to win and Hull has one of the most controversial goals in hockey history to get there.

 

[Louie the Blue]

Also, to make it clear, I understand why people want Hitch gone. This team has had the most regular season success in the NHL since he's been in St. Louis since November 2011. And the only thing the Blues have to show for it is a second round appearance and a WCF appearance with three consecutive first round exits in between. I just don't think he is one of the main reasons as to why the Blues haven't been able to reach the SCF, but I understand that seem people do believe that he is.

 

[Majorityof1]

Wilson traded for a PPG player in Thornton. And you're right, it's unfair to assume that people foresaw Pavelski develop into the type of player that he has. Same with Burns.

As for the reigns being loosened on Backes, I don't think he'll ever be near a PPG offensively in part due to his age and his style of play. Additionally, I don't think he's that gifted offensively. Stastny you might have a case for. However, I don't think that happens unless another offensive stud is brought in.

My wishlist for Armstrong is to make the home run trade to get another bonafide offensive threat similar to Tarasenko via trade through trading Shattenkirk and more (if need be).

Yes, They did trade for Thornton as a point per game. But that, as I said is rare. I cannot think of another instance where a PPG player was traded outside of a rental. Seguin hadn't hit PPG yet, Spezza and Kessel were former PPG guys but not in their previous year. Its rare even guys like that move at all. And when they do there is questions surrounding them (attitude, salary, work ethic, injury). Neither Spezza nor Kessel hit .9 this year. Can you name a PPG guy that Armstrong could have gotten and didn't? Panarin maybe, but there is no indication he'd sign with us or be a PPG without Kane.

As for Backes, you are right, PPG is outside of his ability. But in the right system, Tarasenko, Stasny, Steen and Schwartz all have the ability to approach PPG.

So who would you target that is similar to Tarasenko for Shattenkirk+? The only PPG threat we have any chance of getting is Stamkos and it would cost us $10M+ in salary. Shattenkirk is a pending UFA. Nobody is giving up a PPG player for a 2nd pairing pending UFA defenseman unless its a big plus. Krejci? His career high is .89, so maybe that qualifies. That's all I can think of. Stamkos and Krejci.

 

[Louie the Blue]

So who would you target that is similar to Tarasenko for Shattenkirk+? The only PPG threat we have any chance of getting is Stamkos and it would cost us $10M+ in salary. Shattenkirk is a pending UFA. Nobody is giving up a PPG player for a 2nd pairing pending UFA defenseman unless its a big plus. Krejci? His career high is .89, so maybe that qualifies. That's all I can think of. Stamkos and Krejci.

The three players I can think of are Okposo, Stamkos, and Krejci, with my preference being 1. Stamkos 2. Krejci 3. Okposo(Not a center, but offense is offense). Pie in the sky dream would be Malkin but that would require an incredible overpay that I wouldn't feel comfortable with nor am I aware of what the Pens strengths and weaknesses are and I'd highly doubt they'd be content with Shatty being centerpiece of a return for Malkin with only a year left on his contract, thus, making that dream completely unrealistic.

Also, I didn't realize like how you said before how well Steen has performed offensively until seeing the PPG leaders the past 2 seasons.

 

[StLHokie]

I'm so glad the coaching expert is here.

Thanks. Maybe if you actually had experience playing or coaching the game, you too could understand the value of coaching in hockey. But you've made it pretty clear in your posts that you have zero.

I think Hitch is very good, so don't misunderstand what I'm saying as disagreement with your supporting him.

That said, do you even watch the Blues? Fully one third of the lineup was different this season.

3 or 4 new players that hadn't previously played games with the Blues. Parayko, Edmunson, Fabbri, and Upshall had never played games for the Blues prior to this year. But adding more players like Gomez to the list helps prove my point even more...

Which again, was by 1 goal, in OT, on a play that only counted that season and would not have any year prior. He had a 50/50 chance to win and Hull has one of the most controversial goals in hockey history to get there.

And you would be unhappy with a Stanley cup win that was won in OT on a controversial goal? Yeah right.

Doesn't matter how the cup was won, it matters that it was won.

 

[SteenMachine]

Thanks. Maybe if you actually had experience playing or coaching the game, you too could understand the value of coaching in hockey. But you've made it pretty clear in your posts that you have zero.



3 or 4 new players that hadn't previously played games with the Blues. Parayko, Edmunson, Fabbri, and Upshall had never played games for the Blues prior to this year. But adding more players like Gomez to the list helps prove my point even more...



And you would be unhappy with a Stanley cup win that was won in OT on a controversial goal? Yeah right.

Doesn't matter how the cup was won, it matters that it was won.

First of all, if it was the Blues in the modern era, the goal would be recalled for being "offsides" so save your fantasy crap.

Second of all, you're a total hypocrite. Coaching only has so much effect on the game but Hitchcock is such a huge winner we'd be lost without him? Make up your mind, you're contracting every single sentence you type and then trying to undermine people for seeing through the weakness of having a stale system that is constantly playing catch up to the better teams. Sorry we didn't play on your highschool AA team, get over it. We can't cash in Hitch's wins from the past, and even if we did we get jack **** out of them in the post season for the last 15 years.

 

[StLHokie]

First of all, if it was the Blues in the modern era, the goal would be recalled for being "offsides" so save your fantasy crap.

Second of all, you're a total hypocrite. Coaching only has so much effect on the game but Hitchcock is such a huge winner we'd be lost without him? Make up your mind, you're contracting every single sentence you type and then trying to undermine people for seeing through the weakness of having a stale system that is constantly playing catch up to the better teams. Sorry we didn't play on your highschool AA team, get over it. We can't cash in Hitch's wins from the past, and even if we did we get jack **** out of them in the post season for the last 15 years.

Since you seem to have problems with reading comprehension and my "contracting" argument, I'll lay it out a bit more clearly for you.

First, with regards to the Dallas goal. It doesn't matter if the goal would not be allowed today. Dallas won the Cup. Icing was called different in 2010 too, does that mean that Chicago's cup win suddenly doesn't count? No. Rules change over time, who cares.

Now for the second part.

Bad coaching can hurt an NHL team. (see Pittsburgh)
Average & good coaching does not significantly contribute to a team's success. (See St. Louis, Washington, LA, Chicago, Anaheim, Tampa, NYR)

Is that so tough to understand?

Bad players hurt an NHL team.
Good players dramatically contribute to a teams NHL success.

Once again, not a difficult concept.

Replacing Hitch would be a lateral move at best.

If you took the time to actually learn more about the game rather than just nonstop complaining about how you think things aren't being done correctly, you may actually understand why the Blues have done things the way that they have.

 

[rumrokh]

3 or 4 new players that hadn't previously played games with the Blues. Parayko, Edmunson, Fabbri, and Upshall had never played games for the Blues prior to this year. But adding more players like Gomez to the list helps prove my point even more...

Brouwer and Brodziak.

That's one third of their regular defense and one third of their forwards, including two players in their top six.

And wasn't your point that because the lineup didn't change much, that means Hitchcock is the reason for their improvement?