TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Which means absolutely zilch when they play against different lines and have different d-pairings behind them.
+/- really isn’t a good comparison tool imo.
GDT: Game 32: Coyotes @ Blue Jackets - 5PM - FSAZ+
- Thread starter SniperHF
- Start date
Which means absolutely zilch when they play against different lines and have different d-pairings behind them.
+/- really isn’t a good comparison tool imo.
Connauton is our worst defenseman, yet hes a -6. Demers (-7), Schenn(-10), OEL(-20), and Goligoski(-14) all have a worse plus minus.
It can tell you a lot when there's a wide discrepancy between two players on the same team. Duclair isn't a defensive liability any more than a dozen other guys.
Name Nameless
Don't go more than 10 seconds back on challenges
- Apr 12, 2017
- 6,562
- 3,039
That's 51 points a season. Decent, really.
Seems like it was an even fight based on stats. Bobrovsky ruined it for the Yotes. Still, losing 1-0 against a team with a goalie like that sounds like really good. I mean it, really good. And look at Raanta, with 0.971 Sv%, that would have done it if they didn't have their Vezina-goalie. Stats from hockeystats.ca - Only The Finest Stats Online.
Maybe, but when your PP can't get a goal and your FO% is most times worse than the other team it's hard to win. Stepan at a FO% of 22 last night is really unacceptable. He played slow and yet gets the most TOI of any forward and the second most PP time.
Lilhoody
Registered User
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
We are still tolerated. The people who blocked/don't pay attention to us have this blind faith that our previous coach was really, really bad and screwed this team up. Hoping that those same people can honestly look themselves in the mirror after 32 games and say that maybe their perception became reality and the truth is that our previous coach did more to make this into a winning team than any of us realize. I guess you get what you ask for - some people on these boards, along with Mr. Barroway, wanted a different coach, and currently we are reaping what we sow on those decisions.
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,528
- 11,292
It's true that we probably made the wrong choice for a new coach, but that does not mean it was the wrong choice to find a new coach. And it bears mentioning that this team has not had a true +.500 record (which I equate to "a winning team") since 2012 - which was also the last time that this team had a better goals-for versus goals-against total.
For most of us who were at least okay with a regime change, we knew that this season could turn out as badly as it has. Change involves risk. We rolled the dice and came up snake eyes. But staying the course wasn't going to work. We got three stellar seasons when Tip came on board, followed by five increasingly poor ones. The math simply worked out that it was time to try something else.
Tocchet, to me, is trying to get our players to play faster than they can think (the poster child for this is Max Domi). It's a 180-degree reversal from what they were playing before, which was ponderous, slow, careful hockey that was easily overwhelmed by more aggressive opponents. The ideal would be something in between - maybe take a little pressure off the gas pedal to give the players' synapses some time to fire. I think maybe if they did that, Domi wouldn't look like a guy trying to fight off the effects of a cocaine bender, Goligoski would be a bit more careful with the puck, etc. Maybe Stepan might look more effective at a pace a little closer to what he's obviously comfortable with.
But that's just my own opinion. I'm not a coach or a hockey expert. I just know that, in general, sometimes you need to try something new when you're stuck in a rut. And the rut this team was in was pretty damn deep.
While I wouldn't fire Tocchet yet (there were additional issues going on so far this year), I'm closer to accepting it now than I was about 10 games ago. I still prefer him to DT, but hope they are at least seeing who might be (or become) available. As Feckless mentioned, we need something (or someone) in between DT 's and RT's approaches. RT could still switch some things up, but I wouldn't blame the organization if they opted to move on either. Of course part of the problem is that we don't have any players that have played in a fast-paced run and gun type of system, so perhaps bringing a few players in might be worth considering. Possible players to move (those playing poorly in the system) could include Rieder, Stepan, Goligoski, Nook, Cousins, and possibly Strome (I wouldn't give up on him yet though) or Domi (if he can't pull out of this funk soon). Admittedly, we probably couldn't get much for most of those players (besides Domi and Strome), but it would be interesting to see who might be available that fits the faster-paced strategies RT wants to go with
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
And many posters made mention of how those teams from 2012 onwards came to be. We had no one in the pipeline coming up, save for Murphy.
Bad drafting and players who didn't want to come to Arizona are what happens. I get that we were trying to be frugal, but the problem with frugality is that everything has to go right for it to work. The teams that consistently perform well are the ones who get some veteran help but also also have players that come up in the pipeline at a higher rate than what we got. Some may put that on coaching, which is understandable, but I think the truth is that a lot of players simply did not pan out.
When failures like that happen, even Tocchet couldn't have gotten those teams to the playoffs. I think that reality is getting glossed over.
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,528
- 11,292
Nobody's glossing that over - or, if there are those who are, they are very few - but that doesn't change the fact that no successful business goes through a drought like we have and not eventually blame management. It should also be noted that the on-ice portion is not the only reason why DT was let go - there was a pretty big political ramification for Barroway if he left him in the role he had.
Bingo!
Another good post. You just make too much sense.
Barroway wanted to make a splash plain and simple. He thought he knew what he was doing and came in and cleaned house. There is plenty of blame to go around, but no of it is DT's fault. He was smart and got out of Dodge.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
From the perspective that we did not make the playoffs, sure we were in a rut. Two of those years following the 11-12 season, we were oh so close to the playoffs. Missed in the strike shortened season with a 21-18-9 season. The next year, we missed by 2 points. Finished 37-30-15. I don't in any way conclude that those seasons led to a rut. The next year was the 56 point season. A team with little discernible prospects who were NHL ready and a track record of small free agent signings. In the past, those panned out perfectly. That is the first rut that we speak of. Very hard to completely turn around a team and get them to respectability in three years with little talent as prospects to back it up. Remember in 14-15 season, we didn't have an embarrassment of riches like Strome, Chychrun, Keller, or players who could have an impact. It is one thing to say that we had no shot at rebuilding with Tippett. It is another to give him more than two years with Domi and a year with Dvorak, Chychrun, and others.
Barroway thought the rebuild needed acceleration cause it wasn't moving fast enough. Sorry that a snap of the fingers and promoting a lot of youth to the NHL couldn't make that perfect, and I don't think that the coach got enough time to even work with them. I guess it could be a rut, but if the timeline is really looked at, I would have a really hard time defining it as a rut and define it more as a rut if three or more years were spent with Domi, Duclair, Dvorak, and Perlini with less success.
But it is neither here nor there at this point...
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
5yrs of utter failure wasn't enough time. Huh?
30 games? More than enough time? Really? Okay. Nice common sense argument.
30 games? More than enough time? Really? Okay. Nice common sense argument.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
No just throwing shade at revisionist history - after all, feckless said that he considers a winning record to be above .500. Well that means we have been bad since 2014, and not since 2012, since the 2012-13 and 13-14 season were both finishes above .500.
If you follow that same theory of what a winning record is, then we had 3 bad years. One bad year at our shallowest of talent pools and two years in the 70s with a dramatically different look. If his shelf life was officially old at the time of not making the playoffs, so be it.
True or false: given the way that 33 games now have started, if Tocchet inherited the same team in 2012-13 or 2014-15, we would have done inherently better? We wouldn't have gotten 6 points in 14-15 (but I guess that sarcastically would have been looked at as great, b/c then we accomplished tanking, right??)
I get it. Tippett's system was frustrating. I thought he should get one more year, and we would have seen some further progress. Maybe it would have been with his system, but I have a tougher time discerning progress as of this moment. It would be easier to swallow if it appeared there was more following through on what was touted as Tocchet's strengths in the interview process. And this came with adding different types of talent that many people touted as an A or B offseason, at minimum.
True or false: we had one of the more successful offseason ever, from a player acquisition standpoint in the last 7 years?
Those two T/F questions should answer a lot, b/c everything was as favorable as it could be for Tocchet taking over, so I hope that the return in the next 2-3 years justifies this start. I think it will, but I think it has to be said that at the rate we are going, this gets more difficult with time. And this is coming from someone who does like what we have done offensively and pushing the puck, to a point.
If you follow that same theory of what a winning record is, then we had 3 bad years. One bad year at our shallowest of talent pools and two years in the 70s with a dramatically different look. If his shelf life was officially old at the time of not making the playoffs, so be it.
True or false: given the way that 33 games now have started, if Tocchet inherited the same team in 2012-13 or 2014-15, we would have done inherently better? We wouldn't have gotten 6 points in 14-15 (but I guess that sarcastically would have been looked at as great, b/c then we accomplished tanking, right??)
I get it. Tippett's system was frustrating. I thought he should get one more year, and we would have seen some further progress. Maybe it would have been with his system, but I have a tougher time discerning progress as of this moment. It would be easier to swallow if it appeared there was more following through on what was touted as Tocchet's strengths in the interview process. And this came with adding different types of talent that many people touted as an A or B offseason, at minimum.
True or false: we had one of the more successful offseason ever, from a player acquisition standpoint in the last 7 years?
Those two T/F questions should answer a lot, b/c everything was as favorable as it could be for Tocchet taking over, so I hope that the return in the next 2-3 years justifies this start. I think it will, but I think it has to be said that at the rate we are going, this gets more difficult with time. And this is coming from someone who does like what we have done offensively and pushing the puck, to a point.
Last edited:
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
"...so I hope that the return in the next 2-3 years justifies this start. I think it will, but I think it has to be said that at the rate we are going, this gets more difficult with time..."
I'm very confused about what your actual point is. What are you saying?
I'm getting roughly...
Tippett was really good. No one could have been expected to have a better record. His record really wasn't that bad if you add a bunch of qualifiers. When it was bad it wasn't his fault. Post-regulation losses don't count as losses. Tippett should have been given more time and was fired too soon. Tocchet has had a bad start. His bad record is actually bad. His bad record is his fault. You think he will turn it around and actually be good, though.
...is that roughly the summary?
I'm very confused about what your actual point is. What are you saying?
I'm getting roughly...
Tippett was really good. No one could have been expected to have a better record. His record really wasn't that bad if you add a bunch of qualifiers. When it was bad it wasn't his fault. Post-regulation losses don't count as losses. Tippett should have been given more time and was fired too soon. Tocchet has had a bad start. His bad record is actually bad. His bad record is his fault. You think he will turn it around and actually be good, though.
...is that roughly the summary?
Tip's record was not good but by what standard? The standard that he missed the playoffs? How about realistic expectations. in only 1 year did the Coyotes under perform based on their talent level. In all other years they over performed as a team and Tip got more out of his players in his system you guys all hate.Look at Bods/Yandle/Hanzal/Murphy or anyone else that went some place else. Outside of Verby for 1 year playing with the twins in their prime, nobody played better on another team. Runblad/Gormley were busts in other markets too.
Look at the current roster. There are exactly zero full time players having a better year this year then they did with old stodgy Tip last year. Is every player horrible now? Or does Tocc not get the best out of his players? I hope Tocc turns it around but the evidence looks pretty bad if you are comparing Tocc to Tip. True, small sample size, but this train wreck?
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
Fair, because I don't think that our roster now is ever as bad as it was during Tippett's worst season. The first year Tippett really declared having a true seat at the round table for roster decisions was last year, right? After Maloney was gone?
I think Tippett deserved at least one more year. Playfair - not so much. But that may have been more of a package deal.
I never stated that a post regulation loss didn't count as a loss. But I do think that our players learned more from close losses and battling that way than learning from the high levels of inconsistency that we are seeing now.
I want to give Tocchet the benefit of the doubt and say that in two years, he would have us back to relevancy, this year included. Now, I become a little more uncertain as to when that time is, and maybe I was putting more emphasis on the "think" or "hope" that we see relevancy sooner, but it may be significantly tempered from where my head was thinking that the team would be at 2 or 3 years from now. Poor choice of wording on my part, and probably unnecessary for me to give an impression that I thought Tocchet would experience greater success. It may just take a significantly longer period of time to get to that level there...
Last edited:
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,528
- 11,292
I appreciate the constant accusations of revisionist history, because, hell, I'm a masochist for that kind of stuff. But 21-18-9 is not .500 (21 wins, 27 losses), nor is 37-30-15 (37 wins, 45 losses). The only reason those records put us anywhere near the playoffs is the NHL's artificial parity. Those two seasons represent a downward trend from 2011-2012.
BUX7PHX
Registered User
- Jul 7, 2011
- 5,581
- 1,350
A lot of seasons will represent a downward trend from 2011-12. Maybe the players bought into their own hype, too.
There are 82 games in a season, with the representation that a perfect record is worth 164 points on the year. A non-perfect record is 0 points. 82 points as the mean. Once the NHL starts going to declaring win % as the determinant, then I absolutely agree with what you are saying. But in this case, I don't know if I can agree with how you presented the argument, b/c the nature of this format means that a tie was granted for regulation play, and therefore can't be counted against, even if someone gets the golden goal or wins in a shootout. As another example - last year, a team with a losing record (Toronto) made the playoffs over a team with a winning record (Tampa Bay).
Toronto: 40-27-15, 95 points (40-42)
Tampa Bay: 42-30-10, 94 points (42-40)
If you want to use a true W-L to work with, that is fine. If we really wanted to, we could strip out all games that went to OT and the shootout, but that would be getting rid of 20 games or so for all teams and I wonder how much that would bring certain teams closer to .500 Obviously the top 5-8 teams in the entire league are not going to be that affected, but a team like the Rangers in this season would be 12-11-0, and not 16-11-3 if we took into account OT or SO wins and losses. San Jose would be 14-10-0 if taking away their OT wins/losses. Yet, both teams have the same amount of points, albeit with SJ playing 1 less game. So, I would be more cautious in lumping OTL as simply losses, but whatever floats your boat.
There are 82 games in a season, with the representation that a perfect record is worth 164 points on the year. A non-perfect record is 0 points. 82 points as the mean. Once the NHL starts going to declaring win % as the determinant, then I absolutely agree with what you are saying. But in this case, I don't know if I can agree with how you presented the argument, b/c the nature of this format means that a tie was granted for regulation play, and therefore can't be counted against, even if someone gets the golden goal or wins in a shootout. As another example - last year, a team with a losing record (Toronto) made the playoffs over a team with a winning record (Tampa Bay).
Toronto: 40-27-15, 95 points (40-42)
Tampa Bay: 42-30-10, 94 points (42-40)
If you want to use a true W-L to work with, that is fine. If we really wanted to, we could strip out all games that went to OT and the shootout, but that would be getting rid of 20 games or so for all teams and I wonder how much that would bring certain teams closer to .500 Obviously the top 5-8 teams in the entire league are not going to be that affected, but a team like the Rangers in this season would be 12-11-0, and not 16-11-3 if we took into account OT or SO wins and losses. San Jose would be 14-10-0 if taking away their OT wins/losses. Yet, both teams have the same amount of points, albeit with SJ playing 1 less game. So, I would be more cautious in lumping OTL as simply losses, but whatever floats your boat.
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,528
- 11,292
There are all sorts of arcane arguments that we could get into regarding the NHL's points system and whether it represents an accurate accounting of a team's performance, but for me it comes down to a very simple calculation - how many wins and losses a team has.
The fact that a so-called "loser point" is awarded in an overtime loss is incidental to the fact that the team didn't win. Now, is it an accurate measure of a team's performance if they lose in a shootout? That's a fair question. The NHL does not want tie games, and neither do I, the inherent unfairness of a crap shoot like the shootout aside. If the league were to be equitable about things, IMO they should change the points format to a three-point system - three points for a regulation win, two points for an overtime win, and one point for a shootout win. No points for a loss at all.
But the NHL doesn't want to do it that way because at the end of the season they want to artificially create "Game 7 Moments" throughout the league. They don't want to lose gate revenue because a fan base believes a team is out of the playoff picture. During the 2013-2014 season, we fooled ourselves into believing our team was playoff-worthy because our record appeared to be over .500, but the reality is we were nowhere near playoff-worthy. We had fifteen points generated from losing games. If that's not record inflation, I don't know what is.
Now, saying all this, I want to reiterate that I'm not saying all this to bash Tippett. What he did in his first three seasons, especially given the context of what was going on off the ice, was beyond anyone's wildest expectations, and he deserved the Jack Adams for doing it. But every coach has an expiration date - even Scotty Bowman got canned - and we had clearly hit DTs by the time he and Barroway worked out the buyout of his contract.
The Tocchet hire, IMO, has turned out to be a mistake. I see why Chayka hired him, although I don't agree with his reasoning. But Tocchet pretty clearly hasn't been the room presence that he needs to be with these kids, and given the team's performance, neither have his assistant coaches. But again, that's the risk you take when you undertake big changes. It's really a coin flip - it was equally likely at the time that Tocchet could have galvanized this team to greatness.
