GDT: Game 32: Coyotes @ Blue Jackets - 5PM - FSAZ+

[BUX7PHX]

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.

I understand what you are saying, b/c yes, 15 SOL is a considerable amount - most teams appear to average between 8-12, by all indications. I also think that there were far more games that went into the crapshoot of the shootout, since at the time that we are talking some of these points, OT was still 4v4 and didn't necessarily have the space that is available on the ice now. Definitely do not disagree with the 3 points for a win, 2 for OT/SO win concept, b/c it does clear up the grey area that we are talking about.

To me it still seems a little jaded, because then we would be talking about the 11-12 season as a "barely above .500 team," since the Coyotes finished 42-40, but I don't think anyone would associate that team is being "barely above average," regardless of how the playoffs finished. Maybe having 13 games where we lost in OT or the SO built us up to handle some of the close games, since the first 5 games of our opening round series against Chicago went to OT. Hell, the Kings won the cup that year as a 40-42 team, but I don't know if they should be considered "below average" either.

I appreciate that you recognize that every coach has an expiration date, but what is Tocchet's now looking like? I can look past a few games and understand that an 8-14 game stretch can happen where anything and everything can go wrong. Those were actually few and far between, even when you look at Tippett's last 5 years. The lone exception being the 14-15 season when 3 of those months were atrocious and playing with a collection of talent that was clearly the worst collection of talent that we had here over a good portion of time. No one also offers up the injury thing, even though Boedker missed 37 games with a spleen and Hanzal missed 45. People talk about not having Raanta, Chychrun, or Hjalmarsson, but at the time, Boedker and Hanzal were our top producers (Boedker averaged 0.62 PPG, Hanzal was at 0.65 - only Yandle was comparable at that productivity level).

All that I am saying is that if the same level of talk about injuries occurred, I think it would be hard to argue that Tocchet has had it that much worse, relative to what went down in, say, the 2014-15 season. We have lost our best goalie (where our defense overall has been below average), our best SAH D, and an up and coming D in Chychrun this year. Compare that to two top 6 forwards who were our best point generators from the F position. Or the relative talent level on paper and being able to get that talent level to be equal to or greater than what it is on paper. While one had 7 years in total here and one has less than a half season, I think that there is a distinct bias because somehow these injuries this year appear to mean more to the team than previous years. Or talent level relative to the bottom feeding that we had to rely on. Or the new system thing. Yes, a lot of people have to learn a new system. Even YOY while keeping the same coach, at least 4 or 5 players are probably needing to learn the nuances of the system. But I also don't think that we should be still seeing as much volatility in the system as we have seen - regardless of how little time we have with Tocchet's system. At some point, something needs to click and even the "team meetings" haven't worked to at least give us a little kick start.

If Tippett's shelf life ran out, what is your honest assessment of Tocchet's shelf life, b/c if this is the route that we are on, even improving by 20% YOY for the life of Tocchet's contract still puts us pretty much on the exact same path as what we were getting with Tippett and teams who had less talent, right?

We are currently on pace for 47 points this year. Maybe we are closer to a 55-58 point team, so even if I put this at 58 points for a starting point:
17-18: 58 points (?)
18-19: (20% increase YOY): 70 points
19-20 (20% increase YOY): 84 points
20-21 (20% increase YOY): 101 points

Does a 20% YOY increase even seem plausible? Should it be more or less? I just have a hard time seeing any type of scenario like this playing out, unless we hit absolute home runs from here on out in terms of drafting, development, playing, trades, and free agent signings. Even if we are truly closer to a 60-70 point team, asking for a 20% uptick in production and points is a lot to ask.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

To me it still seems a little jaded, because then we would be talking about the 11-12 season as a "barely above .500 team," since the Coyotes finished 42-40, but I don't think anyone would associate that team is being "barely above average," regardless of how the playoffs finished.

I'll be honest - the 2011-2012 team was not a world-beater to me. I think we remember them as better than they were because they not only burst through the glass ceiling of the first round for the first time in franchise history, but they won the division to boot. There's no taking away the importance of those accomplishments. But in-season, they were eking out wins as a rule rather than playing like a top-echelon team. They stayed in the hunt because of three players (IMO) - Mike Smith, who had the best season he ever had or will ever have in his career by a country mile; Ray Whitney, who brought veteran savvy and scoring to the top line; and Adrian Aucoin, who was like a second team captain and who was the engine driving a very deep defensive corps. The team made it to the playoffs by grinding, grinding, grinding. That may sound jaded or cynical, but it makes their accomplishment all the more impressive - given that they torched two of the best teams in the NHL once they got to the postseason.

I appreciate that you recognize that every coach has an expiration date, but what is Tocchet's now looking like?

All I can give you is my opinion, but I think Tocchet's leash is gonna be a lot shorter than Tippett's was (and not just because Tocchet doesn't have the clout of a hockey ops role in his back pocket). I think that the talent level of the roster and the young prospects is too high for him to have much largesse - and if there aren't signs of significant improvement over the next couple of months, he could be on the hot seat sooner than many of us expected.

 

[RemoAZ]

I'll be honest - the 2011-2012 team was not a world-beater to me. I think we remember them as better than they were because they not only burst through the glass ceiling of the first round for the first time in franchise history, but they won the division to boot. There's no taking away the importance of those accomplishments. But in-season, they were eking out wins as a rule rather than playing like a top-echelon team. They stayed in the hunt because of three players (IMO) - Mike Smith, who had the best season he ever had or will ever have in his career by a country mile; Ray Whitney, who brought veteran savvy and scoring to the top line; and Adrian Aucoin, who was like a second team captain and who was the engine driving a very deep defensive corps. The team made it to the playoffs by grinding, grinding, grinding. That may sound jaded or cynical, but it makes their accomplishment all the more impressive - given that they torched two of the best teams in the NHL once they got to the postseason.



All I can give you is my opinion, but I think Tocchet's leash is gonna be a lot shorter than Tippett's was (and not just because Tocchet doesn't have the clout of a hockey ops role in his back pocket). I think that the talent level of the roster and the young prospects is too high for him to have much largesse - and if there aren't signs of significant improvement over the next couple of months, he could be on the hot seat sooner than many of us expected.

WCF team = lightning in a bottle

I agree the leash on Tocc should be a lot shorter, especially since the last one was completely ridiculous. Problem is they are already eating a ton of money from firing the other guy. If they eat yet another contract, how much could we pay a replacement? Unless there is really a new owner with deep pockets in the works, we're severely screwed if Tocc doesn't figure it out.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I agree the leash on Tocc should be a lot shorter, especially since the last one was completely ridiculous. Problem is they are already eating a ton of money from firing the other guy. If they eat yet another contract, how much could we pay a replacement? Unless there is really a new owner with deep pockets in the works, we're severely screwed if Tocc doesn't figure it out.

The decision might be made for us if the team is sold to Tilman Fertitta... But yes, so long as Barroway owns the team, we're probably stuck with Tocchet and his crew because the financial penalty for firing him would be too much to shoulder.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I'll be honest - the 2011-2012 team was not a world-beater to me. I think we remember them as better than they were because they not only burst through the glass ceiling of the first round for the first time in franchise history, but they won the division to boot. There's no taking away the importance of those accomplishments. But in-season, they were eking out wins as a rule rather than playing like a top-echelon team. They stayed in the hunt because of three players (IMO) - Mike Smith, who had the best season he ever had or will ever have in his career by a country mile; Ray Whitney, who brought veteran savvy and scoring to the top line; and Adrian Aucoin, who was like a second team captain and who was the engine driving a very deep defensive corps. The team made it to the playoffs by grinding, grinding, grinding. That may sound jaded or cynical, but it makes their accomplishment all the more impressive - given that they torched two of the best teams in the NHL once they got to the postseason.



All I can give you is my opinion, but I think Tocchet's leash is gonna be a lot shorter than Tippett's was (and not just because Tocchet doesn't have the clout of a hockey ops role in his back pocket). I think that the talent level of the roster and the young prospects is too high for him to have much largesse - and if there aren't signs of significant improvement over the next couple of months, he could be on the hot seat sooner than many of us expected.

I can somewhat agree on the world-beater thing, since it did take us winning our last 5 games to win the division. But I think we grinded into the playoffs every single year. The 09-10 season (which I consider the best team) had so many SO wins that it kind of did the same thing where it made it look like we were much better than we may have actually been. Instead of being a 50 win team and the luck of having Aucoin (I think that was the year he went like 8 for 9 in SO attempts), we may have only been a 43 win team. That is kind of where I play devil's advocate on the OT wins vs OT losses thing - it can make your team appear way better or way worse if you don't get results in the SO or OT, but for the remaining 60 minutes, your team was even on the scoreboard with the other team. If all of the SOL happened against the upper echelon of teams that year, then maybe we are a little better than one may think. Hard to say.

I always have the mindset of you should be playing some good hockey early in the season, and can have some slip-ups in December and January. By the time February and March roll around, the team needs to be firing on most cylinders, with the idea that you are playing your best hockey come late April as a playoff team. Use November and December to find some different combos and establish some different ideas on executing, so that you have that in your back pocket going forward.

Totally agree on Tocchet's leash. I am just shocked that it devolved into something this poor, even though we have seen poor times with this team. I am still not certain exactly what the smoking gun is to our struggles, but it doesn't bode well if we can't turn it around significantly.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Totally agree on Tocchet's leash. I am just shocked that it devolved into something this poor, even though we have seen poor times with this team. I am still not certain exactly what the smoking gun is to our struggles, but it doesn't bode well if we can't turn it around significantly.

I'm not too awfully shocked. I really tried to buy into the Tocchet hype but his results from his previous HC stints did not inspire confidence. And I think Chayka and others gave him way too much credit for what happened in Pittsburgh. The only really shocking thing for me was how legendarily bad we were - like, historically awful - and the thing that shocks me still is how fragile the team seems to be right now. The feel I get from the team is that everything is being done by committee - I have no way of knowing if that's really true, but it sure looks that way most games.

 

[BUX7PHX]

I'm not too awfully shocked. I really tried to buy into the Tocchet hype but his results from his previous HC stints did not inspire confidence. And I think Chayka and others gave him way too much credit for what happened in Pittsburgh. The only really shocking thing for me was how legendarily bad we were - like, historically awful - and the thing that shocks me still is how fragile the team seems to be right now. The feel I get from the team is that everything is being done by committee - I have no way of knowing if that's really true, but it sure looks that way most games.

Yeah - the historically bad thing is a tough pill to swallow. I guess that is one way of saying that we are probably better than the record indicates, but when it happens over and over, is it the player or coaching mistakes (probably both) that is spreading that fire? Eventually, you have a little bit of a break, like we saw on the Eastern Canada road trip, but then it settled right back in to a struggle.

I also look at our wins: Philadelphia, Carolina, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Los Angeles, and New Jersey. NJ, Philly, and Carolina are in the Metropolitan Division. Played Ottawa in the playoffs last year. Just seems like he knows how to coach against the teams that we play sparingly and that he is used to seeing (sometimes) from his time with Pittsburgh.

 

[cobra427]

I'm not too awfully shocked. I really tried to buy into the Tocchet hype but his results from his previous HC stints did not inspire confidence. And I think Chayka and others gave him way too much credit for what happened in Pittsburgh. The only really shocking thing for me was how legendarily bad we were - like, historically awful - and the thing that shocks me still is how fragile the team seems to be right now. The feel I get from the team is that everything is being done by committee - I have no way of knowing if that's really true, but it sure looks that way most games.

I thought there was risk in hiring an inexperienced unproven head coach but I liked the hire of Tocc. I didn't imagine it would be this bad since we picked up Tjam/Stepan and with improving young players. I think they will ride out this year regardless with Tocc. Maybe give him to the all star break next year. Its not just his contract but Barroway/Chayka would have to acknowledge they made a mistake in hiring him and I don't see either of them willing to do that after 35 games.

Maybe Tocc is going to get to learn how to be a head coach just like our young players get to learn and be better too. Being an assistant with Malikin/Crosby/Kess and a veteran team is way different then a young team with limited top tier vets and no money.

 

[Dirty Old Man]

Instead of being a 50 win team and the luck of having Aucoin (I think that was the year he went like 8 for 9 in SO attempts), we may have only been a 43 win team.

(I had to look that up. It was 6 for 9, but all 6 were game deciding goals. He didn't take any SO attempts in 10-11, and went 0-2 in 11-12. The bloom was off the rose.)

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Maybe Tocc is going to get to learn how to be a head coach just like our young players get to learn and be better too.

I dunno - I think Tocchet's "learning phase" was over after his stint head-coaching Tampa Bay.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

The Coyotes do things that well coached teams simply don't do. Well coached teams lose because they were outplayed. The Coyotes lose because they make game changing mistakes, particularly late in the game. Well coached teams don't do this. I've already seen more late game changing goals this year than I have in the last 5.

We don't have Domingue to kick around anymore. We have to take a real hard look at how the team plays. Is Tocchet's system as poor as it looks or are the players ignoring his system?

 

[Jakey53]

I thought there was risk in hiring an inexperienced unproven head coach but I liked the hire of Tocc. I didn't imagine it would be this bad since we picked up Tjam/Stepan and with improving young players. I think they will ride out this year regardless with Tocc. Maybe give him to the all star break next year. Its not just his contract but Barroway/Chayka would have to acknowledge they made a mistake in hiring him and I don't see either of them willing to do that after 35 games.

Maybe Tocc is going to get to learn how to be a head coach just like our young players get to learn and be better too. Being an assistant with Malikin/Crosby/Kess and a veteran team is way different then a young team with limited top tier vets and no money.

Good post.

 

[Jakey53]

The Coyotes do things that well coached teams simply don't do. Well coached teams lose because they were outplayed. The Coyotes lose because they make game changing mistakes, particularly late in the game. Well coached teams don't do this. I've already seen more late game changing goals this year than I have in the last 5.

We don't have Domingue to kick around anymore. We have to take a real hard look at how the team plays. Is Tocchet's system as poor as it looks or are the players ignoring his system?

RT said after last game the team has to learn how to play under pressure, then he added part of it is how they eat and if they are in shape. I really didn't understand his answer, but if he thinks some players are not in shape by now why aren't they sitting.

 

[Ebb]

RT said after last game the team has to learn how to play under pressure, then he added part of it is how they eat and if they are in shape. I really didn't understand his answer, but if he thinks some players are not in shape by now why aren't they sitting.

Doesn't RT have a past of trying to control dietary choices?

 

[Summer Rose]

Doesn't RT have a past of trying to control dietary choices?

I think that was Dallas Eakins, who was also one of our candidates for head coach.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Doesn't RT have a past of trying to control dietary choices?

Yea, he keeps kosher.

 

[Ebb]

I think that was Dallas Eakins, who was also one of our candidates for head coach.

brain gone, well, get to controlling dietary choices RT! The team needs more kale!

 

[BUX7PHX]

RT said after last game the team has to learn how to play under pressure, then he added part of it is how they eat and if they are in shape. I really didn't understand his answer, but if he thinks some players are not in shape by now why aren't they sitting.

This is something that I know that I mentioned over the years, especially from 12-13 season onward - we simply lack enough poise with (and even without) the puck. We tend to get panicky, and as the team adds younger players, there will be a considerable amount of time when the players will not execute b/c if that panic in their game.

My only question is whether or not this system helps or hurts that, since many of our directives don't appear to be dictated by reading what the opposing defense gives us. Yes, that means we may slow down some play by taking the time to assess what is out there, but it also would appear to lead to less "forcing" of the play, which is usually derived from pressure put on by the player himself to play fast, in addition to the pressure that the opposition may also be putting on our players.

Ultimately, we still have a lot of players in the 19-23 year old age range, and at that age (and I am certain many of us were the same way), they know a lot about the world and no one can tell them differently. A kid like Chychrun may get it, but a player like Duclair or Keller may just be eating for the sake of eating and not putting the "right" foods in their body. Very much a microcosm of what is on the ice - players may be doing things for the sake of, but not necessarily doing it the "right" way and that is where we are seeing some of the setbacks that we have.

 

[Bonsai Tree]

Diet? While these players who make the late game fatal screw ups might benefit from a carrot, they might also benefit from a stick, if you know what I mean.

 

[CC96]

Stepan needs to go on a diet. ^^

 

[CC96]

RT said after last game the team has to learn how to play under pressure, then he added part of it is how they eat and if they are in shape. I really didn't understand his answer, but if he thinks some players are not in shape by now why aren't they sitting.

Yeah, that’s cuz Stepan’s fatass stuffs hot dogs in his mouth every intermission.

 

[_Del_]

12 Dec 2016, fourth "first" year of rebuild: 9 wins
"It's to be expected. Coaching is fine. Be patient"

12 Dec 2017, first year of new system/coach: 7 wins
"Worst staff ever."

If Domingue/Hill would have allowed us 4 wins in the first 11 games, we'd have equaled last season's win total through the first 39 games (6 Jan) already. That's how far "behind" we are.

None of that is glowing endorsement of Tocchet who was not in my top three, but since the term "revisionist" is being thrown around, I thought maybe we should check in on actual history.

 

[cobra427]

12 Dec 2016, fourth "first" year of rebuild: 9 wins
"It's too be expected. Coaching is fine. Be patient"

12 Dec 2017, first year of new system/coach: 7 wins
"Worst staff ever."

If Domingue/Hill would have allowed us 4 wins in the first 11 games, we'd have equaled last season's win total through the first 39 games (6 Jan) already. That's how far "behind" we are.

None of that is glowing endorsement of Tocchet who was not in my top three, but since the term "revisionist" is being thrown around, I thought maybe we should check in on actual history.

Well, Tocc secured the record for worst 20 game start in NHL history and is on pace to beat the 56 point effort a few years ago, maybe under 50 points! Tocc is managing to do it with a far better roster too. Tocc has also managed to increase the production of zero full time players from last year.

 

[_Del_]

All that, ignored Domingue, young guys in key roles, and the new system/staff, and he's STILL only four wins behind where Tippett was in game 39 in January! Startlingly good case for riding it out -- sounds like we have room to grow!
You actually made me MORE excited about the Tippett firing.

 

[cobra427]

All that, ignored Domingue, young guys in key roles, and the new system/staff, and he's STILL only four wins behind where Tippett was in game 39 in January! Startlingly good case for riding it out -- sounds like we have room to grow!
You actually made me MORE excited about the Tippett firing.

I wonder if any team has ever had poor goal tending, young players and a new coach? Thats probably never happened before, hence the NHL record. Sure we have room to grow, we can only go up from here, no teams below us