Post-Game Talk: We suck (Well, the Players, coaches, management, Ice Caretakers)

[The Faulker 27]

 

[Wolfpuck]

The fact that we are the only team in the "good" box is just laughable.

The Canes are "good," but not "playoff good."

 

[Lempo]

The Canes are "good," but not "playoff good."

They got the looks, we got "personality".

 

[Wolfpuck]

They got the looks, we got "personality".

We're such a good friend. We're like a brother.

 

[Lempo]

We're such a good friend. We're like a brother.

A fallen brother of moment's silence kind.

They probably wish they would one day meet a team in the playoffs that plays just our kind of game.

 

[NotOpie]

So we're "kissing your sister" good....or are we "brother from another mother" good? I so confuse...

 

[WreckingCrew]

So we're "kissing your sister" good....or are we "brother from another mother" good? I so confuse...

More like "Einhorn is a man" kinda good!

 

[Ole Gil]

I've been saying for a few years the Canes are playing a gimmicky system that inflates Corsi stats. I'd argue that the Canes are an outlier, because playing to optimize Corsi isn't the way to play, and they're the only ones doing it to this degree. Rather the best team playing a particular system will probably have the best Corsi of teams playing that system.

The reaction of "Their corsi stats are amazing, they just don't get results because players and goalies suck" is fine. But the other half of that is "If the players suck, how are they putting up better corsi stats than the teams with great players?"

If the system isn't gimmicky, that means the Canes consistently have a top possession roster in the NHL because of the players on the roster. Is there anything about the Canes roster that makes anyone think they are the reason their Corsi numbers are so amazing?

 

[NotOpie]

Wally, I think a bit of what you're saying may indeed be true. I watched the cycle very closely yesterday. My overall take was "do anything to get the cycle going and keep it going". To me this appeared at the expense of some clear, cross-ice passes that could have gotten the defense and the goalie moving side to side. In essence, the point of the cycle was to cycle, not to produce a scoring chance. It also appears that our cycles are more compact than many teams, allowing the defense to clog up around our guys, compounding the "no room to shoot/blocked shots" issue.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I've been saying for a few years the Canes are playing a gimmicky system that inflates Corsi stats. I'd argue that the Canes are an outlier, because playing to optimize Corsi isn't the way to play, and they're the only ones doing it to this degree. Rather the best team playing a particular system will probably have the best Corsi of teams playing that system.

The reaction of "Their corsi stats are amazing, they just don't get results because players and goalies suck" is fine. But the other half of that is "If the players suck, how are they putting up better corsi stats than the teams with great players?"

If the system isn't gimmicky, that means the Canes consistently have a top possession roster in the NHL because of the players on the roster. Is there anything about the Canes roster that makes anyone think they are the reason their Corsi numbers are so amazing?

The system is rooted philosophically, not in Corsi itself, but in the same core idea that underlies Corsi: that the single best thing you can do to win a hockey game is to win the possession battle.

That’s actually a pretty good approach to winning at hockey, which is one of the few sports that never guarantees you will even get to play on offense at any point in the game. Simply having possession of the puck requires a small victory, and consistently keeping it away from the opponent wears them down and forces them to beat you just to get it back (let alone score).

The major confounding factors here are the possibility of random bad luck (it’s hockey, so this is always a factor) and the possibility that your opponent is so much more skilled at both scoring and preventing goals that they can capitalize on a smaller number of higher-quality opportunities at a higher rate than your guys can.

The Carolina Hurricanes are widely regarded as having one of the lowest-octane forward groups in the league, with only two forwards (Skinner and Aho) commonly seen as top-60 talents and neither of those seen as top-30. The Hurricanes are also considered to have one of the worst goaltending tandems in the league. They are, in almost every game they play, less skilled than their opponents at both scoring and preventing goals. (Evidence: currently the big argument in this forum is whether Derek Ryan or Lucas Wallmark should have been playing top-6 minutes, and we are excited to see Cam Ward (.911) in goal because it means we don’t have to deal with the other goalie who sucks much, much worse. )

And yet, this team is currently tied for the exact-average record in the East. That would seem to confirm that the system works, elevating a group that is below average at scoring and preventing goals to an average record.

The problem, therefore, most likely lies in confounding factors. I don’t know if we’ve had particularly bad luck this season... it doesn’t feel that way to me but I could be missing something. The other option left on the table is that we simply don’t have the personnel necessary to be a good team.

 

[NotOpie]

While I don't think we have the cream of the offensive crop personnel-wise, I do believe we have a fair bit of better than average players. Some, like Lindholm and Rask can be confounding. Some, like Skinner and Teravainen can be streaky. Yet it does feel like we're missing an offensive player or two who could really change the complexion of the team. Adding that other scoring threat really does change the way teams come at us defensively.

Additionally, the possession game that we play does cry out for bigger guys (or at least stronger guys) who can skate. Even though he's smallish, Aho plays with an edge and appears to be pretty strong. I think Skinner's lower body strength is a big plus for him. After Brindy called out Lindy before last season, he clearly spent time building strength. I think Rask, when he's on his game, is a stronger player (I'm not sure he trained adequately this past Summer, even though he was 2 years removed from shoulder surgery). It appears to me, that in this system, somebody has to play "big" for real success to be had.

 

[tarheelhockey]

IMO, other than adding someone who isn’t currently on the roster, that guy would have to be Lindholm. Someone with his physical capabilities really, but really should be better than just a matchup winger.

 

[NotOpie]

IMO, other than adding someone who isn’t currently on the roster, that guy would have to be Lindholm. Someone with his physical capabilities really, but really should be better than just a matchup winger.

Agreed. And I'm of the mind he played better in the middle.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Skinner (26 goal pace), Faulk (10 goal pace), Rask (17G,33P pace), Slavin (25P) and Stempniak (LOL) are all guys that are have been disappointing offensively this year. Skinner is starting to come around though. Even Williams, while on pace for 50 points is only on pace for 14 goals and we brought him in to be a goal scorer and leader (yet he makes as many boneheaded plays on the ice as rookies).

Lindholm is on pace for 21 goals, Staal is on pace for 19. That's about what we'd expect to get, although they've been cold lately so we could use more scoring from them. Team could use more from pretty much all of these guys. I don't think getting slightly better offense from one of them will cut it. They need a few of these guys to step it up.

 

[NotOpie]

Skinner (26 goal pace), Faulk (10 goal pace), Rask (17G,33P pace), Slavin (25P) and Stempniak (LOL) are all guys that are have been disappointing offensively this year. Skinner is starting to come around though. Even Williams, while on pace for 50 points is only on pace for 14 goals and we brought him in to be a goal scorer and leader (yet he makes as many boneheaded plays on the ice as rookies).

Lindholm is on pace for 21 goals, Staal is on pace for 19. That's about what we'd expect to get, although they've been cold lately so we could use more scoring from them. Team could use more from pretty much all of these guys. I don't think getting slightly better offense from one of them will cut it. They need a few of these guys to step it up.

Agreed....my "big" comment referred to somebody on each line. One of the key reasons that Turbo, Sea Bass, and Staal works, is because Staal plays big, clearing space. We need somebody to play "big" on each line, IMO.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Agreed. And I'm of the mind he played better in the middle.

We really need Lindholm to be at least a 2C in the long run. It'll be a handicap to the organization if the guy we drafted #5 to be our "Forsberg lite" ends up being a checking line winger.

 

[The Faulker 27]

Our entire offense is comprised of streaky players, with the exception of maybe Aho. Not sure if this is lack of effort, lack of strength and/or speed, bad luck, or just plain lack of skill. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in there.

 

[Ole Gil]

...

You've explained why a team with great corsi might not win. (bad players, bad goaltending)

It's the other half. Why does a team with bad players have the best corsi stats? Couldn't teams with great players be doing what the Canes do, but with more success?

Example...
Eric Staal had a 56% CF during the worst statistical season of his career playing on a bad team playing with Kris Versteeg and having allegedly 'given up on the team'.
Eric Staal this year, playing with really talented linemates, fully engaged, on a good team, putting up close to PPG, is at 48% CF.

Example #2...
Derek Ryan is at 56% CF. That puts him at #3 among centers in the league. Either Derek Ryan is an elite possession player...OR...the system is wonky.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Our entire offense is comprised of streaky players, with the exception of maybe Aho. Not sure if this is lack of effort, lack of strength and/or speed, bad luck, or just plain lack of skill. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in there.

Aren't most scorers, who aren't elite, a bit on the streaky side though?

 

[The Faulker 27]

Aren't most scorers, who aren't elite, a bit on the streaky side though?

I'd say it depends on what we define as streaky, but generally yes. It seems like our group is especially so, but maybe it's more magnified by the fact we don't have that elite not-so streaky forward.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You've explained why a team with great corsi might not win. (bad players, bad goaltending)

It's the other half. Why does a team with bad players have the best corsi stats? Couldn't teams with great players be doing what the Canes do, but with more success?

Example...
Eric Staal had a 56% CF during the worst statistical season of his career playing on a bad team playing with Kris Versteeg and having allegedly 'given up on the team'.
Eric Staal this year, playing with really talented linemates, fully engaged, on a good team, putting up close to PPG, is at 48% CF.

Example #2...
Derek Ryan is at 56% CF. That puts him at #3 among centers in the league. Either Derek Ryan is an elite possession player...OR...the system is wonky.

This isn’t going to be a popular thing to say at the moment, but the low-hanging explanation is that for all the faults he might have in other aspects of being a head coach, Peters has them playing the right system.

They’re in a playoff position despite having had dog-**** players at multiple key positions all season, and also having several non-dog-**** players disappoint. That should say a lot about the effectiveness of Peters’ system as a template, independent of line combos and all that other stuff.

 

[The Faulker 27]

This isn’t going to be a popular thing to say at the moment, but the low-hanging explanation is that for all the faults he might have in other aspects of being a head coach, Peters has them playing the right system.

They’re in a playoff position despite having had dog-**** players at multiple key positions all season, and also having several non-dog-**** players disappoint. That should say a lot about the effectiveness of Peters’ system as a template, independent of line combos and all that other stuff.

I'm really f***ing tired of his Kinetico water system though.

 

[Ole Gil]

This isn’t going to be a popular thing to say at the moment, but the low-hanging explanation is that for all the faults he might have in other aspects of being a head coach, Peters has them playing the right system.

They’re in a playoff position despite having had dog-**** players at multiple key positions all season, and also having several non-dog-**** players disappoint. That should say a lot about the effectiveness of Peters’ system as a template, independent of line combos and all that other stuff.

I like this roster. I thought this was easily a playoff team at the start of the season before Darling failed so spectacularly. Aho/Staal/TT is a real 1st line. Skinner getting 30+ on a secondary scoring line. And guys like Rask/Williams/Stemp/Lindholm/Ryan/McGinn rounding out the top 10 is legit depth. And the defense, again, is filled with guys who have very successful seasons on their resume.

Outside of Darling, on paper this should be a very good team. That's my unpopular opinion. That we have the pieces to be top 3 in the Metro, and instead they'll probably end up missing the playoffs by 6 points.

 

[Negan4Coach]

How great would it be if Bill "now your failure is complete" Peters and the Canes were responsible for the utter demise of Corsi and otherwise fancy stats once and for all.

Next, the Yankees will put an end to this "wins above replacement" madness when they just put out a lineup that says "I've got your f***ing stat, right here, tough guy. Its calles HR"

 

[A Star is Burns]

Wally, I find all of your ideas intriguing and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.