Pre-Game Talk: World cup of hockey 2016 thread

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Niskanen is a good player. Its picking players like Abdelkader, Dubinsky, Kesler, Jack Johnson that is the big problem.

 

[Tawnos]

Oh, ya got me

The post was meant more in the likes of the way Sutter coaches and uses his personnel and the game he likes to play is a bigger success driver for the Kings than is the personnel that Lombardi has given Sutter.

I don't think it's possible to separate these things. Particularly when Lombardi drafted, traded or signed the entire 2012 Cup team except for Kopitar, Brown and Quick (granted three very important players).

It's the GMs job to find the right coach for his players.

 

[silverfish]

i don't think it's possible to separate these things. Particularly when lombardi drafted, traded or signed the entire 2012 cup team except for kopitar, brown and quick (granted three very important players).

It's the gms job to find the right coach for his players.

The red line from the first 11-12 dot to the second is the hiring of Sutter (Terry Murray was predecessor).

 

[Tawnos]

The red line from the first 11-12 dot to the second is the hiring of Sutter (Terry Murray was predecessor).

That's a great example of a correlation not being causation. As in, it's not a reflection of the job the GM was doing. It takes a few years for a GM to really put his stamp on a team.

The team was rebuilding for the first three years. They were young and starting to be competitive in one more year.

It was when Lombardi said "okay, I've built this excellent, talented roster and they're underperforming. Time to change the coach" that their fortunes changed. And it turns out that he did build a great roster, he just needed the right coach to run it.

The Cups are 100% credit to Lombardi, that people like Sutter get to share in.

 

[silverfish]

That's a great example of a correlation not being causation. It takes a few years for a GM to really put his stamp on a team.

The team was rebuilding for the first three years. They were young and starting to be competitive in one more year.

It was when Lombardi said "okay, I've built this excellent, talented roster and they're underperforming. Time to change the coach" that their fortunes changed. And it turns out that he did build a great roster, he just needed the right coach to run it.

The Cups are 100% credit to Lombardi, that people like Sutter get to share in.

I'd agree with you if the change mid-season in 11-12 wasn't so massive, and if the team didn't stay in the same area of the chart every season under Sutter.

In this case, I think it is safe to imply that Sutter had a massive, sustainable effect on the Kings.

 

[Tawnos]

I'd agree with you if the change mid-season in 11-12 wasn't so massive, and if the team didn't stay in the same area of the chart every season under Sutter.

In this case, I think it is safe to imply that Sutter had a massive, sustainable effect on the Kings.

Maybe you just underestimate the amount of impact a coach can really have on team metrics.

 

[silverfish]

Maybe you just underestimate the amount of impact a coach can really have on team metrics.

Do you mean overestimate? I think you may be underestimating Sutter's impact on the Kings.

I believe I am estimating his impact.

 

[Tawnos]

Do you mean overestimate? I think you may be underestimating Sutter's impact on the Kings.

I believe I am estimating his impact.

No, I meant underestimate. Your default position about coaching underestimates the potential impact of the coach. As in, Sutter's impact isn't all that surprising.

When you are a manager, really anywhere, and you hire someone who does a really great job, you get the credit for the job they do. That person also gets credit.

 

[silverfish]

No, I meant underestimate. Your default position about coaching underestimates the potential impact of the coach. As in, Sutter's impact isn't all that surprising.

When you are a manager, really anywhere, and you hire someone who does a really great job, you get the credit for the job they do. That person also gets credit.

Right, but Sutter, I think, is an extreme case. I don't know if any other team's chart would look like that. With a massive shift mid-year, and a hold for years. But I don't know for a fact, so I can't say - can only think.

I'm using this chart, plus the style of hockey I know Sutter preaches, plus what I know about Lombardi teams historically.

Yes, Lombardi hired Sutter and deserves that credit. But Lombardi isn't a great GM. And clearly, judging by the team USA roster, still doesn't seem to be aware of what hockey today is.

 

[Tawnos]

Right, but Sutter, I think, is an extreme case. I don't know if any other team's chart would look like that. With a massive shift mid-year, and a hold for years. But I don't know for a fact, so I can't say - can only think.

I'm using this chart, plus the style of hockey I know Sutter preaches, plus what I know about Lombardi teams historically.

Yes, Lombardi hired Sutter and deserves that credit. But Lombardi isn't a great GM. And clearly, judging by the team USA roster, still doesn't seem to be aware of what hockey today is.

GM job: Personnel. GM actions: Brings in 90% of the pieces to two Stanley Cup winning teams. GM assessment: Isn't a great GM.

Sorry, but the guy is bordering on HoF quality.

The American approach lately has been to try to build teams rather than an accumulation of only the best talent. It hasn't worked out, but it still could and is a reasonable way to build a roster, IMO.

There's also a thing here of there being a lull in American talent. Programs tend to be cyclical. There are Americans on the U23 team that could make an all ages team. That isn't really true of the Canadians except for McDavid.

 

[vipernsx]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I can't imagine these players want to get hurt before the regular season starts. There is no way players will go all out finishing every hit, and blocking every shot.

I'm excited for it...

I expect Russia, NA and Europe to all bring it, they've each got something to prove. Any time Sweden and Finland go head to head it's full out game-on, similarly with US and Canada. Anyone from team Czech who really isn't into it, seems to have already dropped out.

 

[Trxjw]

People are seriously shocked by the US selections? The idea of picking a US-born all-star team to put up against the world hasn't been in the cards for a long time.

 

[silverfish]

GM job: Personnel. GM actions: Brings in 90% of the pieces to two Stanley Cup winning teams. GM assessment: Isn't a great GM.

Sorry, but the guy is bordering on HoF quality.

The American approach lately has been to try to build teams rather than an accumulation of only the best talent. It hasn't worked out, but it still could and is a reasonable way to build a roster, IMO.

There's also a thing here of there being a lull in American talent. Programs tend to be cyclical. There are Americans on the U23 team that could make an all ages team. That isn't really true of the Canadians except for McDavid.

All of the charts for each team can be found at the following links:

Atlantic 1
Atlantic 2
Metro 1
Metro 2
Central 1
Central 2
Pacific 1
(Not sure where Pacific 2 is)

I don't have the time, but from a quick glance, there is no chart like Sutter's. It's about sustained success. That's a lot more coaching based than personnel based.

Here's NYR. Kill me now.

Carolyn Wilke on Twitter

 

[Tawnos]

All of the charts for each team can be found at the following links:

Atlantic 1
Atlantic 2
Metro 1
Metro 2
Central 1
Central 2
Pacific 1
(Not sure where Pacific 2 is)

I don't have the time, but from a quick glance, there is no chart like Sutter's. It's about sustained success. That's a lot more coaching based than personnel based.

Here's NYR. Kill me now.

Carolyn Wilke on Twitter

I don't have time to dive deep here, but on first glance, there seems to be long arrows accompanying most coaching changes. Sometimes, though, there are long arrows with philosophical changes occurring too. Such as the Rangers between 10-11 and 11-12.

 

[silverfish]

I don't have time to dive deep here, but on first glance, there seems to be long arrows accompanying most coaching changes. Sometimes, though, there are long arrows with philosophical changes occurring too. Such as the Rangers between 10-11 and 11-12.

The key here is whether or not the change is sustained and consistent. The Rangers make a jump from 10-11 to 11-12, but from 12-16, they're all over the place.

Sutter came, the Kings instantly went from bad to good, and they stayed there.

 

[Lion Hound]

Have the full rosters been posted yet? I didn't see them on NHL.com

 

[One Winged Angel]

You have to remember that for many of the players, the 1996 WCH was the Canada Cup they grew up watching. And Olympic hockey wasn't yet available to them. I think the players' natural competitiveness will kick in here (similar to how it does towards the end of the all-star game). But I don't expect it to be anything near the 1996 WCH, which was for many players their very first best-on-best international tournament.

Really? Because a lot of the players in that tournament had played in the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups and the 1994 Olympics, if I recall correctly.

 

[Tawnos]

Really? Because a lot of the players in that tournament had played in the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups and the 1994 Olympics, if I recall correctly.

Not the 94 Olympics. 1998 was the first year the NHL players went.

 

[Tawnos]

The key here is whether or not the change is sustained and consistent. The Rangers make a jump from 10-11 to 11-12, but from 12-16, they're all over the place.

Sutter came, the Kings instantly went from bad to good, and they stayed there.

The Rangers have had a lot more roster turnover, year-to-year in that time too. Staal, Girardi, McDonagh, and Stepan are the only 4 skaters on the team who were regulars in 11-12.

 

[silverfish]

The Rangers have had a lot more roster turnover, year-to-year in that time too. Staal, Girardi, McDonagh, and Stepan are the only 4 skaters on the team who were regulars in 11-12.

And the Kings? (Only asking because I don't know)

(Double-checked these)

Kopitar, Brown, Doughty, Martinez, Carter(was acquired in 2011)

Anyone else?

 

[Draft Guru]

Someone please tell me Gary Thorne will be calling games for ESPN.

 

[Tawnos]

And the Kings? (Only asking because I don't know)

(Double-checked these)

Kopitar, Brown, Doughty, Martinez, Carter(was acquired in 2011)

Anyone else?

King, Nolan, Lewis, Clifford? I guess if I include all 4 of them, we can talk about Kreider and Zuccarello.

But I did say year-to-year. I don't think the Kings had any years where they turned over 2/3 of their forward corps, which I think we've done twice in that time.

 

[silverfish]

Someone please tell me Gary Thorne will be calling games for ESPN.

+Bill Clement

Looks like it's Levy/Melrose.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2016/06/barry-melrose-steve-levy-top-commentator-team-espns-world-cup-hockey-2016-telecasts-brett-hull-chris-chelios-join-studio-analysts/

Levy & Melrose to Call All Team USA Games, Semifinals & Final
Hull, Chelios, John Saunders, John Buccigross & Adnan Virk the Studio Team
Buccigross, Kevin Weekes to Cover Remaining Games
Leah Hextall Ice-level Reporter
Linda Cohn Feature Reporter

King, Nolan, Lewis, Clifford? I guess if I include all 4 of them, we can talk about Kreider and Zuccarello.

But I did say year-to-year. I don't think the Kings had any years where they turned over 2/3 of their forward corps, which I think we've done twice in that time.

For the worse, it would seem.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Niskanen is a good player. Its picking players like Abdelkader, Dubinsky, Kesler, Jack Johnson that is the big problem.

It's not about him being good. It's about them picking him over guys like Shattenkirk, Yandle or Justin Faulk.

Same think with Dubinsky. He's a good player, but there's no way he should be touching the roster when guys like Kessel and Johnson aren't.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

It's not about him being good. It's about them picking him over guys like Shattenkirk, Yandle or Justin Faulk.

Same think with Dubinsky. He's a good player, but there's no way he should be touching the roster when guys like Kessel and Johnson aren't.

Niskanen is as good as Yandle or Shattenkirk. Faulk was probably the biggest omission from the team. I think he would've been the third best defenseman on the team after McDonagh and Suter.