Post-Game Talk: Caps Rangers 12pm

Status
Not open for further replies.

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
I guess Lavi is trying to give the dynamic players a bit of a rest. They are playing 7 games in 11 nights or something absurd like that.

I do agree that the dynamic players keep the opposition more on their heels and help preserve leads.

That’s fine if that’s the rationale. But if he is truly trying to rest some of the better players when they go up big, then it’s odd to me that Nicklas Backstrom played almost 22 minutes yesterday while Kuznetsov only played 15. It seems more likely that Laviolette just didn’t trust Kuznetsov protecting a lead again, which is disappointing.

As @Langway mentioned, the 4th line has played well this year but I worry that Laviolette is leaning a bit too heavily on them. They shouldn’t have more 5v5 minutes than Ovechkin, Kuznetsov, and Oshie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALLCAPSALLTHETIME

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
Kuznetsov, Ovechkin, Vrana, and Oshie. They all received less 5v5 TOI than the 4th line, and all received significantly less 5v5 TOI in the 3rd period than the 4th line.

The 4th line gave up no goals. Oshie/Panik/Vrana gave up the first 2 NYR goals.

Also why are you only looking at 5v5? Don't you think during a condensed schedule with so many games the coaches are watching TOTAL ice time more closely?
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
The 4th line gave up no goals. Oshie/Panik/Vrana gave up the first 2 NYR goals.

Also why are you only looking at 5v5? Don't you think during a condensed schedule with so many games the coaches are watching TOTAL ice time more closely?

Again, why would Nicklas Backstrom play almost 22 minutes total if the coaches were keeping such a close eye on TOI? My hunch is that he is seen as a good defensive player, unlike Kuznetsov, and for that reason was not stapled to the bench in the 3rd period.

Also I focus on 5v5 TOI because I do understand that special teams TOI can skew the numbers due to situational need. If the Capitals are on the PP a lot, then Ovechkin will have more TOI. If they are on the PK a lot, then the 4th line will have more TOI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALLCAPSALLTHETIME

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
That’s fine if that’s the rationale. But if he is truly trying to rest some of the better players when they go up big, then it’s odd to me that Nicklas Backstrom played almost 22 minutes yesterday while Kuznetsov only played 15. It seems more likely that Laviolette just didn’t trust Kuznetsov protecting a lead again, which is disappointing.

Its disappointing how? Disappointing to who?
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
Again, why would Nicklas Backstrom play almost 22 minutes total if the coaches were keeping such a close eye on TOI?.

8 and 19 are not reduced in TOI like the rest of the roster. That is clear. They watch Backstrom even less with Oshie sort of playing center for Eller. Yesterday Laviolette was sending Backstrom out for PK face offs and sending Dowd and Backstrom both out for defense zone face offs late. First time this season he has done that. This is not duty that Kuzy would get
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
64,387
19,085
The 4th line gave up no goals. Oshie/Panik/Vrana gave up the first 2 NYR goals.

Also why are you only looking at 5v5? Don't you think during a condensed schedule with so many games the coaches are watching TOTAL ice time more closely?

trying to figure out why you have to constantly explain the game and various coaching decisions....mind boggling at times that this stuff isn’t just deduced by some. I don’t truly don’t get it.

My entire time posting here I guess I (incorrectly) assumed a certain (elevated) level of understanding of the game of hockey by most posters here. But it’s all starting to make sense.

No understanding of intangibles, no reliable eye test, constant disagreement with the Professionals because some stat says differently. The picture is becoming more clear to me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Calicaps and g00n

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
Again, why would Nicklas Backstrom play almost 22 minutes total if the coaches were keeping such a close eye on TOI? My hunch is that he is seen as a good defensive player, unlike Kuznetsov, and for that reason was not stapled to the bench in the 3rd period.

Also I focus on 5v5 TOI because I do understand that special teams TOI can skew the numbers due to situational need. If the Capitals are on the PP a lot, then Ovechkin will have more TOI. If they are on the PK a lot, then the 4th line will have more TOI.

And.... how those special teams minutes play out could affect future 5v5 deployment. Yes? Maybe in ways you don't know about since you're not on the bench?
 

Calicaps

NFA
Aug 3, 2006
21,816
14,097
Almost Canada
trying to figure out why you have to constantly explain the game and various coaching decisions....mind boggling at times that this stuff isn’t just deduced by some. I don’t truly don’t get it.

My entire time posting here I guess I (incorrectly) assumed a certain (elevated) level of understanding of the game of hockey by most posters here. But it’s all starting to make sense.

No understanding of intangibles, no reliable eye test, constant disagreement with the Professionals because some stat says differently. The picture is becoming more clear to me.
It's astounding. I also wonder if said posters imagine they have access to stats and analysis that the coaching staff doesn't have, because otherwise, why would said posters not assume that coaching decisions are made in the full light of all the factors: i.e stats, eye test, professional expertise, game plan, season plan, deep knowledge of players and their physical condition, etc. :dunno:
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
It's astounding. I also wonder if said posters imagine they have access to stats and analysis that the coaching staff doesn't have, because otherwise, why would said posters not assume that coaching decisions are made in the full light of all the factors: i.e stats, eye test, professional expertise, game plan, season plan, deep knowledge of players and their physical condition, etc. :dunno:

Some of it is just human nature. We see part of the picture and associate what we know with what we observe, make assumptions we don't even realize we're making, and draw conclusions. Experience or cultivated skepticism is the only cure. If you don't know what you don't know....

But overall, IMO the bigger problem is the internet has infected the entire world with the worst case of ultracrepidarianism in human history. The old saying is "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing", and Google University gives everyone easy access to a little bit of knowledge.

We're all guilty to some extent. But most don't realize they're doing it.

Or do they..........................
 

ALLCAPSALLTHETIME

Great Dane! Love that Eller feller.
Oct 10, 2009
9,234
4,898
British Columbia, Canada
One thing I've learned in life is to not worry about things that you cannot change. It only leads to frustration and misery.

Whether they dress a player or not, trade for a player or not trade for a player, whether they give more ice time to a player or not give ice time to a player, that's out of my control.

The only thing I can control is to treat others with respect and appreciate divergent viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
Some of it is just human nature. We see part of the picture and associate what we know with what we observe, make assumptions we don't even realize we're making, and draw conclusions. Experience or cultivated skepticism is the only cure. If you don't know what you don't know....

But overall, IMO the bigger problem is the internet has infected the entire world with the worst case of ultracrepidarianism in human history. The old saying is "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing", and Google University gives everyone easy access to a little bit of knowledge.

We're all guilty to some extent. But most don't realize they're doing it.

Or do they..........................

Tom Nichols has an outstanding book.

death_of_expertise.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: g00n

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
Its disappointing how? Disappointing to who?

It’s disappointing to me, because I like to see the Washington Capitals win games and I would like them to win another Stanley Cup. Their failure to close out games where they are up by multiple goals could hurt them in the postseason, especially if they go deep and face juggernauts like the Lightning or the Avalanche.

Peter Laviolette has done an excellent job so far. Let me repeat that so no one has an excuse to make strawmen arguments: I think he has done an excellent job. My main gripe is the way the team is closing out games. In the end this isn’t a “major” problem per se, as a lot of teams would love for this to be their biggest problem. But it is a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALLCAPSALLTHETIME

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
trying to figure out why you have to constantly explain the game and various coaching decisions....mind boggling at times that this stuff isn’t just deduced by some. I don’t truly don’t get it.

My entire time posting here I guess I (incorrectly) assumed a certain (elevated) level of understanding of the game of hockey by most posters here. But it’s all starting to make sense.

No understanding of intangibles, no reliable eye test, constant disagreement with the Professionals because some stat says differently. The picture is becoming more clear to me.

Of course there’s no reliable eye test. Everyone’s eye test sees what they want them to see. It’s why I suggest you come to the advanced stats thread and learn a thing or two. And I must let out a chuckle about you expecting an elevated level of understanding about hockey on an internet message board.

And if we can never disagree with professionals, what’s the point is discussing anything on a message board? I guess we should just say “whatever the coach is doing is correct”, whether that coach is Barry Trotz, Peter Laviolette, Todd Rierden, Adam Oates, etc. After all, they are the professionals. They can never be wrong.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
It’s disappointing to me, because I like to see the Washington Capitals win games and I would like them to win another Stanley Cup. Their failure to close out games where they are up by multiple goals could hurt them in the postseason, especially if they go deep and face juggernauts like the Lightning or the Avalanche.

Peter Laviolette has done an excellent job so far. Let me repeat that so no one has an excuse to make strawmen arguments: I think he has done an excellent job. My main gripe is the way the team is closing out games. In the end this isn’t a “major” problem per se, as a lot of teams would love for this to be their biggest problem. But it is a problem.

You think the Caps against Juggernauts are going to see 4-0 leads? I am not holding my breath. 1 goal leads are more likely. Do they have a problem winning games with 1 or 2 goal leads? My recollection is that they have lost 1 game this season in regulation after having a 3rd period lead.

Why do you suppose Laviolette doesnt like Kuzy defensively? With Eller out it would be really helpful if he could use him in those spots. What do you think? He's not an idiot and he has access to more and more indepth stuff and video than you. Care to guess?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CapitalsCupReality

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
It's astounding. I also wonder if said posters imagine they have access to stats and analysis that the coaching staff doesn't have, because otherwise, why would said posters not assume that coaching decisions are made in the full light of all the factors: i.e stats, eye test, professional expertise, game plan, season plan, deep knowledge of players and their physical condition, etc. :dunno:

So can we ever disagree with a coaching decision? Please let me know when it is acceptable, otherwise according to you every decision and gameplan is fully optimal and no criticism can ever be made.

It’s bananas to believe that NHL coaching and franchises are well-oiled machines beyond reproach, yet at the same time the NHL league office and the DOPS is filled with incompetent boobs and should never be trusted.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
Some of it is just human nature. We see part of the picture and associate what we know with what we observe, make assumptions we don't even realize we're making, and draw conclusions. Experience or cultivated skepticism is the only cure. If you don't know what you don't know....

But overall, IMO the bigger problem is the internet has infected the entire world with the worst case of ultracrepidarianism in human history. The old saying is "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing", and Google University gives everyone easy access to a little bit of knowledge.

We're all guilty to some extent. But most don't realize they're doing it.

Or do they..........................

Please I beg of you, take your own advice in this post and think long and hard about how it applies to you. It’ll do you a world of good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bieronymus Trotz

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
So can we ever disagree with a coaching decision? Please let me know when it is acceptable, otherwise according to you every decision and gameplan is fully optimal and no criticism can ever be made.

It’s bananas to believe that NHL coaching and franchises are well-oiled machines beyond reproach, yet at the same time the NHL league office and the DOPS is filled with incompetent boobs and should never be trusted.

This is false dilemma crap. "Either everything is up for 100% debate or nothing is". Uh huh.

The very fact that you think things work that way shows what you DON'T know. Your argument is 10,000 years older than sand. Everyone's heard it by now, even if it seems new to you.

Nobody has EVER said we can "never" criticize coaching decisions. But some common sense and experience and intelligence is required to determine what's a known unknown, or unknown unknown, and what's really within the realm of possibility.

For someone who likes to fiddle with numbers and probabilities you sure seem to be having a hard time grasping the basic concept here. How likely is it that YOU sitting at home looking at publicly available data are somehow more clued than the best in the world who do this for a living every day and have tens of thousands more hours of experience interpreting ALL the data, than you? Add in their access to the game/players/unknowns that you don't have....

I'm sorry I can't quantify the probability there, but it's going to be very, very, very small.

So the upshot here is there's a lot you can criticize about coaching decisions. Line combinations, choices to deploy those combos, coaching methods...just about any DECISION is up for debate to SOME degree. But if you think a person like yourself who admits to being a horrible judge of hockey based on observation is going to consistently second guess the premiere experts on the topic simply based on that data you pore over as your hobby....fat chance.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
Please I beg of you, take your own advice in this post and think long and hard about how it applies to you. It’ll do you a world of good.

Your ego is out of control. Step away from the charts.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292

Ok so a guy on the PK gets nicked blocking a shot and that affects the line combos for a period. Or the PK fails and the score change alters both coaches strategy, and then line deployments. Or there's an opportunity at the end of a PK to rush the other way and a partial line combo goes over the boards, which means other lines are shuffled temporarily. Or there's been SO much PK that the various lines/pairs affected need to sit longer than usual. ETC.

Flip it the other way for various PP situations, same type of thing.

But hey, you said "no" which means you know better than the coaches and the players because fancy stats.

It's funny how when the coin-flip (or worse) prediction rate of those stats is brought up people like you and some others start backpedaling to "it's better than the OTHER stats at prediction for X situations so stop applying it to Y", but then you come back in threads like this claiming you can tell everything just from those numbers.

I think I know which of those scenarios you really believe.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
During the Trotz and Reirden days Orlov didnt pk and only played the last seconds of a pp. He was always the first even strenth shift after both a pk or a pp. Special teams certainly effected his even strenth TOI
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
30,433
14,292
Please I beg of you, take your own advice in this post and think long and hard about how it applies to you. It’ll do you a world of good.

Ok coming back to this one since you're calling me out, please explain. What do you think I'm overextending my knowledge on here. Be specific. Otherwise you're just pulling out the old "NO U" defense.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
13,624
14,443
Ok so a guy on the PK gets nicked blocking a shot and that affects the line combos for a period. Or the PK fails and the score change alters both coaches strategy, and then line deployments. Or there's an opportunity at the end of a PK to rush the other way and a partial line combo goes over the boards, which means other lines are shuffled temporarily. Or there's been SO much PK that the various lines/pairs affected need to sit longer than usual. ETC.

Flip it the other way for various PP situations, same type of thing.

But hey, you said "no" which means you know better than the coaches and the players because fancy stats.

It's funny how when the coin-flip (or worse) prediction rate of those stats is brought up people like you and some others start backpedaling to "it's better than the OTHER stats at prediction for X situations so stop applying it to Y", but then you come back in threads like this claiming you can tell everything just from those numbers.

I think I know which of those scenarios you really believe.

Your disdain for analytics leaks through every one of your high-horsed posts, and I’m honestly embarrassed for you. As someone who claims that we should use the eye test and the numbers, it sure seems like you don’t actually care to use any sort of analytical argument ever and are just being a huge hypocrite!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->