Coaching Change

[xxgt465xx]

I never called you clueless but now that you suggest it...

Bryan Allen did precisely those things in Games 1 and 2 so thank you for proving my point. Since you clearly can't understand the value of hockey plays that don't show up on a scoresheet I think we're done here.

Uhhhhhhh no..... no he did not. Even though everyone hates me on here, even they would not agree with your statement. Or at least anybody who watched the games.

Just go ahead and rewatch the final 40 seconds of game 1. Pay attention to Bryan Allen failing on absolutely every level of hockey. If you don't see it, Id gladly donate money for you to have corrective lens surgery.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Uhhhhhhh no..... no he did not. Even though everyone hates me on here, even they would not agree with your statement. Or at least anybody who watched the games.

Just go ahead and rewatch the final 40 seconds of game 1. Pay attention to Bryan Allen failing on absolutely every level of hockey. If you don't see it, Id gladly donate money for you to have corrective lens surgery.

Oh so one play when Allen had to deal with Beauchemin leaving his position, the puck coming at him and defending Gaborik all at the same time nullifies everything else he did that game? I see. And I was at the game and watched Allen very closely since he was involved in the play quite a bit.

 

[xxgt465xx]

Oh so one play when Allen had to deal with Beauchemin leaving his position, the puck coming at him and defending Gaborik all at the same time nullifies everything else he did that game? I see. And I was at the game and watched Allen very closely since he was involved in the play quite a bit.

Well, since you were at the game and clearly missed what happened, let me lay it out for you. We won the faceoff, then Bryan Allen carried the puck behind the net and his "attempt" at clearing the puck was a weak wrister right to a Kings player who knocked the puck down, then yes Getzlaf and Beauchemin also played very weak defensively, but when the puck comes to the front of the net, Allen was completely unaware of Gaborik walking right down the slot and then had no problem popping the puck in our net. Apparently you see just swinging your stick at the puck and ignoring the attacking player as solid defense. [MOD EDIT: Not needed.]

 

[Vipers31]

Jeez, lay low on the attacks of anyone's understanding of the game. See site rules.

Even though everyone hates me on here, even they would not agree with your statement.

Don't think that. Just because there's (even pretty big) differences in opinion about parts of a game we all are passionate about, it doesn't mean anybody hates one for it. That would be ridiculous. We're all only even talking here because we're united in our love for the game and the passion for one team. We don't hate the billions of people we're not talking to because they don't even have those things in common with us, so disagreeing about certain things within what have do have in common would be a terrible reason to hate anyone. It's not that bad.

... well, this was beyond cheesy, and I'm feeling so dirty I'm literally straigth heading for the shower.

 

[xxgt465xx]

Jeez, lay low on the attacks of anyone's understanding of the game. See site rules.



Don't think that. Just because there's (even pretty big) differences in opinion about parts of a game we all are passionate about, it doesn't mean anybody hates one for it. That would be ridiculous. We're all only even talking here because we're united in our love for the game and the passion for one team. We don't hate the billions of people we're not talking to because they don't even have those things in common with us, so disagreeing about certain things within what have do have in common would be a terrible reason to hate anyone. It's not that bad.

... well, this was beyond cheesy, and I'm feeling so dirty I'm literally straigth heading for the shower.

Im sorry but I cannot ignore him saying that Allen is playing the best hockey of the Ducks. That is just not even true in any way, shape or form.

 

[Vipers31]

Im sorry but I cannot ignore him saying that Allen is playing the best hockey of the Ducks. That is just not even true in any way, shape or form.

You don't have to ignore it. But you have to address it in a way that respects the rules. I think you've made it clear that you don't understand how he can feel that way, really no further emphasis needed, guaranteed.

 

[xxgt465xx]

You don't have to ignore it. But you have to address it in a way that respects the rules. I think you've made it clear that you don't understand how he can feel that way, really no further emphasis needed, guaranteed.

Well, sometimes people need to told a little more forcefully that their opinion is completely invalid. I can't be held responsible for other people on these boards having paper-thin skin when it comes to criticism of their opinions. I, personally, could care less if someone makes personal attacks at me on an internet forum, because Im not looking for respect here. I want to discuss hockey with like-minded individuals and if I say something as completely wrong and misguided as some of the stuff I have seen on these boards then I would want to be called out on it.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Well, sometimes people need to told a little more forcefully that their opinion is completely invalid. I can't be held responsible for other people on these boards having paper-thin skin when it comes to criticism of their opinions. I, personally, could care less if someone makes personal attacks at me on an internet forum, because Im not looking for respect here. I want to discuss hockey with like-minded individuals and if I say something as completely wrong and misguided as some of the stuff I have seen on these boards then I would want to be called out on it.

Your problem is that you think anybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid and doesn't understand things as well as you do. If you want to discuss hockey with like minded people you need to start by having some respect for others and their opinions. Yes, we have a few idiots on this board but most people are worthy of being respectful to them. You seem to think that since you don't come here for respect you don't need to show any. You're wrong. Being argumentative and insulting to everyone who engages you won't make anybody think you're smarter than them. But it looks like you're intent on learning that the hard way.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Well, sometimes people need to told a little more forcefully that their opinion is completely invalid. I can't be held responsible for other people on these boards having paper-thin skin when it comes to criticism of their opinions. I, personally, could care less if someone makes personal attacks at me on an internet forum, because Im not looking for respect here. I want to discuss hockey with like-minded individuals and if I say something as completely wrong and misguided as some of the stuff I have seen on these boards then I would want to be called out on it.

Oh my god the irony. The irony!!!

 

[Vipers31]

Well, sometimes people need to told a little more forcefully that their opinion is completely invalid. I can't be held responsible for other people on these boards having paper-thin skin when it comes to criticism of their opinions. I, personally, could care less if someone makes personal attacks at me on an internet forum, because Im not looking for respect here.

Apart from the good points Eddie made that I fully endorse, the allowed "forcefullness" in which you declare other opinions invalid in your opinion is set up by the rules. It doesn't matter how thin anyone's skin is (it's not like anyone reported any of the posts in this thread, at least as far as I realized), or whether you'd be willing to waive your right to not be personally attacked. The rules still apply, regardless of what anyone's looking for at the end of his day here.

And that aside, too much "force" tends to just lead to missing the nail with the hammer, or at least bending it, instead of having it sink in straight. It didn't help the point, at all.

 

[xxgt465xx]

Your problem is that you think anybody who doesn't agree with you is stupid and doesn't understand things as well as you do. If you want to discuss hockey with like minded people you need to start by having some respect for others and their opinions. Yes, we have a few idiots on this board but most people are worthy of being respectful to them. You seem to think that since you don't come here for respect you don't need to show any. You're wrong. Being argumentative and insulting to everyone who engages you won't make anybody think you're smarter than them. But it looks like you're intent on learning that the hard way.

Well look at the progression of our government and tell me that "respectful" debates result in any progress. But, the point here is that I provide evidence that correlates to every successful team in Corsi and Fenwick numbers (I don't delve into the others as it would be so lost on these boards that its not worth the effort) and the general response here just "No that means nothing" and that apparently I only look at stats sheets. I guess all the GMs and coaches that use it are just complete idiots and only know hockey based on paper charts? No, its because all that stuff correlates directly to successful teams. Just go look at Toronto and the absolute disaster their season was. That collapse was predicted using all those stats. Why do the Kings win hockey games? Because they are one of the best possession teams in the league. Why does our defense get looked at as weak? Because we are slow, old, and we turn the puck over (this postseason has been so incredibly terrible for Beauchemin and Allen). Now, credit is clearly due to whichever poster made the point that relying on Allen to be the puck-moving dman was hindering his game, and I hadn't looked at it that way. Last night he played with Vatanen, who carried the puck on his own most of the night, and Allen didnt completely suck. But what does that tell you? That BB clearly doesn't understand the strengths and weaknesses of his own team, and by the time that he does realize it its far too late. Successful coaches have the ability to adjust in game and BB is usually two games late to that party. Its not as clear in the regular season, but Sutter is making Boudreau his B***h in the coaching department.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Well look at the progression of our government and tell me that "respectful" debates result in any progress. But, the point here is that I provide evidence that correlates to every successful team in Corsi and Fenwick numbers (I don't delve into the others as it would be so lost on these boards that its not worth the effort) and the general response here just "No that means nothing" and that apparently I only look at stats sheets. I guess all the GMs and coaches that use it are just complete idiots and only know hockey based on paper charts? No, its because all that stuff correlates directly to successful teams. Just go look at Toronto and the absolute disaster their season was. That collapse was predicted using all those stats. Why do the Kings win hockey games? Because they are one of the best possession teams in the league. Why does our defense get looked at as weak? Because we are slow, old, and we turn the puck over (this postseason has been so incredibly terrible for Beauchemin and Allen). Now, credit is clearly due to whichever poster made the point that relying on Allen to be the puck-moving dman was hindering his game, and I hadn't looked at it that way. Last night he played with Vatanen, who carried the puck on his own most of the night, and Allen didnt completely suck. But what does that tell you? That BB clearly doesn't understand the strengths and weaknesses of his own team, and by the time that he does realize it its far too late. Successful coaches have the ability to adjust in game and BB is usually two games late to that party. Its not as clear in the regular season, but Sutter is making Boudreau his B***h in the coaching department.

You missed my point completely. You're angry that everybody doesn't agree with you. Your absolutely livid that any of us could be so stupid. And every post you make has that tone. You didn't come here to chat with like minded fans, you came to preach and fight. We all get passionate and sometimes straddle the line of rudeness, but nobody here makes a habit of it like you seem to. Do yourself a favor and take a step back to relax and reflect about the big picture here. We're a motley crew but there's always room for one more if you really want to be here. We're not politicians.

 

[xxgt465xx]

You missed my point completely. You're angry that everybody doesn't agree with you. Your absolutely livid that any of us could be so stupid. And every post you make has that tone. You didn't come here to chat with like minded fans, you came to preach and fight. We all get passionate and sometimes straddle the line of rudeness, but nobody here makes a habit of it like you seem to. Do yourself a favor and take a step back to relax and reflect about the big picture here. We're a motley crew but there's always room for one more if you really want to be here. We're not politicians.

Well, maybe people should actually pay attention to statistics. This thread is about whether the coaching is successful. My stance is that Bob Murray should be fired, and Boudreau be kept in his position. I support my statement by providing statistics that show how weak our defense actually is and, like I have said before, the response is just "no, those stats are useless" and "you must only know how to look at a sheet of paper", which just makes me wonder if any of these people have the ability to understand how sports work. "Moneyball" works and the same theory applies to hockey. So if somebody actually provided an intelligent response to counter Bryan Allen having the worst statistical numbers of any defenseman on this team, outside of Fistric, I would be really keen on hearing it.

 

[Duck Off]

Well look at the progression of our government and tell me that "respectful" debates result in any progress. But, the point here is that I provide evidence that correlates to every successful team in Corsi and Fenwick numbers (I don't delve into the others as it would be so lost on these boards that its not worth the effort) and the general response here just "No that means nothing" and that apparently I only look at stats sheets. I guess all the GMs and coaches that use it are just complete idiots and only know hockey based on paper charts? No, its because all that stuff correlates directly to successful teams. Just go look at Toronto and the absolute disaster their season was. That collapse was predicted using all those stats. Why do the Kings win hockey games? Because they are one of the best possession teams in the league. Why does our defense get looked at as weak? Because we are slow, old, and we turn the puck over (this postseason has been so incredibly terrible for Beauchemin and Allen). Now, credit is clearly due to whichever poster made the point that relying on Allen to be the puck-moving dman was hindering his game, and I hadn't looked at it that way. Last night he played with Vatanen, who carried the puck on his own most of the night, and Allen didnt completely suck. But what does that tell you? That BB clearly doesn't understand the strengths and weaknesses of his own team, and by the time that he does realize it its far too late. Successful coaches have the ability to adjust in game and BB is usually two games late to that party. Its not as clear in the regular season, but Sutter is making Boudreau his B***h in the coaching department.

Are you seriously comparing government to hockey? It's simple dude. There's nothing wrong with not agreeing with someone, but don't be a dick about it. I have probably been in 4454544985946 debates with Exit where we completely disagree on something, but hell, honestly that's why I come back. I don't visit game day threads anymore, because 99% of it is people saying the same things and seeing the same things. I prefer the debates or variances of opinion personally. Anyway, despite not seeing eye to eye, we keep it civil, and I enjoy it.

Allen does at transition, but he was extremely valuable during the Stars series. Even the biased announcers were talking about it.

I don't see how you say Sutter is making BB his *****. We dominated game 1 and ran into a lot of posts, hot goaltender, and bad luck. It sucked, but it happens. Game 2 was not dominated like some claim, but I didn't think we were that bad. I would have had Vatanen in after game 1 for Fistric because the Kings weren't being that physical. We needed Fistric and Allen in the Dallas series because for one, goal scoring wasn't the issue, and two, we needed his physical presence. I don't really fault BB much for keeping Fistric in for game two though because we were clearly the better team. Unfortunately, their goalie is far superior to ours. That was the difference in game 1, and you could argue it was the deciding factor in game 2 as well.

As far your stats comment. You think it's more important than others, so what's wrong with people disagreeing with that? I think those are overrated. I think they have a place, but I don't value it as much as you do. Our defense is getting old, and it's definitely a transition period. It'll be interesting to see what Murray does. I definitely have complaints about the roster, but overall he's done a pretty good job. Now if he doesn't add a significant player in the offseason, I'm going to go ballistic, but we'll discuss that when the offseason gets here.

 

[snarktacular]

20% gap is huge, but believe whatever you want. I suppose you think its a great choice to keep Carlyle in Toronto too

Are you saying 20% gap in Corsi? Yes that is huge in its own metric.

But I'm saying that the best Corsi/Fenwick/whatever has only 60% correlation. You keep claiming "direct correlation" but it's not. It's 60%. As in "this shot-based metric says team A should win"... but it is only correct 60% of the time. Which is actually better than most other stats, but it still isn't that good.

Well, sometimes people need to told a little more forcefully that their opinion is completely invalid. I can't be held responsible for other people on these boards having paper-thin skin when it comes to criticism of their opinions. I, personally, could care less if someone makes personal attacks at me on an internet forum, because Im not looking for respect here. I want to discuss hockey with like-minded individuals and if I say something as completely wrong and misguided as some of the stuff I have seen on these boards then I would want to be called out on it.

Vipers addressed it, but I'll make it crystal clear. It doesn't matter if you "waive your right for personal attacks." Site rules are site rules. Stop the attacks or your will be infracted.

 

[xxgt465xx]

Are you seriously comparing government to hockey? It's simple dude. There's nothing wrong with not agreeing with someone, but don't be a dick about it. I have probably been in 4454544985946 debates with Exit where we completely disagree on something, but hell, honestly that's why I come back. I don't visit game day threads anymore, because 99% of it is people saying the same things and seeing the same things. I prefer the debates or variances of opinion personally. Anyway, despite not seeing eye to eye, we keep it civil, and I enjoy it.

Allen does at transition, but he was extremely valuable during the Stars series. Even the biased announcers were talking about it.

I don't see how you say Sutter is making BB his *****. We dominated game 1 and ran into a lot of posts, hot goaltender, and bad luck. It sucked, but it happens. Game 2 was not dominated like some claim, but I didn't think we were that bad. I would have had Vatanen in after game 1 for Fistric because the Kings weren't being that physical. We needed Fistric and Allen in the Dallas series because for one, goal scoring wasn't the issue, and two, we needed his physical presence. I don't really fault BB much for keeping Fistric in for game two though because we were clearly the better team. Unfortunately, their goalie is far superior to ours. That was the difference in game 1, and you could argue it was the deciding factor in game 2 as well.

As far your stats comment. You think it's more important than others, so what's wrong with people disagreeing with that? I think those are overrated. I think they have a place, but I don't value it as much as you do. Our defense is getting old, and it's definitely a transition period. It'll be interesting to see what Murray does. I definitely have complaints about the roster, but overall he's done a pretty good job. Now if he doesn't add a significant player in the offseason, I'm going to go ballistic, but we'll discuss that when the offseason gets here.

You seemed to miss Bryan Allen in game 2. He had about 5 icings directly from his stick on terrible passes and other than about 2 of his passes, the rest went directly to the Kings who then launched a counterattack. Its not hard to see. If he was so amazing, as you claim, then why would he and Fistric get benched for the final 10 minutes of the game? No coach in the playoffs deliberately benches 2/6 of their defenseman other than for the pure fact that they just absolutely suck.

 

[snarktacular]

I'm with xxgt on Allen. He was very good in the Dallas series, but I hated his games 1 and 2.

 

[xxgt465xx]

Are you saying 20% gap in Corsi? Yes that is huge in its own metric.

But I'm saying that the best Corsi/Fenwick/whatever has only 60% correlation. You keep claiming "direct correlation" but it's not. It's 60%. As in "this shot-based metric says team A should win"... but it is only correct 60% of the time. Which is actually better than most other stats, but it still isn't that good.


Vipers addressed it, but I'll make it crystal clear. It doesn't matter if you "waive your right for personal attacks." Site rules are site rules. Stop the attacks or your will be infracted.

Yes, more like the mid 60s percentage-wise for correlation, but I am taking that mid-60s correlation into account all day long. Its entirely important and it still goes back to my point that it has 20% advantage over non-correlation. Getting back to Bryan Allen, he has a 41.7% Corsi-for through 9 playoff games, worst on the team. That means that when he is on the ice, the opponents are getting 58.3% of the shot attempts. If he was so great at moving the puck, this number would be closer to even. His possession game is awful. And how do you get scored on? By making sure the other team has the puck roughly 17% more than your own team. That gap is entirely significant.

By the way, I don't take it as waiving my right for personal attacks, I just have a wildly different opinion on what actually constitutes an attack or insult.

 

[Duck Off]

You seemed to miss Bryan Allen in game 2. He had about 5 icings directly from his stick on terrible passes and other than about 2 of his passes, the rest went directly to the Kings who then launched a counterattack. Its not hard to see. If he was so amazing, as you claim, then why would he and Fistric get benched for the final 10 minutes of the game? No coach in the playoffs deliberately benches 2/6 of their defenseman other than for the pure fact that they just absolutely suck.

Bryan Allen struggled at times in that series, but so did a lot of our players. Overall he was great that series.

That pair does suck at transition. That's why most of us were completely dumb founded why the Allen-Vatanen pair was broken up. One of Allen/Fistric is needed in the lineup. They provide elements to this team that none of our other defenseman do. Look what happened when he was with Vatanen, he was fine.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Well, maybe people should actually pay attention to statistics. This thread is about whether the coaching is successful. My stance is that Bob Murray should be fired, and Boudreau be kept in his position. I support my statement by providing statistics that show how weak our defense actually is and, like I have said before, the response is just "no, those stats are useless" and "you must only know how to look at a sheet of paper", which just makes me wonder if any of these people have the ability to understand how sports work. "Moneyball" works and the same theory applies to hockey. So if somebody actually provided an intelligent response to counter Bryan Allen having the worst statistical numbers of any defenseman on this team, outside of Fistric, I would be really keen on hearing it.

You continue to prove my point that you seethe with anger at how stupid anybody is, when they don't see things so obvious to you. My point has nothing to do with Allen, advanced stats, or any other specific game related POV. I'm sorry you fail to see the big picture here.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Well look at the progression of our government and tell me that "respectful" debates result in any progress. But, the point here is that I provide evidence that correlates to every successful team in Corsi and Fenwick numbers (I don't delve into the others as it would be so lost on these boards that its not worth the effort) and the general response here just "No that means nothing" and that apparently I only look at stats sheets. I guess all the GMs and coaches that use it are just complete idiots and only know hockey based on paper charts? No, its because all that stuff correlates directly to successful teams. Just go look at Toronto and the absolute disaster their season was. That collapse was predicted using all those stats. Why do the Kings win hockey games? Because they are one of the best possession teams in the league. Why does our defense get looked at as weak? Because we are slow, old, and we turn the puck over (this postseason has been so incredibly terrible for Beauchemin and Allen). Now, credit is clearly due to whichever poster made the point that relying on Allen to be the puck-moving dman was hindering his game, and I hadn't looked at it that way. Last night he played with Vatanen, who carried the puck on his own most of the night, and Allen didnt completely suck. But what does that tell you? That BB clearly doesn't understand the strengths and weaknesses of his own team, and by the time that he does realize it its far too late. Successful coaches have the ability to adjust in game and BB is usually two games late to that party. Its not as clear in the regular season, but Sutter is making Boudreau his B***h in the coaching department.

It's the fact that debates are neither respectful nor actually moderated debates any more that has led to the issues with the government. A proper debate provides evidence FOR your argument and rational criticism of your opponent, not as hominem attacks and loud screaming. All that does is cause individuals who agree with you to agree with you and convince anyone who doesn't that you are wrong AND so obnoxious as to not be worth listening to.

The Kings win because they play a suffocating style of defense that is made even more impressive during the playoffs because they aren't called for the 2-3 interference/obstruction infractions they commit literally every single shift. Plus having a top 2 goaltender in the world. Not because they take a ton of crappy shots in the hopes that eventually one of the rebounds goes to someone who can actually hit the net. It's effective, but it wouldn't be with proper officiating. Kudos to Sutter for realizing the officiating is crap though and coaching a scheme that takes advantage of it, as well as having a handful of truly elite players. They're the exact opposite of Colorado, except Roy doesn't believe in saber metrics at all, and the same thing happens to both teams when their all-star goalie fails to show up - they lose.

The "advanced stats" currently in vogue aren't actually terribly advanced. When they track where the shots are taken from and where they are shot at (as Chicago reputedly does) then they'll start to hold validity. The current ones are simply not that good at actually predicting success (as Snark has shown in another thread, they aren't statistically impressive). The fact that stats wonks think that shooting and save percentages are actually random, as opposed to being dependent on variables not being measures that appear random because of it, says everything you need to now about the field as it currently exists.

It's also been repeatedly stated that Allen and Fistric were benched because they play only defensively as a tandem, and the Kings simply weren't attacking at all. It was actually a good coaching move in game to put out the players whose skills would actually be most utilized. One of those in-game coaching adjustments you claim never happens. Much like the lines get juggled to stack the defensively aware players onto three lines when they need to hold a lead.

 

[xxgt465xx]

Bryan Allen struggled at times in that series, but so did a lot of our players. Overall he was great that series.

That pair does suck at transition. That's why most of us were completely dumb founded why the Allen-Vatanen pair was broken up. One of Allen/Fistric is needed in the lineup. They provide elements to this team that none of our other defenseman do. Look what happened when he was with Vatanen, he was fine.

I know. But this whole thread is about the coaching. My huge gripe with Boudreau is the speed at which he realizes that something is failing. Just look at how crappy our PP has been the whole year, and from my understanding BB handles the PP. Last night he finally pulled Getzy off the point on the PP and bingo, SUCCESS! Vatanen should have been recalled after game 1. And if fans can spot the glaring hole that was caused by that pairing in game 1, then so should an NHL coach. You don't have time to sit on your hands in the playoffs and that is the same gripe that Capitals fans had with Boudreau.

 

[Ducks DVM]

Yes, more like the mid 60s percentage-wise for correlation, but I am taking that mid-60s correlation into account all day long. Its entirely important and it still goes back to my point that it has 20% advantage over non-correlation. Getting back to Bryan Allen, he has a 41.7% Corsi-for through 9 playoff games, worst on the team. That means that when he is on the ice, the opponents are getting 58.3% of the shot attempts. If he was so great at moving the puck, this number would be closer to even. His possession game is awful. And how do you get scored on? By making sure the other team has the puck roughly 17% more than your own team. That gap is entirely significant.

By the way, I don't take it as waiving my right for personal attacks, I just have a wildly different opinion on what actually constitutes an attack or insult.

It isn't a 20% gap. Snark showed there was no statistical difference in playoff series wins by using Corsi vs simply their seeding.

And again, Corsi doesn't measure the defensive play of the defensemen in any way, shape, or form. That stat is useless in a vacuum if you're not also looking at what forwards are on the ice at the same time and who is playing for the other side.

An important note - you don't get to set the rules here for what consists of a personal attack. Keep that in mind please.

 

[TheJoeMan]

Well, maybe people should actually pay attention to statistics. This thread is about whether the coaching is successful. My stance is that Bob Murray should be fired, and Boudreau be kept in his position. I support my statement by providing statistics that show how weak our defense actually is and, like I have said before, the response is just "no, those stats are useless" and "you must only know how to look at a sheet of paper", which just makes me wonder if any of these people have the ability to understand how sports work. "Moneyball" works and the same theory applies to hockey. So if somebody actually provided an intelligent response to counter Bryan Allen having the worst statistical numbers of any defenseman on this team, outside of Fistric, I would be really keen on hearing it.

Are there stats for when a player wins a puck battle in the corner? Is there a stat for when a d-men is in good position to receive a pass and move the puck out of the zone? Is there a stat for how effectively a d-man keeps a forward away from the crease? Is there a stat for when a player makes a good outlet pass? The fact that you constantly point to a form of statistical analysis that is flawed proves you don't understand what a defensive-defensemen's job is. Bob Murray should be fired?! He's probably the best GM in the league champ.

 

[xxgt465xx]

It's the fact that debates are neither respectful nor actually moderated debates any more that has led to the issues with the government. A proper debate provides evidence FOR your argument and rational criticism of your opponent, not as hominem attacks and loud screaming. All that does is cause individuals who agree with you to agree with you and convince anyone who doesn't that you are wrong AND so obnoxious as to not be worth listening to.

The Kings win because they play a suffocating style of defense that is made even more impressive during the playoffs because they aren't called for the 2-3 interference/obstruction infractions they commit literally every single shift. Plus having a top 2 goaltender in the world. Not because they take a ton of crappy shots in the hopes that eventually one of the rebounds goes to someone who can actually hit the net. It's effective, but it wouldn't be with proper officiating. Kudos to Sutter for realizing the officiating is crap though and coaching a scheme that takes advantage of it, as well as having a handful of truly elite players. They're the exact opposite of Colorado, except Roy doesn't believe in Sabre metrics at all, and the same thing happens to both teams when their all-star goalie fails to show up - they lose.

The "advanced stats" currently in vogue aren't actually terribly advanced. When they track where the shots are taken from and where they are shot at (as Chicago reputedly does) then they'll start to hold validity. The current ones are simply not that good at actually predicting success (as Snark has shown in another thread, they aren't statistically impressive). The fact that stats wonks think that shooting and save percentages are actually random, as opposed to being dependent on variables not being measures that appear random because of it, says everything you need to now about the field as it currently exists.

It's also been repeatedly stated that Allen and Fistric were benched because they play only defensively as a tandem, and the Kings simply weren't attacking at all. It was actually a good coaching move in game to put out the players whose skills would actually be most utilized. One of those in-game coaching adjustments you claim never happens. Much like the lines get juggled to stack the defensively aware players onto three lines when they need to hold a lead.

Nobody thinks they are random. I know you are referring to the people that claim is that Anaheim has an unsustainably high shooting percentage. What you don't seem to understand is that over a huge sample of games, these percentages generally even out, meaning that they are expecting the long-term trend to make an appearance at some point, and the success of teams is generally correlated at a very high rate to these statistics.

While the Kings do play stifling defense and have a top 2 in the world goaltender, this is the exact reason that they can have such low shooting percentages. If they get one or two goals per game, the other team doesn't have enough possession to overcome it. So the statistics still all hold true, imagine that.