Noon Game Today. Bored. Did Some Research on Building "Successful" Teams

[silverfish]

For arguments sake, I've chosen four teams. The St. Louis Blues, Chicago Blackhawks, Columbus Blue Jackets, and Boston Bruins. The Blues, Hawks, and Bruins seem to be large contenders this year (despite Chicago or STL automatically not advancing past round 1). The Blue Jackets are everyone's new favorite team, often lauded as a great way to 'build a team', and are "up and coming" (if not here already), so I chose them as well.

I'm going to take a look at a few key things here:

• Roster turnover
• Drafting Tendencies
• Free Agent tendencies
• Miscellaneous Random Babbling Rambling Thoughts of my own

First off, let's look at the goaltending of these teams.

The Chicago Blackhawks have arguably the weakest of the goalies in this group with Corey Crawford. And here's a guy that's won a cups, the only goalie here who has won a Cup as a starting goalie. Crawford is as home grown as they come, drafted by the Blackhawks in the 2nd round of the 2003 draft. 29 years old today, Crawford is still the starter for the Hawks. There is a large discrepancy between Crawford's regular season statistics (career: 2.36, .914) and playoff statistics (career: 2.05, .925). In the Blackhawks cup winning season, Crawford went for 1.84, .932 in the playoffs; losing 7 games in the post-season en route to the Cup.

The remaining three teams acquired their now star goalies via other means than the draft. Rask was traded to Boston for Andrew Raycroft after being drafted in the first round by the Maple Leafs in 2005. Tuukka is now arguably the best goalie in the NHL. Rask has yet to win a Stanley Cup as a starting goalie, backing up Tim Thomas on his way to a cup victory with the Bruins in 2011. Rask may be the best goalie in the world today.

The St. Louis Blues acquired Ryan Miller from the Sabres at this year's trading deadline. Miller has been inconsistent in the playoffs so far for the Blues, posting a 2.32, .911 in 5 games (three losses) so far. Miller will now have to back the Blues to two straight victories if they wish to pass the Blackhawks. The interesting thing about Miller is, despite being heralded as a top goalie in the league, his career stats are nothing to write home about. This despite playing on a few very good Buffalo Sabres teams before the implosion of Drury and Briere skipping town. Miller's regular season career: 2.59, .915. And post-season? 2.45, .916. Miller has shown the ability to go deep in the playoffs carrying the Sabres to an ECF in 2007 (**** you, Drury) and posing 2.22, .922. Miller is a former Vezina winner. Fun statistic? Miller's Vezina winning season: 2.22, .929. Hank's CAREER AVERAGES: 2.26, .920. Pretty funny.

The Blue Jackets goalie is far from homegrown, but he certainly hit his stride in Columbus. Sergei Bobrovsky was acquired from the Flyers for draft picks (2nd, 4th [2012], 4th [2013]). Another Vezina winner, Bob has not been able to translate his regular season successes to the playoffs yet. A 3.43 and .893, the Blue Jackets expect more, and Bob needs to show more.

Goalies can win championships, but they need to be playoff performers. Of the four regular season top goalies above, the only two who have a ring are the ones that can continue their play in the regular season. Of course, there are more things to hockey than just goalies.....

Roster turnover since 2010 [using the final game played for each team of that year - this does not account for injured players either, I'm not that smart]:

St. Louis: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 3

Chicago: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 7

Columbus: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 2

Boston: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 6

NYR: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 4

*Interesting to note: The two teams with the highest turnover (STL, CBJ) have one very important thing in common: A rebuild guided by JD.

Drafting Tendencies:

Average 1st round position since 2010:
(* denotes more than one pick in the 1st round. A statistic of 31 was added in years a team did not have a first round selection)

St. Louis: 2010*(14, 16). 2011 (31). 2012 (25). 2013 (31) = Avg: 23.4
Chicago: 2010*(24, 30). 2011*(18, 26). 2012(18). 2013(30) = Avg: 24.33333
Columbus: 2010(4). 2011(31). 2012(2). 2013*(14, 19, 27) = Avg: 16.16666
Boston: 2010(2). 2011(9). 2012(24). 2013(31) = Avg: 16.5
NYR: 2010(10). 2011(15). 2012(28). 2013(31) = Avg: 21

Players drafted since 2010 who have appeared in more than 50 NHL games for their respective team:

St. Louis: 2 (Jaden Schwartz, Vlad Tarasenko)
Chicago: 2 ( Saad, Shaw)
Columbus: 4 ( Johansen, Prout, Boone Jenner, Ryan Murray)
Boston: 2 (Seguin*, Dougie Hamilton)
NYR: 1 (JT)

Players on 2014 Playoffs Roster drafted by their respective team:

St. Louis: 9
Chicago: 12
Columbus: 8
Boston: 7
NYR: 8 (counting Moore, Fast, Miller)

Free Agency/Trade Trends:

Builds off the number above, really. Assuming a 23 player roster for the playoffs (more due to taxi rosters), we see these numbers:

Current roster acquired via FA/Trade:

St. Louis: 14
Chicago: 11
Columbus: 15
Boston: 16
NYR: 15

Miscellaneous thoughts:

You're allowed to draw your own conclusions to any set of data. That's why statistics are strange, the same two numbers can always be used to draw different conclusions. When I look at these stats, I see that the draft is completely overblown by posters here. That three of these teams were favorites heading into the playoffs, and it's not out of this world to think that the other two will advance passed round one. Is the goal to get to the divisional finals? Obviously not. It's cups. Two cup favorites are in this data set + the St. Louis Blues who were heavily favored going into the post-season. Only Chicago has homegrown over half of their roster.

Despite all of these teams averaging mid to late round selections in the first round since 2010, and most teams having multiple picks, none can boast a "sexy" implementation of these picks onto their current roster. Everyone's favorite Boston Bruins have just ONE player they've drafted since 2010 making an impact at the NHL level. This despite having just six... SIX of the same players on their 2010 roster still on the team today.

So here we are. Despite constant complaining about implementing MSL into the lineup at the expense of draft picks that will fall more into the same category of mid to late round picks, the data shows that four years later those picks will VERY rarely make an impact at the NHL level. So we're complaining about 2014 and 2015 picks, when by the year 2018 and 2019, it's hard to say those players will be making an impact at the NHL level. Specifically looking at the Rangers history, with just one player making an 'impact' at the NHL level for the organization, and that player being JT Miller, is that just bad drafting? Or is it the norm?

We often get into arguments here on this board about what it takes to build successful teams. Avoid the free agent market. Make smart trades. Build through the draft. Well, Boston has 16 players on their current roster that they have either acquired via trade or Free Agency. 16.

Of course there is plenty more analysis that can go into this. Cap space. Players earning their salary (points per dollar spent, perhaps?). But from now on, I don't think it's enough to blindly say that all successful teams build through the draft.

Anyway, this successfully killed an hour for me this morning.

Enjoy the game, everyone.

LGR

Click to read more...

 

[GAGLine]

Appreciate the analysis, but ultimately building a winner is about 2 things:

1) Identifying what it takes to win in today's NHL
2) Identifying and acquiring the players who can play that way

There's more than one way to win in the NHL, so #1 is more a matter of picking an organizational philosophy and sticking to it, something the Rangers haven't been able to do.

For #2, we need quality talent evaluators to identify the right players and a management team that has the patience needed to make the right moves rather than just reacting to fill a perceived hole in the lineup.

There are 3 ways to acquire players, and they should all be used when appropriate. Each comes with pros and cons.

1) Draft/Undrafted Free Agents.

Pro: Players are cost controlled and those who make it will often contribute above what they are paid, allowing for a deeper team under the cap.

Con: It can take many years for a prospect to have a significant impact on the team, if ever.

2) Trade.

Pro: Acquired players are much more of a known commodity and can contribute much more quickly.

Con: Players may be closer to UFA and/or retirement and require that we give up similarly valuable assets to obtain.

3) Free Agency.

Pro: Players can make an immediate impact and don't cost any assets except cap space.

Con: Players will often be overpaid and few high priced UFAs ever live up to the contract they sign.

Depending on any one of these methods too much is a recipe for failure.

 

[Mikos87]

Great analysis. Here is the thing about draft picks that so many people here tend not to take into account; and that is that even if they are hits, they usually don't contribute until they mature physically, sometimes that's 21, but usually most players aren't full time players until 23-24 or 3rd or 4th year pro.

There are plenty of under 21 players in the league, but with the exception of high end draft picks, not too many are front line players, not for winning teams anyway.

Teams have to have depth, and outclass other teams in terms of that depth to be contenders. Forget injuries, if a team can ice two top lines, a shutdown 2nd line, and an excellent 4th line, with 4 reliable defenseman, including one shutdown guy, and one that can pot in 40-50 points, with above average goaltending, that team is going to contend.

Every contender has at least 5, usually 6-7 of the following components eating around 20 mins a night.

2 Dominant centers (by dominant, 60 plus points, and two way play)
1 scoring winger that can finish plays or break a game open
1 Shutdown forward
1 Power Forward
1 Top pair offensive defenseman
1 Shutdown defenseman
1 great goaltender

Take that formula, and plug in the players for contenders, and you will see how it lines up. The Rangers are almost there with 2 more pieces (Big top 6 center, offensive RHD to supply secondary backend offense) needed to contend.

BTW on Ryan Miller, I am watching him choke as of this very moment, and wow did he just waste St.Louis's season.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Silverfish,

I did not full analyze your data, but I do like that you at least provided an overview of the general gripes in terms of team building that are written on these boards.

There are no guarantees when you sign a "marque" goaltender (enjoy golfing in Missouri), and there are no guarantees when a team stockpiles draft picks, but there are only a few ways to obtain players, so I think it has to do with the synergy that is created by each move rather than the gain or loss of one move.

Teams that pick players without considering the synergy or lack thereof that will be created in that movement, are heading toward a folly. Unfortunately, for us fans, we are only privy to the games we watch, online stats, and tyne opinions of our fellow fans, so it is hard for us to ever know if our team is making the right choice.

Although players are virtual celebrities these days, they actually do have personalties. These guys actually travel together, room together, and bond. If there are a bunch of mismatches in the locker room, the acquisitions will never grow to fruition.

Current players that are acquired via trade or free agency may be playing great due to their role on their former team as well as their synergy among their former players. By plugging in names to a roster, the possibility that the team clicks is minimized.

Aside from the top three picks each year, the variance among the effectiveness of those players in terms of making their drafting team a contender is large. Again it not only matters who a team drafts, it the timeframe for introducing the player to the big team, whether that player will adjust to the drafting teams system, and who the drafting team will give that player in order for him to grow.

In today's "money ball" NHL, it is nearly impossible to a fan to even begin to ascertain the amount of data that teams utilize when making roster moves, so any armchair analysis will dwfiniotelty miss the point, but hockey is still a team game, and a team wins by synergy. They don't win by names, the don't win "depth only," and they don't always win by tanking. The team wins when each component augments the other.

In the words of Mike Keenan, "Heave ho! Two in a row!"

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Appreciate the analysis, but ultimately building a winner is about 2 things:

1) Identifying what it takes to win in today's NHL
2) Identifying and acquiring the players who can play that way

There's more than one way to win in the NHL, so #1 is more a matter of picking an organizational philosophy and sticking to it, something the Rangers haven't been able to do.

For #2, we need quality talent evaluators to identify the right players and a management team that has the patience needed to make the right moves rather than just reacting to fill a perceived hole in the lineup.

There are 3 ways to acquire players, and they should all be used when appropriate. Each comes with pros and cons.

1) Draft/Undrafted Free Agents.

Pro: Players are cost controlled and those who make it will often contribute above what they are paid, allowing for a deeper team under the cap.

Con: It can take many years for a prospect to have a significant impact on the team, if ever.

2) Trade.

Pro: Acquired players are much more of a known commodity and can contribute much more quickly.

Con: Players may be closer to UFA and/or retirement and require that we give up similarly valuable assets to obtain.

3) Free Agency.

Pro: Players can make an immediate impact and don't cost any assets except cap space.

Con: Players will often be overpaid and few high priced UFAs ever live up to the contract they sign.

Depending on any one of these methods too much is a recipe for failure.

#1 can be answered in a multitude of ways. (as you said)
#2 is also arbitrary there are 3, 4 ,5 teams every year that could easily win the cup all of them constructed with unique combinations of talent and players. It is about so much more than two things simply because those two things you mentioned are comprised of so many significant subcategories and branches. The bulk of your post acknowledges this though. My initial reaction though to that opening comment was "whaaat there are more than two things." I get what you're saying by trying to simplify it to just two things but there are just too many factors for me to accept narrowing it down to two. Love your posts btw

 

[Mikos87]

In today's "money ball" NHL, it is nearly impossible to a fan to even begin to ascertain the amount of data that teams utilize when making roster moves, so any armchair analysis will dwfiniotelty miss the point, but hockey is still a team game, and a team wins by synergy. They don't win by names, the don't win "depth only," and they don't always win by tanking. The team wins when each component augments the other.

I look at those money ball stats as tools more for agents to try and get better contracts than a direct predictor of player performance. Sure they help teams find diamonds in the rough, but you still have to watch the game to see and know whats happening.

Benoit Pouliot is a perfect example, a guy who had outstanding "money ball" stats, and was one of the reasons why the Rangers signed the journey man. But based on the first 35 games of the year, he was absolute dog turd... and he was going up against 3rd pair D.

AV did a great job of coaching him up and simplifying his game into an effective one, and all of a sudden he became a valuable player giving valuable minutes. No longer useless, and his talent was put to good use.

Take the season as a whole, and Benoit Pouliot's money ball stat lines are pretty good, back to what he's shown the last couple of years.

But many of those stats are based on usage... and that's where watching with your eyes matter.

Benoit Pouliot easily outclasses most 3rd pair D. But against top legitimate 4 D?? It's a different story.

What does that say about Pouliot? You are a winning team if he is a 3rd line winger... You are a lottery team if he is a 2nd line winger. Because that player will produce to his capabilities. Kudos to AV for getting him to be consistent.

 

[aufheben]

Too much emphasis on the quantities. Marchand, Bergeron, Krejci, Lucic...those are their most important forwards. Then Dougie hamilton who could be a great defensemen for them for years.

They have their #1/#2 set for years; Krejci, despite not putting up huge numbers in the RS, is a monster in the playoffs; Bergeron is a Selke-calibre 2nd line center; Lucic...speaks for itself; Marchand is a contemporary version (or "poor man's") of Claude Lemieux.

Raycroft was drafted by Boston, traded for Rask. Set in goal for years. Kessel was drafted by Boston, traded for Seguin; There you have one of USA's best wingers, and Seguin, who at 22, is already a top center, [nonetheless, he won a Cup with Boston].

I also don't think FA signings and Trades should be one category. Having young contributors on ELC's as well, is very important in the Salary Cap NHL. We all know that picks aren't guarantees. To some, that justifies trading them, for others, it's a reason to have more. Nonetheless, a draft pick is still a valuable trade asset.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I look at those money ball stats as tools more for agents to try and get better contracts than a direct predictor of player performance. Sure they help teams find diamonds in the rough, but you still have to watch the game to see and know whats happening.

Benoit Pouliot is a perfect example, a guy who had outstanding "money ball" stats, and was one of the reasons why the Rangers signed the journey man. But based on the first 35 games of the year, he was absolute dog turd... and he was going up against 3rd pair D.

AV did a great job of coaching him up and simplifying his game into an effective one, and all of a sudden he became a valuable player giving valuable minutes. No longer useless, and his talent was put to good use.

Take the season as a whole, and Benoit Pouliot's money ball stat lines are pretty good, back to what he's shown the last couple of years.

But many of those stats are based on usage... and that's where watching with your eyes matter.

Benoit Pouliot easily outclasses most 3rd pair D. But against top legitimate 4 D?? It's a different story.

What does that say about Pouliot? You are a winning team if he is a 3rd line winger... You are a lottery team if he is a 2nd line winger. Because that player will produce to his capabilities. Kudos to AV for getting him to be consistent.

Perhaps my reference to "money ball," narrowed down my conclusion, so I want to expand on what I was trying to say in the post to which you responded.

My point is that although there are still limitations to team building with the comprehensive methods professional teams implement, fans of the sport including greater than average knowledge of the sport as most of the posters on this side posses are severely limited in this area.

I've read many generalizations that are thrown around on the web about what constitutes a well built team, and I'm saying that it's the synergy of those players that constitutes the well built team. The problem for the fans is that modern teams are using enormous amours of data for analysis, more video sources than a fan could ever dream of, psychological and psychological metrics in the case of potential draftees, and using groups of individuals who have the eyes and the tools to properly evaluate the talent.

Of all the points a fan could make about a team, their opinions of their favorites teams (I'm including myself in this) will be poor. There are too many factors to take into consideration.

 

[NYRANGERAMI*]

For arguments sake, I've chosen four teams. The St. Louis Blues, Chicago Blackhawks, Columbus Blue Jackets, and Boston Bruins. The Blues, Hawks, and Bruins seem to be large contenders this year (despite Chicago or STL automatically not advancing past round 1). The Blue Jackets are everyone's new favorite team, often lauded as a great way to 'build a team', and are "up and coming" (if not here already), so I chose them as well.

I'm going to take a look at a few key things here:

• Roster turnover
• Drafting Tendencies
• Free Agent tendencies
• Miscellaneous Random Babbling Rambling Thoughts of my own

First off, let's look at the goaltending of these teams.

The Chicago Blackhawks have arguably the weakest of the goalies in this group with Corey Crawford. And here's a guy that's won a cups, the only goalie here who has won a Cup as a starting goalie. Crawford is as home grown as they come, drafted by the Blackhawks in the 2nd round of the 2003 draft. 29 years old today, Crawford is still the starter for the Hawks. There is a large discrepancy between Crawford's regular season statistics (career: 2.36, .914) and playoff statistics (career: 2.05, .925). In the Blackhawks cup winning season, Crawford went for 1.84, .932 in the playoffs; losing 7 games in the post-season en route to the Cup.

The remaining three teams acquired their now star goalies via other means than the draft. Rask was traded to Boston for Andrew Raycroft after being drafted in the first round by the Maple Leafs in 2005. Tuukka is now arguably the best goalie in the NHL. Rask has yet to win a Stanley Cup as a starting goalie, backing up Tim Thomas on his way to a cup victory with the Bruins in 2011. Rask may be the best goalie in the world today.

The St. Louis Blues acquired Ryan Miller from the Sabres at this year's trading deadline. Miller has been inconsistent in the playoffs so far for the Blues, posting a 2.32, .911 in 5 games (three losses) so far. Miller will now have to back the Blues to two straight victories if they wish to pass the Blackhawks. The interesting thing about Miller is, despite being heralded as a top goalie in the league, his career stats are nothing to write home about. This despite playing on a few very good Buffalo Sabres teams before the implosion of Drury and Briere skipping town. Miller's regular season career: 2.59, .915. And post-season? 2.45, .916. Miller has shown the ability to go deep in the playoffs carrying the Sabres to an ECF in 2007 (**** you, Drury) and posing 2.22, .922. Miller is a former Vezina winner. Fun statistic? Miller's Vezina winning season: 2.22, .929. Hank's CAREER AVERAGES: 2.26, .920. Pretty funny.

The Blue Jackets goalie is far from homegrown, but he certainly hit his stride in Columbus. Sergei Bobrovsky was acquired from the Flyers for draft picks (2nd, 4th [2012], 4th [2013]). Another Vezina winner, Bob has not been able to translate his regular season successes to the playoffs yet. A 3.43 and .893, the Blue Jackets expect more, and Bob needs to show more.

Goalies can win championships, but they need to be playoff performers. Of the four regular season top goalies above, the only two who have a ring are the ones that can continue their play in the regular season. Of course, there are more things to hockey than just goalies.....

Roster turnover since 2010 [using the final game played for each team of that year - this does not account for injured players either, I'm not that smart]:

St. Louis: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 3

Chicago: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 7

Columbus: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 2

Boston: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 6

NYR: Players on roster in final game of 2010, and most recent game played: 4

*Interesting to note: The two teams with the highest turnover (STL, CBJ) have one very important thing in common: A rebuild guided by JD.

Drafting Tendencies:

Average 1st round position since 2010:
(* denotes more than one pick in the 1st round. A statistic of 31 was added in years a team did not have a first round selection)

St. Louis: 2010*(14, 16). 2011 (31). 2012 (25). 2013 (31) = Avg: 23.4
Chicago: 2010*(24, 30). 2011*(18, 26). 2012(18). 2013(30) = Avg: 24.33333
Columbus: 2010(4). 2011(31). 2012(2). 2013*(14, 19, 27) = Avg: 16.16666
Boston: 2010(2). 2011(9). 2012(24). 2013(31) = Avg: 16.5
NYR: 2010(10). 2011(15). 2012(28). 2013(31) = Avg: 21

Players drafted since 2010 who have appeared in more than 50 NHL games for their respective team:

St. Louis: 2 (Jaden Schwartz, Vlad Tarasenko)
Chicago: 2 ( Saad, Shaw)
Columbus: 4 ( Johansen, Prout, Boone Jenner, Ryan Murray)
Boston: 2 (Seguin*, Dougie Hamilton)
NYR: 1 (JT)

Players on 2014 Playoffs Roster drafted by their respective team:

St. Louis: 9
Chicago: 12
Columbus: 8
Boston: 7
NYR: 8 (counting Moore, Fast, Miller)

Free Agency/Trade Trends:

Builds off the number above, really. Assuming a 23 player roster for the playoffs (more due to taxi rosters), we see these numbers:

Current roster acquired via FA/Trade:

St. Louis: 14
Chicago: 11
Columbus: 15
Boston: 16
NYR: 15

Miscellaneous thoughts:

You're allowed to draw your own conclusions to any set of data. That's why statistics are strange, the same two numbers can always be used to draw different conclusions. When I look at these stats, I see that the draft is completely overblown by posters here. That three of these teams were favorites heading into the playoffs, and it's not out of this world to think that the other two will advance passed round one. Is the goal to get to the divisional finals? Obviously not. It's cups. Two cup favorites are in this data set + the St. Louis Blues who were heavily favored going into the post-season. Only Chicago has homegrown over half of their roster.

Despite all of these teams averaging mid to late round selections in the first round since 2010, and most teams having multiple picks, none can boast a "sexy" implementation of these picks onto their current roster. Everyone's favorite Boston Bruins have just ONE player they've drafted since 2010 making an impact at the NHL level. This despite having just six... SIX of the same players on their 2010 roster still on the team today.

So here we are. Despite constant complaining about implementing MSL into the lineup at the expense of draft picks that will fall more into the same category of mid to late round picks, the data shows that four years later those picks will VERY rarely make an impact at the NHL level. So we're complaining about 2014 and 2015 picks, when by the year 2018 and 2019, it's hard to say those players will be making an impact at the NHL level. Specifically looking at the Rangers history, with just one player making an 'impact' at the NHL level for the organization, and that player being JT Miller, is that just bad drafting? Or is it the norm?

We often get into arguments here on this board about what it takes to build successful teams. Avoid the free agent market. Make smart trades. Build through the draft. Well, Boston has 16 players on their current roster that they have either acquired via trade or Free Agency. 16.

Of course there is plenty more analysis that can go into this. Cap space. Players earning their salary (points per dollar spent, perhaps?). But from now on, I don't think it's enough to blindly say that all successful teams build through the draft.

Anyway, this successfully killed an hour for me this morning.

Enjoy the game, everyone.

LGR

Great analysis.....If your bored tomorrow.....can you mow my lawn?

 

[Mikos87]

Perhaps my reference to "money ball," narrowed down my conclusion, so I want to expand on what I was trying to say in the post to which you responded.

My point is that although there are still limitations to team building with the comprehensive methods professional teams implement, fans of the sport including greater than average knowledge of the sport as most of the posters on this side posses are severely limited in this area.

I've read many generalizations that are thrown around on the web about what constitutes a well built team, and I'm saying that it's the synergy of those players that constitutes the well built team. The problem for the fans is that modern teams are using enormous amours of data for analysis, more video sources than a fan could ever dream of, psychological and psychological metrics in the case of potential draftees, and using groups of individuals who have the eyes and the tools to properly evaluate the talent.

Of all the points a fan could make about a team, their opinions of their favorites teams (I'm including myself in this) will be poor. There are too many factors to take into consideration.

Oh yes totally agree. As a fan, I can notice what's missing, and that is a hindsight perspective, one that comes after the fact, and base my judgement in accordance to that. I look at other successful teams (year-in/year-out contenders), and look at the elements that they have, and contrast it to that of this team.

I personally have a net over net perspective when it comes to gauging hockey, because of a few factors.

1. I am not involved in the sport, so my knowledge is limited.
2. I only care about winning the next game.
3. All I want is a championship for this team.

Having run a couple of business my perspective from an arm chair GM's isn't a viable solution for an organization in the game of hockey. Not my industry so to speak. So yes I freely admit taking a net/net stance, but if this was a business in my industry, I would take a more grand outlook and formulate a big picture 5-10 year game plan.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Oh yes totally agree. As a fan, I can notice what's missing, and that is a hindsight perspective, one that comes after the fact, and base my judgement in accordance to that. I look at other successful teams (year-in/year-out contenders), and look at the elements that they have, and contrast it to that of this team.

I personally have a net over net perspective when it comes to gauging hockey, because of a few factors.

1. I am not involved in the sport, so my knowledge is limited.
2. I only care about winning the next game.
3. All I want is a championship for this team.

Having run a couple of business my perspective from an arm chair GM's isn't a viable solution for an organization in the game of hockey. Not my industry so to speak. So yes I freely admit taking a net/net stance, but if this was a business in my industry, I would take a more grand outlook and formulate a big picture 5-10 year game plan.

I'm not trying to knock any specific poster. As far as we know, no mortal is omniscient, so we will always be speculating no matter how sophisticated the involved analysis.

In terms of the NHL, even the experts make poor analysis, but the variables that are involved in successful team building are staggering when the methods of team building in the modern era use sophisticated analysis to out game their competition.

For instance, one could take a look at any GDT on these boards. The range of plausibility of different analysis of the fans during one period in a single game, a part of the team where we the fans have the video footage, alternate sources, and the ability to take a 3rd person view, are mind boggling. This issue becomes exponentially more difficult to predict in team building, so I've grown tired of the insert player here, etc. mentality. It's much more difficult than that.