Playoff Push Thread

[BK]

I have..... but usually because these stats were often thrown around as if they were the bible or something and often contradicted posters thoughts via the eye test. The most blatant example was when Bickell was struggling later in his career in Chicago and a certain poster was playing it down - hyping up his possession numbers, trying to defy what the eye test revealed.

Who did that?

 

[BobbyJet]

Who did that?

That doesn't matter. I think Piteus said it best when he posted:

Analytics is best used to explain performance ... not the other way around. Analytics can't account for the human influence. At the core, hockey is pretty simple:

1. Put pucks into the opponent's net.
2. Stop pucks from going into your own net.

If you can't do the basic fundamentals, analytics mean poop.

 

[Pez68]

Ok. They're higher quality than the Blackhawks right now.

By literally every single metric available, simple or 'fancy'.

Better?

In the last two months the Hawks have 32 points in 26 games and a +7 goal differential.

In the last two months the Canes have 32 points in 28 games and a +5 goal differential.

In a 7 game series I take the Hawks over the Canes 10 times out of 10.

Then again this goes back to the fundamental flaw in analytics that you refuse to accept. All shots are not created equal.

 

[JaegerDice]

My bad for letting one snide comment derail an entire thread.

Do I think the Carolina Hurricanes are better than the Blackhawks this year? Absolutely.

Will they do more damage in the playoffs if they get in? Probably not, cause they're in a tougher division and conference.

Would they do more damage if you could transplant them over here in the Blackhawks place (where they would be in a playoff spot already)... again, probably not, I don't see them winning against the the best seeds in the West either (though I guess I'd have to take a closer look at who they'd be playing... would they even be a wild-card in this division, or a top 3?), but they'd probably make it more interesting or take more games off them.

Either way, as a Blackhawks fan, I would rather see this team draft higher than push for the 'privilege' of getting dummied by a legitimate contender in a playoff series. Because only one of those two outcomes might actually help shape the Blackhawks into a contender themselves, and it certainly isn't the experience of getting dummied.

I don't run the team. I can't make them tank. They're going to make it not regardless of my personal hopes. I just think actively cheering for them to win, when those wins come at the potential expense of long-term, sustainable improvement, is a bit short-sighted.

 

[Pez68]

My bad for letting one snide comment derail an entire thread.

Do I think the Carolina Hurricanes are better than the Blackhawks this year? Absolutely.

Will they do more damage in the playoffs if they get in? Probably not, cause they're in a tougher division and conference.

Would they do more damage if you could transplant them over here in the Blackhawks place (where they would be in a playoff spot already)... again, probably not, I don't see them winning against the the best seeds in the West either (though I guess I'd have to take a closer look at who they'd be playing... would they even be a wild-card in this division, or a top 3?), but they'd probably make it more interesting or take more games off them.

Either way, as a Blackhawks fan, I would rather see this team draft higher than push for the 'privilege' of getting dummied by a legitimate contender in a playoff series. Because only one of those two outcomes might actually help shape the Blackhawks into a contender themselves, and it certainly isn't the experience of getting dummied.

I don't run the team. I can't make them tank. They're going to make it not regardless of my personal hopes. I just think actively cheering for them to win, when those wins come at the potential expense of long-term, sustainable improvement, is a bit short-sighted.

You must be miserable watching the Hawks play exciting, winning hockey the last couple months huh?

 

[JaegerDice]

You must be miserable watching the Hawks play exciting, winning hockey the last couple months huh?

Not miserable.

Just kind of irritated that they're in a system where winning is against their own best interests. And 'raging against the machine' will do nothing but delay their ability to be legitimate contenders again.

For those who find simply making the playoffs a great source of joy, no matter how futile actually playing in them may be, good on you. I prefer Stanley Cups, myself.

 

[piteus]

Not miserable.

Just kind of irritated that they're in a system where winning is against their own best interests. And 'raging against the machine' will do nothing but delay their ability to be legitimate contenders again.

For those who find simply making the playoffs a great source of joy, no matter how futile actually playing in them may be, good on you. I prefer Stanley Cups, myself.

I'm all for analytics ... but you have to triangulate with the eye/human factor. Nothing by itself makes complete sense.

Analytics is supposed to be a supplement to the explanation of a performance. It's not supposed to be the guide. If it was, humans would be robots. Analytics / regression is still built on assumptions ... human assumptions. Therefore, it has flaws.

For every 76ers, there are the Edmonton Oilers, Sacramento Kings, Cleveland Browns, San Diego Padres, etc. I understand the idea of tanking. However, you mistake a high pick with better players. Yes ... that is somewhat true. However, analytics places far more value at the number of chances (draft picks). Therefore, it has to be high pick + number of selections. That's how a team gets the optimal hit rate on draft picks.

If the Hawks get two high draft picks in 2 years (by missing last and this year's playoffs) ... it's not exactly skewing the odds on the their side. The Hawks need to miss several playoffs in a row ... like the Sixers. Even then the Sixers only hit on Embiid and Simmons. They missed on Noel, MCW, Okafor, and Fultz. That's a 33% hit rate. The Patriots value the number of selections vs. lottery picks.

There's also the opportunity factor. The opportunity window with Kane and Toews having career years. The opportunity to give our youngsters experience along with our coach. I'm a proponent of tanking, but I'm not sure if it's the right solution for this team. As long as we selling our bad contracts, a #8 draft pick vs. in the teens is not that big of a deal.

 

[Pez68]

Even if the Hawks are TERRIBLE this season once again, there is absolutely no guarantee they land players good enough to get them another cup. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Just based on core players alone, and how they are playing......there is absolutely no way they win less games than the bottom 5 teams in the league. Those teams are f***ing abysmal, and the Hawks aren't even close to being that bad.

Hockey is entertainment. The Hawks have won 3 cups in my lifetime, and were basically a modern day dynasty. They competed for a cup almost every season since 2008-2009. Another cup would be awesome, but I just want to watch ENTERTAINING HOCKEY from them at this point. The last two seasons have been f***ing awful. I have already watched more full games this season, than I did last season. This team has a very 2005-2007 Blackhawks' vibe to it.

The Hawks are young, and entertaining. In the NHL, things change VERY quickly, and draft picks are unpredictable. The Hawks will be drafting in the 10-17 range, more than likely. The Hawks might have a better chance of finding an impact player there, than most teams do in the 5-16 range, based on their scouting abilities...

Being awful every season is overrated. Just ask Arizona, Buffalo, Edmonton, Carolina, Columbus, Florida, Colorado, and New Jersey. How close are those teams to contending for a cup?? Most are further away than the Hawks, who have been a dominant team for the better part of a decade.....

Losing breeds losing.

 

[JaegerDice]

I'm all for analytics ... but you have to triangulate with the eye/human factor. Nothing by itself makes complete sense.

Analytics is supposed to be a supplement to the explanation of a performance. It's not supposed to be the guide. If it was, humans would be robots. Analytics / regression is still built on assumptions ... human assumptions. Therefore, it has flaws.

For every 76ers, there are the Edmonton Oilers, Sacramento Kings, Cleveland Browns, San Diego Padres, etc. I understand the idea of tanking. However, you mistake a high pick with better players. Yes ... that is somewhat true. However, analytics places far more value at the number of chances (draft picks). Therefore, it has to be high pick + number of selections. That's how a team gets the optimal hit rate on draft picks.

If the Hawks get two high draft picks in 2 years (by missing last and this year's playoffs) ... it's not exactly skewing the odds on the their side. The Hawks need to miss several playoffs in a row ... like the Sixers. Even then the Sixers only hit on Embiid and Simmons. They missed on Noel, MCW, Okafor, and Fultz. That's a 33% hit rate. The Patriots value the number of selections vs. lottery picks.

There's also the opportunity factor. The opportunity window with Kane and Toews having career years. The opportunity to give our youngsters experience along with our coach. I'm a proponent of tanking, but I'm not sure if it's the right solution for this team. As long as we selling our bad contracts, a #8 draft pick vs. in the teens is not that big of a deal.

The 'dynasty' Blackhawks of the 2010s were born out of sucking for years.

Rightly or wrongly, that's what it takes within the system as currently constructed.

Truthfully, given the flattening of the league through salary cap parity over the last decade, it actually takes very few years in the basement to get back into contention. Look at the Leafs, for example.

Everybody holds up the Oilers as some boogey-man. Yes, if you're ****ing incompetent, then getting a ton of talent high in the draft won't help you.

Likewise, you can because incredibly competent, and not have enough talent and fail just as much.

Assuming a baseline of competence (which, granted, may be too much to expect from the average #goodhockeyman), you're better off amassing talent than you are pushing for playing experience or 'winning culture'.

The Blackhawks had roughly, let me calculate this... *pulls out calculator*... ah, yes, ZERO ****ING WINNING CULTURE when they went the WCF in 2009. They just had talent. Lots and lots of talent amassed by being bad for a long time.

 

[Pez68]

The 'dynasty' Blackhawks of the 2010s were born out of sucking for years.

Rightly or wrongly, that's what it takes within the system as currently constructed.

Truthfully, given the flattening of the league through salary cap parity over the last decade, it actually takes very few years in the basement to get back into contention. Look at the Leafs, for example.

Everybody holds up the Oilers as some boogey-man. Yes, if you're ****ing incompetent, then getting a ton of talent high in the draft won't help you.

Likewise, you can because incredibly competent, and not have enough talent and fail just as much.

Assuming a baseline of competence (which, granted, may be too much to expect from the average #goodhockeyman), you're better off amassing talent than you are pushing for playing experience or 'winning culture'.

The Blackhawks had roughly, let me calculate this... *pulls out calculator*... ah, yes, ZERO ****ING WINNING CULTURE when they went the WCF in 2009. They just had talent. Lots and lots of talent amassed by being bad for a long time.

Their most impactful players:

Keith: 54th overall
Seabrook: 14th overall
Hammer: 108th overall
Crawford: 52nd overall
Hossa: Free Agent
Kane: 1st overall
Toews: 3rd overall
Sharp: 95th overall, trade pickup...

Two of their core players were top 5 picks. The rest are players everyone has a chance to draft.

It takes WAY, WAY, WAY more than a top 5 draft pick to win a cup. The Hawks already have Toews and Kane still performing at an extremely high level. They don't need Hughes or Kakko to win another cup. They need depth, and top 4 defensemen. That is found all over the place.

Top 5 picks and tanking is overrated. It takes YEARS of suck to put together a core.

 

[JaegerDice]

Their most impactful players:

Keith: 54th overall
Seabrook: 14th overall
Hammer: 108th overall
Crawford: 52nd overall
Hossa: Free Agent
Kane: 1st overall
Toews: 3rd overall
Sharp: 95th overall, trade pickup...

Two of their core players were top 5 picks. The rest are players everyone has a chance to draft.

It takes WAY, WAY, WAY more than a top 5 draft pick to win a cup. The Hawks already have Toews and Kane still performing at an extremely high level. They don't need Hughes or Kakko to win another cup. They need depth, and top 4 defensemen. That is found all over the place.

Top 5 picks and tanking is overrated. It takes YEARS of suck to put together a core.

Please list their placement in the years they drafted the players listed.

One might almost think having has many lottery tickets, drawn as high as possible, helped them out.

 

[Pez68]

Please list their placement in the years they drafted the players listed.

One might almost think having has many lottery tickets, drawn as high as possible, helped them out.

Go ahead. It's your argument, not mine, and now you're moving the goalposts.

 

[JaegerDice]

Go ahead. It's your argument, not mine, and now you're moving the goalposts.

I'm moving the goalposts by saying I want the team to draft higher, so they can have better odds at drafting better players? Seems legit.

How many players of those you listed were drafted in a year where the Blackhawks were a playoff team? How many of those players were drafted in years they clawed and scratched their way into a playoff spot.

If the bulk of them were drafted when the team was bad, maaaaaaaybe being bad, and their draft position, had something to do with it. Jus saying....

 

[Pez68]

I'm moving the goalposts by saying I want the team to draft higher, so they can have better odds at drafting better players? Seems legit.

How many players of those you listed were drafted in a year where the Blackhawks were a playoff team? How many of those players were drafted in years they clawed and scratched their way into a playoff spot.

If the bulk of them were drafted when the team was bad, maaaaaaaybe being bad, and their draft position, had something to do with it. Jus saying....

Holy shit man. I just showed you that the majority of the players the Hawks won their cups with....weren't even taken in the first round, and you still insist you need to be a lottery team to build a cup contender?

 

[JaegerDice]

Holy **** man. I just showed you that the majority of the players the Hawks won their cups with....weren't even taken in the first round, and you still insist you need to be a lottery team to build a cup contender?

You think the benefits of being a lottery team end in the first round?

Hypothetically, if the Blackhawks pick 58th instead of 54th, is Keith still on the board? Or did picking sooner, help them?

There's obviously luck involved, drafting has more to do with luck than it ever will skill, but putting yourself in position to pick higher obviously increases your odds of getting game-breaking talent, round after round. The odds obviously diminish as the rounds progress, but would you rather try and find the next Duncan Keith with pick 32 or with pick 63?

 

[Pez68]

Tampa Bay:

Kucherov: 58th overall
Point: 79th overall
Stamkos: 1st overall
Hedmen: 2nd overall
Johnson: UNDRAFTED
Gourde: UNDRAFTED
Miller: 15th overall
Killorn: 77th overall
Palat: 207th overall
McDonagh: Trade

Do you need more examples?

 

[Pez68]

You think the benefits of being a lottery team end in the first round?

Hypothetically, if the Blackhawks pick 58th instead of 54th, is Keith still on the board? Or did picking sooner, help them?

Goalposts. Moved. Again.

You realize the 54th pick was....that of a playoff team, right? The Hawks finished 3rd with 96 points that season. If they sucked more that season, maybe they end up with Trevor Daley instead.

There goes 3 cups.

 

[JaegerDice]

Tampa Bay:

Kucherov: 58th overall
Point: 79th overall
Stamkos: 1st overall
Hedmen: 2nd overall
Johnson: UNDRAFTED
Gourde: UNDRAFTED
Miller: 15th overall
Killorn: 77th overall
Palat: 207th overall
McDonagh: Trade

Do you need more examples?

I like Tampa a lot.

I'm not arguing against the idea that you need to make hay on your late picks. I'm arguing that I'd rather have top picks in every round vs mid-round picks in every round, especially when the 'reward' for the moving down the draft order is 4 games worth of an ass-kicking.

 

[Pez68]

The point you are completely missing is that teams that can identify talent, DON'T NEED TO TANK.

You should realize this.

Also, the NHL draft is completely unpredictable, and superstars are found in every round.

 

[JaegerDice]

Goalposts. Moved. Again.

You realize the 54th pick was....that of a playoff team, right? The Hawks finished 3rd with 96 points that season. If they sucked more that season, maybe they end up with Trevor Daley instead.

There goes 3 cups.

You keep using the term 'moving the goalposts'. I'm not sure you know what it means.

Nobody is moving the goalposts. My 'goalposts' that the Blackhawks are better off being bad and drafting high, are the same as they were to begin this conversation.

The goal-posts are set. They are set at the position that the Blackhawks got good, because they were bad for a long time. Those are the goalposts. If you want to argue either a) The Blackhawks were not bad or b) the Blackhawks getting good had nothing to do with them being bad, then go for it.

If you think the Blackhawks got to where they were, a consistent stanley cup contender, by being a playoff team, ok. That's your position. I think it's nuts, but so be it.

I've been pretty consistent in my position as far as drafting. The draft is basically a big lottery. I think the idea of scouts and scouting are totally overrated. I think a team should get as many picks as they can, as many lottery tickets as they can, as high as they can, in pursuit of jackpots. The closer you are to 10A the better your chances of a jackpot.

Can you get jackpots later? Sure. Can you get jackpots with late, late picks? Sure. Would I count on it? No. Would I rather try to get as close to 1oa as possible to maximize my chances at a jackpot? Yes.

 

[Pez68]

You keep using the term 'moving the goalposts'. I'm not sure you know what it means.

Nobody is moving the goalposts.

The goal-posts are set. They are set at the position that the Blackhawks got good, because they were bad for a long time. Those are the goalposts. If you want to argue either a) The Blackhawks were not bad or b) the Blackhawks getting good had nothing to do with them being bad, then go for it.

If you think the Blackhawks got to where they were by being a playoff team, ok. That's your position. I think it's nuts, but so be it.

I've been pretty consistent in my position as far as drafting. The draft is basically a big lottery. I think the idea of scouts and scouting are totally overrated. I think a team should get as many picks as they can, as many lottery tickets as they can, as high as they can, in pursuit of jackpots. The closer you are to 10A the better your chances of a jackpot.

Can you get jackpots later? Sure. Can you get jackpots with late, late picks? Sure. Would I count on it? No. Would I rather try to get as close to 1oa as possible to maximize my chances at a jackpot? Yes.

I know exactly what it means, and you are doing it.

False. Because only two of their critical cup winning pieces came from being bad. The rest of their pieces were lucky draft picks, free agent signings, and trades....

Edmonton arguably has two equal pieces to Toews and Kane, in McDavid and Draisaitl. They still absolutely suck.

You don't win cups by drafting in the top 5 or top 10 for years on end. That guarantees absolutely nothing. You win cups by identifying talent. Whether that comes in the draft, in Europe, in free agency, or in trades, really doesn't matter in the least. Hockey is the ultimate team sport. A couple of elite players gets you nothing in this league.

It doesn't surprise me that you think scouts and scouting are overrated. It shows me that you don't see the game the same way people that have lived hockey for 30+ years see the game. It's also why you think all shots are created equal.

So the teams that consistently find talent, without high draft picks, are just lucky? Is that seriously your stance?

 

[Cowch]

I genuinely dont believe the Hawks tanked their way into 3 cups, and I dont know that anyone ever has. Being bad is never the way to become a good team, intelligent roster management is.

With this current roster, it's like some people are searching for a window to be competitive while staring out of a window to be competitive.

 

[Malagahawks]

I'm all for analytics ... but you have to triangulate with the eye/human factor. Nothing by itself makes complete sense.

Analytics is supposed to be a supplement to the explanation of a performance. It's not supposed to be the guide. If it was, humans would be robots. Analytics / regression is still built on assumptions ... human assumptions. Therefore, it has flaws.

For every 76ers, there are the Edmonton Oilers, Sacramento Kings, Cleveland Browns, San Diego Padres, etc. I understand the idea of tanking. However, you mistake a high pick with better players. Yes ... that is somewhat true. However, analytics places far more value at the number of chances (draft picks). Therefore, it has to be high pick + number of selections. That's how a team gets the optimal hit rate on draft picks.

If the Hawks get two high draft picks in 2 years (by missing last and this year's playoffs) ... it's not exactly skewing the odds on the their side. The Hawks need to miss several playoffs in a row ... like the Sixers. Even then the Sixers only hit on Embiid and Simmons. They missed on Noel, MCW, Okafor, and Fultz. That's a 33% hit rate. The Patriots value the number of selections vs. lottery picks.

There's also the opportunity factor. The opportunity window with Kane and Toews having career years. The opportunity to give our youngsters experience along with our coach. I'm a proponent of tanking, but I'm not sure if it's the right solution for this team. As long as we selling our bad contracts, a #8 draft pick vs. in the teens is not that big of a deal.

This, plus factor in the element of scouting & player development and that can help explain why a sports team like the Patriots has had considerable success over 2 decades. This encompasses not only multiple championships (SB's in their case) but the structure for deep playoff runs year after year. Think of the Hawks from 2010-2015.

 

[crazyhawk]

I was pretty pumped at the prospect of our finishing in the bottom 5 or so for a shot at a top 5 pick. It's always an exciting notion to get a high draft pick and a potential superstar ... no question. But with the way the team is playing right now and coming together under JC and making this push I am equally excited to see where it might lead. Sure a first round exit is a high probability if we make it in ... but as has been mentioned above a pick in the 15 - 20 range can still provide a dynamic player. Guess we have to just trust the process ... and so far JC, Stan ... and the team are doing quite well. I don't have a clue what Stan will do at the TDL!

 

[Blackhawks]

NBC is reporting that Crawford is "feeling normal" and ready to "work his way back".

Oh please no, I imagine he comes in just in time for playoff and ruins everything by sucking badly, out in 4...