GDT: St. Louis Blues at LA Kings

[BadgersandBlues]

THE ROSTER ON PAPER IS BETTER THEN LAST YEARS.

I can agree with that. I think for all the anger over the last couple of weeks, we should all really be looking at goaltending right now. Last year our guys played well. (Halak was shaky at first, but righted the ship once Hitch got here) Now neither of them can stop a beach ball. I love that we just recalled Allen. It might give us a spark, it might not. But what it does do is send a HUGE message to this team and especially to our sieves. I'm not sure I'm going to buy P9's thoughts about Halak getting moved just yet, but I think this is a huge wake-up call for the guys who've truly played the worst so far this year, our goalies.

At some point, as a team, you just can't keep asking guys to play hard when everything goes into the back of the net. It's just too deflating. Hitch has said we've gotten a little down on ourselves in the past, and I believe that to be true. However, we've shown resiliency at times, such as the Oilers, Anaheim, and CBJ games. I think this game was one of those times where we just couldn't find that wellspring. After they tied it up, we played hard. Once they went up by a goal, I think we tried to turn it on even more, but LA is a good team, and they did what they had to do. If you look at shots on goal, it didn't seem like we were doing much. But we carried the play in their end for most of the game after giving up that 5th goal. We just couldn't crack their shutdown D.

I think it's unfair to continue to say we don't have heart or character. I think we played an amazing game for the first 40 minutes. We didn't let some bad things at the beginning of the game (D'ags goalpost, Polak's KO, the 1-1 tying goal) stop us from playing. We showed a LOT of heart and team toughness. But after the second, third, and especially fourth goals, the confidence went away. (Remember the third one was a bad bounce off Sobotka, which, in conjunction with the 2nd and 4th goals, makes it pretty hard as a skater to think things are going your way) It's only human nature to slump when you work hard and you see someone else, who has been sub-par at best, make all your hard work for naught, especially when you multiply it over the course of 3 weeks.

Final thought: Once again, we are the top team in not allowing shots on goal. Yet we have a GAA of 3.00, which ranks 24th. Think about that for a second. Our skaters are allowing the fewest shots on goal of ANY TEAM in the NHL. Yet we let in more goals then all but 6 teams. If I'm a skater, I'm going, what more can I do? I can't stop everyone from shooting. Learn to make a god damn save.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

You listed 8 guys as the core. The biggest contributors to this team's struggles right now are the play of the LHD and goalies, and the only part of the core you listed that has anything to do with either of those problems is Jackman, and he's having a great year. I'm failing to see how the current struggles of this team are rooted in the core you've named, unless you think they're more responsible for the play of Redden, Russell, Halak, Elliott, etc. than those guys are themselves.

You leave out the poor play of the forwards in the defensive zone. How many times in this 15 game skid have we seen a forward fail to backcheck? Numerous times. I'm surprised you heap most of the blame on only a select, yet convenient for your argument, group of players.

Backes, Berglund, Oshie, Perron, McDonald, and Steen have all been culprits of very weak defensive zone effort at times and inconsistent offensive performance. All were part of the core in 2009-10 that got Andy Murray fired.

This 15 game stretch isn't mostly on the LHD and goalies like you make it out to be. It has been a team wide regression back to the beginning of last season.

The Blues were 10-7-1 with those guys in the lineup this year. That's a 96 point pace, even with our goaltending playing as crappy as it is. Is that a pace that normally justifies significant adjustments to a team's core 18 games into the season for you?

And they were 4-6-1 in their last 11 games before exiting the lineup. We can both spin it a different way.

I think my big frustration is that people are saying "We're without our 2nd line. Let's wait." Well guess what? They weren't doing much before leaving the lineup. I'm not sure they would have made a difference in the beatdown that Chicago gave us. We beat Edmonton, and McDonald and Steen haven't helped against Los Angeles in the past year. Why expect anything different? Perhaps they could have really helped against Dallas but that was a pretty lackluster performance after the first 15 minutes. A lot like the performances we saw when they were playing.

Hoping to make the playoffs doesn't count as significant/reasonable playoff aspirations in my book. That's when you expect to make the playoffs, and hope to do some damage while you're there. I think (and thought at the time) anyone who expected the Blues to make the playoffs in 10-11 was expecting too much. YYMV, I suppose.

Here is what I'm going to say on this:
08-09: We made the playoffs, the kids gained valuable experience.
09-10: The kids had experience, Johnson was back. There were reasonable playoff aspirations. This was the year we started to believe we had a 6-8 seed quality playoff contender. I can understand just hoping for a spot this year but I think a lot of people picked us as their 6-8 seed in the playoffs.
10-11: The kids had even more experience, Halak was the goalie, Petro was on D, Davis Payne was the coach that was supposed to connect with the young guys. There was ZERO reason not to expect the Blues to have "reasonable playoff aspirations."

I guarantee you that Dave Checketts had playoff aspirations in 10-11. More than just "hoping" for a playoff spot. The team was well rounded, had the coach that knew how to get the youngsters to succeed, had Jaroslav Halak in net, and most everyone had enough experience.

To say there were no playoff aspirations in 10-11 is quite silly IMO.

What really changed from the beginning of 10-11 to 11-12 that we finally had playoff aspirations?
Erik Johnson was supposed to be great in 10-11. He wasn't so he was traded for Stewart/Shatty. That was the big difference.
If we expected Johnson to disappoint in 10-11 then that is a major change. However, Johnson had his best year in 09-10. He was expected to be a 40-50 point, minute eating top pairing d-man in 10-11. What we expected from him in 10-11 was even to Shatty/Stewart. I don't see a difference there in terms of expectations.
I guess Pietrangelo wasn't proven but I think a lot of us expected some good things from him in 10-11. He was the 4th overall pick in his third year removed from the draft. I don't think anyone expected him to be anything less than an upgrade from who he replaced in 10-11.

The big difference, what ultimately made the Blues a playoff team in 11-12, was Hitchcock. He wasn't around when expectations were being made. I just don't quite understand why there were playoff aspirations all of the sudden at the beginning of 11-12 when there weren't any in 10-11. Especially when you factor in that Davis Payne led the Blues a 23-15-4 record to close out 09-10.

Regardless, I think that lumping this squad in with the teams from two and three years ago is a silly thing to do. The team roster and expectations are radically different, and (as I noted above) the guys on your list aren't responsible for the most glaring weaknesses on this team.

Backes, Berglund, Oshie, Perron, Polak, Steen, McDonald, Jackman...that is a large portion of our core that was a BIG part of getting Andy Murray and Davis Payne fired.

So I completely disagree and I think we will have to leave it at that.

As I mentioned above in another post, I think the biggest problem with this team right now is its confidence level, and I don't see that being fixed simply by making a major trade to shake things up.

It just depends on who they get back. Acquiring a big time talent can really boost morale. No one wants to see a friend go but when you get a great player then guys get excited regardless of who goes.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

I have no problem with a trade that turns Berglund into a #1 center (although I doubt that would ever happen). I doubt any Blues fan would have a problem with that.

I just think you're being a bit harsh with the pros and cons of the player that is Patrik Berglund, and also with your expectations for a second line center.

Last year center #30 in scoring had 51 points. The year before that center #30 had 54 points (Berglund was #33 with 52). Averaging 45 points would make Berglund an average #2 center league-wide in terms of scoring. Consistently putting up 50-60 points would make Berglund a bottom-third (#20-30 overall) #1 center, statistically.

Maybe I was a bit harsh but I have said all along that he is a good 3rd center on a contender. So I think that is fair.

As for production, I don't want to compare him to every team's centers. I want to compare him to contenders.

Columbus' inability to develop their centers(Brassard off the top of my head) helps bring down the overall numbers and keeps them out of the playoffs. It doesn't prove that Berglund is a #2C on a Cup contender.

I gave you the list of strong contenders' centers. You will find that all of their 2nd line centers are above Berglund in production. Bergeron, Kesler, Richards, Zetteberg, Malkin, Staal.

Berglund would be an improvement for Chicago's 2nd line but he'd be playing with Kane and Sharp while Toews and Hossa would be on the first line. If you can make Berglund a complimentary player in your top 6 then you might be able to survive. However, Berglund is supposed to be a prominent player in the Blues plans.

He could have been an equal 2nd line center for New Jersey last year on their East Championship team. However, they had 3 wingers with 69+ points(Parise, Kovalchuk, and Elias). That is a team where the wingers carried the team. Perhaps that is a blue print for the Blues to follow. Go get Corey Perry and make him our star player and let him and, hopefully, Tarasenko lead us. I don't know. I'll let Army make that call.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I think we're pretty much at an impasse here, so I'm going to pick and choose a few snippets where there's some discussion still left to be found.

You leave out the poor play of the forwards in the defensive zone. How many times in this 15 game skid have we seen a forward fail to backcheck? Numerous times. I'm surprised you heap most of the blame on only a select, yet convenient for your argument, group of players.

Backes, Berglund, Oshie, Perron, McDonald, and Steen have all been culprits of very weak defensive zone effort at times and inconsistent offensive performance. All were part of the core in 2009-10 that got Andy Murray fired.

This 15 game stretch isn't mostly on the LHD and goalies like you make it out to be. It has been a team wide regression back to the beginning of last season.

I've been beating the drum that the play of the forwards is a big reason why this team is struggling for awhile now, as my posting history will verify, but I disagree that it's primarily a function of the guys you mentioned. I don't see anything weak about the efforts Backes, Oshie, Berglund, and Steen are giving in the defensive zone. McDonald and Perron are the same players they were before in the defensive zone, and that didn't hold the Blues back last year. The offense has been hit and miss across the board, but it's still better than last year's.

The single biggest difference between this year's team and last year's is the play of the goalies. They've gone from being #1 in the NHL in save percentage to #30. Differences don't get any bigger than that. The difference between their current team save percentage (.870) and league average (about .906 at the moment) is 18 goals in 22 games given the number of shots the team has given up. That's atrocious. The difference between this year's goaltending and last year's is a cool 30 goals in 22 games.

I don't care how bad the core is playing, and they certainly aren't playing like the worst defense/team in the league by a wide margin, there's no excuse for that sort of goaltending. It's killing this team.

And they were 4-6-1 in their last 11 games before exiting the lineup. We can both spin it a different way.

This is an aside more than anything, but there's no "spin" there from my end. I looked at the complete body of work together of the core (as you defined them) this year, and you're choosing to look at a specific subset of that body of work. Unless you can justify why the other 7 games (a sample nearly as large as the one you're cherry-picking) shouldn't count as well, you're introducing bias by excluding them.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Maybe I was a bit harsh but I have said all along that he is a good 3rd center on a contender. So I think that is fair.

As for production, I don't want to compare him to every team's centers. I want to compare him to contenders.

Columbus' inability to develop their centers(Brassard off the top of my head) helps bring down the overall numbers and keeps them out of the playoffs. It doesn't prove that Berglund is a #2C on a Cup contender.

I gave you the list of strong contenders' centers. You will find that all of their 2nd line centers are above Berglund in production. Bergeron, Kesler, Richards, Zetteberg, Malkin, Staal.

Berglund would be an improvement for Chicago's 2nd line but he'd be playing with Kane and Sharp while Toews and Hossa would be on the first line. If you can make Berglund a complimentary player in your top 6 then you might be able to survive. However, Berglund is supposed to be a prominent player in the Blues plans.

He could have been an equal 2nd line center for New Jersey last year on their East Championship team. However, they had 3 wingers with 69+ points(Parise, Kovalchuk, and Elias). That is a team where the wingers carried the team. Perhaps that is a blue print for the Blues to follow. Go get Corey Perry and make him our star player and let him and, hopefully, Tarasenko lead us. I don't know. I'll let Army make that call.

I think we agree more than we disagree here, since I'm also at the point where I think Berglund is a #3 on an ideally constructed contending team.

The league-wide numbers are just there to give an overall picture of the talent pool at center. A consistent 50-60 point center doesn't scream #1 C to the average fan, but the numbers show that only 30ish centers in the league better 50 points any given year. Expecting a guy with #2 center talent (which Berglund certainly has relative to his peers league-wide) to consistently put up #1 center numbers is an unreasonable expectation that's unfair to him.

Being disappointed that the team's roster construction has Berglund at #2 center instead of at #3 (where he would be on most contenders) is perfectly reasonable, but once again it's not Berglund's fault that the team doesn't have two centers better than he is to force him down the depth chart so pinning that on him or his play is also a bit unfair, IMO.

 

[OCTA8ON*]

People on our boards are giving up too quickly. People seem to be forgetting that we were missing our most potent offensive line. If we never had Steen, Mcdonald, and Tarasenko to begin with, then I think we would be in a world of trouble. Those guys will probably come back in 2-3 weeks. Let's hope Allen stabilizes us until then. If LA was missing their entire second line against all of our lines, they wouldn't have kept up.

 

[Fred Murtz]

I saw the abyss in person last night. Freakin embarrassing.

Colin Fraser vs Barret Jackman fight



Roman Polak vs Kyle Clifford fight



Kings no goal call in 1st. Scrum at Blues net.



Alex Pietrangelo goal 1-0



Jake Muzzin goal 1-1



Dwight King vs Ryan Reaves fight



more vids coming of the putrid game

 

[RonSwanson*]

People on our boards are giving up too quickly. People seem to be forgetting that we were missing our most potent offensive line. If we never had Steen, Mcdonald, and Tarasenko to begin with, then I think we would be in a world of trouble. Those guys will probably come back in 2-3 weeks. Let's hope Allen stabilizes us until then. If LA was missing their entire second line against all of our lines, they wouldn't have kept up.

The Kings missing their top two shutdown defensemen in Mitchell and Greene could be considered more detrimental. Just sayin'.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

This is an aside more than anything, but there's no "spin" there from my end. I looked at the complete body of work together of the core (as you defined them) this year, and you're choosing to look at a specific subset of that body of work. Unless you can justify why the other 7 games (a sample nearly as large as the one you're cherry-picking) shouldn't count as well, you're introducing bias by excluding them.

The way I see it, you did spin it. To look at the overall implies that you think everything will turn out peachy and we will go on a nice 10-7-2 run every 19 games with those guys in the lineup just like we did to start the year. It means that you don't think the 11(now 15) game trend won't continue. That the Blues are a 10-7-2 team and will pace for that. That is oversimplifying it greatly.

Let me ask you this, when Hitchcock took over last year did you say the Blues were a 10-7-2 team after 19 games? Or did you say that they were a 4-0-2 team under Ken Hitchcock and playing much better hockey?
Since we are talking about an 11 game sample for Steen and McDonald, did you ever say the Blues were an 8-1-2 team under Ken Hitchcock after 11 games?

Those are somewhat rhetorical questions because I have a feeling I'll be getting a convenient answer of no even though most people were cherry picking Hitchcock's record out of the overall record. That isn't a knock on you. Usually I get convenient answers when I ask questions with, IMO, pretty obvious answers. So I've grown cynical. One of my many faults.

 

[TheOrganist]

People on our boards are giving up too quickly. People seem to be forgetting that we were missing our most potent offensive line. If we never had Steen, Mcdonald, and Tarasenko to begin with, then I think we would be in a world of trouble. Those guys will probably come back in 2-3 weeks. Let's hope Allen stabilizes us until then. If LA was missing their entire second line against all of our lines, they wouldn't have kept up.

But even before those guys got hurt one of the mains complaints was that the team identity and defensive structure was being sacrificed as a result of individual play and more offense.

So which is it?

 

[ExJbeck]

People on our boards are giving up too quickly. People seem to be forgetting that we were missing our most potent offensive line. If we never had Steen, Mcdonald, and Tarasenko to begin with, then I think we would be in a world of trouble. Those guys will probably come back in 2-3 weeks. Let's hope Allen stabilizes us until then. If LA was missing their entire second line against all of our lines, they wouldn't have kept up.

Just so I know where you stand, is that how you explain going from being up 4-1 and within 25 min being down 6-4? That line hasn't been that much of a factor 5-on-5 anyway. It would help if they were there, but they weren't stopping what happened last night.

 

[sh724]

I'm honestly wondering where McDonald fits into that list of players according to Blues fans.

He is not considered a member of the core. The players you constantly see being talked about for the most part have only played for STL (with the exception of 20 22 25). They are all about the same age. Are still young and developing.

AMac is much older, is past his prime and is quickly declining. He is not really talked about because no one expects him to be on the Blues next year. He will be a UFA and will have to take a drastic pay cut to stay in STL if they even make him an offer.

So in terms of roster he is put behind the members of the core and is not seen as some one who will make a difference with the team going forward. He still has good hands and decent speed but he has slowed down a lot and he spends more time on the IR than on the ice. In the right situation he can still be successful but I do not see that happening in STL. If he decides to play next year, hopefully he will go to a team that he is more suited for.

 

[sh724]

Just so I know where you stand, is that how you explain going from being up 4-1 and within 25 min being down 6-4? That line hasn't been that much of a factor 5-on-5 anyway. It would help if they were there, but they weren't stopping what happened last night.

Exactly, last night cannot be blamed on injuries, they were playing great and were in perfect position to win the game going into the 3rd then they stopped playing. Tank and Amac do not have much of a defensive game, they would not have had a big impact on slowing the kings down. It can be argued that Steen could have made a difference but one player would not have prevented what happened last night. It could also be argued last night's line up was more defensive oriented than the opening day roster.

 

[OCTA8ON*]

Just so I know where you stand, is that how you explain going from being up 4-1 and within 25 min being down 6-4? That line hasn't been that much of a factor 5-on-5 anyway. It would help if they were there, but they weren't stopping what happened last night.

All I'm saying is that having that additional line of Tarasenko-Steen-McDonald would have helped with things these past couple of weeks. Probably wouldn't have solved all of our issues, but things are significantly worse without having that entire line playing. I wasn't directing that comment towards just last night because we obviously had enough offense to put up 4 goals in 2 periods. I mentioned that that line was our most offensive, but it also has Steen on it, and he's not the type of guy to just sit back. He's another workhorse out there. Also, we certainly wouldn't have only scored 1 goal against Dallas the game before if we had that line in there.

 

[OCTA8ON*]

Exactly, last night cannot be blamed on injuries, they were playing great and were in perfect position to win the game going into the 3rd then they stopped playing. Tank and Amac do not have much of a defensive game, they would not have had a big impact on slowing the kings down. It can be argued that Steen could have made a difference but one player would not have prevented what happened last night. It could also be argued last night's line up was more defensive oriented than the opening day roster.

The beginning of my statement wasn't about last night. Maybe I should have said that more explicitly. I was referring to the last couple of weeks, for example, we only scored 1 goal against Dallas. Our offense was absent that game. People on our forum have talked about blowing up our core. Thank god they aren't the GMs of the Blues. They are such over reactors. I'm just trying to remind people that we have an additonal line completely out of the lineup, and that does change some things.

 

[EastonBlues22]

The way I see it, you did spin it. To look at the overall implies that you think everything will turn out peachy and we will go on a nice 10-7-2 run every 19 games with those guys in the lineup just like we did to start the year. It means that you don't think the 11(now 15) game trend won't continue. That the Blues are a 10-7-2 team and will pace for that. That is oversimplifying it greatly.

It doesn't imply any such thing. You take the bigger sample size because it has more predictive value than a smaller subset. That's statistics 101. It's not a guarantee of future results, and no one with any statistical acumen whatsoever would say that it is.

If you think that I think things are "peachy", I really don't know what to say beyond the fact that it's a gross misrepresentation of what I think. Just because I don't buy into your theory doesn't mean I don't think this team has problems. It's not an either/or proposition. What's more, I'm not sure how you could read my posts and come away with that conclusion.

Let me ask you this, when Hitchcock took over last year did you say the Blues were a 10-7-2 team after 19 games? Or did you say that they were a 4-0-2 team under Ken Hitchcock and playing much better hockey?
Since we are talking about an 11 game sample for Steen and McDonald, did you ever say the Blues were an 8-1-2 team under Ken Hitchcock after 11 games?

Those are somewhat rhetorical questions because I have a feeling I'll be getting a convenient answer of no even though most people were cherry picking Hitchcock's record out of the overall record. That isn't a knock on you. Usually I get convenient answers when I ask questions with, IMO, pretty obvious answers. So I've grown cynical. One of my many faults.

I honestly have no idea where you're going with any of this.

Fans like to believe that their team's struggles can be tied to easily identifiable (and thus easily resolvable) problems. To borrow your phrase, it is "convenient" for fans to lay a team's current struggles on the scapegoat of choice (coaching, poor leadership, underperforming vets, inexperienced youth, etc.). It gives them an outlet to focus their angst against, while at the same time fueling their hope that a resolution is possible (and perhaps even close at hand).

Personally, I don't think what's wrong with the Blues right now can be tied neatly to the coach, or to a small group of players. Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[Fred Murtz]

Vladimir Sobotka goal 2-1



David Perron goal 3-1



Chris Stewart sweet backhand roofie goal 4-1



Slava Voynov goal 4-2



David Perron interview 2nd intermission



Mike Richards goal 4-3



Jake Muzzin 2nd goal of game 4-4



Jeff Carter goal 5-4



Drew Doughty & Slava Voynov breakaways in 3rd



Anze Kopitar goal 6-4

 

[TheOrganist]

That Shattenkirk decision on the third goal against was so bad it's hard to put into a words. Had nothing to do with him not having an outlet. Richards was able to seal the wall only because KS didn't chip it off the wall as soon as he got the puck. Because he didn't distribute, Carter was able to really hound him, Richards is able to give great support on the wing, and Shatty thinks he has to skate it out of trouble and gets nailed. All he had to do was give a hard backhand chip immediately or peel off on his forehand and reverse it to Cole for an easy breakout. That play set the tone for the onslaught.

This is the best forechecking team in the league. A team that ran us into submission last spring. And our defenseman still think they have time in their own zone to make an extra stride or two with the puck. That element is by far the most infuriating aspect of watching the Blues play the Kings. Shattenkirk is certainly not only the only d-men guilty of that.

Also funny to watch the Berglund/Richards face-off on the GWG. The linesman should've just thrown the puck to the Kings pointmen.

 

[Frenzy31]

Just so I know where you stand, is that how you explain going from being up 4-1 and within 25 min being down 6-4? That line hasn't been that much of a factor 5-on-5 anyway. It would help if they were there, but they weren't stopping what happened last night.

That simple isn't true. Best way win games is sustained offensive pressure. You keep the pick in the oppositions zone, even by cycling the puck, you wear them down. They get the puck and then get it out, but they give control back to the attacking team in order to get a line change. You aslo put pressure on their 3rd line and 3rd d pairing.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

It doesn't imply any such thing. You take the bigger sample size because it has more predictive value than a smaller subset. That's statistics 101. It's not a guarantee of future results, and no one with any statistical acumen whatsoever would say that it is.

It really isn't that simple IMO. It would be if this were a stats textbook but this isn't Stat class.

The Blues 11-9-2 start can be broken down into a 6-1 start followed by a 5-8-2 run to give you much more information.

A large data set is nice but having more detail is just as nice.

Speaking of smaller subsets, our hot 7 game start is what is keeping us in the playoff hunt while our 15 game(11 games with Steen/Mac) slide is killing us. The skid has gone on a little too long for it to really be too small of a sample that we can't analyze it independently.

If you think that I think things are "peachy", I really don't know what to say beyond the fact that it's a gross misrepresentation of what I think. Just because I don't buy into your theory doesn't mean I don't think this team has problems. It's not an either/or proposition. What's more, I'm not sure how you could read my posts and come away with that conclusion.

This began with my discussion of Steen and McDonald not being of much help when they were healthy. I said the team was 4-6-1 before those guys excited. You then said this:

"The Blues were 10-7-1 with those guys in the lineup this year. That's a 96 point pace, even with our goaltending playing as crappy as it is. Is that a pace that normally justifies significant adjustments to a team's core 18 games into the season for you?"

So despite going 4-6-1 with those guys in the lineup, you throw out a 96 point pace overall and then implied that doesn't justify significant adjustments. That was your only response.

How else am I supposed to judge your outlook? Or has it changed completely in the 4 games since they exited the lineup? You really made it seem like you weren't that concerned before Steen and McDonald got hurt.

I honestly have no idea where you're going with any of this.

The point is that A LOT of people were cherry picking Hitchcock's record out of the overall record last year to point out a positive trend and trigger optimism.

Now I'm trying to pick out a larger sample out of the overall record to point out the negative trend.

There was no attempt to tie the team's struggles to certain problems. I'm not sure why you brought any of that up.

I've said time and time again that Hitchcock should not be the fall guy for any of this. If anyone should go then it should be players. Especially the ones that are working on getting their 2nd/3rd coach fired.

 

[ExJbeck]

That simple isn't true. Best way win games is sustained offensive pressure. You keep the pick in the oppositions zone, even by cycling the puck, you wear them down. They get the puck and then get it out, but they give control back to the attacking team in order to get a line change. You aslo put pressure on their 3rd line and 3rd d pairing.

Even with sustained offensive pressure your not guaranteed to win, but I agree its the best way to win. What did I say that wasn't true?

 

[Captain Mittens*]

I just wanted to say, Polak didn't get KO'd, it was a body shot.

It was an uppercut.

 

[EastonBlues22]

It really isn't that simple IMO. It would be if this were a stats textbook but this isn't Stat class.

The Blues 11-9-2 start can be broken down into a 6-1 start followed by a 5-8-2 run to give you much more information.

A large data set is nice but having more detail is just as nice.

Speaking of smaller subsets, our hot 7 game start is what is keeping us in the playoff hunt while our 15 game(11 games with Steen/Mac) slide is killing us. The skid has gone on a little too long for it to really be too small of a sample that we can't analyze it independently.

I disagree that you can get more information by breaking things down into smaller subsets (i.e. introducing arbitrary endpoints for the data). You're choosing to divide it into a 6-1 start vs 5-8-2 run. You could also break it down into 6-4-1 vs 5-5-1, or 9-5-1 vs 2-4-1, etc. Each one paints a different picture of how our season has gone to this point, and the only way to minimize that potential source of bias is to go for the biggest sample you can get your hands on.

Not that numbers are all that meaningful in this context. The Blues weren't playing "Blues hockey" earlier this year, and I think their worst stretch of team play came in that Nashville to Los Angeles stretch 10 games back. Since then the Blues have been slowly cleaning up their team play, with the first 40 minutes of last game being perhaps the best 2 consecutive periods of team play that they've had all year.

That hasn't improvement translated into wins (largely because of goaltending, partially because there are still some mistakes that need cleaning up, and partially because I believe their confidence level is still low which leads to a loss of composure in the face of adversity), but that doesn't make the improvements insignificant. From the talk that's going on, you would think this team has been steadily regressing all season. I couldn't disagree more strongly on that point.

This began with my discussion of Steen and McDonald not being of much help when they were healthy. I said the team was 4-6-1 before those guys excited. You then said this:

"The Blues were 10-7-1 with those guys in the lineup this year. That's a 96 point pace, even with our goaltending playing as crappy as it is. Is that a pace that normally justifies significant adjustments to a team's core 18 games into the season for you?"

So despite going 4-6-1 with those guys in the lineup, you throw out a 96 point pace overall and then implied that doesn't justify significant adjustments. That was your only response.

How else am I supposed to judge your outlook? Or has it changed completely in the 4 games since they exited the lineup? You really made it seem like you weren't that concerned before Steen and McDonald got hurt.

Going back to my points above, that rebuttal was intended to highlight that in addition to going 4-6-1 with those guys in the lineup, they've also gone 6-1, 6-4-1, 9-5-1, and 10-7-1 with those guys in the lineup (all depending on what group of games you choose to focus on).

Since the team is 10-7-1 is the team's record in all the games the core (as you defined it) has played together this year, I asked you if you thought that was a pace that warranted the response that you're currently having. It was a legitimate question to you intended to judge just how much of your reaction was based on this recent bit of frustration and how much was based on the "big" picture. It was not a rhetorical represenation of my own views.

There was no attempt to tie the team's struggles to certain problems. I'm not sure why you brought any of that up.

That was a representation of where my perspective is coming from to help add some context to my part in this conversation. It wasn't intended to be a summation of your opinion (hence all the references to "some other fans", etc.).

 

[sh724]

Back when I was in college and took a stats class one of the very first things we talked about was how you can manipulate stats to make any point you want. Pulling out random chunks of data is by far the easiest way to manipulate things. Also any sample size of less than 20 has a very high error rate so the less piece of info you have the less it tell you about any specific topic.

When you see reports and at the bottom it says for example '+/- 3' that has a large sample size if it was a small sample size it would say something like '+/- 20'

Breaking the season down to groupings of less than 10 games has pretty much no statistical value.

 

[bluesman11]

I like try keep things simple, this is pretty much the same core as last year and the biggest difference is they were a puck possession team that was out shooting the opposing team by a large margin and were able to dominate in all zones and weren't giving up near as many scoring chances which added the goaltending.

This year we haven't seen much of that, now have they forgotten how to play solid hockey, or with all the talk of how deep this team was did they get big heads and started playing some selfish hockey? I think they forgot their strength was solid two-way hockey, they should be embarrassed but this core of young players have not shown much maturity except after two coaching changes and then the next year have reverted back to some very selfish habits.

Will they ever learn, is the only thing we can gather from a much larger sample size of games, the last 4 to 5 years?