Post-Game Talk: This is how Couts does it.

[JojoTheWhale]

It’s exactly what the articles say. Clearly you & others who are citing them to argue zone starts only minimally affect Corsi either didn’t read them or didn’t understand them.

I quote: “on a small scale the effect of zone starts can actually be rather large.”

The article only says the effects of zone starts for 80% of the league end up around .5% *after using 5 seasons of aggregate data.*

And even then, the players with the most extreme defensive zone starts were the ones to improve the most over those 5 years.

So you missed the point entirely. Zone starts have a “quite large” impact on Corsi over smaller sample sizes. Which is exactly what I had figured. Hagg’s & Sanheim’s highly disparate zone starts over 40 games, or even one season, have a “quite large” impact on their Corsis.

So thanks again for the articles, even though you misunderstood them. I hope everyone now stops misusing the data.

I truly have no interest in discussing things with you because you don't have am open mind.

I meant the have a good day though! It's just hockey. Enjoy your day, man.

 

[deadhead]

His problems are all from the waist down.

Guy has NHL hands and an NHL brain. It actually must be really frustrating to be him. He lost a step and that took him from a solid 3rd liner to just not really capable of keeping up with play in the NHL.

I think he knows what he is supposed to do and is pretty smart, but just cannot get there to do it.

That is the Hakstol dilemma right now.
He has young players with the legs who don't know what they're doing and veterans with the brains who lack the legs.
There's a reason Babcock brought in a number of over 30 veterans, and NJ signed a couple.
When you play a bunch of 1st and 2nd year guys, you want a few veterans on the ice to tell them where to go.
But obtaining a 29 year old Filppula is a lot more expensive than a 33 year old Filppula.

In two years, guys like Ghost, Provorov, Konecny and Patrick will be telling a bunch of rookies where to line up.

There's a reason good teams tend to have a bunch of young players 22-25, not 19-21, the sweet spot where they have enough experience to know what to do, but are just hitting their physical peak.

 

[deadhead]

His problems are all from the waist down.

Guy has NHL hands and an NHL brain. It actually must be really frustrating to be him. He lost a step and that took him from a solid 3rd liner to just not really capable of keeping up with play in the NHL.

I think he knows what he is supposed to do and is pretty smart, but just cannot get there to do it.

Tell it to Read, a fast, smart undersized NHL player who became an average skating, undersized AHL player.
We saw what happened to Giroux last year when he lost his burst due to injury.

Strome has the advantage of "front of net" skills where skating is less important, but where do you hide him when you're not on the PP?

 

[Appleyard]

I do agree that it is difficult to know what goes on behind closed doors, and we can only assume in certain circumstances.

But some of Cote's comments were quite revealing, and do match up with what we have seen the last couple of seasons.

And we know for sure that Hakstol is certainly a poor communicator, seemingly especially with younger players. The have been comments from multiple players to that fact, and Hakstol himself told the media at the start of the season that it was the area he lacked in, and he needed to better identify and communicate with people from a different generation. (in effect)

We also know that several players (Schenn, Simmonds and Ghost) publicly questioned the low to high system as viable in the NHL either at the time or after the fact.



But yeh, apart from those things the rest is trying to join dots without knowing ins and outs.

And while I do not particularly rate Hakstol for example as a coach I do think that he does several things very well at the NHL level (good NZ+DZ 5v5 system, well disciplined in general, he is also a better bench boss than Berube by far, and generally gets match-ups these days and very few too many men penalties.) But his obvious flaws also worry me about his ability to progress with the team as they improve. (his natural instinct to be defensive, passivity in OZ (though it is slightly better this year), and at times bizarre personnel decisions. (though 95% of NHL coaches do similar, have favourites, over-rate some players, under-rate others... it is human nature.)

 

[Ghosts Beer]

I truly have no interest in discussing things with you because you don't have am open mind.

I meant the have a good day though! It's just hockey. Enjoy your day, man.

You’re running because you got proven wrong after lecturing me. I’d say you’re the one without the open mind because you won’t reread the articles & admit you were wrong.

 

[kudymen]

Giving up on persuading flat-Earthers that the Earth in fact is not flat is hardly being "not open minded"

 

[deadhead]

And while I do not particularly rate Hakstol for example as a coach I do think that he does several things very well at the NHL level (good NZ+DZ 5v5 system, well disciplined in general, he is also a better bench boss than Berube by far, and generally gets match-ups these days and very few too many men penalties.) But his obvious flaws also worry me about his ability to progress with the team as they improve. (his natural instinct to be defensive, passivity in OZ (though it is slightly better this year), and at times bizarre personnel decisions. (though 95% of NHL coaches do similar, have favourites, over-rate some players, under-rate others... it is human nature.)

As I pointed out in the game thread, Hynes is playing Stevenson and Greene 20+ minutes a night on defense, arguably as bad or worse than Hagg and MacDonald.
Either many coaches are stupid, or advanced stats don't catch nuances that influence coach PT decisions.

I'm interested in seeing how this team finishes, one of Hakstol's strengths in college has been strong finishes, up to now he really hasn't had a young, stable roster that would put that to the test (and if Hextall trades Simmonds it'll be another year where the noise will make judgment difficult).

The communication issue is a problem and another reason to move out Lap, if Hakstol has a weakness there, one way to compensate is to hire some hands on, young assistant coaches who can be a pipeline for young players to communicate with the HC. That may have been one reason for hiring Knob.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Giving up on persuading flat-Earthers that the Earth in fact is not flat is hardly being "not open minded"

So you’re saying my interpretation of the articles is wrong? Read them. Read the quote I bolded above. Apparently I’m the one providing evidence the Earth is round & people are still clinging to their long-held incorrect beliefs.

 

[Striiker]

As I pointed out in the game thread, Hynes is playing Stevenson and Greene 20+ minutes a night on defense, arguably as bad or worse than Hagg and MacDonald.
Either many coaches are stupid, or advanced stats don't catch nuances that influence coach PT decisions.

I'm interested in seeing how this team finishes, one of Hakstol's strengths in college has been strong finishes, up to now he really hasn't had a young, stable roster that would put that to the test (and if Hextall trades Simmonds it'll be another year where the noise will make judgment difficult).

The communication issue is a problem and another reason to move out Lap, if Hakstol has a weakness there, one way to compensate is to hire some hands on, young assistant coaches who can be a pipeline for young players to communicate with the HC. That may have been one reason for hiring Knob.

Correct.

 

[Foggy14]

I still want him waived and replaced by Oskar, but he wasn’t bad yesterday.

Curu, I usually agree with you, but Bartulis is not the answer.

​

 

[Beef Invictus]

I do agree that it is difficult to know what goes on behind closed doors, and we can only assume in certain circumstances.

But some of Cote's comments were quite revealing, and do match up with what we have seen the last couple of seasons.

And we know for sure that Hakstol is certainly a poor communicator, seemingly especially with younger players. The have been comments from multiple players to that fact, and Hakstol himself told the media at the start of the season that it was the area he lacked in, and he needed to better identify and communicate with people from a different generation. (in effect)

We also know that several players (Schenn, Simmonds and Ghost) publicly questioned the low to high system as viable in the NHL either at the time or after the fact.



But yeh, apart from those things the rest is trying to join dots without knowing ins and outs.

And while I do not particularly rate Hakstol for example as a coach I do think that he does several things very well at the NHL level (good NZ+DZ 5v5 system, well disciplined in general, he is also a better bench boss than Berube by far, and generally gets match-ups these days and very few too many men penalties.) But his obvious flaws also worry me about his ability to progress with the team as they improve. (his natural instinct to be defensive, passivity in OZ (though it is slightly better this year), and at times bizarre personnel decisions. (though 95% of NHL coaches do similar, have favourites, over-rate some players, under-rate others... it is human nature.)

In addition, if something with the team is flagrantly broken, it takes 10-20 games for him to address it. That's a solid 60 games fewer than it took Berube, but if we were in a playoff series that's just way too slow.

Lately he has the team pushing to the end, bringing a full forecheck more often instead of hanging back as much. That's...different, for him. We'll see where it goes.

 

[Jtown]

what a year for couts. he has been dominate this year. 4th highest goal scorer in the league. i don't think any of us saw that coming .

 

[Magua]

Let's just say some of us saw it coming more than others.

 

[Jtown]

Let's just say some of us saw it coming more than others.[/QUOTE

your comments here as well as others seem to suggest otherwise .

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/sean-couturier-over-under-40-points.2387597/

 

[Beef Invictus]

your comments here as well as others seem to suggest otherwise .

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/sean-couturier-over-under-40-points.2387597/

(the actually interesting question is over/under 50. Hell, he could flirt with 40 ES points)

Uh, how?

 

[FlyerFaithful17]

Let's just say some of us saw it coming more than others.

I'll be honest. I'm a Couturier fan and I am happily surprised by his season.

 

[Beef Invictus]

I didn't think he had this level of goal scoring in him. I figured he could do 20, though.

At the same time, I'm not terribly surprised. The way he's adjusted his playstyle to compliment his linemates is established; his ability to score in close was known. It's logical that, while playing with Giroux (and V earlier), he goes from playmaker to guy going to the net to finish.

Also, it's really awesome how he keeps his stick on the ice. No more of watching Schenn let a pass sail straight past him because he's waving his stick over his head like he's trying to achieve vertical flight. (I may be embellishing.) But really, it was annoying how often prime opportunities were squandered by that guy because he wasn't ready for them.

 

[Magua]

your comments here as well as others seem to suggest otherwise .

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/sean-couturier-over-under-40-points.2387597/

Sure, pal. While you were having a conniption fit about 40, I thought Coots had the ability to regularly put up 50+ without Giroux having a career year on his wing, (Jake too) and without playing on PP1. I routinely called him our 1C the last 2 years at ES. So, surely I would have thought he could get 65-70+ points with both of those being the case. I even defended him getting PP time when that was a discussion topic.

I'm sure you'll end up moving the goal posts to where if he doesn't get a p/pg and 40 goals annually it's disappointing for a "1C," but let's call his scoring this year what it is: a career year, not the new normal. He's not a 40 goal, 80 point player, and likely regresses even this remaining season, though it'll be hard to fall too much. But if he becomes a yearly 25-30 goal, 60-65 point all-things 1C, I'll bask in my prescience, thank you.

 

[deadhead]

Yep, he was a 40 ES point scorer prorated over 82 games at 23-24.
Now he's taken it up a small notch, this season probably isn't sustainable (but maybe the hockey Gods will finally find favor?), but with PP1 time, 30 goals and 60-70 points a year certain is reasonable.
And with his defense, that's a top 1C. For 5-7 years.

 

[Tripod]

WHo were all the guys that wanted him off the #2PP because he was the big reason it failed? Well, he isn't there anymore...still failing...and has proven he can lift the puck sometimes.

I certainly expect him to regress but if he stays as the #1C and on the #1PP, then being a 60 point C is doable every year.

People forget, the last 10 years, Bergeron has 1 year over 65...at 68 points. And 4 of those years he posted/paced for 50-60 points. You can be a hell of a hockey player if you are elite defensively and get 50-60 points especially when most of them are at ES.

And just remember, Patrick is projected to be a 60 point C with good defense. That's a hell of a 1-2 punch we could have followed by a Frost scoring line too!!

 

[deadhead]

And that's one reason Hextall isn't panicking, he's looking at 2019-20 (6th year since he took over) and salivating.

Couts - Patrick - Frost - Vorobyev/Laughton down the middle, and Couts at 27 and Laughton at 25 would be the oldest.
It's a lot easier finding wingers when you have that kind of quality down the middle.

And Provorov, Ghost, Sanheim, Myers, Morin, Hagg/Freidman as your defense, again, Ghost at 27 will be the oldest in two years.

This is why Giroux and Voracek can be past their peaks, they'll still be productive with these centers, but won't have to carry this team. Just find four other forwards out of Konecny, Allison, Rubtsov, etc.

 

[Rebels57]

WHo were all the guys that wanted him off the #2PP because he was the big reason it failed? Well, he isn't there anymore...still failing...and has proven he can lift the puck sometimes.

I certainly expect him to regress but if he stays as the #1C and on the #1PP, then being a 60 point C is doable every year.

People forget, the last 10 years, Bergeron has 1 year over 65...at 68 points. And 4 of those years he posted/paced for 50-60 points. You can be a hell of a hockey player if you are elite defensively and get 50-60 points especially when most of them are at ES.

And just remember, Patrick is projected to be a 60 point C with good defense. That's a hell of a 1-2 punch we could have followed by a Frost scoring line too!!

I am interested to see how Johansen-Turris do in the upcoming playoffs because I think Couturier-Patrick will be an even better 1-2 than them.

Coots > Johansen
Patrick potential >= Turris presently

 

[Tripod]

I am interested to see how Johansen-Turris do in the upcoming playoffs because I think Couturier-Patrick will be an better 1-2 than them.

Coots > Johansen
Patrick potential >= Turris presently

It's funny that in the summer, lots of people said Patrick was like Monahan but with better defense. Well that Monahan is now on a 74 point pace. Wouldn't that be nice from Patrick!

If he develops then replaces Simmonds on the #1PP, you could see a big jump in points coming soon.

I just really wish we would focus on fixing the #2PP unit. It's f***ing stupid that TK is not on it and Sanheim was never given the chance, yet Manning is. Just dumb.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

In addition, if something with the team is flagrantly broken, it takes 10-20 games for him to address it. That's a solid 60 games fewer than it took Berube, but if we were in a playoff series that's just way too slow.

Lately he has the team pushing to the end, bringing a full forecheck more often instead of hanging back as much. That's...different, for him. We'll see where it goes.

You think they are full-out forechecking now more than they were?

I disagree. They did change their forecheck from a 1-1-3 to a 1-2-2, but the new 1-2-2 is more of the classic trap.

In the 1-1-3 they usually had a chaser attack deep, and then the second forward would jump the puck carrier. But teams were breaking it, leaving two men behind the play.

With the 1-2-2, they still often send a chaser deep depending on the read. But the puck side wing doesn’t jump deep as much, he stays in front of the carrier, & the non puck side wing can then take away the center. So I’d say the forecheck is less aggressive, but it has been more structurally sound in the middle of the ice.

 

[Rebels57]

It's funny that in the summer, lots of people said Patrick was like Monahan but with better defense. Well that Monahan is now on a 74 point pace. Wouldn't that be nice from Patrick!

If he develops then replaces Simmonds on the #1PP, you could see a big jump in points coming soon.

I just really wish we would focus on fixing the #2PP unit. It's ****ing stupid that TK is not on it and Sanheim was never given the chance, yet Manning is. Just dumb.

Patrick can definitely be as good as Monahan is in 4 years when he is 23 like Monahan.

I would love to see him rip off a hot streak in our final 20 games. 15 points. Something like that would be great heading into the summer.

As for PP2..all they have to so is run the same system as PP1 with their most talented players. No idea why thats hard.