Again, you are confusing offense with goals scored,
They ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.
Maybe that's why you are so pissed off and can only see the blue part of the ice,
When the offense stops generating the chances that they are, that's the time to be worried,
Anything else is *****ing just to *****...
You can call them different things if it makes you feel better, but until the standings become subjective, nothing else but actually scoring means anything. If your team has 20 chances but only scores one goal while the other team has 2 chances but they score on both, it's still a LOSS
You can call them different things if it makes you feel better, but until the standings become subjective, nothing else but actually scoring means anything. If your team has 20 chances but only scores one goal while the other team has 2 chances but they score on both, it's still a LOSS
Agreed,
Which team do you think would be the more offensive in your scenario?
Again, you are confusing offense with goals scored,
They ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.
Maybe that's why you are so pissed off and can only see the blue part of the ice,
When the offense stops generating the chances that they are, that's the time to be worried,
Anything else is *****ing just to *****...
You are really splitting hair here.
Do you think when hockey fans have a discussion about which team has the best offense or not, they''re actually talking about scoring chances? No, bottom line is the goals scored not scoring chances.
I'm not really involved in this conversation, but something that's been coming up a lot lately is the importance of results versus process.
Process is more important than results because no team can control results. It's why the best teams win some and lose some. It's why there are hot and cold streaks. When Kopitar dropped in his offensive output, did he regress because his results dropped? No, because results do not accurately reflect everything, he was changing his game to be more well rounded.
The team is starting to play a bit better now. The results don't reflect it, but the process is better. Sometimes it's slow to reflect in the results, but it's the nature of the beast and nothing new in life. But is all of that meaningless to you? If so, then you're arguing nothing more than a fantasy hockey game.
But, I do feel TM has absolutely no idea of how to break the trap. I think he has only come up with the dump and chase and that is obviously not working because our players just aren't winning the battles to the puck. His system also seems to squelch any type of creativity. Watching other teams pepper Quick from all sides is fantastic to watch. We have the skill to accomplish that, but I think the system is too rigid.
Do you think when hockey fans have a discussion about which team has the best offense or not, they''re actually talking about scoring chances? No, bottom line is the goals scored not scoring chances.
KingPurple sums it up pretty much,
I think hockey fans can't be bothered to differentiate between the two, when it's a very important difference in telling if your team is playing like ****, or if your team is playing well.
Do you think when hockey fans have a discussion about which team has the best offense or not, they''re actually talking about scoring chances? No, bottom line is the goals scored not scoring chances.
Actually I think that fans don't know the difference and I can find you many quotes from this forum that talk about being more "offensive", not about scoring goals.
Process might be important when judging the performance over a very short period of time (5 games or less), but if by the time you have completed 20% of the season the results are not forthcoming, then the short term process analysis is meaningless
Process might be important when judging the performance over a very short period of time (5 games or less), but if by the time you have completed 20% of the season the results are not forthcoming, then the short term process analysis is meaningless
Disagree, if the process is there, then you know the team is playing well, the results will follow.
If the process is not there, then something needs to be changed ie, roster, coach, system, underwear, etc
Right now, the process is there and getting better,
Process might be important when judging the performance over a very short period of time (5 games or less), but if by the time you have completed 20% of the season the results are not forthcoming, then the short term process analysis is meaningless
I agree, at one point results should reflect an effective process. And I think the short period of time we are saying is that we seem to be tailing out of our slump in these last few games, even though the results are not reflecting.
Honestly, I feel that Penner stepping up his game has added a whole lot to the team offensively. Before, it was like having a sack of feces on the ice, now he's starting to contribute and it shows. If the Kings keep it up, I think they're going to start breaking out of the tunnel.
What happens when the process gets to be 3+ year and the results are the same? When does Murray become responsible for the lack of effort and results?
Sounds like a lot of people think the Kings need another rebuild already.
For those confused, goals=offense. There is no trophy for trying in the NHL. You win or lose and winning requires scoring more than the other team. Nobody gets points for chances, but more scoring chances generally results in more goals. The Kings do not generate enough scoring chances with Murray's system. This means the Kings players must score at a higher percentage of their chances than other teams to generate the required 3 goals per game to be a top offensive unit. That just isn't going to happen and there is 3+ years of evidence. This is almost impossible for bottom 6 players to accomplish, they actually need more scoring chances to get their 10-15 goals and this is why you can't just plug in players that could score with other teams into Murray's bottom 6 and expect the same production.
Claiming that the Kings just can't finish their chances isn't true. They probably finish just as many chances as the top offensive teams do, they just get fewer chances per game which equal fewer goals per game.
Ponikoravsky has as many goals (3) as Williams and Brown right now. With fewer shots on net too. Coincidence? He only had 5 all season with Murray.
For those confused, goals=offense. but more scoring chances generally results in more goals. The Kings do not generate enough scoring chances with Murray's system.
False, and False.
If you don't think the Kings generate scoring chances, you either don't watch the games, or don't know what a scoring chance is.
If you don't think the Kings generate scoring chances, you either don't watch the games, or don't know what a scoring chance is.
You're just being too technical and making it harder to have a discussion. I think on our board, when we say offense, we're talking about goals scored and NOT scoring chances.
You're just being too technical and making it harder to have a discussion. I think on our board, when we say offense, we're talking about goals scored and NOT scoring chances.
Not really, it's a difference that absolutely makes a difference in trying to tell if a team is playing well offensively or not..
There are two kinds of stats in the National Hockey League — the official stats and the secret stats.
The official ones, such as goals, assists, shots on net and penalty minutes, are tracked by the NHL and made public to all fans.
The secret statistics — and most notably the individual scoring chances plus/minus stat — are tracked by coaches on each team. They are used in games to make between-period tactical adjustments and in video training sessions to help players understand what they’re doing right and wrong.
They’re also used by NHL general managers to evaluate players and make trades.
It's funny how many coaches know exact number of "scoring chances" after the game and they aren't available anywhere. Somebody is keeping an eye on them and whoever is doing it, is simply stupid. He should have just checked the scoreboard, everything really important is there.
Quote:
It was the late Hockey Hall of Fame coach Roger Neilson who blazed the trail on secret stats, says one of Neilson’s old collaborators, Phoenix Coyotes assistant coach Dave King, who has been head coach of the Calgary Flames and the Columbus Blue Jackets.
“He was a very innovative guy,” King says of Neilson. “He lived, breathed and slept hockey. He did a lot of things to improve hockey.”
Hall of Fame coach started with counting scoring chances? Pfffff, he should have read this forum back in the 60's.
My evil twin has spoken, I will take over now and say that sure, sjmay may have nitpicked a BIT, but it's more or less necessary when PSP is messing around with his generalizations.
Somebody is keeping an eye on them and whoever is doing it, is simply stupid. He should have just checked the scoreboard, everything really important is there. 
