First of all 'realistically' meant, you have access to those players.
Second, I don't think any of those teams are signficantly more talented than the Sharks. Definitely not to the degree that a great system and coach could not overcome.
Again, we'll have to disagree. I don't think this Sharks team is as talented as you make it out to be. I think that's becoming more and more apparent this season.
Very specific situation. He has direct inside knowledge of Bacock's strategies and the players weaknesses. That is going to have a big impact. Plus we have a more talented roster imo.
I really don't see how you get significantly better than our roster, realistically.
The Sharks are far from having the best team in the league, and McLellan was able to get that team to have the best winning percentage in the conference at the All-Star break.
Vancouver, Boston, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY (Rangers), and there a bunch of different teams around our skill level - like Detroit where we are.
Not pointed at you specifically, but sometimes I feel like fans and analysts see the star players on our roster and forget it takes a full roster of good players to win. We have one of the best top-6 forward groups in the league. Sad part is we've had that for years now. Our bottom-6 has rarely(if ever) been elite.
Let's just pretend this entire thread was sarcastic so I can have some of my limited faith in humanity restored.
Again people fail to comprehend the degree to which luck influences outcomes in sports and life. Even over a full 82-game season, shooting percentage is 61% luck, 39% skill. And really the Sharks blew half a season not an entire one.
No. They blew the season, don't be a hypocrite now and and split the season in half - because if it fit your argument, you would accuse someone of taking too small a sample size in doing so.
People don't fail to comprehend anything, in your minority opinion, luck is what determines outcomes in sports....do the Lakers just get lucky every season? Is it luck that allows the Red Wings to make the playoffs for over two decades?
If it's all luck, what is the point of watching?
61% luck/39% skill ? Whose ass did you pull that stat split out of?
The Sharks are far from having the best team in the league, and McLellan was able to get that team to have the best winning percentage in the conference at the All-Star break.
Vancouver, Boston, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY (Rangers), and there a bunch of different teams around our skill level - like Detroit where we are.
Not pointed at you specifically, but sometimes I feel like fans and analysts see the star players on our roster and forget it takes a full roster of good players to win. We have one of the best top-6 forward groups in the league. Sad part is we've had that for years now. Our bottom-6 has rarely(if ever) been elite.
My personal feeling is that the bottom six never has any solidarity. Its always a new group every year it seems.
holy crap dude the very fact that your basing a statistical argument off of ASSUMPTIONS means its flawed.
doesnt mean its wrong, but its flawed. you can postulate all you want, but you cant prove a fact with assumptions. jesus
Holy god, this is just terrible. You can't just pick some fancy-sounding words out and say they make a coherent argument ... the assumptions are tested AGAINST to see whether they hold up in order to find the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball
I would postulate that the reason the Sharks SH% is so low is because they are not using effective offensive zone strategies to improve their shot quality. Cross crease passes, odd man rushes, break aways, traffic in the paint, quick passing plays, etc. These things clear shooting lanes and throw goalies out of position, the Sharks are terrible right now at ALL of these things. THATS why their shooting % sucks, because they take very low percentage shots.
Odd-man rushes and breakaways are not offensive zone strategies. Cross-crease passes and quick passing plays are the Sharks' (and specifically Thornton's) bread and butter; the last couple games I could swear he connected 3-5 cross-creasers at least. NONE of them dropped, that's just bad luck, given the players they were completed to. We get many high quality chances from high quality players. They are getting exactly what they want and need within the puck possession concept. The pucks are not finding the net but it's not because the system is failing. It's working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsx
No. They blew the season, don't be a hypocrite now and and split the season in half - because if it fit your argument, you would accuse someone of taking too small a sample size in doing so.
It's hard to argue that winning at the highest points % rate in the league is "blowing it." Sample size is not relevant to this particular observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF
Every team that plays the Blue Jackets knows Rick Nash is far and away their best player and has to key on stopping him. Couture may have more points but he is the Sharks 2ND LINE CENTER.
Rick Nash is no slouch.
Rick Nash is signed long-term for 7.8m/year. More than anyone on the Sharks by far. Couture has outscored him for half the money, slumping for a quarter of the season.
There is no reality in which that is anything other than the kind of move that gets GMs fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chokers Gonna Choke
Do you know how to use your eyes instead of blaming statistical abnormalities and "luck"?
Well that's an ironic post because my eyes, confirmed by the numbers, tell me that luck has been the primary problem this season. We get our chances and we get plenty of them. And they are good, many of them golden.
Rick Nash is signed long-term for 7.8m/year. More than anyone on the Sharks by far. Couture has outscored him for half the money, slumping for a quarter of the season.
Comparing Couture's contract to Nash's is just plain wrong. Comparing stats when Nash is playing for The BJ's and was probably disheartened for half the season is also not a good gauge of what he could do on the Sharks.
I'm not advocating for Nash, though I don't think it's an absurd notion, depending on what else is done in the offseason.
__________________
History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
For whatever reason people get all testy around the word "luck." Call it randomness, binomial variance, unexpected deviations from the mean - whatever. Luck is just a convenient word.
I would argue that the Sharks have done what they can to minimize the impact luck has on them. In hockey, the longer you control possession of the puck the less likely it is that a bad bounce will cost you a goal against and the more likely it is that a good bounce will produce a goal. And the Sharks have had more offensive-zone possession than all but five teams in the league this year.
This is the best article that will be written about hockey anywhere this year and it explains all of this far better than I could ever dream of and I'd suggest anyone interested in this discussion read it: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/0...nd-transience/
The article is a good read.
This part caught my eye.
"It is the nature of the game. As I’ve talked about in this space before, hockey is a constant struggle to perfect something that is not perfectable, to achieve a level of precision that is virtually impossible for human beings to realize. The level of physical and mental discipline it takes to play the game well is so extraordinary and so exhausting that most players are forever, in some essential way, underperforming. Despite all the training and all the practice and his very best possible effort, on most game nights a man might make a dozen small lapses and errors, slight misjudgments of time and distance, moments of panic, milliseconds of distraction. There is a gap between what one knows one should be able to do and what one actually can do in hockey that begins the first time you pick up a stick and never really goes away, even at the pinnacle of the game. Hockey is played in the shadow between the idea and the reality, the conception and the creation"
I think it goes someway in stating how many variables go into "luck". It's not lucky if niemi had a good breakfast, decent amount of sleep, and came in focused and prepared and made that last second glove save. nor is it unlucky if all that preparation was for naught. if the skater shooting it, shoots it a fraction sooner (and this is a conscious choice, not a strike of randomness that made his puck leave sooner or quicker, the puck leaves your stick and travels more or less at the velocity that you put into it, via technique, strength or whatever) and niemi misread it and it goes in. it just happened. niemi cant perceive all of those variables so we tag something unquanitifiable/proveable as luck.
having played soccer most of my life, i know how eating can affect your game. you make the same decisions you always do, but you ate bad or didnt hydrate enough and you dont get to the same positions in the same time or put the same power in a shot as you would having prepared properly. to us as observers it just looks like i was unlucky that my shot came off as it did or even though i got to the right position, the seconds later mattered, but isnt really observable. so its viewed as unlucky. when in reality the chain of events was in my control to a significant extent.
in the same vein, when you look at a stat as lucky or unlucky (being defined in the way the article defines it) the other side isnt looked at. so player A was lucky that means that player B was unlucky. the chain of events was preventable, but not being able to perceive them leading up was the causal.
really just my opinion on a hockey forum, so feel free to tell me how wrong i am
Holy god, this is just terrible. You can't just pick some fancy-sounding words out and say they make a coherent argument ... the assumptions are tested AGAINST to see whether they hold up in order to find the truth.
ive explained my reasoning.
the "truth" is misleading, there is no context and i suppose if we lived in a binary world it would make sense.
the fact that SH% has no context, yet is used in this argument to argue skill level is inherently flawed.
never did i say the argument was wrong. just flawed, and i dont think anyone has the time or inclination to take a statistical account into how shots are scored vs. shots taken/shots scored.
so really the argument for is better because there is no argument against.
jsut a "prove me wrong" when in fact its not technically proven right.
I posted this on another thread but had to repost it here:
Personally, I find it extreamly annoying that people on the boards here are wanting DW's head on a stick. IF the Sharks dont make the playoffs, it will be the first time since 2000 (?) or something like that, and also, dont the Sharks have some record of being in the playoffs 16 out of the last 20+ years??? Add the fact that the last 2 seasons the Sharks have been to the 3rd round.
You dont fire a GM with those kind of numbers, period.
Fire the coach, fine. Get rid of Marleau and 1/2 the players, fine.
I posted this on another thread but had to repost it here:
Personally, I find it extreamly annoying that people on the boards here are wanting DW's head on a stick. IF the Sharks dont make the playoffs, it will be the first time since 2000 (?) or something like that, and also, dont the Sharks have some record of being in the playoffs 16 out of the last 20+ years??? Add the fact that the last 2 seasons the Sharks have been to the 3rd round.
You dont fire a GM with those kind of numbers, period.
Fire the coach, fine. Get rid of Marleau and 1/2 the players, fine.
Getting rid of DW now is just stupid IMO...
IF, then first time since 02-03. And in that 02-03 season, GM Dean Lombardi was fired. Just pointing that out, not saying we need to get rid of DW.
And you are insane if you don't think (some) Wings fans wouldn't want Ken Holland's head on a stick if the Wings missed the playoffs this year (or any year in his tenure). I know you didn't say this, but it's worth discussing since we are talking about teams that make the playoffs every year.
__________________
2011: Outcoached by Vigneault. 2012: Outcoached all season and postseason by Hitch.
2013: Outcoached by most coaches in the NHL. Who's left? 12 year olds on Xbox Live? SACK T-MAC NOW
Hire the runner-up for the Canadiens HC job, give him until January 2014 to make an impact.
If he fails, they're gonna blow the roster up anyway in summer 2014 since Boyle / Thornton / Marelau are UFA. They can dump both Wilson and the interim HC then too.
[Also, ownership probably isn't ready to drop STH prices yet since maybe they are still buying out Greg Jamison. So they can string the money train along for another year or two before the inevitable revolt.]
Odd-man rushes and breakaways are not offensive zone strategies.
Correct. They are more defensive breakout and netural zone attack strategies......which the Sharks are also not particularly good at creating.....or finishing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer
Cross-crease passes and quick passing plays are the Sharks' (and specifically Thornton's) bread and butter
Which has met with decreasing amounts of success with each passing year and either an unwillingness or inability to adapt and change to something that works better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer
the last couple games I could swear he connected 3-5 cross-creasers at least. NONE of them dropped, that's just bad luck, given the players they were completed to.
No, that's the result of poor execution by the receiver, extra pressure applied to the receiver by the defense (who knows they don't need to worry about leaving an open lane for JT to drive the net because he won't take it), and a goaltender who can prepare and cheat a bit on the pass he knows is coming (because JT isn't going to shoot it).
Remember that 2-on-1 OT goal that JT & Marleau scored against Detroit in the playoffs a few years ago? Remember the comments afterwards? How everybody had a good laugh over the fact that apparently Jimmy Howard was the only person in the building who didn't know JT was going to pass that puck?
Well, yes, it worked that time. But when you make yourself so constantly predictable that everybody knows exactly what you're going to do, that predictability makes you less effective. May still be talented to still succeed despite that, but total predictability coupled with declining skill and an unwillingness to adapt all makes you less effective and your team less successful. That is not luck.
If your game relies upon cross-crease passes, most of your cross-crease passes miss the mark or are defended away, and then even the ones that do hit their mark can't be converted by the receivers such that......maybe that's a sign you should try something different. Something that might have a higher success rate. Maybe try having the slot forwards driving in for rebounds instead of sliding out for passing lanes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer
We get many high quality chances from high quality players.
Games are won on goals, not scoring chances.
Scoring chances are the first step to getting goals, but just as there is a skill involved with getting scoring chances (puck protection, player movement, crisp passing) there is also a skill involved with converting those chances into goals (shot selection, shot accuracy, crashing the net, screening the goalie). The Sharks thrive on the first skill set. They falter on the second. Unfortunately, games are won and lost on the second set.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer
They are getting exactly what they want and need within the puck possession concept.
Except for goals. And wins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer
It's hard to argue that winning at the highest points % rate in the league is "blowing it."
It's hard to argue that the second lowest points rate over the second half isn't blowing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer
We get our chances and we get plenty of them. And they are good, many of them golden.
And when the NHL decides to starts handing out victories based on who got the most scoring chances, then the Sharks will do just fine.
Unfortunately, the NHL still uses goals to determine winners and losers, there is a skill involved with turning scoring chances into actual scoring tallies, and the Sharks struggle in that department.
i really think dw really screwed up this season, and some of his moves could have honestly been predicted as being bad when they were made. but that is neither here nor there, he is still a good GM and better than the alternatives.
what we need to do is get a new coaching staff. this coaching staff does not get out the potential from this team, and is trying to fit ppl into a system that just doesn't work for the parts we have. you can tell the players are not really buying in.
Which has met with decreasing amounts of success with each passing year and either an unwillingness or inability to adapt and change to something that works better.
No, that's the result of poor execution by the receiver, extra pressure applied to the receiver by the defense (who knows they don't need to worry about leaving an open lane for JT to drive the net because he won't take it), and a goaltender who can prepare and cheat a bit on the pass he knows is coming (because JT isn't going to shoot it).
Remember that 2-on-1 OT goal that JT & Marleau scored against Detroit in the playoffs a few years ago? Remember the comments afterwards? How everybody had a good laugh over the fact that apparently Jimmy Howard was the only person in the building who didn't know JT was going to pass that puck?
Well, yes, it worked that time. But when you make yourself so constantly predictable that everybody knows exactly what you're going to do, that predictability makes you less effective. May still be talented to still succeed despite that, but total predictability coupled with declining skill and an unwillingness to adapt all makes you less effective and your team less successful. That is not luck.
If your game relies upon cross-crease passes, most of your cross-crease passes miss the mark or are defended away, and then even the ones that do hit their mark can't be converted by the receivers such that......maybe that's a sign you should try something different. Something that might have a higher success rate. Maybe try having the slot forwards driving in for rebounds instead of sliding out for passing lanes.
Games are won on goals, not scoring chances.
Scoring chances are the first step to getting goals, but just as there is a skill involved with getting scoring chances (puck protection, player movement, crisp passing) there is also a skill involved with converting those chances into goals (shot selection, shot accuracy, crashing the net, screening the goalie). The Sharks thrive on the first skill set. They falter on the second. Unfortunately, games are won and lost on the second set.
Except for goals. And wins.
And when the NHL decides to starts handing out victories based on who got the most scoring chances, then the Sharks will do just fine.
Unfortunately, the NHL still uses goals to determine winners and losers, there is a skill involved with turning scoring chances into actual scoring tallies, and the Sharks struggle in that department.
There is no objective reasoning for the success to have changed, as you noted, he has been known for being pass-first for years. Yet Thornton has more points this season than last. Thornton is playing some of his best hockey, I don't see that his skills have appreciably declined. He doesn't get that many of his passes blocked that he doesn't recover, he has REALLY improved on that in the second half. Which is why he has racked up multiple-assist games in the second half.
No, really, and truly, the Sharks are not lacking the skills or plays, or players. There's a reason none of this adds up. It starts with L.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJGoalie32
It's hard to argue that the second lowest points rate over the second half isn't blowing it.
The question was whether they blew the whole season or just the second half.
The players have grown too comfortable. New GM and coach will def send a message that no one is safe. A coach and GM should be able to keep their players focused and motivated. The good ones do. And yes there is plenty of blame to go around players included. But DW has been the only constant for how many years now? I'm tired of changing players and seeing the same results. I want a new chef!
I know that there are still 4 games left. But really I'm ready for a change. I just don't know how they expect to win a cup when they can't even win right now to get into the playoffs. Are we really supposed to believe that this team will suddenly turn into Cinderella? Rattle off 4 wins and *poof* it's a new team?!
Like a lot of you, I would love for the Sharks to prove me wrong, but after 78 games, I just don't see it. We see flashes of opportunity but rarely any consistency. Where is the team that played Boston and Colorado just a few days ago? If that team showed up more often we all wouldn't be having this discussion.
And I'm not opposed to rebuilding the team, but that has to include the staff. No more picks for DW. Let's truly start from scratch.
I know that there are still 4 games left. But really I'm ready for a change. I just don't know how they expect to win a cup when they can't even win right now to get into the playoffs. Are we really supposed to believe that this team will suddenly turn into Cinderella? Rattle off 4 wins and *poof* it's a new team?!
Yea, I really dont see this team lasting very long in the playoffs even if they make it. Despite the Boston and Colorado games, I dont even feel like they can beat Columbus at this point. I have this feeling like they would have trouble against every single team in the league right now.
Yea, I really dont see this team lasting very long in the playoffs even if they make it. Despite the Boston and Colorado games, I dont even feel like they can beat Columbus at this point. I have this feeling like they would have trouble against every single team in the league right now.
That L word better not be what I think it is...
