We won't. Because someone with some hockey sense will either adjust the system to prioritize scoring chances over impotent shots on goal---it'll either be McLellan or his successor. But you'll claim that this validates your "unlucky" theory, so we'll keep having this conversation until one of us gets sick of it.
They may make changes that make it impossible to test this, but you don't have to. You look to last season and other McLellan seasons; this has always been his strategy. The Sharks under Tmac have been prone to having games where they ridiculously outplay, outshoot and outchance the other team and still lose. However, the difference and is we got the correct result more often than not in previous seasons while this year terrible PDO is causing not just more losses but at times near-constant losses. That is simply not a player-, system- or even play-based result.
They may make changes that make it impossible to test this, but you don't have to. You look to last season and other McLellan seasons; this has always been his strategy. The Sharks under Tmac have been prone to having games where they ridiculously outplay, outshoot and outchance the other team and still lose. However, the difference and is we got the correct result more often than not in previous seasons while this year terrible PDO is causing not just more losses but at times near-constant losses. That is simply not a player-, system- or even play-based result.
You say the system is prone to having games where they outplay, outshoot, and outchance the other team and still loose, yet the issues with the Sharks are not a systematic problem. How does that make any sense?
If the system is causing them to loose games they should win, and they are constantly not winning because of this system, the system is the problem, is it not?
No those instances are rare, though spectacular and clearly show the system. For it to happen enough to where it doesn't "even out" by a large margin is far out of the norm.
Are you trying to say that McClellan's system relies on luck to win games?
Every system does to some degree, the Sharks' system is specifically designed to minimize the effect of luck by stressing possession and winning the shot (and chance) battle. Basically it does everything it can to make sure we reach our potential while disadvantaging the opponent.
It is arguably why the team made the final four twice in a row, when our team was basically a final four team. It is also why this year seems like such a disaster, because this result is so unlikely and frankly cannot be solved by changing the system, as that would actually reduce our chances of winning.
Every system does to some degree, the Sharks' system is specifically designed to minimize the effect of luck by stressing possession and winning the shot (and chance) battle. Basically it does everything it can to make sure we reach our potential while disadvantaging the opponent.
It is arguably why the team made the final four twice in a row, when our team was basically a final four team. It is also why this year seems like such a disaster, because this result is so unlikely and frankly cannot be solved by changing the system, as that would actually reduce our chances of winning.
The great thing about this argument is it's impossible to disprove because it's so vaporous to begin with!
Are you trying to say that McClellan's system relies on luck to win games? If thats the case, ****ing fire his ass right now.
If there was a strategy that a team could execute and not have a bounce null it, there would be teams that go 82-0 in the regular season. Every good team plays a strategy that gives them the highest chance to win. Alot of the defensive schemes rely on players making the right choice at the exact right tenth of a second to lift a stick or whatnot. When you get to that scale, you realise there's always an element of "luck", if not from anything else, the physical attributes of the puck which is not an ideal object in any sense.
His argument and constant defense of it is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these boards.
Unfortunately it is also one of the most correct. Analysis sounding smart has no bearing on its correctness; there's about ten other explanations going on and the only way they all make sense is if the one I'm giving is correct. We're only 2 points out of the division lead. In a game full of bounces, that's only 3 games we needed to catch breaks in to be above the fray right now. Even if you don't buy the unsustainably bad PDO, any fan can see that more than 3 games in every 82-game season can easily be chalked up to bad luck.
Even if you don't buy luck as the primary reason for our problems, if you have watched the games this season, there's no denying we have had worse luck than usual and it has cost us some games.
Tmac's offensive system: Shoot a massive amount of point shots and see what happens. Keep doing it until it works and dont change a thing.
You always see them work the puck down low only to get it to the point at the end. Then whichever dman is there, takes a point shot that most of the time, leads to absolutely nothing and sometimes even gets blocked for an odd man rush the other way. And the few times that they finally get a really good bounce, they get a putback goal or tip-in or whatever, but thats very rare. Then beat this strategy to death again on the PP. If this isnt relying on luck to win games, I dont know what is.
Im sure other coaches rely on a little bit of "luck" but Tmac's strategies seem to revolve around it. And if thats the case, Im not surprised by their struggles right now. If he has another system, then Im not seeing it.
Unfortunately it is also one of the most correct. Analysis sounding smart has no bearing on its correctness; there's about ten other explanations going on and the only way they all make sense is if the one I'm giving is correct. We're only 2 points out of the division lead. In a game full of bounces, that's only 3 games we needed to catch breaks in to be above the fray right now. Even if you don't buy the unsustainably bad PDO, any fan can see that more than 3 games in every 82-game season can easily be chalked up to bad luck.
Even if you don't buy luck as the primary reason for our problems, if you have watched the games this season, there's no denying we have had worse luck than usual and it has cost us some games.
I like your point about winning an extra three games due to bounces but I have a question for you: Do you think the Sharks are unique in their poor misfortune in games here and there? Do not all other teams suffer losses at the hand of this luck? Misfortune craps on everyone equally, it is not choosy nor does it have a consciousness or hold an agenda. It just is.
Also, getting to the playoffs is not the ultimate goal here. They dont give the players rings for making the top 8. Our team has problems beyond misfortune, and this doesn't bode well if they make it in by the skin of their teethy teeth.
