Looks like Blues are in fifth in the Western Conference right now.
Nashville is on the outside looking in only because LA has a game in hand on them. Our new conference opponents, the Wild and the Stars, along with current foes in Chicago and Detroit are all also in playoff spots as of 12/8.
Looks like Blues are in fifth in the Western Conference right now.
Nashville is on the outside looking in only because LA has a game in hand on them. Our new conference opponents, the Wild and the Stars, along with current foes in Chicago and Detroit are all also in playoff spots as of 12/8.
San Jose .604
Dallas .596
LA .556
Nashville .536
Pending outcomes of games for San Jose, Dallas and LA.
If anyone is sitting around and just watching hockey or just not busy in general, feel free to do this. Follow the scheme from the OP, or don't, just make it purdy. Add the date, update whenever, yadda yadda.
The west is way too close and the Blues are way too low scoring. This season is going to give me stomach ulcers.
Actually, the standings are starting to spread out a bit. The Blues are 5 points above 9th place, which is a nice buffer. Unfortunately, they'll need that buffer to end the season (two six-game road trips), but they're no longer struggling to stay in a playoff spot.
A point of interest, I'm going to give you two groups of teams. How would you describe each group?
Group A
Philadelphia
Chicago
Detroit
Pittsburgh
San Jose
Group B
Minnesota
Florida
Toronto
Nashville
Edmonton
I'll go ahead and spoil the commonalities: Group A is made up of teams whose high point percentage is no surprise and is at least somewhat likely to increase. The second group, whether through goals against, goals for, or a combination, has a much higher than expected positive gap between their shots against and goals against, and shots for and goals for. You'll also notice that Toronto, Nashville, and Edmonton have begun to fall in the standings. Florida and Minnesota ought to slow as well.
There are a few other teams that fit in Group B, but there are only two other teams that fit in Group A. One of them is Vancouver, who is on the periphery. They've performed almost exactly as expected. The other team is St. Louis, who is smack dab in the middle of that elite group. Not only are the Blues 9th in point percentage, their underlying stats suggest that they should be even better and are very likely to get better if they continue to play at their current level.
They are first in shots against and second in goals against. That will probably stay about the same. They are 15th in shots for, but 22nd in goals for. I don't think this is a sustainable difference. They may not light the world on fire, but they are most likely to score goals at a higher rate as the season goes on.
On top of that, the Blues have multiple key scorers who have historically heated up down the stretch. Backes and Berglund are guys who have a pattern of it with the Blues. But just last year, D'Agostini, Stewart, and Shattenkirk were all near a point per game in the last 20+ games. Pietrangelo had 19 points in his last 30. Different year, different team, different coach, and those guys haven't had a chance to establish a pattern. But the Blues are generally a team that heats up as the year goes on.
If the Blues have a significant slump over the next two months, we'll revisit the tightness of the conference and their lack of scoring. But as of right now, it's not a problem, and it doesn't look like a problem going forward.
On top of that, the Blues have multiple key scorers who have historically heated up down the stretch. Backes and Berglund are guys who have a pattern of it with the Blues. But just last year, D'Agostini, Stewart, and Shattenkirk were all near a point per game in the last 20+ games. Pietrangelo had 19 points in his last 30. Different year, different team, different coach, and those guys haven't had a chance to establish a pattern. But the Blues are generally a team that heats up as the year goes on.
Backes has already gotten up to speed. If he heats up production further it won't be because his history foretold it, it'll be because he's pushing to a higher production level, 65-70pts.
Berglund – can't say anything definitive about his history. He had a great third quarter last year (PPG), but his first, second and fourth quarters were mediocre (13, 8 and 11 points respectively). His first season he faded badly down the stretch and his second season his production drop was the difference in making the playoffs (8g, 13a dropoff would've earned at least the extra three wins to get into the postseason). So there's nothing history tells us about Berglund except that he's totally inconsistent, but will have enough flashes to convince some fans he's untradeable.
Shattenkirk is producing near the same rate he was at the end of last season, so you can't conclude just because the season's getting later he's going to produce more.
D'Agostini is streaky with points – started out hot, finished hot last year, but not enough NHL track record to say the end of the season will see an increase in scoring.
Stewart started out on fire last year, then slumped badly, then finished on fire. Now we're all seeing why Colorado dumped him. I don't think anyone can know whether he'll decide to care before the season's up. Either way, you can't trust him for anything.
Pietrangelo I'm not worried about. Even if he upticks a bit in points, it's not likely to be a huge impact.
As a result, it's not really fair to cite these guys by way of assuming their histories will lead to increased production.
If anyone is sitting around and just watching hockey or just not busy in general, feel free to do this. Follow the scheme from the OP, or don't, just make it purdy. Add the date, update whenever, yadda yadda.
Can we get a sticky Mods of HF?
Do we need one?
I'm not convinced this thread is going to be getting much discussion other than broadcasting the scores of the western conference teams. Seems pretty early in the season to start scoreboard watching.
We can always add a sticky if it turns into an important thread, but I'm pretty skeptical. I try to be a little selective about what threads get stuck.
I'm open to doing it if I'm in the minority opinion.
Backes has already gotten up to speed. If he heats up production further it won't be because his history foretold it, it'll be because he's pushing to a higher production level, 65-70pts.
Berglund – can't say anything definitive about his history. He had a great third quarter last year (PPG), but his first, second and fourth quarters were mediocre (13, 8 and 11 points respectively). His first season he faded badly down the stretch and his second season his production drop was the difference in making the playoffs (8g, 13a dropoff would've earned at least the extra three wins to get into the postseason). So there's nothing history tells us about Berglund except that he's totally inconsistent, but will have enough flashes to convince some fans he's untradeable.
Shattenkirk is producing near the same rate he was at the end of last season, so you can't conclude just because the season's getting later he's going to produce more.
D'Agostini is streaky with points – started out hot, finished hot last year, but not enough NHL track record to say the end of the season will see an increase in scoring.
Stewart started out on fire last year, then slumped badly, then finished on fire. Now we're all seeing why Colorado dumped him. I don't think anyone can know whether he'll decide to care before the season's up. Either way, you can't trust him for anything.
Pietrangelo I'm not worried about. Even if he upticks a bit in points, it's not likely to be a huge impact.
As a result, it's not really fair to cite these guys by way of assuming their histories will lead to increased production.
Regarding Backes, you could be right, but I don't know if that's fair. His down-the-stretch hot streaks have always been considerably hotter than he is now. He's scoring at a 52 point pace currently, so, no, I'm not talking about a 70 point range. He's going to have to heat up just to hit last year's totals.
Berglund, even in his down year, his production increased significantly. 16 points in his first 41 games, 10 in his last 18, including a streak where he got 8 points in 9 games. Two seasons in a row of turning it up down the stretch.
As for the rest of the guys, if you read my post, I clearly said they haven't established a pattern and I didn't make a conclusion. You're seeing what you want to see. We have a year of strong finishes with the rest of these guys so far. That's a start. Shattenkirk had 11 in 10 to finish off the year, which is the type of hot streak that could come at any time of the year, but if it becomes a pattern of finishing strong, that's a great thing for the Blues. There is a league-wide pattern of certain players starting hot and others finishing hot. And the ones who finish hot tend to do it year after year and continue into the playoffs.
Regarding Backes, you could be right, but I don't know if that's fair. His down-the-stretch hot streaks have always been considerably hotter than he is now. He's scoring at a 52 point pace currently, so, no, I'm not talking about a 70 point range. He's going to have to heat up just to hit last year's totals.
Berglund, even in his down year, his production increased significantly. 16 points in his first 41 games, 10 in his last 18, including a streak where he got 8 points in 9 games. Two seasons in a row of turning it up down the stretch.
As for the rest of the guys, if you read my post, I clearly said they haven't established a pattern and I didn't make a conclusion. You're seeing what you want to see. We have a year of strong finishes with the rest of these guys so far. That's a start. Shattenkirk had 11 in 10 to finish off the year, which is the type of hot streak that could come at any time of the year, but if it becomes a pattern of finishing strong, that's a great thing for the Blues. There is a league-wide pattern of certain players starting hot and others finishing hot. And the ones who finish hot tend to do it year after year and continue into the playoffs.
If 10 points in 18 games for Berglund is turning it up, like the 11 he had in the final 20 last year (which was a steep drop from his previous 20), maybe Berglund isn't all that?
On Backes, he's at a 53-pt pace right now, but that includes a projection including his normal slow start (first 10 games were a 33pt pace) as a higher percentage of the projection than it will be by season's end. He's the only player on your list of examples who can reasonably be said to have a pattern.
As for saying I'm seeing what I want to see, the statement right before citing all those guys was "they are most likely to score goals at a higher rate as the season goes on." By listing those guys after that statement I took it to mean you were citing them as evidence for the proposition, even if you then immediately disclaimed it. Otherwise, why even mention them, and why get annoyed if someone thinks that's what you meant?
If 10 points in 18 games for Berglund is turning it up, like the 11 he had in the final 20 last year (which was a steep drop from his previous 20), maybe Berglund isn't all that?
On Backes, he's at a 53-pt pace right now, but that includes a projection including his normal slow start (first 10 games were a 33pt pace) as a higher percentage of the projection than it will be by season's end. He's the only player on your list of examples who can reasonably be said to have a pattern.
As for saying I'm seeing what I want to see, the statement right before citing all those guys was "they are most likely to score goals at a higher rate as the season goes on." By listing those guys after that statement I took it to mean you were citing them as evidence for the proposition, even if you then immediately disclaimed it. Otherwise, why even mention them, and why get annoyed if someone thinks that's what you meant?
We're both cherry picking Berglund's stats. He scored 20 in the 19 immediately before the portion you chose last year and he looked great even when his production dipped towards the end of the year. I'm not going to get suckered into an agenda argument over Berglund's value to the team. He has scored at a higher pace later in each of the last two years. Last year it was the whole second half, the previous year it was in the last third. Whether or not you think that constitutes a pattern is a worthy argument, but whether or not he has scored at a higher pace later in the year is not up for debate.
The statement about scoring at a higher rate was simply in reference to their number of shots. In any given game or a given stretch, it can vary wildly, but over a long enough period of time, most teams' shooting percentage evens out. After being in the top ten in scoring last year despite all the injuries, it's possible that season was high and this season is low and they won't even out this year. We'll see. The connected statement about having good second halves was intended as additional, not part of a syllogism. I thought I was being clear by saying that the players other than Berglund and Backes have not established a pattern, but I'm sorry if I confused you.
We're both cherry picking Berglund's stats. He scored 20 in the 19 immediately before the portion you chose last year and he looked great even when his production dipped towards the end of the year. I'm not going to get suckered into an agenda argument over Berglund's value to the team. He has scored at a higher pace later in each of the last two years. Last year it was the whole second half, the previous year it was in the last third. Whether or not you think that constitutes a pattern is a worthy argument, but whether or not he has scored at a higher pace later in the year is not up for debate.
The statement about scoring at a higher rate was simply in reference to their number of shots. In any given game or a given stretch, it can vary wildly, but over a long enough period of time, most teams' shooting percentage evens out. After being in the top ten in scoring last year despite all the injuries, it's possible that season was high and this season is low and they won't even out this year. We'll see. The connected statement about having good second halves was intended as additional, not part of a syllogism. I thought I was being clear by saying that the players other than Berglund and Backes have not established a pattern, but I'm sorry if I confused you.
When you say we're both cherry picking Berglund's stats you're half-right. In point of fact, I wrote originally: "He had a great third quarter last year (PPG), but his first, second and fourth quarters were mediocre (13, 8 and 11 points respectively)." I'm sorry if I confused you. My point being that he turned it on for one stretch of 20 games and then reverted back to his slightly more than .5 PPG avg. You find it significant that it occurred in the second half of the season and wish to conclude that it means he's better in second halves; I don't. I just don't see the evidence for any kind of pattern, but then again, I can't let myself get suckered into an agenda argument.
Too bad there aren't any real standings games going on tonight beyond the borderline Avs-Oilers game.
When you say we're both cherry picking Berglund's stats you're half-right. In point of fact, I wrote originally: "He had a great third quarter last year (PPG), but his first, second and fourth quarters were mediocre (13, 8 and 11 points respectively)." I'm sorry if I confused you. My point being that he turned it on for one stretch of 20 games and then reverted back to his slightly more than .5 PPG avg. You find it significant that it occurred in the second half of the season and wish to conclude that it means he's better in second halves; I don't. I just don't see the evidence for any kind of pattern, but then again, I can't let myself get suckered into an agenda argument.
Too bad there aren't any real standings games going on tonight beyond the borderline Avs-Oilers game.
The "you're one too" is a nice touch!
I don't have an agenda here. Jzk mentioned that the Blues were low scoring and it was worrisome. I provided reasons that the Blues might increase their scoring. The discussion of Backes, Berglund, and any other players were a complete tag-on and were not really salient to my core point about their performance as a team and their shot totals vs. goals for. When you seized on that additional piece, you used it to mention Berglund as overvalued by Blues fans twice. You're hallucinating if you think that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's where the agenda comes from. There is no such content in any of my posts.
Both of you guys seem to completely ignore that those players are on a TEAM that got healthy at the end of the year, especially adding McDonald and Oshie got Berglund on his hot streak before Oshie's personal production slowed down and Stewart joined the team and just dominated with Shattenkirk's chemistry feeding both their point totals. That's one of the main reason the Blues start on fire / strong and then finish the same way, a healthy team adding guys in who can pace themselves into the line up because they're recovering from an injury that stalled the overall scoring pace. Berglund is the guy who's linemates are always on the chopping block and "need to improve or get out of the way for a streaky scorer who's looking better than usual". Singling him out and trying to find patterns or lack thereof is only as good as the context of his production.
Both of you guys seem to completely ignore that those players are on a TEAM that got healthy at the end of the year, especially adding McDonald and Oshie got Berglund on his hot streak before Oshie's personal production slowed down and Stewart joined the team and just dominated with Shattenkirk's chemistry feeding both their point totals. That's one of the main reason the Blues start on fire / strong and then finish the same way, a healthy team adding guys in who can pace themselves into the line up because they're recovering from an injury that stalled the overall scoring pace. Berglund is the guy who's linemates are always on the chopping block and "need to improve or get out of the way for a streaky scorer who's looking better than usual". Singling him out and trying to find patterns or lack thereof is only as good as the context of his production.
Yea, the individuals really aren't as important to me as the success of the team. And, as a team, they're shooting at a much higher rate than they are scoring. Over the course of an entire season, shot quality, second chances, and luck tend to even out. They don't always, and you have major outlier seasons. Occasionally there are teams that break the mold one way or the other and year after year, manage to have higher PDO. Boston, for example, had a goals against average from Thomas that was not at all commensurate with the shots they allowed last year, and the exact same thing is true this year.
Other than powerplay, the outstanding dearth of goals on the rush is the most notable issue. Part of this is luck, but part of it is that they don't get the puck on their sticks inside the dots, where 60+% of goals are scored. If the puck gets to the net off a rush, it's usually a shot from up high, from the boards, or some kind of broken play that doesn't result in a clear opportunity. The Blues either need to abandon puck possession plays in situations like this and ruthlessly crash the net, or they need to have more speed from their playmakers. Perron back and Sobotka performing well long-term at center could help a lot. I think Steen and Oshie on different lines is probably one of the long-term fixes.
I don't have an agenda here. Jzk mentioned that the Blues were low scoring and it was worrisome. I provided reasons that the Blues might increase their scoring. The discussion of Backes, Berglund, and any other players were a complete tag-on and were not really salient to my core point about their performance as a team and their shot totals vs. goals for. When you seized on that additional piece, you used it to mention Berglund as overvalued by Blues fans twice. You're hallucinating if you think that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's where the agenda comes from. There is no such content in any of my posts.
I simply replied to a post you made. No snark, no "agenda," nothing. You introduced the snide crap, and I guess you like starting it but not getting your own choices reflected back. Ah well. When you first replied you only cited Backes and Berglund. There wasn't disagreement really on Backes so I replied on Berglund. You're hallucinating if you think that was somehow off topic. It was direct reply.
I simply replied to a post you made. No snark, no "agenda," nothing. You introduced the snide crap, and I guess you like starting it but not getting your own choices reflected back. Ah well. When you first replied you only cited Backes and Berglund. There wasn't disagreement really on Backes so I replied on Berglund. You're hallucinating if you think that was somehow off topic. It was direct reply.
I don't know what I said that was snide, so with complete honesty, if I did say something snide, I didn't intend it. Sometimes I type up my posts pretty quickly and don't consider my words, and I think that can be said for pretty much anybody.
It seemed to me that I was talking about the Blues' scoring improving naturally as the year goes on, you brought up Berglund's being overvalued by fans twice as a tangent, so I thought you were trying to push an agenda in a discussion about something else. That's a very common thing around here. I mentioned it and you mocked me. If that wasn't your intention, I accept that, just like it wasn't my intention to be snide.
I think it's just a mutual misunderstanding, not an issue of anybody dishing out something they can't take.
Looking at the teams just in front of the Blues for the division lead (and the 2d seed in the West):
DET .660, 28GP (+9, 17ROW)
CHI .655, 29GP (+9, 14ROW)
STL .638, 29GP (+8, 17ROW)
A Sharks win in regulation tonight over Chicago would drop them to .633 and give the Blues the 6th best percentage in the NHL. Detroit plays their game in hand on Tuesday (at Pittsburgh). Chicago also plays in Minnesota Wednesday before the Blues get to play again. Plenty of scoreboard watching before that game.
