HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

The Andy Murray Countdown thread

View Poll Results: Does this team need a coaching change
Yes 77 73.33%
No 28 26.67%
Voters: 105. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-07-2009, 04:20 PM
  #51
Celtic Note
Moderator
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
I don't understand how this is an issue. If the criticism of Murray is that "great teams don't match lines," therefore, it's bad that Murray is matching lines, the entire argument relies on the assumption that the Blues are a great team.
My only mention of the team without Murray is to be 100% clear about whether or not the Blues could be a great team, even without him. So you're focusing on the wrong point. I apologize if that made my post murky somehow.

Perhaps there's a reason that non-great teams match lines: because they have to do so in order to compete. Perhaps the Blues need to match lines because they are a pretender at this point. Why isn't that a legitimate consideration? Does that paint a clearer picture of why the whole 'great team's don't match lines, so Murray shouldn't match lines' part either assumes that the Blues are a great team or it's irrelevant?

Now, if the intended point is that all teams are better when they aren't matching lines or even that the Blues specifically would be better without matching lines, that's fine; but that's absolutely not what was said. And if that's what was intended, I'd be curious about how that conclusion was reached.

I'm not looking for an argument. A claim was made that I think was flawed. I pointed out the flaw and the responses I've gotten so far are basically: "nuh-uh," "did not," and "you just want to argue." My continuation of the interaction to explain what I see to be a very simple issue is not because I'm just being contrary. I'm actually explaining it and I don't know how I could be any clearer.

I have one more trick in my bag for clarity and I'm not even sure it will help. But here it is, just in case:

The way I see it, the conclusion is: "The Blues (Murray) should not match lines."
The first premise is: "Great teams should not match lines."
The second premise has to be: "The Blues are a great team."

In logic, you'd write it out like this:
No teams that are great teams are teams that should match lines.
All teams that are the Blues are great teams.
∴ No teams that are the Blues are teams that should match lines.

That premise that the Blues are a great team is the only way for that syllogism to remain valid. If you change that premise, you must change the conclusion or you have a fallacious argument.
I think you are correct in your logic.
I also agree that great teams don't have to match lines.

Honestly, we are not a great team yet. Actually, we probably won't be one for the next two years.

Celtic Note is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 04:27 PM
  #52
concept*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
I have one more trick in my bag for clarity and I'm not even sure it will help. But here it is, just in case:

The way I see it, the conclusion is: "The Blues (Murray) should not match lines."
The first premise is: "Great teams should not match lines."
The second premise has to be: "The Blues are a great team."

In logic, you'd write it out like this:
No teams that are great teams are teams that should match lines.
All teams that are the Blues are great teams.
∴ No teams that are the Blues are teams that should match lines.

That premise that the Blues are a great team is the only way for that syllogism to remain valid. If you change that premise, you must change the conclusion or you have a fallacious argument.
That is the worst excuse for formal logic I've ever seen in all of my philosophy education, undergraduate and graduate. I like that you perused the character map just to find the "therefore" symbol to make it look better.

Stick to hockey discussion.

concept* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 05:15 PM
  #53
rumrokh
I Bleed Blue
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by concept View Post
That is the worst excuse for formal logic I've ever seen in all of my philosophy education, undergraduate and graduate. I like that you perused the character map just to find the "therefore" symbol to make it look better.

Stick to hockey discussion.
Explain to me how it's wrong.

rumrokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2009, 05:19 PM
  #54
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,102
vCash: 500
Well if we fire Murray does that mean we'll find a "great coach" who doesn't have to match lines, and then blame the team for not scoring?

SteenMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 09:10 AM
  #55
fan in oregon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 631
vCash: 500
Guy Carboneau

I think he was doing a good job with the Canadiens before he was let go. What do think of him replacing Murray. I am usually patient for coaches but after the Atlanta game something must be done.GO BLUES

fan in oregon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 10:57 AM
  #56
Crumblin Erb Brooks
Registered User
 
Crumblin Erb Brooks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Grenyarnia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fan in oregon View Post
I think he was doing a good job with the Canadiens before he was let go. What do think of him replacing Murray. I am usually patient for coaches but after the Atlanta game something must be done.GO BLUES
Why must something be done about Murray in this game? Is it his fault Conklin let in a softie?

Crumblin Erb Brooks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 11:09 AM
  #57
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustle and Flow View Post
Why must something be done about Murray in this game? Is it his fault Conklin let in a softie?
It wasn't even Conklin's fault that Conklin let in that "softie". He was in perfect position to easily block that shot had it bounced where it should have. I would liked to have had a laboratory check out that puck to see what it was made of.

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 12:19 PM
  #58
WalterSobchak
Blues Trololol
 
WalterSobchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gutter Alley
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
Explain to me how it's wrong.
lets focus on the OP, "Do we need a coaching change"? If you would like to discuss logical deduction or any other methods of debate please take it to PMs or create a new thread for the matter.

WalterSobchak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 01:07 PM
  #59
WalterSobchak
Blues Trololol
 
WalterSobchak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Gutter Alley
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,743
vCash: 500
Poll added

WalterSobchak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 02:05 PM
  #60
blue bleeder 24-7
Registered User
 
blue bleeder 24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 1,639
vCash: 500
I apologize in advance if all this has already been stated somewhere...

So I did some number crunching. I'm gonna make a vlog on it, because I do that as a hobby, but since no one ever watches those because I'm lame, I figured I'd post some of these numbers here...

So I've seen the arguments from Murray defenders, and I decided to start digging deeper. Murray doesn't play to win, he plays to match the other team and go for a close game in which the team may get lucky and pull out a win. Because of this, he utilizes the wrong players at the wrong times. For example, one thing I absolutely can not stand is seeing McClement in OT. So I started with the premise that McClement is over-utilized.

McClement's production (TOI/pts) is 45.3 minutes this year. That's not a good production number. By comparison, Tkachuk is at 23.4 and EJ is at 36.1. Kariya is 35.5. McDonald is 30.5. You get the picture. Why does a guy with a horrible production number see time in OT?

So, I heard the argument that McClement is out there to win the draw. Fine, this is a legit argument. Sure, it's more philosophical than definitive proof, but it's at least a legit argument... So long as McClement is a beastly Face Off man.

Well....

of the 5 Blues that have seen over 75 faceoffs this year, McClement is ranked third in percent on the club with a 50.8%. That's not a face off specialist, that's a guy who can hold his own in the circle 50% of the time. The two centers over him are McDonald (60.6%) and Tkachuk (55.8).

And what do you know, those two players also have MUCH higher production numbers than McClement. So the question still remains: why is McClement out there in overtime?

So how far does this go... well, let's keep reviewing.

A team's first line center typically sees the most TOI. You can make the argument that that's not always the case given special teams, ie: penalty kill. Which is something I see Murray defended for all the time. "The TOI statistics are bull because the McClement-type shut down defenders see time on the penalty kill, so their numbers are skewed."

Well... that argument simply doesn't work anymore because I found out that on NHL.com they keep track of Even Strength TOI too.

So, you probably would say that your first line center should be seeing the most Even Strength TOI, right? If we can factor out the special teams, then that makes sense... your first line center sees the first highest amount of time, second sees the second, etc. etc.

Well, you'll never guess who leads the team in ES TOI. Jay McClement. Someone figure this out for me, because it's killing me inside. Why does our shut down specialist see more ice time than a scorer? It doesn't make sense. Why is he seeing more ice time than our supposed "scoring line centers". Is he our first line center now?

And this type of story keeps going on and on and on...

Average Even Strength TOI per Game for forwards:
Jay McClement: 13:49
Brad Boyes: 13:42
Andy McDonald: 13:40
Paul Kariya: 13:03
David Perron: 12:34
B.J. Crombeen: 12:06
T.J. Oshie: 11:39
Patrik Berglund: 10:49

So here we are AGAIN begging the question: why is McClement ahead of Boyes, McDonald, Kariya and Perron? And now a new question: why is Crombeen ahead of Oshie and Berglund?

You want to know why our offense isn't producing? That's exactly why. We're playing grinding type players with low production numbers over our scoring talent with not as low production numbers. That's why games are close, low scoring affairs; because these guys can hold down the fort for almost a game. And that's why we never get goals in clutch situations; because our scorers aren't out there.

I've been saying it for a long time: Murray is a good coach for a bad team (an offensive-talent starved group) because of his defensive approach. He keeps the lid on the game so that it doesn't get out of hand and gives a poor, struggling team a chance to come close to win every night.

However, it's exactly that approach that is killing this talented group of players. We don't need to play to be close anymore, we're ready to win games by letting our able to free-wheel offense take over.

Murray won't let that happen, and that's why Murray needs replaced. It's as simple as that. Murray's services can be used elsewhere in the league, but this team has simply outgrown him.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope I haven't been saying numbers/ concepts that have been regurgitated. Just felt like making a long post to sum up my feelings.


Last edited by blue bleeder 24-7: 11-09-2009 at 02:09 PM. Reason: put walt's production instead of FOW% XD
blue bleeder 24-7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 03:02 PM
  #61
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I apologize in advance if all this has already been stated somewhere...

So I did some number crunching. I'm gonna make a vlog on it, because I do that as a hobby, but since no one ever watches those because I'm lame, I figured I'd post some of these numbers here...

So I've seen the arguments from Murray defenders, and I decided to start digging deeper. Murray doesn't play to win, he plays to match the other team and go for a close game in which the team may get lucky and pull out a win. Because of this, he utilizes the wrong players at the wrong times. For example, one thing I absolutely can not stand is seeing McClement in OT. So I started with the premise that McClement is over-utilized.

McClement's production (TOI/pts) is 45.3 minutes this year. That's not a good production number. By comparison, Tkachuk is at 23.4 and EJ is at 36.1. Kariya is 35.5. McDonald is 30.5. You get the picture. Why does a guy with a horrible production number see time in OT?

So, I heard the argument that McClement is out there to win the draw. Fine, this is a legit argument. Sure, it's more philosophical than definitive proof, but it's at least a legit argument... So long as McClement is a beastly Face Off man.

Well....

of the 5 Blues that have seen over 75 faceoffs this year, McClement is ranked third in percent on the club with a 50.8%. That's not a face off specialist, that's a guy who can hold his own in the circle 50% of the time. The two centers over him are McDonald (60.6%) and Tkachuk (55.8).

And what do you know, those two players also have MUCH higher production numbers than McClement. So the question still remains: why is McClement out there in overtime?

So how far does this go... well, let's keep reviewing.

A team's first line center typically sees the most TOI. You can make the argument that that's not always the case given special teams, ie: penalty kill. Which is something I see Murray defended for all the time. "The TOI statistics are bull because the McClement-type shut down defenders see time on the penalty kill, so their numbers are skewed."

Well... that argument simply doesn't work anymore because I found out that on NHL.com they keep track of Even Strength TOI too.

So, you probably would say that your first line center should be seeing the most Even Strength TOI, right? If we can factor out the special teams, then that makes sense... your first line center sees the first highest amount of time, second sees the second, etc. etc.

Well, you'll never guess who leads the team in ES TOI. Jay McClement. Someone figure this out for me, because it's killing me inside. Why does our shut down specialist see more ice time than a scorer? It doesn't make sense. Why is he seeing more ice time than our supposed "scoring line centers". Is he our first line center now?

And this type of story keeps going on and on and on...

Average Even Strength TOI per Game for forwards:
Jay McClement: 13:49
Brad Boyes: 13:42
Andy McDonald: 13:40
Paul Kariya: 13:03
David Perron: 12:34
B.J. Crombeen: 12:06
T.J. Oshie: 11:39
Patrik Berglund: 10:49

So here we are AGAIN begging the question: why is McClement ahead of Boyes, McDonald, Kariya and Perron? And now a new question: why is Crombeen ahead of Oshie and Berglund?

You want to know why our offense isn't producing? That's exactly why. We're playing grinding type players with low production numbers over our scoring talent with not as low production numbers. That's why games are close, low scoring affairs; because these guys can hold down the fort for almost a game. And that's why we never get goals in clutch situations; because our scorers aren't out there.

I've been saying it for a long time: Murray is a good coach for a bad team (an offensive-talent starved group) because of his defensive approach. He keeps the lid on the game so that it doesn't get out of hand and gives a poor, struggling team a chance to come close to win every night.

However, it's exactly that approach that is killing this talented group of players. We don't need to play to be close anymore, we're ready to win games by letting our able to free-wheel offense take over.

Murray won't let that happen, and that's why Murray needs replaced. It's as simple as that. Murray's services can be used elsewhere in the league, but this team has simply outgrown him.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope I haven't been saying numbers/ concepts that have been regurgitated. Just felt like making a long post to sum up my feelings.
This man is on to something. Kudos to you for getting the numbers to back it up. The one thing I would like to add is that the Blues are generally behind during the game, so that is even less of a reason that McClement and Crombeen should be out on the ice.

Another gripe I have: Why the heck is Winchester out on the powerplay? He's useless. Winchester and Janssen have no redeeming value whatsoever. Eller should stay up.

And another: Brewer is worthless and should not be paired with a 19-year-old rookie.

Also (not Murray related), since we get zero offensive contributions from our defense other than Johnson, Jonas Junland (the Mike Green of the AHL) should be up here, if for no other reason than to help the power play. He obviously knows how to run it down in Peoria (and he used to quarterback the powerplay for Linkoping in the SEL as a 19-20 year-old).

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 03:10 PM
  #62
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,102
vCash: 500
At the very least I'd like to see Murray pull his head out of his ass long enough to realize he needs to actually be putting up goals in the 1st period if he wants to "punish" players mistakes.

Not to mention his logic of "if you're not scoring you should play less" really doesn't help anyone... at all. It's one thing to mess with the line assignments to change a player's strategy; but you can't put up better numbers from the bench.

SteenMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 04:15 PM
  #63
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Yes, we need a coaching change.

Right now; Our forwards aren't generating anything at even strength and our PP is pathetic, and it is a design flaw with the system.

Right now; everything with this offense revolves around getting a shot on goal from the defense. There is absolutely no set-up work being done low in the zone and we aren't even getting players in the slot, much less looking for them there or getting the puck to that area.

This team will not get the offense clicking until we start working from low in the zone. If the coaches won't change the system, they need to go.

That said; Andy Murray is responisble for this.
Ray Bennett is handling of our forwards, Power Play and "system" (AKA; the problems) and nothing he has ever worked on has had any semblance of success. The guy is simply an inept coach, and no matter how nice he may be any loyalty Murray has towards him is completely unfounded. JD needs to step in and give Bennett the axe and get an Assistant coach in place who knows the first thing about designing and running an offensive system.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 04:54 PM
  #64
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
Yes, we need a coaching change.

Right now; Our forwards aren't generating anything at even strength and our PP is pathetic, and it is a design flaw with the system.

Right now; everything with this offense revolves around getting a shot on goal from the defense. There is absolutely no set-up work being done low in the zone and we aren't even getting players in the slot, much less looking for them there or getting the puck to that area.

This team will not get the offense clicking until we start working from low in the zone. If the coaches won't change the system, they need to go.

That said; Andy Murray is responisble for this.
Ray Bennett is handling of our forwards, Power Play and "system" (AKA; the problems) and nothing he has ever worked on has had any semblance of success. The guy is simply an inept coach, and no matter how nice he may be any loyalty Murray has towards him is completely unfounded. JD needs to step in and give Bennett the axe and get an Assistant coach in place who knows the first thing about designing and running an offensive system.
There is no excuse not to have "set" plays on the powerplay, especially on a 5-on-3. It seems to me, like the coaches don't practice the 5-on-3 at all, or they have no clue how to attack on it. There is no way that two pointment should be passing it back and forth. The players are not getting good direction.

Sure, Murray knows how to instill defensive hockey, but as far as generating any offense, his staff is completely inept. The players just need to work harder and get some bounces, yeah right. Our transition game sucks, the dump and chase sucks, the cycle sucks, there is no organization on the attack whatsoever.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 05:04 PM
  #65
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Country: United States
Posts: 6,641
vCash: 50
I'm not sure which games you're watching, but McClement has been the Blues best forward, consistently in almost every game. Maybe that has something to do with his TOI. His line is extremely effective at shutting down the #1 scoring line of the opposition (see the tiny GAA at even strength) and still manages to create offense (not their main job).

I think ultimately there may be some limitations with Murray's system, but I don't have a problem with McClement's ice time.

I'd like to know how the PP goes from horrible 2 years ago, to pretty good last year, to inept again this year.

2 Minute Minor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 06:01 PM
  #66
jmwc95
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
I'm not sure which games you're watching, but McClement has been the Blues best forward, consistently in almost every game. Maybe that has something to do with his TOI. His line is extremely effective at shutting down the #1 scoring line of the opposition (see the tiny GAA at even strength) and still manages to create offense (not their main job).

I think ultimately there may be some limitations with Murray's system, but I don't have a problem with McClement's ice time.

I'd like to know how the PP goes from horrible 2 years ago, to pretty good last year, to inept again this year.
I have a problem with McClement's ice time when we are down a goal or two or we are in overtime where the whole point is to score (we aren't going to win any shootouts). McClement is a very good defensive forward, but not someone you want to put out there to score.

jmwc95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 06:31 PM
  #67
Wes McSnipes*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I apologize in advance if all this has already been stated somewhere...

So I did some number crunching. I'm gonna make a vlog on it, because I do that as a hobby, but since no one ever watches those because I'm lame, I figured I'd post some of these numbers here...

So I've seen the arguments from Murray defenders, and I decided to start digging deeper. Murray doesn't play to win, he plays to match the other team and go for a close game in which the team may get lucky and pull out a win. Because of this, he utilizes the wrong players at the wrong times. For example, one thing I absolutely can not stand is seeing McClement in OT. So I started with the premise that McClement is over-utilized.

McClement's production (TOI/pts) is 45.3 minutes this year. That's not a good production number. By comparison, Tkachuk is at 23.4 and EJ is at 36.1. Kariya is 35.5. McDonald is 30.5. You get the picture. Why does a guy with a horrible production number see time in OT?

So, I heard the argument that McClement is out there to win the draw. Fine, this is a legit argument. Sure, it's more philosophical than definitive proof, but it's at least a legit argument... So long as McClement is a beastly Face Off man.

Well....

of the 5 Blues that have seen over 75 faceoffs this year, McClement is ranked third in percent on the club with a 50.8%. That's not a face off specialist, that's a guy who can hold his own in the circle 50% of the time. The two centers over him are McDonald (60.6%) and Tkachuk (55.8).

And what do you know, those two players also have MUCH higher production numbers than McClement. So the question still remains: why is McClement out there in overtime?

So how far does this go... well, let's keep reviewing.

A team's first line center typically sees the most TOI. You can make the argument that that's not always the case given special teams, ie: penalty kill. Which is something I see Murray defended for all the time. "The TOI statistics are bull because the McClement-type shut down defenders see time on the penalty kill, so their numbers are skewed."

Well... that argument simply doesn't work anymore because I found out that on NHL.com they keep track of Even Strength TOI too.

So, you probably would say that your first line center should be seeing the most Even Strength TOI, right? If we can factor out the special teams, then that makes sense... your first line center sees the first highest amount of time, second sees the second, etc. etc.

Well, you'll never guess who leads the team in ES TOI. Jay McClement. Someone figure this out for me, because it's killing me inside. Why does our shut down specialist see more ice time than a scorer? It doesn't make sense. Why is he seeing more ice time than our supposed "scoring line centers". Is he our first line center now?

And this type of story keeps going on and on and on...

Average Even Strength TOI per Game for forwards:
Jay McClement: 13:49
Brad Boyes: 13:42
Andy McDonald: 13:40
Paul Kariya: 13:03
David Perron: 12:34
B.J. Crombeen: 12:06
T.J. Oshie: 11:39
Patrik Berglund: 10:49

So here we are AGAIN begging the question: why is McClement ahead of Boyes, McDonald, Kariya and Perron? And now a new question: why is Crombeen ahead of Oshie and Berglund?

You want to know why our offense isn't producing? That's exactly why. We're playing grinding type players with low production numbers over our scoring talent with not as low production numbers. That's why games are close, low scoring affairs; because these guys can hold down the fort for almost a game. And that's why we never get goals in clutch situations; because our scorers aren't out there.

I've been saying it for a long time: Murray is a good coach for a bad team (an offensive-talent starved group) because of his defensive approach. He keeps the lid on the game so that it doesn't get out of hand and gives a poor, struggling team a chance to come close to win every night.

However, it's exactly that approach that is killing this talented group of players. We don't need to play to be close anymore, we're ready to win games by letting our able to free-wheel offense take over.

Murray won't let that happen, and that's why Murray needs replaced. It's as simple as that. Murray's services can be used elsewhere in the league, but this team has simply outgrown him.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope I haven't been saying numbers/ concepts that have been regurgitated. Just felt like making a long post to sum up my feelings.
Wow, GREAT post. I agree 100% because you use stats to back it up.

It's definitely a problem when Murray is playing our 4th-line more than our goal scorers. If we want to score, guys like McDonald, Perron, Oshie, Boyes, etc. need to be out there more.

I'm getting tired of Murray. I do blame this struggle on him. I read a quote about the young guys being afraid to make mistakes, and I think that's Murray's fault. Berglund and Perron know that if they make a mistake, they are going to get benched, so therefore they play scared and too conservative. Murray also works the team very hard in practice if they lose.

I think Murray just needs to let up. I mean, geeze, let the team relax and have more energy. Right now they are struggling, so I think he just needs to let them loose so they play with more fire and energy. Right now, he's holding them back IMO.

A coaching change would be nice. Or a trade. This team needs SOME spark/change.

Wes McSnipes* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 06:34 PM
  #68
Jackman_the_Iceman*
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
I'm not sure which games you're watching, but McClement has been the Blues best forward, consistently in almost every game. Maybe that has something to do with his TOI. His line is extremely effective at shutting down the #1 scoring line of the opposition (see the tiny GAA at even strength) and still manages to create offense (not their main job).

I think ultimately there may be some limitations with Murray's system, but I don't have a problem with McClement's ice time.

I'd like to know how the PP goes from horrible 2 years ago, to pretty good last year, to inept again this year.
No sideboard one-timers from Boyes or Berglund? That's my guess.

Jackman_the_Iceman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 08:58 PM
  #69
STL Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 150
vCash: 500
If a coaching change is made. I would like to see a fresh face and new philosophy. I would be leary of one of Murray's assistants taking it on an iterim basis.

STL Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 09:33 PM
  #70
Blues0307
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 816
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I apologize in advance if all this has already been stated somewhere...

So I did some number crunching. I'm gonna make a vlog on it, because I do that as a hobby, but since no one ever watches those because I'm lame, I figured I'd post some of these numbers here...

So I've seen the arguments from Murray defenders, and I decided to start digging deeper. Murray doesn't play to win, he plays to match the other team and go for a close game in which the team may get lucky and pull out a win. Because of this, he utilizes the wrong players at the wrong times. For example, one thing I absolutely can not stand is seeing McClement in OT. So I started with the premise that McClement is over-utilized.

McClement's production (TOI/pts) is 45.3 minutes this year. That's not a good production number. By comparison, Tkachuk is at 23.4 and EJ is at 36.1. Kariya is 35.5. McDonald is 30.5. You get the picture. Why does a guy with a horrible production number see time in OT?

So, I heard the argument that McClement is out there to win the draw. Fine, this is a legit argument. Sure, it's more philosophical than definitive proof, but it's at least a legit argument... So long as McClement is a beastly Face Off man.

Well....

of the 5 Blues that have seen over 75 faceoffs this year, McClement is ranked third in percent on the club with a 50.8%. That's not a face off specialist, that's a guy who can hold his own in the circle 50% of the time. The two centers over him are McDonald (60.6%) and Tkachuk (55.8).

And what do you know, those two players also have MUCH higher production numbers than McClement. So the question still remains: why is McClement out there in overtime?

So how far does this go... well, let's keep reviewing.

A team's first line center typically sees the most TOI. You can make the argument that that's not always the case given special teams, ie: penalty kill. Which is something I see Murray defended for all the time. "The TOI statistics are bull because the McClement-type shut down defenders see time on the penalty kill, so their numbers are skewed."

Well... that argument simply doesn't work anymore because I found out that on NHL.com they keep track of Even Strength TOI too.

So, you probably would say that your first line center should be seeing the most Even Strength TOI, right? If we can factor out the special teams, then that makes sense... your first line center sees the first highest amount of time, second sees the second, etc. etc.

Well, you'll never guess who leads the team in ES TOI. Jay McClement. Someone figure this out for me, because it's killing me inside. Why does our shut down specialist see more ice time than a scorer? It doesn't make sense. Why is he seeing more ice time than our supposed "scoring line centers". Is he our first line center now?

And this type of story keeps going on and on and on...

Average Even Strength TOI per Game for forwards:
Jay McClement: 13:49
Brad Boyes: 13:42
Andy McDonald: 13:40
Paul Kariya: 13:03
David Perron: 12:34
B.J. Crombeen: 12:06
T.J. Oshie: 11:39
Patrik Berglund: 10:49

So here we are AGAIN begging the question: why is McClement ahead of Boyes, McDonald, Kariya and Perron? And now a new question: why is Crombeen ahead of Oshie and Berglund?

You want to know why our offense isn't producing? That's exactly why. We're playing grinding type players with low production numbers over our scoring talent with not as low production numbers. That's why games are close, low scoring affairs; because these guys can hold down the fort for almost a game. And that's why we never get goals in clutch situations; because our scorers aren't out there.

I've been saying it for a long time: Murray is a good coach for a bad team (an offensive-talent starved group) because of his defensive approach. He keeps the lid on the game so that it doesn't get out of hand and gives a poor, struggling team a chance to come close to win every night.

However, it's exactly that approach that is killing this talented group of players. We don't need to play to be close anymore, we're ready to win games by letting our able to free-wheel offense take over.

Murray won't let that happen, and that's why Murray needs replaced. It's as simple as that. Murray's services can be used elsewhere in the league, but this team has simply outgrown him.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope I haven't been saying numbers/ concepts that have been regurgitated. Just felt like making a long post to sum up my feelings.
Great post, good information. Murray reminds me of a coach that likes hard workers and grinders. It's the guys that don't have the most skill, but give 100% all the time that appeal to him. That's fine and dandy, but it's skill and talent that win you championships. The Blues don't have enough skill yet, but if this is a microcosm of how he's going to coach when do have the skill to contend, we're gonna be in trouble.....

Blues0307 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 09:57 PM
  #71
BlueBeard
Registered User
 
BlueBeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 2,705
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue bleeder 24-7 View Post
I apologize in advance if all this has already been stated somewhere...

So I did some number crunching. I'm gonna make a vlog on it, because I do that as a hobby, but since no one ever watches those because I'm lame, I figured I'd post some of these numbers here...

So I've seen the arguments from Murray defenders, and I decided to start digging deeper. Murray doesn't play to win, he plays to match the other team and go for a close game in which the team may get lucky and pull out a win. Because of this, he utilizes the wrong players at the wrong times. For example, one thing I absolutely can not stand is seeing McClement in OT. So I started with the premise that McClement is over-utilized.

McClement's production (TOI/pts) is 45.3 minutes this year. That's not a good production number. By comparison, Tkachuk is at 23.4 and EJ is at 36.1. Kariya is 35.5. McDonald is 30.5. You get the picture. Why does a guy with a horrible production number see time in OT?

So, I heard the argument that McClement is out there to win the draw. Fine, this is a legit argument. Sure, it's more philosophical than definitive proof, but it's at least a legit argument... So long as McClement is a beastly Face Off man.

Well....

of the 5 Blues that have seen over 75 faceoffs this year, McClement is ranked third in percent on the club with a 50.8%. That's not a face off specialist, that's a guy who can hold his own in the circle 50% of the time. The two centers over him are McDonald (60.6%) and Tkachuk (55.8).

And what do you know, those two players also have MUCH higher production numbers than McClement. So the question still remains: why is McClement out there in overtime?

So how far does this go... well, let's keep reviewing.

A team's first line center typically sees the most TOI. You can make the argument that that's not always the case given special teams, ie: penalty kill. Which is something I see Murray defended for all the time. "The TOI statistics are bull because the McClement-type shut down defenders see time on the penalty kill, so their numbers are skewed."

Well... that argument simply doesn't work anymore because I found out that on NHL.com they keep track of Even Strength TOI too.

So, you probably would say that your first line center should be seeing the most Even Strength TOI, right? If we can factor out the special teams, then that makes sense... your first line center sees the first highest amount of time, second sees the second, etc. etc.

Well, you'll never guess who leads the team in ES TOI. Jay McClement. Someone figure this out for me, because it's killing me inside. Why does our shut down specialist see more ice time than a scorer? It doesn't make sense. Why is he seeing more ice time than our supposed "scoring line centers". Is he our first line center now?

And this type of story keeps going on and on and on...

Average Even Strength TOI per Game for forwards:
Jay McClement: 13:49
Brad Boyes: 13:42
Andy McDonald: 13:40
Paul Kariya: 13:03
David Perron: 12:34
B.J. Crombeen: 12:06
T.J. Oshie: 11:39
Patrik Berglund: 10:49

So here we are AGAIN begging the question: why is McClement ahead of Boyes, McDonald, Kariya and Perron? And now a new question: why is Crombeen ahead of Oshie and Berglund?

You want to know why our offense isn't producing? That's exactly why. We're playing grinding type players with low production numbers over our scoring talent with not as low production numbers. That's why games are close, low scoring affairs; because these guys can hold down the fort for almost a game. And that's why we never get goals in clutch situations; because our scorers aren't out there.

I've been saying it for a long time: Murray is a good coach for a bad team (an offensive-talent starved group) because of his defensive approach. He keeps the lid on the game so that it doesn't get out of hand and gives a poor, struggling team a chance to come close to win every night.

However, it's exactly that approach that is killing this talented group of players. We don't need to play to be close anymore, we're ready to win games by letting our able to free-wheel offense take over.

Murray won't let that happen, and that's why Murray needs replaced. It's as simple as that. Murray's services can be used elsewhere in the league, but this team has simply outgrown him.

Sorry for the long post, and I hope I haven't been saying numbers/ concepts that have been regurgitated. Just felt like making a long post to sum up my feelings.
I would agree with you if we had forwards that were actually producing. Here is the issue: If our offensive forwards cannot score in match ups that Murray is cherry picking for them what makes you think they're going to score if he does nothing and lets the other team match up to them? Do you really want to see what Ryan-Getzlaff-Perry would do to that Boyes-McDonald-Perron line from yesterday? While it's nice to think just cutting McClement's ice time and playing everyone else more is going to solve everything it's not. McClement's reduction in ice time has to be a direct result of other lines scoring at a higher rate because if you cut it before then we just give up more goals and lessen the chance for a win. It's a bit ridiculous to think Murray just wants to play grinders for the hell of it.

The real issue is why are players that are paid for their offensive production not producing? Is this a direct result of Murray or is it a result of them missing the net, not finding each other like they've shown they can in the past, putting too much pressure on themselves? Is it a result of the team making a transition to a more defense driven offense? That's a change that's not going to happen like flipping a light switch and it is one that absolutely must happen if this team is ever going to be a great team. They all need to get used to the way EJ rushes the puck and roves in down low. Also the d-men need to get their shots through more consistently and in a better position to be deflected. Playing some hot teams and goalies at the wrong time doesn't help either. Emery is playing good, Kripsoff seems to always play good against us, Bryzgalov is playing pretty darn well also.

BlueBeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 11:04 PM
  #72
Stealth JD
Drexel's dead!!!
 
Stealth JD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Safari Motor Motel
Country: United States
Posts: 6,162
vCash: 500
84% of the voting fanbase wants to replace the guy who was a finalist for the Jack Adams Award last year. I'm not saying one opinion is better than another...but 84%? Really? Jeez this is a fickle bunch.

Apparently 5 weeks into the season, we've seen enough to determine that a man should lose his job because the club isn't playing up to (your) expectations. Never mind the fact that that 3 of the clubs best players (EJ, Kariya, Brew) are knocking off significant rust after missing extended time...or the fact that 10 of the 23 guys on the roster are 25-years old or younger, and 8 of them are essentially 2nd-year NHL'ers or less. The Blues simply are not ready to challenge for a Central division championship, let alone contend for a Cup. One 6-week stretch where they played over their heads does not make this club the class of the division, or even an upper-tier squad within the conference.

This roster has too many guys that are either unproven/still developing or well past their primes...and not enough guys who are in their prime. And it's become readily apparent that last year's run has disillusioned a lot of people into thinking this club was better than they really are. They played over their heads for basically 2-months and snuck into the playoffs, leading to high expectations.

However that level of play, with this level of talent, is almost impossible to sustain. The Blues are still short on talent and are going to need a couple more years of seasoning & development before they become true contenders for a Cup. They have enough talent to compete on any given night, and are no longer the door-mats that they were immediately after the lockout...but they're not there yet, and made a lot of people think they are. Yet because this team is exactly where they were last year (outside f that miracle finish) people are ready to throw Murray out on his ass?

I'm beginning to think that this fan-base isn't as smart as they'd like to think they are. 84% are pro-coaching change??? Wow.

Stealth JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2009, 11:09 PM
  #73
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues0307 View Post
Great post, good information. Murray reminds me of a coach that likes hard workers and grinders. It's the guys that don't have the most skill, but give 100% all the time that appeal to him. That's fine and dandy, but it's skill and talent that win you championships. The Blues don't have enough skill yet, but if this is a microcosm of how he's going to coach when do have the skill to contend, we're gonna be in trouble.....
Exactly! Murray is not the coach to take the future skilled team far, nor to take this team far. This team is in trouble, and the players are not having fun playing hockey. The team lacks confidence, and will never have a "killer instinct" under Murray. I've never liked his coaching strategies and many of his methods. The sooner he's gone, the more of this season can be salvaged.

But, yes, I wouldn't want to see Walmsley or Bennett as interim coach. I'm not sure Payne is ready. Are any NHL - proven coaches sitting at home, waiting for a call?

Robb_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2009, 06:22 PM
  #74
General Veers
Registered User
 
General Veers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
I voted no simply because it's too early. I can't help but think if Backes, Boyes, and Kariya were producing like they should, Andy would be under practically no scrutiny. If these players can't respond this month however....

General Veers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2009, 10:53 AM
  #75
SteenMachine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fenton, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 4,102
vCash: 500
So this was in the new Strickland blog, since I know in the past people wondered about it back when Perron was always being "disciplined" but the vets never seemed to get that treatment.

Quote:
I'm told Eric Brewer has a get out of jail free card and is never a consideration to sit out a game. I'm not suggestiong he should be either. Since his return he's shown some flashes of playing the way he did just after Murray came on board.

SteenMachine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.