12/8 - Blackhawks vs Coyotes

[Jack Lantern]

Back in the golden years of the Blackhawks it was the LA Kings, Minnesota Wild, Predators, Sharks and Ducks that they had to routinely get past in the Western conference playoffs.

No surprise they all in the bottom of the standings.

The standings have flipped. Parity sucks.

it is what it is

 

[zack54attack]

That was a frustrating SO loss. But at least they got the point.

 

[blackpep72]

There are a lot more reason this team is mediocre than just drafting low lol. Other player personal decisions which have had nothing to do with the draft have been overall bad.

Sure winning Cups in the cap era has a price. But the team didn’t have to become this bad. Just look at how The Pens have have figured out a way to stay at least stay competitive over the last decade and they have just as many Cup wins as the Hawks do over the last 10 years.

They are making the most of Crosby - Malkin while the Hawks are simply wasting years of Toews - Kane.

The Kings has done a bad job too after winning.

 

[Raskolnikov]

We lack aggression on the PK and Forecheck. We constantly look tired maybe we should work on conditioning

Maybe we shouldn't have a bat shit crazy trainer and our captain should at least eat some fish or poultry once in a while. He can afford sustainably raised meat from a low level organism, I'm kinda down with not eating mammals though.

 

[Rinkrat21]

The Kings has done a bad job too after winning.

Yep. They won 2 Cups in 3 years and then started to suck. Only difference is, when they started to suck, the GM who was in place during the Cup wins was fired.

Dont get me wrong, the Cup were great, but they are in the rearview mirror now. As with most sports teams, it is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda world.

Not here though. Some people like living in the past when it comes to this team. "Who cares how bad we suck now. We won 3 Cups in 6 years awhile back" lol

 

[Jack Lantern]

Yep. They won 2 Cups in 3 years and then started to suck. Only difference is, when they started to suck, the GM who was in place during the Cup wins was fired.

Dont get me wrong, the Cup were great, but they are in the rearview mirror now. As with most sports teams, it is a "what have you done for me lately" kinda world.

Not here though. Some people like living in the past when it comes to this team. "Who cares how bad we suck now. We won 3 Cups in 6 years awhile back" lol

you make it sound like winning cups is easy peezy. There is a reason only 3 teams have won 2 or more cups during the full on salary cap era. 90++ pct of the NHL teams are lucky to see one.

 

[Rinkrat21]

you make it sound like winning cups is easy peezy. There is a reason only 3 teams have won 2 or more cups during the full on salary cap era. 90++ pct of the NHL teams are lucky to see one.

Never said winning Cups in the Cap era was easy, did I?

All I said was, it is in the past now. We probably disagree on the teams state of mediocracy being acceptable because of those 3 Cups. I feel it didnt have to be this way, and would point to a team like the Penguins as proof. You might feel that the only logical result of winning 3 Cups in 6 years is exactly where the team is.

Agree to disagree perhaps.

 

[DaHawkz24]

Never said winning Cups in the Cap era was easy, did I?

All I said was, it is in the past now. We probably disagree on the teams state of mediocracy being acceptable because of those 3 Cups. I feel it didnt have to be this way, and would point to a team like the Penguins as proof. You might feel that the only logical result of winning 3 Cups in 6 years is exactly where the team is.

Agree to disagree perhaps.

Boston is another example of a team that has stayed competitive. There is no reason that the Hawks couldn't have stayed at least a playoff team over the last few years.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Boston is another example of a team that has stayed competitive. There is no reason that the Hawks couldn't have stayed at least a playoff team over the last few years.

They had 1-2 rebuild years in there.

 

[Rinkrat21]

They had 1-2 rebuild years in there.

They did. But they rebuilt around their core and turned things around pretty quickly, proving that can be done also.

I just dont buy "this is the price of winning Cups in the cap era". During the era, the 4 most successful teams have been the Hawks, Pens, Kings and Bruins.

Pens and Bruins are examples of what is possible on the positive side. Hawks and Kings are examples of what is possible on the negative side.

 

[Raskolnikov]

They did. But they built and turned it around their core pretty quick, proving that can be done also.

I just dont buy "this is the price of winning Cups in the cap era". During the era, the 4 most successful teams have been the Hawks, Pens, Kings and Bruins.

Pens and Bruins are examples of what is possible on the positive side. Hawks and Kings are examples of what is possible on the negative side.

I'm still on the fence about us. We may get it figured out yet, with JC or a last gasp with someone more experienced.

QUICK lost so much so fast I don't know how to judge them.

 

[Rinkrat21]

I'm still on the fence about us. We may get it figured out yet, with JC or a last gasp with someone more experienced.

QUICK lost so much so fast I don't know how to judge them.

Possible the Hawks get it figured out. But in the meantime, 2 years without a playoff appearance and staring at a 3rd. Sure the Bruins missed the playoffs 2 years in a row as well, but they also fired their GM.

The Hawks are on their way to being the Einstein definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result lol.

 

[Jack Lantern]

Boston is another example of a team that has stayed competitive. There is no reason that the Hawks couldn't have stayed at least a playoff team over the last few years.

Boston also doesn't have 2 guys taking up 10.5 million each.

Once T & K signed on the dotted line it was The End. Now both of them are 30+ years old. While Kane is still producing, Jonny Toews is way overrated and overpaid.

 

[LordKOTL]

Well last week I was instructed that shots on goal are not that big of a deal, its just a bunch of mediocre players, in this case, a bunch of players the hawks gave up on like Schmaltz leading that team in points and a guy like Oesterle picking Kanes pocket and Vinnie getting a couple shots a game at the net playing on the plus side creating havoc with his speed.
Sounds like more of bad decisions on the GM side than not having players that could perform since they are a big part in leading the pacific.

You can stack the pads falling out of position and have the guy shoot it in your glove 1 time out of 100

I mean, shots on goal are not supposed to be a big deal, right? Coyotes got 47 thru, the hawks got, what 29? Their goalie won with a .896 save percentage lol.

SoG is important--at least within context. High danger shots naturally have more of a chance of going in, but no netminder is a 4'x6' cinderblock wall. The more shots the better a chance one has of going in--be it a softy goal, the D screwing the pooch, it it simply a perfect shot.

Plus, if the opponent is shooting...we're not. We don't have possession.

The way the "standard" numbers sit since the 2005 lockout is ~30.1 shots per game, and ~.915 for starting netminders overall. that equated out to close to about 2.5 G/G on average...and is the baseline. More shots means more of a chance a goal scores--to wit: .915 with the SoG in this past game equates out to about 4GA...Lehner let in 3...so he was doing his job.

The other guy wasn't--.896 off of 29 shots. Where the 'hawks failed was in team D--which of course has been a multiyear issue, and in staying out of the fuckin' box--or at least killing penalties. That's on the skaters. Surprisingly...our O was good--with Toews and Debrincat potting some which is an uptick.

IMHO you can't blame this on Lehner--he effectively saw 5 periods worth of shots in 3.25 (5 mins O/T) and came in above average. Blame it on stupid penalties and blown coverage.

 

[Rinkrat21]

Boston also doesn't have 2 guys taking up 10.5 million each.

Once T & K signed on the dotted line it was The End. Now both of them are 30+ years old. While Kane is still producing, Jonny Toews is way overrated and overpaid.

Right. So their current stinkiness isnt necessarily a bi-product of the team having a lot of success. Its a bi-product of crappy decisions being made along the way, like bloated contracts as an example.

 

[Jack Lantern]

Right. So their current stinkiness isnt necessarily a bi-product of the team having a lot of success. Its a bi-product of crappy decisions being made along the way, like bloated contracts as an example.

How many cups have Boston won again with that expertise cap management?

 

[Rinkrat21]

How many cups have Boston won again with that expertise cap management?

1 Cup win. Number of Cup final appearances? 3. Same as the Hawks. All while figuring out a way to stay competitive, or rebuild quickly and become a legit contender again before their core aged as opposed to turning into a clown show. Not too shabby.

And before you ask me about the Penguins, the answer would be 3 Cups. Same as the Hawks. With 4 Cup final appearances. One more than the Hawks. And never missing the playoffs once during that time frame. All while having to navigate around the same salary cap and perils success can bring that the Hawks have had to deal with, while also not turning into a clown show. Also not too shabby.

What’s your point?

 

[Diehardfan]

1 Cup win. Number of Cup final appearances? 3. Same as the Hawks. All while figuring out a way to stay competitive, or rebuild quickly and become a legit contender again before their core aged as opposed to turning into a clown show. Not too shabby.

And before you ask me about the Penguins, the answer would be 3 Cups. Same as the Hawks. With 4 Cup final appearances. One more than the Hawks. And never missing the playoffs once during that time frame. All while having to navigate around the same salary cap and perils success can bring that the Hawks have had to deal with, while also not turning into a clown show. Also not too shabby.

What’s your point?

Good question.....

 

[Granada]

Well last week I was instructed that shots on goal are not that big of a deal, its just a bunch of mediocre players, in this case, a bunch of players the hawks gave up on like Schmaltz leading that team in points and a guy like Oesterle picking Kanes pocket and Vinnie getting a couple shots a game at the net playing on the plus side creating havoc with his speed.
Sounds like more of bad decisions on the GM side than not having players that could perform since they are a big part in leading the pacific.

You can stack the pads falling out of position and have the guy shoot it in your glove 1 time out of 100

I mean, shots on goal are not supposed to be a big deal, right? Coyotes got 47 thru, the hawks got, what 29? Their goalie won with a .896 save percentage lol.

Guess this is more complicated than I thought it would be, lol:

There is a major difference between a team getting out-shot in the 40-50 range and a single player's shot quantity/quality. The former is a major indicator of a team -- as a whole -- getting dominated. The latter is a indicator of a single player -- as an individual -- getting shots on net, whether they are actually high quality or (in most cases, as in Kubalik's case), not.

The former also is a better indicator of overall team defense. You can't gauge anything "overall" with regard to "team" (hockey is a team sport, by the way) by picking a single player and looking at how many shots he took in a season.

If you want to rehash this subject we were discussing, why not simply respond in the original thread?

 

[anotheridiot]

Guess this is more complicated than I thought it would be, lol:

There is a major difference between a team getting out-shot in the 40-50 range and a single player's shot quantity/quality. The former is a major indicator of a team -- as a whole -- getting dominated. The latter is a indicator of a single player -- as an individual -- getting shots on net, whether they are actually high quality or (in most cases, as in Kubalik's case), not.

The former also is a better indicator of overall team defense. You can't gauge anything "overall" with regard to "team" (hockey is a team sport, by the way) by picking a single player and looking at how many shots he took in a season.

If you want to rehash this subject we were discussing, why not simply respond in the original thread?

I am guessing you should ask the guy that brought it up in this thread, I am guessing he did not want to get schooled on being wrong too.