2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[Brockon]

Agreed. Which is what my 2nd paragraph is referring to.

But I think it’s also clear that Binny shouldn’t be a workhorse type of starter. Greiss simply wasn’t good enough competition though. I’m hoping to see Binny get around 50 starts next season with Hofer around 30. Hopefully Binny can be more consistent with a little lighter load. Otherwise, Hofer may end up with more than 30ish starts…

Last time we had someone else carry a decent amount of games in the regular season, Binnington looked like he could have carried us for another deep run until Kadri ruined that for us...

Just saying, we don't need Binner to be lights out I the regular season. He's a competitor through and through if healthy in the playoffs.

 

[Brian39]

That wouldn't have anything to do with Binnington's insane workload would it?

Very doubtful.

Binner's 50 starts in 2019/20 were 6th in the NHL and that was with Allen posting a .927 as the backup.

His 41 starts in 2020/21 were 4th in the NHL. Husso only played 15 games and we had 12 B2Bs.

Husso took his job last year, but we started out riding Binner. Binner started 16 of our first 22 games before getting sidelined with COVID. He started 5 of 6 games when he returned from COVID with very mixed results. Husso was really good in the one game he got in this stretch and then really good again in the next game. Berube went back to Binner for the 6th time in the team's 8th game since he returned from COVID, which was the 1/15/22 Toronto game where he allowed 6 including a brutal game winner with 3 minutes left. This was the moment where Berube stopped riding Binner like a workhorse and gave the ball to Husso. Binner only wound up getting 37 starts, but that was a direct result in him struggling post-COVID and Husso playing fantastic. The plan was very much for Binner to start 60+ games.

Berube also rode Allen hard before giving the ball to Binner in the 2018/19 season. Binner sat on the NHl bench for a month before getting his first start even though Allen wasn't playing particularly well.

Berube likes having a workhorse #1 and Greiss didn't do much with his play to convince Berube to cut into Binner's starts. It took Greiss until January to string together consecutive starts with a .900+ SV% and he has only won a single game where the team has scored him less than 5 goals. Binner has had too many blow up games this year, but he's also had some stretches of great play. Greiss hasn't put together a stretch where he's looked like a challenger for the crease.

I don't like Binner's workload, but it isn't new this year. I don't think the $250k bonus impacted Berube's start allocation. MAYBE it helped make the decision to throw Hofer into multiple games (although I doubt that). Once the season was clearly lost, I'd wager that the team told Berube to make sure Greiss didn't hit 20 starts in a bunch of meaningless games. But Binner's workload was on track to be too high well before that would have happened.

 

[Brian39]

Agreed. Which is what my 2nd paragraph is referring to.

But I think it’s also clear that Binny shouldn’t be a workhorse type of starter. Greiss simply wasn’t good enough competition though. I’m hoping to see Binny get around 50 starts next season with Hofer around 30. Hopefully Binny can be more consistent with a little lighter load. Otherwise, Hofer may end up with more than 30ish starts…

If I were in charge, I would plan to split the first 55 games 35-20 in Binner's favor and then figure out the rest of the season based on how both of them play. Obviously that distribution might start to change before the 55 game mark if one (or both) goes hot or cold, but that would be my 'plan' going into the year.

That's a 52 start pace for Binner, which is still squarely a starter's workload in today's NHL. There will be 15 or fewer goalies who start 52 games this year, so it's not like such a split would be any type of demotion for Binner. If he outplays Hofer, you could tweak his workload up a bit and get him to 55 starts by playing him in 20 of the last 27 games. If Hofer earns himself a greater share of the starts, he still wouldn't be looking at having to give us more than 40 starts in his first season.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

That f***ing Failure.

 

[oPlaiD]

Nothing like going on a sh% heater to get the worst possible draft position when we're already out of the playoffs

We lead the league in shooting percentage last year with 12.4% (9.6% 5v5) and early on this season it didn't look like we were going to replicate that... but we're currently at 11.3% (8.9% 5v5) which is good for #3 in the league and essentially tied with Seattle for #2.

Vrana and Kaspanen are both shooting 18.4% with the Blues, but Vrana is actually 14.6% on his career so he's typically a higher percentage shooter and not pacing too far off what you may expect, especially if the Blues offense is still supporting higher shooting numbers as the season total seems to indicate. Kaspanen at 11.3% for his career, not so much.

 

[Thallis]

We lead the league in shooting percentage last year with 12.4% (9.6% 5v5) and early on this season it didn't look like we were going to replicate that... but we're currently at 11.3% (8.9% 5v5) which is good for #3 in the league and essentially tied with Seattle for #2.

Vrana and Kaspanen are both shooting 18.4% with the Blues, but Vrana is actually 14.6% on his career so he's typically a higher percentage shooter and not pacing too far off what you may expect, especially if the Blues offense is still supporting higher shooting numbers as the season total seems to indicate. Kaspanen at 11.3% for his career, not so much.

Blais has been 25% since getting traded back too. Our Goals/xGF has spiked up to double the average very recently. You expect these sorts of ebbs and flows during the season, it’s just a bit annoying that it’s happening as we’re long out of a playoff spot and want to be losing games.

 

[PocketNines]

Pride Night is symbolic because it says "We, the members of the ultimate in-group, recognize the equal humanity in members of an out group that are treated differently under the law in this country and in this world."

And instead they're going to take a different symbolic stand, one that protect the feelings of Russians who come from the most viciously bigoted country on the planet and whose "religious leader" is a straight up FSB agent. It's morally pathetic. This is the same thing as if there were Jewish Pride Nights during WWII but the hockey team had some unapologetic Germans on the roster and the hockey players didn't want to cause any ripples by demonstrating support for the out group, and why is it on them anyway? I deplore the moral cowardice of the players on the 22-23 St. Louis Blues.

 

[ezcreepin]

We lead the league in shooting percentage last year with 12.4% (9.6% 5v5) and early on this season it didn't look like we were going to replicate that... but we're currently at 11.3% (8.9% 5v5) which is good for #3 in the league and essentially tied with Seattle for #2.

Vrana and Kaspanen are both shooting 18.4% with the Blues, but Vrana is actually 14.6% on his career so he's typically a higher percentage shooter and not pacing too far off what you may expect, especially if the Blues offense is still supporting higher shooting numbers as the season total seems to indicate. Kaspanen at 11.3% for his career, not so much.

It's really a cause of the system we play. I think we're bottom 5/10 in shots taken, yet our shooting % is high. That's probably a coaching decision of "Don't just throw the puck on net, try to get the forwards and defense moving to create an opportunity" or "Shoot when the chance is there", which I totally disagree with. I understand the thought of not shooting the puck on net just to shoot, but more often than not, we're not creating goals in the dirty areas. It's usually from the point, a nice shot, or a good play with a player getting in position for a cross pass or something to that effect.

This link shows that pretty accurately actually STL 22-23

The blue paint is actually a huge cold zone for the Blues, so they don't create rebound chances nor do they even attempt to really crash the net for a goal. Oddly enough though, when the Blues DO get to the front of the net, they are way above league expected goals, which is pretty telling. Their powerplay exhibits the same characteristics in terms of shots compared to their 5v5 shots, so it doesn't surprise me they're having lots of trouble converting. Last year they almost exclusively set up shop in the slot and had major success, though whether that's because of the personnel or high shooting % idk, but they should actively look into utilizing that space more.

On the flip side, the Blues are getting beat up majorly in front of the net, and it's nearly 20 goals higher than the league expected. Defense could be an issue, but they aren't doing enough to prevent slot shots or goals near the paint. They need to HEAVILY change up their strategy. If you take a look at last years heat map, the Blues' goalies and defense massively cleared out the crease and slot areas (including the circles) which limited the goals, something that's remarkable because they were only the 9th best team in the NHL, just beating out Boston by 2 points. Compare this to the 2019 season, and it's not wonder why the team was so good. No shots were even touching the paint - it's literally Antarctica there.

A lot of this is a combination of Binnington faltering and allowing bad goals over stretches and the special teams either performing really well/bad. However, in this year's case, the Blues are doing bad at nearly everything. We aren't getting saves at opportune times but we also don't help the goalies out at all. If this persists for another season without big changes to structure or scheme, I'm done with the coaching staff. Your replacement for Monty is MacTavish???? Seriously???

 

[ezcreepin]

Pride Night is symbolic because it says "We, the members of the ultimate in-group, recognize the equal humanity in members of an out group that are treated differently under the law in this country and in this world."

And instead they're going to take a different symbolic stand, one that protect the feelings of Russians who come from the most viciously bigoted country on the planet and whose "religious leader" is a straight up FSB agent. It's morally pathetic. This is the same thing as if there were Jewish Pride Nights during WWII but the hockey team had some unapologetic Germans on the roster and the hockey players didn't want to cause any ripples by demonstrating support for the out group, and why is it on them anyway? I deplore the moral cowardice of the players on the 22-23 St. Louis Blues.

Yea I think the sentiment of a lot of hockey fans is pretty gross. If you're not going to include people from all sides and walks of life, especially those who are in the minority and would do well with recognition from the league itself, then get rid of all acknowledgements. Don't recognize war veterans, don't wear military jerseys, no cancer awareness nights, just get rid of it all. Sure, it's a pretty exaggerated response, but you can't placate to one side of the fan base

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

Yea I think the sentiment of a lot of hockey fans is pretty gross. If you're not going to include people from all sides and walks of life, especially those who are in the minority and would do well with recognition from the league itself, then get rid of all acknowledgements. Don't recognize war veterans, don't wear military jerseys, no cancer awareness nights, just get rid of it all. Sure, it's a pretty exaggerated response, but you can't placate to one side of the fan base

Is it not possible to make hockey welcoming and inclusive to everyone without compelling speech which requires other players to contradict their sincerely held religious beliefs? I know it sounds crazy, but I think there is a path to do both.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Yea I think the sentiment of a lot of hockey fans is pretty gross. If you're not going to include people from all sides and walks of life, especially those who are in the minority and would do well with recognition from the league itself, then get rid of all acknowledgements. Don't recognize war veterans, don't wear military jerseys, no cancer awareness nights, just get rid of it all. Sure, it's a pretty exaggerated response, but you can't placate to one side of the fan base

I'm honestly quite disappointed that Blues aren't wearing Pride jerseys. Do they not believe that Hockey is for Everyone? If someone doesn't believe that everyone should be made to feel welcome and supported at hockey games, they should be called out for those beliefs. Using your religion to excuse your bigotry doesn't make you any less bigoted.

 

[ezcreepin]

Is it not possible to make hockey welcoming and inclusive to everyone without compelling speech which requires other players to contradict their sincerely held religious beliefs? I know it sounds crazy, but I think there is a path to do both.

So do we just turn a blind eye whenever certain players decide to stop wearing other kinds of appreciation jerseys, even if the public outcry becomes substantial? What if there's a Black history warmup jersey and like 5 players decide not to wear it, making an obvious statement across the league and fans start protesting these players? Should we force them to wear it then? Should we remove them from the league if they are closet racists? I would disagree wholeheartedly with their choice to not wear the jersey, but I don't know if it's ok to remove someone from the league if they haven't done anything inherently wrong. In the same vein, I don't really like excluding minority groups from recognition when they've been part of that process for nearly a decade. I'd much prefer if the NHL stops placating to certain fans for warmup jerseys and things of that nature, or just placate to everyone. The NHL/teams are going to look bad either way if there is a majority of the league wearing these jerseys and some teams don't, and there will be people who complain about the "politics in sports" when teams wear them, despite their own hypocrisy.

Now hypothetically if they drop all warmup jerseys, I think a nice and cool idea for certain appreciation nights would be to repaint the logo in the fashion of the appreciation night. Obviously this can get tedious and more than likely expensive/time consuming, but if you want to be inclusive, find other, better ways to do it (provided jerseys isn't the option).

 

[Thallis]

So do we just turn a blind eye whenever certain players decide to stop wearing other kinds of appreciation jerseys, even if the public outcry becomes substantial? What if there's a Black history warmup jersey and like 5 players decide not to wear it, making an obvious statement across the league and fans start protesting these players? Should we force them to wear it then? Should we remove them from the league if they are closet racists? I would disagree wholeheartedly with their choice to not wear the jersey, but I don't know if it's ok to remove someone from the league if they haven't done anything inherently wrong. In the same vein, I don't really like excluding minority groups from recognition when they've been part of that process for nearly a decade. I'd much prefer if the NHL stops placating to certain fans for warmup jerseys and things of that nature, or just placate to everyone. The NHL/teams are going to look bad either way if there is a majority of the league wearing these jerseys and some teams don't, and there will be people who complain about the "politics in sports" when teams wear them, despite their own hypocrisy.

Now hypothetically if they drop all warmup jerseys, I think a nice and cool idea for certain appreciation nights would be to repaint the logo in the fashion of the appreciation night. Obviously this can get tedious and more than likely expensive/time consuming, but if you want to be inclusive, find other, better ways to do it (provided jerseys isn't the option).

They force players to wear the military night jerseys, I don't see why it's a big deal to force them to wear the most token effort of inclusion. It's a low bar to clear but the nhl still managed to mess up spectacularly.

 

[ezcreepin]

They force players to wear the military night jerseys, I don't see why it's a big deal to force them to wear the most token effort of inclusion. It's a low bar to clear but the nhl still managed to mess up spectacularly.

I thought they were mandatory, but apparently a tweet that was made earlier this year has been confirmed by the NHL that they were optional, not mandated. Idk if they were mandated prior to the 2020s, but this year they were an option for the players.

Edit: I should mention that this was a NY post thing, so idk if this was for the Rangers/Islanders, or the league in general.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Is it not possible to make hockey welcoming and inclusive to everyone without compelling speech which requires other players to contradict their sincerely held religious beliefs? I know it sounds crazy, but I think there is a path to do both.

I would accept this if "sincerely held religious beliefs" were invoked at other times as well. I'd really accept it if they were done consistently, even if I think "that's stupid." They're not, though. They're always invoked as a sign of exclusion, which runs contrary to the New Testament's message of inclusion - which raises questions of what sincerely held religious beliefs are we talking about here?

While I don't need to know every player's "sincerely held religious beliefs" - that's ultimately between them and whatever supreme being they want to believe in, and as long as it doesn't impose on my rights or the rights of my family and friends, enjoy and practice them until you're six feet underground - I do think when they do something that violates what we can reasonably infer falls under "sincerely held religious beliefs" given their past statements on the phrase and especially given the actions they take with respect to it, they should have to explain why that's OK and not a contradiction.

but I am advocating letting people do what ever the f*** they want to do. That's what this is all about right? freedom to live how you want?

I don't know when "freedom of speech" turned into "freedom to live how you want" but even the most basic reading of the documents written by the Founding Fathers shows that even they didn't believe in unilateral "freedom to live how you want." Not to mention, their concern was about the government's abuse of personal freedoms which they had personally experienced and wanted to ensure that the land they lived in had a government that didn't do the same. That's a stark difference from what any business decides to do, especially when that business is not an arm of the government.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

This is all Kyrou's Fault

 

[Stealth JD]

I thought they were mandatory, but apparently a tweet that was made earlier this year has been confirmed by the NHL that they were optional, not mandated. Idk if they were mandated prior to the 2020s, but this year they were an option for the players.

Edit: I should mention that this was a NY post thing, so idk if this was for the Rangers/Islanders, or the league in general.

What happens when every player on every team decides to skip Pride night? What message would that send? If you're not sure whether your players will comply, you find out prior to releasing the schedule, otherwise the league will continue to get a black-eye when more teams decide to follow the lead of the Rangers, Wild & Blackhawks?

Is it worse to schedule a Pride Night and cancel, or to never host one at all? So long as your policy doesn't exclude minority or marginalized groups, why do you need to host any type of 'inclusion' events? Every night should be one welcoming LGBTQ, Military Vets, Cancer-survivors, etc.

In fact, why not have 19 different groups represented every night, and each player can wear the ribbon or warm-up jersey for whatever cause they want to support, then the 'Hockey is for Everyone' campaign would be accurate (and not just the night to welcome the black fans)?

 

[execwrite1]

Seattle defense -

Vince Dunn

D

76

13

50

63

51

+25

Adam Larsson

D

76

7

25

32

41

27

Justin Schultz

D

68

6

25

31

38

2

Jamie Oleksiak

D

69

9

13

22

68

9

Will Borgen

D

76

3

16

19

35

8

Carson Soucy

D

73

3

12

15

63

16

 

[Renard]

I am against inserting social issues into sports. Politics are all about social issues and in politics we have the ballot box to express our feelings.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Last time we had someone else carry a decent amount of games in the regular season, Binnington looked like he could have carried us for another deep run until Kadri ruined that for us...

Just saying, we don't need Binner to be lights out I the regular season. He's a competitor through and through if healthy in the playoffs.

As I've noted before, Binnington is fine in net when the defense is playing well and he just needs to make the ordinary saves and the occasional stop when the defense screws up. He's not fine when the defense is f***ing up a dozen times a game, being oblivious to the back-door play that's been run on them 91 times this season, and allowing the opposition to camp out in front of the net and pound away at the puck untouched. You know, things we observed when they did it to Hofer

Whether workload plays into it is open to debate. I don't totally buy it, because otherwise we'd see him consistently wear down over time and I don't think there's enough evidence to support that; he has bad games when he's played little, he's had good games when he's played a lot. I do think a lot of his supposed problems get cleaned up when (if?) the defense improves and tightens up again, and I'm open to the idea of some 50/30 split (just like I think teams should rotate goalies in the postseason more, especially if they've got different styles), but until the real problem gets addressed I think it's all window dressing. Solve the obvious problem, then we can figure out if he's as bad as some want to allege.

 

[ezcreepin]

What happens when every player on every team decides to skip Pride night? What message would that send? If you're not sure whether your players will comply, you find out prior to releasing the schedule, otherwise the league will continue to get a black-eye when more teams decide to follow the lead of the Rangers, Wild & Blackhawks?

Is it worse to schedule a Pride Night and cancel, or to never host one at all? So long as your policy doesn't exclude minority or marginalized groups, why do you need to host any type of 'inclusion' events? Every night should be one welcoming LGBTQ, Military Vets, Cancer-survivors, etc.

In fact, why not have 19 different groups represented every night, and each player can wear the ribbon or warm-up jersey for whatever cause they want to support, then the 'Hockey is for Everyone' campaign would be accurate (and not just the night to welcome the black fans)?

I don’t disagree with you at all. My point is if you’re going to acknowledge groups, you should probably do all of them or do none at all. Just my personal opinion.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

The Blues are not going to wear Pride jerseys. Is this what all the fuss is about?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's that Kyrou f***ed the tank up on Sunday and so they can't wear Pride jerseys. Also, wearing Pride jerseys will add to Binnington's workload, which is already too much.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They are going to have pride pucks and stick tape. I don't know why the league didn't just tell teams to continue with the Pride jerseys as normal, and those that don't want to wear them, don't have to. If a player doesn't want to be an ally, so be it, forced allyship is pretty stupid. If you end up with a few Russians and handful of others not wearing them, then they'll have to deal with it. Russians have a pretty good excuse to just cite the law over in Russia, but other Russians have worn the jersey this year. I feel that the big announcements of not wearing them at all make it a bigger issue than it needs to be.

 

[BlueOil]

the push backs to pride night from players:
- contradicts with recently acquired or longstanding religious beliefs
- fear of retaliation from Russia for themselves and/or family members

the push back from fans:
- freedom to express yourself as desired
- social issues/politics should stay out of sports

the confusion this creates:
- if this is about freedom, why make everyone NOT wear them because some number of players have declined to wear them?
- how do personal religious beliefs prevent each player from wearing them tonight?
- how do the personal fears of retaliation prevent each player from wearing them tonight?
- if the fear really is being identified as pro- or anti-alternative sexuality, why are the pride pucks and tape considered less dangerous than the pride jerseys? are players going to refuse to use those pucks and tape? won't that choice be the exact same choice as choosing to wear the jersey? won't their choice to use pride tape or pucks tell us what the teamwide ban on wearing jerseys was trying to hide? who supports who openly? what will happen if a player who wanted to decline uses a pride puck by mistake?
- if you value freedom of expression, why limit the expression of players in favor of those who want to decline?

i don't think the individual players have done a very good job fielding the questions about why they want to decline and i can't imagine the business side of things appreciates that negative press, so i assume that's where the choice to not wear them comes from. it doesn't really make any sense to openly minimize the people you're attempting to celebrate on pride night, so i'm not sure how anyone is supposed to view this choice as a positive thing, but the blues organization is apparently wanting the credit for having pride night, while also not wanting to celebrate it openly.

basically, please come celebrate pride populations, but know we're not going to highlight the events tonight in the usual way because treating you as an equal really just sends the wrong message...