Speculation: 2024-25 Coaching/Management/Ownership

[TheGoodShepard1]

The Rich Clune experiment may very well decide a lot of people’s fates here. Don’t get me wrong, the team still isn’t good, but for people whose expectations are to get to 70 points, having even a league average PP that can steal games on certain nights instead of one that was downright terrible to historically inept is potentially 5 more wins in the bank. There’s certainly enough skill up front to figure it out if you can determine who’s QBing PP1

 

[All Mighty]

From Stephens' mailbag:

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

The Rich Clune experiment may very well decide a lot of people’s fates here. Don’t get me wrong, the team still isn’t good, but for people whose expectations are to get to 70 points, having even a league average PP that can steal games on certain nights instead of one that was downright terrible to historically inept is potentially 5 more wins in the bank. There’s certainly enough skill up front to figure it out if you can determine who’s QBing PP1

I think you might actually be underselling it a little bit.

Just looked through the 23-24 game log - we had 17 losses that were decided by 1 goal. If our PP went from 17% to the league average of 21, that would be ~9 more goals and anywhere from 9-18 points.

Those are just 1-goal losses, though. How many games got away form us because we went down 2 goals and couldn't get anything going, leading to opponents clogging the neutral zone and calling it a day?

Call me naive but I think with a healthy team and even a slight, 3% improvement on the PP, it's not unreasonable for us to be sniffing 80pts.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I think you might actually be underselling it a little bit.

Just looked through the 23-24 game log - we had 17 losses that were decided by 1 goal. If our PP went from 17% to the league average of 21, that would be ~9 more goals and anywhere from 9-18 points.

Those are just 1-goal losses, though. How many games got away form us because we went down 2 goals and couldn't get anything going, leading to opponents clogging the neutral zone and calling it a day?

Call me naive but I think with a healthy team and even a slight, 3% improvement on the PP, it's not unreasonable for us to be sniffing 80pts.

I think a better disciplined team last year would have netted us a few more points.

Ducks	Special	Teams
Season	Game Set	Games	PPG	PPO	PP Eff	.	PK GA	TSH	PK Eff	.	SHG	SHGA
2022-23	Season	82​	36​	229​	15.7%​	.	78​	280​	72.1%​		1​	7​
2023-24	Season	82​	43​	235​	18.3%​	.	91​	330​	72.4%​		12​	5​
Difference	2023-24 from	2022-23	7​	6​	0.026​		13​	50​	0.003​		11​	-2​

The PK Eff% was relatively similar to last year, but a wildly different outcome with respect to TSH opportunities and PK GA. The team incurred 50 more TSH opportunities and permitted 13 more goals than the previous season unnecessarily.

Just being better disciplined would make a tremendous stride in improving chances to earn more points.

========

Relying on the PP to carry the team to more points is missing the significant problem on the team, which is a lack of ES offense.

Ducks
Season	Game Set	ES GF	ES GA	ES GD
2022-23	Season	169​	250​	-81​
2023-24	Season	148​	197​	-49​
Difference	'24 from '23	-21​	-53​	32​

Our ES goal production last year was beyond abysmal! That is where the team needs to improve upon the most, but it isn't a creative offense at all. We've all probably zoomed out watching the games last year because there was a lack of pizazz on the offensive end.

If Cronin doesn't turbo boost his ES offense, then we're just looking at fringe improvements via the PP. I don't trust our PK coach.

2023-24	PK splits
Game Set	Games	PK GA	TSH	PK Eff
Total	82	91	330	72.4%
1 to 25	25	22	110	80.0%
26 to 49	24	22	91	75.8%
50 to 62	13	16	47	66.0%
63 to 82	20	31	82	62.2%

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

I think a better disciplined team last year would have netted us a few more points.

Ducks	Special	Teams
Season	Game Set	Games	PPG	PPO	PP Eff	.	PK GA	TSH	PK Eff	.	SHG	SHGA
2022-23	Season	82​	36​	229​	15.7%​	.	78​	280​	72.1%​		1​	7​
2023-24	Season	82​	43​	235​	18.3%​	.	91​	330​	72.4%​		12​	5​
Difference	2023-24 from	2022-23	7​	6​	0.026​		13​	50​	0.003​		11​	-2​

The PK Eff% was relatively similar to last year, but a wildly different outcome with respect to TSH opportunities and PK GA. The team incurred 50 more TSH opportunities and permitted 13 more goals than the previous season unnecessarily.

Just being better disciplined would make a tremendous stride in improving chances to earn more points.

========

Relying on the PP to carry the team to more points is missing the significant problem on the team, which is a lack of ES offense.

Ducks
Season	Game Set	ES GF	ES GA	ES GD
2022-23	Season	169​	250​	-81​
2023-24	Season	148​	197​	-49​
Difference	'24 from '23	-21​	-53​	32​

Our ES goal production last year was beyond abysmal! That is where the team needs to improve upon the most, but it isn't a creative offense at all. We've all probably zoomed out watching the games last year because there was a lack of pizazz on the offensive end.

If Cronin doesn't turbo boost his ES offense, then we're just looking at fringe improvements via the PP. I don't trust our PK coach.

2023-24	PK splits
Game Set	Games	PK GA	TSH	PK Eff
Total	82	91	330	72.4%
1 to 25	25	22	110	80.0%
26 to 49	24	22	91	75.8%
50 to 62	13	16	47	66.0%
63 to 82	20	31	82	62.2%

Better discipline (and better reffing) would also go a very long way.

IMO just furthers my belief that we could make a pretty substantial jump in points if we just hammer out some kinks. In order of significance for me: healthier team, fewer penalties, better PP.

Some of it luck but some of it is practice, and I really hope they'll put the work in.

 

[SmokeyDuck]

I think you might actually be underselling it a little bit.

Just looked through the 23-24 game log - we had 17 losses that were decided by 1 goal. If our PP went from 17% to the league average of 21, that would be ~9 more goals and anywhere from 9-18 points.

Those are just 1-goal losses, though. How many games got away form us because we went down 2 goals and couldn't get anything going, leading to opponents clogging the neutral zone and calling it a day?

Call me naive but I think with a healthy team and even a slight, 3% improvement on the PP, it's not unreasonable for us to be sniffing 80pts.

Is that including the losses where we gave up an empty net goal trying to tie it?

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Better discipline (and better reffing) would also go a very long way.

IMO just furthers my belief that we could make a pretty substantial jump in points if we just hammer out some kinks. In order of significance for me: healthier team, fewer penalties, better PP.

Some of it luck but some of it is practice, and I really hope they'll put the work in.

The reffing has always been the same against us for several years now b/c we're Anaheim. Former GM Murray actually sent videos of inconsistent calls within a game many years ago to only fall on deaf ears. For an accountability coach, Cronin's message seems to go awry since his team incurred 50 more TSH opportunities than Eakins' group.

While I agree that health is important, the coaching staff can do things to help the team earn more points. Injuries are always a part of the game. We had 304 man games lost this past season, according to Injury Viz. Two seasons ago, under Eakins, we had 352 man games lost, which is almost 50 more man games lost than Cronin's roster. Eakins' roster lacked the talent depth at forward and defense compared to Cronin's roster, implying the injury to Eakins' team would hurt it more due to the lack of talent in replacement.

Our ES offense is my primary concern of improvement moving forward. Cronin's ES offense scored 21 fewer goals than Eakin's group, and that's with the additions of Carlsson and Killorn. The PK unit under Cronin helped out with scoring with 12 short-handed goals, which is 11 more than Eakins' PK unit. I don't know if Cronin knows how to do ES offense like he does his ES defense. If Eakins had Cronin's defensive roster during 2022-23, then Eakins would have put up far more team points.

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

While I agree that health is important, the coaching staff can do things to help the team earn more points. Injuries are always a part of the game. We had 304 man games lost this past season, according to Injury Viz. Two seasons ago, under Eakins, we had 352 man games lost, which is almost 50 more man games lost than Cronin's roster. Eakins' roster lacked the talent depth at forward and defense compared to Cronin's roster, implying the injury to Eakins' team would hurt it more due to the lack of talent in replacement.

The idea that we were just as injured in 22/23 as we were in 23/24 is false. Or at least a misrepresentation.

Players who missed 20+ games in 22/23:
1. Drysdale
2. Henrique (just under at 19)
3. Vaaks
4. Grant
5. Stolarz
6. Lundestrom

Players who missed 20+ games in 23/24:
1. Carlsson
2. Zegras
3. Dysdale
4. Mintyukov (just under at 19)
5. Killorn (just under at 19)
6. Jones
7 McGinn

We may have had more man games lost, but that's because Drysdale, Vaaks, and Stolarz alone account for 161 of those games. Much like McGinn alone counts towards 46 of this season. The important thing is that the injuries in 23/24 were to significantly more important players.

And this list doesn't even include McTavish, who was officially injured for 16 games but, as we know, likely played several more while still injured.

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

Is that including the losses where we gave up an empty net goal trying to tie it?

It doesn't! Not sure how I would find that and, frankly, too lazy!

 

[Hockey Duckie]

The idea that we were just as injured in 22/23 as we were in 23/24 is false. Or at least a misrepresentation.

Players who missed 20+ games in 22/23:
1. Drysdale
2. Henrique (just under at 19)
3. Vaaks
4. Grant
5. Stolarz
6. Lundestrom

Players who missed 20+ games in 23/24:
1. Carlsson
2. Zegras
3. Dysdale
4. Mintyukov (just under at 19)
5. Killorn (just under at 19)
6. Jones
7 McGinn

We may have had more man games lost, but that's because Drysdale, Vaaks, and Stolarz alone account for 161 of those games. Much like McGinn alone counts towards 46 of this season. The important thing is that the injuries in 23/24 were to significantly more important players.

And this list doesn't even include McTavish, who was officially injured for 16 games but, as we know, likely played several more while still injured.

Carlsson was on a load mgmt program that had scheduled healthy scratches. We had extra centers if Carlsson would sit out for his load mgmt with either Zegras or Rico. Rico also missed 22 games under Cronin, but that was due to a trade, but it does equalize the games played for both seasons. Because we had more top-6 talent this past season, we were able to absorb the injury losses. You did make it a point to bring up quality of players.

2023-24	Top-6	Talents					2022-23	Top-6	Talents
Player	Forward	GP	G	A	Pts		Player	Forward	GP	G	A	Pts
Vatrano	1​	82​	37​	23​	60​		Zegras	1​	81​	23​	42​	65​
Terry	1​	76​	20​	34​	54​		Terry	1​	70​	23​	38​	61​
Mac	1​	64​	19​	23​	42​		Mac	1​	80​	17​	26​	43​
Rico	1​	60​	18​	24​	42​		Vatrano	1​	81​	22​	19​	41​
Strome	1​	79​	11​	30​	41​		Strome	1​	82​	15​	26​	41​
Killorn	1​	63​	18​	18​	36​		Rico	1​	62​	22​	16​	38​
Carlsson	1​	55​	12​	17​	29​
Zegras	1​	31​	6​	9​	15​
Totals	8​	510​	141​	178​	319​		Totals	6​	456​	122​	167​	289​

This year's group, the Cronin roster, played 54 more games, scored 19 more goals, 11 more assists, and 30 more points than the top-6 talent under Eakins. The injury angle due to quality of players missing is moot.

Make light about Grant missing 36 games, but his presence makes a significant difference on the ice, including his FO% was 55.2% on 493 attempts. Grant's FO% was the highest on the team with at least 5 FO attempts. In Grant's 46 games, the team went 10-27-9 (29 pts). On a team that's lacking talent, if Grant was healthy, then it looks very plausible that the team would have garnered more points.

=====
Defense

While you make light about losing Drysdale and Vaak for the Eakins roster, their talents was sorely missed. We know this past season how Vaak being healthy provided a strong defensive performance in a bottom-pairing role under Cronin. Drysdale's talent was sorely missed under Eakins because we were lacking a whole lot of talent. Remember, Drysdale earned AHL Rookie of the Month as an 18-year old and scored 32 points in his first, full rookie season in the NHL. The Eakins' blue line group truly lacked talent such that d-man White was played 46 NHL games under Eakins, but played all season in the AHL under Cronin. Beaulieau and Harrington went to Europe for 2023-24.

This year's d-corps is immensely more talented than the Eakins' d-corps. So much so that they were able to trade Drysdale away in early Jan and Lyubushkin at the TDL, but still possessed a huge Goal Differential metric. We brought up Zell for good after the TDL from the AHL, where he was an All-Star for the Gulls.

2022-23	Defense				2023-24	Defense
D-man	Games	Pts	+/-		D-man	Games	Pts	+/-
Benoit	78​	10​	-29​		Fowler	81​	39​	-36​
Klingberg	50​	24​	-28​		LaCombe *	71​	17​	-24​
Beaulieu	52​	4​	-23​		Mintyukov*	63​	28​	-20​
Fowler	82​	48​	-23​		Lyubushkin	55​	4​	-13​
Shattenkirk	75​	27​	-20​		Zellweger*	26​	9​	-6​
White	46​	6​	-17​		Hagg	5​	0​	-4​
Vaak	23​	2​	-16​		Lagesson	10​	0​	-2​
Kulikov	61​	15​	-11​		Drysdale	10​	5​	-2​
Drysdale	8​	0​	-3​		Vaak	68​	14​	0​
Harrington	17​	4​	1​		Luneau*	7​	3​	1​
LaCombe*	2​	0​	-1​		Lindstrom	32​	6​	12​
Helleson*	3​	1​	0​		Gudas	66​	18​	14​
Sum	497​	141​	-170​		Sum	494​	143​	-80​
*= rookie

Note: Sometimes we put on the ice 7 defensemen in a game from time to time. This would reflect the discrepancy in the sum for games played.

There's a +90 +/- rating differential between the two groups. I don't think fans realize how lacking in defensive d-man talent the team was missing in Eakins' last year here.

=====

Cronin was gifted a far superior talented roster with talent depth this year. To produce one extra team point by winning on the last game of the season is a tremendous fail.

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

Cronin was gifted a far superior talented roster with talent depth this year. To produce one extra team point by winning on the last game of the season is a tremendous fail.

You can repeat this 10000 more times but it will not make it any more true. Any advantage Cronin had was almost completely erased by injuries to those "far superior" players.

I don't think Cronin did a great job. I don't think Eakins had a great team to work with. I am aware that Grant and Vaakanainen can be useful. But to compare losing them to losing Carlsson (those 20 games I listed were because of injury, NOT because of load management, btw), Zegras, Killorn, and Minytukov is asinine.

 

[Ducks DVM]

You can repeat this 10000 more times but it will not make it any more true. Any advantage Cronin had was almost completely erased by injuries to those "far superior" players.

I don't think Cronin did a great job. I don't think Eakins had a great team to work with. I am aware that Grant and Vaakanainen can be useful. But to compare losing them to losing Carlsson (those 20 games I listed were because of injury, NOT because of load management, btw), Zegras, Killorn, and Minytukov is asinine.

I dunno that either side can make grand claims. Eakins had what’s got to be one of the worst NHL defensive corps that a non-expansion team has ever had, and Cronin’s goals against could simply be from having actual NHL,players. Crpnin’s offense, meanwhile, while having better pieces, rarely had them all at once.

Both teams were unwatchabke

 

[Hockey Duckie]

You can repeat this 10000 more times but it will not make it any more true. Any advantage Cronin had was almost completely erased by injuries to those "far superior" players.

I don't think Cronin did a great job. I don't think Eakins had a great team to work with. I am aware that Grant and Vaakanainen can be useful. But to compare losing them to losing Carlsson (those 20 games I listed were because of injury, NOT because of load management, btw), Zegras, Killorn, and Minytukov is asinine.

A team has mass injuries will affect the game on the ice. I dunno how you can say it won't affect the Eakins' team like it would the Cronin team. The Cronin team had more talent to absorb injuries, which I provided proof of and you continue to ignore facts: Cronin had more top-6 talents and far better defensive talent depth. (See charts in previous posts above as proof.) You, know, that thing about quality you commented about matters, but the lack of quality also matters equally. It hurts the lesser talented team more since it doesn't possess the talent depth to absorb injuries.

Coach A: GF = 204, GA = 295
Coach B: GF = 209, GA = 338

Both coaches had similar offenses, but one had a superior defense. It seems facetious to believe both coaches would have essentially the same team points production at the end of the seaon. Apparently, it actually happened. So what caused the malfunction? This is where you avoid the conclusion.

One coach knew how to earn points with less is the only salient conclusion.

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

A team has mass injuries will affect the game on the ice. I dunno how you can say it won't affect the Eakins' team like it would the Cronin team. The Cronin team had more talent to absorb injuries, which I provided proof of and you continue to ignore facts: Cronin had more top-6 talents and far better defensive talent depth. (See charts in previous posts above as proof.) You, know, that thing about quality you commented about matters, but the lack of quality also matters equally. It hurts the lesser talented team more since it doesn't possess the talent depth to absorb injuries.

Coach A: GF = 204, GA = 295
Coach B: GF = 209, GA = 338

Both coaches had similar offenses, but one had a superior defense. It seems facetious to believe both coaches would have essentially the same team points production at the end of the seaon. Apparently, it actually happened. So what caused the malfunction? This is where you avoid the conclusion.

One coach knew how to earn points with less is the only salient conclusion.

It's fitting that the Olympics are kicking off today because the level of mental gymnastics you need to type this is truly gold-medal worthy.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

It's fitting that the Olympics are kicking off today because the level of mental gymnastics you need to type this is truly gold-medal worthy.

Deflecting. I don't blame ya. You can't refute this production.

Cronin: GF = 204, GA = 295, pts = 59
Eakins: GF = 209, GA = 338, pts =58

 

[ScarTroy]

Poor Eakins having to find a way to absorb an injury to Derek f***ing Grant. What a traumatic experience that must have been.

 

[Firequacker]

Poor Eakins having to find a way to absorb an injury to Derek f***ing Grant. What a traumatic experience that must have been.

To be fair, after he came back from the second injury Grant was in the top six for every possession/goal percentage stat among the forwards. (Yes, really. One of only two players with a GF% above 50%, even.) And the team... still sucked and still ended the season with a 13-game losing streak. How weird.
Bet Cronin would have loved to have someone equivalent to Grant in place of one of the sub-5-point forwards he was fielding.

 

[ZegrassyKnoll]

Deflecting. I don't blame ya. You can't refute this production.

Cronin: GF = 204, GA = 295, pts = 59
Eakins: GF = 209, GA = 338, pts =58

Let's recap:

Your first comment: the Ducks weren't as injured in 23/24 as they were in 22/23.

My reply: we had more man games lost in 22/23 but the injuries were to more important players in 23/24

Your reply: No actually Eakins is a good coach because he managed to get 58 points with a terrible roster!

Like, what?

My entire point was that Zegras/Leo/Killorn/Mintykov/McTavish being injured for 20 games each is more significant than Vaakanainen/Grant/Stolarz being injured for 20 games but you went on some weird tirade about how Dallas Eakins is actually a great coach because he got 58 points.

That isn't impressive, even with a bad roster - which I never said that he didn't have, by the way. I have always believed that Eakins was dealt a poor hand but that he played it poorly.

I've also never suggested that Cronin is a good coach. Right now his only advantage over Eakins is that he's had 1 bad season as opposed to Eakins' what, 6 bad seasons? Or 7?

I'm not going to bother replying to these anymore because at this point I'm the fool for continuing to engage.

 

[Rasp]

I dont understand why Eakins is even mentioned anymore. He has to be one of the worst and most irrelevant coaches we have had.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

To be fair, after he came back from the second injury Grant was in the top six for every possession/goal percentage stat among the forwards. (Yes, really. One of only two players with a GF% above 50%, even.) And the team... still sucked and still ended the season with a 13-game losing streak. How weird.
Bet Cronin would have loved to have someone equivalent to Grant in place of one of the sub-5-point forwards he was fielding.

Shhhh... the Cronin Crew doesn't care for stats and facts that ruins their narrative.

 

[ScarTroy]

Shhhh... the Cronin Crew doesn't care for stats and facts that ruins their narrative.

Ah now you’ll reply to him.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

I dont understand why Eakins is even mentioned anymore. He has to be one of the worst and most irrelevant coaches we have had.

And that's the significant point. Why did Cronin not produce better than Eakins when Cronin was given a significantly upgraded roster.

 

[Hockey Duckie]

Ah now you’ll reply to him.

The poster obliterated your unsubstantiated post with facts. I obliterated your thoughtful posts with facts, but you deny, deny, deny! Cronin was only one point better than Eakins is a fact that cannot be erased. It is evident that you are unable to refute facts with facts.

Though, I am truly honored that you let me live in a portion of your mind that you need my validation of a response. Thanks for making my day a little better.

 

[ScarTroy]

The poster obliterated your unsubstantiated post with facts. I obliterated your thoughtful posts with facts, but you deny, deny, deny! Cronin was only one point better than Eakins is a fact that cannot be erased. It is evident that you are unable to refute facts with facts.

Though, I am truly honored that you let me live in a portion of your mind that you need my validation of a response. Thanks for making my day a little better.

Obliterated what? That Grant had top 6 fancy stats for a little? So Eakins had an intact top 6, plus Grant and still did worse than Cronin? Wow, impressive.

And if you want to talk about obliterated, go to his old post where he cooked you that you never addressed.

 

[Firequacker]

Shhhh... the Cronin Crew doesn't care for stats and facts that ruins their narrative.

You've twice refused to engage with my pointing out your "Cronin's top eight outscored Eakins' top six" argument is a completely illegitimate torturing of the data. Plenty of stats and facts, zero acknowledgment of any of them except for trying to clumsily co-opt the bottom six argument (after you'd initially dismissed the depth forwards entirely while discussing forward depth).

You've apparently failed to comprehend that my point in that post was that despite his individual effectiveness, Grant's return did not appreciably help Eakins. Also that if you're going to stake your argument on "actually missing Grant for 36 games was crippling to Eakins" you have to contend with Cronin not having Grant for all 82 games (he had a dude Eakins had the forward depth to keep in the AHL, instead).

And you actually have the nerve to claim anyone else doesn't like facts that ruin their narrative?