Speculation: Acq./Rost. Bldg./Cap/Lines etc. Part LXXXIV -- The Doggiest Days (Woof!) 2017

[Coldplay619]

It's pretty simple to me, Trotz's lineup combinations didn't maximize the roster's potential.

The talent wasn't spread around properly so we were screwed from the start.

If Malkin, Crosby and Kessel are on the ice for 40 minutes every game while Ovi, Backstrom and Oshie are on the ice for 20 minutes then how are you supposed to win?

Your big boys are given half the time to make an impact on every game just by being on one line together.

The percentages are not in your favour.

That's why Toews and Kane are on different lines because it gives the Blackhawks a better chance to win every game.

It's no coincidence that our record against the Penguins when 8-19-77 were a line the last two playoffs is 2-6, and 3-2 when they were broken up.

 

[g00n]

It's not luck guys.

 

[Langway]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lueprint-wont-bring-major-summer-renovations/

In the nearly three weeks since the Washington Capitals’ season ended, General Manager Brian MacLellan interviewed players, coaches and other members of the organization, evaluating why one of the franchise’s best teams ever assembled again failed to reach the conference finals. The most frustrating part for MacLellan was that investigation didn’t yield any clear answers....

In exit interviews with reporters two days after the season ended, several Capitals players said they wanted to see changes next season, and defenseman Matt Niskanen said “cosmetic” ones wouldn’t solve the team’s recent string of postseason woes, back-to-back exits in the second round despite twice compiling the league’s best regular season record. But after a thorough evaluation that delayed his traditional postseason meeting with the media by roughly two weeks, MacLellan struggled to identify any obvious solutions....

“There’s some internal stuff that we probably need to address to make things better going forward,” MacLellan said. “I think it was important for us, especially on the players’ and on the coaches’ side, to have a venue to express their anger, frustration, disappointment, and guys were pretty open and honest about it. So it was good from that perspective.

“For me, for trying to address issues or problems that we might have, I don’t know that any one thing stood out to be able to say, ‘This is the one thing that we need to fix right now to get to that next level.’ I couldn’t identify anything within all of those interviews that I could focus on specifically.”

That "internal stuff" was directly answered: “some stuff has come up that I obviously need to hold people accountable for and make changes going forward both on the players’ side and on the coaching side.” Their thinking and the internal narrative is hardly a secret. He didn't mention directly who needs to held accountable but he doesn't need to. It's also revealing IMO that his assessment seems to be exclusively tied to statements made in interviews and nothing that he's maybe aggregated himself based on his own beliefs or extended conversations.

Hunting for The Silver Bullet Solution is seeking the answer to the wrong question. It's more shortcut thinking searching for an easy fix. MacLellan to this point has been very good at finding easy fix jobs and accomplishing them but getting to the next level is much more difficult. When it comes to further separating tendencies and practices to get to the next level, I don't think he has it in him as a true organizational leader. If he didn't keep people accountable when they were stacked he's not going to manage doing so any more substantively than circumstances will dictate for a club no longer able to coast through portions of the season and comfortably separate themselves from the pack. He can try rattling cages and maybe Trotz will get the axe but it's ultimately about ideals and discipline. A heavy hand should be the last resort as long as there is open communication in every direction and a clear vision. Those lines maybe only being open after the fact seems like another issue.

They're still way too fragile and a significant portion of it is due to ongoing roster mix issues (in addition to the general baggage). MacLellan either hasn't been able to identify it or hasn't managed to improve upon it enough. Relying on a few rookies and a couple castoffs to help fix mental weakness is absurd. Giving opportunity to young players is essential in today's game but they don't make it easy on themselves by not having much of an identity beyond Ovechkin is good at teh scoring and teh defensive structure. Their possession figures put them on strong ground but the lack of dirty goals or much of any east-west creativity in the offensive zone continue to show the limitations of relying on defensive structure on its own. There are clearly more layers that should be in their repertoire that aren't. Championing raw skill level and structure alone hasn't proven not to hunt. Refinement is key. Execution is key...not just attacking with blinders on.

Maybe a weaker roster leads to better fundamentals and less shortcut type thinking but as-is it seems more likely to further add instability. I don't doubt Trotz goes with the Chorney type "fixes" whenever possible so as to avoid growing pains that would mostly pay off down the line. How the organization on whole handles growing pain type situations and developing past them will be a telling moment for their fortitude. Shortcuts and stopgaps only go so far.

 

[RandyHolt]

Part of our problem is lethargic reactive coaching. Playing for a 7 game series, is a mistake. Barry cannot wait until we are down in a series, to start coaching.

At least he adjusted a little earlier in the TO and Pitt series vs the seasons before, but he still seems to just show up for the first few games of a series, and hope to win by doing nothing more than what he did every game before that.

Barry is too predictable. He needs to be more proactively tactical. The proof is in the pudding, having the best RS team still mandates playoff coaching. You cannot expect to win via a talented roster aka a banner.

When he makes an adjustment, everyone has already been clamoring for it, and you know the other coach is waiting for it. Even I have predicted his playoff line shakeups months in advance.

 

[g00n]

Part of our problem is lethargic reactive coaching. Playing for a 7 game series, is a mistake. Barry cannot wait until we are down in a series, to start coaching.

At least he adjusted a little earlier in the TO and Pitt series vs the seasons before, but he still seems to just show up for the first few games of a series, and hope to win by doing nothing more than what he did every game before that.

Barry is too predictable. He needs to be more proactively tactical. The proof is in the pudding, having the best RS team still mandates playoff coaching. You cannot expect to win via a talented roster aka a banner.

When he makes an adjustment, everyone has already been clamoring for it, and you know the other coach is waiting for it. Even I have predicted his playoff line shakeups months in advance.

Right. We discussed this following the Game 7 loss. The Pens were jumping our outlets up the boards and scoring off of them, iirc. Trotz never adjusted. He's too slow to react to the landscape. Like Boudreau he's a great regular season coach in the 82 game grind where you can get away with a head-down, "dance with the parner who brung ya" approach against different teams every other night. A playoff series is not a marathon, it's a tactical war made up of countless but equally important skirmishes.

 

[John Price]

I think the series turned on Game 2. You can't leave the Verizon Center 0-2 to start off a series. Game 1 was hard fought but Penguins basically won in the third when Orpik basically gave the puck away and that Penguins guy raced down the ice and scored.

You need to take command of a series. In both 2017 and 2016 the Caps were down 3-1. You can't let the Penguins get such a big head start. You need to take advantage early. I'm aware the Caps lost a series with the Penguins after going ahead 2-0, but I would much rather see them go ahead 2-0 in a series. Remember, this was "one of the hottest teams on home ice in Caps history". Yet when it mattered, they went 1-3 on home ice. If they had actually stepped up their game and won when it mattered at home, it could have been a six game series.

 

[hockeykicker]

 

[OV Rocks]

I think the series turned on Game 2. You can't leave the Verizon Center 0-2 to start off a series. Game 1 was hard fought but Penguins basically won in the third when Orpik basically gave the puck away and that Penguins guy raced down the ice and scored.

You need to take command of a series. In both 2017 and 2016 the Caps were down 3-1. You can't let the Penguins get such a big head start. You need to take advantage early. I'm aware the Caps lost a series with the Penguins after going ahead 2-0, but I would much rather see them go ahead 2-0 in a series. Remember, this was "one of the hottest teams on home ice in Caps history". Yet when it mattered, they went 1-3 on home ice. If they had actually stepped up their game and won when it mattered at home, it could have been a six game series.

I think that is also an indication of Barry Trotz and his style of coaching. He is not a very proactive coach, actually the opposite and very conservative. It took being down 3-1 in a series for him to say screw it lets try new lines. Do that during the regular season so come playoff time it can be thrown out game 2 when you need a win in your own building

 

[twabby]

Right. We discussed this following the Game 7 loss. The Pens were jumping our outlets up the boards and scoring off of them, iirc. Trotz never adjusted. He's too slow to react to the landscape. Like Boudreau he's a great regular season coach in the 82 game grind where you can get away with a head-down, "dance with the parner who brung ya" approach against different teams every other night. A playoff series is not a marathon, it's a tactical war made up of countless but equally important skirmishes.

I think that is also an indication of Barry Trotz and his style of coaching. He is not a very proactive coach, actually the opposite and very conservative. It took being down 3-1 in a series for him to say screw it lets try new lines. Do that during the regular season so come playoff time it can be thrown out game 2 when you need a win in your own building

Agreed with both. During the regular season the talent on the roster and general season-long general strategies are often good enough to get results because of the grind of the schedule. Teams can't realistically gameplan too much for their next opponent, at least not nearly to the extent that they can during the playoffs. I doubt Sullivan and the Penguins did nearly as much gameplanning against, say, the Kings on the road of a b2b in the middle of January than they did against any of their playoff opponents. It's just not possible given how frequently you are playing, practicing, traveling, resting, etc. The playoffs are a different story where you often have upwards of a week between series to prepare and see the same team for 4 to 7 games in a row. The Capitals have been able to have success in the regular season because they have (had) a very talented and deep roster, they've been fortunate with injury luck, and their general tactics are good enough. That's not enough come playoff time where you need to push every edge you have.

I realize it's reading into something that might not be there but whenever I hear Sullivan talk in an interview it seems like he is very calculating and he always has a pulse on what's going on on the ice or the locker room. I think back to the time where he told Malkin to shut the **** up re: complaining to the refs. It seems like he rarely makes mistakes and is always trying to accomplish something, even if sometimes it doesn't work.

Trotz doesn't strike me as having the same level of understanding or desire to optimize his team, mainly because he seems to be way too results-oriented. He was gifted a stacked team, the team outperformed their underlying metrics for much of 2015-16 and some of 2016-17, and as a result he thought everything was fine (or least his lack of changes indicated that he thought everything was fine because hey, they were winning). Meanwhile, the underlying play of big components of their team (mainly Alzner and the first line of 8-19-77 and Ovechkin in particular) was never addressed until the playoffs and even then it didn't happen until they were down in the series and until Alzner was injured.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

It's not luck guys.

If fans continue to think that way, Ownership will continue to skate by barely accountable as long as they squeak into the playoffs....I'm with you.

 

[twabby]

It's not all luck but to deny that they have been unlucky is kind of disingenuous. For all of the flaws that the team has if Holtby plays well or heck even just above average, this team likely beats Pittsburgh and all the talk of curses goes by the wayside. If Fleury doesn't have the best postseason performance in his past 10 seasons then the Capitals likely advance.

That's not to say that Holtby's play was unlucky in the traditional sense of the word (beep bop boop random number generator), but he's had plenty of stretches in the playoffs where he's been good to unbeatable. This was literally his worst postseason of his career and it almost surely had nothing to do with Trotz, or Ovechkin, or Alzner, or anything else. It was an ill-timed stretch in poor play that every goalie goes through and it came at the worst time for the Capitals. It wasn't a teamwide failure that caused Holtby to play poorly, it wasn't a teamwide failure that caused Ovechkin's shot to hit the knob of Fleury's stick instead of the back of the net, it was luck.

It's wrong for the team to mention luck because it by definition is out of anyone's control, but it should certainly be acknowledged as a factor in their failures if you're making an honest assessment of what has happened. The nature of the game introduces so many random elements so to outright deny them because it doesn't fit a narrative seems lazy. If a team genuinely gets unlucky and in all other ways played well, then it's right to not overreact. That's not the case for the Capitals who have plenty of other issues, but you need to recognize how much luck plays a factor in order to make the best decisions. Going to the trap in 2010-11, for example, was an instance of drastically overreacting to a short sample of bad luck despite pretty good underlying play.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Glad to see our players are partying like they won the cup this off season

 

[Jags]

Right. We discussed this following the Game 7 loss. The Pens were jumping our outlets up the boards and scoring off of them, iirc. Trotz never adjusted. He's too slow to react to the landscape. Like Boudreau he's a great regular season coach in the 82 game grind where you can get away with a head-down, "dance with the parner who brung ya" approach against different teams every other night. A playoff series is not a marathon, it's a tactical war made up of countless but equally important skirmishes.

Couldn't agree more. Every time he was forced to make a change, it worked out (the new 3rd line, Nate Schmidt, the quick 2-goal comeback), then he'd go right back to his predictable formula.

I don't really see him as proactive (which would be best) or reactive (which would at least be better). I think he stays the course, unbending until he's forced to do something, and half the time what he does is more punitive than shrewd (benching a player, going 7D, switching to dump and chase last year, etc.).

I think we needed Trotz after Oates to repair what was broken and to instill discipline and accountability. And that worked well for us. But we've bought in now and it's like the guys are asking, "Okay, now we're playing responsibly. Now what?"

And all Trotz has is, "Oh, ummmmm... Just keep playing The Right Way. You know, 200-feet, north-south, and stuff like that. The rest will take care of itself."

And it doesn't. We need a shrewd, clever coach now, and Trotz ain't it.

 

[Langway]

It's wrong for the team to mention luck because it by definition is out of anyone's control, but it should certainly be acknowledged as a factor in their failures if you're making an honest assessment of what has happened. The nature of the game introduces so many random elements so to outright deny them because it doesn't fit a narrative seems lazy.

Consistently shrinking on the big stage over just about a decade transcends mere luck, though, doesn't it? Wouldn't you think that would turn at some point if it were just a matter of randomness? Why do they always find themselves on the short end?

It has to lead back to how they review, refine and seek to improve. They've done their fair share of overcompensating while also fundamentally cutting corners in the belief that they're Just Right There. Their best players haven't sought to improve on their own initiative and the organization has always seemed more concerned with protecting fragile egos than going to work and getting on with building a true championship level standard. If it pisses some players off then they're not the right players. Being challenged should be the expectation day-to-day and it's way beyond just getting the end result in the regular season. That not being the case inevitably leads to the consistent wilting they've managed to do when they're pushed beyond their comfort zone and have nothing extra to tap into. That consistent lack of elevation is an indictment on everyone in a leadership position.

 

[g00n]

It's not all luck but to deny that they have been unlucky is kind of disingenuous. For all of the flaws that the team has if Holtby plays well or heck even just above average, this team likely beats Pittsburgh and all the talk of curses goes by the wayside. If Fleury doesn't have the best postseason performance in his past 10 seasons then the Capitals likely advance.

That's not to say that Holtby's play was unlucky in the traditional sense of the word (beep bop boop random number generator), but he's had plenty of stretches in the playoffs where he's been good to unbeatable. This was literally his worst postseason of his career and it almost surely had nothing to do with Trotz, or Ovechkin, or Alzner, or anything else. It was an ill-timed stretch in poor play that every goalie goes through and it came at the worst time for the Capitals. It wasn't a teamwide failure that caused Holtby to play poorly, it wasn't a teamwide failure that caused Ovechkin's shot to hit the knob of Fleury's stick instead of the back of the net, it was luck.

It's wrong for the team to mention luck because it by definition is out of anyone's control, but it should certainly be acknowledged as a factor in their failures if you're making an honest assessment of what has happened. The nature of the game introduces so many random elements so to outright deny them because it doesn't fit a narrative seems lazy. If a team genuinely gets unlucky and in all other ways played well, then it's right to not overreact. That's not the case for the Capitals who have plenty of other issues, but you need to recognize how much luck plays a factor in order to make the best decisions. Going to the trap in 2010-11, for example, was an instance of drastically overreacting to a short sample of bad luck despite pretty good underlying play.

Confirmation bias is at play when talking about luck. Every team has good and back luck.

 

[twabby]

Consistently shrinking on the big stage over just about a decade transcends mere luck, though, doesn't it? Wouldn't you think that would turn at some point if it were just a matter of randomness? Why do they always find themselves on the short end?

I'm not saying it's all luck. The points you mentioned in your second paragraph certainly ring true, but take the Bruins, Ducks, and Hurricanes as examples. They all have major organizational issues yet they have all won Cups in the past 11 years due to some great goaltending performances and good luck. The Bruins had no right beating the Canucks but Thomas put the team on his back. Thus they are not chokers. Same with Cam Ward and Carolina. Imagine if the Capitals had a similar hot run in the postseason. It's certainly possible, and the talk of being chokers would be completely eradicated.

From a purely mathematical point of view, the favorites are generally around 80% to not win the Stanley Cup in a given year and most other playoff teams are 90+% to not win it all in a given year. It's really not that outlandish to think that the Capitals simply haven't been lucky given these odds. But it doesn't make for an interesting story especially compared to piling on the "choking dogs" angle.

They have a lot they can improve and it's not all bad luck. But maybe with a little luck they would have already won.

 

[trick9]

I'm not saying it's all luck. The points you mentioned in your second paragraph certainly ring true, but take the Bruins, Ducks, and Hurricanes as examples. They all have major organizational issues yet they have all won Cups in the past 11 years due to some great goaltending performances and good luck. The Bruins had no right beating the Canucks but Thomas put the team on his back. Thus they are not chokers. Same with Cam Ward and Carolina. Imagine if the Capitals had a similar hot run in the postseason. It's certainly possible, and the talk of being chokers would be completely eradicated.

From a purely mathematical point of view, the favorites are generally around 80% to not win the Stanley Cup in a given year and most other playoff teams are 90+% to not win it all in a given year. It's really not that outlandish to think that the Capitals simply haven't been lucky given these odds. But it doesn't make for an interesting story especially compared to piling on the "choking dogs" angle.

They have a lot they can improve and it's not all bad luck. But maybe with a little luck they would have already won.

Are you talking about the entire season or just that Playoff series?

Bruins outscored the Canucks 23-8 in that series and the combined totals in TD Garden were 17-3 to them. 4-0 beatdown in Vancouver in the final game. They had no right to win that?

They dominated the scoreboard throughout the series. Canucks got that to Game 7 because Roberto Luongo stole them 2 of those games.

 

[Stewie G]

Glad to see our players are partying like they won the cup this off season

I know what I'd be doing if I was 25, had just hit the jackpot, and played well in the postseason despite general failings of the team.

Would it be great to hear reports that he's been wearing all black and hitting the gym 8 hours a day? You bet. I'm a realist though. The hockey season is a giant grind. As long as he arrives in shape, let him have his fun.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Are you talking about the entire season or just that Playoff series?

Bruins outscored the Canucks 23-8 in that series and the combined totals in TD Garden were 17-3 to them. 4-0 beatdown in Vancouver in the final game. They had no right to win that?

They dominated the scoreboard throughout the series. Canucks got that to Game 7 because Roberto Luongo stole them 2 of those games.

/point Trick9.

The whole luck discussion pisses me off. It's a feeble minded argument imo to keep bringing it up like they've done everything they could, but gosh darn it, we get unlucky every single time the season is on the line. It's malarkey. Everyone has good and bad luck. Champions find ways to minimize the impact of bad luck play by playing better than their opponent. Caps do their job and score some early goals and a few fluke Pens goals dont even matter. Don't come out in game 7 with arguably the deepest roster in the league and score ZERO goals at home and cry about bad luck.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I know what I'd be doing if I was 25, had just hit the jackpot, and played well in the postseason despite general failings of the team.

Would it be great to hear reports that he's been wearing all black and hitting the gym 8 hours a day? You bet. I'm a realist though. The hockey season is a giant grind. As long as he arrives in shape, let him have his fun.

Living off your credit cards until your new paychecks start coming in?

 

[RandyHolt]

I am partying like we won the cup.

Passing out by 11pm, though.

 

[twabby]

Are you talking about the entire season or just that Playoff series?

Bruins outscored the Canucks 23-8 in that series and the combined totals in TD Garden were 17-3 to them. 4-0 beatdown in Vancouver in the final game. They had no right to win that?

They dominated the scoreboard throughout the series. Canucks got that to Game 7 because Roberto Luongo stole them 2 of those games.

Thomas put up a .967 that series vs. a combined .902 from Luongo and Schneider. Maybe it'd be more accurate to say that Luongo lost the series?

Either way the point remains that the Bruins as an organization have been a tire fire for much of the past decade or so and still have a Cup because they got hot at the right time. Same with the Hurricanes and Ducks, and to a lesser extent the Kings with Jonathan Quick who played the best hockey of his career in 2012.

 

[twabby]

/point Trick9.

The whole luck discussion pisses me off. It's a feeble minded argument imo to keep bringing it up like they've done everything they could, but gosh darn it, we get unlucky every single time the season is on the line. It's malarkey. Everyone has good and bad luck. Champions find ways to minimize the impact of bad luck play by playing better than their opponent. Caps do their job and score some early goals and a few fluke Pens goals dont even matter. Don't come out in game 7 with arguably the deepest roster in the league and score ZERO goals at home and cry about bad luck.

I've already acknowledged that bad luck doesn't explain everything and especially their poor Game 7 performance. Sorry you don't believe that it's a factor at all though.

It's funny how there aren't any real perennial chokers in a sport like basketball where luck isn't a factor at all due to the nature of the game.

I think we're conditioned to believe that we are in complete control of everything in our lives rather than just accepting that random chance plays such a huge part in everything.

 

[trick9]

Thomas put up a .967 that series vs. a combined .902 from Luongo and Schneider. Maybe it'd be more accurate to say that Luongo lost the series?

Either way the point remains that the Bruins as an organization have been a tire fire for much of the past decade or so and still have a Cup because they got hot at the right time. Same with the Hurricanes and Ducks, and to a lesser extent the Kings with Jonathan Quick who played the best hockey of his career in 2012.

I disagree. If you score 8 goals in 7 games, it's not the goalie with 2 shutouts who is to blame.

 

[Stewie G]

Living off your credit cards until your new paychecks start coming in?

Exactly. Not sure how the guys making league minimum survive. Probably can't even afford a limo driver and have to drive around like peasants everywhere.