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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Coldplay619

Registered User
Oct 17, 2010
2,845
882
Interesting comments from Eric Nystrom, who played under Trotz and Laviolette in Nashville:

"He's a great teacher, the coaching staff there; Phil Housley and Kevin McCarthy they have adjustments for everything.

Barry Trotz was there prior to Peter Laviolette...there were certain areas where you'd ask a question and he'd just say you know this is a hockey play.

When Peter Laviolette came in, he had an X and O for all those situations so you know that they're going to break down the video hard, they're going to make adjustments."

https://art19.com/shows/roenick-life/episodes/acec434a-7e30-402b-ae2b-b2363d8d29d7

Starts about 15:40 in.
 

Ridley Simon

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 27, 2002
19,024
10,338
Marin County — SF Bay Area, CA
Ya know, you just gotta play the hockey better, am I right?

I'm not sure what people expect here. When was the last time Ted fired someone? Boudreau? Hanlon was for sure, right?

Ted doesn't weild an ax. He's a "let it run its course" kind of guy.

Trotz is the coach for the season, and unless they do something extraordinary, he's done after that. Flip side, if they struggle hard at any time, he could get fired. But it would take a pretty low period.

I expect them to give him one more shot at it, and that's that. Maybe it all works for him. I'm not counting in it. I'm ok w it, but it's s year lost for the aging core....which I think they expected when looking at the 2yr window.

The first 20 games will be very telling. A middling start could lead to pressure which could lead to tension and a cloud in the room which could lead to Trotz dismissal. By game 40, we will know if he's finishing the season or not.
 

Revelation

Registered User
Aug 15, 2016
5,298
2,963
When has Trotz ever been mistaken for a good tactician? By anybody?

Even in his Nashville days he'd be lauded as a disciplinarian who got the team to play a physically demanding man to man style.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
14,143
15,624
Its not nebulous to anyone who isn't mired in dualistic thinking that either things are quantifiable digits or they're crap.

Yes, it's possible to have "it" for a while and then lose it. Absolutely. That's the nature of it. "It" is generally a combination of synergistic and complementary traits, habits, skills, mentalities, and motivations that can propel an individual or a team to great achievements. It can come from the existing personalities in the room as combined in a different way around a specific cause. It can just be a burning desire to win that combines harmoniously with the ability to do the right things at the right times. "It" is a blend of champion qualities that can wax or wane because they are so elusive. "It" comes mostly from the mind.

You may not want to hear this, but the human body is linked to the human mind, and the human mind is a vastly complex function of only partially understood neurological functions. Much of what we do is possible because we have basic tasks stored in deeper parts of the brain, which allow us to perform higher level tasks without having to recount the exact steps of all the pedantic little components. We learn to tie our shoes when we're young and we never really think about the steps later. Where did that awkwardness and conscious manipulation of fingers and strings go? It became what people inaccurately call "muscle memory", which is really just storage of automatic processes in deeper parts of our brain so that we can concentrate on other things. The more we practice and heap new skills on top of others the better we become at even the most complex tasks. We cut neural pathways like water creating a channel down the side of a mountain. That is how mastery is achieved, usually through directed and intense practice over a long period of time. And that is also how choking becomes ingrained...when we learn bad habits and mentalities and imprint them in our minds through repetition and intensity (intense emotion aids imprinting).

This sounds like having a strong mental game and team chemistry. Certainly those things exist and play a big role in hockey, no arguments here.

But those items don't account for the flukier elements of hockey. Sometimes a player blindly fires the puck toward the net and it goes in off a leg. Sometimes a player shoots a puck around the boards and it bounces randomly to the slot against all odds. Sometimes a goalie saves a puck with the knob of his stick, something that is never practiced. Things happen that are not under anyone's control and have huge impacts on the game. These non-repeatable items can be quantified in approximate terms and unsurprisingly hockey and baseball tend to have the biggest elements of random chance.

It's not magic but it can appear that way when a master is at work. A classical pianist does not have to think about playing the notes. A basketball player simply reacts to the flow of the game, and the basket. Kobe Bryant has described the zone in excellent terms, including how everything just became "one noise". Old time athletes used to call it "the trance", or "going unconscious" or "lights out". It's really just "getting out of your own way" and letting those channels in the mountain flow.

The reason this is important is because having "it" often means getting to a stage where you simply TRUST your abilities and let them loose without a shred of conscious direction. There is no sense of doubt or "I don't know what to do". There is only flow and being in the moment. Everyone does this during the day,
but not everyone can call on it when it matters or under pressure. When a person can turn on this ability during clutch moments he has "it". When a team can inspire and push each other into these flow states, especially at the end of a game 7, they have "it".

"Clutchness" has been shown time and time again to not be a repeatable skill across mostly every sport. Certain players have made clutch plays, but they haven't done it with a frequency that is outside of their normal performance in "regular" situations.

Teams that don't have "it" lose those game 7s time and time again. And they blame "nebulous" **** like luck.

They're 3-7 in Game 7s in the Ovechkin era. Even giving the Capitals a 55% chance of winning each game (and this is almost surely a high estimate on average) this is a more than reasonable statistical outcome. Their Game 7 record alone isn't good enough to explain them lacking "it" when skill levels and simple chance can adequately describe it.

Performance psychology is not nebulous, it's real. Every single high level athlete will tell you about it, if you ever meet one. You won't find it in your stat sheets but it's the most important thing in all of sports, and it's why sports psychology trumps analytics. Without the former you can't have the latter, and if someone can improve his mental game he can buck his statistical trends. It's also why a player can put up numbers in one environment and not another, which makes the value of some statistics suspect.

So yeah, those teams found "it" for a time. It doesn't mean you have "it" forever. It takes work like any other skill.

Why aren't there any chronically choking teams in basketball? Who is the NBA equivalent of the Capitals, Sharks, Blues, Sabres, Canucks, Senators, etc.? Surely the mental game in basketball is just as important and surely clutch moments exist just as they do in hockey. Chemistry, teamwork, intangibles, etc. are all just as important most people would agree. There must be players and teams that wilt under the pressure of the playoffs and others that can repeatable rise to the occasion, right?

Or perhaps the mostly deterministic nature of basketball and the chaos inherent in hockey can explain these discrepancies in choking/rising to the occasion better?
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,233
15,796
This sounds like having a strong mental game and team chemistry. Certainly those things exist and play a big role in hockey, no arguments here.

But those items don't account for the flukier elements of hockey. Sometimes a player blindly fires the puck toward the net and it goes in off a leg. Sometimes a player shoots a puck around the boards and it bounces randomly to the slot against all odds. Sometimes a goalie saves a puck with the knob of his stick, something that is never practiced. Things happen that are not under anyone's control and have huge impacts on the game. These non-repeatable items can be quantified in approximate terms and unsurprisingly hockey and baseball tend to have the biggest elements of random chance.



"Clutchness" has been shown time and time again to not be a repeatable skill across mostly every sport. Certain players have made clutch plays, but they haven't done it with a frequency that is outside of their normal performance in "regular" situations.



They're 3-7 in Game 7s in the Ovechkin era. Even giving the Capitals a 55% chance of winning each game (and this is almost surely a high estimate on average) this is a more than reasonable statistical outcome. Their Game 7 record alone isn't good enough to explain them lacking "it" when skill levels and simple chance can adequately describe it.



Why aren't there any chronically choking teams in basketball? Who is the NBA equivalent of the Capitals, Sharks, Blues, Sabres, Canucks, Senators, etc.? Surely the mental game in basketball is just as important and surely clutch moments exist just as they do in hockey. Chemistry, teamwork, intangibles, etc. are all just as important most people would agree. There must be players and teams that wilt under the pressure of the playoffs and others that can repeatable rise to the occasion, right?

Or perhaps the mostly deterministic nature of basketball and the chaos inherent in hockey can explain these discrepancies in choking/rising to the occasion better?


I know what "studies" you're leaning on regarding clutch performance and they are flawed. Some players are more able to rise to the occasion than others. That is a fact. It's not absolute, even Jordan missed shots. But some guys are better at it than others or else they've managed to do it while others didn't. When you have a team that never seems to do it in the 2nd round or vs a particular team, that's a clear flaw in clutch performance regardless of what your narrow number analysis tells you about shooting percentages and so forth.

You can't compare the NBA to the NHL when it comes to the points you're trying to make. You can win NBA championships with a trio of superstars and a bunch of role players. Dynasties can be formed for this reason. Hockey is a more complex team and play structure. There is more luck in the bounce of the puck BUT BOTH SIDES HAVE GOOD AND BAD LUCK. To try and claim there are NHL teams that are just unlucky for 40 years is ludicrous.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
14,143
15,624
I know what "studies" you're leaning on regarding clutch performance and they are flawed. Some players are more able to rise to the occasion than others. That is a fact. It's not absolute, even Jordan missed shots. But some guys are better at it than others or else they've managed to do it while others didn't. When you have a team that never seems to do it in the 2nd round or vs a particular team, that's a clear flaw in clutch performance regardless of what your narrow number analysis tells you about shooting percentages and so forth.

How are they flawed? Forgive me if I'm not willing to just accept your conclusion without the legwork (either by you are others stating how they are flawed). The conclusions reached were that while some players have performed better in clutch situations, these performances are not an unreasonable outcome if you were to just pretend they were any other situation. Similar to how you can't assume a coin is clutch just because you got 8 heads and 2 tails in a set of 10 "clutch" flips.

You can't compare the NBA to the NHL when it comes to the points you're trying to make. You can win NBA championships with a trio of superstars and a bunch of role players. Dynasties can be formed for this reason. Hockey is a more complex team and play structure. There is more luck in the bounce of the puck BUT BOTH SIDES HAVE GOOD AND BAD LUCK. To try and claim there are NHL teams that are just unlucky for 40 years is ludicrous.

Why can you win with a trio of superstars in the NBA? Surely it's because the skill disparity is much higher and it's a high-scoring game, and therefore the luck component much lower, no? It's the nature of the game. If the NHL went to 3 on 3 or the nets were doubled in size and scoring went up then there wouldn't be nearly as much choking as currently happens in clog it up 5v5 giant goalie hockey (and indeed, look at the Oilers/Canadiens/Islanders dynasties due to a higher scoring game with laughably bad goaltending). But surely all of the same mental and clutch elements would be present.

Luck evens out over time but how long is long enough? I'm not going to claim that the Capitals have been unlucky every year for 40 years straight but I'm confident enough to say that over the Ovechkin era, in the postseason, they have been rather unlucky. They need to do their best to improve in the areas they can control but they probably need their luck to turn too. It's the nature of the game.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,233
15,796
How are they flawed? Forgive me if I'm not willing to just accept your conclusion without the legwork (either by you are others stating how they are flawed). The conclusions reached were that while some players have performed better in clutch situations, these performances are not an unreasonable outcome if you were to just pretend they were any other situation. Similar to how you can't assume a coin is clutch just because you got 8 heads and 2 tails in a set of 10 "clutch" flips.



Why can you win with a trio of superstars in the NBA? Surely it's because the skill disparity is much higher and it's a high-scoring game, and therefore the luck component much lower, no? It's the nature of the game. If the NHL went to 3 on 3 or the nets were doubled in size and scoring went up then there wouldn't be nearly as much choking as currently happens in clog it up 5v5 giant goalie hockey (and indeed, look at the Oilers/Canadiens/Islanders dynasties due to a higher scoring game with laughably bad goaltending). But surely all of the same mental and clutch elements would be present.

Luck evens out over time but how long is long enough? I'm not going to claim that the Capitals have been unlucky every year for 40 years straight but I'm confident enough to say that over the Ovechkin era, in the postseason, they have been rather unlucky. They need to do their best to improve in the areas they can control but they probably need their luck to turn too. It's the nature of the game.

No your conclusions are wrong and slanted. You can win with a trio of stars because the NBA is 5 on 5 and guys can play nearly the entire game. Dominant stars can exploit a weak defensive matchup all night, or for an entire series, and there's little the other team can do about it other than double team (leaves someone else open) or hack them to death (doesn't work if they can shoot free throws).

Post the studies. Players who can transfer their good play to pressure situations are more clutch than guys who can't. It doesn't mean they must get BETTER when the pressure is on, though some may.

And again, the luck argument is confirmation bias. Read any GDT for any other team and you'll see the opposite view of nearly every play.
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,943
10,092
Or perhaps the mostly deterministic nature of basketball and the chaos inherent in hockey can explain these discrepancies in choking/rising to the occasion better?
If hockey is so heavily influenced by randomness beyond any other sport, though, why have dynasties and repeats been a routine occurrence? Three teams have repeated over the past nine years alone. You can argue it's a small sample size--and it is--but I don't believe those three teams were merely luckier than the rest. There is a knowledge base acquired once the feat is accomplished that's invaluable in being able to repeat in the future. Going further back there have been many dynasties over the years: Detroit in the late 90's/early 00's, Pittsburgh going back-to-back the first time in the early 90's, Edmonton and the Islanders in the 80's and Montreal pretty much for three decades before that. Despite expansion this has continued to happen but it shouldn't if the game basically comes down to chance.
 

CapitalsCupReality

It’s Go Time!!
Feb 27, 2002
66,276
21,254
If hockey is so heavily influenced by randomness beyond any other sport, though, why have dynasties and repeats been a routine occurrence? Three teams have repeated over the past nine years alone. You can argue it's a small sample size--and it is--but I don't believe those three teams were merely luckier than the rest. There is a knowledge base acquired once the feat is accomplished that's invaluable in being able to repeat in the future. Going further back there have been many dynasties over the years: Detroit in the late 90's/early 00's, Pittsburgh going back-to-back the first time in the early 90's, Edmonton and the Islanders in the 80's and Montreal pretty much for three decades before that. Despite expansion this has continued to happen but it shouldn't if the game basically comes down to chance.

A: They're lucky!

Biggest pure stats guy on the Caps boards vehemently arguing FOR the bad luck angle. Ponderous....I just don't get it. I guess everyone has to come to terms with the Cap's failure in their own way.

As a fan, I just don't feel like they've been unlucky for the most part in the Ovechkin era. I feel a WHOLE LOT more like they just continue to underachieve when the season is on the line.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
14,143
15,624
If hockey is so heavily influenced by randomness beyond any other sport, though, why have dynasties and repeats been a routine occurrence? Three teams have repeated over the past nine years alone. You can argue it's a small sample size--and it is--but I don't believe those three teams were merely luckier than the rest. There is a knowledge base acquired once the feat is accomplished that's invaluable in being able to repeat in the future. Going further back there have been many dynasties over the years: Detroit in the late 90's/early 00's, Pittsburgh going back-to-back the first time in the early 90's, Edmonton and the Islanders in the 80's and Montreal pretty much for three decades before that. Despite expansion this has continued to happen but it shouldn't if the game basically comes down to chance.

I think baseball is similarly heavily influenced by luck, and indeed there aren't too many dynasties in recent memory in the MLB.

The recent Cup champions weren't just luckier, but they certainly had their fair share of luck. Anyone who claims that Pittsburgh this postseason didn't have the bounces go their way is crazy IMO. They did plenty of things right but without that luck they don't win it all.

So yeah I'd say for the most part it's sample size issues because these recent dynasties you mention have gone through periods where they have been unsuccessful in the middle of their "dynasties". For instance this season's Blackhawks team was one of their best teams IMO and had the same core as their Cup winning teams but they were absolutely trounced by the Predators due to Rinne playing out of his mind (which of course was unsustainable). The Kings have missed the playoffs twice in recent seasons after winning the Cup twice despite having largely the same roster and the same coach. The Penguins were considered chokers from 2010 to 2015 due to poor playoff performances with the same roster and same coach that won in 2009 and there were questions about Crosby's leadership and whether he was actually a "true leader."

Going further back in history leads to less luck being involved because the talent disparity was higher (goons being on the ice much more frequently and pylon defensemen, for instance, led to the ice being tilted more in certain teams' favor than in the current NHL which is trending toward icing more optimal lineups) and because goaltending was much worse. Higher shooting percentages and higher shot disparities lead to the better team coming out on top more frequently, and indeed that is likely why the Oilers, Islanders, etc. were able to win so frequently.

These types of "chokes" simply don't happen in basketball with any consistency. Whether it's due to the smaller roster sizes leading to greater talent disparity or the fact that there are more shots and that ~45% of shots go in (vs. fewer shots and a ~4% Corsi shooting percentage in the NHL), it's statistically improbable for basketball teams to pull off upsets or conversely be perennial "chokers" whereas in hockey it's much more plausible.

I get that believing luck is a huge factor is not a popular opinion because it's not a very satisfying explanation from a narrative point of view. It's much more interesting to believe in chokers, clutch teams, etc. but that doesn't necessarily make it true. I'd wager that dynasties aren't going to be very frequent in the near future and indeed it had been almost 20 years since a back-to-back champion before the Penguins did it, much longer than any other league.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,134
New Bern, NC
But those items don't account for the flukier elements of hockey.

What is the effect on the choker player or team to the flukier elements of hockey going against them? What is the effect on the winner?

The Penguins and Red Wings of the past responded differently to a bad break in a playoff arena than the Capitals do. Its just a fact. The list of evidence is very long.

edit: I still cant believe that some are still arguing that choking isn't a thing. Winning is a thing. See Michael Jordan. Losing is a thing. I give you Mike Gartner, Calle Johansson, TJ Oshie and Alex Ovechkin. I give you Braden Holtby, who in the past did all he could to give the team a chance to win. These last two playoff series against the Penguins when he could have made a name for himself, he cracked. He choked.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,134
New Bern, NC
A: They're lucky!

Biggest pure stats guy on the Caps boards vehemently arguing FOR the bad luck angle. Ponderous....I just don't get it. I guess everyone has to come to terms with the Cap's failure in their own way.

As a fan, I just don't feel like they've been unlucky for the most part in the Ovechkin era. I feel a WHOLE LOT more like they just continue to underachieve when the season is on the line.

I think they got hosed by the ref v the Flyers and that wasn't their fault.
I think they choked v the Pens in g7 in that blow out. all their fault.
I thnk they got bad goaltending and no luck v Montreal. With all those blocked shots one should have deflected in the net and one was enough. But Varly should have had a shutout in most of the games they lost.

From there it was a snowball down hill. The first Trotz year, they somewhat overperformed and beating the NYR would have been an upset. Had the lost normal, it wouldn't have been an issue. But they were 90 seconds from the 3rd round and blew it.

They need to wipe the slate clean. They are carrying poison in their blood until they do
 

Raikkonen

Dumb guy
Aug 19, 2009
10,734
3,181
Russia
A long offseason strikes back! What a surprise! Although I'd like to join you and make some remarks about Ovi's preparation.

Either he's playing good and I don't care what he did in the summer... or he's an anchor and I don't care why exactly :P

He has to deliver.

Kuzy has to deliver too.
 

John Price

Gang Gang
Sep 19, 2008
384,733
30,419
Are people here seriously getting on Ovi for partying and being overweight?

Do we not all know where the videos are from, the guys wedding celebration!!! If he was partying and having a great time I would be upset with him. Ovi will be fine leave him alone. I wish someday I can have that crazy of a wedding celebration

Coming off the worst season of his career and he will be age 32 when the season starts. His conditioning has been questioned its not pathetic to bring up. It's a legit concern

The original concern was about Kuznetsov "partying and not thinking about hockey" all day in Russia, then somehow got sidetracked to "Ovechkin can't get married and dance and enjoy honeymoons around the world because he has to be like Crosby and work out every day" which honestly seems ridiculous.

I think Ovechkin would know what to do to keep sharp. Suddenly these guys aren't allowed to enjoy themselves in the offseason anymore. I don't buy any of this "They work out during the offseason" stuff, maybe closer to training camp, sure, but we've still got about 2 months to go until actual hockey. What point would there be to lifting weights now?

If you check the Caps and former caps TWitter accounts they aren't working out. Justin Williams went to Ireland with some of the other Caps during the offseason. He wasn't working out...After all the heart and grit they put in a grueling season, they're entitled to some time off to travel the world. They don't have to be at Kettler every day lifting weights :laugh: I can guarantee you the Penguins aren't doing that. You ever see what some of them do with the cup, they go out fishing with it...is that working out?
 

John Price

Gang Gang
Sep 19, 2008
384,733
30,419
http://hockeyfamilyadvisor.com/nhl-off-season-training-regimen-not-exactly-how-it-appears/

An NHL schedule consists of 82 gruelling games, not including the playoffs. The sport is highly physical and hell on the body. By the end of the season, players are either hobbling off the ice with an assortment of nagging injuries or just plain drained.

Emaciated bodies need recovery time. So players are told to stay out of the gym for the first few weeks and get back to a normal sleep schedule. Eight months of staying up late to play games, traveling at all hours of the night, while eating post-game meals of chicken wings and pizza, not to mention the mental stress of competing at the highest level, takes its toll. The summer is about building the body back up, piece by piece.
 

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,233
15,796
A few weeks recovery is fine. The Caps season ended more than 2 months ago. What do you think building the body back up piece by piece means? It's progressive training in preparation for the next season.

They're not school kids on summer break, ffs.
 

Langway

In den Wolken
Jul 7, 2006
32,943
10,092
The recent Cup champions weren't just luckier, but they certainly had their fair share of luck. Anyone who claims that Pittsburgh this postseason didn't have the bounces go their way is crazy IMO. They did plenty of things right but without that luck they don't win it all.
Without a lot of things they don't win it all. But they all happened. That's the way it goes. Winners also tend to shrug off bad bounces when they happen against them and maintain discipline/resolve. It's not just the good that goes for them but how they handle the bad. The point is less that dynasty franchises don't have zero variance over their spans but that they're able to repeat it and counter randomness. Hockey may be more random than the other big team sports lately but it still doesn't make it anything close to the sort of roulette wheel some analytics writers tend to want to make it out to be.
Going further back in history leads to less luck being involved because the talent disparity was higher (goons being on the ice much more frequently and pylon defensemen, for instance, led to the ice being tilted more in certain teams' favor than in the current NHL which is trending toward icing more optimal lineups) and because goaltending was much worse. Higher shooting percentages and higher shot disparities lead to the better team coming out on top more frequently, and indeed that is likely why the Oilers, Islanders, etc. were able to win so frequently.
Goons were a thing for maybe thirty years or so, mostly due to expansion diluting the talent pool but shouldn't be considered an influential factor in anything beyond the culture at the time. Slow defensemen (and players in general) were able to hook, slash and otherwise maim opposition players until 2006 so it wasn't so much coaching as the rule set. Goaltending and talent disparities don't account for much prior to expansion in 1967 and even during expansion should only account for greater variance in the regular season. During the last 25 years of the O6 era prior to expansion, three teams in MTL/TOR/DET took turns coming out on top. From '41-67, only Chicago in '61 broke that up.

I'd be inclined to believe the primacy of luck in hockey if there were random outcomes all over the place but this is clearly not so. It would be a lot less enjoyable if it were because it'd suggest there aren't demonstrable skills that influence the outcome.
I get that believing luck is a huge factor is not a popular opinion because it's not a very satisfying explanation from a narrative point of view. It's much more interesting to believe in chokers, clutch teams, etc. but that doesn't necessarily make it true. I'd wager that dynasties aren't going to be very frequent in the near future and indeed it had been almost 20 years since a back-to-back champion before the Penguins did it, much longer than any other league.
The problem is the degree to which it's referenced. It's like people that believe in it do so with such fervor it collapses the very merits of their point. It's not not a factor but the game is also not a roulette wheel. It's not just going back-to-back but being able to repeat within a short time span that makes up dynasty level teams and three teams have done so lately. You can discount certain descriptive verbage but teams have consistently been able to beat randomness and repeat high level performance.

Dynasties were more prevalent in hockey from the 70s through 90s than in any other team sport and I don't believe it can be explained away by expansion (talent disparity), goaltending or coaching issues. There was expansion in every league throughout that time period. Some teams were just more effective and able than others, something which the luck angle taken to its extreme tends to disregard as possible. I'd admit to a certain degree of chaos but it's not as chance-laden competition that some statistical types make it out to be. It never has been.
 

Alexander the Gr8

Registered User
May 2, 2013
31,996
13,620
Toronto
Ovechkin has a legit excuse to not be working out right now, a marriage is something special. The others should start hitting the weights if they haven't already, training camp is just a few weeks from now.

In any case, the players comply with the standards that the team holds them to. If the staff thinks that what they're doing right now is enough, I'll trust them and not us. We won back-to-back Presidents Trophies. You can't finish first overall after 82 games if your players didn't train properly in the offseason. I doubt it will make a difference ultimately in our playoff results. The playoffs are 10 months away, the players will be in a different shape by then.
 

twabby

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
14,143
15,624
Without a lot of things they don't win it all. But they all happened. That's the way it goes. Winners also tend to shrug off bad bounces when they happen against them and maintain discipline/resolve. It's not just the good that goes for them but how they handle the bad. The point is less that dynasty franchises don't have zero variance over their spans but that they're able to repeat it and counter randomness. Hockey may be more random than the other big team sports lately but it still doesn't make it anything close to the sort of roulette wheel some analytics writers tend to want to make it out to be.

Goons were a thing for maybe thirty years or so, mostly due to expansion diluting the talent pool but shouldn't be considered an influential factor in anything beyond the culture at the time. Slow defensemen (and players in general) were able to hook, slash and otherwise maim opposition players until 2006 so it wasn't so much coaching as the rule set. Goaltending and talent disparities don't account for much prior to expansion in 1967 and even during expansion should only account for greater variance in the regular season. During the last 25 years of the O6 era prior to expansion, three teams in MTL/TOR/DET took turns coming out on top. From '41-67, only Chicago in '61 broke that up.

I'd be inclined to believe the primacy of luck in hockey if there were random outcomes all over the place but this is clearly not so. It would be a lot less enjoyable if it were because it'd suggest there aren't demonstrable skills that influence the outcome.

The problem is the degree to which it's referenced. It's like people that believe in it do so with such fervor it collapses the very merits of their point. It's not not a factor but the game is also not a roulette wheel. It's not just going back-to-back but being able to repeat within a short time span that makes up dynasty level teams and three teams have done so lately. You can discount certain descriptive verbage but teams have consistently been able to beat randomness and repeat high level performance.

Dynasties were more prevalent in hockey from the 70s through 90s than in any other team sport and I don't believe it can be explained away by expansion (talent disparity), goaltending or coaching issues. There was expansion in every league throughout that time period. Some teams were just more effective and able than others, something which the luck angle taken to its extreme tends to disregard as possible. I'd admit to a certain degree of chaos but it's not as chance-laden competition that some statistical types make it out to be. It never has been.

Most analytics writers don't claim it's a roulette wheel, merely that luck is a big influence and can't simply be discounted. There is a middle ground between "everything is a coin flip" and "everything is under a team's control" and the idea is to find out exactly where the truth lies. It's probably never going to be pinned down exactly but there are ways to narrow it down.

The frustration lies with simply discounting the work being done without actually parsing through the methodologies and making specific critiques (this is a more general complaint I have about analytics doubters, not just the luck argument being currently discussed). Even here you make a blanket statement that hockey is certainly not as random as analytics people make it out to be yet there is no specific work done on your end to disprove the results they have come up with. The recent Cup winners aren't a counterargument because true randomness doesn't mean a different team wins every year, not to mention that no one is arguing that the sport is truly 100% random. The observed results are well within the realm of possible under these models.

Again, my original reason for bringing this up was to try and make a more accurate assessment of the Ovechkin era. They've made their fair share of mistakes and I'm not even opposed to the idea of cleaning house at this point (including a fair trade for Ovechkin when the opportunity arises), but I don't think it's fair to call the Ovechkin era a failure. Not even close. The fact that they haven't been able to put it all together in a postseason run is hugely influenced by luck IMO and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they have had rather poor luck over a small sample of games where they have actually been legitimate Cup contenders. Again, if Holtby has a decent postseason this year the Capitals are very likely at least in the SCF and ending all talk of "choking", but I find it hard to believe that Holtby's poor postseason is a product of decades of organizational failure rather than an ill-timed worst stretch of his career. And these sorts of things (Halak playing his stretch of his career in 2010, questionable refereeing in 2008, running into the best goalie of this generation playing some of his best hockey of his career in 2015) do happen. Does it mean that they can't be overcome if you play perfectly? No, but it's also foolish to say that Cup winners do everything perfectly either. It's easy to say "winners make their own breaks" even if the truth is closer to "winners get more breaks through no doing of their own." Indeed, if you look at certain measures of luck like PDO you'll see Cup champs with above average PDOs almost every time.
 
Last edited:

g00n

Retired Global Mod
Nov 22, 2007
31,233
15,796
Most analytics writers don't claim it's a roulette wheel, merely that luck is a big influence and can't simply be discounted. There is a middle ground between "everything is a coin flip" and "everything is under a team's control" and the idea is to find out exactly where the truth lies. It's probably never going to be pinned down exactly but there are ways to narrow it down.

The frustration lies with simply discounting the work being done without actually parsing through the methodologies and making specific critiques (this is a more general complaint I have about analytics doubters, not just the luck argument being currently discussed). Even here you make a blanket statement that hockey is certainly not as random as analytics people make it out to be yet there is no specific work done on your end to disprove the results they have come up with. The recent Cup winners aren't a counterargument because true randomness doesn't mean a different team wins every year, not to mention that no one is arguing that the sport is truly 100% random. The observed results are well within the realm of possible under these models.

Again, my original reason for bringing this up was to try and make a more accurate assessment of the Ovechkin era. They've made their fair share of mistakes and I'm not even opposed to the idea of cleaning house at this point (including a fair trade for Ovechkin when the opportunity arises), but I don't think it's fair to call the Ovechkin era a failure. Not even close. The fact that they haven't been able to put it all together in a postseason run is hugely influenced by luck IMO and I don't think it's unreasonable to say that they have had rather poor luck over a small sample of games where they have actually been legitimate Cup contenders. Again, if Holtby has a decent postseason this year the Capitals are very likely at least in the SCF and ending all talk of "choking", but I find it hard to believe that Holtby's poor postseason is a product of decades of organizational failure rather than an ill-timed worst stretch of his career. And these sorts of things (Halak playing his stretch of his career in 2010, questionable refereeing in 2008, running into the best goalie of this generation playing some of his best hockey of his career in 2015) do happen. Does it mean that they can't be overcome if you play perfectly? No, but it's also foolish to say that Cup winners do everything perfectly either. It's easy to say "winners make their own breaks" even if the truth is closer to "winners get more breaks through no doing of their own." Indeed, if you look at certain measures of luck like PDO you'll see Cup champs with above average PDOs almost every time.


If you expect in-depth refutations of methodologies every time someone disputes your assertions you're barking up the wrong tree, because nobody is going to do that and you're just as guilty as everyone else when it comes to making oversimplified, exaggerated, or unsupported statements. It seems like you want everyone to accept your opinions unconditionally and your preferred stat methods as a given while others need to support everything they say with hard data or else you reject it.

IMO "luck" is the "dark matter" of analytics. It conveniently fills in the gaps so the whole theory doesn't fall apart. And the only way to fit it into the the concept of "quantify everything" is to make various assumptions (like most stats do) and then assign the label "luck" to some numbers associated with those assumptions.

But I don't want to turn this into a neverending analytics debate. We have a thread for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad