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

[Stewie G]

Please quote a post that makes that claim.

 

[g00n]

You mean like the one that started all this?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=134679671&postcount=373

You guys make some good points and I certainly agree with mostly everything mentioned but let's at least acknowledge that they have been pretty unlucky as well and that has played a huge role in their lack of success. It paints a more complete picture.

Bruins, Ducks and Canes won because of goaltending and luck...says Caps have simply been unlucky in 2nd paragraph:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=134693709&postcount=391

etc etc etc no point in posting more since so much of it just built on that foundation.

I'm also laughing at this notion that someone's calculated probability for winning the Cup is somehow proof of luck.

 

[Langway]

Please quote a post that makes that claim.

You guys make some good points and I certainly agree with mostly everything mentioned but let's at least acknowledge that they have been pretty unlucky as well and that has played a huge role in their lack of success. It paints a more complete picture.

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

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.

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.

'Hugely' and 'heavily' don't strike you as more than mere significance, particularly given the original usage so as to recontextualize playoff outcomes? Of course...

Management, coaching, the right player mix, mindset, etc. all need to be optimized to the best extent possible. But while that's part of the equation (and probably a significant majority), it's not the entire thing and it doesn't guarantee success. They need to get hot.

This reframes it a more comprehensively closer to what I'd guess most would agree with, although it still casts some doubt whether it's a significant majority or not. But that's not how it's been characterized for the most part and when heavily or hugely are used on their own it makes one think it has a much greater impact. I get using it for effect to draw attention to it but, again, that has undermining effects when not really given the larger context.

For me luck should have evened out by now and I think there's something of a reluctance by some to admit that maybe they're not that supremely skilled when the chips are down. Maybe we need to start talking about skill in a more comprehensive sense beyond whatever fancy **** they can pull off in the regular season when the game comes easy to them. There are a number of mental skills on top of raw ability that they don't seem to harness so, again, it's tough to drag in luck to reframe ten seasons of coming up short when they don't seem to maximize their ability. Particularly in the last few seasons it also seemed like a team waiting for bad things to happen so it tempts fate. If one really does heavily believe in the influence of luck then all energy should be spent on areas within their control so that thin margins are padded. Those margins have consistently shrunk in the playoffs beyond what IMO are just the by-products of playoff hockey. So in part I think it needs to be asked whether they've ever truly been built for playoff hockey, from the mix to mentality and tactics. They shouldn't need luck so much if they're truly a dominant team capable of thriving in the playoffs.

That they're now likely a less skilled, less experienced team makes the hope of good luck more appealing for their short-term prospects. But they're also probably going to face thinning margins in the regular season and need to have good luck to a greater extent to be successful. That common thread ties back to strengths providing for adequate margins of victory or not. Maybe luck has been a factor against them but the larger takeaway for me is they should be focusing on padding their margins in every dimension. They don't seem to prepare in such a way where that's their mentality and that's a problem. They just want to win four of seven and keep going no matter how long it takes. The aim should be higher so that when adversity or flukes happen it doesn't end their season. That has to be where the main focus lies...and yet everything suggests they're not operating anywhere close to that level. It's hard to expect better outcomes regardless when that's the case.

 

[g00n]

When the stats don't add up, the blanks are filled in by "luck". It keeps the "everything worthwhile is quantifiable" worldview intact and makes it so there's no need to consider other non-numerical or human factors. Simple as that, imo.

 

[hockeykicker]

after seeing the last few pages

 

[Stewie G]

'Hugely' and 'heavily' don't strike you as more than mere significance, particularly given the original usage so as to recontextualize playoff outcomes? Of course...

This reframes it a more comprehensively closer to what I'd guess most would agree with, although it still casts some doubt whether it's a significant majority or not. But that's not how it's been characterized for the most part and when heavily or hugely are used on their own it makes one think it has a much greater impact. I get using it for effect to draw attention to it but, again, that has undermining effects when not really given the larger context.

For me luck should have evened out by now and I think there's something of a reluctance by some to admit that maybe they're not that supremely skilled when the chips are down. Maybe we need to start talking about skill in a more comprehensive sense beyond whatever fancy **** they can pull off in the regular season when the game comes easy to them. There are a number of mental skills on top of raw ability that they don't seem to harness so, again, it's tough to drag in luck to reframe ten seasons of coming up short when they don't seem to maximize their ability. Particularly in the last few seasons it also seemed like a team waiting for bad things to happen so it tempts fate. If one really does heavily believe in the influence of luck then all energy should be spent on areas within their control so that thin margins are padded. Those margins have consistently shrunk in the playoffs beyond what IMO are just the by-products of playoff hockey. So in part I think it needs to be asked whether they've ever truly been built for playoff hockey, from the mix to mentality and tactics. They shouldn't need luck so much if they're truly a dominant team capable of thriving in the playoffs.

That they're now likely a less skilled, less experienced team makes the hope of good luck more appealing for their short-term prospects. But they're also probably going to face thinning margins in the regular season and need to have good luck to a greater extent to be successful. That common thread ties back to strengths providing for adequate margins of victory or not. Maybe luck has been a factor against them but the larger takeaway for me is they should be focusing on padding their margins in every dimension. They don't seem to prepare in such a way where that's their mentality and that's a problem. They just want to win four of seven and keep going no matter how long it takes. The aim should be higher so that when adversity or flukes happen it doesn't end their season. That has to be where the main focus lies...and yet everything suggests they're not operating anywhere close to that level. It's hard to expect better outcomes regardless when that's the case.

I actually agree with pretty much everything you wrote.

What is the fix though if the second paragraph is the root cause of the Ovechkin era playoff woes? They tried vets, from Fedorov to Arnott to Orpik to Williams. IMO, they need a coach who has been through it all and won. Trotz is the exact opposite of what they need(ed). At the very least, someone who would have recognized what the Pens were doing with their D in Game 7 and taken advantage, not allowed it to end the season. Either that or some sort of emotional therapy. Or both.

Seriously, while I don't always agree with your conclusions, you are an excellent writer.

 

[RandyHolt]

It's also hard to blame bounces when a team constantly finds themselves in one-goal games. Maybe be more ambitious than to expect a long, hard slog of a series from the outset. And yet that's been the dynamic at play in the second round for three years running under Trotz. That in itself is why he's not the answer. ....

This.

Maybe the best way for us to not fall victim to bad luck choke in game 7 is try to avoid game 7's.

I am convinced for Barry to get past the 2nd round he will require random dumb luck unless he changes his ways, and implements a game plan catered to the opponent. Yes starting in game 1, and prep adjustments in game 2 to counter what a proactive coach will do.

If it ain't broke don't fix it has not been working for him. He never leaves himself enough time to fix what needs to be fixed. The players see panic changes done once he is backed into a corner, and plants the seed of doubt.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Please quote a post that makes that claim.

Any other requests?

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

This.

Maybe the best way for us to not fall victim to bad luck choke in game 7 is try to avoid game 7's.

I am convinced for Barry to get past the 2nd round will require random dumb luck unless he changes his ways, and implements a game plan catered to the opponent. Yes starting in game 1, and prep adjustments in game 2 to counter what a proactive coach will do.

If it ain't broke don't fix it has not been working for him. He never leaves himself enough time to fix what needs to be fixed. The players see panic changes done once he is backed into a corner, and plants the seed of doubt.

Reminds me of a quote from Backstrom during his exit interview after game 7. Said the Caps lost the series by losing game 1 and 2 at home. It was an uphill battle the whole time after that and we outplayed the Pens for the rest of the series except game 7. If not for that damn Bonino goal in game 1, maybe we're the ones lifting the Cup this spring.

 

[Brian23]

As an aside, I realize Winnik is still a FA at the moment. I wonder if they'd think about trying to add him at the vet minimum if no one else comes a calling.

 

[g00n]

As an aside, I realize Winnik is still a FA at the moment. I wonder if they'd think about trying to add him at the vet minimum if no one else comes a calling.

Why? He's not a playoff hero worth dragging through the regular season and he'd be taking a roster spot they need for development.

Trotz can SAY the NHL is not a developmental league but the issue is NHL experience. There is no substitute for it. Hell, he even prefers veterans to young players, which means he values experience. But he doesn't like giving it away to young guys. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

 

[Brian23]

Why? He's not a playoff hero worth dragging through the regular season and he'd be taking a roster spot they need for development.

Trotz can SAY the NHL is not a developmental league but the issue is NHL experience. There is no substitute for it. Hell, he even prefers veterans to young players, which means he values experience. But he doesn't like giving it away to young guys. Makes a lot of sense, huh?

Which is kind of my point. Outside of Wilson, Beagle, and Eller I'm not sure they have a gritty "vet" to hold down the forward group if someone struggles.

 

[Langway]

What is the fix though if the second paragraph is the root cause of the Ovechkin era playoff woes?

Cleaning house should be the start. If existing people can't refine the approach then get people that can. But I doubt it happens. It's not the sort of perspective ownership tends to have. A more subtle attempt would be to bring in someone from the outside to consult and conduct a thorough review of practices but I don't get the sense they care to open themselves up in that manner either. That sort of fact-finding mission would have been better for an outside agent than MacLellan post-playoffs since there would be no conflicts of interest or existing biases. MacLellan just wanted The Answer and when he didn't find it, well, I guess there's not much to be done here. The fact that only now in Y4 is MacLellan understanding the necessity of accountability is pretty concerning.

Re: veteran leadership, it's likely also a matter of intangibles not being something that can be bought and solved from the outside, at least not unless they're also dominant players. Oshie and Niskanen have been the closest-to-prime key players added but hadn't had the team success. Players that were once young have to own their past to where they don't shy away from where that legacy has brought them. To disengage or not fully process it more objectively means they're stuck with a smaller piece of the puzzle, less self-awareness and a greater tendency to walk right into the same mental traps (all of which stunts their maturation). Maybe they're just not that intelligent but it's a collective organizational thing and Trotz laughing some stuff of it off just goes to show how poorly as a group it's handled. That confusion and disarray is killer.

More luck would have been nice but mainly I don't get the sense they learn from defeat and the best performers do. When every defeat is still fresh or blocked out or generally not integrated coherently over time it makes it ever harder to maintain the perspective needed to put their best foot forward. Believing they can just show up and max effort without regard to having learned anything when going all-out is pretty damn stubborn and simple-minded. It's that lack of self-awareness over time that for me is the key quality of the Ovechkin Era and Ovechkin himself as a leader. That combined with the thin skin of Leonsis are IMO the defining characteristics of the organization in terms of limitations. They're not a terrible organization but they also aren't entirely a model franchise because of how they deal with failure and their approach to development generally. There's a fragility in how they operate that doesn't withstand strict scrutiny. Instead of taking it personally they need to be more objective and self-aware in realizing current limitations and what can be done better. The later is an almost never-ending quest should they have the motivation to not delude themselves. But I don't think they have the coaching from a decision-making standpoint or the leadership at any level to ambitiously push people beyond their comfort zones.

 

[RandyHolt]

Reminds me of a quote from Backstrom during his exit interview after game 7. Said the Caps lost the series by losing game 1 and 2 at home. It was an uphill battle the whole time after that and we outplayed the Pens for the rest of the series except game 7. If not for that damn Bonino goal in game 1, maybe we're the ones lifting the Cup this spring.

Yep, there are razor thin margins between winning and losing. Barry must do all he can to win game 1s and every game thereafter. If Ovi was injured and thus very ineffective, why did he wait to cut back his ice time etc. Heck even i saw Ovi first off the ice at the practices at Kettlter.

Vs TO, he waited until we had a series on our hands before getting preferred D pairs out vs their top line. Why bother waiting to do the obvious?

Because he didn't do it in the regular season, is no excuse.

 

[ReggietheSavage15]

Via RMNB:

Justin Bourne names Christian Djoos as a breakout player for 2017-18

 

[Stewie G]

Cleaning house should be the start. If existing people can't refine the approach then get people that can. But I doubt it happens. It's not the sort of perspective ownership tends to have. A more subtle attempt would be to bring in someone from the outside to consult and conduct a thorough review of practices but I don't get the sense they care to open themselves up in that manner either. That sort of fact-finding mission would have been better for an outside agent than MacLellan post-playoffs since there would be no conflicts of interest or existing biases. MacLellan just wanted The Answer and when he didn't find it, well, I guess there's not much to be done here. The fact that only now in Y4 is MacLellan understanding the necessity of accountability is pretty concerning.

Re: veteran leadership, it's likely also a matter of intangibles not being something that can be bought and solved from the outside, at least not unless they're also dominant players. Oshie and Niskanen have been the closest-to-prime key players added but hadn't had the team success. Players that were once young have to own their past to where they don't shy away from where that legacy has brought them. To disengage or not fully process it more objectively means they're stuck with a smaller piece of the puzzle, less self-awareness and a greater tendency to walk right into the same mental traps (all of which stunts their maturation). Maybe they're just not that intelligent but it's a collective organizational thing and Trotz laughing some stuff of it off just goes to show how poorly as a group it's handled. That confusion and disarray is killer.

More luck would have been nice but mainly I don't get the sense they learn from defeat and the best performers do. When every defeat is still fresh or blocked out or generally not integrated coherently over time it makes it ever harder to maintain the perspective needed to put their best foot forward. Believing they can just show up and max effort without regard to having learned anything when going all-out is pretty damn stubborn and simple-minded. It's that lack of self-awareness over time that for me is the key quality of the Ovechkin Era and Ovechkin himself as a leader. That combined with the thin skin of Leonsis are IMO the defining characteristics of the organization in terms of limitations. They're not a terrible organization but they also aren't entirely a model franchise because of how they deal with failure and their approach to development generally. There's a fragility in how they operate that doesn't withstand strict scrutiny. Instead of taking it personally they need to be more objective and self-aware in realizing current limitations and what can be done better. The later is an almost never-ending quest should they have the motivation to not delude themselves. But I don't think they have the coaching from a decision-making standpoint or the leadership at any level to ambitiously push people beyond their comfort zones.

Excellent post.

If Ted had any inkling to conduct that kind of organizational review, it would have happened already. I agree that they'd have to bring in a strong outside voice in order for any real organization-wide change to happen (which in and of itself would be a pretty significant change).

Sadly, I think given current management perspective, the only real avenue for change to start happening is from the bottom up, and I'm pretty sure how to make that happened has been discussed ad nauseum.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Yep, there are razor thin margins between winning and losing. Barry must do all he can to win game 1s and every game thereafter. If Ovi was injured and thus very ineffective, why did he wait to cut back his ice time etc. Heck even i saw Ovi first off the ice at the practices at Kettlter.

Vs TO, he waited until we had a series on our hands before getting preferred D pairs out vs their top line. Why bother waiting to do the obvious?

Because he didn't do it in the regular season, is no excuse.

Trotz makes adjustments, but his adjustments come too late. He needs to fail twice or three times the same way to make changes. The best way to win in the playoffs is to have a long term strategy and game by game strategies to secure a crucial game.

This is exactly what the Pens did to us in game 7. Played mistake free hockey, not pushing us too much and bam! Two punches square on the jaw to knock us out when they saw an opening. If they had tried to go full 2016 Pens trying to score left and right, they probably lose game 7. That's what they tried to do in game 6 and they handed us that game. Sullivan knowing the full extent of his team's capacities came up with a plan to make sure that we didn't blow them out 5-0 like we did in game 6.

 

[Stewie G]

When the stats don't add up, the blanks are filled in by "luck". It keeps the "everything worthwhile is quantifiable" worldview intact and makes it so there's no need to consider other non-numerical or human factors. Simple as that, imo.

Well, if it makes you feel better, you could probably also call it randomness that favors one side. Puck hits a rut in the ice, hops over a defenseman's stick, and spring a forward for a breakaway goal. Ref calls off a legal goal that is subsequently used as example of what not to do in a given situation. Quick whistle when a puck is loose under a certain team's goaltender which takes a goal off the board. Easily identifiable events that cannot be attributed to skill but have huge/heavy influence on the outcomes of games/series.

 

[Ridley Simon]

Well, if it makes you feel better, you could probably also call it randomness that favors one side. Puck hits a rut in the ice, hops over a defenseman's stick, and spring a forward for a breakaway goal. Ref calls off a legal goal that is subsequently used as example of what not to do in a given situation. Quick whistle when a puck is loose under a certain team's goaltender which takes a goal off the board. Easily identifiable events that cannot be attributed to skill but have huge/heavy influence on the outcomes of games/series.

This. People are really arguing that this doesnt happen, and doesnt influence games? it does. You have 2 evenly matched teams, and they split 6 games. 7th game is determined by something like what you mentioned (not sequentially, this could happen in any of the 7 games). That's not luck?

So...I'm to believe that the other team was better prepared and able to withstand a few of those? And the Caps can't?

Or just maybe its luck, chance, whatever, and it hasn't broken against the team more often than it has broken for them. Sure, put together a good enough team, gameplan, mental preparation, etc....and maybe the luck doesnt hurt you. But 3 Pres Trophy teams tells me thats not "it" to a certain extent, and sometimes the Cosmos just arent for you.

Just like some people win at games of chance more than others. Why, exactly? They are better prepared to win? Or are they just lucky?

 

[Calicaps]

Via RMNB:

Justin Bourne names Christian Djoos as a breakout player for 2017-18

I thought that said Jason Bourne.

 

[Roughing]

I thought that said Jason Bourne.

You, and everyone else who read that. My second thought was, whomever the hell Jason Bourne is, I sure AF hope he's right about Djoos.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This. People are really arguing that this doesnt happen, and doesnt influence games? it does. You have 2 evenly matched teams, and they split 6 games. 7th game is determined by something like what you mentioned (not sequentially, this could happen in any of the 7 games). That's not luck?

So...I'm to believe that the other team was better prepared and able to withstand a few of those? And the Caps can't?

Or just maybe its luck, chance, whatever, and it hasn't broken against the team more often than it has broken for them. Sure, put together a good enough team, gameplan, mental preparation, etc....and maybe the luck doesnt hurt you. But 3 Pres Trophy teams tells me thats not "it" to a certain extent, and sometimes the Cosmos just arent for you.

Just like some people win at games of chance more than others. Why, exactly? They are better prepared to win? Or are they just lucky?

You know how many dimes I would have for every person in this thread that said luck has no impact at all on games? Exactly ZERO DIMES!! seriously why does the pro-"we're screwed by bad luck" side keep repeating that nonsense? Nobody has said luck has no impact at all.

This debate is one side saying luck isn't a major reason why the Caps, specifically in the Ovy era (but really all time), haven't won a Cup, and the other side, saying it's a major factor. Now you're suggesting what, its destiny or fate? Talk about taking a leap...lol.

Caps haven't been tripping over horseshoes, but they're not exactly showing strong in game 7's either. That's not bad luck, that's heart, leadership & intestinal fortitude IMO.

 

[Ridley Simon]

You know how many dimes I would have for every person in this thread that said luck has no impact at all on games? Exactly ZERO DIMES!! seriously why does the pro-"we're screwed by bad luck" side keep repeating that nonsense? Nobody has said luck has no impact at all.

This debate is one side saying luck isn't a major reason why the Caps, specifically in the Ovy era (but really all time), haven't won a Cup, and the other side, saying it's a major factor. Now you're suggesting what, its destiny or fate? Talk about taking a leap...lol.

Caps haven't been tripping over horseshoes, but they're not exactly showing strong in game 7's either. That's not bad luck, that's heart, leadership & intestinal fortitude IMO.

You know how many dimes I would have for every person in this thread that said luck was the only impact on the games? Exactly ZERO DIMES!!! seriously why does the anti - "we're screwed by bad luck" side keep repeating that nonsense? Nobody has said luck was the only impact.

This goes both ways, boyo.

Luck is certainly a factor, and it's a pretty large one, IMO, when it pertains to some of the Caps playoff failures...especially against the Pens. But it's not the only one. I think it's been worse for the last 2 years vs the Pens than at other times. I also do not dismiss that the Caps have failed in game 7's for reasons other than luck. It's true, the seem to choke on that stage. BUT, if they had even a smidgen of puck luck beforehand, they wouldn't have needed to be in game 7.

We all see what we want to see.

 

[HTFN]

You know how many dimes I would have for every person in this thread that said luck was the only impact on the games? Exactly ZERO DIMES!!! seriously why does the anti - "we're screwed by bad luck" side keep repeating that nonsense? Nobody has said luck was the only impact.

This goes both ways, boyo.

Luck is certainly a factor, and it's a pretty large one, IMO, when it pertains to some of the Caps playoff failures...especially against the Pens. But it's not the only one. I think it's been worse for the last 2 years vs the Pens than at other times. I also do not dismiss that the Caps have failed in game 7's for reasons other than luck. It's true, the seem to choke on that stage. BUT, if they had even a smidgen of puck luck beforehand, they wouldn't have needed to be in game 7.

We all see what we want to see.

Which is what "you create your own luck" really means. You can blame it on luck, or you can find ways to own the scenario and improve moving forward. The Capitals don't do that.

 

[Holtbyisms]

I'm actually more excited about this season than the last two...I felt like through the regular season we were just going through the motions to get to the playoffs. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed us winning a lot of games but at the same time the regular season didn't feel real to me anymore. They were all like exhibition games. I just didn't care. As awesome as the team was they were probably some of the least exciting seasons of my life as a Caps fan. I'm looking forward to getting back to feeling like the regular season matters again and hopefully battling through some adversity.