I was just thinking this morning. I was excited and nostalgic and happy when Trotz was announced as Poile’s successor. Then we landed some names. Everything on paper was exciting. What a cluster f***.
Speculation: Armchair GM Thread
- Thread starter Scoresberg
- Start date
Not a good time to be an NHL or NFL fan in Nashville. Does anyone truly believe that either GM has the ability to either select draft picks, make intelligent trades, pick the right coach, or recruit top notch free agents? I know I for one have no confidence in Trotz or Carthon to make correct decisions.
My daughter says that Poile was the "Architect of Mediocrity".
Trotz could be the "Bringer of Doom" in my book!
Mr Doom? Dr Doom? The End of all Things (Holy or Good)?
Why not keep Novak? He is smaller, not overly physical and not that fleet of foot.
I thought that Bruno is minimizing this roster? That is why the Preds are in 31st / 32nd place!
Bringer of Jollity
Registered User
Hell, I'm not sure I'll be above ground by then at the rate things are currently going.
You know the old saying.Hell, I'm not sure I'll be above ground by then at the rate things are currently going.
If Hell freezes over, we will play hockey down there too.
(The flip side is that Kronwall will be down there on the other team!)
BigFatCat999
First Fubu and now Pred303. !@#$! you cancer
Scoresberg
Perpetual Mediocrity
In terms of analytics, there's actually a bunch of data that indicates that we've been really unlucky this year and it could very well turn around anytime soon.
Our PDO (the luck metric of hockey, if you will) is .970, which is the lowest of the league by a healthy margin. 5v5 shooting percentage is 5.79%, which is historically low as well.
Also, in terms of xGF%, we're hovering around league average whereas our GF% is, again, league-low by a good margin.
Add to that Saros' good play to start the year and I do think we'll turn this around at some point, just enough to dodge a top-pick at the draft. I'd say 8-11 is the range we'll end up.
Predsanddead24
Registered User
- Mar 7, 2019
- 6,076
- 7,039
Essentially each of those stats is just an indicator of the same thing which is that we have a low shooting percentage. Which I suppose there is a decent argument that guys like Stamkos and Forsberg will eventually revert to the mean and shots will stop dropping. However, I’ve never really found any argument around shooting percentage all that compelling at the individual season level. Analytics are all well and good but watching our games I don’t see all that many that we’ve lost that we should have won whether or not the fancy stats say we should be winning more on aggregate.
Scoresberg
Perpetual Mediocrity
Yeah, something tells me that Forsberg's, Stamkos' and Marchessault's 22-goal paces will start to improve and we'll start winning games.
Predsanddead24
Registered User
- Mar 7, 2019
- 6,076
- 7,039
Maybe but it’s not like we’ve never seen teams vacillate between being high scoring and low scoring in consecutive seasons. Just look at the difference between the 21-22 team and the 22-23 team that was mostly the same guys.
Armourboy
Hey! We suck!
Not to mention the other night showed that just because we score doesn't mean we are going to win. Sure we scored 4, but we gave up 5. Just because those guys start scoring doesn't mean we start winning.
Your post is more proof that those made up stats are pretty much useless. If it’s not a hard stat like goals for, goals against, wins and losses, then it’s just a unicorn fart or pixie dust.
XGF%. Who exactly expected it to be a goal, Mary and her little lamb or Superman?
Scoresberg
Perpetual Mediocrity
Are shooting and save percentages considered ”hard stats”?
Bringer of Jollity
Registered User
I dread the day hockey goes full advanced stats...it ruins baseball discussion. Counting stats that have been "meaningful" for 100 years become irrelevant (e.g. RBIs...yes, it is a flawed and contextual stat) and all player discussion and comparison boils down to who has the higher WAR.
The reason that happened, to the extent it did, is that the highly paid management types figured out that WAR correlated more closely with winning games than the old stats. It's that simple. Hockey is behind baseball in that regard (and the game doesn't lend itself as well to quantifying in that way) but there's no shame in attempting to better spend your limited resources.
