The idea that "they can't make any changes, it worked last game" is pretty logically flawed. Coach to beat the team in front of you, not the team in your rear view mirror.
If you have a box that has a 80% chance of having a $100 bill inside, and a box that has a 20% chance of having a $100 bill inside, are you really going to pick the 20% box again just because you got lucky on the last selection?
I feel like this is one of those things that has more to do with superstition and not wanting to be wrong than actually properly analyzing the situation. I don't see how to reasonably argue that the team has a better chance of winning without DeAngelo, other than "it worked last time" which isn't convincing.
Like your analogy. Or, plain and simply put "that would take balls", and being opened up to 2nd guessing, should they lose.
Which would be wrong on so many accounts.
1. He said his punishment was over. So, play him.
2. If he is worried about the press 2nd guessing him, he TRULY needs to be fired. You dont base your decisions on what others think.
3. Wouldnt be a bad thing to sit JJ. True he didnt play badly, but he shouldnt be overworked......he's hockey OLD. Lol.
4. Tony is just plain better, brings more to the ice, and GOD knows, our PP hasnt been clicking.
5. Again, dare I say.....had it been Fox/Lindgren/Panarin or any other significant Ranger......would he have benched him? Not entirely sure that he would have.
P.S. Players DO NEED to take into account no fans.......cussing at refs, slamming doors etc. ALL can be heard much easier, and 2 minutes to go with it. I mean, did you hear that door slam? Wow. Harder than his shot!