Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

26
BlueinNy wrote:
barnburner wrote:Everyone has a right to their opinion, but no amount of stats is ever going to change what I see with my own eyes. Shatty, Doughty and Keith, despite the closeness in stats, are without a doubt, clearly superior to Petro offensively. Ask yourselves, if it's the 7th game of the finals in the final minute, which one of those four dmen, do you want to have control of the puck? I think most hockey fans will have Petro at the bottom of the list.
My guess is a lot of Petros points come off secondary assists, while the other three make more immediate contributions with primary assists and goals scored.
jmo.
This all day and twice on Sunday.

If I'm down a goal in that situation I want Shatty on the ice. If I'm up a goal or tied I want Petro. (Assuming Keith and Doughty aren't available for either :D )
...but whatever, the Blues won the Cup!!!!!

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

27
NHLTIM wrote:
UMSLBlues12 wrote:
NHLTIM wrote:I really don't want to see this place turn into another Petro vs Shatty bitch session. It was never about Petro vs Shatty to me. You can quote all the advanced metrics that you want because I really don't give a shit about advanced metrics. What I want to see is something that I can see with my own freaking eyes and that would be that our #1 dman step up and make a difference for this team when it counts and that's at both ends of the ice not just in the defensive zone, or because he moves the puck up the ice well, or he is a stud because of his DZS....whatever. In order for us to advance in the playoffs, Petro, more than anybody else on this roster has got to be that guy. If we are going to advance to the conf finals or the final, the media should be mentioning Petro's name as a potential Conn Smythe winner around that same time. We don't need advanced stats to tell us or show us that, each and every one of you that watches hockey will know.
I don't disagree with this...but since when is points per game an advanced metric? :lol:
I wasn't actually referring to you and I should have pointed that out. This is in regards to months and months of discussion, mainly at the other board. I've seen so much stuff on advanced metrics since October that I'm just burned out on the mention of the word "metrics". Don't even get me started on "Defensive Zone Starts"...that's a whole other issue!
Haha, no I hear you. It seems like much of the hockey world isn't using them much anymore either...when Corsi and all that first came out it seemed like every article mentioned it, now you don't see it talked about that much anymore. Or maybe I'm just not paying as much attention.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

28
UMSLBlues12 wrote: I'm not going to go through and do the other guys because I really don't care to belabor this point anymore. I'm just going to leave it by saying all of our biased eyes can lie, but the hard numbers like this dont.
You know what doesn't lie? The eye test. Goals, assists, primary assists, it's all difficult to determine an exact opinion from black-and-white statistics (should scoring a PP goal against the team with the best PK in the league mean more than an empty-net goal against Columbus? what about getting points against playoff teams as opposed to cellar dwellers? what about GWG? should points count more or less depending on the system of hockey the team implements? What about facing back-up goaltenders instead of true #1's? I could go on and on...)

Keith and Doughty score more than half a point a game but both of their teams have more goal scorers throughout their lineup than the Blues. You could argue if they were on teams that had less total offense they would likely put up more points (the Andy Murray-Lee Stempniak-Brad Boyes effect).

The truth is the stats show that Petro isn't better than Shattenkirk offensively (I believe your point was that it is a wash), and yet I'm pretty sure none of us would have Petro quarterbacking the first power play unit on this team. Case closed. As someone else said, if you need a goal you're going to want Shattenkirk on the ice, and Petro on the ice if you're looking to turtle. Both players can occasionally equal their counterparts in the other zone, but they are pretty much opposite players in terms of philosophy.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

30
UMSLBlues12 wrote:
Look, I don't want to keep belaboring this point, but this kind of information is readily available on nhl.com, and again your assumption would be wrong.

Primary assists
2011-2012: Petro 21 Shatty 17
2012-2013: Petro 10 Shatty 7
2013-2014: Petro 24 Shatty 12
2014-2015: Petro 16 Shatty 18 (Shatty only played 56 games here, so this season is very much impressive for him)
2015-2016: Petro 14 Shatty 14

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?reportT ... d=19&pos=D

I'm not going to go through and do the other guys because I really don't care to belabor this point anymore. I'm just going to leave it by saying all of our biased eyes can lie, but the hard numbers like this dont.
Clearly I was wrong about the stats. Yes, biased eyes can lie, but so can stats. For stats to be irrefutable, these players would have to play with, and against the same players all the time, have identical icetime, same pk and pp time, etc.
I suspect neither of us is gong to change our minds, and that's ok, because I know I'm right. :D :D

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

31
army has had several opportunities to address this organization's glaring issues. he has not done so. yes, you don't change an org overnight, and he inherited some degree of shit, but i don't see why he gets a pass. if this team (including staff) doesn't look very different by draft day, he should go.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

32
His teams don't do well in the playoffs. Looking at the 07 - 08 season when he was ousted from DAL, they actually turned it around after his departure - coincidence? The coach's voice gets old after a while. The GM has to step in every now and then to wake the boys back up. I don't think Army is that guy and I don't think he is good at picking coaches or leaning on them when they don't get it done. Ultimately, he is responsible for not putting together a winning team from Hitch down to Bert.

He and Hitch have overstayed their welcome.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

33
He's had plenty of time and still hasn't addressed the team's continual need for scoring. He's a perpetual BS master who will say anything and not actually mean it.

Hitch and the coaching staff should have been canned after last season and weren't. I used to support him. Not any longer.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

35
UMSLBlues12 wrote:On topic...
I think Army has to go because I don't think he fires Hitch. And I really think we need a new coach.

Slightly off topic...
Sorry, I hate to go off on this here, but in no way is Petro an "offensive dissappointment" and in no way is Shatty better than him. Did you watch how bad Shatty was while Petro was out?

Player 1: Kevin Shattenkirk: Career .59 points per game.

Player 2: Alex Pietrangelo: Career .55 points per game.

Player 3: Drew Doughty: Career .52 points per game.

Player 4: Duncan Keith: Career .55 points per game.

Its amazing how a .04 difference in points per game (3 points over 82 games) can make one player be this offensively gifted dynamic guy and make the other player an "offensive disappointment" among other things he's been called here. Especially when 49% of Player 1's points have come on the power play, compared to only 33% of Player 2's. Also amazing how its said "I wish Petro was a solid two way guy like Player's 3 and 4 but he's not as good offensively" while he has similar PPG measurements as them, playing for a team that we all know has struggled to score goals most of his career here, and certainly isn't boasting guys (besides 91) to pass the puck to like Kopitar, Carter, Kane, or Toews.

Player 2 scores at a higher pace (for his entire career, including this year) at even strength than Player 1, while playing against other team's best players, yet he is an "offensive disappointment."

I seriously don't know what so many people here have against the guy, sure he's not Erik Karlsson (neither is Shatty) but jeez lets get off this myth that he's not a good offensive player.
Are all these stats 5v5 EV?

http://hockeysimplified.blogspot.com/20 ... teams.html

I'd rather have Shattenkirk than Pietrangelo.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

36
Keep Petro and Shatty and dump Jaybo. I'd like to see these younger guys perform under a different coaching staff before sending them adrift. Jaybo is the fat contract guy who I'd move before his speed is gone... because when that happens, it ain't gonna be pretty.
As far as Army... I don't think he's in danger at all. He's one of the most respected GMs in the game. If his team doesn't make a run this year, he'll have to dump Hitch one way or the other. I think that a lot of his tweaking of the roster come by request of his coach, and it's up to his coach to make good use of those players. I have no doubt in my mind that this is Hitch's last playoff chance to make a deep run with the Blues, but I think Army will leave here on his own terms.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

37
NHLTIM wrote:Army has held onto those picks and prospects for now but that doesn't mean he won't revisit the same trades over the summer and still end up trading those picks or prospects before the draft.
If he trades that first for Drouin, no problems. He can actually do that right now, but Drouin can't play in the playoffs. I'd do it, because Drouin is still very young, and you wont get his kind of talent picking where the Blues pick.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

38
BluesSK wrote:He's had plenty of time and still hasn't addressed the team's continual need for scoring. He's a perpetual BS master who will say anything and not actually mean it.
Except that the Blues were #5 overall in the NHL last year in goal scoring, and #6 overall the year before. The problem isn't that we CAN'T score, it's that we DON'T in the playoffs. We were comfortable enough with the scoring that we traded TJ Oshie (A move roundly celebrated, even here, to 'shake up the team' and 'break up the boy-band') for guy we knew wouldn't score as much, but brought other things (and I'm a Brouwer fan, BTW).

I know it's frustrating, but if we had a full season of Schwartz (65 games) instead of just his 17 games so far, he'd be our #2 goal scorer behind Tarasenko and #3 in points, behind Tarasenko and Steen. He'd likely have 19 goals so far, instead of just 4 (5 as of just now, actually!). Take his extra 14 goals, and subtract Gomez, Havlat and Paajarvi entirely (4 goals total) since they wouldn't be needed, and guess what? We're in the top-10 in league-wide scoring again.

Heck, Berglund has 5 goals in 25 games. Pro-rate that to 65 games, and that's 9 more goals. That puts us back in the top 5.

(Fabbri has been doing unexpectedly well, but Jaskin has taken a step back. That kind of balances out, so I kinda consider that a wash.)

I don't think any of those is a stretch, or a statistical anomaly. Schwartz has been one of our top scorers for several years now, and even Berglund has been good for a dozen plus goals in that time, too.

Honestly, I'm not worried about the quantity of scoring, but whether we can do it in the playoffs or not.

(BTW, Schwartz' scoring tonight is throwing my numbers off a bit, but I think the general idea still holds true, within a goal or two. GO BLUES!)

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

39
I can’t claim to be adept at evaluating a GM's performance on a day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month basis, but when I look at where this team was four or five years ago and where they are now, I conclude that DA has not done well. It has been clear for a couple years that they’re not good enough to make a run, yet he has maintained the status quo. I keep hearing people argue that there are no moves to be made that will get them over the top. The ’16 trade deadline is the perfect example. He gets a pass for standing pat because there were no sensible moves to be made, but this viewpoint is getting old. If he’s constantly handcuffed, is it not his fault for putting the team in a position of zero maneuverability?

Also, if your team is not good enough to make a run, and there is limited capacity for improvement from within, and there are no good options for improvement via player acquisition, then guess what: It's time to rebuild. I’m not talking massive overhaul, but the team has for a couple of years been in a position where they probably need to take a step backward before they can take 2 steps forward. Had they recognized this when it became obvious, perhaps by now they’d be on their way.

So how did they get into this position? I am of the opinion that DA has done a poor job of valuating players. If you listed every incoming and/or outgoing player during the DA years and made a graph for each one showing that player’s trade value throughout his career, I image there would be clear evidence that DA has failed at buying low and selling high. For example, if he had recognized in ’09 or ’10 that David Perron wasn’t going to be much of a difference maker and traded DP then, I’m guessing you could have landed a better return than Magnus Paajarvi. And what about now? Their best prospects - Parayko, Edmunson, Fabbri, Barbashev, Schmaltz, etc. – all show some promise. Each has trade value, and you could make an argument that any of them could be on the trade table for the right return. You have to give value to get value, and moving any one of them right now would be considered “selling high.” Perfect example is Ty Ratti. I recall a couple of years ago he was a target for teams looking to deal with the Blues, and DA felt Ratti was too much to ask for. He held onto Ratti and I venture to say that Ratti’s trade value will never reach the level it was at 2 years ago. I understand that it's difficult to move entry-level guys for players who make much more money, but again, isn't salary cap maneuverability (of which they have very little) within his purview as well?

Finally there is the excuse that the team has had really bad luck with injuries. I’m calling bullshit. Considering the physics of hockey, how anyone can say avoiding injuries is a matter of luck is beyond me. I’ve read that the Blues have lost significantly more player games to injury this year than other teams, but this seems to be the case every year. Are they cursed year in and year out or are they doing something wrong? Perhaps they are investing in players without adequately considering durability. Perhaps there is an issue with conditioning or training. Perhaps their style of play is conducive to injury. I don’t know the answer, but it’s gone on too long to call it bad luck.

DA has shown a lot of faith in the group that he has. I believe this is a mistake and would be thrilled to be wrong about this.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

42
insideout wrote:So how did they get into this position? I am of the opinion that DA has done a poor job of valuating players. If you listed every incoming and/or outgoing player during the DA years and made a graph for each one showing that player’s trade value throughout his career, I image there would be clear evidence that DA has failed at buying low and selling high. For example, if he had recognized in ’09 or ’10 that David Perron wasn’t going to be much of a difference maker and traded DP then, I’m guessing you could have landed a better return than Magnus Paajarvi. And what about now? Their best prospects - Parayko, Edmunson, Fabbri, Barbashev, Schmaltz, etc. – all show some promise. Each has trade value, and you could make an argument that any of them could be on the trade table for the right return. You have to give value to get value, and moving any one of them right now would be considered “selling high.” Perfect example is Ty Ratti. I recall a couple of years ago he was a target for teams looking to deal with the Blues, and DA felt Ratti was too much to ask for. He held onto Ratti and I venture to say that Ratti’s trade value will never reach the level it was at 2 years ago. I understand that it's difficult to move entry-level guys for players who make much more money, but again, isn't salary cap maneuverability (of which they have very little) within his purview as well?
This is essentially verbatim how I feel. Poor asset management. Chris Stewart is another example of a guy he moved at probably his lowest value. TJ Oshie is another example. Not only could he have moved Oshie a year earlier and gotten more, he could have moved him last trade deadline and gotten Eriksson+; now Loui's value went back up and we didn't have the assets to acquire the guy as a rental in a deal that made sense.

I get that a lot of this is second guessing, hindsight is 20/20, etc, but you'd think at least a few of his moves would work out better.

Re: The case vs. Doug Armstrong

43
UMSLBlues12 wrote:
insideout wrote:So how did they get into this position? I am of the opinion that DA has done a poor job of valuating players. If you listed every incoming and/or outgoing player during the DA years and made a graph for each one showing that player’s trade value throughout his career, I image there would be clear evidence that DA has failed at buying low and selling high. For example, if he had recognized in ’09 or ’10 that David Perron wasn’t going to be much of a difference maker and traded DP then, I’m guessing you could have landed a better return than Magnus Paajarvi. And what about now? Their best prospects - Parayko, Edmunson, Fabbri, Barbashev, Schmaltz, etc. – all show some promise. Each has trade value, and you could make an argument that any of them could be on the trade table for the right return. You have to give value to get value, and moving any one of them right now would be considered “selling high.” Perfect example is Ty Ratti. I recall a couple of years ago he was a target for teams looking to deal with the Blues, and DA felt Ratti was too much to ask for. He held onto Ratti and I venture to say that Ratti’s trade value will never reach the level it was at 2 years ago. I understand that it's difficult to move entry-level guys for players who make much more money, but again, isn't salary cap maneuverability (of which they have very little) within his purview as well?
This is essentially verbatim how I feel. Poor asset management. Chris Stewart is another example of a guy he moved at probably his lowest value. TJ Oshie is another example. Not only could he have moved Oshie a year earlier and gotten more, he could have moved him last trade deadline and gotten Eriksson+; now Loui's value went back up and we didn't have the assets to acquire the guy as a rental in a deal that made sense.

I get that a lot of this is second guessing, hindsight is 20/20, etc, but you'd think at least a few of his moves would work out better.
Exactly. A lot of his individual moves seem sensible at the time they're made, but when you look at the big picture in terms of asset management, you see a net loss. To his credit, the one "sale" that panned out really well (if it was indeed his call) was Runblad.