So, because they are doing something different, they are the best? No experience necessary - you are the best at what you do, just because you choose not to follow the example of people who know what they're doing!
And you don't overrate championships? Interesting. What, pray tell, is the measuring stick that should be employed if not attaining the pinnacle of your sport? Which, by the way, is EXACTLY what every GM will tell you is their goal at the start of EVERY season.
If that is how you employ your prized critical thinking skills, you may want to ask Dumbass Community College for your money back.
- Tonybere

Championships are routinely overrated. There is a ton of luck involved in actually winning, so if you can build a team that successfully competes for a long time (Chicago, St.Louis, San Jose, LA, Pittsburgh, Boston in the last 6-8 years) then that is better than a one-off Championship.

I mean, obviously as a fan it's more fun to win it all, but I think smart people know that if they follow the right process and don't focus too much on the results that they'll do better in the long run. Mock it all you want, this is the way you do things if you want to do them right.

This doesn't mean you don't care about winning, it just means that you aren't going to call Randy Carlyle a better coach than Bruce Boudreau just because Carlyle happens to have a Cup. I think most people - maybe not those commenting - get this.

And no one is saying change for the sake of change is smart. However, being progressive and mixing in proven techniques from other industries when you have absolute proof that the so called classic way of doing things isn't the optimal way of doing them is just common sense, so I salute fully all teams moving to a heavily analytical approach.

We have tons of studies that show how scouts rate players and how they are perceived and the difference in their performance. Identifying this and working towards a solution is intelligent.

Hockey's bias against measuring results and making decisions based on that information is complete insanity to anyone in any outside industry. It's bizarre that people actually argue eye test vs analytics.

No different from some people assuming the earth is flat.

that is the furthest thing from the truth. Roy constantly says he does not have final say over the roster. Sakic and McFarland do. I know you dont follow the team so you wouldnt know that, but the blind people have for Roy is incredible. Sakic is not running the team into the ground. He has been a very average to sometimes good GM.

Just people like to hit up this LOLorado story line without actually taking the time to look into the moves they have done in the past 2 years.

This offseason, they lock up their own RFAs, they hire 2 up and coming coaches in eric veilleux to coach the rampage, and hire Nolan Pratt to work with the D in Colorado. They sign good value guys in Tutyin, Weircoich, and Colborne to help with their shot suppressing issues. But nope its Colorado stinks, they dont know what they are doing.

I just cant stand the lazy efforts some writers take in tryign to speak about my team. You dont have to like them, but at least take a ltitle time and effort in researching them instead of just throwing something out there and standing behind its my word so its correct narrative.
- DDM-Coga

I don't know why you think three replacement level players and some assistant coaches are going to be the difference. If Sakic ever makes a good move, or if Roy ever appears to not be the worst coach in the league, I'll be the first one to apologize to you.

I actually like most of their big name players, so I hope they do good.

Benning isnt the worst but he has had some highs and lows with him. When hes hit, its been nice, but he has has some really bad misses too but whatever.

I get it, Benning is hockey twitters running joke so its tiring to see it at times. Its like what Av fans have to deal with Patrick Roy. Pot shots all the time bc people just dont like him in gernal so they just move that hate onto the Avs.
- DDM-Coga

I will rip anyone who trades Bonino for Sutter or a 19 yr old C for a terrible defenseman who might have had a good career in the 90s/

I don't know why you think three replacement level players and some assistant coaches are going to be the difference. If Sakic ever makes a good move, or if Roy ever appears to not be the worst coach in the league, I'll be the first one to apologize to you.

I actually like most of their big name players, so I hope they do good.
- James_Tanner

when one of the biggest issues with the team is quality depth, and they really addressed that with the D signings (even as underwhelming as they were) will make a difference. How can you not think that changing a D core of Johnson, Barrie, Beauchemin, Holden, Guenin, Bodnarchuk, Redmond to Johnson, Barrie, Beauchemin, Zadorov, Gelinas, Weiroich, Tyutin, Bigras/Siemens is not an upgrade....especially since everyone is still writing how the Avs need Defensive upgrades. They turned over 1/2 of their dcore from last year

You cant honestly sit there and say that the ROR trade wasnt a good move. Avs couldnt afford him and he didnt want to be with the team. But whatever you have made up your mind on the Avs and the management group already, even if they were a power house you still wouldn't give them credit as it would be admitting you were wrong.

Championships are routinely overrated. There is a ton of luck involved in actually winning, so if you can build a team that successfully competes for a long time (Chicago, St.Louis, San Jose, LA, Pittsburgh, Boston in the last 6-8 years) then that is better than a one-off Championship.

I mean, obviously as a fan it's more fun to win it all, but I think smart people know that if they follow the right process and don't focus too much on the results that they'll do better in the long run. Mock it all you want, this is the way you do things if you want to do them right.

This doesn't mean you don't care about winning, it just means that you aren't going to call Randy Carlyle a better coach than Bruce Boudreau just because Carlyle happens to have a Cup. I think most people - maybe not those commenting - get this.

And no one is saying change for the sake of change is smart. However, being progressive and mixing in proven techniques from other industries when you have absolute proof that the so called classic way of doing things isn't the optimal way of doing them is just common sense, so I salute fully all teams moving to a heavily analytical approach.

We have tons of studies that show how scouts rate players and how they are perceived and the difference in their performance. Identifying this and working towards a solution is intelligent.

Hockey's bias against measuring results and making decisions based on that information is complete insanity to anyone in any outside industry. It's bizarre that people actually argue eye test vs analytics.

No different from some people assuming the earth is flat.
- James_Tanner

I agree with some of your thoughts here.
But, saying that Championships are overrated because a team can get a lucky win is oversimplifying... a lot.
Yes, there have been teams that were lucky to win the Cup. But, if you produced a spreadsheet of all the Cup winners over the last century (and I know you want to), much more often than not the winners would be an example of a team that was built on solid principles. Thus making championships ONE of the metrics that should be used to measure success.
Same goes for calling Arizona's GM one of the best in the league. He has done next to nothing at this point. I'm not saying they have made a mistake. And I'm not saying he won't be successful. But, labelling him as one of the best in the league today is ridiculous. People could have watched Alexandre Daigle in his first weeks in the league and touted him as one of the best players in a generation. I'm not sure I would listen to that person after that.

This post makes me question every opinion I've read of yours in the past, and usuallly thought were intelligent and thought provoking arguments; LS is that bad imo. Luke Schenn should not be on the ice for a decent NHL team. His arrival and the subsequent benching of Mcbain ended the King's dominant portion of the season. There is one former Kings right handed dman AZ added that I wish we kept, and it is not Schenn haha. Schenn's passing was so painful to watch (Scuderi was better with the puck), he was undisciplined, and he just brought nothing to the team minus a few hits. Mcbain has his faults, but at least he knows his role and is a very good breakout passer. Signing Schenn is not something I'd have expected from this new GM.

I will rip anyone who trades Bonino for Sutter or a 19 yr old C for a terrible defenseman who might have had a good career in the 90s/
- James_Tanner

Gudbranson's...the guy that plays against all the other teams best players...yeah...he sucks....Dale Tallon and company are (frank)ing clueless I guess.

The team I root for hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1975. I can't wait for the day when hopefully they win another Cup so I can say "Ah Championships are overrated!"

The team I root for hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1975. I can't wait for the day when hopefully they win another Cup so I can say "Ah Championships are overrated!"
- MJL

With ya on that one.

I do find it very interesting that guys like Schenn and Polak have been signed by "innovative" GM's, while under the radar analytic darlings like Rundblad don't have offers.

Is it reputation, or is it the fact that even guys like Chayka or Dubas realize that maybe they bring something to a 3rd pair that others don't.

The team I root for hasn't won a Stanley Cup since 1975. I can't wait for the day when hopefully they win another Cup so I can say "Ah Championships are overrated!"
- MJL

I'm sad that my fav team fired let their analytics guy walk... I think it means we are not eligible for the 'Analytics Cup'
I always dream of them hoisting that imaginary cup and taking a photo with their stats.

I'm sad that my fav team fired let their analytics guy walk... I think it means we are not eligible for the 'Analytics Cup'
I always dream of them hoisting that imaginary cup and taking a photo with their stats.
- mlindsay

Your team has never won the Corsi Cup? Much better than the 24 Stanley Cups the Habs have won.

Your team has never won the Corsi Cup? Much better than the 24 Stanley Cups the Habs have won.
- MJL

The President's Cup/Trophy is actually where it's at, it's soooooo much harder to win that over an 82 game schedule than winning the Stanley Cup over 18 to 20 games!

The President's Cup/Trophy is actually where it's at, it's soooooo much harder to win that over an 82 game schedule than winning the Stanley Cup over 18 to 20 games!
- LeftCoaster

Very, very true. Much bigger sample size. Eliminates any outliers. The process is much more important than the actual results.

Very, very true. Much bigger sample size. Eliminates any outliers. The process is much more important than the actual results.
- MJL

To fans it's not, but to evaluate GM's coaches and players, James is right.

The 90's Bills are one of the best dynasties of all time. Does Scott Norwood missing one kick take that away?

If the Hawks had lost all the cup finals they were in, the only thing outside of the championships that would be different would be Jonathon Toews, Corey Crawford, and Brent Seabrook making less money. They would still be a very good organization.

It's a combination of luck, and talent that ultimately wins

To fans it's not, but to evaluate GM's coaches and players, James is right.

The 90's Bills are one of the best dynasties of all time. Does Scott Norwood missing one kick take that away?

If the Hawks had lost all the cup finals they were in, the only thing outside of the championships that would be different would be Jonathon Toews, Corey Crawford, and Brent Seabrook making less money. They would still be a very good organization.

It's a combination of luck, and talent that ultimately wins
- sbroads24

I would completely disagree. It's a results oriented business. GM's that have a good process and don't win, get fired.

I do find it very interesting that guys like Schenn and Polak have been signed by "innovative" GM's, while under the radar analytic darlings like Rundblad don't have offers.

Is it reputation, or is it the fact that even guys like Chayka or Dubas realize that maybe they bring something to a 3rd pair that others don't.
- sbroads24

It's a good question, complicated by the fact that both teams have guys on their management teams who are pretty old-school. I think teams need to have guys with a range of skill-sets and ages, and they also need depth players.

Polak was signed by Toronto to be basically an assistant coach - he'll be a leader and he'll sit in the press-box most nights.

Schenn is a different thing altogether because he's younger and potentially has some upside. But essentially, he's a depth move as well.

Not to mention that you never really know what teams are looking for. Yeah, those are analytic based teams (or thought to be) but they aren't exactly sharing their information.

I would completely disagree. It's a results oriented business. GM's that have a good process and don't win, get fired.
- MJL

Just because that's what happens doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do.

I agree, it's results oriented, but if luck doesn't play a factor, why doesn't the President's trophy team win the cup every season?

The Ducks situation is different, they routinely underachieved in the post season.

But should a GM get fired because his team had injuries in the postseason or had a goalie fall apart? If you built a team full of injury prone players maybe

The President's Cup/Trophy is actually where it's at, it's soooooo much harder to win that over an 82 game schedule than winning the Stanley Cup over 18 to 20 games!
- LeftCoaster

I know you think you're being funny, but you're actually right. It's not that it's "harder" it's the over 82 games skill will eventually beat out luck.

If anyone really can't wrap their head around the fact that luck and variance are going to have bigger impacts in small tournaments, I don't really know what to say. Enjoy your Duck Dynasty marathon, I guess.

I would completely disagree. It's a results oriented business. GM's that have a good process and don't win, get fired.
- MJL

You're right that it's a "results oriented business" but the owners who hire and fire GMs and the GMs who hire and fire coaches are just as misinformed as your average fan, most of the time.

Case in point: Bruce Boudreau. He is like 1-7 in game sevens. In those games, his goalies have a save percentage over 100 points lower than the teams that beat him. But to those who insist on results over process, he's a guy who can't win the big game. Even though, objectively speaking, that is idiotic.

You're right that it's a "results oriented business" but the owners who hire and fire GMs and the GMs who hire and fire coaches are just as misinformed as your average fan, most of the time.

Case in point: Bruce Boudreau. He is like 1-7 in game sevens. In those games, his goalies have a save percentage over 100 points lower than the teams that beat him. But to those who insist on results over process, he's a guy who can't win the big game. Even though, objectively speaking, that is idiotic.
- James_Tanner

While I agree with what you are saying, how many of those series have the Ducks been the higher seed, and how many should they have closed out before it went to 7 games?

Eventually you have to make a change in certain situations.

To fans it's not, but to evaluate GM's coaches and players, James is right.

The 90's Bills are one of the best dynasties of all time. Does Scott Norwood missing one kick take that away?

If the Hawks had lost all the cup finals they were in, the only thing outside of the championships that would be different would be Jonathon Toews, Corey Crawford, and Brent Seabrook making less money. They would still be a very good organization.

It's a combination of luck, and talent that ultimately wins
- sbroads24

Exactly. To go to four straight Super Bowls is harder than winning just one random Super Bowl. One of the best teams of all-time, but they are a punch line. Why? Because it's a results oriented business. It's unjust, it's stupid, but it's the truth.

Why do you think there's only ever been a dozen or so musical artists that are both the most popular and critically acclaimed? It's not because the general public is super smart and has great taste! But it sure as hell doesn't mean that Michael Bolton is "an artist."

Just because that's what happens doesn't mean it's necessarily the right thing to do.

I agree, it's results oriented, but if luck doesn't play a factor, why doesn't the President's trophy team win the cup every season?

The Ducks situation is different, they routinely underachieved in the post season.

But should a GM get fired because his team had injuries in the postseason or had a goalie fall apart? If you built a team full of injury prone players maybe
- sbroads24

I didn't state that luck doesn't play a factor. A GM normally gets more than one season to produce.

While I agree with what you are saying, how many of those series have the Ducks been the higher seed, and how many should they have closed out before it went to 7 games?

Eventually you have to make a change in certain situations.
- sbroads24

I would say it's 100% completely random. Eventually, over the course of 100 years of NHL hockey, there mathematically has to be a guy goes 1-7 in games sevens and doesn't deserve to have had that record.

I mean, given the parity in the NHL, at worst he should be 3-5.

But people don't want to admit the role that luck plays in life, because if they do, they have to start asking whether they earned what they have, which they didn't. Not really. Luck is the biggest factor in everything. I mean, what did I do to be born in the safest place in the world at the peak of human civilization to intelligent caring parents? What did I do to earn the ability to remember almost everything I read and thus be able to pass tests with ease?

Not saying I didn't have to work hard to get where I am, but I had a lot a lot a lot of help. If we recognized this on a larger scale, I think we'd all be much nicer to each other.

You're right that it's a "results oriented business" but the owners who hire and fire GMs and the GMs who hire and fire coaches are just as misinformed as your average fan, most of the time.

Case in point: Bruce Boudreau. He is like 1-7 in game sevens. In those games, his goalies have a save percentage over 100 points lower than the teams that beat him. But to those who insist on results over process, he's a guy who can't win the big game. Even though, objectively speaking, that is idiotic.
- James_Tanner

Owners sometimes have a different agenda than just winning. You fail to account for that. I think you're completely wrong in stating that GM's are just as misinformed as the average fan, most of the time.

One coach firing doesn't prove anything. James, have you ever thought of throwing your name into the hat for a GM job? You know so much about how to use analytics, and know that GM's are misinformed. You could set them all straight.