HockeyBuzz Hotstove: Which Central Division team has had the best off-season to date?

Wait... Tanner, are you imploring that Alex Kerfoot is an impact player?

Because that's straight up false. It's not even debatable.

Tanner

James Tanner thinks the Blues aren’t that good.

Just pointing that out.

Go away Tanner

Wait... Tanner, are you imploring that Alex Kerfoot is an impact player?

Because that's straight up false. It's not even debatable.
- Lato649

How is it not debatable?

Alexander Kerfoot was one of the best defensive forwards in the NHL last season and put up a bonus 40 ish points. That's an impact equal to a first line scorer. Many people, myself included, thought he should have won the Selke.

Agree or don't, at the very least it's debatable.

James Tanner thinks the Blues aren’t that good.

Just pointing that out.
- isles10289

The Blues are one of a dozen OK teams that could have won the Cup. They are the worst champion since the 08 Ducks.

It's a nice story, but a team that went from last place to winning the Cup should make you cynical. They lead the NHL in 5v5 shooting percentage in the playoffs, and their rookie goalie - a player not even really considered a top prospect - went off on an insane run.

Alexander Kerfoot was one of the best defensive forwards in the NHL last season and put up a bonus 40 ish points. That's an impact equal to a first line scorer. Many people, myself included, thought he should have won the Selke.

I've seen Kerfoot play many times both in person as well as on tv. He should not even be in the conversation for the Selke. To assert otherwise is ridiculous.

The Blues are one of a dozen OK teams that could have won the Cup. They are the worst champion since the 08 Ducks.

It's a nice story, but a team that went from last place to winning the Cup should make you cynical. They lead the NHL in 5v5 shooting percentage in the playoffs, and their rookie goalie - a player not even really considered a top prospect - went off on an insane run.
- James_Tanner

Ducks were the 2007 season by the way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/..._of_Stanley_Cup_champions

The Blues are one of a dozen OK teams that could have won the Cup. They are the worst champion since the 08 Ducks.

It's a nice story, but a team that went from last place to winning the Cup should make you cynical. They lead the NHL in 5v5 shooting percentage in the playoffs, and their rookie goalie - a player not even really considered a top prospect - went off on an insane run.
- James_Tanner

You realize that Detroit won the Cup in 08, right? And if you're dumping on the 07 Anaheim team, well, that team had two of the best defensemen in the league, a goaltender who was great in the playoffs (especially overtime), and an ageless Selanne who had scored almost 90 goals over the previous two seasons. So, yeah, you're totally right, they were a terrible championship team.

Oh, wow...

Tanner "It is truly astounding how bad the managment in this division is."

I won't even get into your grammatical errors because that is low hanging fruit.

What matters in the NHL? President's trophies? 5v5 shooting percentage? Backup goalie save %? Regular season wins? Lamenting man-games lost to injuries?

The answer in NO to all of the above. It's all about winning the cup. I don't understand why you can't seem to comprehend this concept. The Blues are the champs. Arguably the most difficult sport to win a championship in is the NHL. But you casually dismiss them. Could you be more intellectually dishonest and, frankly, crappy about it?

Maybe this will help. In the last 10 years, here how the divisions have done in the cup finals:

Division Win Loss Win %
Metro 3 3 0.500
Atlantic 1 3 0.250
Central 4 1 0.800
Pacific 2 3 0.400

The Central has the most cup wins and - by far - the best winning percentage. If this confuses you, I think you should question yourself and not the bad "managment" of the Central division GMs.

The Blues are one of a dozen OK teams that could have won the Cup. They are the worst champion since the 08 Ducks.

It's a nice story, but a team that went from last place to winning the Cup should make you cynical. They lead the NHL in 5v5 shooting percentage in the playoffs, and their rookie goalie - a player not even really considered a top prospect - went off on an insane run.
- James_Tanner

Jordan Binnington's playoff stats:

SV% - .914
GAA - 2.46

Tuukka and Ben Bishop outplayed him in the playoffs.

At the end of the regular season the Blues had the second highest expected goals for percentage (Vegas was first). Analytically they were the best team in the Central. Their defense was exceptional at limiting chances.

They were given the second best odds by Vegas going into the playoffs.

Their turnaround had to do with many things, the coaching change being the biggest contributor. Tarasenko getting over his off-season shoulder surgery also helped. The defense scheme completely changed once Berube took over, leading to Parayko and Bouwmeester being paired together (the team's top pairing in the playoffs). Thomas matured and Maroon found a role on his line with Bozak (Maroon was dreadful away from Thomas).

On paper, I don't think they're as good as the Lightning and a couple of others, but them winning last year was not a fluke. Luck certainly had a factor (it always does), but few teams would respond the way they did after that hand pass goal. Their attitude was remarkable and they never once complained about reffing throughout the playoffs. Compare Berube's post game press conferences to DeBoer's.

I actually like your stuff more than most around here Tanner, but it's disappointing for you to try take away the accomplishments of my team, particularly when we've waited so long for a championship.

Jordan Binnington's playoff stats:

SV% - .914
GAA - 2.46

Tuukka and Ben Bishop outplayed him in the playoffs.

At the end of the regular season the Blues had the second highest expected goals for percentage (Vegas was first). Analytically they were the best team in the Central. Their defense was exceptional at limiting chances.

They were given the second best odds by Vegas going into the playoffs.

Their turnaround had to do with many things, the coaching change being the biggest contributor. Tarasenko getting over his off-season shoulder surgery also helped. The defense scheme completely changed once Berube took over, leading to Parayko and Bouwmeester being paired together (the team's top pairing in the playoffs). Thomas matured and Maroon found a role on his line with Bozak (Maroon was dreadful away from Thomas).

On paper, I don't think they're as good as the Lightning and a couple of others, but them winning last year was not a fluke. Luck certainly had a factor (it always does), but few teams would respond the way they did after that hand pass goal. Their attitude was remarkable and they never once complained about reffing throughout the playoffs. Compare Berube's post game press conferences to DeBoer's.

I actually like your stuff more than most around here Tanner, but it's disappointing for you to try take away the accomplishments of my team.
- charlest

You've completely misunderstood - no one is taking away their accomplishments.

But I do feel the need to push back on the idea that the Stanley Cup winner is the automatically best team.

The Blues won - that's true - but if we are ranking the best rosters in the NHL The Lightning, Leafs, Bruins, Avalanche, Flames, Jets, Predators and probably a couple more are just as good, if not better.

This is nothing against them, the NHL playoffs are extremely high variance. Literally any team could win.

It's nice the Blues won. But they were in last place, and suddenly a rookie goalie came out of nowhere and led them to the Finals. This is a great story - but it's highly unlikely Jordan Binnington becomes a Carey Price or Sergei Bobrovsky - not impossible mind you.

I think one of the main barriars between statistical analysis and everyone else, is that whenever you point out that someone has defied the odds, they take it as you saying they accomplished nothing.

That isn't true though - the Blues played well when it counted and they deserve their accolades. But are they the team to beat next year in the NHL? Probably not.

The Ducks were a good team too - but they were followed up by 12 straight champions who belonged to teams that were among the best in the NHL for years and years - Detroit, Pittsburgh, Boston, LA, Chicago and Washington (Vancouver never won, but they deserve to mentioned in this list of best teams from the past decade or so)

Basically a bunch of legacy teams have won the Cup for over a decade, flukey 0ne-offs were pretty common before, and likely will be again.

You've completely misunderstood - no one is taking away their accomplishments.

But I do feel the need to push back on the idea that the Stanley Cup winner is the automatically best team.

The Blues won - that's true - but if we are ranking the best rosters in the NHL The Lightning, Leafs, Bruins, Avalanche, Flames, Jets, Predators and probably a couple more are just as good, if not better.

This is nothing against them, the NHL playoffs are extremely high variance. Literally any team could win.

It's nice the Blues won. But they were in last place, and suddenly a rookie goalie came out of nowhere and led them to the Finals. This is a great story - but it's highly unlikely Jordan Binnington becomes a Carey Price or Sergei Bobrovsky - not impossible mind you.

I think one of the main barriars between statistical analysis and everyone else, is that whenever you point out that someone has defied the odds, they take it as you saying they accomplished nothing.

That isn't true though - the Blues played well when it counted and they deserve their accolades. But are they the team to beat next year in the NHL? Probably not.

The Ducks were a good team too - but they were followed up by 12 straight champions who belonged to teams that were among the best in the NHL for years and years - Detroit, Pittsburgh, Boston, LA, Chicago and Washington (Vancouver never won, but they deserve to mentioned in this list of best teams from the past decade or so)

Basically a bunch of legacy teams have won the Cup for over a decade, flukey 0ne-offs were pretty common before, and likely will be again.
- James_Tanner

So what you're saying is because Anaheim wasn't one of the best teams for several years, their one great year was a fluke? Even though they were one of the best teams in the league that year. You're also discounting five straight division titles, which I don't find that important, but if you're talking about best teams over a long period of time, I find it hard to discount a team that wins five straight division titles according to your logic.

Tanner🤦‍♂️

So bad they won the Cup. No one cares about variances and numbers when the whole point is to win the Cup.

Of course I follow a guy actually understands the numbers and isn't a mind that stalled itself in its sophomore year of highschool--Dom.

Dom discussed his analytic model and his numbers concerning the Blues and noted some caveats to his system.

You on the other hand make some valid points in the most childish ways while pointing at the kettle and calling it childish as well. Grow up a bit.

Interesting how you refuse to admit mistakes such as with the Coyotes and then fail to own up to your previous observations.

From Jan 6th or whatever it was until the conclusion of game 7 of finals the Blues were the best team in the league. The wins and losses tell us that. Doesn't matter what the player's names were on the team or their individual stats. It's about wins and losses. It is literally as black and white as it gets.

Tanner's logic is exactly that, Tanner's logic. It's all in his head and not real.

Are the Blues the favorite to repeat? No. Last time I checked the NHL is currently a league of amazing parity and the Stanley Cup has always been the hardest trophy to win in major sports.

Dumping on any team who wins the cup in this era is laughable. It's arguably harder now to win it than it's ever been.

People like James should need supervision to use the internet.......

So what you're saying is because Anaheim wasn't one of the best teams for several years, their one great year was a fluke? Even though they were one of the best teams in the league that year. You're also discounting five straight division titles, which I don't find that important, but if you're talking about best teams over a long period of time, I find it hard to discount a team that wins five straight division titles according to your logic.

That 07 Ducks team was pretty god damned good. Of course tanner would leave out how tough the Pacific division was back then to make his point--nobody wanted to go on that road trip through California. The Sharks and Ducks were tough teams--the Kings needed a few years but were also very good soon after.

For (frank) sakes, they literally had what was regarded as the two best defenseman of their generation in Neidermayer and Pronger. Plus they had guys like Getzlaff, Perry, Selanne, Penner, Kunitz, etc.

The Ducks might've only won the cup once in that time, but they were considered a legit contender every season for the better part of a decade

Wonder if Tanner wears a helmet off the ice, too..

Hmm..

You've completely misunderstood - no one is taking away their accomplishments.

But I do feel the need to push back on the idea that the Stanley Cup winner is the automatically best team.
- James_Tanner

When the response to "The Blues won the cup" is "yes, but..." it absolutely feels like you're taking something away from their accomplishment.

The Blues won - that's true - but if we are ranking the best rosters in the NHL The Lightning, Leafs, Bruins, Avalanche, Flames, Jets, Predators and probably a couple more are just as good, if not better.

I would agree with you that the Lightning and Leafs have more talent than the Blues. I think it's a tossup with the Bruins and I think the Blues were better than those other teams. I don't think we're going to agree on this, particularly because I think the Blues' greatest asset was their depth.

I read your work and know of your recent push that you should spend nothing on your bottom six and acquire as many first liners as possible. Sundqvist, Barbashev, Maroon, Thomas, Bozak, etc. were a big part of the Blues success. Each of the Blues' lines were dominant in separate series.

I'd also make an argument that talent alone is not what's important. Beyond luck, I think attitude, determination, leadership - those all can matter. I'm a believer in advanced stats and I think those factors showed up for the Blues in the playoffs, statistically speaking.

This is nothing against them, the NHL playoffs are extremely high variance. Literally any team could win.

I really don't think any team could win, but I do agree that luck matters. I think if you replayed the 2019 playoffs 1000 times, the spread of win percentage would not be equal between the 16 teams.

It's nice the Blues won. But they were in last place, and suddenly a rookie goalie came out of nowhere and led them to the Finals. This is a great story - but it's highly unlikely Jordan Binnington becomes a Carey Price or Sergei Bobrovsky - not impossible mind you.

They actually weren't in last place, not when you look at the underlying numbers. They were in the bottom third in points percentage but not close to last. We agree that underlying numbers matter, so your point here is off.

Binnington was fantastic at times. The team also did very well to limit high danger chances against. I think O'Reilly was deserving of the Conn Smythe. I think him, along with Pietro, Parayko, and Schwartz, all contributed and lead as much as Binnington did.

I think one of the main barriars between statistical analysis and everyone else, is that whenever you point out that someone has defied the odds, they take it as you saying they accomplished nothing.

The truth is that the odds were against the Lightning winning the cup as well. If they would have won, you would not be mentioning "Sure they won, but..."

The Ducks were a good team too - but they were followed up by 12 straight champions who belonged to teams that were among the best in the NHL for years and years - Detroit, Pittsburgh, Boston, LA, Chicago and Washington (Vancouver never won, but they deserve to mentioned in this list of best teams from the past decade or so)

The St. Louis Blues franchise has the second highest playoff percentage in the entire league at 81.6%. Montreal is the best at 82.8% (the Flyers are third at 77%, quite the gap). You could make an argument the Blues have been pretty good statistically for 51 years. In fact, such a long period is more reliable than a smaller period of time (such as a few seasons) where variance is more significant in terms of a franchise's success.

I don't think your position is completely unreasonable. But the tone and specific language you use is often too hyperbolic and it often undercuts your argument.

In the world of Hockey Buzz bloggers legit 2C's must be available constantly and for cheap - someone should probably let at least the Habs and the Predators in on that because it seems like each has spent the last few years trying to get a team to trade one to them.

In the real world it doesn't really seem that way. The Avs got a 1st, a 3rd, Shane Bowers, Andrew Hammond and Kyle Turris for less than 2 years of Matt Duchene and then got Sam Girard, Vlad Kamenev and a 2nd for Kyle Turris (NB: 'three-way trades' are actually consecutive two-way trades). And Kyle Turris hasn't exactly worked out as a 2C. Buffalo got a 1st, a 2nd, Berglund, Sabotka and Tage Thompson for O'Reilly at probably the lowest value of his career.

Yet the Avs sending a rental year of TB4, a depth forward signed as a college free agent and a 6th for a 2C with 2 30+ goal seasons and cost controlled for 3 years at 4.5 M, a D prospect that the Leafs apparently did not part with easily and a 3rd is somehow evidence of them getting fleeced. At least on HB. When NHL.com did a round table on the trade 2 of their writers gave the advantage to the Avs, 2 called it a draw and 1 called it for the Leafs. the Athletic gave an A to the Leafs and an A- to the Avs. Note to Tanner: The Avs have so much freaking cap space that they didn't notice they withheld 2.75 of TB4 for a year. They actually thought they retained all of it and were surprised to realize when they reviewed everything at the end of the day that they only kept half. Aside from the cap space their owner is a billionaire married to a billionaire (one of Sam Walton's daughters) who considered paying the 600 million dollar Rams relocation fee in a lump sum instead of over 10 years as is allowed so he's probably lost more than the 2.75m in his couch cushions.

I'm not sure where to even start with what Alexander Kerfoot has evolved into since he had 3 assists in 12 games in the playoffs, playing 11 of those games primarily on a line with scrubs Nathan MacKinnon and Gabriel Landeskog. I'm a season ticket holder and saw every home game he played wearing an Avs sweater except for 2, saw all the road ones televised except for maybe 2 or 3. I don't have the analytical skill of Tanner but I also don't think I'm uninformed on Kerfoot the player. He's an extremely fast skater. I was at day 1 of training camp last year and he was second to only MacKinnon for the skating test. The Avs have some pretty fast skaters. He takes a tremendous beating from the opposing team, so much so that you kind of feel for him after a game. He drives everyone berserk with his unwillingness to shoot the puck. He's a really smart kid - Harvard economics grad and his dad is filthy rich (was one of the principal founders of Seagate Corp). No one ever even thought about his defensive play, he never played PK or was on at the end of close games. The Selke stuff is perhaps the most bizarre thing I've ever read on HB, which is saying something. He's a nice 3rd line forward who never really settled in as a center and could play for brief spurts on the top 2 lines when needed but always looked out of place there. I wish him well.

One final thing - wasn't Tanner pining for AZ to make the bold move (or some such language) of signing 'overrated' Matt Duchene just days ago? He is a strange cat. Don't get me wrong Duchene is overrated.

How is it not debatable?

Alexander Kerfoot was one of the best defensive forwards in the NHL last season and put up a bonus 40 ish points. That's an impact equal to a first line scorer. Many people, myself included, thought he should have won the Selke.

Agree or don't, at the very least it's debatable.
- James_Tanner

I think Kerfoot is a nice player and at his age, cap hit, and production he's more well suited for the leafs 3rd line than Kadri but having said that out of the 29 players receiving votes for the selke this year, he wasn't one of them.

I think Kerfoot is a nice player and at his age, cap hit, and production he's more well suited for the leafs 3rd line than Kadri but having said that out of the 29 players receiving votes for the selke this year, he wasn't one of them.
- lonnyBohonos

You're gonna like him. Just need to keep some of this crazy hype in check. He skates like the wind, is not untalented and almost never afraid to get hit. He'll give you your money's worth every night although he tends to get physically worn down and can disappear for stretches due to that. He'll be perfect for your third line - I suspect he'll end up as a wing. Everything about him makes it seem like he should be a C but he's better on the wing. You'll see what I mean. He was the perfect sweetener to add to a year of Barrie for Kadri.

Tanner how drunk are you when you write these things?

I don’t think we should even let human play in the playoffs anymore. I’m sick of the human element being factored in. My vote is to collect all the data/stats, and run some numbers to determine the truly deserving Cup winners.