Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
gocanes0506

In Season 2017-18 Talk

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Not seeing much difference from past years. I disagree with pulling the goalie that early. It would have made sense if we needed more than one goal.

I'm seeing a ton of difference. None of my criticism for the botched goalie pull changes the fact that if either of those two hit posts goes in, we're not pulling the keeper at all, and trying instead to win in regulation--precisely because about five shots that would have passed through Cam like milk of magnesia were saved. Darling and the Canes stayed with the hottest team in the conference for 57 minutes. That alone is a huge difference.

 

Anytime you change numerous roster spots, the new group has to learn how to win together. This loss will hasten that. Stinging as it was, it's the kind that focuses the group like few other things can. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

The only reason to do it that early is when you're down by two, analytics be damned. It is also an extremely case-specific decision, one too nuanced to count on analytics, which do not take those nuances into account, for direction. This is why some of us are saying BP should have trusted his gut instead.

 

His team was surging--that is the key point. We'd owned them in their end for the prior five minutes, and the dam was about to break. But the minute the Bolts saw our open net, they knew they'd won the game. This is the NHL, where guys can hit that thing from anywhere on the ice--not the intermission, with guys in sneakers trying to win $100. Another minute of 5 v 5 would have still given the Canes two minutes of 6v5, if they failed to tie 5v5.

 

Ok . . . That pretty much begs the question and ends any further discussion, no? :D  And what makes you think BP wasn't going with his gut, the fact that yours said something different? Yeah, we were carrying the play, but we also weren't scoring.  Might it have been possible that Peters felt that we just weren't going to score at even strength within the next minute, which is why he went so early?  

 

8 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

How is that hard to do? You send out five and have the sixth guy ready when Darls hits the bench. Teams have been doing it for a hundred years. Literally.

 

I'm considering shifts.  The way he did it Peters was sure he'd have the players he wanted out there on the 6-on-5 for a full, relatively fresh shift.  If he waits, sure, he might get the 6 out there together fairly quickly, or, if it takes the Canes awhile to gain possession in their end, maybe not.  I'm not saying it's an overriding consideration, but I do think it could be a factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, top-shelf-1 said:

I'm seeing a ton of difference. None of my criticism for the botched goalie pull changes the fact that if either of those two hit posts goes in, we're not pulling the keeper at all, and trying instead to win in regulation--precisely because about five shots that would have passed through Cam like milk of magnesia were saved. Darling and the Canes stayed with the hottest team in the conference for 57 minutes. That alone is a huge difference.

 

Anytime you change numerous roster spots, the new group has to learn how to win together. This loss will hasten that. Stinging as it was, it's the kind that focuses the group like few other things can. 

I hope you are right, but the lack of scoring depth still seems to be an issue. Mabye it's just the way the game is going, but still not much physical play, and it seems like our guys are moved easily. It's very early, but if these guys don't gel soon, it's going to be like every season since 2009. Dig a deep hole, and try to claw their way out. I sure hope I'm wrong.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I thought the Canes played a good game considering who it was against.   A half inch difference on a couple of post deflections and we could easily have come away with a point (or maybe even two).  Now, if we had a replacement that I thought could bring more firepower I'd probably be calling for changes.  But I think our hopes there lie with Stempniak's return (and I'm not optimistic it will be soon, and not sure what we'll get when he is back), or that one of our Chex yutes can produce at the NHL level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fightinmad said:

I think we have a team that is more than the sum of its parts, once they actually hit their stride. I'm just a little on the impatient side about them getting there. =)

 

:crossfingers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

Ok . . . That pretty much begs the question and ends any further discussion, no? :D  And what makes you think BP wasn't going with his gut, the fact that yours said something different? Yeah, we were carrying the play, but we also weren't scoring.  Might it have been possible that Peters felt that we just weren't going to score at even strength within the next minute, which is why he went so early?  

 

2 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

I'm considering shifts.  The way he did it Peters was sure he'd have the players he wanted out there on the 6-on-5 for a full, relatively fresh shift.  If he waits, sure, he might get the 6 out there together fairly quickly, or, if it takes the Canes awhile to gain possession in their end, maybe not.  I'm not saying it's an overriding consideration, but I do think it could be a factor.

 

I like the way you presented this and I'm mostly in agreement.  Also read a few of those links you posted earlier.  Interesting.

 

At the time, my gut didn't like it because of the way the team was trending.  I thought maybe Peters was too hasty when he had plenty of time to go 6v5.  The two additional empty net goals were like salt (along with the aforementioned coastal lightning storm) and didn't help.

 

I moved on this morning understanding I have no control. :(

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, coastal_caniac said:

I like the way you presented this and I'm mostly in agreement.  Also read a few of those links you posted earlier.  Interesting.

 

At the time, my gut didn't like it because of the way the team was trending.  I thought maybe Peters was too hasty when he had plenty of time to go 6v5.  The two additional empty net goals were like salt (along with the aforementioned coastal lightning storm) and didn't help.

 

I moved on this morning understanding I have no control. :(

 

Thanks coastal.  It's almost a no-win deal for Peters.  Even if he does come away with an extra point or two over the course of a season by pulling the goalie earlier, it's still going to fail a lot more than it works, and leave a bad taste in our mouths (and general criticism of Peters) every time they score an early empty netter.  And as mentioned in that Hockey 101 thread, most people are generally much more adverse to taking the risk of losing than gaining the chance of winning. But, on the other hand, he gets paid enough to take whatever flak comes his way, deserved or not. :P

 

One interesting thing I did see when I was looking at those articles was how far Patrick Roy took the strategy.  Two examples:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

With the Avalanche trailing, 5-1, and set to go on a 5-on-3 two-man advantage, Roy decided to lift goalie Semyon Varlamov with more than 13 minutes to play in the game to give his team a very rare 6-on-3 advantage, as shown in the screenshot above. It didn't result in a goal, and the Avalanche went on to lose 6-2, but this really isn't the wrong call. It was a small window where Colorado had an opportunity to maybe get back into the game with a couple of goals, and the worst case scenario is you end up losing by five goals instead of four."

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

With his team trailing, 6-2, and about to go on a power play thanks to an interference penalty on Blackhawks forward Dennis Rasmussen, Roy decided to pull goalie Calvin Pickard with 10:06 remaining in the game to give his team a 6-on-4 power play.  No, it didn't result in a goal, and yes, the Avalanche still ended up losing the game 6-3, but you can't fault Roy for trying something here. At that point the game is probably already lost, and the worst thing that happens is you lose 7-2 instead of some other equally lopsided score. So why not take a shot and see if you can strike for a quick goal and maybe get back into the game and give yourself a fighting chance?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, legend-1 said:

 

Welcome back btw. Only 8 years or so lol

Been lurking for about 7 of the 8. Work and life have not been kind.  That said, I have high hopes for the team and hope we start seeing the kind of activity on the board we had in '05.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LakeLivin said:

I'm considering shifts.  The way he did it Peters was sure he'd have the players he wanted out there on the 6-on-5 for a full, relatively fresh shift.  If he waits, sure, he might get the 6 out there together fairly quickly, or, if it takes the Canes awhile to gain possession in their end, maybe not.  I'm not saying it's an overriding consideration, but I do think it could be a factor.

You're basically shortening your bench at that point to your two PP units plus one forward. It ain't rocket science, and BP has done it around 2:00 in these situations in the past. So, no sale.

 

As for my other point ending discussion, yes. Yes it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the hockey 101 area for a link to a reference on this.

 

Teams almost never score at the end of the game 5 on 5, so forcing scoring one way or the other is the goal. The article I linked to did 4 million simulations and referenced several other papers. NHL coaches are generally far too conservative exactly because of games like last night. But in general around 3 minutes is the right time down one and 6 minutes down 2. Teams don't do that because is doesn't usually work and the coach takes heat for doing it. But down 2 goals with 6 minutes to go and staying 5 on 5 has close to zero chance of working. So if you up the odds to 1/10, it's better than 1/30, but it's still going to lose and look bad 9/10 times, so the coach takes heat 90% of the time, even though is exactly the right strategy.

 

For just about every empty netter I think of times that we've had incredible 6 on 5 pressure on only to run out of time and we should have pulled sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are now #28 in goals for per game played. (Another reason to pull the goalie early). While it is true that it's early, it's also nearly the same team that had this as a major issue last year, so concern is fair. I still like a lot about our team and think we can increase it, but we better, and soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gocanes0506 said:

Options so far:

Shipachyov- LV told his agent he could look for a trade

Duchene

Galchenyuk?

Wallmark

Duchene has pretty much been discussed to death on here, gocanes, and still don't feel he's a possibility? Galchenyuk is likely not traded. Can't say I'm aware of Shipachyov, or his potential, but please fill me in. And, I assume Wallmark is our Checker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, took a look and Vadim Shipachyov is a 30 y/o Russian no less centerman, who did well in KHL last year,is signed for 2 yrs at $4.5 mil per and has been demoted to AHL twice by Vegas? No thanks, this is Russian deja vu all over again,as has been famously stated by Yogi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KJUNKANE said:

OK, took a look and Vadim Shipachyov is a 30 y/o Russian no less centerman, who did well in KHL last year,is signed for 2 yrs at $4.5 mil per and has been demoted to AHL twice by Vegas? No thanks, this is Russian deja vu all over again,as has been famously stated by Yogi.

 

Although I don’t feel we’ll make a trade of any kind, Im not lobbying for a trade with Ship.  Don’t take the Shipachyov situation at face value, much like our 5-1 loss.  He was demoted both times because he one of the only guys waiver exempt on the roster.  LV didn’t want to chance losing one of their 11 defensemen on the waiver, so they sent Ship down to get under 23 people.  

 

He was brought up after Marchessault was hurt, played in 3 games, got 10 minutes of ice time, and scored a goal.  His coach said he was “okay.”  Marchessault has recovered and Ship is one of the waiver exempts.  So again he is sent down.  A very odd situation for the 1st official LV player.  

 

P.s yes Wallmark is our Wallmark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, remkin said:

The article I linked to did 4 million simulations

 

10 hours ago, remkin said:

even though is exactly the right strategy.

Except when it is not--and the huge sample, which so impresses you, is exactly what, in this highly specialized situation, negates the case-specificity of any particular game, and excludes issues like momentum, desperation, sustained pressure prior to pulling the keeper, etc.

 

Stats aren't always the answer. Sometimes it's trusting your team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, top-shelf-1 said:

 

Except when it is not--and the huge sample, which so impresses you, is exactly what, in this highly specialized situation, negates the case-specificity of any particular game, and excludes issues like momentum, desperation, sustained pressure prior to pulling the keeper, etc.

 

Stats aren't always the answer. Sometimes it's trusting your team.

 The team scored 1 goal in 57 minutes. Pretty good chance they're not scoring in the last 3 with the other guys packed in 5 on 5. Good time to throw out the facts and trust the gut. But then trusting the #27 offense in the league to come up with a 5 on 5 goal? I don't recall us getting chance after chance 5 on 5. But apparently you have a better feel for the "special situation" than Peters. Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, remkin said:

 The team scored 1 goal in 57 minutes. Pretty good chance they're not scoring in the last 3 with the other guys packed in 5 on 5. Good time to throw out the facts and trust the gut. But then trusting the #27 offense in the league to come up with a 5 on 5 goal? I don't recall us getting chance after chance 5 on 5. But apparently you have a better feel for the "special situation" than Peters. Good to know.

Or, you have no clue. Also good to know.

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, remkin said:

:letssee:. I never claimed to have a clue.

And I never said they'd score 5 v 5 in three minutes. I said (1) they might if given one minute more, and (2) pull the keeper while the game is on, and you have possession. 

Edited by top-shelf-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...