Quote:
Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks
I thanked your post for being a a great example of that mob mentality - while actually denying it.
I've posted the real stats , Wins/Losses and playoff success, or lack thereof. Everything else is conjecture - as hockey games are not science experiments that take place in a vacuum.
|
This is just simply wrong.
There has been an abundance of information provided in this thread which effectively shows various aspects of good performance and improvement which is demonstrably accurate and applicable. Your constant whining about the coaches in the face of this evidence that you utterly incapable to acknowledge strongly suggests that your opinion stems NOT from reason but is rather the product of an axe to grind.
The fact of the matter is that every team in the NHL will win games they have no business winning (i.e. the Flames win in LA), and will lose games that they should have won (i.e. the Flames loss to Minnesota). The underlying numbers are crucial to showing what teams are doing well and where they need to improve, and they also provide reams of data for understanding individual game results beyond the sum of goals scored. Simple wins/losses in tiny segments of a full season are not good indicators of what the coach or players are doing well or poorly, because there is so much noise and randomness in the space of a 60 minute game—You are right: hockey games do not take place in a vacuum. But you are completely wrong in your application of that analogy, because if they did, then we could simply look at the score after each night without seeing what transpired on the ice and KNOW everything about what happened.
But of course, because you cannot tolerate the possibility that Glen Gulutzan might be a quality NHL coach, you will continue to relish in team losses and smugly deflect counter opinions with your fingers planted firmly your ears. (...
"Your [sic.] right mate, I’ll get the jack Adams ready.)