Should He Stay or Should He Go 2014

[Josh '99]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

[ugarte]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

This has been the University of Chicago Economics Department Sports Report. Good night, and good markets.

[Swampy]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5,  B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close to this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

[Towerroad]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5,  B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

[CowbellGuy]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5,  B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

Yale scores more points because of their general lack of a system. It may be exiting and put points on the board, but it's not reliable and doesn't develop players. Plus, you still need some players that can finish reliably. "Just" 1 more goal per game is the difference between Army in 55th and UNO in 13th. You don't just pick up a goal per game without loading up on talent or completely changing your system and sacrificing defense (probably not a good idea with a goalie who is largely untested).

[Trotsky]

Given the choice, it's more efficient to depress GA than increase GF.  Ideally of course you want to do both, but assume an environment in which any improvement is a draw on limited resources (recruiting energy, system trade offs, practice time).  If you start out at 2.3 GFA and 2.3 GAA, and you assume roughly equal dispersion, then it is more beneficial to drive down the GAA mean for each tenth of a point than to increase the GFA by that same point.

[Beeeej]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5,  B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

[Swampy]

I've been wondering this question all season. Even if they lost that Game 3 to Clarkson he I'd say he should stay, but he needs to make some changes. I think the issue is now the ECAC is WAY more competitive now than it has ever been. This team is about as good as the one 2 years ago (and they made the regional finals in the NC$$), but the only difference is that year the only team worth a damn in the ECAC was Union (who we were 1-0-1 against that year!), so we had very few games (i.e Colgate and Harvard) that were against quality opponents. In the early to mid-2000s, there was usually only us and one or maybe two other teams that could put up a fight in the NC$$ tourney (usually Harvard or Clarkson, and that one year Princeton was really good). This year, the ECAC had SIX teams (Union, Colgate, Qpac, Cornell, Clarkson and Yale) who were threats. Schafer's system worked fine a decade ago, but he needs to change some things up. And I know he has his ways, but isn't a coach's job to make adjustments? At least fix the power play for God's sake. If we had even an average one, we could still be playing right now

If fixing the power play were as simple and straightforward as posters here make it out to be, I have to assume they would've fixed it already.

But why does the powerplay rank 30th out of 59 teams? Team offense, 47?

If we look at the FF, BC & Union are 1 & 2 on team offense, w/ Minny @ 6 & NoDak @ 18. On the PP, BC-5, U-9, M-16, & NoDak 31 (the only one Cornell beats).

On team defense, Cornell is a respectable #9 & #18 in the PK. Compare to the FF: Minny - #2, U - #4, BC - #8 and those NoDak characters, #16.
On the PK, BC is #1, ND - #21, U - #24, and Minny - #25.

One could argue Ivy League restrictions limit our personnel, but Yale is 11 on TO, Dartmouth is #44, Brown #45, then Cornell at #47, followed by Sucks - #52, and Princeton - #57.
On PP, Y is #19 @ 19.85% success, with Cornell second in the Ivies @ #30 w/ 17.46% success. So by Ivy standards our PP is above average.

On team defense, we're #1 in the Ivy League @ 2.31 GPG, followed by #17 Yale at 2.48. On the PK, Sucks is #14 w/ 84.3% kill rate, and we're #18 w/ 83.5% kill rate. The next Ivy, Yale, is way down at #44, with a rate of 80.4%.

From this I conclude that Ivy League restrictions probably account for about .5 GPG in Team Offense, which would put us tied with Maine at 2.91 and #27. Give the same handicap to Yale, and you have Union.

If we average the ranks of the Ivies on Team Offense and Defense, we get Y: 14, C: 38, H: 38.5,  B: 39, D: 48, P: 56.5. It would be better to analyze scores rather than ranks.

If we average the ranks of the FF, we get: U: 3, M: 4, BC: 4.5, ND: 17.

Clearly, Yale is the only Ivy close this level. If Cornell could average just 1 more goal per game, we would be a credible NC$$ candidate, with a combined rank of 9. (Still, this would put us behind all FF contenders save ND.) It's unlikely we'll be making much noice in the NC$$'s any time soon unless we do.

Nice analysis.

Yale scores more points because of their general lack of a system. It may be exiting and put points on the board, but it's not reliable and doesn't develop players. Plus, you still need some players that can finish reliably. "Just" 1 more goal per game is the difference between Army in 55th and UNO in 13th. You don't just pick up a goal per game without loading up on talent or completely changing your system and sacrificing defense (probably not a good idea with a goalie who is largely untested).

Yeah, but 3 of the FF beat us on both TO and TD rankings. So it's not as if there's a deterministic tradeoff between offense and defense. As for developing players, I've not been able to find better data in the short time I spent on it, but three years ago this page listed Yale as having 2 alumni in the NHL. Cornell had 4, as did Princeton, and Dartmouth had 6. I'm not sure what player development buys or why only a system develops players. I think Dryden wrote that all hockey teams have systems, it's just that some teams have more talented players to whom the system gives more leeway.

[Trotsky]

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

[Beeeej]

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

[Trotsky]

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

Trying to restore some levity to the thread.  When things get to where you are losing your sense of humor, I begin to worry.

The Losing His Shit Scale goes thusly:

1 Kyle loses his sense of humor. (baseline)
3 Jim loses his sense of humor.  A bad day.
5 Beeeej* loses his sense of humor.  Situation becoming worrisome.
7 ugarte loses his sense of humor.  Serious.  Scale no longer amusing.
9 RichH loses his sense of humor.  Extinction event.

(* post-marriage may need to be re-scored as 4 due to stress)

[ugarte]

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

It's glib, but ... shoot more. Be willing to compromise the defense a little; risk giving up a stray breakaway by having the point men join the hunt for second chances sometimes. My pet theory is the reason that Cornell seeks the perfect shot on the PP is because we seem not to have someone in position to hack at rebounds, so the shooters only fire away when they think the opportunity is perfect.

I have no opinion on whether this reluctance is a coaching philosophy or a learned helplessness/coping mechanism on the part of the players.

[RichH]

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKFRSL4wpcY[/video]

[Trotsky]

My pet theory is the reason that Cornell seeks the perfect shot on the PP is because we seem not to have someone in position to hack at rebounds, so the shooters only fire away when they think the opportunity is perfect.

I have no opinion on whether this reluctance is a coaching philosophy or a learned helplessness/coping mechanism on the part of the players.

It's kind of weird, too, because big defensive teams full of elegantly twirling oak trees usually camp a guy out front and then try to either feed him or force a rebound.

Here is the history of our special teams (not updated the last 3 years yet, and missing the 90s due to lack of data, sorry).  I don't know how much of an impact it had, but it seems to me that around the time of the Romano / Milo debacle (2007), we got burned innumerable times both on pp and even strength by blocked shots that turned into rushes the other way (it wasn't Romano and Milo who necessarily did this, they're just my timestamp).  2006 was about the time the pp went into the toilet for good, although 2004 was bad too (far worse than I recall, actually).

Might it have been that we started holding back on our shots because we were terrified about the counter attack, and that just grew into a permanent part of The System?

[Josh '99]

It is a nice analysis, but ultimately he hasn't really responded to Josh's point with anything but a much longer-winded way of saying "We need to fix our power play." Sure, he also kind of asked "What's wrong with it that needs fixing?" or at least he asked "What do teams with better power plays have that we don't?" and that's a step very few other posters here have bothered to take, but it still doesn't provide anything remotely resembling a solution. If we could go down to the all-night points outlet and buy an extra point a game, we'd have done that by now, too.

Did you just censure someone for not offering solutions while not offering solutions?

I'm not in the crowd assuming that fixing the power play should be a simple matter of deciding to fix the power play. I agree with what Josh said, and had kind of said it already upthread, though it took me several more paragraphs to say it. It's analagous to saying Schafer must go then shrugging feebly when someone asks who else we might be able to get who's likely to get better results. Fix the power play, sure, we'd love to - how?

Trying to restore some levity to the thread.  When things get to where you are losing your sense of humor, I begin to worry.

The Losing His Shit Scale goes thusly:

1 Kyle loses his sense of humor. (baseline)
3 Jim loses his sense of humor.  A bad day.
5 Beeeej* loses his sense of humor.  Situation becoming worrisome.
7 ugarte loses his sense of humor.  Serious.  Scale no longer amusing.
9 RichH loses his sense of humor.  Extinction event.

(* post-marriage may need to be re-scored as 4 due to stress)

Congratulations, Rich!