Ralph Krueger needs to go - like yesterday.

[steveoath]

Is he gone yet?

[Brawndo]

16 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

He says a lot of nothing. I just listened to the interview and he said that Oloffson and Eichel need to find "synergy"... I laughed at that point because that isn't the issue but it sounds good so he says it. 

https://stmarysmusings.sbnation.com/2019/4/18/18485526/saints-opinion-assessing-ralph-kruegers-legacy-as-southampton-chairman-feature

 

BS Bingo

[LGR4GM]

30 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

https://stmarysmusings.sbnation.com/2019/4/18/18485526/saints-opinion-assessing-ralph-kruegers-legacy-as-southampton-chairman-feature

 

BS Bingo

Quote

Synergies

In the summer of 2016, I was pleasantly surprised to hear Krueger say some things that I considered to be very sensible.

After two summers of upheaval, he announced, Saints would be less active in the transfer market and would instead look to renew contracts of key players in order to “build synergies”.

This seemed like a good plan: Michael Cox of Zonal Marking was extolling the virtues of Tottenham’s zen approach to the transfer window on the basis that it allowed the players they already had to build partnerships and be moulded by the coach. I agreed, and was looking forward to something similar happening with Virgil Van Dijk, Ryan Bertrand et al.

A couple of years later, Krueger was blaming the club’s decline on the decision to not swiftly flog every highly-rated player we had as soon as they attracted interest (and remember, Saints still sold Sadio Mane in 2016). Even Chukka Umunna might have struggled to get away with this kind of a u-turn, but it was barely commented on.

Synergies is a word ppl use to mean something they can't explain and don't know how to replicate. 

Quote

Months previously, Saints had resisted overtures from (of course) Liverpool towards their star central defender Virgil van Dijk. Now, after a sustained period of truculence and lackadaisical performances from the Dutchman, they decided they wanted to sell. They also decided that they would blame him for everything that had gone wrong that season.

Like a centrist dad desperate to blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit, Krueger seemed to want to blame all of Southampton’s problems on van Dijk: poor results, under-performing signings, a flailing manager, crap football. Like the centrist dad though, he was unable to do so in a way that made any sense in any sort of verifiable reality.

Replace van Dijk with Skinner and tell me it isn't exactly the same thing. 

[WildCard]

Had a dream I got to call Krueger out on his ***** in a live press conference. Then they gave out free tickets to the Islanders game and we lost 5-0 after Dahlin scored on himself. Couldn't tell if it was real or not

[Drag0nDan]

4 hours ago, steveoath said:

Is he gone yet?

I'd say the earliest is the 10th due to the road trip.

[pi2000]

11 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Had a dream I got to call Krueger out on his ***** in a live press conference. Then they gave out free tickets to the Islanders game and we lost 5-0 after Dahlin scored on himself. Couldn't tell if it was real or not

.. but how was the synergy?

[Trettioåtta]

In the last 17 games, we have scored over 3 goals precisely 0 times...

[Doohickie]

17 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:

 

its 45 points in 42 games.  depends on how you look at iI suppose.

A debate that has raged since the inception of the loser point 

[LGR4GM]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

A debate that has raged since the inception of the loser point 

Usually takes what? 94-98 points to make the playoffs, so that is 1.15-1.2 points a game so the math is easy. 

1.07 is 45 in 42 so that is below the playoff threshold so it doesn't matter at all if we call it .500 or something else. 

[Doohickie]

1 hour ago, Drag0nDan said:

I'd say the earliest is the 10th due to the road trip.

Gerard Gallant would beg to differ.

[Doohickie]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Usually takes what? 94-98 points to make the playoffs, so that is 1.15-1.2 points a game so the math is easy. 

1.07 is 45 in 42 so that is below the playoff threshold so it doesn't matter at all if we call it .500 or something else. 

The problem is that ".500" defined as the average number of points is greater than earning a point per game, but the exact number depends on the number of loser points awarded.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

The problem is that ".500" defined as the average number of points is greater than earning a point per game, but the exact number depends on the number of loser points awarded.

Hence why I am suggesting that .500 really is 1.15 points a game as the true number

[SDS]

23 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

The problem is that ".500" defined as the average number of points is greater than earning a point per game, but the exact number depends on the number of loser points awarded.

0.5 is half of something. Half of the wins does not equal half of the points. Pick a metric and move on.

23 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Hence why I am suggesting that .500 really is 1.15 points a game as the true number

Why are you defining half as being equal to getting into the playoffs?

it’s the important metric, but I don’t know what that has to do with 0.5.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, SDS said:

0.5 is half of something. Half of the wins does not equal half of the points. Pick a metric and move on.

Hence why I suggest 1.15 points per game as the new half because that equals the playoffs and really that is what matters. 

[SDS]

17 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Hence why I suggest 1.15 points per game as the new half because that equals the playoffs and really that is what matters. 

But 0.5 never represented playoffs anyway. That’s what I find confusing. What you’re proposing actually means something worth noting.
 

0.5 doesn’t mean anything other than it’s the benchmark for using the phrase winning or losing records.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

But 0.5 never represented playoffs anyway. That’s what I find confusing. What you’re proposing actually means something worth noting.
 

0.5 doesn’t mean anything other than it’s the benchmark for using the phrase winning or losing records.

idk, I never understood the obsession with .500 other than it means you are winning as much as losing. For me the line 1.15 means your team might not suck. The Sabres are at... 0.75 meaning they are significantly under the 1.15 needed for playoffs or in mind, a winning season. 

[Gatorman0519]

1 hour ago, Trettioåtta said:

In the last 17 games, we have scored over 3 goals precisely 0 times...

That is an absolutely frightening stat that should be screaming something is majorly wrong.  That odds against that are incredible. 

[LGR4GM]

33 minutes ago, Gatorman0519 said:

That is an absolutely frightening stat that should be screaming something is majorly wrong.  That odds against that are incredible. 

Chad Domincicis or however you spell his name wrote something about the Sabres transition game being bad, like really bad. I can't help but wonder how much of an impact is having on stuff like this. 

[Cal Naughton Jr]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

Chad Domincicis or however you spell his name wrote something about the Sabres transition game being bad, like really bad. I can't help but wonder how much of an impact is having on stuff like this. 

What does it matter that he wrote something about the Sabres transition game?

[SwampD]

21 minutes ago, Cal Naughton Jr said:

What does it matter that he wrote something about the Sabres transition game?

I think he meant that the bad transition game has an effect on scoring.

i think it does.

[LGR4GM]

21 minutes ago, Cal Naughton Jr said:

What does it matter that he wrote something about the Sabres transition game?

Sigh, you are trying to be clever. 

It does not matter that Chad wrote about the transition game. Which answers your question. 

What does matter is what we can learn about the Sabres transition game from what he wrote. What we learn is that the Sabres are not good at transitions. We also learn they are very bad at transition scoring or scoring on the rush. Transition in a large sense can be heavily influenced by coaches because they decide where players go and how to transition out of your zone, through the neutral zone, and into the o zone. Judging by what we have witnessed there is evidence that the Sabres transition is predicated on a slow pace out of the zone usually with a cross ice pass, then a pass to the neutral zone winger, and finally the winger carries to the blue line and either dumps it in or stops the second they gain the zone. It should be a concern considering we have so many puck movers on defense and we have clearly neutered our offense that the transition game is such a disaster. 

[Thorny]

6 hours ago, Doohickie said:

The problem is that ".500" defined as the average number of points is greater than earning a point per game, but the exact number depends on the number of loser points awarded.

It’s easiest if we just use the proper definitions imo

”.500” refers to Points Percentage not win percentage and it’s always been that way. The connotation of the term “Five Hundred” began to commonly be “middle of the road team” cause there was no loser point at first. 

“Five Hundred” is still Points % .500, it just isn’t a mark of quality any more due to, as you point out, league wide loser points. 

[Thorny]

6 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

idk, I never understood the obsession with .500 other than it means you are winning as much as losing. For me the line 1.15 means your team might not suck. The Sabres are at... 0.75 meaning they are significantly under the 1.15 needed for playoffs or in mind, a winning season. 

A team back in the day of ties that was 5-5-2 was “five hundred”, and a mid pack team. Those “1 pointers” weren’t indicative of losing ground to your opponent, which is what 1 point represents now. 

About half the teams make the playoffs. That’s why getting about half the total available points was seen as an acceptable mark, cause mid-pack is about the playoff line. That was when there was only 2 points given out each game, though, where no matter what, the average points earned per game among the 2 teams was 1. Or, 1 of an “available” 2, ie .500. 

Nowadays, teams earn on average more than 1 point a game due to the presence of the loser point, so averaging 1 a game, or .500, isn’t good anymore league relative. It’s below average 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Last Eichel Fan

[Brawndo]

Dimitri Filipovic is an analyst for EP Rinkside and the PDO Podcast. 
 

He was on with Howard and Jeremy this AM and broke down the flaws in Krueger’s System the reasons behind it. 
 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/howard-and-jeremy/id1142016942?i=1000511437609

The only Forwards who have been consistent healthy scratches have been Cozens, Mitts and Skinner. 
 

Eakin and Okposo despite stretches of poor play remain in the lineup. I know what they can do and more importantly what they cannot. 
 

At this point of the season I need to see what CJ Smith, Ogileve and Artuu can do. 
 

The Biggest Advantage to replacing Krueger now, especially if it’s one of Boudreau, Gallant or Julien, is that Jack will get an idea of what next season will be like and both he and the front office can evaluate their positions. Hopefully Jack likes the New System and the trade chatter disappears. 
 

[Zamboni]

If you HAD to chose one of Boudreau, Gallant, or Julien to replace RK ... who would you logically choose? And Why? Sell the rest of us on why your choice is best.

Mods, if this deserves its own thread, feel free to move it.