GDT Game 7: 4/25/16 | 7:30PM CST | v Hawks | NBCSN/FSMW/Y98

[heff]

I don't buy most of what Hitch says. He's got world class talent but misuses them. If this team wins the Cup it'll be in spite of him, not because he's a genius behind the bench.

Agreed.

[cprice12]

https://twitter.com/MarkLazerus/status/725373901967089665

[cardsfan04]

If we would have blown this series, especially after being up 3-1, I would have been on the fire Hitch bandwagon. At some point you have to draw the line and blowing 3 2-game leads in the playoffs with a loss to the Wild mixed in would have been enough.

But, while there's certainly valid criticism of Hitch, I think we've been a bit unlucky with our matchups. With the exception of last year which was a bad exit, under Hitch we have lost to the Kings twice and Blackhawks. If those losses happen in the conference finals (which is about the level of matchup those were), I think there's a slightly different vibe about Hitch. I mean, they weren't in the conference finals. I get that. But, I think we would have gone further if we didn't have terrible matchups so early those years.

[Kerfuffle]

https://twitter.com/MarkLazerus/status/725373901967089665

It's a fair statement - we're used to winning. This series could have gone either way the games were so close. Seabrook's double-post late in game 7 was just a sign it's not our year. If that goes in I believe we win it in OT. Sometimes you don't get the bounces - that's sports.

[gaijin]

If we would have blown this series, especially after being up 3-1, I would have been on the fire Hitch bandwagon. At some point you have to draw the line and blowing 3 2-game leads in the playoffs with a loss to the Wild mixed in would have been enough.

But, while there's certainly valid criticism of Hitch, I think we've been a bit unlucky with our matchups. With the exception of last year which was a bad exit, under Hitch we have lost to the Kings twice and Blackhawks. If those losses happen in the conference finals (which is about the level of matchup those were), I think there's a slightly different vibe about Hitch. I mean, they weren't in the conference finals. I get that. But, I think we would have gone further if we didn't have terrible matchups so early those years.

This goes back to the discussion that occurred prior to the start of the playoffs on how you have to have both skill and luck to win a Cup. Obviously skill to do it, but it also takes luck in the form of what matchup you draw, and we've had some pretty damn tough matchups in the recent past.

As for Hitch, I think he's not back next year whether we win or lose. His contract has only been 1 year at a time for the last couple years. So he doesn't have to be fired- his contract is up. I think he will either retire with another Cup, or the Blues will not renew his contract. Either way, we have a different coach next season, and Hitch isn't fired.

[ecbm]

I'm still far from convinced about Hitchcock. I'm not really buying the unlucky matchup stuff for a couple reasons. First, the "if it happened in the finals" line really is a "if my uncle had tits he'd be my aunt" line. Yes, even a shitty performance in the conference finals would get a lot more slack than what we've seen-precisely because of the two rounds before that in which the Blues played well enough to win. And the whole "they went on to win the SC" thing was obviously torpedoed last year when we were beaten by Minnesota who promptly rolled over for Chicago. Finally, for me how they play is really important no matter when they go out. I've been less than heartened than some in recent years by recalling the series win against the Sharks a few years ago because I vividly recall the meek capitulation to the Kings that followed it. Similarly, Hitchcock's misuse of Tarasenko and a few other things have me less than convinced he's really adjusted at all. We'll see.

[ComradeT]

If we would have blown this series, especially after being up 3-1, I would have been on the fire Hitch bandwagon. At some point you have to draw the line and blowing 3 2-game leads in the playoffs with a loss to the Wild mixed in would have been enough.

But, while there's certainly valid criticism of Hitch, I think we've been a bit unlucky with our matchups. With the exception of last year which was a bad exit, under Hitch we have lost to the Kings twice and Blackhawks. If those losses happen in the conference finals (which is about the level of matchup those were), I think there's a slightly different vibe about Hitch. I mean, they weren't in the conference finals. I get that. But, I think we would have gone further if we didn't have terrible matchups so early those years.

This goes back to the discussion that occurred prior to the start of the playoffs on how you have to have both skill and luck to win a Cup. Obviously skill to do it, but it also takes luck in the form of what matchup you draw, and we've had some pretty damn tough matchups in the recent past.

As for Hitch, I think he's not back next year whether we win or lose. His contract has only been 1 year at a time for the last couple years. So he doesn't have to be fired- his contract is up. I think he will either retire with another Cup, or the Blues will not renew his contract. Either way, we have a different coach next season, and Hitch isn't fired.

For the sake of the argument - say the Blues go all the way, AND Hitch doesn't mind coming back. What motivation will the Blues management have for bringing in another coach if they have a cup winning coach who wants to take another crack at things? It's a different story if Hitch decides to bow out on a high note.

Also, what if the Blues don't go quite all the way but lose in SCF? Or in WCF? And Hitch still wants to come back. I just don't see this decision as so black-and-white.

[Oaklandblue]

If we would have blown this series, especially after being up 3-1, I would have been on the fire Hitch bandwagon. At some point you have to draw the line and blowing 3 2-game leads in the playoffs with a loss to the Wild mixed in would have been enough.

But, while there's certainly valid criticism of Hitch, I think we've been a bit unlucky with our matchups. With the exception of last year which was a bad exit, under Hitch we have lost to the Kings twice and Blackhawks. If those losses happen in the conference finals (which is about the level of matchup those were), I think there's a slightly different vibe about Hitch. I mean, they weren't in the conference finals. I get that. But, I think we would have gone further if we didn't have terrible matchups so early those years.

This goes back to the discussion that occurred prior to the start of the playoffs on how you have to have both skill and luck to win a Cup. Obviously skill to do it, but it also takes luck in the form of what matchup you draw, and we've had some pretty damn tough matchups in the recent past.

As for Hitch, I think he's not back next year whether we win or lose. His contract has only been 1 year at a time for the last couple years. So he doesn't have to be fired- his contract is up. I think he will either retire with another Cup, or the Blues will not renew his contract. Either way, we have a different coach next season, and Hitch isn't fired.

For the sake of the argument - say the Blues go all the way, AND Hitch doesn't mind coming back. What motivation will the Blues management have for bringing in another coach if they have a cup winning coach who wants to take another crack at things? It's a different story if Hitch decides to bow out on a high note.

Also, what if the Blues don't go quite all the way but lose in SCF? Or in WCF? And Hitch still wants to come back. I just don't see this decision as so black-and-white.

This team wins in spite of Hitch, not because of him. Name another coach that calls a timeout with seconds left on the clock, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[ecbm]

To quote myself from much earlier in the season: if Hitch manages sensibly and gets this squad to the WCF playing good hockey, he's welcome to return.

If any sort of rift between him & Tarasenko actually develops though, he needs to go, regardless.

[cardsfan04]

I'm still far from convinced about Hitchcock. I'm not really buying the unlucky matchup stuff for a couple reasons. First, the "if it happened in the finals" line really is a "if my uncle had tits he'd be my aunt" line. Yes, even a shitty performance in the conference finals would get a lot more slack than what we've seen-precisely because of the two rounds before that in which the Blues played well enough to win. And the whole "they went on to win the SC" thing was obviously torpedoed last year when we were beaten by Minnesota who promptly rolled over for Chicago. Finally, for me how they play is really important no matter when they go out. I've been less than heartened than some in recent years by recalling the series win against the Sharks a few years ago because I vividly recall the meek capitulation to the Kings that followed it. Similarly, Hitchcock's misuse of Tarasenko and a few other things have me less than convinced he's really adjusted at all. We'll see.

I get that viewpoint and know that I'm in the minority. I just think too much is made of the outcome of a short series sometimes. I think if you play those 4 series that we lost an infinite amount of times, we win our fair share. I get this is the ultimate half-full outlook on it, but I think the opposite can be said in reverse.

[glen a richter]

2 things.

First, to be the best you have to beat the best. Saying we're victims of unlucky matchups is a bad way to justify it. They weren't up to the task, they lost, end of story.

Second, at various points it's either known or assumed that Hitch has had tiffs with Elliott, Shattenkirk and now Tarasenko. Cup or not, how many more guys can he clash with before he loses the room entirely? This season is shaping up perfectly for the team. Win it all, he goes out a winner. Lose, he goes anyway. Just like Gaijin said. I tend to agree. Next year this team has a different coach no matter.

[cardsfan04]

My point about the matchups and whatnot is that playoffs can be a bit fluky. In baseball you hear how much of a crapshoot it is all the time. 1, 5, and 7 game series to decide a champion. At most, 20 playoff games vs 162 regular season games.

Hockey is a little different in baseball in that the game changes a bit in the playoffs from the regular season. But, still, at most 28 games in the playoffs vs 82 in the regular season. 1 7-game series isn't just about who the better team is, it's about who gets the best bounces.

If we go on to win the Cup this year, we will have won 5 of 9 playoff series under Hitch, more than we've lost. Should that happen, is Hitch suddenly a good playoff coach because he wins more in the playoffs than he loses? I just think too strong of conclusions are drawn on a handful of games that are in stark contrast to the bulk of his work here.

[cprice12]

2 things.

First, to be the best you have to beat the best. Saying we're victims of unlucky matchups is a bad way to justify it. They weren't up to the task, they lost, end of story.

Second, at various points it's either known or assumed that Hitch has had tiffs with Elliott, Shattenkirk and now Tarasenko. Cup or not, how many more guys can he clash with before he loses the room entirely? This season is shaping up perfectly for the team. Win it all, he goes out a winner. Lose, he goes anyway. Just like Gaijin said. I tend to agree. Next year this team has a different coach no matter.

I don't understand why it's necessary for players to all get along hunky dory with the coach.
Who cares if there are arguments now and then? It just shows people are passionate and care.
Now, if it effects the performance of the team on the ice, then that's a different story...but I don't think any of that is the case.
The tiffs he has had with Oshie, Shatty, Tarasenko, etc I think have all been overblown for the most part.

[StL Dan]

https://twitter.com/MarkLazerus/status/725373901967089665

It's a fair statement - we're used to winning. This series could have gone either way the games were so close. Seabrook's double-post late in game 7 was just a sign it's not our year. If that goes in I believe we win it in OT. Sometimes you don't get the bounces - that's sports.

Wasn't that double post the second of the series? I'm pretty sure it was - but not sure if the Blues or the Hawks had the first one.

[ecbm]

Hitch has had tiffs with Elliott, Shattenkirk and now Tarasenko

You forgot Perron, Halak and Oshie.

I don't understand why it's necessary for players to all get along hunky dory with the coach.

They don't have to be best friends but if you ran a business and had a manager who had clashed with 5-6 productive members of a 20ish-man staff and was failing to meet your yearly goals, would you consider that a problem?

[ecbm]

https://twitter.com/MarkLazerus/status/725373901967089665

It's a fair statement - we're used to winning. This series could have gone either way the games were so close. Seabrook's double-post late in game 7 was just a sign it's not our year. If that goes in I believe we win it in OT. Sometimes you don't get the bounces - that's sports.

Wasn't that double post the second of the series? I'm pretty sure it was - but not sure if the Blues or the Hawks had the first one.

Yep. Ladd had one in...was it game 4? Not sure but it was definitely Ladd.

Have to say-was talking to my brother when that happened and I commented that that's the sort of thing that usually DOES NOT HAPPEN for the Blues in the playoffs. Good sign!

[Kerfuffle]

Wasn't that double post the second of the series? I'm pretty sure it was - but not sure if the Blues or the Hawks had the first one.

It was the second of the series - I think we had the other one as well.

[gaijin]

https://twitter.com/MarkLazerus/status/725373901967089665

It's a fair statement - we're used to winning. This series could have gone either way the games were so close. Seabrook's double-post late in game 7 was just a sign it's not our year. If that goes in I believe we win it in OT. Sometimes you don't get the bounces - that's sports.

Wasn't that double post the second of the series? I'm pretty sure it was - but not sure if the Blues or the Hawks had the first one.

Yep. Ladd had one in...was it game 4? Not sure but it was definitely Ladd.

Have to say-was talking to my brother when that happened and I commented that that's the sort of thing that usually DOES NOT HAPPEN for the Blues in the playoffs. Good sign!

That sort of thing totally happens for the Blues... except normally we're the ones who hit both posts without scoring.

[theohall]

On the Hitchcock-Tarasenko thing from Game 6, Hitchcock admitted he made mistake during that NHL Live interview posted in the Stars thread.

I cheated and got caught. We had too much offensive zone time and I didn't get to make the change.

So he admitted it was a mistake. First time I'd heard that part, instead of just the excuse part at the end.

[cprice12]

Hitch has had tiffs with Elliott, Shattenkirk and now Tarasenko

You forgot Perron, Halak and Oshie.

I don't understand why it's necessary for players to all get along hunky dory with the coach.

They don't have to be best friends but if you ran a business and had a manager who had clashed with 5-6 productive members of a 20ish-man staff and was failing to meet your yearly goals, would you consider that a problem?

The only real gripe I have about the "failing to meet yearly goals" is the loss to Minnesota last year. That was bad.
There is no shame in losing to Chicago or LA the previous years...yes, it sucks, and nobody wants to bow out in the first round when you have cup hopes, but those were elite teams and it just so happened we met them in the 1st round, when it could have easily been a conference final.
Simply chalking it up as "losing in the first round" is kind of ignoring the fact that we lost to excellent teams in some VERY close series that could have gone either way, especially in 2014.
But yeah...the loss to the Wild last year was something where Hitch could have lost his job over, and he would have if the coaches they were interested in had wanted to come to St. Louis.