Looking at the reasons to fire Ken Hitchcock.

Look, I'm no Hitchcock fanboy.  In April I said 

"Hitch has to go.

Hitch is a good coach.  The Blues have a great defensive system and play it well.

Unfortunately, he's not a great coach.  He is still fixated on Ott's grit.  He churns the forward lines incomprehensibly.  At the end of the day, he had one job this year.  Win in the playoffs.  He didn't get the job done."

Obviously, Army didn't listen and brought Hitch back.  So now we are 36 games into the season and people are calling for Hitch's head.  Why?  Let's look at some of the reasons I've seen.

"Hitchcock scrambles the forward lines"

I don't get why they do it but it seems like every coach scrambles the forward lines every game.  You pretty much can't go to a team blog here without people complaining about their coach's line combinations.

"Hitchcock has lost the room"

I'm not in the room so this might be true.  If true, then, yes he should be gone.  But I don't think it's true.  On the bench, Hitch seems to have the team's attention.  I've seen lots of coaches lose the room.  Paul Maurice.  Peter Laviolette.  Maurice again.  Kirk Muller.  The worst was probably Claude Noel in Winnipeg.  In his final game, Noel calls a time out and the players don't even look at him.  Dustin Byfuglien in particular looks to be in a hypnotic trance.  I don't see that disconnect in the Blues.

"Hitchcock doesn't know how to fix things"

This based on Hitchcock's post-game comments, or so I'm told.  I wouldn't know, since I never pay attention to any coach's post-game comments.  To me, this is a little like wanting to trade a player because his between-period interviews don't let us peer into his hockey soul.  Besides, I think there is a bit of deliberate misdirection here.  More on that in a minute.

"The Blues are inconsistent"

True and some of the games have been a mess.  At the same time, no team plays 82+ great games every year.  Maybe the Blues are getting the lousy games out of their system during the regular season.  Maybe they will play well in the playoffs.  That would be inconsistency I could get behind.

"The system isn't working"

Defensively, the system has worked very well and continues to do so.

Offensively, things are about the same as usual.

While the offensive results are not what I would want them to be, I think the system is only part of the problem here.  Some of the problem is utilization.  The wrong guys are often in the wrong roles.  That would be on Hitch, too.  But some of the problem is the lineup.  A big chunk of offense is talent.  It's mobility and creativity.  How do you improvise when a play breaks down?  Do you see opportunities and react to them?  The inability to do those things aren't flaws in the system; they are flaws in the lineup.

"The Blues have underachieved"

As I write this, the Blues are second in the West and third overall.  I see the Kings as clearly the best team in the West.  The Blues are in a group with Dallas, Chicago, Nashville, and (maybe) Winnipeg a notch down.  Second in the West seems like a good result.

"There are better coaches available"

Maybe true in April, most likely not true now.  The only guys with more wins than Hitchcock are dead or employed by the Blackhawks (aka dead inside).  The only living coaches with better winning percentages are already employed.  

It's not like Scotty Bowman is shining shoes and pining for a comeback.

"Hitch isn't the right guy for the job"

Probably true.  The Blues probably need this guy:
  

  
    
    
      
        
  


  






      
    
    
  
  



You know, unlikely coach leads rag-tag bunch of misfits to unexpected championship.

The biggest problem at this point isn't Hitchcock, it's the lineup.  Sure Hitch churns his forward lines, misuses guys, loves Ott's grart, etc.  But GM Doug Armstrong is the real problem in St. Louis.  The team he has put together is simply not a Stanley Cup contender.  Which is sad because 2-3 years ago it felt like it was. A series of bad trades mostly swapping skill for grit and "bye bye" Stanley Cup window.

Hitch is a old-school, stand up guy.   When he stands at the podium after a game and spouts gibberish, I think he's covering for his GM.  When Hitch says "I don't know what's wrong" that's coach-speak for "What the hell do you expect?  We traded Oshie for Brouwer.  Oshie has as many goals as Brouwer has points.  I had to play Upshall and Brodziak 12 minutes each tonight and they have 8 points.  Total.  This team needs to be bitten by radioactive spiders to have a chance in the West."

So fire Hitch.  Or don't fire Hitch.  I don't think it matters.  Not with Army as the GM.