Ken Hitchcock's coaching reputation brings a system considered to be hard-nosed, disciplined, and structured. It's not a particularly fun system to watch or play, but it's effective when everyone buys in -- and even during this season's troubles, you heard word out of Columbus that "Ken Hitchcock hockey" would still be "Blue Jacket hockey." That's all lip service now as Hitchcock hits the proverbial NHL unemployment line, but was it really his fault?

There's an old adage that says you can teach defense to anyone, and the idea behind this is that defense is effort, system, and discipline. It helps if you have a Nicklas Lidstrom on the blueline, but it's not necessary -- just ask Jacques Lemaire about this.

That's what makes the sudden downfall of Ken Hitchcock and the Columbus Blue Jackets surprising. Their blueline isn't the most intimidating on paper, and they've had some injuries, but history has shown us that anyone that is willing can play defense. But a closer look at the stats show add a twist to this.

The running joke with defensive coaches and their goaltenders is that the a goalie's great stats are a product of the system. Are they? If you have a good defensive system, your penalty kill and shots-against should be consistent. Let's look at the last three seasons in Columbus:

2009-10
3.19 GAA
81.7 PK
29.8 SA/G
2.55 GF

2008-09
2.72 GAA
82.1 PK
27.8 SA/G
2.68 GF

2007-08
2.56 GAA
83.3 PK
27.4 SA/G
2.32 GF

There's a slight trend upward from Hitchcock's first full season to the second season, but all the defensive stats skyrocket the wrong way this season. Now, let's compare offensive stats, when Columbus's goal support dropped slightly this season -- something you don't want to happen when the goals-against increases, but it's not the worst goal support in the league at 20th out of 30. It's definitely possible to be competitive at that level.

Then there's the goaltending. Steve Mason's sophomore slump has been well documented, but here are the hard numbers: in his rookie year, Mason's save percentage was .916 while facing a team average of 27.8 shots per game (Mason's GAA was 2.29); this season, it's .896 against a team average 29.8 shots per game (Mason's GAA is 3.28). That increase of two shots per game shouldn't create such a jump in goals, and the Columbus penalty kill -- a good indicator of how the team is responding to the system -- is facing a negligible difference and sits at 15th in the league.

Consider this, too: Pascal Leclaire had a .920 save percentage in Hitchcock's first full year in Columbus. Had the team generated a little bit more goal support (2.32 GF) that year, the Blue Jackets would have been much more competitive.

Does the system make the goaltender or does the goaltender make the system? In most cases, it's a little bit of both, and if there were hard stats on rebound control, that would help. Without that, you can just say that when a save percentage is below .900 for an NHL goalie, you'll have to blame a lot more than the system. Let's play with backup goalie Mathieu Garon's numbers a bit. If his 2.86 GAA was projected on to the team for the season, the Blue Jackets goals-allowed total would bump up into the 20th overall spot. This wouldn't have vaulted Columbus into contention for the Central Division title, but they would have been much closer to .500 and probably within striking distance of a playoff spot, all with the potential upside of a Mason hot streak similar to his rookie campaign. Remember, despite all their troubles, the Blue Jackets' record is 22-27-9 -- not great, but certainly not the epic disaster that Edmonton is facing.

Not all of the blame falls on Mason, but we've already established that the team's shots-against and penalty kill numbers aren't that different from last year. The other part of the blame comes with the Columbus's anemic offense, where Rick Nash is on pace for a decent-but-unspectacular campaign and Derrick Brassard is way off from his pre-injury rookie pace. Coaching is obviously one way to get the offense going, but sometimes it's just that guys aren't feeling it in any particular season. If the Jackets saw a little more secondary scoring and better sophomore campaign from Mason (one that didn't necessarily equal his stellar rookie year, just something better than what's happened) and Hitchcock might still have a job.

Is that Hitch's fault? I would say not necessarily, but the easiest way to shake up a team is to fire the coach. I can't imagine that this firing brings the secondary scoring in line, though, so this screams to me of one of two things: either the players tuned Hitchcock out in addition to Mason's troubles or Scott Howson felt pressure elsewhere. Me, I would have just rode out this season and gone forward with at least a month into next season to see how the team fared in a fresh start, especially Mason.

It's too bad, too, as Hitchcock is probably the only Civil War buff in the NHL coaching fraternity. There was a certain sense of belonging with his arrival; not only was he one of the few outsiders who actually knew what a Blue Jacket historically was, he was ready to challenge Rick Nash into a complete player and bring the fledgling franchise into respectability. Alas, you know what they say about the best laid plans, and sometimes, you can't fight fate -- especially when a goalie is facing a sophomore slump of epic proportions.