The Next Flames Coach | News & Rumors

[IgiTang]

Sutter was GM/Coach and chose to move up to GM full time.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

With Daryl rumored to have signed the offered extension, that may not be for another few seasons. And even if he's getting paid well as an assistant, you'd have to think that a open head coaching position, one of few available, has to be quite alluring.

Perhaps getting paid handsomely and being able to live in sunny Southern California is more appealing to him than being a scapegoat in frigid Calgary if he cant find success. Everyone has different motivations.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

In this case, it does, because you are not limited to one player. The events are stochastically independent. If you break it down—

11% – both picks play 100 games – 2 x 0.11 = 0.22
44% – one plays 100 games, one doesn't – 1 x 0.44 = 0.44
45% – neither pick plays 100 games – 0 x 0.45 = 0

Which adds up to a statistical chance equal to 0.66 of a 100-game player.

I think PlayfulGenuis was correct.

The chance of two unrelated items happening are not additive. But the chance of two related items happening are multiplicative. The chance of one OR the other happening are unrelated, but the chance of both NOT happening are related.

If there is a 33% chance of a 2nd round pick playing 100 games, there is a 67% chance that he does not. To calculate the odds that neither pick plays 100 games its 67% x 67%, or 45% chance that neither pick plays 100 games. Therefore, there is a 55% chance that one, the other, or both plays 100 games.

You can think of it like Boolean logic. If A is the chance of something happening and not(a) is the chance of it not happening, then

A+B =not(not(a) x not(b)) = not(.67x.67) = not(45) = 55%

The upside of the 55% of course is that within it there is a chance that you get a second player that plays 100 games.

[sureLoss]

Rob Kerr on 960 says he is hearing the Flames have a very large list and have just begun to whittle down that list.

He says that everyone inquiring about the Flames job is being warned that the list is very long.

[Racki]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Rob Kerr on 960 says he is hearing the Flames have a very large list and have just begun to whittle down that list.

He says that everyone inquiring about the Flames job is being warned that the list is very long.

I really like this approach. Now that Ottawa and Minnesota have filled their vacancies there really is no need to rush this decision.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by Vox

I think PlayfulGenuis was correct.

The chance of two unrelated items happening are not additive. But the chance of two related items happening are multiplicative. The chance of one OR the other happening are unrelated, but the chance of both NOT happening are related.

If there is a 33% chance of a 2nd round pick playing 100 games, there is a 67% chance that he does not. To calculate the odds that neither pick plays 100 games its 67% x 67%, or 45% chance that neither pick plays 100 games. Therefore, there is a 55% chance that one, the other, or both plays 100 games.

You can think of it like Boolean logic. If A is the chance of something happening and not(a) is the chance of it not happening, then

A+B =not(not(a) x not(b)) = not(.67x.67) = not(45) = 55%

The upside of the 55% of course is that within it there is a chance that you get a second player that plays 100 games.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Vox

I think PlayfulGenuis was correct.

The chance of two unrelated items happening are not additive. But the chance of two related items happening are multiplicative. The chance of one OR the other happening are unrelated, but the chance of both NOT happening are related.

You're thinking about odds. Everybody else is talking about probable returns. If you have a statistically expected return of 0.33 of a player from one pick, then the expected return from two picks is 0.66 of a player. Sometimes that will come from a team hitting with two picks, sometimes with one; it doesn't matter. If you could seed all 30 teams with two picks per year and each pick had a 0.33 probability of playing 100 NHL games, after 10 years, there would be 600 such picks and you would expect 200 players to have played the games. It's not like a lottery where there is only one prize.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

That's what I thought. I was just surprised to see 141 votes from people thinking that Sutter would be a good choice for Calgary. Yeah, so would Babcock. But he is not available. Plus, there's that Chris factor. Darryl's son loves being in LA and the whole team really made him feel a very special part of it. Sutter said it himself several times how much fun Chris is having over there. So, it's not an option.

No need to be snide about it. Prior to this news today, there speculation he might be available based on having delayed on accepting the offer and him having texted Friedman saying he was mulling it over. When this thread was created and over the last week it was not the same situation as Babcock (who is currently under contract) at all.

[Vox]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You're thinking about odds. Everybody else is talking about probable returns. If you have a statistically expected return of 0.33 of a player from one pick, then the expected return from two picks is 0.66 of a player. Sometimes that will come from a team hitting with two picks, sometimes with one; it doesn't matter. If you could seed all 30 teams with two picks per year and each pick had a 0.33 probability of playing 100 NHL games, after 10 years, there would be 600 such picks and you would expect 200 players to have played the games. It's not like a lottery where there is only one prize.

I can live with that. My math is more fun though.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Interested to hear the terms on Sutter's contract. LA may continue blocking NHL teams from discussions with John Stevens, but if that Sutter contract is a longer one (3+ years), then I imagine they would probably be more open to letting him find a head coaching position.

[sureLoss]

A few quotes from Treliving today, nothing really earth shattering..

News Update

.

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/...oaching-search

But Treliving insists he is not worried about the shrinking talent pool. Nor is he pressured to make a decision before all the so-called good coaches get snatched up.

“It’s no different than building a team,” Treliving, who is in Russia as Team Canada’s GM, said while watching practice up in the stands on Friday. “It takes time. It’s personal fit. You’re trying to find a match and chemistry.”

As Treliving spoke, two out-of-work coaches — Mike Yeo and Dave Cameron, who lost their jobs this year with the Wild and Senators, respectively — were on the ice in what some might consider an audition. A report out of Minnesota suggested that Treliving had asked the Wild for permission to speak with Yeo, who is still under contract, and that the two had met on Wednesday.

Neither would confirm that happened or wanted to get into about specifics, but it is fair to say that Treliving is casting a very large net on what could be his most important move since being named GM two years ago.

“I’m not rushing it because I want to hit a certain date,” he said. “There’s no time pressure, but having said that, you don’t want to wait until September either.”

Treliving said he is looking for someone with experience, but that the quality of experience matters more than the actual years of service. He is “not just looking for a name” or “someone who’s coached for 20 years” or even a former NHL head coach. But he does want someone, whether it is an assistant coach, minor-league coach, or someone from major junior or college, who had a role in building something of significance.

“To me it’s not as much about where you’ve coached, but what you’ve built and what your piece was in growing it,” said Treliving. “It’s being involved in winning programs.”

As reporters have noted, he and Hartley did not see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. Treliving might have hinted at this, saying it’s critical to have an “in-sync relationship” between the GM and head coach.

“You’re in lock-step with each other and you debate and you argue and do all that other stuff,” he said. “But I don’t think a coach should show up one day and there’s four new players there.”

So when can Calgary expect to have a new coach? It won’t be today, laughed Treliving. And it won’t be the day before training camp opens.

“It’s going to be sometime between then,” he said. “I haven’t set a mile marker, but you’d obviously like it done soon, because there are other things you have to do.”

[Calgary4LIfe]

I can't but help think of Nate Leaman after that article.

[Textcritic]

What does this mean?

Originally Posted by Brad Treliving

"You’re in lock-step with each other and you debate and you argue and do all that other stuff, but I don’t think a coach should show up one day and there’s four new players there."

[SuperMatt18]

“To me it’s not as much about where you’ve coached, but what you’ve built and what your piece was in growing it,” said Treliving. “It’s being involved in winning programs.”

That one is really interesting IMO.

Guys that have to be included in that list then would be guys like Nate Leaman (Providence), Bob Boughner (in Windsor), Travis Green (Portland/Utica), Kevin Dineen (Portland Pirates), Dale Hunter (London), Kelly Kisio (Hitmen), Sheldon Keefe (SSM & Marlies), & Ralph Kruger (Swiss National Program)

[ah123]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What does this mean?

Almost sounds like the coach won't have much say on which players will be acquired (through trade), i.e., the coach will need to work with the players he get

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What does this mean?

Probably that a coach should be in the know when it comes to personnel movement. I don't think it's an inditement on Hartley or their relationship as just an example of expected communication from coach to GM.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

A few quotes from Treliving today, nothing really earth shattering..

News Update

.

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/...oaching-search

Good. Rules out anyone Oiler related.

Edit: sorry for the misquote. Refers to "building a winning program".

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by ah123

Almost sounds like the coach won't have much say on which players will be acquired (through trade), i.e., the coach will need to work with the players he get

Sounds like the complete opposite, that the coach shouldn't be surprised with a bunch of new players.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That one is really interesting IMO.

Guys that have to be included in that list then would be guys like Nate Leaman (Providence), Bob Boughner (in Windsor), Travis Green (Portland/Utica), Kevin Dineen (Portland Pirates), Dale Hunter (London), Kelly Kisio (Hitmen), Sheldon Keefe (SSM & Marlies), & Ralph Kruger (Swiss National Program)

Ralph Kruger got a real raw deal in Edmonton. Short training camp, entitled players, leadership belief that drafting #1 overall was the only needed piece of making the playoffs. He still managed to have the best Oilers record in the past 7 years with one of the worst teams to have ever been on NHL ice.

http://edmontonjournal.com/sports/ho...-ralph-krueger

In Saturday’s press conference to announce the decision, MacTavish told members of the Edmonton sports media that he had a somewhat different idea about the direction of the team than Krueger had, but didn’t spell out what those differences were. The sports media were familiar enough with the work of both coaches to figure out for themselves what those differences were, MacTavish said.

That and he would love to show up the Oilers by coaching another team. Hopefully he does get a look.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

That one is really interesting IMO.

Guys that have to be included in that list then would be guys like Nate Leaman (Providence), Bob Boughner (in Windsor), Travis Green (Portland/Utica), Kevin Dineen (Portland Pirates), Dale Hunter (London), Kelly Kisio (Hitmen), Sheldon Keefe (SSM & Marlies), & Ralph Kruger (Swiss National Program)

Right there. Now that would be interesting. How exactly did his time in Washington end again? Did he opt not to return?