Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Hartley's 14/15 team had a lot go it's way, there's little doubt.
This season felt a bit like the antitheses to that. I'm certainly not calling the whole thing luck, but it's not just systems too. Bad bounces, odd calls, and the one that really sticks out to me is leading the league in missing the net.
Missed shots now up to 1207, when the next closest team is 1120 is just odd as hell. Missing the net could be execution too, don't get me wrong, but it's certainly not structure.
Before the torches get lit, I'm not suggesting they retain Gulutzan, but I'd want the GM to look at some of the unlikeliness of some of the stats to repeat if everything was left as is as part of the analysis.
Too many players on this team are below their position's average in shooting percentage. Is that all on coaching?
I just wouldn't discount anything.
|
What went their way exactly?
They got 'middle of the road' goaltending - the counting stats say as much.
They had more injuries - and to key personnel too - then at any time under Gulutzan.
Take a look at the defence. 12 different players played D for the Flames that year. That's a lot of rotation.
Backlund and Stajan both missed significant time - that left Monahan to fend for himself essentially, as the Flames had a terrible time trying to line-match.
I argue that it was also never just a single season - it was also the 2nd half of the previous season that the Flames started to play a consistent game (wasn't that they year they set - or tied - the franchise record for most 1-goal games?).
That season's Flames in my opinion were the antithesis to this year's Flames - poor (but sustainable) advanced metrics. This is where I argue that until advanced metrics starts to differentiate between quality of shots better (as in forcing a goalie to move in order to make a save, cross-crease passes, etc..) then it is 'additional information', not something you can call 'luck' (either good or bad) when the results don't align with the stats. It is too long of a sample size in both directions that have a negative relationship with the expected outcome to just merely call it luck.
Advanced metrics isn't 'garbage'. It just doesn't go nearly far enough. Hartley's system was geared towards allowing more shots from the perimeter and contesting the middle of the ice more, and blocking everything when possible, and then trying to create odd-man rushes. Odd-man rushes usually result in higher chances of scoring (I would imagine that goalies have to think about cross-ice passes more).
Gulutzan's system seems much more geared to smothering shot attempts in the defensive zone, and having a 5 man transition, and then trying to get the pucks into scoring areas. It results in less odd-man rushes, so one could reasonably conclude that with less odd-man rushes, the shot quality SHOULD be lower.
Does this make sense at all? I mean, this is just what I have been mulling over for a while now. Now which system is better? I think it is 100% team dependent. I think Hartley's system is far more effective for a quick team with puck-moving defencmen and young legs out there that can rush the puck. I think Gulutzan's system is probably better suited to an older team with defencemen that can't transition the puck as well (necessitating shorter passes/dump-ins) - but I think they need heavy wingers to attack the net for 2nd and 3rd chances MORE than what we have seen.
This is my take. I think coaching directly FOR CORSI is stupid. Goalies at this level might make an odd mistake and allow a goal in, but it is hard to beat an NHL level goalie even from a high danger area when the goalie is already set. Only elite players are capable of it, and even then a goalie SHOULD be saving most of them. I think that is why the Flames lead the league in missing the net as well, as they are forced to pick corners/5-hole as the opposing goalie is set.
This has been my take anyway, and I wish I could go back to the midpoint of the season and see if in fact those games that the Flames lost while vastly out-playing and out-chancing the opposition aligned with my theory (not making the goalie move enough, while having the opposition forcing the Flames' goalies move with their limited chances).
At any rate, going from Hartley to Gulutzan seems a heck of a lot like the Flames going from Keenan to Sutter. It was perhaps trying to make too much of an adjustment on play style.