Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe
Disagree.
Under Hartley, during the 'terrible year' in which he got canned, the Flames allowed 29.0 shots against per game. That was good for 11th BEST in the NHL. They allowed the most goals on those shots, and it is no small wonder as the goalies were incapable of playing with any semblance of decency.
How did this season's Flames measure up? They allowed 31.1 shots against per game, and that was actually good for 10th (shots were up across the board this year). One could argue that they were slightly better this year at suppressing shots (as all things are relative against the other teams in the league year-to-year).
However, look at the talent discrepancy between those two teams. Keep in mind that Smith was WAY better at controlling rebounds than Hiller, Ramo and Ortio (though I think Ramo was decent for a long stretch up until his injury).
I don't think that one can really make an argument that Hartley's system didn't rely on defence, or that they played defence poorly. It doesn't really add up. The CORSI was bad, but who really cares? The CORSI was good this year, and yet here we are.
FYI - here are the remaining years of Hartley's tenure:
2014-15 - the unexpected playoff year- 12th best with 29.2
2013-14 - the rebuild year - 8th best with 28.6
A team that suppresses that many shots doesn't scream 'terrible defensively' to me.
Gulutzan's year he made the playoffs - 2016-18 - they were also 8th best with 28.7 shots against/game.
How then, if the Flames were so good at suppressing shots against, did Hartley's team finish last? Take a look at the SV%:
Ramo .909 - not terrible
Hiller .879 - that's terrible
Ortio .902 - not bad for a young guy
Backstrom .881 (meh - 4 games)
Hiller was the big issue here that year. Flames were actually doing well again when Ramo surged in net.. and then once again everything collapsed when he went down and Hiller was given the net.
Hartley has won the championship in every single league he has ever coached in. EVERY SINGLE ONE. He has also taken two bad, rebuilding teams into the playoffs. How on earth you can make the judgement that Gulutzan is the better coach is beyond me. What evidence do you have to support this? I don't see it.
At any rate, your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan. It was a push at best, and at worst, Hartley was much better defensively since he had way less talent to play with, and had rosters with more in-season turnover (more injuries, more players getting call-ups and getting a look, etc) over their respective years. Not a single goalie that went through the Flames during Hartley's tenure still play in the NHL. That is a huge hint as to how poor goaltending was during his tenure.
It makes little sense to me that people think Gulutzan's system is 'playing the right way' and Hartley's system was 'cheating', when shot suppression (probably the best metric of how a team actually PLAYS defence) doesn't support that notion. Goals against is a combination of how a team plays defence and how good your goalie actually is.
|
"your argument is incorrect that the Flames under Hartley were worse defensively than the Flames under Gulutzan?"
My argument is 100% correct based on facts. I would agree that Hiller was absolutely awful in 15-16, but he also played only 26 games that season of Hartley's entire 4 year tenure. You spent a lot of time trying to defend Hartley's defensive system, but all you have to do is look at how many goals this team allowed under him.
12-13 = 29th in GA (despite having Miikka Kiprusoff)
13-14 = 23rd in GA
14-15 = 15th in GA
15-16 = 30th in GA
As you can see, the stats don't lie. 75% of the seasons under Hartley, we were amongst the worst in the league in goals allowed, if not the worst. He played an entertaining system, but we gave up too many goals and that's partly why he was canned and likely why he's still out of work today.