Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
First of all let's drop +/- as it is a bad stat
Second you are comparing the wrong years. Dougie had 12G and 43 pts under Hartley. He had 13G and 50 pts the next year.
That's a seven point improvement that could easily be attributed to the adjustment period after he was traded to a brand new team (Dougie had 1 point in his first nine games as a Flame, and produced at a 48 point pace over his final 72 games.).
Compare that to Brodie dropping from a 53 point pace to 36 or Giordano dropping from 56 points to 39. Now add Hamonic dropping from a 25 pt guy to 11 points.
That is not "balancing out" by any definition. That is falling off the proverbial map.
Finally, while Hamilton had 50 last year, he only had 44 this year. One point more than he did under Hartley. It's not as if he exploded into a 65pt beast to offset the simultaneous declines of Brodie, Giordano, Hamonic.
|
I think you need to re-read my segment on Hamilton. It was a comparison between
best years in Calgary and Boston, showing that he hasn't been "flat" in his time in Calgary coming from Boston.
Admittedly I allowed myself to be misdirected from the foundation of the original argument, but you're still missing it. I'm not trying to argue GG or BP's quality, or individual seasons, or team seasons, or anything like that.
I am trying to undercut the argument that when a star player struggles under a coach it means they are a poor coach.
It doesn't, because in almost all cases there are examples where other players develop and improve under the same coach in the same time frame.