Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebot
Gulutzan plays solely to get high Corsi, and the expected result was to win games from that. The Flames under Gulutzan had great possession numbers, the problem is the chances generated were quite low chance shots with teams able to prepare for a very predictable Flames offense. I can bet you that by the end of the year the number of blocked shots against with Peters should be lower than under Gulutzan.
Peters so far, while he does obviously play a possession game, also strives for quick turnovers and activates Defense a lot to get an advantage. How many times have you see a D to D pass to start a rush with Peters? You never see it unless it's to get out of danger. Under Gulutzan you would always see a D to D pass, and all 5 man moving as a unit. It made the Flames get great Corsi, but be a so called 'unlucky' team.
The Flames last year were one of the most boring teams I have ever seen, and the worst part is they were a boring losing team. Each missed assignment would turn into a 2 on 1 or poor defensive coverage, all of a sudden it's 4-1 despite the Flames playing 'good hockey' and outshooting their opponent by 10 shots.
That's why advanced stats are pure garbage. Good Corsi is a result of playing good hockey, it is not the reason.
|
That's not true. I'm pretty confident he wanted to win. Does he believe possession stats disclose winning practices? Sure.
GG coached a system that the majority of the coaches in this league, including the highly thought of ones like Babcock and Cooper, employ. IMO his downfall was (a) he didn't have quite the personnel to execute it properly; (b) he lacked the ability to motivate the men to do it properly; (c) he failed to tinker with the plan enough when it wasn't working mid game.