Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Honestly, the arguments made - by a few - appeared to be attempting to find numbers to argue Gultuzan was a good coach despite the lack of results. It was less analysis and more rationalization. This is a problem I have with a number of advanced stat guys. They try to fit the data to their conclusion rather than the other way around.
And that is why the "deep dive" has been so disparaged. Trying to argue Gulutzan was a good coach despite the team's awful record and plodding, slow, boring style; despite his clear inability to respond to anything happening on the ice; despite his unwillingness to do anything to change up what wasn't working; and despite his love affair with crappy players was never going to sell.
If there was frustration, it was because nobody was buying what was easily disproven by what we saw on the ice night in and night out.
|
If you go back you'll see many an attempt at saying "before I fire the coach I think an analysis is needed as to why the numbers don't support it. If the coach was good and the execution was bad then rushing to fire the guy wouldn't be the correct decision"
That got a lot of ridicule.
If you think it should then fine.
But the mere suggestion of looking into things deeper certainly raised the ire of many on this site, and on the surface should it? Especially given the argument in the last few pages of a more thorough hiring process should have been adhered to?