The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Bingo reminds me of Tyler Delow (mudcrutch) in a lot of ways. Not a shot or praise (hell he was hired by an NHL team for his analysis), they're just very similar in that everything is stats, stats, stats (their pet stats mostly) and the eye test and criticism from others is shunned as "just not getting it".

In his game takes he consistently talks about the eye test including when the stats and eyes test don’t align

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

don't agree.

a lot of dellow's work involves the value of draft picks as well.

I don't either.

Mudcrutch was before my time here, but I think Bingo's views stretch far beyond 'stats, stats, stats'. I'll take Bingo's inputs all day (even when he is promoting possession numbers)

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think i once heard it was 35% of them within 2 years IIRC.

With how the Jack Adam is voted for these days (the coach that beat expectations that season), rather than being indicative of a good team, it's not surprising to hear that lots of those winners have a great year and then fail to recapture it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think i once heard it was 35% of them within 2 years IIRC.

No question GG looks to be done here. I don't think there is a way out of it now. I still dont lay the blame at his feet entirely myself. Its just to easy to say that. Issues on this club run much deeper. There are players here who simply appear not to care enough to make a difference when it matters most.

Lots and lots of work to be done.

In order to know what that means, we need to know what normal attrition is: what are the chances of any coach getting fired over the next two years?

According to one tweet I just read, NHL head coaches have an average tenure of 2.4 years. If that is true, then it is not unreasonable to expect that 35% or more are fired within 2 years.

So it seems that there is no real jinx to winning the Jack Adams.

(However it could be argued that JA winners should last longer than average, but that is a separate debate)

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Really? That's your take away from my post? I'm not saying all new coaching hires should have Stanley Cup rings. (Because that's both unrealistic and stupid.) But if the coach I had just fired had handily defeated my new hire the year before, I better have a damn good reason for making such a move.

Originally Posted by Bingo

He was in charge of the Canuck's powerplay not the team.

That is the thinnest analysis I've ever seen.

He may have only been in charge of the powerplay, but in his seminar video you can see that he endorsed the way the team played overall.

[Tailgator]

The Flames may be a cap team, but they seem to be a budget team when it comes to coaching. The hire more often than not seems to be off the board from what’s available. Never liked the GG hire at all, but considering they never even spoke to BB, my fear is that no matter who is available after the season, we’ll end up with another “why him?” hire......

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Tailgator

The Flames may be a cap team, but they seem to be a budget team when it comes to coaching. The hire more often than not seems to be off the board from what’s available. Never liked the GG hire at all, but considering they never even spoke to BB, my fear is that no matter who is available after the season, we’ll end up with another “why him?” hire......

Did Anaheim even gave the Flames permission to talk to him at all? I know I wouldn't if I were them.

Also, Treliving hired Gulutzan under his previous contract. In this new one, Tre will have no leash this time in terms of meddling ownership (who I'm sure loved Glen's sell when he met with them) so if he does go with the new coach route, he won't have his hands tied this time.

[Bingo]

I'll answer all three of you in one post.

I think it's possible to have good possession numbers and not be a great hockey team. But I'm not just pointing at shooting attempts and calling it a day.

Teams that have good shot metrics but bad scoring chance splits are doing exactly what you guys are talking about; they're running up totals.

Teams with terrible shot attempts but great scoring chance splits are not wasting their energy shooting but running up good chances.

The Flames are a team that have a great shot metrics but identically ranked scoring chance splits which says to me the stat = stat = the eye test. You guys don't have to agree with me ... all good.

Teams that have great shot metrics but don't back it up in scoring chances.

Chicago (3rd/21st)
Nashville (7th/18th)
Pittsburgh (5/15)
Los Angeles 16/25)
Boston (1/9)

Teams with splits the other way (great scoring chances poor shot attempts)

Minnesota (30th/3rd)
Rangers (31/16)
Montreal (15/2)
New Jersey (20/8)
Winnipeg (13/6)
Dallas (8/1)
Toronto (17/11)

Calgary is flat at (4/4)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Bingo reminds me of Tyler Delow (mudcrutch) in a lot of ways. Not a shot or praise (hell he was hired by an NHL team for his analysis), they're just very similar in that everything is stats, stats, stats (their pet stats mostly) and the eye test and criticism from others is shunned as "just not getting it".

That's not even close to true.

I'm equally about the eye test and always have been. Nor have I uttered "just not getting it" to anyone.

I'm just trying to be logical. If a team has more shot attempts in that box in front of the net as counted by independent people it's pretty hard to discount that with the wave of a hand.

So yeah I'm sure you didn't mean that as an insult, but you failed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Red

Someone mentioned here that teams that trail in games have better possession stats than those with a lead.

If that's true then it should explain why the flames have good stats. I guess there is situationally adjusted possession stats to counter that?

I don't like advanced stats myself, but I have to admit that I don't really know how they are collected. Watching the games is still the best way to judge a team or a player. When you see stats supporting the notion that Conklin is better than Brodeur then these stats just lose all the meaning.

They have score adjusted stats, yes.

Flames are 5th and 5th in those rankings, down but similar.-

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'll answer all three of you in one post.

I think it's possible to have good possession numbers and not be a great hockey team. But I'm not just pointing at shooting attempts and calling it a day.

Teams that have good shot metrics but bad scoring chance splits are doing exactly what you guys are talking about; they're running up totals.

Teams with terrible shot attempts but great scoring chance splits are not wasting their energy shooting but running up good chances.

The Flames are a team that have a great shot metrics but identically ranked scoring chance splits which says to me the stat = stat = the eye test. You guys don't have to agree with me ... all good.

Teams that have great shot metrics but don't back it up in scoring chances.

Chicago (3rd/21st)
Nashville (7th/18th)
Pittsburgh (5/15)
Los Angeles 16/25)
Boston (1/9)

Teams with splits the other way (great scoring chances poor shot attempts)

Minnesota (30th/3rd)
Rangers (31/16)
Montreal (15/2)
New Jersey (20/8)
Winnipeg (13/6)
Dallas (8/1)
Toronto (17/11)

Calgary is flat at (4/4)

I am a strong endorser of finding statistical links to future performance, but from everything I have read and continue to analyze on my own, shot generation (quality or otherwise) are not a great indicator of team performance. Your above team lists reflect a similar trend.

I am doing some statistical work to prove (or disprove) my hypothesis that shot generation and "luck metrics" apply on a per player basis but not on a team basis. I will update if there are any meaningful results. I think of it this way, on a per player basis, Johnny may have a bad month or year, but will generally score on the same number of high quality scoring chances. A team fill of Brouwers and Backlund may generate a lot of scoring chances, but in general will (due to skill not luck) perform worse on those than a team like Pittsburgh.

[domingo]

Originally Posted by Tailgator

The hire more often than not seems to be off the board from what’s available.

I thought there is supposed to be a due process for everything.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'll answer all three of you in one post.

I think it's possible to have good possession numbers and not be a great hockey team. But I'm not just pointing at shooting attempts and calling it a day.

Teams that have good shot metrics but bad scoring chance splits are doing exactly what you guys are talking about; they're running up totals.

Teams with terrible shot attempts but great scoring chance splits are not wasting their energy shooting but running up good chances.

The Flames are a team that have a great shot metrics but identically ranked scoring chance splits which says to me the stat = stat = the eye test. You guys don't have to agree with me ... all good.

Teams that have great shot metrics but don't back it up in scoring chances.

Chicago (3rd/21st)
Nashville (7th/18th)
Pittsburgh (5/15)
Los Angeles 16/25)
Boston (1/9)

Teams with splits the other way (great scoring chances poor shot attempts)

Minnesota (30th/3rd)
Rangers (31/16)
Montreal (15/2)
New Jersey (20/8)
Winnipeg (13/6)
Dallas (8/1)
Toronto (17/11)

Calgary is flat at (4/4)

I see two lists with little correlation to success.

And I go back to what I have said many times - because they let the D set up, the Flames' high danger chances tend to be more rushed and of a lower quality. Not always, of course. But the Ranger game was a good example. The Flames had tonnes of in close chances, but the Rangers chances were odd man rushes and guys in alone.

Maybe it's luck (shooting percentage), maybe it's style of play. In reality, it is probably both.

But the bottom line is results. And improving possession numbers does not lead to results.

[Enoch Root]

Bingo, don't those lists contradict your point?

Ignoring that there are good teams on both lists, isn't your argument that the latter (more high quality changes, relative to total chances), is the preferred list?

Yet Boston, Nashville and Pittsburgh are all on the former.

Again, I see absolutely no information from those lists at all. Other than the fact that some teams have lots of shots but not lots of high quality shots, and some teams are the opposite.

And the Flames, despite having lots of both, still suck.

[tkflames]

Having spent 16 hours digesting the Flames loss and post game interview and trying to reduce the emotional bias, I believe more and more that team performance under pressure is linked to coaching.

The Cameron interview after the game bothered me after the game and really bothers me now. To summarize (and he is absolutely correct) it is not the coaching but the team that needs to learn and play under pressure. I couple this with a number of interviews before talking about losing points in the playoff race. Everyone is absolutely correct in their assessment, however it is the wrong approach to growing people. In high pressure situations the most important thing that leaders can do for a young team is separate the pressure from the players heads. Get them to focus on just one game and deflect all attention on the greater goal. People don't grow by yelling at them, blaming them and telling them to grow. People grow by experiencing success and being able to draw on this experience in the future. The young Blackhawks team of a few years back didn't know any better. By the time they realized what they had done they were in the 3rd round with a diversity of experience under their belt. I thought the flames of a few years ago were on a similar track, but mentally they have regressed...substantially. You can tell Johnny (and others) are trying to do to much and the rest of the team is not executing. They are not substantially less skilled than any other team in the race, quite the opposite actually. However unless their leaders and coaches find a way to isolate the young players from the pressure, let them lean on their instincts and focus on one shift, one period or one game, or this season may be a wash (if it isn't already).

[Enoch Root]

Cameron's comments annoyed me as well. I try to take coaches' comments in context after a loss, but having had to listen to a lot of comments after a lot of losses this year, patterns have emerged.

This coaching staff continually puts the onus back on the players. 'Stick to the system', 'keep doing the same things', 'persevere', 'find ways to be successful', etc.

The comments always put the onus on the players to find a way to solve the problem and be better. But as tkflames suggested, good leaders find ways to take that pressure off the players. Yes, at the end of the day, it is only the players that can get it done. But it is up to the coaches to find ways to put them in a position to succeed.

I believe the mindset that the coaching staff has the players in, puts too much pressure on them and has them thinking too much. And when you look at how they play in big games, the results are just what you would expect if that were the case.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I see two lists with little correlation to success.

And I go back to what I have said many times - because they let the D set up, the Flames' high danger chances tend to be more rushed and of a lower quality. Not always, of course. But the Ranger game was a good example. The Flames had tonnes of in close chances, but the Rangers chances were odd man rushes and guys in alone.

Maybe it's luck (shooting percentage), maybe it's style of play. In reality, it is probably both.

But the bottom line is results. And improving possession numbers does not lead to results.

My summary was wanting, but the stats actually prove the point to me.

Look at the teams that average 10th between the two measures ...

Flames (4/4)
Dallas (8/1)
Carolina (2/7)
Boston (1/9)
Tampa (10/5)
Montreal (15/2)
Winnipeg (13/6)
Edmonton (9/10)
Columbus (6/13)
Pittsburgh (5/15)

And Vegas and Nashville just missed

Some teams that had tough years on the list, but most of the contenders as well

[Enoch Root]

Again, I see good teams, middle of the pack teams, and bad teams.

[Enoch Root]

Teams with yellow in their jerseys:

BUF
BOS
CAL
NAS
PIT
STL

Pretty solid, other than BUF

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Again, I see good teams, middle of the pack teams, and bad teams.

Simple question ...

Wouldn't you rather have your team have more shot attempts from in front of the net than they give up?