The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There is never going to be an answer to this debate as eye test is individual and the stats don't support inferior or superior chances within the box, at least at this point.

But these charts do help in at least proximity to the net for shot attempts.

Dallas Game

Eye Test - Flames iffy start, finish first strong, get down two in the second and pour it on.

Five on Five

Five on five I think makes your point. The Flames have the edge in scoring chances but they don't really concentrate their shots in the dangerous areas. Five on five chances were 8-4 Flames.
All Situations

Here the Flames dominate, showing the Bishop effect in the game. The Flames added nine more chances without being five on five (shorthanded chances and powerplay), and they were very concentrated in close and dangerous. This is Bishop stealing a game.

Colordao Game

Eye Test - Flames aren't the better team in the first but come out with a lead. Avalanche take it away in the second, Flames down push hard in the third.

Five on Five

Heat map shows a pretty even game, but the Flames broke down and gave up too many huge chances. Heat map shows a lot of the Flames shots came from well out, but they did get some in close chances. Flames gave up only four five on five scoring chances all game, all in the second period.
All Situations

In all situations the Flames had a 14-6 edge in scoring chances, and the map reflects many were in tight. However score effects are the difference as the Flames had a 8-1 edge in scoring chances after the Avalanche fourth goal. They didn't deserve to win this game, but Rittich wasn't great.

Ranger Game

Eye Test - Flames all over the Rangers in the first, but lose their mojo giving up an early 2nd period goal. Give up way too many chances in trying to tie it up. Better third, but lost in the second.

Five on Five

Graph fits the eye test as the Rangers have the better five on five chances. Flames go for it, and give up too many odd man rushes and breakaways, heat map reflects that. Chances are 18-14 Rangers at even strength.
All Situations

Flames are 7-0 in scoring chances in other situations, which catches the heat map up overall making the game look a lot more even than the shot clock would have you believe.

All in all these three games have the eye test match the stats. And by looking at heat maps I think the "Flames get weak chances in the box while giving up strong ones" suggestion is at least somewhat challenged.

Thanks for the reply and gives lots to think about If I remember right though, the odd man rushes started in the Rangers game before we were down.

There's been successful soccer teams over the years who've had a very deliberate strategy of playing a sound and disciplined defensive form and waiting for their opportunities on the counter attack. These team's corsi's would be dreadful, but they've proven that these strategies can be successful and sustainable over the long term.

It's not all that different than what a lot of road teams will try to do in hockey. It is my gut feeling that the Flames home game is lousy at anticipating and defending against that.

A breakaway or a 2 on 1 is much more dangerous than a shot from the danger zone with the defensive team all in position. I have to think that breakaways and 2 on 1 must be in the 30-35% range for converting into a goal. What's the conversion rate for danger and high danger scoring chances with both teams set up in the zone? I would assume it must be in the 10-15% range, wouldn't it?

Aren't the stats flawed if they can't discriminate between a 10-15% scoring chance and a 30-35% scoring chance?

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Remarkable bit of proof that Gulutzan just doesn't get it.

Not only has he not improved on his previously perceived inability to read and react as the game progresses but he went too far in the other direction so far as building a bridge with his veterans. Relies on some of them too much you could say.

I would argue that he has in fact lost the room. They may never say it, but their play does.

Again, not trying to pump Flamesnation's tires but the 3 part series they did on why GG should be let go is tremendously informative especially regarding his last year in Dallas and how it compares to this past year in Calgary.

This is my fear too, they lose games to bottom feeders giving up a goal or 2 and stay the course throughout the game. These guys are not playing for the coach and don't play like there is an urgency to make the playoffs. To get your good players playing with confidence you have to reward them when they play well; But when I see the way Bennett played well on the top line then moved back down, how do you expect him to feel rewarded and play lights out for the coach the next game. It becomes a confidence issue not only for him but for the first line. My guess is that the coach leans on systems play and not really into intangibles that motive a player. Hard to get your team to overachieve if they don't play like they want it or believe they can do it.

The game we lost to Vegas in the last minute was to a team that believes.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

A breakaway or a 2 on 1 is much more dangerous than a shot from the danger zone with the defensive team all in position. I have to think that breakaways and 2 on 1 must be in the 30-35% range for converting into a goal. What's the conversion rate for danger and high danger scoring chances with both teams set up in the zone? I would assume it must be in the 10-15% range, wouldn't it?

Aren't the stats flawed if they can't discriminate between a 10-15% scoring chance and a 30-35% scoring chance?

Absolutely, and I hope they get stats to that degree some day.

But at least the graphics above show the Flames aren't just shooting from the very outside tip points of the home plate perimeter while giving up crease jammers in front of their goaltender.

The puck is getting to the place they want the puck.

It's not going in.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Thanks for the reply and gives lots to think about If I remember right though, the odd man rushes started in the Rangers game before we were down.

There's been successful soccer teams over the years who've had a very deliberate strategy of playing a sound and disciplined defensive form and waiting for their opportunities on the counter attack. These team's corsi's would be dreadful, but they've proven that these strategies can be successful and sustainable over the long term.

It's not all that different than what a lot of road teams will try to do in hockey. It is my gut feeling that the Flames home game is lousy at anticipating and defending against that.

A breakaway or a 2 on 1 is much more dangerous than a shot from the danger zone with the defensive team all in position. I have to think that breakaways and 2 on 1 must be in the 30-35% range for converting into a goal. What's the conversion rate for danger and high danger scoring chances with both teams set up in the zone? I would assume it must be in the 10-15% range, wouldn't it?

Aren't the stats flawed if they can't discriminate between a 10-15% scoring chance and a 30-35% scoring chance?

Here are some stats (without much backup):



https://www.arcticicehockey.com/2011...-and-shootouts

[Kovaz]

I think the shortcoming of using shot location as the only measure of shot quality is it misses the speed at which the play developed and the amount of time the defensive team had to set up their structure. Those are really tough to quantify in a meaningful, objective manner but do have an impact, so this is one of those areas where you need to fall back on the eye test to explain the discrepancy between the possession numbers and the real results.

We generate a lot of chances where someone like Monahan, Tkachuk, or Ferland gets a shot on net from the high-danger area, but they don't get a clean shot away because their stick was tied up by one defender, and they're shooting through/around another. A shot from the same area on the rush will generally go in more because you don't have the same amount of defensive pressure in the way, so you'll generally get a better shot off.

Our system is absolutely fantastic at getting to the dangerous areas and creating shots when the other team is set up and in position. But we don't do a good job capitalizing on defensive mistakes like a slow line change or a bad pinch, which generally create cleaner, more dangerous chances. Those factors are not accounted for in raw shot counts. We really don't generate a lot of easy goals, unless Gaudreau is at the top of his game and cleanly walks around multiple defenders.

Maybe I'm missing some other factor that explains why our chances go in less that they "should." But I think coaching has to have an impact - otherwise how can you explain how all 4 years of Hartley, we had a higher shooting percentage than both years of Gulutzan?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Maybe I'm missing some other factor that explains why our chances go in less that they "should." But I think coaching has to have an impact - otherwise how can you explain how all 4 years of Hartley, we had a higher shooting percentage than both years of Gulutzan?

I think shooting percentage in Hartley's system would always be higher, as he had them collapse down low and then counter attack after getting worked in their own zone.

But do you want way less chances and a higher shooting percentage, or way more chances and a lesser shooting percentage?

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But do you want way less chances and a higher shooting percentage, or way more chances and a lesser shooting percentage?

Most people should be indifferent, as it doesn't matter unless it leads to goals.

The only thing that matters is what works, and this coach hasn't found what works for this team, and he's had lots of time to try to figure it out.

Raw statistical analyses using Corsi and the like is not useful, its just one tool. I recall the Oilers at one point being great with Corsi stats under Eakins. We all made fun of them, and rightly so.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think shooting percentage in Hartley's system would always be higher, as he had them collapse down low and then counter attack after getting worked in their own zone.

But do you want way less chances and a higher shooting percentage, or way more chances and a lesser shooting percentage?

I am not so sure that they got 'worked in their own zone'. I think the collapsing and shot blocking worked for THAT team based on the make-up of the roster.

Gulutzan has a MUCH improved defence and improved forward core that is more competent defensively (team is not as young). I was really surprised that the Flames are actually surrending more shots on net now than they did in Hartley's last year where the team took a gigantic nosedive.

One thing that I think is kind of interesting is looking through many of those posts during the 2014-15 season and reading through the rationales as to why the 'unsustainability' that the pundits were predicting for the Flames were in fact sustainable. I remember there was some really good conversation that year with regards to advanced stats. I don't think that the metrics necessarily predicted that Hartley's Flames were going to nosedive like they did that final year, as I think it was predominantly based on the poor play of the goaltenders at the time.

Now we have the exact opposite - two full seasons of "The metrics say that the Flames should be better than they are". Solid goaltending (until very recently), so I don't think we can throw that out as the excuse.

This actually reminds me of Darryl Sutter's biggest mistake as a GM. He had Mike Keenan who allowed to many goals against, and to correct it, he made a series of moves that saw some scoring move out and saw defence move in. That was fine on its' own, but then to confound the situation, he got a defensive minded coach. Flames had a heck of a time scoring in that defensive system with the personnel they had. I have no idea if any metrics were around during those times, but my guess is that Keenan would mirror Hartley and Sutter would mirror Gulutzan (well, probably not that poorly as Sutter, but swaying towards those numbers I bet).

It just feels like the pendulum swinging too far one way again, but defensively the Flames haven't been nearly good enough for a long while again (and I think they started becoming an elite defensive team for a stretch this season, though I do think that Smith really helped with that aspect).

The Hartley Flames were a tire-fire in their own end only when it comes to advanced metrics. Teams would get a bunch of shots away and control a lot of zone time, but most of those shots were not dangerous and the lanes were always blocked-off. It is something that looks totally ugly on the metrics, but in practice, works. It is too bad that there isn't more categories of shots so that we could really compare the quality that was generated both for and against the last two (or 4) coaches.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think shooting percentage in Hartley's system would always be higher, as he had them collapse down low and then counter attack after getting worked in their own zone.

But do you want way less chances and a higher shooting percentage, or way more chances and a lesser shooting percentage?

I guess I'm not convinced it's one or the other. I think it's entirely possible to find a happy medium rather than yo-yoing between those two extremes. I also think it's not quite that direct of a relationship, and there are opportunities to look for the counterattack without sacrificing too much in the way of our structured 5-man-unit transitional style.

If you let the wingers fly the zone in certain situations, obviously creating a fast odd-man rush is plan A. But it also makes the D think twice about pinching, and if the wingers peel off and go back to the puck it creates space for our D->W->C bump-back play. Or course you make life harder for your D because they have to think quickly about where to move the puck, but that's why we're paying so much money for our D core.

In general I take issue with any stance of "we should always do option A over option B." Hartley had us stretch pass every time, and it wasn't great. Gulutzan has sticking in a 5-man unit every time, and it's better, but still not ideal. I think we've got a good enough group of players that we can trust them to read the play and improvise more than we do, and if they make more mistakes I can live with that.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

I think the shortcoming of using shot location as the only measure of shot quality is it misses the speed at which the play developed and the amount of time the defensive team had to set up their structure.

This is so important.
All you have to do is watch the powerplay to see just how slowly Calgary takes to set up the play and move into position, giving the goalie and opposition skaters ample time to set up to defend.
It makes the team look slow, and incredibly predictable.

[Wolfman]

If GG is back next season I'm done with this team.

[Beninho]

If this man goes 0-9 vs the Oilers and miss the playoffs this year he shouldn’t just be fired but banned from the city. Send him back to the Canucks. Why the Flames are so enamered with their trash I’ll never know.

[Manhattanboy]

I wonder if Tre should be axed for hiring GG in the first place but I don't know what his legit choices were at the time. Sounds like he had no choice but to fire Hartley.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

I wonder if Tre should be axed for hiring GG in the first place but I don't know what his legit choices were at the time. Sounds like he had no choice but to fire Hartley.

Hiring GG was a mistake, but a forgivable one. Sticking with him for months after it had become obvious to three-quarters of the people on this site that GG wasn't capable of saving this season is what should have him on the hot seat.

Not firing him this offseason would be a fireable offense.

[dissentowner]

I find it interesting whenever the Flames string some wins together this thread disappears but as soon as they lose one game it is at the top of the page.

[midniteowl]

I might be able to look past all other GG's shortcomings, 2, two, stood out that's unforgivable and should get him fired. Getting swept by the Oilers in the regular season and swept by the Ducks in the playoff. Both times, he had no solution to counter both teams.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I find it interesting whenever the Flames string some wins together this thread disappears but as soon as they lose one game it is at the top of the page.

You want people to call for his head after wins?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I find it interesting whenever the Flames string some wins together this thread disappears but as soon as they lose one game it is at the top of the page.

Right, because people haven't been talking about the up and down inconsistency with this team under this coach for a season and a half now. A couple wins just makes everyone forget.

Talking about it after a couple more mirage wins is like trying to water the flowers by pouring water on the sidewalk. Too many people just want to pretend we get a couple wins and it's all good now, and ignore that this has happened again and again and again for 150 games now. What's the point posting when no one is going to hear it?

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I find it interesting whenever the Flames string some wins together this thread disappears but as soon as they lose one game it is at the top of the page.

I don’t think anyone has wavered in their opinion that GG is the wrong coach for this team (other than possibly towards the end of the January win streak). It’s just that no one wants to be a downer after a win. I can’t imagine that anyone has a problem with that.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I find it interesting whenever the Flames string some wins together this thread disappears but as soon as they lose one game it is at the top of the page.

I find it interesting that this team exclusively strings enough wins together so as for this thread to rarely be at the top of the page.