The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[monkeyman]

Having so many players below average, must point to something greater than "not finishing". to me it's more evidence that the system, the way in which they're getting their chances, the positioning of the players, the time it's taking them to set up, just isn't on par with what other teams are doing. It also points to a system susceptible to major break downs leading to goals against.

[Vinny01]

There has been a lot of graphs, spreadsheets, and charts that show the Flames are analytically one of the better teams in the league under Gulutzan. That begs the age old question of the eye test. Personally I rarely see the Flames dominate a game from start to finish. Rarely does it seem like we just punish other teams by owning the puck all game.

This has been the worst on ice product since Brent Sutter dragged a bottom 5 roster on paper to 90pts 3 years in a row. Gulutzan has turned a top 10 team on paper into a bottom third group.

The charts don’t show the lack of identity, or how fragile this group is.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by New Era

It is garbage, has always been garbage, and will continue to be garbage. Advanced stats. The NHL's version of:

Actually, on that point, I'll disagree. The problem is interpretation.

Corsi, for example, is not actually a intended to be a measure of possession. It was created as a measure of work for a goalie. The idea being that even on shots that are blocked or miss the net, the goalie is still dropping into the butterfly or making lateral moves. i.e., in Jim Corsi's original interpretation, a high event count meant that your goalie is being worked harder.

It is also just plus minus with many more data points.

However, Corsi is argued as a rough analog for possession because of the argument that if you are taking more shot attempts than you are giving up, then you must be spending more time in the offensive zone than the defensive. The logic is sound, but obviously imperfect. And that's okay, so long as one understands and accepts its limitations.

[colbym72]

And obviously GG is responsible for his own staff and can overrule their decisions, if he stays, Cameron has to be gone. The Flames are 3rd in the league in PP opportunities. If instead of a 17% PP, they have a 20% PP which is middle of the pack, this team is sitting in a playoff spot. Thats been the biggest issue all year. In the NFL I have seen where coaches get fired because the GM asks them to make big changes to their staff and the coach refuses. 5 on 5 this team can play with anyone but the special teams are a major weakness and if GG refuses to change, which has been the case for two years, then buh-bye

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

There has been a lot of graphs, spreadsheets, and charts that show the Flames are analytically one of the better teams in the league under Gulutzan. That begs the age old question of the eye test. Personally I rarely see the Flames dominate a game from start to finish. Rarely does it seem like we just punish other teams by owning the puck all game.

This has been the worst on ice product since Brent Sutter dragged a bottom 5 roster on paper to 90pts 3 years in a row. Gulutzan has turned a top 10 team on paper into a bottom third group.

The charts don’t show the lack of identity, or how fragile this group is.

If you're looking for that you'll never be happy.

Parity, and the salary cap pretty much mean most games are a coin toss with the elite controlling 56% of the game.

That's hockey.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm all for looking at data but it seems like it is being used as a crutch. If advanced statistics were that important then coaches would simply parrot to the players what a computer tells them to and do nothing else.

IMO coaching is the biggest X-factor.

How is it being used as a crutch. The data is being presented absent any commentary about whether the coach should be fire or not.

[Bingo]

My Gulutzan view is this ...

1) didn't always like his utlization
2) frustrated with the powerplay both with whose on it, and how they setup
3) team is fragile and you can't replace the core so the coach likely has to go

so I'm leaning towards him going for the above and especially 3) but ...

to discount measures that suggest the Flames may have been served a heaping of off years, or anomalies or bad luck would be foolish. They have to dig in and make sure they make the right call not based on just the standings or they are foolish.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

How is it being used as a crutch. The data is being presented absent any commentary about whether the coach should be fire or not.

Just a big misunderstanding then. Here are a bunch of stats completely disconnected from Glen Gulutzan in a thread about Glen Gulutzan.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

Just a big misunderstanding then. Here are a bunch of stats completely disconnected from Glen Gulutzan in a thread about Glen Gulutzan.

Not sure how disconnected they are from the coach of the hockey team they summarize.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Bingo

My Gulutzan view is this ...

1) didn't always like his utlization
2) frustrated with the powerplay both with whose on it, and how they setup
3) team is fragile and you can't replace the core so the coach likely has to go

so I'm leaning towards him going for the above and especially 3) but ...

to discount measures that suggest the Flames may have been served a heaping of off years, or anomalies or bad luck would be foolish. They have to dig in and make sure they make the right call not based on just the standings or they are foolish.

This is my take too.

In then end though there are two things that I think will get him fired even with some of the positives considered:

1) Powerplay: Too stubborn, too slow to change, and just no improvement

2) Collapses: Was it something like 28 times this team has allowed 2 goals or more within a span of 3 minutes or less.

Those two things alone make me think he deserves to get the axe. The play down the stretch just confirms that his demeanor isn't right for this team, since they seem to feed off his own negative energy.

Personally I think the shooting chance numbers and shooting % stats mean that you shouldn't give up on the roster. Don't sell low on a bunch of guys that had off years.

New Coach. Top 6 Forward. Get younger and faster in bottom 6 and on bottom pairing.

Those should be the 3 steps.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, on that point, I'll disagree. The problem is interpretation.

Corsi, for example, is not actually a intended to be a measure of possession. It was created as a measure of work for a goalie. The idea being that even on shots that are blocked or miss the net, the goalie is still dropping into the butterfly or making lateral moves. i.e., in Jim Corsi's original interpretation, a high event count meant that your goalie is being worked harder.

It is also just plus minus with many more data points.

However, Corsi is argued as a rough analog for possession because of the argument that if you are taking more shot attempts than you are giving up, then you must be spending more time in the offensive zone than the defensive. The logic is sound, but obviously imperfect. And that's okay, so long as one understands and accepts its limitations.

Great post. Thanks!

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

Every team in the league has weaknesses in their lineup outside of the absolute top contenders. Colorado's going to make the playoffs with Blake Comeau and Matt Nieto playing in their top 6. LA is going to make the playoffs despite their entire bottom 6 getting out-shot, out-chanced, and out-scored. San Jose gets outscored when their top players are on the ice. Dallas gets absolutely lit up when Mattias Janmark and Devin Shore are on the ice, and they play the 4th and 5th most minutes on the team.

That's our direct competition, and they're finding a way to win despite having glaring flaws throughout their lineups. But we're going to say our roster can't compete because a couple of our depth players are -5 over an 82 game season? There's no way we can overcome that?

Dallas is also out of the playoffs right now. So, their glaring weaknesses are contributing to them not being a playoff calibre roster. You'll note, they also missed the playoffs last year. So, if the criteria is to be as good as a non-playoff team that is top heavy on offense, then that's great, the Flames are right there with them.

Or are you calling Backlund and Frolik not NHL quality? Because they're the ones who are actually deep in the red this year (-15 for Backlund, -12 for Frolik).

There's no question in my mind that Backlund and especially Frolik are underperforming this year. The lack of goals from Backlund is a huge factor in the Flames being out of the playoffs right now. But, you're starting to get dishonest here to try to paint me as irrational, i never mentioned backlund or frolik in my post, but I DID mention specifically the players I thought weren't good enough. Interesting that there is no response about that...

If you need a roster where all 18 skaters are going to outplay the average NHLer to compete, there's something wrong because nobody in the league has that kind of roster.

You can only have so much talent under a salary cap in the best of times and it's on the coach to get the most out of the talent you do have.

So is the argument here that the Dallas Stars should be a playoff team if Hitchcock wasn't such a bad coach? Is he not getting the most out of his subpar players? You brought up the comparison to Dallas and are saying the coaches job is to get the most out players under the cap, does that mean Ken Hitchcock is a bad coach?

Why isn't our best-shooting defenceman playing on our top PP unit when it's built around D taking shots?
Why do we have a D-core built around great puck-moving and skating abilities dumping the puck up the boards and standing at the blueline in the offensive zone?
Why are our statistically worst PKers the first ones over the boards when shorthanded?
Why is a line combo that's -13 on the year playing 80% of their ice time together?

My personal opinion is that there aren't many options for the coaching staff to utilize. If you play Hamilton as the lone D on the top unit you're probably going to have bad SHG numbers. I don't know that Hamilton is a terrific passer in all situations consistently. Brodie is a better option for gaining the zone with possession. Playing Brodie on the top PP lets you play hamonic on the PK and keep their numbers similar. Having Brodie out on the first unit allows you to have a solid pairing of Hamilton/Gio on the second unit for when the PP ends and defending becomes more necessary. Hamilton and Gio are far and away the best pairing on the Flames, so it makes the most sense to have them out in situations where they will be expected to defend. Brodie has shown to be completely unreliable defensively this year which is why he doesn't often get that kind of treatment.

I don't think anything in the paragraph above is either groundbreaking or controversial.

They may be mistakenly using players in situations they shouldn't be, but I'm not naive enough to think that's because 4 or 5 coaches with over a thousand games of NHL experience don't know what they are doing. I think they are doing the best they can to get this subpar group into the playoffs based on the marching orders of ownership/management.

Do you honestly think none of those decisions can have any impact on a team's results? If each of those decisions could be worth a single point in the standings, we're still in the race today.

Sure, they have an impact, but changes cascade through the lineup. Put Bennett on the 1st line and the third line completely falls apart. Put Tkachuk on the first line and the second line produces basically zero. Put Brouwer on the first line and the team falls apart.

Ferland gets the top line wing spot by freakin' default because at least he doesn't neuter the other two guys like every other option they've tested with them this year (WHICH INCLUDES Bennett).

There aren't any good options. The team is filled with not good enough on basically every line they have.

Every team has flaws, but we shouldn't be plummeting out of the playoffs because our roster isn't perfect.

What in the actual #### makes you believe this? Is this your first season watching the Flames? They barely made the playoffs last year after deadline acquisitions and got swept once they got there. The year before that, they were TWENTY SIXTH in the league. They've made the playoffs ONE TIME in the last SEVEN seasons. What on earth compels you to think this roster is a foregone conclusion as a playoff competitor?

I mean, honestly here, what is the critical analysis that suggested a team that didn't score enough last year to be a contender was going to score enough this year after adding zero offense? Other than platitudes about the best defense in the league, it's been crickets on that question for months on this message board. Is this just a message board for homers now? Calgaryflames.com?

Why is your opinion that they should be a playoff team more valid than mine that they weren't going to be when my analysis bears fruit and yours doesn't?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

My Gulutzan view is this ...

1) didn't always like his utlization
2) frustrated with the powerplay both with whose on it, and how they setup
3) team is fragile and you can't replace the core so the coach likely has to go

so I'm leaning towards him going for the above and especially 3) but ...

to discount measures that suggest the Flames may have been served a heaping of off years, or anomalies or bad luck would be foolish. They have to dig in and make sure they make the right call not based on just the standings or they are foolish.

There's little doubt that off-years and perhaps bad luck do play a factor. Just the same as career years for guys like Gaudreau, Monahan and Hamilton also play a factor.

But when push comes to shove, there's just too many problems with Gulutzan's performance to ignore. His player utilization and in game management have been problems all four years he's been a head coach. His system inhibits fast break transition, and altogether, he puts the wrong players on the ice at the wrong times, which plays directly into the supposed fragility.

The reality is, we can believe that Backlund's offence can return to his career norms. Same Frolik. Same a few others. Likewise, we can possibly expect Gaudreau and Monahan to step back a bit.

But I have to ask, what signs are there that Gulutzan himself can improve his own performance? He has clearly failed to improve his in-game management over the last six years, and given his most prevalent trait appears to be stubbornness, I think we're left with a fatally flawed head coach. The right call is pretty obvious to me.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

This is my take too.

In then end though there are two things that I think will get him fired even with some of the positives considered:

1) Powerplay: Too stubborn, too slow to change, and just no improvement

2) Collapses: Was it something like 28 times this team has allowed 2 goals or more within a span of 3 minutes or less.

Those two things alone make me think he deserves to get the axe. The play down the stretch just confirms that his demeanor isn't right for this team, since they seem to feed off his own negative energy.

Personally I think the shooting chance numbers and shooting % stats mean that you shouldn't give up on the roster. Don't sell low on a bunch of guys that had off years.

New Coach. Top 6 Forward. Get younger and faster in bottom 6 and on bottom pairing.

Those should be the 3 steps.

It feels like a guarantee that the Flames are going to make a bad trade this off-season.

[Resolute 14]

So, Flash. Since you have such a problem with dishonesty, would you care to explain to me why you think missing the playoffs five, six and seven years ago has any relevance to the 2017-18 Calgary Flames?

I mean, that looks like a clearly dishonest argument to me. But, since you're better than everyone else, perhaps you can educate us.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you're looking for that you'll never be happy.

Parity, and the salary cap pretty much mean most games are a coin toss with the elite controlling 56% of the game.

That's hockey.

I will be happy when this team can play to their potential and take a step forward. This group has taken a big step back considering the upgrades they brought in.

I have watched the Flames the last 2 years the eye test does not match the data.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So, Flash. Since you have such a problem with dishonesty, would you care to explain to me why you think missing the playoffs five, six and seven years ago has any relevance to the 2017-18 Calgary Flames?

I mean, that looks like a clearly dishonest argument to me. But, since you're better than everyone else, perhaps you can educate us.

lol.

[Travis Munroe]

I kept hearing the fan 960 talk about how if they would have just finished on a couple of their chances last night and see posters talking about finishing their good scoring chances.

This is a 2 sided argument. The Coyotes or the other team also had great opportunities they couldn't finish on. Despite what the stats say regarding high scoring chances, the eye test says otherwise. Just because you get a shot off in a certain area does not take into account dozens of other factors around it. Watching the games tells a different story. Both teams often have 3-4 great chances that hit a post or a great save is made and outside of these, I don't feel the flames generate additional great scoring chances while the other team will. If each goalie is going to make 3-4 fantastic saves, we need 7-8 great opportunities and when I watch, I just don't see the flames getting anything above the 3-4 while the other teams will.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

It feels like a guarantee that the Flames are going to make a bad trade this off-season.

I know...I see people saying Brodie but my gut actually says Hamilton.

Personally I hope Treliving is smart enough to realize that the problem this team has isn't our good players, but the fact that we don't have enough good players (and a poor coaching staff).

[Fuzz]

I'd hate for these advanced stats to be used as an excuse to keep Gulutzen, because hey, look at how the Flames dominate them! They are what they are, what matters is standings.