Treliving needs to start feeling the heat

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

In addition to what Textcritic already wrote about the Hamonic trade not paying off..so far, the only other thing I'd add is that I think fans aren't too safe, they're far too speculative.

There's an obsession with magic beans management. The idea that what we have on the farm, what we have in our junior prospects, what we have in our future draft picks, is going to be the thing that pushes us over the edge and that they should be promoted to the big club right away and replace the vets who are over-the-hill and don't play hungry or with passion.

Fans tend to forget that the GM is making moves to win and also to preserve his job. Call it old school outdated thinking but 99% of GMs are wary of adopting a strategy that relies heavily on drafting top end talent, especially with mid round picks, because in all likelihood they'll be fired well before those picks ever payoff, if they ever do.

I believe this is accurate but question remains as to whether Treliving received good value for trading those premium picks.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I think it needs to be done publicly because:

A) I want to see proof it's actually asked; and
B) as a fan I would like to know that the team's GM hears the angst. For all I know he's surrounded himself with Yes men or Tier One management like other organizations. I don't want to see fans throwing jerseys to get his attention if things continue to slide.

So I don't think they are useless. I want to see public pressure on the GM. And I'd like to see it escalated if he continues to sit on his hands.

I really don't think that doing their business in the public/media is anything that will help...well....anything.

Trust that the structure as it is, will be asking all the pertinent questions and putting that pressure on where and when it is needed.

I have a hard time thinking of any successful organization that airs its laundry, dirty or clean, in public just to satisfy a fan base.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It hasn't all come together YET, and this is what too many fans continue to overlook. Treliving's vision goes beyond just this season. We should not draw firm conclusions about the Hamonic trade until after another year or two because while the team appeared poised in the summer to make a run it was also clear that there remained work to be done over the next few seasons as well. It was never "either / or" with regards to improving the defense and forwards. It has always been "both / and."

This would be true for calling any trade a win, as well.

The organization sure gave up a lot of assets in that one trade, it is hard to debate that. To date, it has yet to pay off in the win column.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Good to great defencemen are available in the trade market however, and there's a theory in team building that a great defence can overcome lack of scoring and elite talent up front. Nashville being the preferred example.

Unfortunately, Treliving's gamble hasn't paid off. He's assembled a poor-man's version of Nashville's D, with roughly similar forward talent. And it's for that that I'm not a fan on the trade. I think the 1st rounder has a higher likelihood of being the asset that stimulates a step change. Think drafting Barzal or Ehlers or someone like that than having Hamonic.

But I don't hold it against Treliving. He's seen the writing on the wall. The rebuild is over, what you see is what you get with the talent levels on this team at forward. He had to go in with this group and try to push it over the top. It didn't work, but I don't blame him for trying. Too many fans promote play-it-safe management. If you have a window you need to go for it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately we're on the latter half.

To be fair, Nashville barely squeaked into the playoffs last year before being the WC champs. The jury is still out on this team, IMO. I still believe a little patience is needed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

When you say this, are you suggesting that it happens soon (ie this month/season) or do you mean as they age, so next season?

That's a great question.

I'd like to think this season, but it's certainly possible that they literally need a fresh start next season to relax the grip on their sticks as the rest of this year is pretty much guaranteed to be gripper when it comes to the standings.

[Bingo]

I think whenever you analyze Treliving you have to remember that word process.

Hiring a coach probably came down to three attributes that led him to Gulutzan.

1. could demonstrate possession as the team was a tire fire
2. players coach as Hartley was getting tuned out
3. budget, as it's been suggested there was a limit

then process would take him to letting Gulutzan hire his assistant, probably with the suggestion of a guy with former head coaching history would be huge

Fast forward 18 months later and I doubt that process is gone.

He would be looking at shot attempts, scoring chances and seeing the team is playing with structure. He's be upset about the powerplay but would have to avoid being rash because he's look at last year and see it was ranked 10th and that the Versteeg injury seems to have played a large role.

Fans want action quickly, but this guy thinks things out.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This would be true for calling any trade a win, as well.

The organization sure gave up a lot of assets in that one trade, it is hard to debate that. To date, it has yet to pay off in the win column.

No question. Treliving paid a premium.

But evaluating the value of those picks must also factor in their payout: Players selected with a first and second round pick in this or next year's draft does not help the team now or in the next three or four years.

Alternatively, it has been suggested that those pieces would have been put to better use in a trade for a scoring forward, but that is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul—a hole on the blue line would take the place of the present hole up front.

I am most interested to see how Treliving addresses the needs of this team in the summer and how that plays out next season; then I think we will know better about whether or not the Hamonic trade was a success.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

But I don't hold it against Treliving. He's seen the writing on the wall. The rebuild is over, what you see is what you get with the talent levels on this team at forward. He had to go in with this group and try to push it over the top. It didn't work, but I don't blame him for trying. Too many fans promote play-it-safe management. If you have a window you need to go for it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately we're on the latter half.

Lol this is just... wow. ‘It didn’t work’ - were literally in a playoff race with probably the strongest western conference we’ve seen a long time... like why do some of you even bother watching the games?

‘On the latter half’- lmao our core is like 23-25 years old for the most part jesus.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

No question. Treliving paid a premium.

But evaluating the value of those picks must also factor in their payout: Players selected with a first and second round pick in this or next year's draft does not help the team now or in the next three or four years.

Alternatively, it has been suggested that those pieces would have been put to better use in a trade for a scoring forward, but that is the same as robbing Peter to pay Paul—a hole on the blue line would take the place of the present hole up front.

I am most interested to see how Treliving addresses the needs of this team in the summer and how that plays out next season; then I think we will know better about whether or not the Hamonic trade was a success.

What's been clear in the recent decade is the fact that the value of a draft pick keeps getting misinterpreted.

First round picks have this golden halo to them, when really they vary from top five to next five to bottom 20 pretty substantially. Second round picks are value highly in trades, way higher than their actual worth. Then for some reason rounds 4-7 are treated like throw ins of little value when that's where the team building mining seems to separate the good from the bad.

Trading a second round pick seems to be the way to go.

The issue is when. Adding it to a package at the previous draft for a player that plays in your top half of the roster, or keeping it to make moves at the trade deadline or next year's draft.

Either way it seems like it makes more sense to trade 2nd round picks than keep them in recent seasons.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think whenever you analyze Treliving you have to remember that word process.

Hiring a coach probably came down to three attributes that led him to Gulutzan.

1. could demonstrate possession as the team was a tire fire
2. players coach as Hartley was getting tuned out
3. budget, as it's been suggested there was a limit

then process would take him to letting Gulutzan hire his assistant, probably with the suggestion of a guy with former head coaching history would be huge

Fast forward 18 months later and I doubt that process is gone.

He would be looking at shot attempts, scoring chances and seeing the team is playing with structure. He's be upset about the powerplay but would have to avoid being rash because he's look at last year and see it was ranked 10th and that the Versteeg injury seems to have played a large role.

Fans want action quickly, but this guy thinks things out.

Hes routinely making rookie mistakes, and for a rookie thats fine, but he keeps doing it. Over and over again. Thats not fine. He is costing this team points. The coach is costing the team points.

He thinks hes the smartest guy in the room.

[jonkaupp]

Originally Posted by Bingo

What's been clear in the recent decade is the fact that the value of a draft pick keeps getting misinterpreted.

First round picks have this golden halo to them, when really they vary from top five to next five to bottom 20 pretty substantially. Second round picks are value highly in trades, way higher than their actual worth. Then for some reason rounds 4-7 are treated like throw ins of little value when that's where the team building mining seems to separate the good from the bad.

Trading a second round pick seems to be the way to go.

The issue is when. Adding it to a package at the previous draft for a player that plays in your top half of the roster, or keeping it to make moves at the trade deadline or next year's draft.

Either way it seems like it makes more sense to trade 2nd round picks than keep them in recent seasons.

Yep, my only caveat is that is seems like the guys we’ve picked as of late with our second round picks have turned into damn good prospects. Of course it remains to be seen if any actually turn out.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Locke

He thinks hes the smartest guy in the room.

I don't think he's overly arrogant. I just think he overthinks things and is maybe trying to be more progressive than is required of a good head coach. Most of the best coaches in the league can adapt to changes in the game and locker room dynamics of millionaire players but they still resort to the old school principals of discipline to which I think Gulutzan is too soft. I feel the change from Hartley to Gulutzan has moved the needle from one extreme to the other from total hard ass to nice guy when the ideal fit is somewhere in the middle.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Natural Stat Trick for the core data, but then you have to manipulate the hell out of it.

I think they're pressing.

The best way to see that is in the miss totals that the Flames continue to have.

Missed shots 1st (that's the total at 718, next closest is Carolina at 691)

Crossbars - 11 (1st, 7 is 2nd)
Posts - 27 (13th)
Over the Net - 79 (3rd)
Wide - 601 (tied for first)

Young core trying to be too perfect on shots is my guess.

And this is why I think things are going to break in the right direction. They have the chances against down, becoming an elite differential team with a really high missed shot total.

IMO a much more likely explanation for those stats than epicly bad luck is that they don't actually create good chances in the sense of "a lot of net to shoot at", leaving them with poor options and desperate snipes that predictably fail a lot.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

IMO a much more likely explanation for those stats than epicly bad luck is that they don't actually create good chances in the sense of "a lot of net to shoot at", leaving them with poor options and desperate snipes that predictably fail a lot.

If you want to put your apples in that cart I can't stop you.

But when the league defines a scoring chance from home plate, and all teams have the same definition it seems like a stretch to assume Calgary is finding that least harmless area in the home plate section all the time./

This is made especially true when you think of the fact that they lead the league in missing the net by a country mile.

Getting chances and squeezing sticks.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hes routinely making rookie mistakes, and for a rookie thats fine, but he keeps doing it. Over and over again. Thats not fine. He is costing this team points. The coach is costing the team points.

He thinks hes the smartest guy in the room.

We're talking about Treliving right?

What rookie mistakes is he making again and again?

I see GMs as avoiding the huge mistakes, and making more good than bad. It's like the top batting average in baseball at .350, still wrong 2/3 times.

Bad GMs are under water in splits and crippling in the impact of the mistakes.

Chiarelli won the Maroon trade but that doesn't offset the Eberle fleecing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

What site provides these numbers now? Is it still Corsica?

And really I don't think it can be understated how much a poor shooting percentage is hurting this team. Whether that's luck or talent remains to be seen but they are still generating chances as you showed above.

Just looking back at the last couple years with largely a similar core of players.

14/15: 10.5% - 1st
15/16: 9.5% - 7th
16/17: 9.3% - 14th
17/18: 8.4% - 23rd

So if you look at that you could say 14/15 was clearly lucky, the next two years are probably about what the "talent" level of this team dictates, and then this year is unlucky.

Team has scored 137 goals on 1629 shots this year. If they were shooting about the same as the last two seasons (9.4%) we would have 153 goals. Considering all the close games the Flames have been in and lost this season those 16 goals would go a long way in the standings.

If you're going to dismiss a 4 year trend as luck, then what it the point of statistical analysis at all?

To me, that is a trend that reflects a change int eh style of play.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We're talking about Treliving right?

What rookie mistakes is he making again and again?

I see GMs as avoiding the huge mistakes, and making more good than bad. It's like the top batting average in baseball at .350, still wrong 2/3 times.

Bad GMs are under water in splits and crippling in the impact of the mistakes.

Chiarelli won the Maroon trade but that doesn't offset the Eberle fleecing.

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about Gulutzan.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Itse

IMO a much more likely explanation for those stats than epicly bad luck is that they don't actually create good chances in the sense of "a lot of net to shoot at", leaving them with poor options and desperate snipes that predictably fail a lot.

I don't see Bingo's explanation of "pressing" as the equivalent of "epicly bad luck." He spelled it out pretty clearly—confidence and cognitive/emotional clarity make it much easier for athletes to perform. That is different than merely bad luck, and I think it also speaks to your "quality of chance" argument in a different way: players who are struggling with the magnitude of pressure are also not exercising good judgment and patience in all situations.

I don't think the Flames are short on good chances. When I watch them this season there are a tonne of shots from very good scoring positions that they miss, and also a lot of set ups which should result in goals but do not because of an extra pass or a "whiff" by the open shooter. These are not things the coaches are instructing nor are they exhibits of deficient skill. It really does appear mostly resulting from a cognitive block for an inordinately high number of players at a very inopportune time. And I agree with Bingo—experience and patience can cure all of that.

[Tinordi]

I mean the missed shots thing satisfies the eye test. A guy like Jankowski, have you ever seen a player miss the net as much?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We're talking about Treliving right?

What rookie mistakes is he making again and again?

I see GMs as avoiding the huge mistakes, and making more good than bad. It's like the top batting average in baseball at .350, still wrong 2/3 times.

Bad GMs are under water in splits and crippling in the impact of the mistakes.

Chiarelli won the Maroon trade but that doesn't offset the Eberle fleecing.

Gulutzan's possession style of play not only demands that the team advance as a 5 man unit, but that brings with it the resulting fact that the defense also has time to set up.

Players are so big and fast now, that when there are 10 players in a zone at the same time, there is little to no time and space to get quality shots off, nor to find open players.

Shots int eh danger zone may be equal with respect to physical position to the net, but that doesn't mean they are equal with respect to time-availability and thus to quality.

With the style of play this team employs, it seems not only reasonable to me that their number of shots would go up and their shooting percentage would go down, but I think we can say that it should be expected. (relative to a more attack-style offense, which would generate fewer shots, but more dangerous ones because the defense is being stretched)