Hitchcock's Blues vs Calgary's blues

[FanIn80]

Rather than continue the "hire Hitch" rhetoric in the "Hitch got fired" thread, I figured I'd make a new one for a bit of a comparison.

St. Louis Blues since 2011-12, when Hitch took over

254 W
131 L
41 OT

1167 GF
1007 GA

20.0 PP%
84.8 PK%

29.7 S/GP
27.2 SA/GP

Lost in Conference Semifinals
Lost in Conference Quarterfinals
Lost in First Round
Lost in First Round
Lost in Conference Finals
Fired

Calgary Flames since 2011-12

196 W
188 L
44 OT

1127 GF
1229 GA

17.6 PP%
80.8 PK%

27.8 S/GP
29.2 SA/GP

Missed playoffs
Missed playoffs
Missed playoffs
Lost in Conference Semifinals
Missed playoffs
Gulutzan'd

Here's a spreadsheet of the top-15 players from both teams from 2011-2012 until today:


Overall, I would say the teams look similar in pretty much everything except for the systems-based stats like shots for/against, special teams, goaltending and actual results.

Am I reading things wrong?


Edit: One thing that blows my mind is how the two top-15s have almost identical goals and points per game, in spite of ours having 2000 less shots on goal.

[memphusk]

Boston should fire Julien and Hire Hitchcock. Then Calgary can fire Gulutzan and hire Julien. Everyone wins.

[blender]

Blues have won a lot more hockey games in the time frame

[Sylvanfan]

The Blues had a good young roster that should have been breaking out when Hitchcock too over. He did turn them from team that should be good to a team that was in the playoffs every year.

The Flames at that point were an expired team that should have started rebuilding, but plugged their ears and screamed la la la la for two more years until they were bad enough to realize it.

The two teams records should have been different as the talent levels don't match up.

The Flames are maybe at a point where they should start taking a step forward now. But I still think the talent level of the current Flames isn't quite where the Blues were at that time.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Is your point that everything since 2011 when Hitchcock took over the Blues seems to be the same between the Flames and Blues, so you are drawing that the only reason the Blues have been more successful in that time frame was better coaching?

If so, then yes, you are reading it wrong. You are very selectively looking at the individual rosters, saying they are equal (which I don't think could be further from the truth) and making a huge leap that coaching is the only difference.

Don't get me wrong, I think coaching is a big factor for St.Louis Blues over that time frame, but the Calgary Flames do not post the same numbers as the Blues with Hitch as coach in my opinion over that time frame. Way too many other variables that the Blues also have the Flames beat on that are contributing to the difference.

[Erick Estrada]

Kind of funny but I was going to point to the Blues getting much better goaltending over that time span but we kind of have the better of their two guys now and it hasn't changed the fortune of the team.

[Mass_nerder]

Did Hitchcock not announce his intention to retire at the end of his contract anyway? I don't think, in that case, there's any need to fear(?) Hitch's hiring

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I'm also assuming your Top 15 player list Games Played is also only for the time frame in question (and also only for the two teams in question). If so, that chart gives you an indication of what's wrong with how you look at that analysis.

The Flames top 15 players in that time frame have played almost 500 less games than the Blues. Meaning Hitchcock had the benefit of getting 500 more games from his best players to deliver his improved record versus what the Flames coaches got from their best players. That's likely the biggest driver of increased performance for the Blues vs. the Flames.

[FanIn80]

But the two groups still scored the same goals and points per game. What differed between the two teams is special teams, shots for and against, +/- and goaltending. All of which are very much related to systems rather than just straight talent. Especially when you consider that our goalie had the best SV% in the league last year playing behind Hitch's system, but he's putting up the same lousy numbers that we've gotten from every other goalie while playing for us.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

But the two groups still scored the same goals and points per game. What differed between the two teams is special teams, shots for and against, +/- and goaltending. All of which are very much related to systems rather than just straight talent. Especially when you consider that our goalie had the best SV% in the league last year playing behind Hitch's system, but he's putting up the same lousy numbers that we've gotten from every other goalie while playing for us.

Goals and Points per game are great. The Flames best players have played 500 less games in that time frame. Meaning other players with worse PPG numbers were playing in those 500 games for the Flames, which is a huge number, and likely accounts for much o the difference you are trying to assign stricktly to coaching.

Coaching played a role no doubt, Hitch is one of the best, better than our previous or current coach for sure, but he also had his best 15 players on the ice 25% more of the time than the Flames did in that time frame.

[FanIn80]

For the point I'm making, the the rest of the players as well as the total games played of the top-15 don't really matter.

Forget that one group played less games than the other. They both produced the same amount of goals and points per game, so the overall offensive production was similar, but Hitch's top-15 were +363 to the Flames' -161. The average shots per game for the top-15 players from the Blues was 2.02, while for the Flames it was 1.91. The Blues' top-15 had a collective 60% success rate on the power play, while the flames were at 50% (again, in spite of averaging the same amount of total goals per game between the two groups of 15).

I guess what I'm saying is that Hitchcock got more of the systems-based, coachable stats out his top-15 players than we got out of ours. When you consider they both produced the same level of overall offence, meaning they both had the same level of collective ability, the only conclusion I can see is that Hitch established better systems and was more successful at getting his best 15 players to buy in than any of our coaches did and were.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Boston should fire Julien and Hire Hitchcock. Then Calgary can fire Gulutzan and hire Julien. Everyone wins.

Gulutzan loses.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

For the point I'm making, the the rest of the players as well as the total games played of the top-15 don't really matter.

Forget that one group played less games than the other. They both produced the same amount of goals and points per game, so the overall offensive production was similar, but Hitch's top-15 were +363 to the Flames' -161. The average shots per game for the top-15 players from the Blues was 2.02, while for the Flames it was 1.91. The Blues' top-15 had a collective 60% success rate on the power play, while the flames were at 50% (again, in spite of averaging the same amount of total goals per game between the two groups of 15).

I guess what I'm saying is that Hitchcock got more of the systems-based, coachable stats out his top-15 players than we got out of ours. When you consider they both produced the same level of overall offence, meaning they both had the same level of collective ability, the only conclusion I can see is that Hitch established better systems and was more successful at getting his best 15 players to buy in than any of our coaches did and were.

Or maybe Hitchcock was lucky enough to have offensive players that fit that style and/or were more coachable to that end. Or just better top 15 players overall.

ETA: Plus you have 4 years of Hartley, who wasn't establishing defensive systems hardly at all.

[mrdonkey]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Gulutzan loses.

What else is new

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

For the point I'm making, the the rest of the players as well as the total games played of the top-15 don't really matter.

Forget that one group played less games than the other. They both produced the same amount of goals and points per game, so the overall offensive production was similar, but Hitch's top-15 were +363 to the Flames' -161. The average shots per game for the top-15 players from the Blues was 2.02, while for the Flames it was 1.91. The Blues' top-15 had a collective 60% success rate on the power play, while the flames were at 50% (again, in spite of averaging the same amount of total goals per game between the two groups of 15).

I guess what I'm saying is that Hitchcock got more of the systems-based, coachable stats out his top-15 players than we got out of ours. When you consider they both produced the same level of overall offence, meaning they both had the same level of collective ability, the only conclusion I can see is that Hitch established better systems and was more successful at getting his best 15 players to buy in than any of our coaches did and were.

Ah, yes, I understand the point you are making now. Don't disagree, but I think the variable you are missing is the following. Would the Flames players then put up the same numbers if they were forced to do so in Hitch's more disciplined system?

I don't know the answer, but I think it's likely not. While I'm not trying to call GG Hitch, I do think that part of what we are seeing with the Flames top players this year. They are struggling to be as good as they were in a run and gun wild west structure in compared to GGs system.

My point being, you can't just assume you'd get the same rate of production from the Flames top 15 under Hitch and you'd also get all the defensive benefits. I don't think it's that correlated. As good as Hitch is, you'd likely get reduced offensive performance from the Flames top 15, and improvements with the D numbers.

[Iceman90]

Originally Posted by memphusk

Boston should fire Julien and Hire Hitchcock. Then Calgary can fire Gulutzan and hire Julien. Everyone wins.

The trade deadline is coming. Teams should just trade coaches.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Gulutzan loses.

He isn't a winner.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Ah, yes, I understand the point you are making now. Don't disagree, but I think the variable you are missing is the following. Would the Flames players then put up the same numbers if they were forced to do so in Hitch's more disciplined system?

I don't know the answer, but I think it's likely not. While I'm not trying to call GG Hitch, I do think that part of what we are seeing with the Flames top players this year. They are struggling to be as good as they were in a run and gun wild west structure in compared to GGs system.

My point being, you can't just assume you'd get the same rate of production from the Flames top 15 under Hitch and you'd also get all the defensive benefits. I don't think it's that correlated. As good as Hitch is, you'd likely get reduced offensive performance from the Flames top 15, and improvements with the D numbers.

Fair points. Another possible argument that goes against my initial claim is that Hitch's best players were more rounded than ours. Looking at the two groups, I see a lot more one-dimensional players on our side than on theirs.

Question for the stats gurus: which datasets would you use to discern the impact Hitchcock would have had on our players, had he coached us from 2011-17?

Second question: Should I not receive bonus points for the genius of my thread title?