The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GGG

How much is Adjusting to Smith responsible for the defenses turnover problems?

Many of the Dallas turnovers and the Columbus turnover all started from Smith handling the puck. In the Colorado game this didn't occur with the backup. So are these defensive problems really about adjusting to the time and space when you have a goalie playing the puck rather than coaching and systems issues.

When I think about it, it may just be the single biggest adjustment for the D this year. I don't want Smith to stop handling the puck. It's going to be a benefit when they get used to it. I think they have to come back deeper, though, so he doesn't overdo his passes and they are in a better position to accept it. The forwards need to come back to, and accept the pass with speed through the middle. Jankowski may be the best at this, maybe because he isn't used to the old long pass systems.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

When I think about it, it may just be the single biggest adjustment for the D this year. I don't want Smith to stop handling the puck. It's going to be a benefit when they get used to it. I think they have to come back deeper, though, so he doesn't overdo his passes and they are in a better position to accept it. The forwards need to come back to, and accept the pass with speed through the middle. Jankowski may be the best at this, maybe because he isn't used to the old long pass systems.

Which GG system employed those?

[bax]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What's been proven? The Penguins just won a Stanley Cup with horrible possession metrics. The Oilers possession metrics actually improved under Eakins despite the team's record being worse.

What's been proven? The past 5 Stanley cup champions have ranked 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd in score adjusted corsi. The only reason the Oilers possession metrics improved under Eakins is because they were chasing from behind every single game.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I didn't say that. But since you brought it up, 'advanced metrics' (lol) - in this case corsi and a few of its variants - have not been 'proven to be highly correlated with success'.

The correlations are, in fact, not very strong at all. This is one of the biggest myths for the advanced stat groupies. Yes, the correlations with corsi and its variants have the highest correlation, among the various options available, but highest does not mean high. The fact is that none of the available metrics are very good predictors of success, and that corsi and its cousins are merely the best of a bunch of crap. But people read 'highest correlation with success' and think they have found some kind of keen insight, and awesome predictive tool, into the game of hockey. But it simply isn't the case.

Also, thank you for the nice bit of irony, quoting my post that claimed that people are too black and white on this subject, and then - falsely - claiming that I give no credit for one thing, but all the blame for another.

You didn't say that exactly no, but you heavily implied it by stating that you don't care about those metrics. And then you went on to list a bunch of things that are hard to judge when you're around the team every day, let alone from watching the games on the TV.

I am not an "advanced stats groupie", but there are certain correlations between score adjusted corsi and being successful that would be ignorant to ignore. Is it really just a coincidence that Arizona, Buffalo, and injury ravished Anaheim are at the bottom of the league this year?

Look I'm not saying advanced stats are the be all end all because they obviously have their flaws and I acknowledge that, but isn't it black and white to say you don't care about those results, but do care about the personality the team shows? An unmeasurable trait that is basically just a guess or an assumption?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

Which GG system employed those?

None, but most of the forwards played for Hartley, too. They are still guilty of being up to far quite often IMO.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

None, but most of the forwards played for Hartley, too. They are still guilty of being up to far quite often IMO.

Man, GG has been the head coach over over 100 games now. This same discussion happened with Keenan/Brent having to "undo" all these terrible habits.

-Versteeg
-Tkachuk
-Jankowski
-Brouwer
-Lazar
-Glass
-Jagr

All guys who never played for Hartley. Familton had a whopping 4 games.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

None, but most of the forwards played for Hartley, too. They are still guilty of being up to far quite often IMO.

About half of them really. Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, Bennett, Frolik, Ferland, Stajan.

Besides, forwards cheating on their defensive responsibilities is something most teams struggle with sometimes. I doubt it has anything to do with what the teams system was over a hundred games ago.

[Flash Walken]

I just don't get it.

flames are 7-3-1 this month, the teams best players are having their best seasons, perhaps of their entire careers, the team is firmly in a playoff position.

On the other hand: offensive defenders not generally renowned for their elite defensive acumen are struggling defensively and the coach doesn't look as upset as I would like him to behind the bench.

I just can't make heads or tails of it. Is he a good coach or not?

[kevman]

Originally Posted by bax

You didn't say that exactly no, but you heavily implied it by stating that you don't care about those metrics. And then you went on to list a bunch of things that are hard to judge when you're around the team every day, let alone from watching the games on the TV.

I am not an "advanced stats groupie", but there are certain correlations between score adjusted corsi and being successful that would be ignorant to ignore. Is it really just a coincidence that Arizona, Buffalo, and injury ravished Anaheim are at the bottom of the league this year?

Look I'm not saying advanced stats are the be all end all because they obviously have their flaws and I acknowledge that, but isn't it black and white to say you don't care about those results, but do care about the personality the team shows? An unmeasurable trait that is basically just a guess or an assumption?

This discussion got me curious. Here is the 5v5 CF% data plotted against regular season points for the last 7 full seasons. Interpret how you wish.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I didn't say that. But since you brought it up, 'advanced metrics' (lol) - in this case corsi and a few of its variants - have not been 'proven to be highly correlated with success'.

The correlations are, in fact, not very strong at all. This is one of the biggest myths for the advanced stat groupies. Yes, the correlations with corsi and its variants have the highest correlation, among the various options available, but highest does not mean high. The fact is that none of the available metrics are very good predictors of success, and that corsi and its cousins are merely the best of a bunch of crap. But people read 'highest correlation with success' and think they have found some kind of keen insight, and awesome predictive tool, into the game of hockey. But it simply isn't the case.

Also, thank you for the nice bit of irony, quoting my post that claimed that people are too black and white on this subject, and then - falsely - claiming that I give no credit for one thing, but all the blame for another.

I think Bax showed that teams with good score adjusted Corsi have a strong correlation with winning the Stanley Cup. That works for me.

And I would happily take an imperfect correlation to make sense of the chaos over some of the things you are measuring the team by that are filtered only through your lens of experienced watching, but are unfortunately, completely unquantifiable.

Do I disagree with any of the things you find lacking? No, but since there's little in the way of quantifiable data on that, we're left with a he said/she said difference of opinion on what makes Gulutzan a good coach or not. Would I like to see improvements on those things over the year? Sure, but a lot of that is secondary to winning games.

For me, I'm a results oriented person. If Gulutzan gets them into a strong playoff position and they have a good showing in the playoffs this year (meaning that they win a round or two), then I'm satisfied that he's done his job. How he gets there is irrelevant to me. Plus, if you really watch other teams over the course of the year, and not just the odd game here or there, but really follow another team consistently, you'll see that these inconsistencies plague ALL teams now. There are few teams who play the right way every night and are just unlucky to lose. The days of parity mean that a small difference in play from night to night or from shift to shift can mean winning or losing.

If you end up on the right side of that parity far more often than not, you're doing well enough in my books.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I think Bax showed that teams with good score adjusted Corsi have a strong correlation with winning the Stanley Cup. That works for me.

And I would happily take an imperfect correlation to make sense of the chaos over some of the things you are measuring the team by that are filtered only through your lens of experienced watching, but are unfortunately, completely unquantifiable.

Do I disagree with any of the things you find lacking? No, but since there's little in the way of quantifiable data on that, we're left with a he said/she said difference of opinion on what makes Gulutzan a good coach or not. Would I like to see improvements on those things over the year? Sure, but a lot of that is secondary to winning games.

For me, I'm a results oriented person. If Gulutzan gets them into a strong playoff position and they have a good showing in the playoffs this year (meaning that they win a round or two), then I'm satisfied that he's done his job. How he gets there is irrelevant to me. Plus, if you really watch other teams over the course of the year, and not just the odd game here or there, but really follow another team consistently, you'll see that these inconsistencies plague ALL teams now. There are few teams who play the right way every night and are just unlucky to lose. The days of parity mean that a small difference in play from night to night or from shift to shift can mean winning or losing.

If you end up on the right side of that parity far more often than not, you're doing well enough in my books.

What? No he didn't. You're a doctor, right? So I assume you have a strong working knowledge of statistics. If so, you should be able to clearly see that he did no such thing. Not at all. Not even close. What he showed is that 3 really good teams also had good corsi numbers. Are there Stanley Cup winners with bad corsi numbers? (yes) Are there terrible teams with good corsi numbers? (yes). There is no strong correlation for him to show. There is a fairly weak correlation between winning and corsi, but there is no strong correlation between corsi and winning Stanley Cups.

As to your last sentence, I don't think you really believe that. A team 'on the right side of parity' but underperforming its potential, is not doing well enough in my books.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What? No he didn't. You're a doctor, right? So I assume you have a strong working knowledge of statistics. If so, you should be able to clearly see that he did no such thing. Not at all. Not even close. What he showed is that 3 really good teams also had good corsi numbers. Are there Stanley Cup winners with bad corsi numbers? (yes) Are there terrible teams with good corsi numbers? (yes). There is no strong correlation for him to show. There is a fairly weak correlation between winning and corsi, but there is no strong correlation between corsi and winning Stanley Cups.

As to your last sentence, I don't think you really believe that. A team 'on the right side of parity' but underperforming its potential, is not doing well enough in my books.

To your last point...how can you objectively measure potential again? Right.


Listen, I get that he didn't illustrate it without any doubt, but if you look at the data on the whole over multiple seasons, it becomes clear that it usually indicates teams that should do well. The teams that do not fall into that correlation are called "outliers" and are common when you analyze something with correlation. Not EVERY data point is going to explain your correlation perfectly, because then it would just be causation. Confidence intervals indicate how reliable the data is within a few points either way, but you don't often get those posted as part of the analysis. That's what would indicate strong correlation, but there isn't enough data yet to determine that trend repeatedly year after year...not yet anyway. However, it does seem to be trending in that direction.

Stick to your guns if you wish. As I said, I don't necessarily disagree that I might see those things too, but I've often seen stuff that isn't supported by data, and I had to let go of my personal perceptions when I was proven wrong in the past.

[GioforPM]

Advanced stats are definitely imperfect but I will take them any day over reading the kinds of coaches and players, or generalizations based on individual events

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I just don't get it.

flames are 7-3-1 this month, the teams best players are having their best seasons, perhaps of their entire careers, the team is firmly in a playoff position.

On the other hand: offensive defenders not generally renowned for their elite defensive acumen are struggling defensively and the coach doesn't look as upset as I would like him to behind the bench.

I just can't make heads or tails of it. Is he a good coach or not?

Totally agree. When writers commented on the defence corps of the Flames being a top group, it was all about offence and they aren’t really falling short there. Should writers have paid more attention to defensive play? Sure. But let’s not pretend Brodie was ever an elite defensive defenceman and IMO Hamilton is still developing in that area.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Over the last few games, I've noticed the forwards, particularly wingers, are not coming back as deep when the defence have the puck behind the goal line with minimal pressure. This is especially an issue with the 3rd line. It's leaving the D out to dry, and although it's not responsible for all the recent turnovers, has started to creep into their regular play (turnover or not).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

To your last point...how can you objectively measure potential again? Right.


Listen, I get that he didn't illustrate it without any doubt, but if you look at the data on the whole over multiple seasons, it becomes clear that it usually indicates teams that should do well. The teams that do not fall into that correlation are called "outliers" and are common when you analyze something with correlation. Not EVERY data point is going to explain your correlation perfectly, because then it would just be causation. Confidence intervals indicate how reliable the data is within a few points either way, but you don't often get those posted as part of the analysis. That's what would indicate strong correlation, but there isn't enough data yet to determine that trend repeatedly year after year...not yet anyway. However, it does seem to be trending in that direction.

Stick to your guns if you wish. As I said, I don't necessarily disagree that I might see those things too, but I've often seen stuff that isn't supported by data, and I had to let go of my personal perceptions when I was proven wrong in the past.

You mention two important points that corsi advocates continue to ignore...

1. There are far too many outliers
2. No one ever mentions the confidence intervals, because a) the sample sizes quoted are usually far too small to even have meaningful bands, and b) they don't understand them anyway.

Listen to your own language: 'it usually indicates teams that should do well'. Correct. With a relatively low correlation, and with far too many outliers, and with no discernible degrees of confidence, we can guesstimate that corsi will usually indicate teams that should do well. Super.

That is a far cry from determining Stanley Cup winners with a high degree of confidence, no?

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You mention two important points that corsi advocates continue to ignore...

1. There are far too many outliers
2. No one ever mentions the confidence intervals, because a) the sample sizes quoted are usually far too small to even have meaningful bands, and b) they don't understand them anyway.

Listen to your own language: 'it usually indicates teams that should do well'. Correct. With a relatively low correlation, and with far too many outliers, and with no discernible degrees of confidence, we can guesstimate that corsi will usually indicate teams that should do well. Super.

That is a far cry from determining Stanley Cup winners with a high degree of confidence, no?

Well I don't agree that there are far too many outliers, but that's me. You're free to find fault if you require more data points, that's your prerogative. Even if there are outliers, they usually correct themselves by next season if the same pattern exists. You don't see teams that are continuously in the outlier area, so that suggests that over small sample sizes (and I would qualify an entire season as a small sample) that you can have teams that buck the trend.

I do agree that little attention is paid to the limited data points when correlating Corsi and winning percentage, and I definitely agree that nobody talks about confidence intervals, but that's because most guys doing it don't have a strong background in statistics, especially scientific statistics. It does indicate an opportunity for someone to create a gold standard of how to do the analysis effectively and what conclusions could be drawn from it.

But for now, it does help to understand what's going on with teams, and what fans could usually expect, which is actually pretty powerful in a league where getting 100 points in 82 games is considered a good season.

I could go on, but I think you get my point. They are reliable enough for most people in a sport where there is little predictive power in the stats since hockey is a continuous play sport with a LOT of chaotic events that defy rational analysis. It's difficult to do in hockey, period, but it's better than not having ANY analysis.

[Enoch Root]

You did a pretty good job of backing up what I said, so I'll leave it there.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You did a pretty good job of backing up what I said, so I'll leave it there.

So what would you suggest as a better, objective alternative?

Aside from subjective analysis like emotion or potential, what would be a good way for us to determine the quality of a coach?

With that said, as much as I like Gulutzan and think he's done a good job for the Flames there are a few things I disagree with him about:

1. The team seemed to be dumping and chasing way more than they're carrying the puck into the zone. While dump-and-chase gets the puck in deep it seems like mot teams are able to pick it up and throw it right back out. I've seen more than a handful of potential chances ruined because the team decided to dump the puck in rather than carry it in.

(Note: I understand the point of dump-and-chase when you're trying to execute a line change. But assuming your not changing lines, carrying the puck in typically seems to work better.)

2. The team also tends to chip the puck up the ice without a specific target a lot rather than possessing the puck and making deliberate passes. Once again, this seems to create a lot of turnovers with the other team controlling the play coming back.

Both of these things speak to a philosophy I disagree with. I've always believed that possession was more important than position. Essentially, controlling the puck either in the neutral zone or just over the blue line is much better than getting the puck closer to the opposing red line but not having control of it.

However, since I have very little in the way of hockey experience it's possible that this is just something that I don't fully understand. I'm sure someone much smarter than I am can explain why dump-and-chase and chipping the puck are valid options.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

So what would you suggest as a better, objective alternative?

Well you listed a couple yourself. As did I earlier. Special teams, breakouts, response to adversity, etc. These are the things that determine the fates of coaches (along with wins and losses), not having corsi slip from 50 to 48%