The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by tkflames

o summarize (and he is absolutely correct) it is not the coaching but the team that needs to learn and play under pressure.

I think you can prepare players to play under pressure by practicing at a higher pace. GG's practices are notably slower and less intense than other teams.
It's honestly no surprise that this team crumbles under pressure, they're not prepared for it, which leads to bad decisions, poor passes, scrambling around the defensive zone, falling behind in the offensive zone, and to more penalties.
Doesn't that all sound like the Flames?
That's not on the players, that's on preparation and practice, which is dictated by the coaches.

[blender]

@tkflames Very good post. As we debate the shortcomings of the Flames it is easy to forget that the margins between winning and losing in the NHL are razor thin. There is a mental edge that is needed. Some teams have it, aome players have it, it comes and goes.

Not to say that there is any excuse for poor performance. Team needs to find a way and coaching is a huge part of it.

[Toonage]

Yeah its one thing to demand mistake free hockey but its something else to say "well, you need to learn" when they don't produce the desired result.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Simple question ...

Wouldn't you rather have your team have more shot attempts from in front of the net than they give up?

Of course.

But as has been said multiple times, possession stats are a barometer of success, not a means to getting there.

It is not surprising that Boston has good possession numbers, as they dominate on a regular basis.

But the fact that Edmonton and Montreal are also on your lists shows that strong possession numbers don't necessarily mean the team dominates.

There is far too much noise in these stats, and there are far too many moving parts in hockey, to draw any conclusions from these numbers. IMO.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Simple question ...

Wouldn't you rather have your team have more shot attempts from in front of the net than they give up?

In a vacuum where every team is just playing NHL style hockey, the answer is yes.

However, in a world where teams are beginning to get coached to just "throw the puck at the net" in a very literal sense - where teams are coached to pad their high danger shot attempts and the result is a lot of shot attempts into someone's shins, or weak little "shots" when the player was clearly off balance and in no position to actually shoot just because they're on the home plate, then I don't think the answer is quite as clear.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Simple question ...

Wouldn't you rather have your team have more shot attempts from in front of the net than they give up?

Depends.

I would rather see a cross crease tap in than a forward stuffing the puck in to a well positioned goalie pad. Shot location does not work as a proxy for quality, especially without further contextual information.

You saw the Rangers game and in your own write up acknowledged that the Rangers had more scoring chances, despite the Flames racking up a large number of shots.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Simple question ...

Wouldn't you rather have your team have more shot attempts from in front of the net than they give up?

This is where I have raised some questions recently.

HOW are these being tabulated? What constitutes a higher danger chance? Do they simply get counted if the puck enters the slot on the offensive team's stick and a shot attempt is made, regardless of circumstance? Or are they clean shots that are either shots or misses? What about shots where the goalie has to move from one side of the net to the other to make a save?

I have posited earlier that PERHAPS (since I don't know myself) CORSI and some other of the advanced metrics don't seem to be very correlative (or correlative enough for me anyway) is simply due to poor data. That perhaps it needs to be further broken down into stuff that really matters?

For instance, maybe they need to further break down "high danger chances" into "Breakaways", "Uncontested shots (where the opposing team is not challenged by the defenders)", "cross-crease tip-in", "close shot with goalie challenging leaving nothing open"...

The reason I ask is that my eye test doesn't always align with the high danger chances that I am seeing between the two teams. That often, I see the Flames having two or three high danger chances, and then seeing the stats on them being much higher - shooting the puck into the crest when the goalie is challenging, and the defence on the opposing team is in position and not allowing any passes to either side, and are there for the rebound, seems to be a 'high danger chance'.

It seems that distance is the only concern when it comes to tabulating a high danger chance. Is this right?

Maybe we (anyone on this board actually) can properly speak about advanced metrics if we don't know exactly what data is being counted and how it is being counted.

CORSI is already a fairly weak indicator of possession in my opinion. It isn't 'possession', but rather shots. If you are going to actually measure possession, then measure possession, rather than measure something that someone thinks is possession. Maybe to measure possession, you don't look at shots, but rather you look at a stopwatch.

For instance, a team can look absolutely dominating, while having a full minute of possession in the offensive zone, but don't get off a shot since the lanes are being clogged well. Suddenly the puck gets intercepted, the team on the defensive skates down the wing and gets an easy shot away from 30 feet out that the goalie easily snags, but they have more possession by how the stats are collected. This scenario I think shows how weak teams can be counted with better possession in a game, and how a really good team doesn't. Granted, this is not always the case, but I think this example does show why CORSI seems to flawed.

It is not a horrible stat, but it isn't very valuable either. You are indirectly trying to measure something by what the statistician ASSUMES should happen - that actual possession has a strong enough correlation with shots (same goes for fenwick - probably a bit more accurate, but still indirectly measuring possession).

I think three people with stopwatches can count possession more accurately. Two guys each have teams that they are assigned and press the clock whenever their team has possession, another guy presses whenever the puck has 'no possession' (battles, pucks thrown down the ice (given away) without the other team making use of it yet, etc.).

We all seem to assume that these stats are useful and believe that they are really counting data that is meaningful. Are they? Are they really encapsulating the events on the ice accurately?

I have forgotten confidence intervals and such from my high school and university days, but I would absolutely love if some actuarial science majors (must have one or two on this board, no?) actually take time to crunch the numbers and see if in fact there is a high degree of correlation between what we are arguing to begin with, and I would love to know what in fact constitutes a 'high danger chance' (and I feel these should be further broken down).

I know you don't have all the answers Bingo (and that is no slight against you and your knowledge of advanced metrics - which I am sure destroys my limited knowledge of it).

It is maddening because we have ALL seen before our very own eyes two teams on either side of the spectrum that seem to defy the expected results (that Hartley's Flames SHOULD have sucked, and that Gulutzan's Flames SHOULD have been good). Some of the lists you posted up also don't seem to correlate very well with some good and bad teams on both lists.

Correlation is everything, and I don't see enough correlation in the stats to warrant any further affirmation in the advanced metrics phenomenon that we find ourselves in, and I am GUESSING it may be due to flawed data to start with.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bingo

My summary was wanting, but the stats actually prove the point to me.

Look at the teams that average 10th between the two measures ...

Flames (4/4)
Dallas (8/1)
Carolina (2/7)
Boston (1/9)
Tampa (10/5)
Montreal (15/2)
Winnipeg (13/6)
Edmonton (9/10)
Columbus (6/13)
Pittsburgh (5/15)

And Vegas and Nashville just missed

Some teams that had tough years on the list, but most of the contenders as well

That's five playoff teams and five non playoff teams.

[browna]

Said this way back when in this thread; GG seems like a nice guy, seems like he puts in the time of analysis and watching video and constructing the system he wants to play, as well understanding both his team and the opponent to be fully prepared and to prepare his team for such.

But when things go sideways in games and adjustments need to be made, it’s not quite as smooth sailing. More blatantly for me, he lacks the ability within game and maybe between games as well, to get thet extra out of his team and out of individuals.

Many many times this year the Flames, dominating the opponent thanks to his preparation and the team following his well crafted plan, they can’t get that knockout punch. The opponent creeps back into the game and 18 minutes later it’s tied due to a combination of adjustments not being made strategy wise, and him not having the intangible to stray from the script just enough to push his forwards buttons the right way to get ore out of them and get that next goal.

As the season goes on and the trend repeats itself, players I think almost sense that he seems to be at a loss when things come up in games that require some tactics change or whatever, adjusted, and I turn I think they’ve slowly but surely lost confidence and start questioning if all his style and tactics are going to win them games. The silence on the bench seems a product of the team knowing the system clearly so the coach doesn’t have to remind them...but when things go sideways from the system and their is still silence, it’s trouble.

Bottom line, I think he’s a great teacher and x and o’s guy and genuinely works hard at the tactical and theoretical side of the game and preparing for games, and mostly a positive guy, which is why he got hired. I think he naturally doesn’t have personality to properly and tactfully push buttons of individual players which may upset them short term, but gets individual and team results.

Next coach of this group needs to be a guy that sure, can teach and prepare and doesn’t just bark at them like a Hartley did, but also has the ability to get a bit extra out of players, in different forms and ways, within the game. As importantly, it has to be a coach with recent success within the league, so that this younger group of players understand explicitly that the man’s tactics, preparation and button pushing, have had tangible success in the league.

A guy like Queneville, if available, would be the guy IMO. A guy to take this roster, as is even today, to the next level, and not have tossed many points away with in game collapses through December and mid January, by playing a system, pushing buttons when required, and having no player able to legit question that the mans tactics haven’t had league success.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bingo

My summary was wanting, but the stats actually prove the point to me.

Look at the teams that average 10th between the two measures ...

Flames (4/4)
Dallas (8/1)
Carolina (2/7)
Boston (1/9)
Tampa (10/5)
Montreal (15/2)
Winnipeg (13/6)
Edmonton (9/10)
Columbus (6/13)
Pittsburgh (5/15)

And Vegas and Nashville just missed

Some teams that had tough years on the list, but most of the contenders as well

Are these 5-v-5 or all situations? It would be easy to look at how this correlates to GF/60, but you'd want to do it for same situations.

[Regorium]

For the discussion, a high danger shot attempt is any shot attempt (shot on goal, missed net, blocked shot) within the following area:

[jayswin]

That makes sense why we don't score despite lots of high danger chances. We're usually very predictable and well covered even in the high danger area.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Simple question ...

Wouldn't you rather have your team have more shot attempts from in front of the net than they give up?

^ I still find it incredibly baffling that people don't see it exactly as simply as this.

If you out shoot and out chance the opposition, particularly with chances from the prime scoring area, you are more likely to be successful.

Does this guarantee more wins? Of course not. But you are playing 'the right way'.
And if you don't have success generating these type of numbers the Flames consistently have, it basically means 1 of 2 things.
1. You are snake bit. Unlucky. Results will even out over time.
2. You simply lack talent. You generate the chances but lack the skill to convert them.

I understand that's a simplistic response, and lots of factors can contribute to both 'luck' and 'skill'.

[Infinit47]

Maybe we should put Jankowski on the second unit PP so he is taking high danger shots instead of Brouwer.

Maybe we should play the 4th line less so the first two lines get a large share of the amazing number of high danger chances we can't seem to convert on.

[Red]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ I still find it incredibly baffling that people don't see it exactly as simply as this.

If you out shoot and out chance the opposition, particularly with chances from the prime scoring area, you are more likely to be successful.

Does this guarantee more wins? Of course not. But you are playing 'the right way'.
And if you don't have success generating these type of numbers the Flames consistently have, it basically means 1 of 2 things.
1. You are snake bit. Unlucky. Results will even out over time.
2. You simply lack talent. You generate the chances but lack the skill to convert them.

I understand that's a simplistic response, and lots of factors can contribute to both 'luck' and 'skill'.

You are correct if we assume that all chances are equal. But as we know, if you are in traffic or your backhand etc, you are less likely to get your best shot off.

Eye test tells me that the flames dont get many point blank, rebound etc, really prime chances. Other teams somehow make it look easier.

[Travis Munroe]

I do think we are in a good position come time to select a coach in the off season. The majority of teams that may be looking for a new coach are no where near as skilled or on the brink as the flames are. If you are a Quenville, Vigneault, Sutter, do you really want to go to a full on rebuild?

The problem lies with who truly comes available. I can't see AV leaving the rangers. I can't see Sutter coming back as I feel the call should have already been made and he would be behind the bench if interested. I think the hawks are nuts to let Quenville go and see them shuffling the deck on players before they let their elite coach go.

Who else is a potential candidate? I don't want McLellan as it will take him a couple years to mentally recover from Edmonton. I don't want any promotions within as the experiments should be over and proven history brought in.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Red

You are correct if we assume that all chances are equal. But as we know, if you are in traffic or your backhand etc, you are less likely to get your best shot off.

Eye test tells me that the flames dont get many point blank, rebound etc, really prime chances. Other teams somehow make it look easier.

Yeah, I dunno. I know I'm skipping over a couple games, mostly because I was too drunk and angry to recall clearly, but the Dallas game is a perfect example. The Flames had numerous, glorious, point blank chances and converted zero.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

^ I still find it incredibly baffling that people don't see it exactly as simply as this.

If you out shoot and out chance the opposition, particularly with chances from the prime scoring area, you are more likely to be successful.

Does this guarantee more wins? Of course not. But you are playing 'the right way'.
And if you don't have success generating these type of numbers the Flames consistently have, it basically means 1 of 2 things.
1. You are snake bit. Unlucky. Results will even out over time.
2. You simply lack talent. You generate the chances but lack the skill to convert them.

I understand that's a simplistic response, and lots of factors can contribute to both 'luck' and 'skill'.

I agree and disagree. There is a huge difference between shooting from the top of the danger zone with no traffic anywhere vs shooting with traffic in front or faking a shot and sliding it lower in the danger zone cross ice. It is my understanding these would be considered the same "danger zone opportunity" but 1 is significantly more dangerous. The flames strategy seems to be no quick one timer shots but instead, get the puck high and let it fly.

Is there a stat for point shots on net %? The flames must have the most focused point shot strategy and worst on net %.

[Red]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Yeah, I dunno. I know I'm skipping over a couple games, mostly because I was too drunk and angry to recall clearly, but the Dallas game is a perfect example. The Flames had numerous, glorious, point blank chances and converted zero.

And there will always be games like that. Bishop was a wall too. But in general Monahan is great in the slot, and he has has been stoned a ton lately. But it happens. Not all chances are goals, we just need to generate more rebounds etc. We are more of a one and out team. Those that get a shot up close seem to be in awkward spots or get blocked all together.

I would like to see our player play on the off-side on the pp more just to get that extra angle, but the coaches seem contempt to keep things as is. I saw Gio and Hamilton switch in the last game or the one before so maybe they are catching on.

[EldrickOnIce]

Since the wheels fell off (aka the Smith injury), the opposition has not been winning because they have generated more high quality chances. Flames goaltending has not been good enough since then. This is somewhat a subjective opinion, but save% numbers support that.

I think with Smith in goal, the Flames get at least 4 points in the last 3, instead of zero - and we aren't having this discussion right now.