The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[mikephoen]

Is there any way to look up CP posts from 2002? I want to see who was pro Greg Gilbert right to the end...

I thought my googlefoo of searching for references to Branch Savardian would turn up something, but no luck.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Is there any way to look up CP posts from 2002? I want to see who was pro Greg Gilbert right to the end...

I thought my googlefoo of searching for references to Branch Savardian would turn up something, but no luck.

Here's some good stuff from '05....haha

Originally Posted by Natedawg

Gilbert's handling of the whole Savard situation was moronic. He benched the kid for each and every mistake he made. He called him out in front of his teammates and in the media time and time again. When I watched Savard playin the first 20 games of the season (until McCarty dragged a leg and hit him knee on knee with a check that only Marchment and Samuelsson would be proud of), I could tell he was giving it his all. He looked like he was trying so hard to be responsible defensively.

The problem was Gilbert eventually beat the will out of him. He was so afraid of screwing up that he began to grip his stick tighter and tighter until he was totally and completely ineffective.

Good thing Gilbert's now in charge of 17 and 18 year olds in the OHL. I hope he learned a lesson from the Savard incident. If not, we're are going to see a lot of fataed-up kids coming out of his system. The guy is an idiot.

Reggie Dunlop and Jiri with some hilarity in that thread too. Mentions the Branch Savardians.

[Shazam]

Telling that Risebrough had that all-star lineup and missed the playoffs.

It's almost like coaching does something.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

When you spend most of the game trailing you are gonna have better looking stats.

The flames look like such a good advanced analytics team at home because they have played among the least minutes with the lead out of the entire league (not sure the actual position but it was bad as of a few weeks ago)

When you have a lead it is very common to sit back. The flames therefore have better advanced stats because they are more often than not playing from behind.

It's the same when you adjust for score effects.

Within 1 goal or tied they are top 10 at home in all those same stats. The standouts remain shooting percentage and save percentage which are both in the bottom 5.

The coaching isn't perfect but there is some bad luck in the overall percentages going on with this team this season, especially on home ice.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It's the same when you adjust for score effects.

Within 1 goal or tied they are top 10 at home in all those same stats. The standouts remain shooting percentage and save percentage which are both in the bottom 5.

The coaching isn't perfect but there is some bad luck in the overall percentages going on with this team this season, especially on home ice.

There are actually two options. They've had bad luck, or the fancy stats aren't all that predictive or accurate.

[Yoho]

50 garbage shots are still 50 easy saves.

[The Boy Wonder]

This team just doesn’t pass the eye test on home ice for me.

Even if the stats do say they are amazing at possession and getting lots of shots, but how many of those shots look truly threatening? How many times when you see the flames get into the offensive zone and generate shots do you say “wow those were some really close chances?”

There may be a case for actually getting further advanced High danger stats that show how many of those high danger shots a) the defense has at least 4 defenders in the home plate area b) how many generated a rebound, c) how many went towards the outer corners of the nets d) how long did they take to generate the shot from gaining possession.

Those are just four examples of things that advanced stats don’t currently tell us that would actually allow us to see whether it is bad luck or not but currently it doesn’t look like bad luck to me it looks like poor shooting and bad shots

[nik-]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

There are actually two options. They've had bad luck, or the fancy stats aren't all that predictive or accurate.

100 games of bad luck. Every loss is just bad luck.

Flames unlucky to not win.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by nik-

100 games of bad luck. Every loss is just bad luck.

Flames unlucky to not win.

"The puck does not wanna go in for us" - Gulutzan

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

There are actually two options. They've had bad luck, or the fancy stats aren't all that predictive or accurate.

Like everything it's probably a bit of both.

But there is no denying the fact that the team having a bottom 3 save percentage and a bottom 5 shooting percentage on home ice is some bad luck / poor shooting (missing the net is an issue this team has that can't be blamed on luck or coaching IMO).

Especially when those rates have dropped so much year over year, and when they don't appear to be an issue on the road.

Sometimes teams just have bad goalies, and/or poor shooters. That can happen. This team has been consistent enough from a roster perspective year over year, and the home/road splits are drastic enough, that it shows that luck is involved to some degree.

I do get it though. Looking into the root causes of why a team is struggling is hard, it's a lot easier to just say "pffft those fancy stats are wrong, it's all that useless coaches fault".

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by The Boy Wonder

This team just doesn’t pass the eye test on home ice for me.

Even if the stats do say they are amazing at possession and getting lots of shots, but how many of those shots look truly threatening? How many times when you see the flames get into the offensive zone and generate shots do you say “wow those were some really close chances?”

There may be a case for actually getting further advanced High danger stats that show how many of those high danger shots a) the defense has at least 4 defenders in the home plate area b) how many generated a rebound, c) how many went towards the outer corners of the nets d) how long did they take to generate the shot from gaining possession.

Those are just four examples of things that advanced stats don’t currently tell us that would actually allow us to see whether it is bad luck or not but currently it doesn’t look like bad luck to me it looks like poor shooting and bad shots

I think the poor shooting part is a big part of this. Both Bingo and Kent Wilson posted some stats earlier this year that showed how big of a problem is for this team.

It's also why I think the eye test isn't necessarily correlating to what the fancy stats say for this team.

Naturally we expect a scoring chance to result in a big save and some sort of scramble around the net but when you miss the net it tends to end all momentum and not look like a chance was actually generated.

So for this team I feel like the do generate scoring chances or high danger chances in the slot but miss the net on those chances at an abnormal rate that makes them seem "less dangerous" to the eye test.

I think that does fall into the lack of real offensive skill in our forward groups, always looking to make a perfect play on home ice, a bit of bad luck, and potentially the coach having the guys gripping their sticks too tight.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Flames are 4-5-1 in their last 10 during this portion of the stretch drive.

Gulutzan is done this season.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Yoho

50 garbage shots are still 50 easy saves.

Except when those garbage shots belong to the other team? How did the Islanders score their first two goals last game? I seem to recall they were perimeter shots. The same perimeter shots that are of the "garbage" variety when the Flames take them.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by kevman

Except when those garbage shots belong to the other team? How did the Islanders score their first two goals last game? I seem to recall they were perimeter shots. The same perimeter shots that are of the "garbage" variety when the Flames take them.

Apparently both were deflections or something. So not garbage shots.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Apparently both were deflections or something. So not garbage shots.

The first wasn't, IIRC. The second was, but from way out.

And this "50 garbage shots" is BS. Johnny's breakaway was a garbage opportunity? Frolik's 3-4 close in chances? Monahan's shots from the slot? Lazar's tip? The Flames were around the net all night.

One of the least likely shots went in, too - Johnny's low percentage shot.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

It's easy to say when it's not your $9 million dollars. If the Flames buy him out there's no doubt another team picks him up. I imagine the owners tell the GM over and over; "We are going to give you the resources to spend to the cap but we expect that we will be paying for players to contribute to the Flames." I can imagine that nothing ruffles these owners feathers more than paying out two years salary for an employee that is working for a competitor. We have never seen the Flames buyout a contract with the size and term of Brouwer's and I simply don't think that's going to change. I would love to see him gone but I simply don't think it's going to happen.

Brouwer working for a competitor is to our advantage. Like, seriously. Put him on LA or Anaheim or Edmonton or Vancouver. Just makes our lives that much easier.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Flames are 4-5-1 in their last 10 during this portion of the stretch drive.

Gulutzan is done this season.

And 2-5-4 in their last 11 at home.

I'm sure the luck will change soon though.

[atb]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And 2-5-4 in their last 11 at home.

I'm sure the luck will change soon though.

9 wins in their last 25 games, OT points keep them close.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And 2-5-4 in their last 11 at home.

I'm sure the luck will change soon though.

Luck is a bad term for sure (shooting percentage and save percentage being so low is unlucky but doesn't mean all the failure is on luck). This team does always seem to find a way to lose more often than not on home ice and it's a bit uncanny.

Islanders - Shots 52-27 a couple of unlucky/soft goals
Rangers - Outshot them 19-9 in the first, 51-27 overall
Avs - Deserved Win
Boston: OT
Florida: 100% deserved loss
Chicago: OT
Tampa: 100 Deserved Loss
Vegas: Regulation loss with a 2-1 lead in final minute...Choke (bit of bad luck)
Kings: OT
Sabres: OT
Jets: OT

So overall I'd say of the last 11 games only 3 were clear cut decisions.

1 Regulation Win (This only being 1 is alarming)
2 Losses they fully deserve to lose (Florida & Tampa)

5 OT games - these are really coin flips and games where a better shooting percentage maybe turns them into a regulation win.

Then you had 3 games where I think they were the better team and found a way to lose.

Vegas
Islanders
Rangers

It really it a fine line and I just have a hard time placing all that failure at the feet of the coaching staff.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Brouwer working for a competitor is to our advantage. Like, seriously. Put him on LA or Anaheim or Edmonton or Vancouver. Just makes our lives that much easier.

I'm in agreement with you but I don't know if the owners see it that way. Time will tell as maybe missing the playoffs will call for drastic measures.