The impossible task, coaching and expectations

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by New Era

I guess it depends on what you think are drivers of those outcomes? You mean drivers like not allowing the talent corps of blueliners to jump up in the play? You mean drivers like not using team speed and moving the puck forward, rather than moving the puck backward and allowing the opposition to get into position and defend? You mean drivers like always using the same failed method for entering the zone? You mean drivers like bad line matchups or player selection? I agree, those drivers should be discussed, but it seems all too often we end up talking about useless stats about unrelated events on the ice - stats that have zero success in determining any outcomes in any fashion. To me, these fancy stats arguments are application of bad stats to a problem in search of an answer.

They are just stats. There are no good or bad stats. Their value is in what can be determined from them. "Fancy stats" are good if you put everything into context. However, that requires piecing together about 5-10 different stats and looking at the big picture of how all that information goes together.

There is a problem on relying solely on this data to guide your decision making, no issues in saying that. However, and this has been stated about a billion times on this site, relying solely on your criteria which involves an eye test evaluation of the way they are playing and not looking at measurable events within the game is also a terrible way to evaluate success.

There needs to be a blend, and if we are going to use eye test evaluations, I want it coming from someone who has intimate knowledge of the system they are trying to implement and evaluating how successful each player is at doing so. That's pretty much an internal organizational evaluation, so any outside views on this are...well not invalid...but less valid.

At the end of the year, if Treliving and co. decide to make the change because they don't like he system, or they think Gulutzan didn't do enough to get the players to play to the system, or the system did not utilize the personnel well enough etc. I will let them make that decision then. I'm not going to assume I know better.

So in the end, the bulk of my evaluation as a fan comes down to measurable events, and a small portion of it will be eye test/evaluation.

[ricardodw]

The Flames might be suffering from the Brian McGrattan syndrome: Everyone deserves a second and third chance.

It seems that that Flames have a rather low priority on drafting based on good citizenship qualities and more emphasis on natural skills and less on work ethic, teach-ability and smarts.

The overall composition of the Flames organization leans to guys that are working on their 2nd and 3rd chances with some basic character flaws that need to be over-come.

This results in a guy like Stajan sticking out on the Flames and making him more valuable to the Flames than he would be on a team that was loaded with outstanding citizens.

I might also be Iginla's fault as he was so overwhelmingly good with a strong personality that the Flames didn't worry about personal qualities.

[Anduril]

I don't know if or how to respond to some of those things.

[The Fonz]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

But the point is I don't see the same level of commitment from this team as I do from others. The GAS level just isn't there across the roster.

If that is the case, that our team is not as committed as others, then what it comes down to for me is are these players unable to commit? Or is this coach not able to get them to commit?

Gilbert couldn't get commitment out of Savard during their time with the Flames, but he put up 6 consecutive ppg+ seasons after his trade to Atlanta, and continuing in Boston. Was it the trade out of Calgary that changed Savard? Or were those coaches (Hartley & Julien) able to get more commitment out of him than Gilbert?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

I might also be Iginla's fault as he was so overwhelmingly good with a strong personality that the Flames didn't worry about personal qualities.

I know Iginla has a lot to take credit for in this city, and he was certainly good.

But you might be his fault? :-)

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I know Iginla has a lot to take credit for in this city, and he was certainly good.

But you might be his fault? :-)

His fault that the Flames did not value strong character traits as for the 15 years that Iginla was a Flame he would make the players in the organization better people.

Maybe not Iginla alone, but Conroy, Reghr, Andrew Ferrence, seemed to be well grounded smart people that created a positive norm.

There was a time when Iginla's reputation was so golden that the Flames would be a team that other players would want to play on to have him as a team-mate.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by New Era

I guess it depends on what you think are drivers of those outcomes? You mean drivers like not allowing the talent corps of blueliners to jump up in the play? You mean drivers like not using team speed and moving the puck forward, rather than moving the puck backward and allowing the opposition to get into position and defend? You mean drivers like always using the same failed method for entering the zone? You mean drivers like bad line matchups or player selection? I agree, those drivers should be discussed, but it seems all too often we end up talking about useless stats about unrelated events on the ice - stats that have zero success in determining any outcomes in any fashion. To me, these fancy stats arguments are application of bad stats to a problem in search of an answer.

I meant statistical drivers. But nice rant.
Not sure why people have to argue on the extremes. I've not suggested that advanced stats are the absolute truth. They are yet another input and source of information to try and understand what is happening or not happening with a team.

They shouldn't be used as the only source of truth. Just like the eye test shouldn't. Or standings. It is all just another input.

So I don't know why folks have to just try to throw it all out.

[nik-]

Eye test, advanced stats, standings.

It's all just another input? Really? Standings are just another input? You don't think that's a statement pretty disconnected from the point of them playing the games?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I meant statistical drivers. But nice rant.
Not sure why people have to argue on the extremes. I've not suggested that advanced stats are the absolute truth. They are yet another input and source of information to try and understand what is happening or not happening with a team.

They shouldn't be used as the only source of truth. Just like the eye test shouldn't. Or standings. It is all just another input.

The standings are one hell of an input, though.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by nik-

Eye test, advanced stats, standings.

It's all just another input? Really? Standings are just another input? You don't think that's a statement pretty disconnected from the point of them playing the games?

It is just an input if determining someone is a success or not. Can't tell me there haven't been times at your workplace where you felt like you did everything right but the end outcome wasn't what you wanted. Process vs. Results.

Some people value the process and understand that sometimes you can do everything right, hit all the key "deliverable", and not get the outcome that you wanted.

Some people only look at the end outcome to determine if something was a success or not.

If you would have not shown me the standings but told me before the season started that:

- Gaudreau would be top 10 in scoring
- Monahan would score 30
- Ferland would score 20
- Tkachuk would show continued growth (25 goals / 50 points)
- Hamilton would lead the league in d-man goals
- Smith acquisition was relatively a success
- Flames would have the 2nd best road record in the league
- Flames were a top 5 team by both Corsi and Scoring Chance metrics (regardless of how much value you put in those stats being top 5 is a good thing)

I would have taken that in a heart beat and thought that they were a top 5-10 team in the league easily.

But somehow all those statements are true and we still sit outside a playoff picture. The outcome doesn't always add up to all the inputs.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

It is just an input if determining someone is a success or not. Can't tell me there haven't been times at your workplace where you felt like you did everything right but the end outcome wasn't what you wanted. Process vs. Results.

Some people value the process and understand that sometimes you can do everything right, hit all the key "deliverable", and not get the outcome that you wanted.

Some people only look at the end outcome to determine if something was a success or not.

If you would have not shown me the standings but told me before the season started that:

- Gaudreau would be top 10 in scoring
- Monahan would score 30
- Ferland would score 20
- Tkachuk would show continued growth
- Hamilton would lead the league in d-man goals
- Smith acquisition was relatively a success
- Flames would have the 2nd best road record in the league

I would have taken that in a heart beat and thought that they were a top 5-10 team in the league easily.

But somehow all those statements are true and we still sit outside a playoff picture. The outcome doesn't always add up to all the inputs.

It's sports though, results aren't just another input, which is basically what he's saying, they're the reason a team is put on the ice. They're the reason the GM trades assets to make a push.

I'm sorry, that's an insane statement.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's sports though, results aren't just another input, which is basically what he's saying, they're the reason a team is put on the ice. They're the reason the GM trades assets to make a push.

I'm sorry, that's an insane statement.

Depends on the context, and what you are trying to evaluate.

Agree that bottom line the standings are the only thing that really matter about a team's season being deemed "successful" at the end of the day.

But if you are evaluating the coach or GMs effectiveness I think it's a fair point to say it's only part of the equation, and just an input in the overall decision that needs to be made. Mostly because there are times where other factors that the standings don't always tell you.

[Enoch Root]

Winning matters. Corsi-ing doesn't

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

Depends on the context, and what you are trying to evaluate.

Agree that bottom line the standings are the only thing that really matter about a team's season being deemed "successful" at the end of the day.

But if you are evaluating the coach or GMs effectiveness I think it's a fair point to say it's only part of the equation, and just an input in the overall decision that needs to be made. Mostly because there are times where other factors that the standings don't always tell you.

God I hope the management doesn't think that way. The "process" shouldn't be allowed to continually show poor results just because some people believe in it.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by nik-

God I hope the management doesn't think that way. The "process" shouldn't be allowed to continually show poor results just because some people believe in it.

There are examples of both.

Look at Winnipeg - they believed in the process, made some minor tweaks (when the entire fan base wanted Maurice and Chevy fired), and now they lead the division.

On the flip side Carolina believed the "odds" would regress back to the norm and this season they once again missed the playoffs when the shooting and save percentages were "below average".

On the other side of the coin I look at teams like Dallas / Los Angeles who thought coaching would fix all problems. And while they are slightly better off this season they are really in the same spot of inconsistent play and battling for a playoff spot.

I just think it means you need to exercise caution.

If there is a top 10 coach that you think is 100% a no brainer hire (think Joel Quenneville or Darryl Sutter) then fire GG yesterday and make that change.

But if you are just going to go out and hire...somebody like Todd Nelson or Jack Capuano...then you probably are better off hoping that this year will regress back to the mean.

[nik-]

You need to look at the state of the franchise. Winnipeg is a draft away from picking second overall.

We're trading away multiple rounds of picks to go for it. You think the expectation of results vs process is the same in those two organizations?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by nik-

You need to look at the state of the franchise. Winnipeg is a draft away from picking second overall.

We're trading away multiple rounds of picks to go for it. You think the expectation of results vs process is the same in those two organizations?

They had 99 points in 14/15 and were hailed as an up and coming power.

Then they completely under performed for two seasons under Maurice.

Finishing with 78 points and 87 points and putting a big chunk of the blame on goaltending.

Now they finally took the step that people thought they would take in 15/16 in 17/18.

So yeah it wasn't like drafting Laine was the signal of some big rebuild - it was more a season of extreme disappointment. You could easily argue that the biggest mistake the Flames made this year isn't on Gulutzan but is actually on Treliving for giving up the assets he did to acquire Hamonic.

[nik-]

Good for Winnipeg.

Their story doesn't really change ours. Teams are different.

And I don't disagree with the last statement. The majority of this is on Treliving. He got sold on a mediocre coach and a mediocre roster and pissed away way too many assets.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

They shouldn't be used as the only source of truth. Just like the eye test shouldn't. Or standings. It is all just another input.

Standings are not an input. They are an output.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

You need to look at the state of the franchise. Winnipeg is a draft away from picking second overall.

We're trading away multiple rounds of picks to go for it. You think the expectation of results vs process is the same in those two organizations?

Yeah. I would feel a lot better about missing the playoffs this season if the team had their 1st and 2nd round picks back seeing there was no immediate payoff from having Hamonic on the team. I don't think a GM makes that trade in the mind of team building as this trade was done with immediate results in mind and that's why missing the playoffs this season is misery for the GM and fans.