Francis: Treliving filled with disappointment, anger after team's collapse

[Psytic]

What are the odds we could get Hartley to come back. Only half kidding.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

And yes, Hartley was a damn good motivator, and he did get his team to 'work harder', but he was so much more than that. Not an elite coach, but incredibly underrated here.

I got so much crap for saying Hartley was 2x the coach that GG is over a year ago, can't seem to remember any "thanks" over those remarks!!

[DeluxeMoustache]

I met Bob, he had charisma. I used to seek out Bob’s post game pressers. Not Gul’s

[YourMother]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I got so much crap for saying Hartley was 2x the coach that GG is over a year ago, can't seem to remember any "thanks" over those remarks!!

From what I recall Hartley only had a handful of tricks in his bag and was figured out by other coaches by time his tenure with us ended. Much like GG, he didn’t have the ability to adapt. He was great at a few things, which is arguably more than can be said for GG, but didn’t have enough to build a powerhouse. Also, he was apparently hated by a good portion of the team.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

It's a post event evaluation mechanism, not a predictor of the outcome.

It's both. Goal differential and gf% are excellent predictors of future success.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Itse

It's both. Goal differential and gf% are excellent predictors of future success.

Maybe think of it as that the objective is to score goals for and prevent goals against
- the idea is to get shots on net, usually required to score
- goalie should stop 90 percent of shots so keep shooting
- scoring is a result of shooting

The idea behind Corsi is quantifying the proportion of behaviour (shots) that lead to the expected result (goals).

So some people are saying GF is a result based stat. Fair, especially relative to Corsi

You are saying it is a predictor of standings results.
They are trying to add a previous level which is arguably more behavioural in terms of fundamentals and less outcome based

Or in other words, consider it in terms of dependence stepwise
- more shots proportionally presumably should result in more goals proportionally, all else being equal
- more goals proportionally should result in more wins, all else being equal
- more wins should result in better place in the standings, all else being equal

So of course goal differential (step 2) should be a better predictor of place in standings (step 3) than shot differential (step 1), because the ‘all else being equal’ qualifier drops off as you move up each step.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The idea behind Corsi is quantifying the proportion of behaviour (shots) that lead to the expected result (goals).

This is incorrect. Shots on goal is quantifying the proportion of behavior that's expected to lead to goals. Corsi (or relative corsi to be more specific) is a proxy stat for "possession". Possession is supposed to lead wins. Not goals for or against, wins. (Or, "more goals for than against".)

Two facts:
- From what we know of other sports, some of which track possession directly instead of trying to do it through a proxy (soccer being the best example since it has by-the-second tracking of the ball and all players), possession is a quite poor predictor of wins. While not all sports are the same, I have seen no explanation why possession would be somehow especially relevant in hockey.

- Shots are not a very good indicator of who actually dominated the game. Adding "shots not on goal" to "shots on goal" is adding noise to what is already a rather uninformative stat. In general, increasing sample size is rarely a great way to improve a statistic beyond a certain basic level.

In other words, whether you think corsi is supposed to be an improved shot tracker (questionable whether it's actually improved) or a proxy possession tracker, it's highly questionable whether either of those statistics are that useful. (Plus it's questionable whether corsi is a good proxy for possession in the first place.)

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Itse you’re stating things as fact (in bold) that you don’t have any evidence for. You say yourself that you don’t know if they’re true.

Whatever your thoughts on Corsi, it doesn’t change the fact that Goal Diff is not a predictive stat the way advanced stats are supposed to be.

Most importantly though, we are once again inexplicably talking about Corsi as if anyone gives a crap about Corsi. Who cares about Corsi? And why does everyone think the Flames care so much about Corsi? Has GG ever mentioned Corsi during a post game presser? Why do I see dozens upon dozens of posts in multiple threads claiming the Flames play for Corsi? It makes no sense at all and is without any factual basis.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Itse you’re stating things as fact (in bold) that you don’t have any evidence for. You say yourself that you don’t know if they’re true.

Whatever your thoughts on Corsi, it doesn’t change the fact that Goal Diff is not a predictive stat the way advanced stats are supposed to be.

Most importantly though, we are once again inexplicably talking about Corsi as if anyone gives a crap about Corsi. Who cares about Corsi? And why does everyone think the Flames care so much about Corsi? Has GG ever mentioned Corsi during a post game presser? Why do I see dozens upon dozens of posts in multiple threads claiming the Flames play for Corsi? It makes no sense at all and is without any factual basis.

It’s like a lot of the criticism on this site. Posters make up facts to suit their preconceived notions.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I met Bob, he had charisma. I used to seek out Bob’s post game pressers. Not Gul’s

"We just werent ready..."

There, I saved the good bits for you.

[GioforPM]

The fact Hartley gave amusing quotes to the press was fun but also spoke to how two faced he was considering how he treated his players (according to Sarich and others). He was affable uncle Bob to the press but the opposite in real life or at least in his job.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The fact Hartley gave amusing quotes to the press was fun but also spoke to how two faced he was considering how he treated his players (according to Sarich and others). He was affable uncle Bob to the press but the opposite in real life or at least in his job.

I dont like always linking back to Hartley and I know all about Sarich's quotes but heres something that the ol' 'Eye-Test' can confirm:

The players went to War for Bob Hartley.

They destroyed the Canucks and Oilers and when it was time to fight nobody clocked out. They were all in whether they liked Bob or not.

Gulutzan has all of the inspirational abilities of undercooked noodles.

We saw it over and over and over again for the past 2 years, when the going got tough they....quit. Gulutzan included.

Over and over again.

They performed at their absolute worst in key moments.

[GioforPM]

The same players that went to war for Hartley folded their tents in the final year. I think that aspect of Hartley is way overrated. And you could say exactly the same about last year and this year under GG. According to some reporters he saved the season last year through motivation and supposedly this year they were so fragile they would have fallen apart much earlier but for GG (according to Friedman).

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont like always linking back to Hartley and I know all about Sarich's quotes but heres something that the ol' 'Eye-Test' can confirm:

The players went to War for Bob Hartley.

They destroyed the Canucks and Oilers and when it was time to fight nobody clocked out. They were all in whether they liked Bob or not.

Gulutzan has all of the inspirational abilities of undercooked noodles.

We saw it over and over and over again for the past 2 years, when the going got tough they....quit. Gulutzan included.

Over and over again.

They performed at their absolute worst in key moments.

There is truth to this. Can't deny it and I'm not even a huge Hartley fan.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The same players that went to war for Hartley folded their tents in the final year. I think that aspect of Hartley is way overrated. And you could say exactly the same about last year and this year under GG. According to some reporters he saved the season last year through motivation and supposedly this year they were so fragile they would have fallen apart much earlier but for GG (according to Friedman).

Do you believe that for even a second?

I dont. Mostly because almost all evidence points to the contrary.

Let me guess....you're talking about stick-toss? The very same event that players were filmed laughing about after the fact?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you believe that for even a second?

I dont. Mostly because almost all evidence points to the contrary.

Let me guess....you're talking about stick-toss? The very same event that players were filmed laughing about after the fact?

No, I’m not talking about the stick toss. I’m talking about the mid season turnaround last year and what Friedman said this year (which had nothing to do with that).

You’ve talked about two years of evidence but you completely ignore the fact their second half of the regular season last year. Again, selective evidence citing.

I don’t think GG will be kept on, and I think that’s the correct move. However, I dislike criticism that simply imagines or projects what a poster thinks the players or GG think and then adapts the evidence to fit the conclusion. In this case, while GG did a lot of things that people can legit disagree with, talking about how players wouldn’t fight for him (or fight for Hartley) is just imaginary and also lets the player off the hook in a big way.

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you believe that for even a second?

I dont. Mostly because almost all evidence points to the contrary.

Let me guess....you're talking about stick-toss? The very same event that players were filmed laughing about after the fact?

They weren’t “laughing about the stick toss” after the fact.
They were asked “how do you grade that stick toss”, the question was asked jokingly and with laughter, and they answered in a similar way, naturally following the questioners lead.

There are lots of things to not like about Gulutzan, but this and watching the video immediately after goals aren’t them.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No, I’m not talking about the stick toss. I’m talking about the mid season turnaround last year and what Friedman said this year (which had nothing to do with that).

You’ve talked about two years of evidence but you completely ignore the fact their second half of the regular season last year. Again, selective evidence citing.

I don’t think GG will be kept on, and I think that’s the correct move. However, I dislike criticism that simply imagines or projects what a poster thinks the players or GG think and then adapts the evidence to fit the conclusion. In this case, while GG did a lot of things that people can legit disagree with, talking about how players wouldn’t fight for him (or fight for Hartley) is just imaginary and also lets the player off the hook in a big way.

Selective Evidence citing? Me? You're pointing at a sample of like 15-20 games! Out of 160+.

They went on a winning streak this year too. They followed it up with a losing streak and then proceeded to play the worst goddamned "hockey" I've ever seen in my life. It was so bad I had to put it in quotation marks.

This team has had moments of excellence and those moments are largely bookended by stretches of complete crap.

So who is being selective?

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

They weren’t “laughing about the stick toss” after the fact.
They were asked “how do you grade that stick toss”, the question was asked jokingly and with laughter, and they answered in a similar way, naturally following the questioners lead.

There are lots of things to not like about Gulutzan, but this and watching the video immediately after goals aren’t them.

The fact the reporter was asking the players to grade the toss immeadiatey after shows the reporters weren’t taking it seriously either. It was a big joke to everyone at the rink.

[Bingo]

Man his this conversation changed ...