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

[getbak]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

When you give either Treliving or Feaster credit for their good picks you also have to look at the Kanzigs, Poiriers, etc.

Those were both Feaster picks. Even with Kanzig, it's not like there are a lot of great players who were drafted after him. There are definitely many more misses than hits in the later rounds of the 2013 Draft.

For Treliving, the McDonald and Smith picks don't look that great from 2014, but that was also his first Draft and he was hired only weeks before the Draft, so it's hard to put those picks entirely on him. The picks from the last three drafts are looking better, with some guys who have shown decent NHL potential (although, only Tkachuk has reached that potential so far).

There isn't an NHL GM in history who has ever had a perfect draft history. Even the great Sam Pollock had draft busts. I believe it was Ken Holland who answered a question about the Wings having so much success with late picks like Datsyuk and Zetterberg by saying if they were really such geniuses, they wouldn't have waited so long to pick them.


Look at Chicago, they had 16 total picks in the 2006 & 2007 Drafts. The only players they got in either of those Drafts who played any games with the Hawks were Toews and Kane. All the other picks yielded 3 players who played a total of 11 NHL games and put up a total of 3 NHL points (which were all scored by Akim Aliu when he got a late-season call-up by the Flames that one year). In 2011, Chicago drafted Saad 43rd overall and Shaw 139th, they were Chicago's 4th and 8th picks of that Draft. While the players picked ahead of them weren't all busts, they weren't as good as Saad and Shaw either.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I don't think he should, but I totally agree that (a) a coaching change won't solve a bunch of issues surrounding goalscoring, effort and luck; (b) hiring a coach with a bunch of experience guarantees success; (c) a lot of criticism of GG is made up, cherry picked and avoids giving any credit for successes.

A complete system overhaul is likely to address your first point. Assuming it’s a system that actually works for this group.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Ryan Coke is right - Gulutzan did in fact simplify the system that the Flames were unable to execute properly last season. IIRC, the suggestion came from above as well.

I have no idea if the Flames played this season with the simplified version or the full version. Either way, hopefully that is the end of that.

I dont care honestly.

I like hearing opinions from veteran coaches where they say everybody pretty much plays a variant of the same thing.

Systems are all well and good, but there is no such thing as some magical, mystical system that if executed perfectly is guaranteed to produce wins.

Its fantasy. Bad fantasy. More 'Outlander' than 'Game of Thrones.'

The most important parts of any system are the ability to adapt and flexibility.

Glen Gulutzan's greatest failings.

He seemed adamant that if you just kept at it long enough (168 games isnt enough!) that eventually the square pegs would indeed fit in the round holes and, even more inexplicably, that this would be the desired result.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

That’s an average list of prospects, get back to us when they accomplish anything..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You bet. I'll write this down and bring it up again for discussion in 4 years.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Sean Monahan
Johhny Gaudreau
Mark Jankowski
Jon Gillies
Markus Granlund
Brett Kulak
Laurent Brossoit
Sven Baertschi
in one fewer year I believe.

So if that's your criteria, would you put Feaster ahead of Treliving?

To be fair, at least 3 of the 7 you point out could be argued to be nothing more than bottom of the rotation players/tweeners on any respectable line up (Brossoit, Granlund, Kukak,Gillies, Baertschi all question marks in my mind).

I have Treliving ahead of Feaster. The organization is much stronger today than it was when Feaster was driving the bus. That said, I doubt Feaster had the same latitude that Treliving does.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Is this a joke? How is this a fact in anyway? Please find me any documentation that states that this team abandoned their system midway through the season.
You want to know an actual fact? This team was 40-23-3 after their first month of games when it took them some time to adjust to a brand new system.

This team didn’t need to abandon any system because they were one of the best teams in the league after their rough start. I would also say that they blossomed under their new system because they moved up 17 spots in the GA department from last place to 14th.

I know there’s a lot of hatred for this coach for whatever ridiculous reasons. But making stuff up like this is just embarrassing.

It is a fact you obviously didn't know about. It is embarrassing.

[Moneyhands23]

Has GG been fired yet?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Has GG been fired yet?

Was thinking the same thing.

Season is done. Required next step is obvious.

It’s go time.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Is this a joke? How is this a fact in anyway? Please find me any documentation that states that this team abandoned their system midway through the season.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/960/boomer-...hout-contract/

6:16 mark

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Has GG been fired yet?

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Was thinking the same thing.

Season is done. Required next step is obvious.

It’s go time.

Its a process.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Evidence won’t silence people who just want to argue (referring to a couole of posts up)

[Pointman]

FWIW I remember a discussion on CP about how Burke said that Gulutzan had simplified the system and then Gulutzan denying it by saying that they keep playing the same thing.

[Locke]

nm

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Itse

Proof of the predictive power of standings and goals has been posted on this board dozens of times by now. Just because you don't bother to read the facts doesn't change the fact that they exist.

But here, let's go again.

Goal-based Metrics Better than Shot-Based Metrics at predicting hockey success



Wait, I thought we can't know how the Flames use stats? Make up your mind?



Ok, so essentially your argument is that there might be advanced stats nobody knows about that are actually good, and therefore you shouldn't dismiss it? This is just absolutely ridiculous.

But okay, let's limit the argument to advanced stats we know exist and are used, shot-based metrics, and agree that there might exist stats we don't know about that provide useful additional information.

(I actually assume there are, but this isn't what is commonly meant by "advanced stats" and thus I find it a disingenuous point.)

BTW, while that SJ journal article isn't supposed to be about "advanced stats are useless", this is not what the numbers really show.

Sure, they have some predictive power, but they are just not that great, and there's never been shown any proof that you can combine them with primary stats in a meaningful way the way he suggests.

Here's a few quotes:



Also, the argument that "since teams are using them they must be useful" is ridiculous even if assume that you somehow know they are actually making significant decisions based on them. (We don't know how many teams use them and how, so your argument that somehow 31 teams know something I don't is just an appeal to authority who's stand you don't actually know.)

Here's the thing; most statistics are not actually reliable enough to base single actions on. Like, you can't hire a man over a woman based on gender-based statistics because the variation between individuals is so big. Even if statistically men were better at something.

Even if there's strong statistical evidence that men are stronger than women, if you have actual strength tests, adding gender to that equation doesn't actually improve your decision making process.

Despite this, people and organizations CONSTANTLY do things like this, to the point where you have to go out of your way to hide information from them to get them to ignore it. Like hide gender information from applications.

It's also so much easier to defend your decision making if you say you based them on some stat rather than intuition, or more stats rather than less. Even if that means including stats that don't add value but rather just confuse the issue.

In hockey there's just no evidence that shot-based metrics are a good tool for acquiring players.
Of course there's the problem that this is almost impossible to prove either way, because there's just so much randomness and so many variables and the number of players moved each year is just too small. IMO a good statistician with understanding of basic psychology should say that most likely it's just better to mostly ignore the advanced stats.

The human psychological desire to believe in what looks like evidence is essentially how we got the science replication crisis. If scientists specifically trained to not get fooled by statistical evidence constantly get fooled by it on a massive scale, I don't see why it wouldn't be likely that you can easily fool most NHL GM's.

Ok it’s abundantly clear you don’t understand what teams use advanced stats for. First off, I don’t know why you keep talking about shot based metrics. I’ve not mentioned that once. Second, that article is about predicting the standings. It’s useless. It’s like arguing wins helps predict the standings. Duh. That’s not what teams are using advanced stats for.

You keep making a counter to an position I’ve never taken and it’s pretty clear why. Your only argument against advanced stats is you don’t understand them and you don’t trust them. Therefore you keep making this about predicting the standings. Omg wow, teams with better goal diff is a better representation of the standings than shot diff. I’ve mentioned multiple times, that’s not what we’re talking about here. Goal diff is the result teams want to achieve because it correlates to wins. Using goal diff to predict goal diff. Great plan.

Score more goals than your opponent and you are guaranteed to win. Wow! What a revelation! Clearly you are the one who understands better than me because this is new information.

Teams use advanced stats to help evaluate players and their team in a way goal diff can’t. They use thes stats to support what they see on the ice. I can’t explain it any simpler and if you aren’t willing to recognize that, there’s nothing further to discuss.

The fact you still think this is only about some completion among fans to predict the standings, after the season is over, to guess the standings based on certain stats is mind boggling. That is so useless to NHL teams. They already know that having good goal diff is important. This is about how to achieve that and how to evaluate their players.

Once again your arrogance that you know better than 31 NHL teams is hilarious. Yup you’re right. They’re all delusional and being fooled by their own bias.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by TOfan

^
Dillon Dube
Tyler Parsons
Matthew Tkachuck
Rasmus Anderson
Oliver Kylington
Adam Fox
Spencer Foo
Jusso Valimaki

Since Cliff Fletcher, who has been better?

There's a huge difference between drafting, where you rely on your scouts and actually watching guys, either on your own team or on other teams and making trades based on what you see. BT can do the first just fine, it's the latter I'm worried about. show me one trade where he was able to trade for a lesser knowing prospect or player that's blossomed? I can point to a few he's either traded away or lost through waivers to other teams.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

There's a huge difference between drafting, where you rely on your scouts and actually watching guys, either on your own team or on other teams and making trades based on what you see. BT can do the first just fine, it's the latter I'm worried about. show me one trade where he was able to trade for a lesser knowing prospect or player that's blossomed? I can point to a few he's either traded away or lost through waivers to other teams.

Acquiring a lesser known prospect from another team and having them blossom is a long shot. Most NHL hockey ops departments know what they're doing.

Just because the Flames haven't acquired some other teams trash and turned it into treasure, doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen at some point.

Which prospects have the Flames moved who have turned out well? Sure Byron is one; but who else Barestchi, maybe? Geanlund? Whose spots were those guys taking from the Flames at the time?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Acquiring a lesser known prospect from another team and having them blossom is a long shot. Most NHL hockey ops departments know what they're doing.

Just because the Flames haven't acquired some other teams trash and turned it into treasure, doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen at some point.

Which prospects have the Flames moved who have turned out well? Sure Byron is one; but who else Barestchi, maybe? Geanlund? Whose spots were those guys taking from the Flames at the time?

Based on what we saw from Andersson down the stretch I still think the Flames win that deal long-term.

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Based on what we saw from Andersson down the stretch I still think the Flames win that deal long-term.

Definitely, they turned the pick into a great asset in Anderson

I think monkeyman is is critical of the Flames for guys like Shinkaruk, Lazar, or Pollock not turning into something at the NHL level.

[Manhattanboy]

Tre has no one to blame but himself.

Should have fired the entire coaching staff by Christmas and its very possible Flames season is not over.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Acquiring a lesser known prospect from another team and having them blossom is a long shot. Most NHL hockey ops departments know what they're doing.

Just because the Flames haven't acquired some other teams trash and turned it into treasure, doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen at some point.

Which prospects have the Flames moved who have turned out well? Sure Byron is one; but who else Barestchi, maybe? Geanlund? Whose spots were those guys taking from the Flames at the time?

Sven is probably in the category of someone else's trash is Vancouver's treasure. The guy has had some injury problems, but over an 82 games season his per game rates equal 21 goals and 19 assists.

Byron was a guy who was producing while on the Flames (82 game average was 10 goals, 21 assists for 31 points) Brad just had other players he liked more at the time (Bouma, Raymond, Bollig) so we put him on the waiver wire. Byron has produced at a slightly higher rate in Montreal (19-19-38 over an 82 game average) but Brad knew he was giving up a 30 point type guy who had speed and could kill penalties, Brad just wanted to go in a different direction.

Hopefully we can get gifted some players by another team to return the favour.