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

[Red]

The team played lights out when they tried hard. Even in the not so popular GG system. In the end effort trumps skill most of the time.

We need someone to get these guys to play with effort and develop some kind of an identity as a team. Gulutzan hasn't been able to do that, but in fairness to him, we dont know if he even tried. He may not see it as a big issue.

More skill would help too. Of course. But in the end that skill needs to be pushed to play at a 100%.

[Royle9]

So, numbers aside (Corsi/Fenwick/Scoring chances) EVERYTHING aside.

Are you saying that you watched the Flames this year under Glen and thought to yourself "This team is well coached, the style of hockey they are playing systematically is top tier, we're playing with a clear and concise identity. Unfortunately were just really really unlucky night in and night out"

If the answer is yes, I'm not sure we watched the same team.
I think some people are saying yes.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Royle9

So, numbers asside (Corsi/Fenwick/Scoring chances) EVERYTHING aside.

Are you saying that you watched the Flames this year under Glen and thought to yourself "This team is well coached, the style of hockey they are playing systematically is top tier and were just really really unlucky night in and night out"

If the answer is yes, I'm not sure we watched the same team.

In some games, I've definitely seen the style and system he coached work extremely well. I've also seen it work well and then deteriorate during the game. I think Gio had their issues pegged pretty well - it wasn't really a systems issue, it was a sticking to system through adversity issue. He said they would be outplaying opponents and if it didn't produce results, or a goal went against them, they tried to do different things instead of just continuing to play well and persevere through it. He suggested they would grip the stick or play an individual game, they would try high risk plays, or they would go into a shell. I think that matches what I saw more than "this system doesn't work". I think they also started to think too hard on the ice, and not play instinctive hockey.

Now, all of that can also be a coaching issue - just not a technical coaching issue, but rather a motivational and mentoring issue.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Royle9

So, numbers aside (Corsi/Fenwick/Scoring chances) EVERYTHING aside.

Are you saying that you watched the Flames this year under Glen and thought to yourself "This team is well coached, the style of hockey they are playing systematically is top tier, we're playing with a clear and concise identity. Unfortunately were just really really unlucky night in and night out"

If the answer is yes, I'm not sure we watched the same team.
I think some people are saying yes.

Mostly, yes.
Play exactly like they did and score twice in the 1st period, and everyone feels joy. Outplay the opponent and trail 2-0, and its all sadness.
It's not really style of play as much as it is scoring some freaking goals.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

So no deep dives required. Good to know.

Wrong again.

The deep dives are all done, the finger now just has to hammer the execute button.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That ultimately will be the answer on the coach though.

See, this is the part which I never get. Generally speaking I have nothing against analysis, statistical or video or what ever.

The feeling I get from you is that you seriously think some post-factual analysis of how the team played will give the ultimate answer to the question of should Gulutzan be fired, and that I don't really get. It's just extremely rare that analytics, any analytics really, give definite answer to a question like that. The vast majority of time statistics and analytics give vague hints or nothing at all. At best they give suggestions.

Besides you can't prove a negative this way. It's just impossible to prove that you shouldn't fire Gulutzan in any numerical or system analysis. There's always a very realistic chance you're missing something, and you will always have those low points in standings as a warning sign no matter what else you will discover. Plus there's all the stuff that can't be factually analyzed or measured, like what the players tell you, or how good Gulutzan is at giving instructions.

Ultimately it's always going to be a judgment call. I believe that when you know you're going to have to make a judgment call, it's usually better to make sure you have a solid handle on the big picture instead of diving into the details.

And yes I've laid it out numerous times.

There's a ton of text on this forum, and it's easy to get details of who exactly means what mixed, sorry.

[Royle9]

Sure I'd agree with that, some games it seemed it was working to some extent.
But those games were few and far between and that's what scares me most.

Our system was good enough 5v5 to get us this close to the playoffs, the power play system is what killed us I think we can all agree on that.

Could our system be better? Sure it could
Could our coach in charge with the special teams be better? Has to if we want to improve
Could we afford to bring in some better depth? Absolutely, we need more shoot first high quality scoring wingers without a doubt
Do the coaches shoulder a large part of the blame when things go so wrong all season long? Yes, they have to take responsibility to some extent
Is it the coaches job to adapt to each and every game, lineup/line combinations and ensuring the team is ready to play to the identity hes selected? Sure is, that's what he's paid to do

If I had a nickel for every time GG said "we just weren't ready to come out and play" I'd be a rich man. Now some may argue "what's he supposed to say" so I'll say he should explain himself a bit more because that got old real fast and looks terrible.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't know if this has been pointed out because I haven't read the thread, but here are a few bits of information that may be worth considering in your evaluation of the Flames this season.

• The Flames were 22nd in save percentage at even strength this year.
• The Flames were 12th in save percentage at 4-on-5 this year.
• The Flames were 29th in shooting percentage at even strength this year.
• The Flames were 28th in shooting percentage at 5-on-4 this year.

Those are terrible, bottom five numbers that shouldn't result in being near a playoff spot for most teams. Yet despite being terrible in those key areas, until a losing streak late in the season, the wounds of which are probably pretty fresh in the minds of many here, the Flames were still in the thick of the playoff race. I would suggest that this is because their even strength play was actually fundamentally quite solid.

Maybe you attribute their inability to convert chances to goals to apathy, a lack of intensity and an inability to bear down and bang those rebounds in. Maybe you attribute it to puck luck. Maybe it's a lack of offensive finishing, particularly in the bottom 6. Maybe it's a combination, with one of those things playing the largest role (most likely).

Regardless, the good news is that this is the easiest stuff to fix. Not that anything is an easy fix in the NHL, but I'd rather be a sound even strength hockey team that needs to change a few pieces to finish scoring chances and stop a few more pucks than one that's fundamentally bad. If you can manage to get those numbers up into top ten territory, you have the makings of a serious contender, potentially for a while.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Maybe you attribute their inability to convert chances to goals to apathy, a lack of intensity and an inability to bear down and bang those rebounds in. Maybe you attribute it to puck luck. Maybe it's a lack of offensive finishing, particularly in the bottom 6. Maybe it's a combination, with one of those things playing the largest role (most likely).

There's also the possibility of there's systematic issues.

Regardless, the good news is that this is the easiest stuff to fix. Not that anything is an easy fix in the NHL, but I'd rather be a sound even strength hockey team that needs to change a few pieces to finish scoring chances and stop a few more pucks than one that's fundamentally bad. If you can manage to get those numbers up into top ten territory, you have the makings of a serious contender, potentially for a while.

This I very much agree with. It's actually a big reason why I so strongly support changing the head coach and seeing what happens before making other big changes. It's a limited change that seems very likely to be either a wash or an improvement. You know a lot more about this team when you've had another coach.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Itse

See, this is the part which I never get. Generally speaking I have nothing against analysis, statistical or video or what ever.

The feeling I get from you is that you seriously think some post-factual analysis of how the team played will give the ultimate answer to the question of should Gulutzan be fired, and that I don't really get. It's just extremely rare that analytics, any analytics really, give definite answer to a question like that. The vast majority of time statistics and analytics give vague hints or nothing at all. At best they give suggestions.

If the deep dive into video proves the opposite, that the Flames do have equivalent danger rates of contending teams when it comes to rating scoring chances then you have this;

a team that out chanced their opponents greatly but didn't score

If that's the case then I don't fire the coach.

Personally I think there is something in the Flame's system that would come out of the deep dive and give you an answer to why they have great numbers but not actual great scoring chances.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wrong again.

The deep dives are all done, the finger now just has to hammer the execute button.

Wait a second. You went from defending Trelving by claiming he needs more time to conduct deep dives, to which I suggested he may not be all that cracked up in an executive role then, if he needs more time than he's had to "conduct a deep dive." Now you've come to my point that you can make complex decisions in short order because the deep dives have already been done. So what is holding Treliving up? Why does he need a deep dive? The analytic systems the Flames use are from the 1990s or something?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If the deep dive into video proves the opposite, that the Flames do have equivalent danger rates of contending teams when it comes to rating scoring chances then you have this;

a team that out chanced their opponents greatly but didn't score

If that's the case then I don't fire the coach.

Personally I think there is something in the Flame's system that would come out of the deep dive and give you an answer to why they have great numbers but not actual great scoring chances.

Fair enough.

Personally I think that's an unreasonable level of proof you're expecting, but maybe I'm wrong.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

There's also the possibility of there's systematic issues.



This I very much agree with. It's actually a big reason why I so strongly support changing the head coach and seeing what happens before making other big changes. It's a limited change that seems very likely to be either a wash or an improvement. You know a lot more about this team when you've had another coach.

I have two issues with what you say.

First, I don't know that a system is likely to result in more saves or higher shooting percentage. If there was evidence that the Flames were taking too many perimeter shots, maybe, but that's not apparent. Further, most of the work done on the topic indicates that defender performance can decrease shots against, but doesn't influence save percentage much, if at all. So I don't think the system can be blamed for not putting pucks in the net.

However, it can be blamed for special teams results. This is key, and should be kept in mind, because that's nearly all coaching. The Oilers are a good example here. There's no reason that a team with Connor McDavid on it should have the worst power play shooting percentage in the league. From what I've seen, the reason is that they're too static and are constantly trying to force a royal road pass to Draisaitl. That's a coaching failure. But you need to understand what the problem is before you can assess how to fix it.

The other thing I take issue with is assuming a coaching change will fix it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they'd be wrong to fire Gulutzan, particularly if the guys won't play hard for him, or if you think that their even strength play is the result of their talent more than the system. However, my concern is that if you bring a new guy in, and he messes with the way they play, they'll take a step back in terms of what they ARE doing well right now - which is the most important thing to be good at, in my view.

Again, that doesn't mean don't fire the coach, it means you recognize and assess that risk before deciding to take it.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Gotta support Bingo here in that they need to look long and hard at the numbers. At worst, they will come to the well-reasoned conclusion, that the numbers are useless at all. More likely, though, they will find where the problem is. Going with the gut feeling is an outdated approach. Gotta go with big data and the insights that you get from your analytics. Something is seriously off with stats and results and it would be well worth to dig into it.

I would hope they were doing that all season and have a conclusion already.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Wait a second. You went from defending Trelving by claiming he needs more time to conduct deep dives, to which I suggested he may not be all that cracked up in an executive role then, if he needs more time than he's had to "conduct a deep dive." Now you've come to my point that you can make complex decisions in short order because the deep dives have already been done. So what is holding Treliving up? Why does he need a deep dive? The analytic systems the Flames use are from the 1990s or something?

Nope.

I said I'd get the analytics department to look into it.

We have no knowledge as to whether that has already happened or not.

If he made a decision on his coach without doing so I'd think he was potentially missing the boat on something for sure.

Any delay in firing Gulutzan at this point is likely tied to one of;

a) he's not going to fire him
b) he will only fire him if he thinks he has a replacement lined up
c) talking to ownership/King about retention of a fired coach's salary

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I would hope they were doing that all season and have a conclusion already.

To add to this, if they can reach conclusions about why the results were poor shouldn’t that have driven some changes during the season? The purpose of analytics (data, video, etc) should be continuous improvement. I’m curious how or if insights were shared with the coaching staff.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I have two issues with what you say.

First, I don't know that a system is likely to result in more saves or higher shooting percentage. If there was evidence that the Flames were taking too many perimeter shots, maybe, but that's not apparent. Further, most of the work done on the topic indicates that defender performance can decrease shots against, but doesn't influence save percentage much, if at all. So I don't think the system can be blamed for not putting pucks in the net.

I don't buy that, since what work I've seen basically says "numbers should even out over time", which is a bad assumption.

This article kind of sums up my feelings on save percentage as a team stat.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/...s-a-team-stat/

There's no reason that a team with Connor McDavid on it should have the worst power play shooting percentage in the league.

That sentence alone should I think prove that both shooting percentage and sv% are affected by coaching. (If one of them is, then both are.)

The other thing I take issue with is assuming a coaching change will fix it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they'd be wrong to fire Gulutzan, particularly if the guys won't play hard for him, or if you think that their even strength play is the result of their talent more than the system. However, my concern is that if you bring a new guy in, and he messes with the way they play, they'll take a step back in terms of what they ARE doing well right now - which is the most important thing to be good at, in my view.

Again, that doesn't mean don't fire the coach, it means you recognize and assess that risk before deciding to take it.

I get that, but not really. I mean, they finished miles away from the playoffs, and not just because they melted in the end. They projected to be a below 90-point team well before the halfway mark of the season.

It just seems to be a very, very low risk move. Even if they do become worse at something they do well now, at the absolute worst it gets us a better draft pick. And there's just no way they're going to be less entertaining than they were this season even if that was the case.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If the deep dive into video proves the opposite, that the Flames do have equivalent danger rates of contending teams when it comes to rating scoring chances then you have this;

a team that out chanced their opponents greatly but didn't score

If that's the case then I don't fire the coach.

Personally I think there is something in the Flame's system that would come out of the deep dive and give you an answer to why they have great numbers but not actual great scoring chances.

I think if you've got it right Bingo. Anyone watching this season could see that this team was working hard in the offensive zone to create scoring chances and manufacture goals. But they just simply don't have the natural talent.

They did a good job last season and managed to finish 16th in goals. but there was too much regression this season from too many players that even the career years and a better goaltender could not overcome.

The coaching staff has shown success in many areas that a lot of posters are complaining about. Powerplay was very good for a long period of time. In game management contrary to popular belief is quite good as this team was something like 50-0-3 when they were leading going into the 3rd. Mental weakness is another common criticism, but this team was ranked 12th and 13th in games which they were trailing after the 1st and 2nd.

People might hate the coaching staff and blame them for everything that has gone wrong with this team, but with a deeper roster and/or less injuries, this team could've easily been a playoff team. But as everyone saw, with every injury, this team just could not recover which tells me that the roster was too shallow.

When the Jets lost their #1 center Scheifele, they were still winning at a high rate. Same with the Leafs when they lost Matthews, they didn't skip a beat. conversely, when we lost Monahan our season tanked, when we lost Versteeg, our PP turned to crap, when Smith was injured, we couldn't recover. Everything that I see leads me to believe it's more of a roster problem than a coaching problem and Treliving even validated my opinion with his end of season presser when he said we need to find more skill which is what I've been screaming for all season.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Any delay in firing Gulutzan at this point is likely tied to one of;

a) he's not going to fire him
b) he will only fire him if he thinks he has a replacement lined up
c) talking to ownership/King about retention of a fired coach's salary

d) he's just a methodical guy who likes his process and doesn't feel like he's in a hurry, even though he knows what he's going to do

(not meant as a criticism, he just seems to be like that)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You just can't post without inflammatory language can you?

I thought you said you were always open to being challenged, Bingo.

The reality is, you are by far the biggest Gulutzan booster on this forum. And that's fine. But you very much do appear to take challenges of him, or his Corsi, as a personal challenge to you or your own viewpoints. I'm just calling it as I see it.

I do see a group of posters that get angry any time someone suggests a deeper dive into anything that changes the course of the conversation of "fire the coach" as a knee jerk response.

Mirror images, Bingo. You are incapable of letting criticism of the coach's performance pass without an angry "but Corsi" response.

Also, speaking of "terribly weak", you're still going with the narrative that any call to fire this coach is a "knee jerk response"? After two years of crap hockey, that's still going to be your position?

The correlation as it looks though?

Four teams in the top 16 clubs have poor underlying numbers, so that's 25%, the other 75% seem to line up reasonably well. These exceptions are Nashville, Washington, Anaheim and Los Angeles.

Umm, you sure you are looking at the right table? Seven of the top 16 teams by CF% missed the playoffs: Carolina (1st), Calgary (3rd), Chicago (4th), St. Louis (6th), Dallas (11th), Edmonton (14th), and Montreal (15th).

The top four teams by HDSC missed the playoffs, as did six of the top ten. Of those, four were also below average offensively. The Islanders are an easy call for the "but goaltending" argument, sure. Even the Blackhawks - though they have other issues, because...

Any "deep dive" that ignores special teams is really just a high dive into a shallow puddle. What these seven teams largely have in common is crap special teams. Either bad power play or bad penalty kill or both. For us, our power play's woes have been obvious for a long time. However, even the statistically very good penalty kill rate of 81.8% shows major concerns. We were 7th in the NHL by PK%, but 14th by goals allowed because we take so many penalties. And that not only means more goals against, but more time in situations were offence isn't even a twinkle in Gulutzan's eye.

As to your question of why did just about everything suck this year? Bad luck and talent gaps certainly are part of it. However, the biggest single issue is the coaching staff. Particularly Gulutzan who has not shown at any point in his NHL career that he can read the game and respond - which in turn helps cause these panic attacks the Flames have been so prone to under him. He has not shown that he is willing to adapt his strategies to suit the players he has on his roster. That he can prepare this team. That he can formulate an identity for his team. His style can best be described as passive and does not favour quick transition. Consequently, we play as a much slower team than we are. That, in turn, ties into both the turnovers, panic attacks and penalties we take. It also inhibits offence.

Oh, and here's a fun stat about Glen Gulutzan: His teams always wilt under pressure. To wit, the last 10 games played for each of his four seasons:

2011-12: 3-7-0
2012-13: 4-6-1
2016-17: 4-6-0 (excluding playoffs)
2016-17: 2-8-0 (including playoffs)
2017-18: 2-8-0