[POLL] Calgary Flames coaching change mega-thread—with poll

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Disagree.

A guy fell into a 30M crevasse near Jasper yesterday and lived. But I wouldn't hold the overall rule of not jumping into 30M crevasses in question.

It's statistics.

2/16 teams that made it shouldn't have
2/15 teams that missed shouldn't have

Those are summaries that advanced stats gurus would hold as gospel. I'm not in that camp at all. But I do wonder why they happened, and I think they should be looked into in order to make sure you don't over look factors that could help make a good decision.

I think the number of false positives is significantly higher than that. But let's accept those numbers as gospel for the sake of this discussion...

we are left with one of two conclusions:

a) the Flames are better than their record (as per the stats), or
b) they are one of the two false signals (i.e. they don't apply to the Flames)

Considering the consistency and duration of their under-performance, I am led to the second choice.

And whether you think the stats are garbage, or whether you think they simply aren't applicable in this case, you end up at the same place: there is nothing to be gleaned from them with respect to the Flames.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Smith plus 4 kids under 6 years old at home. The road must seem soooooo peaceful.

I don't know about this. Last year 12/19 of Smith's wins were in Arizona.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Can we please stop using this term as a debate tactic? It is completely meaningless in this context.

Debate tactic? What? That's not what it is at all it is a phrase used to describe hiring a coach for less obvious and apparent reasons, such as a coach that has good underlying numbers but his win/loss record does not correlate. But said coach would potentially be much better in a different environment with different players.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I don't know about this. Last year 12/19 of Smith's wins were in Arizona.

Yeah but he was "in production" on the fourth. More reason to be happy at home.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Staal is ONE player. Peters seems to have done just fine with others like Aho, Teravainen, Skinner, and Justin Williams had a great year playing for him. I think you are setting far too much importance into the improvement or decline of a single player under a coach.

I did attempt to downplay it, say it was only one data point. It is simply something I would want to understand as well, in addition to collective performance

As for those guys you mention
Aho - there is no frame of reference outside of Peters (great draft pick, though)
Skinner - ok, he is ~flat. Hasn’t really improved on his rookie season over the years and is now in his prime
Teravainen - only one season as external reference, his rookie season in Chicago. Trending up, could be natural development
Williams - on par with his general performance

Thing is, being a 70+ point guy like Staal is different than a ~50 point guy like Williams. Seems those extra 20 points are something comparatively few NHLers can do. That’s why I picked him, and that 20 ish point swing, out.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by zamler

Debate tactic? What? That's not what it is at all it is a phrase used to describe hiring a coach for less obvious and apparent reasons, such as a coach that has good underlying numbers but his winning record does not correlate. But said coach would potentially be much better in a different environment with different players.

I understand what you think it should mean, and it does not mean that.

[GranteedEV]

Draw or don't draw whatever conclusions you want to, I'm just posting the shot charts (5 on 5)

Peters' 2017-18 Hurricanes(19th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Peters' 2016-17 Hurricanes(16th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Peters' 2015-16 Hurricanes(22nd in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Ruff's 2016-17 Stars (15th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Ruff's 2015-16 Stars (2nd in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Ruff's 2014-15 Stars (3rd in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Ruff's 2013-14 Stars (5th in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Vigneult's 2017-18 Rangers (22nd in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Vigneult's 2016-17 Rangers (7th in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Vigneult's 2015-16 Rangers (1st in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Vigneult's 2014-15 Rangers (1st in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Vigneult's 2013-14 Rangers (17th in 5v5 goals)

Spoiler!

Sutter's 2016-17 Kings (28th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Sutter's 2015-16 Kings (28th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Sutter's 2014-15 Kings (9th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Sutter's 2013-14 Kings (27th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Gulutzan's 2018 Flames(27th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Gulutzan's 2016-17 Flames (21st in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Hartley's 2015-16 Flames (8th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

Hartley's 2014-15 Flames (12th in 5v5 goals):

Spoiler!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Absolutely.

My gut says two things.

1) Goalie was starving to play in front of big crowds and teams that give a rip and pressed

2) Team took too many chances on home ice and his high danger chances were up.

IMO, it was primarily this. I felt all year that the Flames played a different style at home vs the road. On the road, they played much more of a north-south game, and were responsible to their defensive assignments.

At home, there was a lot more of a show being put on. Lots more passing, and lots more pressing the offense. It seemed to result in more turnovers and more odd-man rushes against.

Having said all that, it did seem like Smith was more prone to the one soft goal at home than he was on the road, especially early in the game. Is that form putting pressure on himself?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by zamler

Debate tactic? What? That's not what it is at all it is a phrase used to describe hiring a coach for less obvious and apparent reasons, such as a coach that has good underlying numbers but his win/loss record does not correlate. But said coach would potentially be much better in a different environment with different players.

It suggests Treliving didn't make an obvious pick not because he felt it was right, but because it would prove his superior intelligence - that he knows more than anyone else. It suggests he doesn't consult others or thinks that he's infallible. It connotes arrogance, which is why the famous book about Enron was so entitled.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I did attempt to downplay it, say it was only one data point. It is simply something I would want to understand as well, in addition to collective performance

As for those guys you mention
Aho - there is no frame of reference outside of Peters (great draft pick, though)
Skinner - ok, he is ~flat. Hasn’t really improved on his rookie season over the years and is now in his prime
Teravainen - only one season as external reference, his rookie season in Chicago. Trending up, could be natural development
Williams - on par with his general performance

Thing is, being a 70+ point guy like Staal is different than a ~50 point guy like Williams. Seems those extra 20 points are something comparatively few NHLers can do. That’s why I picked him, and that 20 ish point swing, out.

I think there are other reasons than coaching which better explain what happened to Eric Staal. And given that great players will suffer for a range of reasons under either good or poor coaches, I don't find this factor of underperformance very compelling.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

IMO, it was primarily this. I felt all year that the Flames played a different style at home vs the road. On the road, they played much more of a north-south game, and were responsible to their defensive assignments.

At home, there was a lot more of a show being put on. Lots more passing, and lots more pressing the offense. It seemed to result in more turnovers and more odd-man rushes against.

Having said all that, it did seem like Smith was more prone to the one soft goal at home than he was on the road, especially early in the game. Is that form putting pressure on himself?

Smith did say he put more pressure to win games on his own down the stretch and I bet that was even moreso at home. Johnny's big risk taking gaffes occurred at home, and so did Brodie's IIRC.

Maybe we should not wear red next season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Draw or don't draw whatever conclusions you want to, I'm just posting the shot charts (5 on 5)

Very well done!

Suggests they should hire Vigneault, then Ruff, then Gulutzan!

But seriously thanks for putting that together.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Did the Flames surrender more high-danger chances on home ice? I tend to agree with your first point, as there were a number of absolutely baffling goals he allowed at the Saddledome this season.

What do you think about this?

They rank better overall in the league in the metrics on the ROAD vs how other teams perform on the road but in terms of the raw numbers they were still better at home than on the road.

Home:

Corsi For: 66.79 (2ND)
Corsi Against: 53.77 (6TH)

Scoring Chance For: 32.2 (9TH)
Scoring Chance Against: 26.5 (12TH)

High Danger For: 13.31 (7TH)
High Danger Against: 10.46 (14TH)

Road:

Corsi For: 61.76 (2ND)
Corsi Against: 59.62 (11TH)

Scoring Chance For: 30.89 (2ND)
Scoring Chance Against: 29.47 (8TH)

High Danger For: 12.64 (2TH)
High Danger Against: 11.44 (10TH)

Somehow though we had the 6th ranked save percentage on the road, and 26th ranked save percentage on home ice.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It suggests Treliving didn't make an obvious pick not because he felt it was right, but because it would prove his superior intelligence - that he knows more than anyone else. It suggests he doesn't consult others or thinks that he's infallible. It connotes arrogance, which is why the famous book about Enron was so entitled.

And maybe there is some truth, maybe not. If Tre does another unconventional coaching pick and that turns out poorly then one could characterize his decisions as such. Notice the vast majority of people do want a coach with a winning record not a diamond in the rough type hire?

But since Tre did the right thing and cleaned house on the coaching staff I'm much more optimistic that he'll make the right choice again.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

And maybe there is some truth, maybe not. If Tre does another unconventional coaching pick and that turns out poorly then one could characterize his decisions as such. Notice the vast majority of people do want a coach with a winning record not a diamond in the rough type hire?

But since Tre did the right thing and cleaned house on the coaching staff I'm much more optimistic that he'll make the right choice again.

31 NHL coaching jobs

3 spots vacant

Of the 28 employed coaches I have the following

Conventional Hires - 9

(Anaheim, Chicago, Columbus, Edmonton, Minnesota, Montreal, Toronto, Washington)

Unconventional Hires - 19

Best coach in Flame's history was off the charts unconventional.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by zamler

And maybe there is some truth, maybe not. If Tre does another unconventional coaching pick and that turns out poorly then one could characterize his decisions as such. Notice the vast majority of people do want a coach with a winning record not a diamond in the rough type hire?

But since Tre did the right thing and cleaned house on the coaching staff I'm much more optimistic that he'll make the right choice again.

When GG was hired a lot of people were clamoring for "no retreads" when Boudreau's name came up and despite GG having one previous gig, he wasn't really seen that way.

Hiring a guy who has had limited HC experience isn't really that unconventional. Every head coach was once a first timer. Plenty had a rough first gig as well. Calgary's best HC ever was kind of an out of the box pick - no pro experience at all - but was Cliff Fletcher some sort of "smartest guy in the room" egomaniac because of that?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Very well done!

Suggests they should hire Vigneault, then Ruff, then Gulutzan!

But seriously thanks for putting that together.

My biggest takeaway is that the higher scoring teams take a lot of shots from that wierd angle between the hash marks and the goal line. I think that might be the key to generating movement in the opponent's defense, or perhaps it's a result of royal road crossing plays. Or it's just random chance and hockey is just a glorified game of roulette on ice.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off all I don't have to watch 50 hockey games hitting pause every 15 seconds to suggest the work should be done. They pay a team of three guys to do that, and they should.

So don't look for a reveal from me, it's not coming.

Don't look for a reveal from the team either as they'd want to keep their analysis private.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

Do you realize that this is conspiracy theory logic?

"I can't prove this is real, and the people who can prove it's real are never going to do publicly, but trust me this is still a real thing".

I'm not saying you're wrong (although I've made my stand clear on this), but it's just not a very convincing thing to say.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

My biggest takeaway is that the higher scoring teams take a lot of shots from that wierd angle between the hash marks and the goal line. I think that might be the key to generating movement in the opponent's defense, or perhaps it's a result of royal road crossing plays. Or it's just random chance and hockey is just a glorified game of roulette on ice.

Making the goalie move is a big thing. a lot of Flames chances were missed slot shots or right into the belly of a goalie with very little secondary chances.

Cross ice plays have always garnered better scoring chances if the shooter get it off fast enough. Look at that NJ goal the other night from a cross ice pass from Hall. It was an unconventional shot angle, pretty high above the faceoff circle and the goalie couldn't cover the angle because Hall was in tight on the right side.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Let's be clear: FANS are the ones who are making these demands, and mostly from the hilariously simplistic perspective of a cursory view of each coach's record.

I expect that Treliving is not actually all that interested in who the fans want to coach the Flames, and I see NO indication that the people he likely is listening to have forwarded these three candidates as the right man for the job.

So, anyone who doesn't think like you is "hilariously simplistic"?

Beyond that annoying self-indulgence, I find your comment interesting. You are clearly putting up an appearance of speaking from a position of greater understanding. Would you care to inform the rest of us plebs who the illuminaries are that Treliving is likely listening to? Further, would you care to explain why you believe none of these three options are names that the people Treliving does listen to are likely to have been brought up as capable candidates by same? And, can you explain why, if these are not names at least brought forward for consideration, that Treliving should even be listening to these people in the first place?