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

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am taking out Glencross, Hudler and Russell on that list as I classify an auction of a UFA differently. Understand if others see that differently. And I'm happy with how he has done there.

I wouldn't call the Baertschi deal an impact trade, or if I did, probably call it a push.

So of the remaining six deals, I'd go:

Hamilton - check
Elliott - x
Stone - push
Lazar - x
Smith - push
Hamonic - x

Smith was a logical acquisition, but he paid more than he should have IMO. It's disappointing to me that BT was using up assets to have other teams absorb salary in deals. The Flames should not be in such a position at this point IMO.

You could convince me that Elliott was a push, but in the big picture have given up too many picks in the quest for a goalie.

Hamonic was just a flat out overpayment IMO.

Why would you exclude that? They are still trades, and the GM has to maximize return.

Feaster trades Iginla, Bouwmeester and Regehr and they were all simple auctions of UFAs as well. But Feaster didn't get enough return on any of them. He was a lousy trader.

Treliving has done a substantially better job of garnering assets from outgoing players. And to me, this is a vital part of trading for GMs.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is the problem with the supporters of counting stats. It is a simple and clear fact that the correlation (and it is a correlation, not a cause and effect) between good counting stats and good teams is not all that strong. There are lots of examples of teams that don't fit the narrative.

And while many of the stats supporters will concede that it isn't everything, it's only one piece of information, the problem is that they invariably take the outliers (and again, there are lots) and conclude that they are unlucky or untalented, instead of the FAR more plausible conclusion, which is that there is a tremendous amount of noise in these numbers, and a tremendous number of variables influencing them, and that, in all likelihood, they are simply misleading or false signals. That the team is in fact, as bad as it looks.

First off I have never nor will I ever suggest counting stats are the only way to assess players or coaches.

But this need to discount additional information by some, not all, is perplexing to me.

If the results don't follow you have to understand why to the best of your abilities (I won't say deep dive for fear of backlash all weekend).

I have a huge problem believing any NHL level coach is coaching for possession metrics and not results, that seems like a big stretch to me. They believe what they believe will lead to wins, and every fan is welcome to agree or disagree with the assumptions in their system.

At the end of the day it's not a bad thing to have more shot attempts than the opposition, and it's certainly not a bad thing to have more shot attempts closer to the net that are deemed dangerous.

Top ten teams CF%

Carolina#Hurricanes
Boston#Bruins
Calgary#Flames
Chicago#Blackhawks
Pittsburgh#Penguins
St Louis#Blues
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Winnipeg#Jets
Columbus#Blue Jackets
Nashville#Predators

Calgary and Carolina the outliers

Top ten teams in Scoring Chances %

Boston#Bruins
Carolina#Hurricanes
Calgary#Flames
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Winnipeg#Jets
Pittsburgh#Penguins
Chicago#Blackhawks
Toronto#Maple Leafs
Dallas#Stars
Vegas#Golden Knights

Carolina and Calgary the outliers, Dallas less so

Top ten teams in High Danger Chance %

Dallas#Stars
Calgary#Flames
Minnesota#Wild
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Montreal#Canadiens
Carolina#Hurricanes
Winnipeg#Jets
New Jersey#Devils
Boston#Bruins
Toronto#Maple Leafs

Add Montreal to the list with Calgary and Carolina

So no it's not a formula and I think most would admit that, but it does appear to correlate about 80% as studies have shown.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

Today is the deadline for Peters right ?

Its a deadline for him to opt out of his contract, but he can be fired or arrange a payout from Dundon (which the scuttlebutt suggests he has been trying to do this week) at any point moving forward.

Too much smoke around the fire though to think he does anything other than opt out today....whether or not he has a deal in place in Calgary.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am taking out Glencross, Hudler and Russell on that list as I classify an auction of a UFA differently. Understand if others see that differently. And I'm happy with how he has done there.

I wouldn't call the Baertschi deal an impact trade, or if I did, probably call it a push.

So of the remaining six deals, I'd go:

Hamilton - check
Elliott - x
Stone - push
Lazar - x
Smith - push
Hamonic - x

Smith was a logical acquisition, but he paid more than he should have IMO. It's disappointing to me that BT was using up assets to have other teams absorb salary in deals. The Flames should not be in such a position at this point IMO.

You could convince me that Elliott was a push, but in the big picture have given up too many picks in the quest for a goalie.

Hamonic was just a flat out overpayment IMO.

Smith cost this team a 3rd round pick and he paid more than he should?

Hickey is not being signed so we can still reacquire him for free in August and Johnson was not retained. From a Yotes perspective they get a 3rd and eat 25% of the salary.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

This is what we just went through with GG. When you play a slow game, your competition has time to setup & defend, and so your shots are not as dangerous as is typical from those zones on the ice.

If Peters gets hired, I'm kicking up some Canes hockey thanks to GameCenter in an effort to scratch a bit of "Flames hockey itch" and get some eyes on some Bill Peters hockey. There's a lot of talk about the similarities between Gully/Peters, so I'm interested to see what Peters puts out on the ice.

Looking at the rosters he's worked with - it's not crazy to look at guys like Slavin and Hanifin and wonder what Peters could get out of Andersson/Valimaki/Kylington/Kulak/Fox/Hamilton. He got good early returns from very young defenders.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

...This is what we just went through with GG. When you play a slow game, your competition has time to setup & defend, and so your shots are not as dangerous as is typical from those zones on the ice.

Does Peters's team play a "slow game"? I can't say because I only watched them the two times they played the Flames this season, but I actually remember the Hurricanes playing with a lot of pace.

I don't think just based on the numbers or the results that one can fairly say Gulutzan and Peters play precisely the same type of game. There could be various different factors for why each team suffered poor shooting success rates. I think a lack of talent helps to explain the problem in Carolina, but I don't think it is as simple as that to describe what happened with the Flames.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am taking out Glencross, Hudler and Russell on that list as I classify an auction of a UFA differently. Understand if others see that differently. And I'm happy with how he has done there.

I wouldn't call the Baertschi deal an impact trade, or if I did, probably call it a push.

So of the remaining six deals, I'd go:

Hamilton - check
Elliott - x
Stone - push
Lazar - x
Smith - push
Hamonic - x

Smith was a logical acquisition, but he paid more than he should have IMO. It's disappointing to me that BT was using up assets to have other teams absorb salary in deals. The Flames should not be in such a position at this point IMO.

You could convince me that Elliott was a push, but in the big picture have given up too many picks in the quest for a goalie.

Hamonic was just a flat out overpayment IMO.

Your omissions and additions are certainly fair, and we all have our ways of grading things.

For me Feaster bumbled the Iginla and Bouwmeester deals so badly that I consider asset shedding deals to be pretty impact.

Hamilton - check
Elliott - x (he was a viable number one at the time and they had lots of picks so I was good with it)
Stone - push
Lazar - x
Smith - push
Hamonic - x (Hamonic's second half coupled with his constant mention in the give a rip category has made me positive on this one)

[Huntingwhale]

Friedman mentioned that BT doesn't think it's that the players don't care. They just need a kick in the pants. Said Peters will kick them.

I won't lie; I'll be disappointed if it's not a veteran coach like DS or AV who is hired. But it sounds like Peters is actually being sought after by other teams and has a good reputation amongst managers around the league. The Canes are nowhere near a cap team, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody as to why the Canes sucked for so long.

I'm one of the biggest BT supporters on this site and don't try to hide it. But even I think that he HAS to get this hiring right or he might be shown the door if things don't work out.

I'm very cautiously optimistic a Peters hiring is a good thing. But if you hire him when when there are coaches like AV or DS sitting on the shelf waiting for a job....yikes!

[Red]

Originally Posted by transplant99

and that other part where he stated that Bill Peters is a good coach...but yeah, carry on.

Oh please. Elliotte Friedman says that he thinks that so and so is a good coach/player/person is a shocker. Friedman is the definition of an arse kisser. He never says anything else.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by Bingo

First off I have never nor will I ever suggest counting stats are the only way to assess players or coaches.

But this need to discount additional information by some, not all, is perplexing to me.

If the results don't follow you have to understand why to the best of your abilities (I won't say deep dive for fear of backlash all weekend).

I have a huge problem believing any NHL level coach is coaching for possession metrics and not results, that seems like a big stretch to me. They believe what they believe will lead to wins, and every fan is welcome to agree or disagree with the assumptions in their system.

At the end of the day it's not a bad thing to have more shot attempts than the opposition, and it's certainly not a bad thing to have more shot attempts closer to the net that are deemed dangerous.

Top ten teams CF%

Carolina#Hurricanes
Boston#Bruins
Calgary#Flames
Chicago#Blackhawks
Pittsburgh#Penguins
St Louis#Blues
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Winnipeg#Jets
Columbus#Blue Jackets
Nashville#Predators

Calgary and Carolina the outliers

Top ten teams in Scoring Chances %

Boston#Bruins
Carolina#Hurricanes
Calgary#Flames
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Winnipeg#Jets
Pittsburgh#Penguins
Chicago#Blackhawks
Toronto#Maple Leafs
Dallas#Stars
Vegas#Golden Knights

Carolina and Calgary the outliers, Dallas less so

Top ten teams in High Danger Chance %

Dallas#Stars
Calgary#Flames
Minnesota#Wild
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Montreal#Canadiens
Carolina#Hurricanes
Winnipeg#Jets
New Jersey#Devils
Boston#Bruins
Toronto#Maple Leafs

Add Montreal to the list with Calgary and Carolina

So no it's not a formula and I think most would admit that, but it does appear to correlate about 80% as studies have shown.

I am interested in what counts as a high danger or scoring chance. Based on those stats we should have had a fairly exciting team to watch this past year. I watched 82 games and can say that this team was horrible on the eye test.

I hate advanced stats as they are being used to prop up a bad product and used in an arguement as to why this boring team had bad luck. This team did not look dominant at really any point in the season despite being advanced stats darlings.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Does Peters's team play a "slow game"? I can't say because I only watched them the two times they played the Flames this season, but I actually remember the Hurricanes playing with a lot of pace.

I don't think just based on the numbers or the results that one can fairly say Gulutzan and Peters play precisely the same type of game. There could be various different factors for why each team suffered poor shooting success rates. I think a lack of talent helps to explain the problem in Carolina, but I don't think it is as simple as that to describe what happened with the Flames.

No, the Hurricanes were a faster team. Not slow at all. I saw many games this year and never thought of them as dull or unentertaining. Certainly not Knights fast but not plodding.

Also enjoyed Peters' local ads for a water softener company. So cringey.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Top ten teams CF%

Carolina#Hurricanes
Boston#Bruins
Calgary#Flames
Chicago#Blackhawks
Pittsburgh#Penguins
St Louis#Blues
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Winnipeg#Jets
Columbus#Blue Jackets
Nashville#Predators

Calgary and Carolina the outliers

Top ten teams in Scoring Chances %

Boston#Bruins
Carolina#Hurricanes
Calgary#Flames
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Winnipeg#Jets
Pittsburgh#Penguins
Chicago#Blackhawks
Toronto#Maple Leafs
Dallas#Stars
Vegas#Golden Knights

Carolina and Calgary the outliers, Dallas less so

Top ten teams in High Danger Chance %

Dallas#Stars
Calgary#Flames
Minnesota#Wild
Tampa Bay#Lightning
Montreal#Canadiens
Carolina#Hurricanes
Winnipeg#Jets
New Jersey#Devils
Boston#Bruins
Toronto#Maple Leafs

Add Montreal to the list with Calgary and Carolina

So no it's not a formula and I think most would admit that, but it does appear to correlate about 80% as studies have shown.

You are seeing what you want to see if you only see Calgary and Carolina as outliers.

Top 10 teams CF%: 4 of the top 6 didn't make the playoffs

Top ten teams in Scoring Chances %: 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 7, and 4 of the top 9 didn't make the playoffs.

Top ten teams in High Danger Chance %: top 2, and 4 of the top 6 didn't make the playoffs

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am interested in what counts as a high danger or scoring chance. Based on those stats we should have had a fairly exciting team to watch this past year. I watched 82 games and can say that this team was horrible on the eye test.

I hate advanced stats as they are being used to prop up a bad product and used in an arguement as to why this boring team had bad luck. This team did not look dominant at really any point in the season despite being advanced stats darlings.

Well I've said about two dozen times that the team needs to dig hard into the instances of what was called a high danger chance and try and separate all these events into two or three piles and get to the bottom of that.

Once again I went with dig hard and not deep dive

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Talk about only hearing what you want to hear.

- he also said he's a very well respected coach in hockey circles
- and that hockey people suggest having $15M less in that division makes it very difficult to compete

The first is a cliche. He said the same about GG.
The second is an excuse for having a poor record. I can appreciate that.

But when flat out asked why, his response was that Tre knows him and you hire people you know. He rambled that one on and on.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You are seeing what you want to see if you only see Calgary and Carolina as outliers.

Top 10 teams CF%: 4 of the top 6 didn't make the playoffs

Top ten teams in Scoring Chances %: 2 of the top 3, 3 of the top 7, and 4 of the top 9 didn't make the playoffs.

Top ten teams in High Danger Chance %: top 2, and 4 of the top 6 didn't make the playoffs

No ...

I'm making a call on situations. You certainly don't have to agree with me though.

The Blues sold at the deadline and missed by a game.
The Hawks had no goalie for 60% of the season.
Dallas lost Bishop late.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Red

Oh please. Elliotte Friedman says that he thinks that so and so is a good coach/player/person is a shocker. Friedman is the definition of an arse kisser. He never says anything else.

Well are we going to state what Friedman ACTUALLY said, or just the parts that fit with your narrative?

Let me know the rules here so i can play along properly.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Red

The first is a cliche. He said the same about GG.
The second is an excuse for having a poor record. I can appreciate that.

But when flat out asked why, his response was that Tre knows him and you hire people you know. He rambled that one on and on.

Just so I'm clear ...

good things are cliche
bad things are bankable

[automaton 3]

P<0.05 is the significance standard I'm familar with from years ago.

80% is interesting but a big piece remains unaccounted for.

[SuperMatt18]

One thing that stands out to me is that there are rumors that both Dallas, and Ottawa also were in on Peters.

Not that it means a ton but shows that he is at least well respected and well regarded in the league and seems to be sought after as a coach. Has experience with hockey Canada. In this case at least Treliving isn't the only hockey mind that seems interested in him.

Gulutzan was different in that it seemed like we were the only ones looking at him. Wasn't really mentioned in other vacancies, wasn't ever in consideration for any international jobs with hockey canada, just felt very left field.

I do wonder if that is changing Treliving's process. I remember being really impressed with Gulutzan and what he was selling after his first couple press conferences, but it never really came to fruition. Could be why this time Treliving is going with the guy he knows in Peters, doesn't want to get "fooled" in the interview process again.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

No ...

I'm making a call on situations. You certainly don't have to agree with me though.

The Blues sold at the deadline and missed by a game.
The Hawks had no goalie for 60% of the season.
Dallas lost Bishop late.

Stats are objective until they don't fit our narrative, and then we have to make them subjective.

The correlations aren't strong. You have said a few times that there are two teams that don't fit the stats. That isn't true, there are plenty.

Check out the correlation between points by defensemen and making the playoffs... now that's a solid correlation!