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

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This hate for possession stats and scoring chances is just beyond bizarre to me.

That's not what people don't like. It is using possession stats to try and explain why a bad team should be much better. And are not much better because of X factors such as luck that are bound to change.

[EVERLAST]

Originally Posted by OmegaV4

Anyone think that Crisp would leave his Preds Analyst role and come back?

Oh yeah this is what we need. Crispy would be even more.crochety , grumpy and comical.

He should bring Espo with him. I can hear it now.

From behind the bench when we're about to be scored on " oh oh, no no no no ahhhh FFS."!!!

Hey Terry were losing again. Better jump the glass and kiss that lady who doesn't like the bling.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Drunk Uncle

I agree that management should not be in the kitchen of a coach telling them how to coach. Nor should they try to change a coaches systems/styles.

However I do think that management's job is to try and define what coaching systems can/will work with your team and find a coach that suits your team and the way you want to play.

These are exactly the same thing.

Either you let an actual NHL coach decide what system is the best for your team, or you make that call and then hire a coach to execute it.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

So Carolina is ranked high in possession stats and low in shooting percentage.

How are they ranked for high danger scoring chances? Does anyone know?

Are they actually using strong possession stats to create quality scoring chances and just can't bury them or are they creating good possession numbers by tossing weak shots from anywhere towards the net?

I was looking that up too. Here is there ranking sorted:

Corsi / Scoring Chances For / High Danger For

14/15: 4 / 15 / 17
15/16: 2 / 11 / 18
16/17: 3 / 5 / 3
17/16: 1 / 1 / 3

So clearly a problem his first two seasons in Carolina but they seem to have figured it out more the last two.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This hate for possession stats and scoring chances is just beyond bizarre to me.

It should never be the only thing looked at but to ignore it is crazy.

Pretty sure most fans would want their hockey team to have more scoring chances that the opposition, and if a coach is consistently under water and winning it's likely best to find out why isn't it?

Queue the drive by "deep dive" pot shots.

I think it’s less hate for possession stats and more a poorly articulate distaste for the zealotry shown by those who use them above all else to support their narrative that a bad team is just unlucky. It’s basically the polar opposite of the old MissKat “do you even watch hockey?” snipe. “Sure you watched the game and saw we were crap, outshot the other team, looked slow and uninspired, and lost badly again, but did you even look at the advanced stats?”

Advanced stats are fine but they don’t supersede actual wins and losses, and it feels like some of the advanced stats crowd would ignore that in order to try and stay overly positive about the futures of a team that was clearly trending the wrong direction.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's not what people don't like. It is using possession stats to try and explain why a bad team should be much better. And are not much better because of X factors such as luck that are bound to change.

Like it or not every NHL season has two teams that win despite having terrible numbers and two teams that lose despite having great numbers.

If I'm hiring a coach with a winning record but terrible underlying numbers I'm looking into why.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This hate for possession stats and scoring chances is just beyond bizarre to me.

It should never be the only thing looked at but to ignore it is crazy.

Pretty sure most fans would want their hockey team to have more scoring chances that the opposition, and if a coach is consistently under water and winning it's likely best to find out why isn't it?

Queue the drive by "deep dive" pot shots.

For me I don’t have any kind of hate for the stats.

They clearly do not tell the full story, and their predictive ability is very weak.

We are at the point now where the results that matter are sufficiently divergent from the narrative of the models, that it should be an academic exercise to analyze and improve the models, not to rely on them.

When people make justification of poor results on their back, it is one thing, which is bad enough . But given the obvious flaws, rationalization or justification of future moves or prediction of anything on their back is nothing less than foolhardy

[FlamesFanStrandedInEDM]

I would love to have AV, but when was the last time the flames actually opened their wallet for a high-end coach?

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This hate for possession stats and scoring chances is just beyond bizarre to me.

It should never be the only thing looked at but to ignore it is crazy.

Pretty sure most fans would want their hockey team to have more scoring chances that the opposition, and if a coach is consistently under water and winning it's likely best to find out why isn't it?

Queue the drive by "deep dive" pot shots.

Ignore it? Who's ignoring it? You can't ignore it. Like vegans or crossfitters. You wont let us ignore it.

Frankly the Flames have struggled to get results other than "lots of shots" that means squat.

They didn't score more goals than other teams, proof is where we are today.

How about instead of expecting drive by deep dive joke perhaps recognize that you've opened yourself up to them because you're preaching too heavily that these things mean something. Results say they mean far less than people so very despartely want them to.

Gullys team in two years finished 18th (2016/17) and 27th (2017/18) in goals for under his corsi freindly possesion system.

anf 14th and 20th in goals against.

Shot quantity stats mean jack squat. And it's bizzare that people still want to talk about it.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

...If you go with Peters when everyone is saying you need a Vigneault, Trotz or Sutter, you are definitely bucking conventional thought, and that is very much reminiscent of that "smartest guy in the room" attitude I mentioned.

And if you are Treliving, you had better be right.

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.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Again, ZERO other REALISTIC options to put in the net.

Chad Johnson eventually went in. If hes on the bench then hes ready to play.

I mean...whats the narrative here?

"Elliott played like crap but Johnson was hurt and couldnt play but then Elliott played like crap and got pulled and Johnson played anyways so he wasnt hurt that bad...."

Your backup isnt 100% but hes on the bench (ergo: ready to play) and your starter is letting in every Muffin that comes by and Glen doesnt make a change until he literally has no other choice.

Sound familiar?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This hate for possession stats and scoring chances is just beyond bizarre to me.

It should never be the only thing looked at but to ignore it is crazy.

Pretty sure most fans would want their hockey team to have more scoring chances that the opposition, and if a coach is consistently under water and winning it's likely best to find out why isn't it?

Queue the drive by "deep dive" pot shots.

I am of the opinion that possession stats are an important factor. However they are an important factor in evaluating the players, not in evaluating the systems.

I am of the opinion that your coach SHOULD NOT coach for possession. You need a roster full of players who naturally drive puck possession.

The coach needs to adapt his systems to the roster. A good coach will naturally produce good possession numbers with a good roster because there is a synergy between those two. Loading up on strong NHL-Caliber possession driving players like Matthew Tkachuk, Mikael Backlund, Nick Shore, Mark Giordano, Brett Kulak, etc is the right way. Loading up on possession-contriving coaches carries the risk of misutilizing important players' strengths.

Further, coaching for "high danger chances" carries even more risk than just coaching for possession, because now you're actually telling guys to ignore important plays like seam passes, one-timers from the circles, and the high slot in order to maximize your "scoring chances". It's recursive and self-defeating.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This hate for possession stats and scoring chances is just beyond bizarre to me.

It should never be the only thing looked at but to ignore it is crazy.

Pretty sure most fans would want their hockey team to have more scoring chances that the opposition, and if a coach is consistently under water and winning it's likely best to find out why isn't it?

Queue the drive by "deep dive" pot shots.

Because good advanced stats are a symptom of being a good team and not the other way around. That's not how statistics work. For example, there might be a statistic out there that says on average, most millionaires drive cars that are worth more than $100,000. It would be, however, insane to think that saving all your money to go buy a BMW 7 series, while changing nothing else with your life will make you a millionaire.

Coaching to generate high quality chances and limit them against you is a good thing. Coaching to generate corsi events from the blue line is.... Well, Glen Gulutzan.

Edit: Also shot attempts are not possession. Shot attempts are just shot attempts.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

...Shot quantity stats mean jack squat. And it's bizzare that people still want to talk about it.

I think Bingo has already gone on record several times now to point out that he does not depend much on shot-quantity models, and has a much higher preference for shot-quality metrics.

[Roof-Daddy]

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.

Yeah, it's certainly simplistic, but I'd say it's also pretty telling of the coaches abilities to coach at the NHL level, and a pretty good data set to go off of when picking a coach.

Av has made it to the playoffs 10 of his last 12 years coached in the NHL, won 7 division titles, had 9 100+ point seasons, 3 Presidents trophies and 2 Stanley Cup Finals appearances.

Simplistic sure, but certainly shows he's a capable NHL coach.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think Bingo has already gone on record several times now to point out that he does not depend much on shot-quantity models, and has a much higher preference for shot-quality metrics.

Yeah but those don’t work either in their current form because shot location as a proxy for quality is hilariously simplistic.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by _Q_

...Coaching to generate high quality chances and limit them against you is a good thing. Coaching to generate corsi events from the blue line is.... Well, Glen Gulutzan.

Ugh. No. As has been demonstrated numerous times, Gulutzan did not "coach to generate corsi events." The breakdown show rather abundantly that his Flames teams generated a tonne of shots from the slot.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Ignore it? Who's ignoring it? You can't ignore it. Like vegans or crossfitters. You wont let us ignore it.

Frankly the Flames have struggled to get results other than "lots of shots" that means squat.

They didn't score more goals than other teams, proof is where we are today.

How about instead of expecting drive by deep dive joke perhaps recognize that you've opened yourself up to them because you're preaching too heavily that these things mean something. Results say they mean far less than people so very despartely want them to.

Gullys team in two years finished 18th (2016/17) and 27th (2017/18) in goals for under his corsi freindly possesion system.

anf 14th and 20th in goals against.

Shot quantity stats mean jack squat. And it's bizzare that people still want to talk about it.

What's bizarre is the need to boil any discussion like this down to shot quantity stats.

I've agreed on countless occasions that they don't say enough about what is going on.

The scoring chance thing is what had my interest because they conflicted with the goal totals you speak of. You have to look into that.

So now take Peters ...

Two very simple facts are that a) he's well thought of as a coach b) his teams have missed the playoffs four straight years.

Neither are enough to make a decision to hire him or turn him away, and the fact that they don't line up means you have to look deeper.

Does Peters employ a system that like Gulutzan seems to have good shot metrics but bad scoring execution? Looks like it.

If you deem the scoring chances to be escalated based on factors that make the chances less dangerous than their counts suggest, you don't hire the guy. If they don't say that, then you can make a case that a bigger payroll, and a different set of players may add to what he was trying to do in Carolina making it a good move.

I don't have the answer to that, but I would certainly look into it.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Itse

Most likely would not have made a difference. While I disagreed with the choice, there really were no good options.

agree, but Elliott was no where near a stable mental state to play any further that game #3. It was pretty clear and then proven early in period #1 of game 4.

I don't know, maybe throwing in Gillies would not have made a difference, but at least as a kid getting thrown into the deep end may come up and survive and steal one game. I just felt running with Elliott in game #4 was already admitting defeat.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by dammage79

How about instead of expecting drive by deep dive joke perhaps recognize that you've opened yourself up to them because you're preaching too heavily that these things mean something. Results say they mean far less than people so very despartely want them to.

Gullys team in two years finished 18th (2016/17) and 27th (2017/18) in goals for under his corsi freindly possesion system.

anf 14th and 20th in goals against.

Shot quantity stats mean jack squat. And it's bizzare that people still want to talk about it.

The results over the long term actually so that the better teams tend to get more shots than not - the team stats for the last four seasons show that with only Carolina being an outlier over the long term.

BUT what often gets overlooked is a bit of the chicken & the egg argument.

Those teams aren't Great teams because they take more shot attempts than the other team. They get more shot attempts than the other team because they are a good team.

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I am of the opinion that possession stats are an important factor. However they are an important factor in evaluating the players, not in evaluating the systems.

I am of the opinion that your coach SHOULD NOT coach for possession. You need a roster full of players who naturally drive puck possession.

The coach needs to adapt his systems to the roster. A good coach will naturally produce good possession numbers with a good roster because there is a synergy between those two. Loading up on strong NHL-Caliber possession driving players like Matthew Tkachuk, Mikael Backlund, Nick Shore, Mark Giordano, Brett Kulak, etc is the right way. Loading up on possession-contriving coaches carries the risk of misutilizing important players' strengths.

Further, coaching for "high danger chances" carries even more risk than just coaching for possession, because now you're actually telling guys to ignore important plays like seam passes, one-timers from the circles, and the high slot in order to maximize your "scoring chances". It's recursive and self-defeating.

This actually sums it up quite well IMO.

As a GM you should want your team to take more shots and carry possession more than the other team.

And as a GM you should try to get players that take more shots and carry possession more than players that bleed possession.

But as a coach you should NEVER, EVER, be coaching your players to play to pad their possession stats by taking low quality shots.

You can preach holding onto the puck, and not dumping it in, and playing with speed or as a unit, but as a coach but your system should never be "we are playing to take more shots than the other guys".

I actually think Vegas was a good example of this mindset.

They went and guys that had decent possession stats last year on other teams (Miller, Marchessault, Smith, Schmidt, Theodore, McNabb, etc) and then got a coach who played an uptempo, and fast game that really allowed them to blossom.