[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I said four times actually. It might be three or five.

And if you wish to go back you'll see me staying out of the arena debate for the most part. And when I tried to venture in it was almost always with an equal distaste to how both sides have handled it.

To be fair, this was really at the root of my problem.

Someone watching that process unfold and treating both with equal distaste is really odd.

One side has King basically asking for no financial risk for the Flames, asking the city to pay the costs of police presence, wanting all the revenue and leveraging a dying woman in the cause of gaining support on multiple occasions.

And then you have Nenshi who wants to get some benefit assertion for the city out of the project and who admittedly comes across poorly on the mic way too often.

Those really aren't equal and the consistent addressing as both sides as equally bad is, I think, very biased. This was pointed out several times by others as well, so this wasn't just noticed by myself.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Honestly, the arguments made - by a few - appeared to be attempting to find numbers to argue Gultuzan was a good coach despite the lack of results. It was less analysis and more rationalization. This is a problem I have with a number of advanced stat guys. They try to fit the data to their conclusion rather than the other way around.

And that is why the "deep dive" has been so disparaged. Trying to argue Gulutzan was a good coach despite the team's awful record and plodding, slow, boring style; despite his clear inability to respond to anything happening on the ice; despite his unwillingness to do anything to change up what wasn't working; and despite his love affair with crappy players was never going to sell.

If there was frustration, it was because nobody was buying what was easily disproven by what we saw on the ice night in and night out.

If you go back you'll see many an attempt at saying "before I fire the coach I think an analysis is needed as to why the numbers don't support it. If the coach was good and the execution was bad then rushing to fire the guy wouldn't be the correct decision"

That got a lot of ridicule.

If you think it should then fine.

But the mere suggestion of looking into things deeper certainly raised the ire of many on this site, and on the surface should it? Especially given the argument in the last few pages of a more thorough hiring process should have been adhered to?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

To be fair, this was really at the root of my problem.

Someone watching that process unfold and treating both with equal distaste is really odd.

One side has King basically asking for no financial risk for the Flames, asking the city to pay the costs of police presence, wanting all the revenue and leveraging a dying woman in the cause of gaining support on multiple occasions.

And then you have Nenshi who wants to get some benefit assertion for the city out of the project and who admittedly comes across poorly on the mic way too often.

Those really aren't equal and the consistent addressing as both sides as equally bad is, I think, very biased. This was pointed out several times by others as well, so this wasn't just noticed by myself.

Not really the area for an arena debate so I'll leave it.

But why does my assessment of the whole process being led by two idiots have to be unequal? And why does it have to agree with your weighting to not have it suggested someone was getting paid to produce a counter argument? (There's #6 or 7)

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not really the area for an arena debate so I'll leave it.

But why does my assessment of the whole process being led by two idiots have to be unequal? And why does it have to agree with your weighting to not have it suggested someone was getting paid to produce a counter argument? (There's #6 or 7)

Because what those idiots are proposing is what actually matters.

Neither of them were killing it the personality department for sure, but the motives and impacts were drastically different.

Anyway. You're right, let the arena stay in the arena thread.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Honestly, the arguments made - by a few - appeared to be attempting to find numbers to argue Gultuzan was a good coach despite the lack of results. It was less analysis and more rationalization. This is a problem I have with a number of advanced stat guys. They try to fit the data to their conclusion rather than the other way around.

This is not right. I think Bingo, myself and others have been arguing that the problem with Gulutzan was not necessarily the system he employed, but rather more in terms of execution. There were clearly problems with how he coached the team, but there were also things that I still believe worked, and I think that is what was behind Bingo's own fastidious analyses. If anyone was guilty of "fit[ting] the data to their conclusion ," I think this charge fits best those who would make sweeping assertions about the numbers without actually addressing what they were indicating. With considerable frequency I recall seeing retorts about how "Gulutzan plays for corsi," or that the Flames were a "perimeter team" that took high volumes of low percentage shots from outside, and that simply did not align with the numbers regularly produced by Bingo's sources.

And that is why the "deep dive" has been so disparaged. Trying to argue Gulutzan was a good coach despite the team's awful record and plodding, slow, boring style; despite his clear inability to respond to anything happening on the ice; despite his unwillingness to do anything to change up what wasn't working; and despite his love affair with crappy players was never going to sell.

These are entirely separate issues from what the "deep dive" was dealing with. I agree that these were all serious problems which showed that Gulutzan was not a good coach, but these are separate from the fact that the Flames were pretty consistently a high possession team which generated a lot of high-danger scoring chances.

If there was frustration, it was because nobody was buying what was easily disproven by what we saw on the ice night in and night out.

What was "disproven," exactly? What is it you think Bingo was attempting to argue in the first place?

[Split98]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I agree with you.
[a bounty of out-of-context posts]

[/a bounty of out-of-context posts]

I don't have an opinion one way or another about what you're discussing (TBH, I'm terrible at paying attention to who's saying what) but this was pretty unfair IMO.

I clicked on one random example, and in context you're a little dishonest here IMO (and I can only assume that a bunch of what you quoted would show the same)

Originally Posted by zamler

Alain Vigneault was fired right after game 82. Gulutzan is still head coach, that makes me think there is still serious consideration being given to bringing him back next season.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Possible.

From my experience every time I think I have things figured out behind the scenes I'm completely wrong.

Vigneault wouldn't be my choice.

It's Treliving so everything is being considered quite likely.

Originally Posted by Locke

The point isnt that they fired their coach, its that they made a decision and executed it promptly.

Whether you want AV or not, the real question is why the Calgary Flames havent made a decision yet.

Honestly, this whole 'Treliving considering everything' thing is beginning to look a lot like decision paralysis.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm super torn to be honest.

I'm just as disappointed as everyone in how the season went, just not as quick to hang the coach for it as I really don't want a return to collapse down low, block shots and counter strike hockey as they had under Hartley.

I fear Vigneault's Ranger teams play a very Hartely-esque style, at least from what I've seen from Ranger fans and his underlying numbers.

But the Peters thing is odd too ... you replace one of two coaches that managed to miss the playoffs with numbers that would suggest otherwise with another ... but I do think Carolina stands out with their save percentage with Darling killing them.

On Treliving I certainly don't think you can hang decision paralysis on the man given the heat he's taking for moving picks, swapping goaltenders, and now potentially moving on to his third coach (one inherited).

Originally Posted by Locke

Okay and that makes a degree of sense.

But lets use this comparison:

Our goaltenders totally failed last season. What did he do? Jettisoned them and got new ones.

Our coach has totally failed. What has he done? Why the thumb twiddling?

We all know why, because as coaches go so tend to GMs, but thats not necessarily the case here.

Honestly, I dont have a problem with analyzing things, but much like the jury is out on Gulutzan due to advanced stats that get analyzed over and over again sometimes you just have to make a call.

Originally Posted by Bingo

You make so many subjective claims in there as if they are facts...

coach has totally failed
GM is twiddling his thumbs
advanced stats get over analzyed

None of those are givens or proven to be true.

If Gulutzan goes ... and I've said over and over that I think he should given his team's in game collapse rate, so I'm not defending him at this point ... it will be under whatever analysis or timing or procedure the Flames have set up.

Could be on the availability of who they want to hire.
He could have already been fired, but they haven't released it.
The request could be in to ownership to jettison a coach and have to pay his salary.
Maybe he's asked Gulutzan if he wants to stay as an assistant and he's mulling it over (stretch).

But to assume the man is just pacing and shaking in fear of making a decision is pretty weak in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Locke

1. The coach has failed. (Making the playoffs seems like a given, he didnt = fail)
2. GM is twiddling his thumbs. No decisions have been made.
3. Advanced stats are totally over-analyzed. Our 'advanced stats' put us as one of the best teams in the league, and yet we didnt make the playoffs. So maybe the advanced stats are a huge load of hooey.

I didnt forget the question-mark on that sentence.

Who cares about the availability of who they want to hire? If GG is here or not does that change anything?

If he'd been fired already they'd have released it so he could look for new work.

If ownership is so cheap they just want to keep the guy thats already being paid then that pretty sends the message. Coaches are not immaterial, which is why they're being paid so much now.

I'm not saying that Treliving is pacing and shaking in fear of a decision, but 'evaluating everything' and taking forever to do it is very much the sign of analysis paralysis.

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK.

I'd hope that a hockey ops group would go a little deeper than your 1,2,3 analysis, but what ever floats your boat.

Sorry to get in the way of your "I have everything figured out" parade.

I don't know about anyone else, but I definitely don't see anything in that that warrants publicly shaming anyone. Seems like a conversation that started one way, took a turn, two vastly different opinions, subjective vs analytic, shutdown of the analysis, 'whatever floats your boat', and everyone moved on. If anything, I detect a bit of frustration that the discussion devolved into.

Either way, maybe a PM if you're that interested in helping Bingo improve his posting style. FTR, if anyone has an issue with anything I say I will happily receive your PM. I'm only 90% perfect.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you go back you'll see many an attempt at saying "before I fire the coach I think an analysis is needed as to why the numbers don't support it. If the coach was good and the execution was bad then rushing to fire the guy wouldn't be the correct decision"

That got a lot of ridicule.

If you think it should then fine.

But the mere suggestion of looking into things deeper certainly raised the ire of many on this site, and on the surface should it? Especially given the argument in the last few pages of a more thorough hiring process should have been adhered to?

Honestly, this speaks to Nik's argument. We had done the analysis. Your position was ridiculed because we had a body of work that - by last Christmas - was over 120 games long in Calgary, and which matched up with the previous 200 games with Dallas. We knew what Gulutzan is, and we knew it was problematic. The argument about "looking into things deeper" was taken as dismissive hand waiving away those concerns at best, and yes, snobby and dismissive at worst.

Also, the ridicule was generated from being told that over and over again as if each passing week wasn't proving our point.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Honestly, this speaks to Nik's argument. We had done the analysis. Your position was ridiculed because we had a body of work that - by last Christmas - was over 120 games long in Calgary, and which matched up with the previous 200 games with Dallas. We knew what Gulutzan is, and we knew it was problematic. The argument about "looking into things deeper" was taken as dismissive hand waiving away those concerns at best, and yes, snobby and dismissive at worst.

Also, the ridicule was generated from being told that over and over again as if each passing week wasn't proving our point.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

So the standings argument again? Seriously?

[Huntingwhale]

LOL this thread

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

Because what those idiots are proposing is what actually matters.

Neither of them were killing it the personality department for sure, but the motives and impacts were drastically different.

Anyway. You're right, let the arena stay in the arena thread.

I think they're both annoying as hell, and with that I don't trust either of them which makes every one of their statements equally as grating to me.

What's interesting is the guy I work the closest with downtown feels it shouldn't be equal as well ... but he's more annoyed that I'd have King even close to Nenshi in the annoying measure.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So the standings argument again? Seriously?

Do standings not matter? Isn't the point to win a Stanley Cup? Pretty hard to do that with great Corsi but being outside of the playoffs.


What does success mean to you, Bingo? What would a successful season look like? If it isn't standings, what else is it?


For me, personally, while the standings are great and playoffs are even better, I'd like to watch hockey that doesn't bore me to death.



GG failed at all of those things.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So the standings argument again? Seriously?

My last two posts made it rather clear that there were a number of issues we had with Gulutzan. And this is what you try to boil it down to. I mean, it's pretty cool of you to post this right after I noted how your arguments can be perceived as snobby and dismissive.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Whatever floats your boat man.

Seemed like you were harbouring some pretty big feelings from 8 months ago to take the conversation where you did about my posting style.

If you're happy thinking that I run around thinking I'm superior to others, I'm pretty content to leave you in that thought process. Twenty one years of owning a website is bound to attract a few detractors.

I am not harbouring any feelings. It's not like your posting style varied wildly eight months ago until now. It's still looks pretty much the same, including the floats your boat phrase. It wasn't like I have your posts linked. It doesn't take much effort to use the search function. Remembering a conversation from a few months ago doesn't seem that odd. I remember good and bad things from the past 30 years. That seems pretty normal to me.



Thank you for allowing me to have my own thought process. I was about to ask if that was alright.


Owning a website for 21 years doesn't attract detractors. There are posters here who annoyed people in their first week, and they don't even own a website.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

My last two posts made it rather clear that there were a number of issues we had with Gulutzan. And this is what you try to boil it down to. I mean, it's pretty cool of you to post this right after I noted how your arguments can be perceived as snobby and dismissive.

I'll just ignore the personal attack, thanks though

My question was honest. You said an analysis was done and I assume, wrongly by your massive reaction, that you were referring to the team's record over 120 games.

What 120 game analysis were you speaking too?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

I am not harbouring any feelings. It's not like your posting style varied wildly eight months ago until now. It's still looks pretty much the same, including the floats your boat phrase. It wasn't like I have your posts linked. It doesn't take much effort to use the search function. Remembering a conversation from a few months ago doesn't seem that odd. I remember good and bad things from the past 30 years. That seems pretty normal to me.



Thank you for allowing me to have my own thought process. I was about to ask if that was alright.


Owning a website for 21 years doesn't attract detractors. There are posters here who annoyed people in their first week, and they don't even own a website.

No but you're bound to find a few people that have a problem with you over 21 years, and owning it means you're pretty much there every day through thick and thin and in winning and losing.

As was pointed out to you ... context matters.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do standings not matter? Isn't the point to win a Stanley Cup? Pretty hard to do that with great Corsi but being outside of the playoffs.

What does success mean to you, Bingo? What would a successful season look like? If it isn't standings, what else is it?

For me, personally, while the standings are great and playoffs are even better, I'd like to watch hockey that doesn't bore me to death.

GG failed at all of those things.

Of course standings matter, but to stop there and not look into what is and isn't working and why a team failed seems a little short sighted to me.

Special teams, goaltending, are they getting out played? All of that matters if you're going to fire a coach. Why did they fail?

It doesn't take any effort to say they missed the playoffs so fire the coach, and it's possible it's not the right thing to do.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is not right. I think Bingo, myself and others have been arguing that the problem with Gulutzan was not necessarily the system he employed, but rather more in terms of execution. There were clearly problems with how he coached the team, but there were also things that I still believe worked, and I think that is what was behind Bingo's own fastidious analyses. If anyone was guilty of "fit[ting] the data to their conclusion ," I think this charge fits best those who would make sweeping assertions about the numbers without actually addressing what they were indicating. With considerable frequency I recall seeing retorts about how "Gulutzan plays for corsi," or that the Flames were a "perimeter team" that took high volumes of low percentage shots from outside, and that simply did not align with the numbers regularly produced by Bingo's sources.

Well, we obviously disagree on the system as well, because Gulutzan's system was slow, boring, and allowed the opposition enough time to take a nap before we gained the zone.

And yes, IMNSHO, he tried to play for Corsi. And much of what you and Bingo would attempt to pass off as LOFT or bad luck in terms of why our shots missed the net so much, regardless of where on the ice they were taken from, it was because we were usually playing against a set defence that gave us nothing but low visibility shots.

These are entirely separate issues from what the "deep dive" was dealing with. I agree that these were all serious problems which showed that Gulutzan was not a good coach, but these are separate from the fact that the Flames were pretty consistently a high possession team which generated a lot of high-danger scoring chances.

You're moving the goalposts. The argument, then and now, was that Gulutzan was an awful coach and needed to be fired. The "deep dive", then and now, is an attempt to reframe the argument away from things that everybody could see on the ice but is not visible on a spreadsheet.

What was "disproven," exactly? What is it you think Bingo was attempting to argue in the first place?

Bingo was attempting to argue that Gulutzan was a good coach. Despite the fact that we were floundering week after week under him and his plodding, rigid style.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, we obviously disagree on the system as well, because Gulutzan's system was slow, boring, and allowed the opposition enough time to take a nap before we gained the zone.

And yes, IMNSHO, he tried to play for Corsi. And much of what you and Bingo would attempt to pass off as LOFT or bad luck in terms of why our shots missed the net so much, regardless of where on the ice they were taken from, it was because we were usually playing against a set defence that gave us nothing but low visibility shots.

You're moving the goalposts. The argument, then and now, was that Gulutzan was an awful coach and needed to be fired. The "deep dive", then and now, is an attempt to reframe the argument away from things that everybody could see on the ice but is not visible on a spreadsheet.

Bingo was attempting to argue that Gulutzan was a good coach. Despite the fact that we were floundering week after week under him and his plodding, rigid style.

Neither of those statements are true.

It didn't sit well with me to have a team in the top three to five in the league in a lot of counting measures that suggested they were carrying the play but had anything but that happen in the results.

When two things don't add up, I'm all over digging into why. I listened to arguments about trying to out Corsi people, and being perimeter teams and went back to the drawing board to find better and different information that showed they were getting shots from high danger areas.

When some suggested that the shots in the high danger areas were too set I admitted that there was no way to prove that pro or against and there could be something to that.

In the quotes above that someone posted it even has me saying Gulutzan should be fired right before he actually was.

This is why it was such an odd thing for people to be pissed at and lose it over.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Do standings not matter? Isn't the point to win a Stanley Cup? Pretty hard to do that with great Corsi but being outside of the playoffs.


What does success mean to you, Bingo? What would a successful season look like? If it isn't standings, what else is it?


For me, personally, while the standings are great and playoffs are even better, I'd like to watch hockey that doesn't bore me to death.



GG failed at all of those things.

There are certainly fans that are overly sympathetic to underlying numbers, who are in the minority compared to what I would call the majority of fans that now respect the advanced stats as a whole, but still realize they need to be viewed as an additive tool to analysis.

Beating the drum on the former is totally fine with me, but acting shocked whenever someone disagrees with that notion is a bit over the top. The bottom line is the Flames have been failing in the standings more than they've been winning for a long time now and this is ultimately all that matters in the success department for any fan.

I personally can't bare anymore talk centered around how the team is dominating possession but was just unlucky like last season. At some point you have to call a spade a spade and own it as a franchise. If Peter's can't get the team into the playoffs as a start, I think its a clear sign that this group simply isn't anywhere near good enough and might never be when the GM has essentially overhauled the roster, coaching and management around it, in many cases more than once already.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'll just ignore the personal attack, thanks though

It is not a personal attack to note when you reinforce the perceptions you cultivate.

My question was honest. You said an analysis was done and I assume, wrongly by your massive reaction, that you were referring to the team's record over 120 games.

What 120 game analysis were you speaking too?

Already spoke of it:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And that is why the "deep dive" has been so disparaged. Trying to argue Gulutzan was a good coach despite the team's awful record and plodding, slow, boring style; despite his clear inability to respond to anything happening on the ice; despite his unwillingness to do anything to change up what wasn't working; and despite his love affair with crappy players was never going to sell.