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

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

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...

I disagree that it is just as simple as that. We have seen this same group of players produce well offensively, and the fact that a high number of key players suffered significant drops in their individual shooting percentages suggests that the skill is there, but for whatever reason was MIA this season. I will agree that the Flames need an upgrade offensively, but they are certainly not devoid of talent. An upgrade on RW and a return of players like Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Brodie to their career average shooting percentages should make a world of difference for this group.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

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

Okay, but there have been literally dozens of analyses like this:

https://www.tsn.ca/defencemen-and-th...ntage-1.567469

Much of the effort on determining whether or not a defender has an impact on save percentage focuses on year-to-year repeatability. One thing I was curious about was whether any available metric could reasonably forecast a player’s impact on save percentage in the subsequent year.

The answer to that question is an emphatic no.

So, what’s the conclusion? For now, there is simply zero evidence that a player can truly impact his team’s save percentage over long periods of time. It flies in the face of what some may instinctively think (myself included, many moons ago), but the counterargument just has no supporting statistical evidence. (The lone caveat here: in the event that additional data becomes readily available, perhaps by player tracking technology, there may be an ability to uncover some real supporting evidence.)

... that all suggest you're probably wrong about that.

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.)

On the power play, yes, because you have a particular structure and strategy. At even strength, the impact of that strategy is not anywhere near as significant, because the play isn't consistently taking place in one team's defensive zone. Even strength systems can affect those percentages somewhat, I'm not denying that - for example, theoretically, if your neutral zone trap causes far less controlled zone entries for the other team, they may get fewer chances off the rush, which may lead to fewer royal road crossing chances, which are more likely to score (lowering save percentage). But the correlation is far more polluted with statistical noise, because the variance among teams just isn't there on those types of metrics - and we have shot heat maps and high-danger save percentage stats to tell us if something weird is happening. It almost never is.

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.

They were over a 50% chance to make it in around the end of February. Hell, they were in a playoff spot, with games in hand.

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.

I'm more concerned about wasted seasons. I wouldn't want a better draft pick, because a better draft pick means "playoffs missed" again. This team shouldn't be missing the playoffs. I don't think it needs wholesale changes or overhauls. I think it needs minor tweaks here and there to address areas where they fell short.

If the people in the organization do their due diligence and decide that the coaching staff has to change or those tweaks aren't going to be effective, fine, but I also wouldn't expect that you can come back without some tinkering with the bottom 6 in an attempt to bump team sh% up and a reliable backup to play ~25 games.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Igottago

After seeing you go ham with stats all year I actually have no idea what your opinion is on what action would actually improve the Flames. Outside of more analysis.

Me either.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Itse

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.

This. So much this.

Much like last year - and without the excuses for Gaudreau, Monahan and Hamilton - Gulutzan once again failed to have this team prepared to start the season. We put ourselves on the wrong side of the playoff chase right off the bat, and actually spent most of the season as a below average team by record. It took the combination of a seven game winning streak and a Kings' six game losing streak just to pull ourselves back up into the appearance of contending. And, well, that didn't last long at all, did it? Notably, we came out of our five game break once again unprepared to play. And that was all she wrote.

The seven game winning streak is also interesting in that it was just about the only time this year that Gulutzan's system "worked". (Assuming, of course, we still measure success by goals and wins rather than Corsis and Fenwicks). And that was generated by the top line playing crazy well and the goaltending, largely Smith, having its best stretch of the year. Also, we caught several bad teams and a handful of teams looking to get out on their own five day breaks. As a consequence, there really was not a whole lot about that stretch that really points to the system as being the cause of said success. Several of our advanced stats, notably CF%, were actually worse during that stretch than they were outside of it. It was, not coincidentally, one of our better periods of special teams play though.

[zamler]

Why the Flames are terrible at converting chances is so obvious. They are predictable, and slow. By the time they get shots on goal the opposition goalie has had time to go on vacation and come back to make the save. This to me is a hockey systems failure. It becomes really obvious when you watch other teams that can put the puck in the net.

[Erick Estrada]

There's a reason the Gulutzan thread has been a hot topic for the majority of the season and that's because the team was rarely good this season outside of a couple of months. When players got collectively hot and the team got on a roll they put up three long winning streaks over his 164 games as coach but the rest of the time the team was largely mediocre/bad.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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

If you can't see the difference between being challenged and having it suggested that you are unwilling to admit something, I can't help you.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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'm actually not.

I've stated over and over and over again that I didn't like his deployment or utilization, that the powerplay was unforgivable and that I think you have to fire him alone on the fact that his team whilts and it's too expensive to replace the core.

Over and over again.

I just don't like assumptions that seem to fall in direct conflict with actual stats. Never have.

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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...

Was never looking at corsi, as the original thought was the Flames shoot from the perimeter. So I went into scoring chances to show that simply isn't the case.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I disagree that it is just as simple as that. We have seen this same group of players produce well offensively, and the fact that a high number of key players suffered significant drops in their individual shooting percentages suggests that the skill is there, but for whatever reason was MIA this season. I will agree that the Flames need an upgrade offensively, but they are certainly not devoid of talent. An upgrade on RW and a return of players like Backlund, Frolik, Bennett, Brodie to their career average shooting percentages should make a world of difference for this group.

Yes they did produce offensively last season at least at an average level, but there was obvious regression this season from numerous players. One can argue it was bad luck or one could argue that they're not talented enough. The truth might be somewhere in the middle, but based on the eye test this season, I personally don't think the talent is there.

Nobody on this team really has one shot scoring ability. No one on this team can just skate down the wing and just fire the puck in the back of the net. We use to have Iggy who could do this, but now that he's gone, we're once again devoid of enough players who has this kind of ability. Monahan and sometimes Ferland is closest we have now.

The Flames just have to work too hard to score whereas other teams like the Leafs or Jets who I watch often, are filled with players who have excellent one timers and one shot scoring ability. Laine (elite), Scheifele, Ehlers, Connor and etc. The Flames need to start looking for players with these kinds of weapons and based on what Treliving had to say at the presser, I think he will be.

[jammies]

If Gulutzman had been fired around Xmas, you'd have half a season with him and a half season without to use for a meaningful 'deep dive' that would actually compare success to failure, or failure to a different kind of failure, or whatever. Since that didn't happen, the only metric you need to consider insofar as keeping him or not is called "points", and they indicate he should go.

Further, you can replace the coach AND move players. You don't even have to do it all at the same time, you can start looking for a new coach right now and trade players in June, or July, or August - after you've consulted your new coach on what kind of players he wants on his team. If procrastinating is your process, your process is wrong.

Time has value, and it's better to make a sub-optimal decision quickly than the optimal decision when it's too late. There are 30 other GMs competing for the same resources you want, so if you can't make decent decisions on the basis of incomplete information, the guys who can are going to crush you.

So either fire the coach in the next week, or keep him for next season, but the worst decision you could possibly make is to keep him around (like Hartley) into May. If you don't already know if he's a problem - you're also a problem.

[cannon7]

Bingo, I think there's a fifth option:

e) Treliving is under fire from ownership and effectively has his hands tied until he can put forth a plan to address the issues we've seen this season. Burke would also be in the hot seat if this is the case.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Bingo, I think there's a fifth option:

e) Treliving is under fire from ownership and effectively has his hands tied until he can put forth a plan to address the issues we've seen this season. Burke would also be in the hot seat if this is the case.

You keep mentioning this, and I suppose it is possible, but I just don't see any evidence to support it.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You keep mentioning this, and I suppose it is possible, but I just don't see any evidence to support it.

What evidence would you expect to see? What evidence is there to add credence to options A through D?

If I'm ownership, and my GM played hardball with me last summer and made re-signing him contingent on him having more autonomy, I'm looking real hard at him after the disastrous season that followed. I might conclude, "this guy performed better on a short leash."

I certainly hope that's not the case, but putting myself in ownership's shoes...

[rubecube]

I think it's hilarious that people are debating the team's entertainment value by using advanced stats. There's really only one metric for that, and it's "am I watching the game or finding other things to do with my time because the games are boring?" For the past two seasons, it's been the latter.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cannon7

What evidence would you expect to see? What evidence is there to add credence to options A through D?

I see only three suggestions by Bingo:

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

There has been conjecture for weeks that that the GM would make a change behind the bench, and Elliotte Friedman has reported a few times now that it is under consideration. On the contrary, there has been virtually NO speculation on Treliving's future. I think if there was actually some appetite for replacing the GM, there would be some discussion in the media.

If I'm ownership, and my GM played hardball with me last summer and made re-signing him contingent on him having more autonomy, I'm looking real hard at him after the disastrous season that followed. I might conclude, "this guy performed better on a short leash."

I certainly hope that's not the case, but putting myself in ownership's shoes...

Fine. But you are still making this conversation up from thin air, and in a vacuum of any actual evidence.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Bingo, I think there's a fifth option:

e) Treliving is under fire from ownership and effectively has his hands tied until he can put forth a plan to address the issues we've seen this season. Burke would also be in the hot seat if this is the case.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You keep mentioning this, and I suppose it is possible, but I just don't see any evidence to support it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the hold-up on Treliving's contract extension due to an insistence that he be able to operate independently?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the hold-up on Treliving's contract extension due to an insistence that he be able to operate independently?

I only ever heard that as speculation on this site.

ETA: I've now seen a tweet by Larry Fisher saying that was a condition of his extension FWIW.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I think it's hilarious that people are debating the team's entertainment value by using advanced stats. There's really only one metric for that, and it's "am I watching the game or finding other things to do with my time because the games are boring?" For the past two seasons, it's been the latter.

You should quote these people so we can all find it hilarious.

[nik-]

delicious

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If you can't see the difference between being challenged and having it suggested that you are unwilling to admit something, I can't help you.

I am challenging your willingness to accept that these stats aren't as ironclad as you seem to believe.

As a generalization Bingo, so don't necessarily take this as a personal inflammatory shot, I find that a lot of advanced stats arguments end up with finding one stat that supports a preconception rather than the use of a body of stats to form a conclusion.

Also, FWIW, when all you say is "underlying numbers", it's hard to actually know what statistic you are pointing to. Particularly in the subtext of yours and my side-argument. In this particular case and throughout these threads, we seem to have moved from Corsi to high danger scoring chances, now to simple scoring chances. Possibly because the first two have had no correlation whatsoever with success this year. That is actually somewhat unusual compared to previous seasons, but does demonstrate the flaws.

Incidentally, it would be kind of strange for simple scoring chances to have a higher correlation to success than "high danger" scoring chances, don't you think?

Now, focusing on this one stat and your four exceptions, they are also rather easy to explain: Special teams. The Kings are the best penalty killing team in the NHL. Anaheim and Nashville are also top six and the Capitals are top half. Washington was 7th on the power play, while LA and Nashville were middle of the pack. Anaheim sucked, but had the benefit of a weak division.

We keep seeing over and over again how important special teams are to success. I really wish advanced stats arguments would pay a lot more attention to it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I am challenging your willingness to accept that these stats aren't as ironclad as you seem to believe.

As a generalization Bingo, so don't necessarily take this as a personal inflammatory shot, I find that a lot of advanced stats arguments end up with finding one stat that supports a preconception rather than the use of a body of stats to form a conclusion.

Also, FWIW, when all you say is "underlying numbers", it's hard to actually know what statistic you are pointing to. Particularly in the subtext of yours and my side-argument. In this particular case and throughout these threads, we seem to have moved from Corsi to high danger scoring chances, now to simple scoring chances. Possibly because the first two have had no correlation whatsoever with success this year. That is actually somewhat unusual compared to previous seasons, but does demonstrate the flaws.

Incidentally, it would be kind of strange for simple scoring chances to have a higher correlation to success than "high danger" scoring chances, don't you think?

Now, focusing on this one stat and your four exceptions, they are also rather easy to explain: Special teams. The Kings are the best penalty killing team in the NHL. Anaheim and Nashville are also top six and the Capitals are top half. Washington was 7th on the power play, while LA and Nashville were middle of the pack. Anaheim sucked, but had the benefit of a weak division.

We keep seeing over and over again how important special teams are to success. I really wish advanced stats arguments would pay a lot more attention to it.

How is a guy suggesting a deep dive into video to further break down scoring chances not accepting the fact that the numbers might be wrong?

Seriously, I'm suggesting the very challenge that you'd think would make you and the like happy.

Instead it's a merry go round.

And for the record I included all situations to bring special teams into it.

The scoring chance vs high danger chance thing. I'd agree with you in principle but I guess the math suggests that simple scoring chances have a higher correlation, for whatever that's worth.

Look, I'm a hockey coach. I watch the games intently and have my own eye test. I've loved the advent of additional stats to test my biases, I welcome that. If my eye test and the stats don't match I start to wonder.

I'm not a guy hitting F5 on a web site and not watching the games.