The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

You may well be right. But no doubt in my mind this is the coach who will be here all year long. He is Treliving’s choice and even if Flames stay on playoff bubble all year long, he will be given the chance to see it through.

Yes, I agree.

[JerryUnderscore]

I'm honestly confused at how people can look at the Flames this year and suggest the blame lies with Gulutzan.

1. The team is third in the division at 12-9-1. That's good for 6th in the conference and 13th overall. They're a team that has been winning games.

2. If we look at advanced stats, the Flames are 8th in the league in CF% (and 9th in raw corsi for).

3. If we want to look at scoring chances we're SCF% and 7th in raw scoring chances.

4. If we look at high danger scoring chances we're 7th in HDCF% and 10th in raw high danger chances. Points 3 & 4 suggest a team who is actually getting the puck to the dangerous areas of the ice rather than just taking wild shots from the perimeter.

5. The real problem is that our shooting percentage is terrible. We're 26th in the league with a shooting percentage of 6.87%

6. This terrible shooting percentage is mostly due to the fact that our bottom six shooting percentage has completely dropped off. However, just about everyone in the bottom six is shooting the puck at a rate around their career average.

Is it Gulutzan's fault that the bottom six that aren't scoring? If you would say yes, how? What systems has he implemented that has lead to their shooting percentage to crater?

Compared to Hartley, Gulutzan has the team playing a more defensive system rather than a run-and-gun system. This will typically result in winning games 3-2 rather than losing them 5-4.

This is not to say that Gulutzan and his coaching staff have been perfect. The special teams need some work and it would be nice to see the shots against come down. However, let's not act like this team is a train wreck in need of a coaching change.

[Racki]

This is a pretty circular argument and most folks have positioned themselves firmly in their battle stations. Gulutzan has certainly become a polarizing figure.

We are flooded with statistics and analytics these days and I don't dismiss them out of hand but I still believe in the eyeball test and Gulutzan just doesn't pass the eyeball test for me.

Why does this team never look ready to go? Coming off two disappointing games they should be flying in the first 5-10 minutes tonight but I feel pretty confident that they will look unprepared and Colorado will have more jump than the Flames.

[Enoch Root]

First of all, some people are far too black and white when it comes to the coaching discussion. It is possible to win games, and at the same time have coaching issues. Just as even the greatest coach of all time will lose games. It comes down to whether you are winning as many as you should. And whether the team is achieving its potential.

As for all the corsi stats, that's great. Couldn't care less, to be honest. And IMO, offense is more about creativity and confidence than it is about coaching.

For me, the things that are most affected by coaching are: team defense, breakouts, special teams, work ethic, and team personality/character/identity.

And I am less than thrilled with how the team is looking in any of those regards.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Racki

This is a pretty circular argument and most folks have positioned themselves firmly in their battle stations. Gulutzan has certainly become a polarizing figure.

We are flooded with statistics and analytics these days and I don't dismiss them out of hand but I still believe in the eyeball test and Gulutzan just doesn't pass the eyeball test for me.

Why does this team never look ready to go? Coming off two disappointing games they should be flying in the first 5-10 minutes tonight but I feel pretty confident that they will look unprepared and Colorado will have more jump than the Flames.

That certainly is the $64,000 question. However, that has been the issue for the Flames for more than a decade now.

Every year they seem to stumble out of the gate in October before turning it around later in the year.

Every game they seem to stumble out of the gate in the first few minutes before turning it around later in the game.

If this has been a systemic issue for the team despite coaching, management and player changes, then we have to conclude the issue lies elsewhere.

Maybe the issue is with the ownership above the management team? Maybe the issue is with our expectations that the team play a complete game when in reality no team play 100% every night? I have no idea but sine it's been going on since back in the Sutter days I'm inclined to belief it's not Gulutzan's fault.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

First of all, some people are far too black and white when it comes to the coaching discussion. It is possible to win games, and at the same time have coaching issues. Just as even the greatest coach of all time will lose games. It comes down to whether you are winning as many as you should. And whether the team is achieving its potential.

As for all the corsi stats, that's great. Couldn't care less, to be honest. And IMO, offense is more about creativity and confidence than it is about coaching.

For me, the things that are most affected by coaching are: team defense, breakouts, special teams, work ethic, and team personality/character/identity.

And I am less than thrilled with how the team is looking in any of those regards.

Yes, it's possible that a great team with a mediocre coach will underperform their expectations. It's possible Gulutzan is hindering this team's potential.

However, considering we're in a divisional playoff spot and made the playoffs last year (with strong underlying numbers) after missing the playoffs in six of the previous seven seasons, I'm inclined to believe Gulutzan has helped the team more than he's hindered it.

The way some people talk about Gulutzan and the team this year you would think we're near the bottom of the standings with Edmonton and Arizona.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

The way some people talk about Gulutzan and the team this year you would think we're near the bottom of the standings with Edmonton and Arizona.

Do you think the Flames are playing to their potential? If not how far off?

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by zamler

Do you think the Flames are playing to their potential? If not how far off?

I suppose for me:

Defense would at least need to pass the eye test (cut the moronic brain-dead turnovers/plays down to a minimum) and the advanced stats test (all 3 pairings > 50% in 5v5 CF).

3M would need to remain possession freaks while chipping in offensively at around a 40-50 point pace, about where they were last year.

Jagr line needs to start carrying rabbit's feet, sleeping with Cree dreamcatchers and holding ritualistic Mayan sacrifices to jinx the other team's goalie. The goals gotta start going in soon again, right?

4th line needs to start chipping in again. Brouwer looking confident at least, but Versteeg sometimes leaves his head at home. Lazar needs to sit and watch from above until he figures out what hockey is again - he's killing plays worse than "2016 Whipping Boy" Brouwer, which is really saying something.

Smith needs to be Smith. The backups need to at least keep their GAA under 3 and sv% over .920.

Thing is, all of these are pretty attainable and within reach - and we'd be a top 5 team, easy. Just a matter of time. But my patience is definitely being tested.

[PepsiFree]

The thing about the eye test for me is that it’s entirely subjective of what the individual fan wants to see and their own expectations, which may or may not be realistic.

When a lot of fans (generalising here) watch other teams, it’s often during the playoffs which gives a distorted look of how teams play. I like to think I watch a pretty even split of NHL games through the season, not just Flames vs whoever, and I can’t say the Flames look disproportionately lazy, or not ready, or mistake ridden, than any other team with our calibur of players. Maybe that’s just my own expectations at play, but if we’re talking about the “eye test” then I don’t know a team in the league that doesn’t fail it just as much as the Flames on a regular basis.

The thing is, if we were playing lights out every night, we’d be nearly undefeated. No team does that, it’s extremely rare. The last team I can even remember looking that good that often was the Hawks in the lockout shortened season.

Those expecting a lot more at the start of the season of any team are setting themselves for a degree of disappointment, imo.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The thing about the eye test for me is that it’s entirely subjective of what the individual fan wants to see and their own expectations, which may or may not be realistic.

When a lot of fans (generalising here) watch other teams, it’s often during the playoffs which gives a distorted look of how teams play. I like to think I watch a pretty even split of NHL games through the season, not just Flames vs whoever, and I can’t say the Flames look disproportionately lazy, or not ready, or mistake ridden, than any other team with our calibur of players. Maybe that’s just my own expectations at play, but if we’re talking about the “eye test” then I don’t know a team in the league that doesn’t fail it just as much as the Flames on a regular basis.

The thing is, if we were playing lights out every night, we’d be nearly undefeated. No team does that, it’s extremely rare. The last team I can even remember looking that good that often was the Hawks in the lockout shortened season.

Those expecting a lot more at the start of the season of any team are setting themselves for a degree of disappointment, imo.

Come on, you're better than that. There is some breathable air in between the current inconsistent play and 'playing lights out every night'. Not a single poster has suggested that.

You have defended the coach over and over in these threads, but you haven't presented any positive arguments - just the usual vague generalities suggesting that people don't know what they are talking about.

Give us some positive arguments. Because I've seen a pretty long list of reasonable and apparent criticisms presented.

Do you believe that the Flames are playing up to their potential, or acceptably close to it? If so, great. Some people don't think so, and are offering observations as to why.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Again both sides have been guilty of arguing on vague generalities and both have presented more rationale and well thought out arguments
When folks start to argue that one side has entire failed to do that we are back to arguing on the extremes
There have been plenty of quantifiable arguments made as to why the coach has been doing well and not doing well. Let’s not pretend otherwise

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Come on, you're better than that. There is some breathable air in between the current inconsistent play and 'playing lights out every night'. Not a single poster has suggested that.

You have defended the coach over and over in these threads, but you haven't presented any positive arguments - just the usual vague generalities suggesting that people don't know what they are talking about.

Plenty of people have presented actual evidence that he’s a good coach, or a bad coach, but my post was directly in response to the “eye test” and I didn’t begin to pretend that my own post was anything but my own observations based on the eye test. As I said, watching other teams, I’m just not seeing anything uniquely bad about the Flames in terms of laziness, readiness, or mistakes. The expectations for these things to not exist, or even exist less, just don’t seem realistic to me since I can’t say there is a team in the league that doesn’t make the same mistakes or come out in a period “not ready.” Is it coaching that makes the difference? Or the build of the team?

I’m not here to convince anyone, and if you’ve followed my posts on the subject as closely as you’re saying, you’d see that why I’m in favour of him, i’ve admitted the Flames play a bit boring under him and that he may not be the right coach at the right time, even if I think he’s a good coach in general.

Maybe I haven’t seen other teams enough, or the Flames enough, but I just can’t say I watch a Flames game where they “fail the eye test” any more than any other team.

[JerryUnderscore]

Originally Posted by zamler

Do you think the Flames are playing to their potential? If not how far off?

That's a tough question to answer.

I'd say the top line is playing up to or beyond their potential.

The bottom six is problematic, at least in their ability to score goals, even though their shooting rate is what you would expect.

There have been some issues with the defence, particularly in Brodie and Hamonic.

Honestly, I'm not sure how many of the issues you could put on the coach. Furthermore, very few things in hockey tend to happen at a consistent rate so it's tough to say who's playing to their potential and who isn't.

[VladtheImpaler]

The one thing that I am upset about is the defense - that is the actual defensemen. We saw under Hartley that they are capable of producing more offense than any other group in the league. Giordano, Hamilton, Brodie can/should? be capable of producing at a 50 point clip - in fact, I firmly believe Giordano and Hamilton both have ~20 goals and 60 points in them IF properly utilized. I think Hamonic and Stone are certainly capable offensively too. But, not only are we not seeing the offensive production, but they are also terrible as a group defensively, aside from Giordano. Giordano has lasted at peak level so far longer than I thought he would. I am frustrated that we are not getting maximum utility out of this great asset we have - it seems like our coaching staff has a preconceived notion of how the defense should look, and is not adapting their thinking to the defense(men) we actually have... Did all these guys suddenly lose their skills? I don't think so.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

First of all, some people are far too black and white when it comes to the coaching discussion. It is possible to win games, and at the same time have coaching issues. Just as even the greatest coach of all time will lose games. It comes down to whether you are winning as many as you should. And whether the team is achieving its potential.



As for all the corsi stats, that's great. Couldn't care less, to be honest. And IMO, offense is more about creativity and confidence than it is about coaching.



For me, the things that are most affected by coaching are: team defense, breakouts, special teams, work ethic, and team personality/character/identity.



And I am less than thrilled with how the team is looking in any of those regards.

So from your point of view the coach doesn’t get any credit for the team achieving strong results when compared to the rest of the league in advanced metrics that have been proven to be highly correlated to success?

Yet, he gets all of the blame for not achieving your standard of arbitrary terms such as “character and identity”.

No wonder you think he’s a bad coach. Most things in life will seem terrible if you remove all the positives and only focus on the negatives.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by bax

So from your point of view the coach doesn’t get any credit for the team achieving strong results when compared to the rest of the league in advanced metrics that have been proven to be highly correlated to success?

Yet, he gets all of the blame for not achieving your standard of arbitrary terms such as “character and identity”.

No wonder you think he’s a bad coach. Most things in life will seem terrible if you remove all the positives and only focus on the negatives.

What's been proven? The Penguins just won a Stanley Cup with horrible possession metrics. The Oilers possession metrics actually improved under Eakins despite the team's record being worse.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bax

So from your point of view the coach doesn’t get any credit for the team achieving strong results when compared to the rest of the league in advanced metrics that have been proven to be highly correlated to success?

Yet, he gets all of the blame for not achieving your standard of arbitrary terms such as “character and identity”.

No wonder you think he’s a bad coach. Most things in life will seem terrible if you remove all the positives and only focus on the negatives.

I didn't say that. But since you brought it up, 'advanced metrics' (lol) - in this case corsi and a few of its variants - have not been 'proven to be highly correlated with success'.

The correlations are, in fact, not very strong at all. This is one of the biggest myths for the advanced stat groupies. Yes, the correlations with corsi and its variants have the highest correlation, among the various options available, but highest does not mean high. The fact is that none of the available metrics are very good predictors of success, and that corsi and its cousins are merely the best of a bunch of crap. But people read 'highest correlation with success' and think they have found some kind of keen insight, and awesome predictive tool, into the game of hockey. But it simply isn't the case.

Also, thank you for the nice bit of irony, quoting my post that claimed that people are too black and white on this subject, and then - falsely - claiming that I give no credit for one thing, but all the blame for another.

[Robbob]

To his point though, regarding work ethic and character. Those are attributes that are difficult to assign from an arms reach. From what I have heard from beat writers is this team practices harder then any flames team they have seen. The effort is definitely there.

[Infinit47]

I'm just happy Bartowski got less than 10 minutes last night. The PP is scoring and the PK has looked better, although still a little passive for my taste.

[GGG]

How much is Adjusting to Smith responsible for the defenses turnover problems?

Many of the Dallas turnovers and the Columbus turnover all started from Smith handling the puck. In the Colorado game this didn't occur with the backup. So are these defensive problems really about adjusting to the time and space when you have a goalie playing the puck rather than coaching and systems issues.