Quote:
Originally Posted by bax
Using shots against isn’t really a great measure of defensive acumen when looking at Hartley’s Flames. I would like to see shot attempts against.
Those teams routinely chased games and on average held the puck less then their opponent because their defensive zone system was basically “collapse in front of the net while the other team controls the puck and try to block shots like Lance Bouma and Kris Russell”.
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because I agree that Hartley didn’t have the best teams on paper. This was a system that was designed for an average group of players so I can understand the logic.
Ideally, a good team will have the puck a lot more and won’t have to play like that. As Kent Wilson said “blocking shots is like killing rats. Doing it is preferable to not, but if you’re doing it all the time it suggests you have bigger problems”.
|
I agree that ideally, a good team would want the puck more. However, is that really true? Bear with me here.
Let's take a look at another sport, and an elite team at that sport. Real Madrid. Watch them play, and they often don't possess the ball as often as the other team (well, when they play against other good teams anyway). Why is that? it is that their whole system is a counter-attack style where they just try and get in the way of shots. Sounds familiar, right?
Now, people may snicker and say: "That's soccer and it doesn't have a single thing to do with hockey, so who cares?"
Well, our own experience watching this team over the last two coaches sure has opened my eyes. I think sometimes people are too fixated on stats to see the forest for the trees - I myself was guilty of this as well.
For instance, correlation keeps dropping in this hierarchy:
1) Score more goals than you allow, and you will win every game.
2) Get more high quality chances - especially cross crease and breakaways - than you give up, and you are more likely to win a game.
3) Get more shots than you allow and you are more likely to win a game.
4) Suppress more shots than the other team and you are more likely to win a game.
These are all true, but the confidence intervals probably goes down with every step you take.
Were Hartley's Flames defensive juggernauts? No. I won't make that claim. My claim is that they were not much worse defensively within the construct of their counter-attack system than in Gulutzan's possession-oriented system. What Gulutzan made up in suppressing shots he wasted by not getting enough quality shots for. How do you measure it? Closest thing I have seen is the Royal Road that Deluxe Moustache started a thread about.
Hartley maximized - absolutely maximized - the offensive capabilities of the rosters he had. I don't think you will get much of an argument from anyone here - those were some fairly uninspiring teams on paper for the most part. Could Hartley have been better at shot suppression? Yes, but at what cost?
I think the cost that Gulutzan paid ended up being too pricey, especially given a more talented roster. I believe he was too focused on CORSI and playing FOR CORSI. I see it happening with other teams.
We just have to remember the Dallas Eakins led Oilers. They admittedly played FOR CORSI - in their vain attempt to put lipstick on that greasy pig of team. I think they did worse while they switched to it.
CORSI (and other advanced metrics) should be a product, not a goal. The goal is always to allow less goals than you score. This seems like a 'duh' moment here, but I really do think that Gulutzan's system was keeping the advanced metrics TOO much in mind rather than looking at the roster and seeing how he could maximize both ends of the spectrum - goal scoring and goal prevention. It isn't as simple as I am stating it of course, but that is where I am looking at the advanced metrics often and disagreeing with some of the assumptions being made by everyone.
It isn't an assumption being made by the soccer teams that actually do a heck of a better job at tracking possession than hockey, so why is it some law that more possession = more wins? Possession doesn't necessarily equate to more goals for and less goals against - those are fairly loose correlations.
That is why I am 100% fine with the same exact team coming back with the added caveat that Peters doesn't follow suit and try to maximize the advanced metrics. As long as he realizes that the defence is capable of generating offence, that this team can transition quickly, and that they need to do more than just 'get pucks on net', then this team I feel will look and feel vastly different than the last 5 seasons.
I think as the seasons go on, you will see more of a 'mixed bag' of poor teams having strong underlying metrics, and great teams having poor underlying metrics (thereby the loose correlation), and it will become a bit more murky as teams try to adopt a system that supports these metrics over the personnel that the team has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Oh I understood Hartleys sytem just fine thanks.
Its why he is the head coach of Latvia right now.
|
Obviously you don't, as his personality has him coaching in Latvia right now, while his Jack Adams trophy sitting on his mantle shows what he actually accomplished with his system. You're welcome.
