[PGT] Poor goaltending does the team in .... AGAIN. Flames lose 6-4 to the Bruins.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

I'm with ya man, but we've been told we know nothing of what he does and criticism is not warranted, ever.

Salt!

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

Salt!

For sure it is. Triggers the eff outta me honestly.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

So then it's all on the GM for continually picking up these over the hill retirees-in-training. Gotcha.

Impossible to blame goaltending coach for bad goaltending. That's definitely a hot take.

It's not impossible to blame the goalie coach—it's just not overly productive, and is also something of a black box into which we really don't see enough to gain any traction for either criticism or praise. Sigalet might be terrible at his job. He might be great at it. Who among us can say?

As for management, they are certainly culpable for the team's issues with goaltending over the last several seasons. Having said that, goaltending is just one piece within a much larger plan to build a winning team. So, while I think Treliving deserves some criticism for the situation I am also reluctant to be exceptionally pedantic about just this one bit given how good the whole rest of the team looks right now. It takes a long time to build a winner, and I think goaltending is the final piece in what has been a four- or five-year process.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

I think Rittich is an anomaly to the coaching of Sigalet. Every other goalie we've had under him has been average to mediocre.

It's probably time to switch things up with the goalie coaching. Look at how much better the team is under Peters than Gulutzan.

In fairness, what has Sigalet had to work with since Kipper?

If you acquire average to mediocre talent you are expecting a miracle to get anything more than that with coaching being the only variable.

I'm done blaming Sigalet. He hasn't sewered anyone since he's been here and he hasn't transformed middling players into superstars. Seems about on par.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Yamer

In fairness, what has Sigalet had to work with since Kipper?

Sigalet didn't coach Kipper. He has only been with the team since 15-16 (according to the Flames site).

If you acquire average to mediocre talent you are expecting a miracle to get anything more than that with coaching being the only variable.

As has been discussed in other threads - the talent Sigalet has had to work with may not have been superstar quality, but it was far from garbage. He worked with 2 goalies who had won championships in other men's leagues, one was considered the best goalie not in the NHL. He had one proven NHL starterand one whose numbers the previous year were outstanding.

I'm done blaming Sigalet. He hasn't sewered anyone since he's been here and he hasn't transformed middling players into superstars. Seems about on par.

I am of the stance that if you (the proverbial "you", not you specifically) blamed GG for part of last years flop and for not getting the most out of his players, then you have to include Sigalet in that blame. GG was let go in part because he couldn't get more out of his players - shouldn't Sigalet be held to the same standard?

PAR doesn't win anyone anything.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

... I am of the stance that if you (the proverbial "you", not you specifically) blamed GG for part of last years flop and for not getting the most out of his players, then you have to include Sigalet in that blame. GG was let go in part because he couldn't get more out of his players - shouldn't Sigalet be held to the same standard?...

Are you so sure that he wasn't?

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Are you so sure that he wasn't?

Of course, I cannot be sure that Sigalet was or was not held to the same standard as the other coaches.

But, I think common sense says that Flames management has not been looking at their goalies for the last 4 years thinking "Hey, we have the absolute worst goalies in hockey, but at least Sigalet got them playing up to mediocre standards. He's a wizard, let's keep him and fire everybody else!"

Hartley was let go because of the perception that he couldn't get the players to the next level. GG was let go for almost the same reason. Cameron was let go for bad special teams. Sigalet was kept on for turning "bad" goalies into mediocre ones?

If Smith ends the year as the statistically worst goalie in the NHL, is that ALL on him, or does Sigalet bear some responsibility?

If the Flames miss the playoffs, is that all on the players, or does the coach bear some responsibility?

Seems like different standards, but I can't be 100% sure.

[zamler]

I have a feeling the goaltending situation will end up something like this.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Compare the dmen that play in front of them and then come back.

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Not sure why so many people are concerned about starting Gillies. It's pretty common for a goalie to have bad numbers in front of a bad team. He's worth a look at least.

At least when Turek was done, he knew it and took a paycut (Even though they aren't allowed anymore).

Just because we haven't seen him play doesn't mean he hasn't been terrible. I don't care if Stockton is the worst team in the history of the planet (spoiler alert - they aren't) - he's got an 864 save percentage. There is 49 qualifying goalies in the AHL and Gillies is 014 behind the the 45th rank guy in save percentage.

As for trading a 1st for Howard - why? You've got a starter. Trade a bag of pucks for someone like Andrew Hammond or Scott Wedgewood and you're ahead.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Of course, I cannot be sure that Sigalet was or was not held to the same standard as the other coaches.

But, I think common sense says...

I think this is your first mistake. "common sense" is always a pretty poor exploratory method with the litany of other much more effective analytical tools at ones disposal. We retreat to common sense in instances in which we do not have adequate information upon which to make good decisions. This is one of those instances.

...that Flames management has not been looking at their goalies for the last 4 years thinking "Hey, we have the absolute worst goalies in hockey, but at least Sigalet got them playing up to mediocre standards. He's a wizard, let's keep him and fire everybody else!"

I think management reviewed each of the coaches on the basis of whether or not they were doing their jobs, and whether there were better available options to replace them if not. Sigalet was the only coach to survive this review.

Hartley was let go because of the perception that he couldn't get the players to the next level.

No. Hartley was let go because he was a below-average coach whose methods were somewhat antiquated, short-lived and had run their course. It had NOTHING to do with "perception."

...GG was let go for almost the same reason.

I disagree completely. I think that Gulutzan was viewed by management as a guy who was tactically in line with what they wanted from the team, but who for various reasons failed miserably to effectively implement a sustainable model for high-pressure possession-based hockey that produced tangible results.

Cameron was let go for bad special teams. Sigalet was kept on for turning "bad" goalies into mediocre ones?

Not at all. As I said above, Sigalet was retained because management believes he is doing his job. In that sense I think the conclusion was made that he has done well with what he has had to work with.

If Smith ends the year as the statistically worst goalie in the NHL, is that ALL on him, or does Sigalet bear some responsibility?

I don't know. The reason I don't know is because there are various reasons for why Smith's season could end in disaster. A good number of those reasons are completely out of Sigalet's control. I think that most likely age has simply caught up to him, and there is NOTHING any coach can do about that.

If the Flames miss the playoffs, is that all on the players, or does the coach bear some responsibility?

The Flames will not miss the playoffs. And if they somehow did, I must assume that it was by virtue of something so cataclysmic and beyond anyone's control that no one can really be held to a reasonable account for it. If the Flames play barely over 0.500 for the remainder of the season, they will still make the playoffs.

Seems like different standards, but I can't be 100% sure.

Right. But how sure are you? Are you 80% sure? 30%? Based on what you have posted I see no reason for you to be very sure at all, and that leads me to think that most likely you are wrong about "different standards."

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

...Trade a bag of pucks for someone like Andrew Hammond or Scott Wedgewood and you're ahead.

As discussed in TheScorpion's excellent thread and by Elliotte Friedman this morning, I really don't think they are. The reason that Mike Smith is still tending goal for the Flames, and the reason he likely will be for at least the rest of the month is precisely that there are no good options right now which put the Flames ahead.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

Of course, I cannot be sure that Sigalet was or was not held to the same standard as the other coaches.

But, I think common sense says that Flames management has not been looking at their goalies for the last 4 years thinking "Hey, we have the absolute worst goalies in hockey, but at least Sigalet got them playing up to mediocre standards. He's a wizard, let's keep him and fire everybody else!"

Hartley was let go because of the perception that he couldn't get the players to the next level. GG was let go for almost the same reason. Cameron was let go for bad special teams. Sigalet was kept on for turning "bad" goalies into mediocre ones?

If Smith ends the year as the statistically worst goalie in the NHL, is that ALL on him, or does Sigalet bear some responsibility?

If the Flames miss the playoffs, is that all on the players, or does the coach bear some responsibility?

Seems like different standards, but I can't be 100% sure.

I'm all for Sigalet being shown the door in the offseason but I don't think you can blame him for the decline of Smith. It's pretty apparent that Smith has lost some quickness and can no longer compensate for playing as deep in the net as he does. At 35 years old there's no way a goaltender coach is going to be able to totally change the style of a veteran goaltender and that's what Smith needs. Really if Smith wanted to prolong his career he probably should have started changing his game prior to the trade to Calgary. He's a big guy and if he came out of the net further and took away the angles he may have been able to play a few years longer. Right now he's just giving up too much net and pucks are getting by him because his reflexes aren't as quick as they used to be and it's also possible the equipment changes have played a role in accelerating his decline.

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

We retreat to common sense in instances in which we do not have adequate information upon which to make good decisions. This is one of those instances.

Fair enough.

I think management reviewed each of the coaches on the basis of whether or not they were doing their jobs, and whether there were better available options to replace them if not. Sigalet was the only coach to survive this review......As I said above, Sigalet was retained because management believes he is doing his job. In that sense I think the conclusion was made that he has done well with what he has had to work with.

So, Sigalet did his job OR there was no one better available to replace him with. Everyone else blew it and could be replaced with better options.

The Flames will not miss the playoffs. And if they somehow did, I must assume that it was by virtue of something so cataclysmic and beyond anyone's control that no one can really be held to a reasonable account for it. If the Flames play barely over 0.500 for the remainder of the season, they will still make the playoffs.

This might not be the case this year, but what about last year? The Flames were in a playoff spot. Things "Cataclysmic and beyond anyone's control" happened. GG and his staff, with the exception of one guy, get the hook.


But, you've convinced me. Sigalet is doing a good job with the crap he has to work with.

[Split98]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Game Takes:
Bruins 6 Flames 4

- Flames give up only 8 high danger chances in 60 minutes (all situations)
- 60 minute no quit effort
- Smith questionable on 2/3 of 5 against
- Lindholm his 20th
- Gaudreau keeps rolling

Ironic to find a loss in one of Calgary’s most complete games of the season, and against a good opponent to boot. In terms of five on five shot attempts the Flames had 66% of the attempts. They also had 67% of the scoring chances and 67% of the high danger chances (10-5).

In all situations the Flames enjoyed 61% of the shot attempts, 63% of the scoring chances and 65% of the high danger chances on the night (15-8).

Wow...

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

...So, Sigalet did his job OR there was no one better available to replace him with. Everyone else blew it and could be replaced with better options.

It is a necessarily simplistic way of looking at it, but I think this is basically what happened, yes.

This might not be the case this year, but what about last year? The Flames were in a playoff spot. Things "Cataclysmic and beyond anyone's control" happened. GG and his staff, with the exception of one guy, get the hook.

The Flames held a playoff spot from sometime in mid October until around mid-February. As of 15 February the Flames were third in the Division, ninth in the Western conference, and 14th in the NHL. They ranked 20th in scoring, 20th in goals-allowed, and had a goal differential of zero. Upon such a slim margin there was nothing even remotely cataclysmic that was required for them to miss the playoffs.

As of today, the Flames are first in the Division, first in the Western Conference, and third in the NHL. They rank second in scoring, 17th in goals-allowed, and boast a goal differential of +29—the third best difference in the League. Unlike the precarious position the Flames found themselves in for most of the 2017–18 season this year's vintage enjoys a massive margin for error. I will repeat: nothing even remotely cataclysmic occurred for the Flames to miss the playoffs last season. The team was not good enough at multiple positions; the coaching was not good enough; they missed the playoffs because the team was not good enough. This season the Flames are demonstrably one of the best teams in the League by nearly every metric. Yes, it would in fact require after 42-games a cataclysmic undoing of massive proportions to result in them spiralling eight places to below the playoff line.

The two situations are not remotely comparable.

But, you've convinced me. Sigalet is doing a good job with the crap he has to work with.

That's weird, since I never claimed nor argued that Sigalet is actually doing a good job—only that management seem to think that he is. Again, I don't know, because I have very little reliable information to indicate one way or the other.

Sigalet might be terrible at his job. He might be great at it. I can't really tell from this vantage point.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm all for Sigalet being shown the door in the offseason but I don't think you can blame him for the decline of Smith. It's pretty apparent that Smith has lost some quickness and can no longer compensate for playing as deep in the net as he does. At 35 years old there's no way a goaltender coach is going to be able to totally change the style of a veteran goaltender and that's what Smith needs. Really if Smith wanted to prolong his career he probably should have started changing his game prior to the trade to Calgary.

I don't think that is entirely reasonable, since Smith depended upon a style that he has always played, and by which he has seen a fair amount of success. He played the way he always has, and it was good enough through 50 games to keep the Flames competitive. I think I agree that this is no longer working like it did, but I am not convinced it is something he should have changed-up as early as summer 2017.

He's a big guy and if he came out of the net further and took away the angles he may have been able to play a few years longer. Right now he's just giving up too much net and pucks are getting by him because his reflexes aren't as quick as they used to be and it's also possible the equipment changes have played a role in accelerating his decline.

And I tend to think that this is the real issue, here, and likely not one that is as simply correctable as him playing further out of his net. He could very well be playing to his full potential now, and it is just not good enough to succeed except sporadically.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this is your first mistake. "common sense" is always a pretty poor exploratory method with the litany of other much more effective analytical tools at ones disposal. We retreat to common sense in instances in which we do not have adequate information upon which to make good decisions. This is one of those instances

Paging ‘This Post is Terrible’.

Brutal oversimplification.

Common sense is not necessarily something to which one retreats when ‘adequate information’ is not available. It should be considered and included or disqualified, with reasons, in the assumptions and scope of work when doing any analysis. For people who are involved in research, summary dismissal of potentially relevant information is definitely poor practice.

It is particularly a problem with people who are involved in data analytics in a professional capacity, that they can selectively include and dismiss data that suits their purposes. Academia is often competitive and agenda driven as well.

Before I go further, maybe you need to define ‘common sense’ and give examples of it and its failures in the context of this discourse. And also define ‘effective’. There is a lot to unpack in this paragraph of what looks like a lot of hooey.

Look at these guys who are trying to build careers on analytics. Many are doing the test they can with the data available, and failing, but selling themselves like snake oil salesmen. There are limitations which are material, they are doing the best they can with the info they have available, and they are often glossing over limitations of their methods. I have read Vollman’s book and while I am adequately impressed with the accomplishments, I am equally disappointed with the importance they attribute to results that are statistically relatively insignificant.

You know who embraced methods believed to be effective over common sense? The Oilers* with coach Dallas Eakins and analytics guru Tyler Dellow. It was a disaster.

A bloody huge part of data analysis is understanding relevance and context.

*Enjoyable for Flames fans so I am not complaining.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think this is your first mistake. "common sense" is always a pretty poor exploratory method with the litany of other much more effective analytical tools at ones disposal. We retreat to common sense in instances in which we do not have adequate information upon which to make good decisions. This is one of those instances.

Except it isn't. Results are the most important factor in determining the success of coaches. Stats don't amount to a hill of beans if outcomes do not meet the expectations placed on the coach/manager. If results continue to be poor, then common sense dictates the decision to retain an individual in such a position should change. When the "litany of other much more effective analytical tools" fail to prove the competence of the individual, then you fall back to that darn common sense to make your decision. Some like to refer to common sense as the application of Occam's Razor, or using one's gut, or just good old simple math (one plus one equals two) but whatever you like to call it most people rely on this when all other "exploratory methods" fail to provide valid explanations of provide consistent data to make a decision against common sense.

Let us not forget that you attempted to use these effective analytical tools to justify the continued employment of Glen Gulutzan last season, while to many of us common sense told us he was a ####ty coach and needed to go. Under performance across the board pretty much was it took to recognize that the coach was the problem.

I think management reviewed each of the coaches on the basis of whether or not they were doing their jobs, and whether there were better available options to replace them if not. Sigalet was the only coach to survive this review.

Gelinas also survived. It would not be the first time that Treliving made a mistake in keeping individuals employed.

I disagree completely. I think that Gulutzan was viewed by management as a guy who was tactically in line with what they wanted from the team, but who for various reasons failed miserably to effectively implement a sustainable model for high-pressure possession-based hockey that produced tangible results.

And management was dead wrong in their assessment of Gulutzan, as were you. If you have not yet figured out that Treliving has a couple blind spots, Treliving has a couple of blind spots he needs help with.

Not at all. As I said above, Sigalet was retained because management believes he is doing his job. In that sense I think the conclusion was made that he has done well with what he has had to work with.

Results say otherwise.

I don't know. The reason I don't know is because there are various reasons for why Smith's season could end in disaster. A good number of those reasons are completely out of Sigalet's control. I think that most likely age has simply caught up to him, and there is NOTHING any coach can do about that.

This is true, but there are also many things that can be corrected. Smith's positioning in net is just flat out piss poor. Get him the hell off the goal line and challenge the play more. Get him working on his angles down low. Smith is a guy that is supposedly awesome with his stick, yet he displays some of the worst stick skills of any goaltender in the league when trying to use the paddle. Small adjustments like this are teachable, and the if the coach isn't helping in improve these things, he isn't doing his job. If Smith is proving to be too old to be coached, then its definitely time to move on from him. If Smith is not getting the coaching to identify and address these obvious flaws in his game, then the coach should be gone.