[PGT] Leafs 2 Flames 1

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by united

Interesting situation with the challenge dilemma with about 1:30 remaining. Reminds me of the fourth down bots any NFL fans will be familiar with.

According to Evolving Hockey, the Flames' win probability one second before Nylander's tying goal was 94%.

Taking that into account, and the expected value of winning the challenge (Regulation win, TML still tie 6v5 then OT/SO win, TML still tie 6v5 then OT/SO loss) versus losing the challenge (TML PP goal in regulation, OT/SO loss, OT/SO win) I get a break-even challenge success of about 36%.

If the Flames thought there was a better than 36% chance of winning the challenge it would have been worthwhile. Tough call with nobody on Earth, including officials, knowing what constitutes goaltender interference.

Lots of assumptions in there but ballpark as a starting point.

Your biggest assumption is that the Flames would have that info available at a moments notice to make that decision, when we know they don’t. It’s hard enough to figure out if interference even existed, much less crunch those numbers. Especially when there wasn’t any obvious interference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is clearly not the cure-all for every team, but then again, neither is a new coach.

That was my point - it is multiple things all at once. It is a team game.

The coach is one of those things.

And it is an easy one to invoke change.

Changing the roster takes years.

And if you have a bad coach, you are changing the roster in the dark

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Your biggest assumption is that the Flames would have that info available at a moments notice to make that decision, when we know they don’t. It’s hard enough to figure out if interference even existed, much less crunch those numbers. Especially when there wasn’t any obvious interference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, I'm thinking "I don't see obvious interference, though who knows these days. We're in Toronto, the call on the ice is goal, we've been outplayed and are lucky to be tied, we've played with fire on penalties, and there's a fair bit of time left for a power play to kill us.

One thing no one has mentioned - you didn't have Rittich screaming about interference, and if he was, maybe you challenge to back him up. He did turn right after the goal call but maybe to complain about no whistle, but he sure didn't act like he was cheated.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by transplant99

See,,,this i dont get.

You want the team to do well in playoffs right? And you want an experienced coach to do that......have you seen Boudreaus playoff record? It aint pretty.

I put way more faith in the bigger sample sizes. Playoffs are a bit of a crap shoot and goaltending and luck play a huge factor. I don't think it was anything that Boudreau was doing that was causing his teams to struggle in the playoffs.

Of coaches with over 600 games coached he has the second highest regular season win percentage to just Scotty Bowman with a .635 win percentage. More division titles and 100 point seasons as a coach than the Flames have in their entire history. Yeah I'd take that guy.

Not like any of those Washington, Anaheim, or Minnesota teams had immediate playoff success after he left.

Boudreau is a guy that would squeeze every last drop out of a team over the longer sample size of multiple regular seasons, tends to win division titles, and puts up 100 point seasons. I put more faith in that than a guy that got lucky and had a good playoff run one time (Gallant for example).

He had a history of #### goaltending and bad luck in Game 7 in the playoffs too.

Washington
2007-2008: Round 1 - Lost in Game 7; .905 Save Percentage
2008-2009: Round 2 - Lost in Game 7; .895 Save Percentage in Round 2
2009-2010: Round 1 - Lost in Game 7; .897 Save Percentage
2010-2011: Round 2 - Lost in Game 4; .856 Save Percentage in Round 2

Anaheim
2012-2013: Round 1 - Lost in Game 7; .916 Save Percentage
2013-2014: Round 2 - Lost in Game 7; .908 Save Percentage in Round 2
2014-2015: Round 3 - Lost in Game 7; .897 Save Percentage in Round 3
2015-2016: Round 1 - Lost in Game 7; .928 Save Percentage

Minnesota
2016-2017: Round 1 - Lost in 5; .918 Save Percentage (But 4.4% shooting percentage.
2017-2018: Round 1 Lost in 5; .904 Save Percentage

Change one of those Game 7's to a win and suddenly it changes his whole career narrative potentially. Such a fine line between winning and losing in the playoffs.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I put way more faith in the bigger sample sizes. Playoffs are a bit of a crap shoot and goaltending and luck play a huge factor. I don't think it was anything that Boudreau was doing that was causing his teams to struggle in the playoffs.

Of coaches with over 600 games coached he has the second highest regular season win percentage to just Scotty Bowman with a .635 win percentage. More division titles and 100 point seasons as a coach than the Flames have in their entire history. Yeah I'd take that guy.

Not like any of those Washington, Anaheim, or Minnesota teams had immediate playoff success after he left.

Boudreau is a guy that would squeeze every last drop out of a team over the longer sample size of multiple regular seasons, tends to win division titles, and puts up 100 point seasons. I put more faith in that than a guy that got lucky and had a good playoff run one time (Gallant for example).

It's funny though - I totally agree with you about PO success being a crap shoot. But lack of PO success when the team made the POs fairly handily under Peters and GG's first year, and under Ward, were huge complaints here.

How about a guy who's won a cup, made the finals two other times (once with another team) and only missed the POs twice out of 17 years and 3 teams (the only two years he won less than .578%)?

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I have no idea how fans measure a players commitment. Is Lindholm committed? Monahan? How can you tell? Valimaki? What about Rittich?

I think some of it is code for Gaudreau doesn’t eat vegetables.

Appreciate you minimizing my opinions. Good stuff.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by theinfinitejar

Commitment is hard to do but famously easy to evaluate through the television in a few hours a week.

My opinion is just as valid as yours when trying to evaluate the coach.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

So my answer is a bit of a long one, but pretty darn simple. I will use data from the past couple of decades which may help. And this data shows pretty easily that coaches impact player performance

Without even elaborating on the strengths, weaknesses, and the general objectives of each coach, I will lay out the data of Iggy, Kipper, the coach, and whether or not they made the playoffs

Coaches make a big difference between potential and actual achievement, individual and collective. Living in Calgary, we have seen a number of coaches of various styles, with other variables remaining constant

Look at Iginla’s point achievements. He emerged as a force in 2001-02, winning the Art Ross and Rocket Richard. Basically a premiere power forward in the conversation for best player in the game

Subsequently, point totals under various head coaches varied.
Also, let’s add in Kipper’s stats, and group by playoff and non playoff years

Playoff years
2003-04: Iggy: 73 pts, Kipper: 1.70, .933
2005-06: Iggy: 67 pts, Kipper: 2.07, .923
2006-07: Playfair: Iggy: 94 pts, Kipper: 2.46, .917
2007-08: Keenan: Iggy: 98 pts, Kipper: 2.69, .906
2008-09: Keenan: Iggy: 89 pts, Kipper: 2.84, .903

Non playoff years
2009-10: Brent: Iggy: 69 pts, Kipper: 2.31, .920
2010-11: Brent: Iggy: 86 pts, Kipper: 2.63, .906
2011-12: Brent: Iggy: 67 points, Kipper: 2.35, .921

2012-13: Hartley: Iggy: 22 points in 31 games, traded . Kipper: “#### this”


It’s really pretty much crystal clear.

The “it’s the players, not the coach” position you are trying to bring forward with false equivalency loses.

Same thing. You are interpreting the data in a manner that fits your argument as opposed to considering, objectively, other factors.

It isn't crystal clear. Not at all. WAY too many factors in play that impact player performance.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Yeah, I'm thinking "I don't see obvious interference, though who knows these days. We're in Toronto, the call on the ice is goal, we've been outplayed and are lucky to be tied, we've played with fire on penalties, and there's a fair bit of time left for a power play to kill us.

One thing no one has mentioned - you didn't have Rittich screaming about interference, and if he was, maybe you challenge to back him up. He did turn right after the goal call but maybe to complain about no whistle, but he sure didn't act like he was cheated.

I'm obviously no Ward fan, but there is no way you challenge that goal, that's a great way to lose the game in regulation.

No coach in this league has a handle on goalie interference unless it's incredibly obvious.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by theinfinitejar

Ok, but one hypothesis is much easier to test first.

We've done it already. More than once. So no thanks on going that route again.

A roster like this can go a long way if the players are willing to put on their boots and work for it. This team only has a handful of players willing to pay the price consistently enough. When they don't, you get what we're seeing now and what we've been seeing for most of the last 2 seasons.

The onus is on the players, but the blame should be partly on Tre for thinking this could be different the third time around.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Same thing. You are interpreting the data in a manner that fits your argument as opposed to considering, objectively, other factors.

It isn't crystal clear. Not at all. WAY too many factors in play that impact player performance.

Throwing away the forest for the trees?

Year after year, exactly what you see from the coach’s philosophy and style of play lines up with how those players end up performing. Data and observations agree.

And every year, I have had conversations about each of these things.
“No, Kipper hasn’t lost his game, Keenan is allowing too many high danger situations.” Brent comes in, shores up the D game, and Kipper is back to normal - above average.

I was right then and I’m right now. :-)

People pull out analytics to support, people analyze the play, we talk about other teams, there are people that give video breakdowns of systemic shortcomings, people in the industry like Versteeg and Button throw in their 2 cents. Sometimes the thing in front of your face is actually just what it looks like.

We clearly will never see exactly eye to eye and that’s fine.

You can always throw out some statement that places your burden of proof beyond what anybody could practically be bothered to invest time in. Maybe it was the use of the word crystal?


Anyways I stand by my main hypothesis which is that there is a psychological convenience in not placing primary blame on the coaching because it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed, and accepting or resigning yourself to the resultant inevitable hopelessness is not comfortable.

[GioforPM]

“Anyways I stand by my main hypothesis which is that there is a psychological convenience in not placing primary blame on the coaching because it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed, and accepting or resigning yourself to the resultant inevitable hopelessness is not comfortable.”

I think the other conclusion is way more convenient - that this core is just fine and all they need is the right coach. That’s a far easier thing for a fan to swallow, as opposed to “my team just isn’t very good”.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

“Anyways I stand by my main hypothesis which is that there is a psychological convenience in not placing primary blame on the coaching because it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed, and accepting or resigning yourself to the resultant inevitable hopelessness is not comfortable.”

I think the other conclusion is way more convenient - that this core is just fine and all they need is the right coach. That’s a far easier thing for a fan to swallow, as opposed to “my team just isn’t very good”.

But it is!

Haha


But seriously, look at that post with career points per game by the new additions compared to here. You think it’s Johnny and Monahan, or Lindholm and Tkachuk, who play on different lines from them, that are torpedoing their stats?

Yeah. Gotta look at the coaches

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

“Anyways I stand by my main hypothesis which is that there is a psychological convenience in not placing primary blame on the coaching because it is exceedingly unlikely to be changed, and accepting or resigning yourself to the resultant inevitable hopelessness is not comfortable.”

I think the other conclusion is way more convenient - that this core is just fine and all they need is the right coach. That’s a far easier thing for a fan to swallow, as opposed to “my team just isn’t very good”.

What leads you to believe that fans think this? It's a false dichotomy and an empty narrative.

Almost no one is saying that team is perfect as is and all they need is a coach. What many people are saying is that the team is better than what we are seeing - and it is a quick and easy change to potentially improving things. And you never know - maybe it improves things substantially. When you have a goalie as good as Markstrom - give the team a chance.

[Jiri Hrdina]

As I said before, there is data to support both positions.
I'm not saying I'm right or wrong. I've stated I don't like the coach or the players.
But to say that the data ONLY supports your conclusion (my words not yours) is being very narrow about it.

Particularly with THIS roster there is evidence that would suggest that more often than not - they are the mediocre team we've seen, and that the elite team that showed up for a period - was the blip and the exception.

[Inglewood Jack]

how about putting it this way...this roster is not good enough to overcome below average coaching by talent or determination alone. this roster has also not been given the opportunity to work with a high profile NHL coach with a proven track record. it's always been somebody who has come in with little/no prior HC experience, and/or no HC employment after firing.

is it bad that I just want to know which it is with this core for certain? I promise that if they fail under a Boudreau or Gallant, I will go grab the matches for the stake burning.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If they have the money and a candidate they like ... by all means fire Geoff Ward. I'm honestly not a fan.

But I think we'd see soon after that either they hired a "bad" coach again, or that the roster itself isn't good enough.

I think both the coaching and the roster needs a change.

You may very well be right, and if you are, then I would think it would be the best course of action to make the coaching change now (if they have a strong candidate at least).



The new coach can come in and start massaging his system onto the roster, and provide more feedback to Treliving about which players need to go, which are expendable, and which should be re-signed.


I can't help but remember when Darryl Sutter seemed to have that 'pulse' on the team, and the roster changes that he would make while he had both the GM and Coach caps on seemed like 'just what the team needed'. The longer he was away from the coaching side of things, the less his moves seemed to help.


Still time left in this season to make a switch - by all means Ward can perhaps turn this around yet. The most important part of this is to find a coach that is right for as much of this team as possible, and work on the roster starting at the deadline and then into the off-season.


I guess the counter-argument is that if Treliving doesn't like any of coach available now, then there is not much point in making the move until he finds a suitable replacement (or one at least becomes available).


I just hate wasting this core's years away, and having this constant debate of "Is it the players, or the coach, or both?".



In my opinion, up until now, coaching has been part of the problem, and it makes fixing the roster (outside of the obvious necessity of Markstrom and finding a replacement for Brodie and Hamonic) seem almost like pure guesswork.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Meh, only partially. It's like saying you've tried changing the oil but you never actually used fresh oil or a new filter.

But i agree that the problem is both in the coaching and the players. It's actually throughout the organization. There's a culture of "this is the way it is"

Fun Fact: My father in law bought a brand new car and never changed the Oil filter because he said its a scam. Car has 350,000 Kms and the original oil filter...no joke I went under and checked lol. He does change the oil itself religiously.

[browntrout]

Although I primarily believe the key issues is the roster, Hartley, gully, Peter's and now Ward have all failed, would a coaching change help, it might. Looking historically it probably won't help. Having said that ownership is not going to fire Ward. I think this is the first season we see some heat on the GM. Is it fair, probably not.

In the end I just think that the players the GM inherited have run their course, and have shown us they are not good enough to contend. IMO you will see big changes this offseason even if we make the playoff and are a quick exit

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Fun Fact: My father in law bought a brand new car and never change the Oil filter because he said its a scam. Car has 350,000 Kms and the original oil filter...no joke I went under and checked lol

Toyota perchance?