[News] UPD: Geoff Ward officially named the franchise's 20th head coach (2 year deal)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by blender

And, perhaps more importantly, throwing the puck at the net doesn't necessarily equal winning hockey.

Now you've swung it too far the other way.

The only stat that refers to "Just throwing the puck at the net" is shot attempts or corsi.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I certainly think that is how Treliving wants to frame it. And with this ownership group and the Canadian market added pressure to be playing in tbe playoffs he may have a pretty good case. If I were Treliving I would definitely be preaching patience over the long run, and drawing from examples like Poile in contrast to the endless management debacle in Edmonton and Florida.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

The disturbing trend with Treliving is that he seems to be so sure he's got what this team needs in a coach each and every time he hires, while never legitimately considering anyone who is viewed as high-level or elite.

At some point this process he has in place needs to be evaluated as 3 very different coaching hires have all achieved very similar results. Do I think Ward is a bad hire, no. Is he a great hire, no. Do I think a coach is going to cure what ales this group, even if you hire Gallant or Laviolette et al, no.

For me, this team is doomed to be good, not great, until it upgrades it center ice skill substantially and finds stability in net. If Treliving doesn't do this before the next season begins, he's doing a complete disservice to Ward and the entire team by not giving the group a real chance to take the next step.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I like advanced stats, and think they can show some insights and help analyze the performance of players within a team over a long sample size or over the course of a season, but the one thing I think advanced stats truly show is just how close the NHL actually is, and that in small sample sizes (which a 5/7 game series is) it's really a toss up.

For example over the last two seasons (152 games) the best team in CF% is 54.6% and the worst team is 46.2%. And over the course of 152 games that is a big difference but in a single game (or even 7 games) the difference is negligible.

On average there are 110 shot attempts per game - which means that if those two teams play each other the "best team" shot attempts are 59 shots and the worst team would have 51 shots. So that works out to 8 shot attempts over the course of a whole game. That probably translates to about 2 shots on goal more for the "best team" over the "worst team".

So in one game or even a sample of 5 games it's not going make a big difference, because goaltending/shooting percentage/special teams is going to drive a much larger variance in that single game.

Doesn't mean advanced stats are bad or useless, just means that like any statistic the variance in a small sample size is going be drastic. And really a 7 game series is a small sample size.

Thanks for this - I have been meaning to get around to posting something similar. But it isn't just small sample sizes that need to be considered here.

You listed the top and bottom teams for CF stats, but they don't play each other very often, so let's look at an 'average good team' and an 'average bad team' (and assume their numbers are 52% vs 48%). The argument for CF is that, over time, the 52% team will perform significantly better than the 48% team.

But going back to your example, the expected shot attempts for those two teams would be 57 vs 53, on average. Should we expect the team making 57 attempts per game to have more success than the team making 53 shot attempts?

All else equal, yes. But there's the rub. All else is not equal. Quality of offense, quality of shot attempts, quality of defensive coverage, and quality of goaltending are not equal.

Are they equal enough to still expect the team with more attempts to be more successful? That is the 64,000 dollar question. And the answer is 'sometimes'.

IF (and that is a big if) teams are relatively equal in those qualitative metrics, then the shot attempts will rule the day, over time. However, are they equal enough, often enough for us to make any valid assessments as to whether the shot attempts are predictive?

IMO, the answer to that is no. They are valid enough to give us data that shows a positive correlation with winning. However, that data is not strong enough, and consistent enough, to filter out quality of competition. A better goalie, for instance, would largely offset the expected shot attempt differential (and that is just one variable).

So we are left with correlative data that gets misinterpreted as predictive data.

And that's the problem. There is nothing wrong with the data. The problem is that we cannot isolate it enough to draw consistently valid conclusions. And yet, people do, because they assume that stats are in fact predictive.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thanks for this - I have been meaning to get around to posting something similar. But it isn't just small sample sizes that need to be considered here.

You listed the top and bottom teams for CF stats, but they don't play each other very often, so let's look at an 'average good team' and an 'average bad team' (and assume their numbers are 52% vs 48%). The argument for CF is that, over time, the 52% team will perform significantly better than the 48% team.

But going back to your example, the expected shot attempts for those two teams would be 57 vs 53, on average. Should we expect the team making 57 attempts per game to have more success than the team making 53 shot attempts?

All else equal, yes. But there's the rub. All else is not equal. Quality of offense, quality of shot attempts, quality of defensive coverage, and quality of goaltending are not equal.

Are they equal enough to still expect the team with more attempts to be more successful? That is the 64,000 dollar question. And the answer is 'sometimes'.

IF (and that is a big if) teams are relatively equal in those qualitative metrics, then the shot attempts will rule the day, over time. However, are they equal enough, often enough for us to make any valid assessments as to whether the shot attempts are predictive?

IMO, the answer to that is no. They are valid enough to give us data that shows a positive correlation with winning. However, that data is not strong enough, and consistent enough, to filter out quality of competition. A better goalie, for instance, would largely offset the expected shot attempt differential (and that is just one variable).

So we are left with correlative data that gets misinterpreted as predictive data.

And that's the problem. There is nothing wrong with the data. The problem is that we cannot isolate it enough to draw consistently valid conclusions. And yet, people do, because they assume that stats are in fact predictive.

Agree with all of that for sure.

Would add though that shot attempts really isn't the stat to hang your hat on with the advances in quality added to xGF and xGA etc.

And for sure it's not predictive, but that doesn't make the history with a decent sample size important, because "all other things held equal" is a decent way to start looking at things going forward.

If a hockey team consistently gets out played you should be concerned as a team or a fan. Won't mean you can predict the next loss, but you certainly can't be happy either relying on a goaltender night in and night out or a shooting percentage from your skaters that isn't sustainable versus historical averages.

So agree ... all stats have to be taken with a grain of salt as the past doesn't equal the future in anything. But if a team like Vancouver over states their playoff success based on the game results and game scores and ignores the fact that they were almost run out of the building it's at their own peril, especially since said playoff metrics were pretty close to the regular season.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agree with all of that for sure.

Would add though that shot attempts really isn't the stat to hang your hat on with the advances in quality added to xGF and xGA etc.

And for sure it's not predictive, but that doesn't make the history with a decent sample size important, because "all other things held equal" is a decent way to start looking at things going forward.

If a hockey team consistently gets out played you should be concerned as a team or a fan. Won't mean you can predict the next loss, but you certainly can't be happy either relying on a goaltender night in and night out or a shooting percentage from your skaters that isn't sustainable versus historical averages.

So agree ... all stats have to be taken with a grain of salt as the past doesn't equal the future in anything. But if a team like Vancouver over states their playoff success based on the game results and game scores and ignores the fact that they were almost run out of the building it's at their own peril, especially since said playoff metrics were pretty close to the regular season.

I was referring to them all aggregately. These are no different, they just further catagorize shot attempts by zone. Of course a high danger shot is more likely to result in a goal than a non-high danger shot. But the arguments I made about quality apply equally when looking at HD shots vs HD shots as they do when comparing non HD shots to non HD shots..

[Azure]

One does wonder if more stock was put into Ward's ability to get the team into the playoffs, and less on how he performed in the playoffs.

Hasn't that been said before about how ownership looks at the team?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Azure

One does wonder if more stock was put into Ward's ability to get the team into the playoffs, and less on how he performed in the playoffs.

Hasn't that been said before about how ownership looks at the team?

Lots has been said about how ownership views the team - that doesn't mean any of of it is accurate.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I was referring to them all aggregately. These are no different, they just further catagorize shot attempts by zone. Of course a high danger shot is more likely to result in a goal than a non-high danger shot. But the arguments I made about quality apply equally when looking at HD shots vs HD shots as they do when comparing non HD shots to non HD shots..

Not quite.

a shot attempt is very similar to a scoring chance, but the scoring chance occurs in the home plate zone.

A high danger chance is in the home plate zone, but occurs off a pass, deflection or rebound which is considerably more dangerous and a better stat for looking at chances to score.

So a stat like xGF is better by a good margin than shot attempts because it does bring quality and location into play.

[Canadianman]

This reaffirms my decision 13 years ago to not give the Flames a single penny of my money (tax dollars notwithstanding)

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not quite.

a shot attempt is very similar to a scoring chance, but the scoring chance occurs in the home plate zone.

A high danger chance is in the home plate zone, but occurs off a pass, deflection or rebound which is considerably more dangerous and a better stat for looking at chances to score.

So a stat like xGF is better by a good margin than shot attempts because it does bring quality and location into play.

You missed my point.

A high danger chance occurs off a pass or deflection or rebound, but it is still subject to quality. Some teams will do a better job of rushing or pressuring those opportunities than others will.

More tightly defining the chances does nothing for accounting for the quality differentials within those definitions.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Canadianman

This reaffirms my decision 13 years ago to not give the Flames a single penny of my money (tax dollars notwithstanding)

You send your tax dollars to the Flames?

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

You send your tax dollars to the Flames?

I assume the poster was alluding to the arena deal

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You missed my point.

A high danger chance occurs off a pass or deflection or rebound, but it is still subject to quality. Some teams will do a better job of rushing or pressuring those opportunities than others will.

More tightly defining the chances does nothing for accounting for the quality differentials within those definitions.

I would agree there is more road to travel in defining the quality between high danger events for sure.

But I wouldn't say "does nothing" as it certainly does something in a) reducing a shot attempt from anywhere to a dangerous position on the ice, and then b) further reducing those by adding the entry point to the high danger shot being more dangerous than just skating it into home plate and letting it go with the goalie set.

[Nelson]

Geoff Ward was interviewed on the 2-man advantage podcast today.

[Vox]

Nm

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

I assume the poster was alluding to the arena deal

It would be funny if for several years Canadianman has been sending his CRA cheques to the Saddledome for some reason. Probably less funny for him.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Azure

One does wonder if more stock was put into Ward's ability to get the team into the playoffs, and less on how he performed in the playoffs...

It is such a weird year, though: in which "getting into the playoffs" required a tight performance in a playoff-style tournament. I was very impressed by how Ward coached in the play-in, and for portions of the first Round. The radio guys have said a few times over the past couple of days that he had the Flames playing a better, more effective brand of "playoff hockey" than any coach with this group, and I tend to agree. I don't really think Ward damaged his own cause in the playoffs—the goalie decision was poorly handled, and I didn't like how he lined the team up for the final minute of Game #4, but otherwise he handled things pretty well all things considered.

[zamler]

Best available option just happened be be the assistant that was accidentally promoted to head coach. Nice run of good luck.

[timbit]

They hired the coach who knows more about the inner workings and capabilities of each player on the roster than any other available candidate. Relationship building and mutual trust between coach and player is what makes a good to great coach in this era. The coach’s leadership when communicated properly and accepted and spread by the players to each other is what builds a winner.

Fans have no accurate assessment of his leadership skills because we do not see or hear his day to day interaction with the players off the ice or on the bench. Based on a few players reactions to the hiring , Ward seems to be well respected.

Treliving weighed the other options and was sold on Ward and his ability to lead the team to success. You either trust in his decision or not, but certainly you can see his rationale in hiring him. He didn’t want to start from scratch when he believed he had a strong leader who knows the players and what makes them tick.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by zamler

Best available option just happened be be the assistant that was accidentally promoted to head coach. Nice run of good luck.

Well the other options were guys who did worse with their teams last year and got fired or who never had jobs last season

they are elite coaches because? media says so? they almost won that one time?