The impossible task, coaching and expectations

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Would you consider it more or less of an oversimplification than the "good coach, bad luck" argument offered up to defend Gulutzan?
.

Yes I would.
But that's also not the argument I've made.

[browna]

Motivation is the key at the pro level.

Players have to trust thier coach explicitly in all situations and buy in to the original pla, and trust thet he will do what it takes to get results, and those results have to be proven to be working.
That means buying into the system the coach lays out overall and then for specific teams. It means trusting thet the coach will make the moves when the plan breaks down, or player themselves deviate from the plan, or, push buttons of players to get more out of them, to keep it all together team wise and get results.


I don’t think the Flames roster as a whole trust the coaches anymore at 100%, Not a mutiny, but yeah, the loose term “lost the room”applies here. They get them prepared probably as well or better then they have before, but when things hit a snag with the plan itself in game or some bad luck or whatever, the coaches don’t appear nearly as prepared to deal with it, or, at best, certainly not as convincing of the plan to players as they are when laying out the inital plan. And after numerous occurrences of that happening over the course of a season or two, players start to also doubt if the original plans and ideas the coaches have are that effective.

And these coaches don’t appear to be able to push buttons within the game to get results.

Look, it took a dressing down, out of character for GG, with the train ride last year. It took a stick throw this season. It should never have to get to such single event extremes if you have an ability to motivate your team and each player on that team day to day/week to week etc.

Ultimately, when the players see thing going off the rails, and the coaches attempts to put things back on the rails both don’t appear thet convincing as a team game plan or is he able to properly get a guy to give him extra, and the results aren’t there, the players look to past results to predict future outcomes, and this coaching staff doesn’t have that to back them up either.

Vegas a great example. Gallant has laid his plan out, gotten complete buy in so that all 4lines are executing and wearing down the opponents 3 or 4 lines. Relentless forecheck and execution, over and over. Even though he has recent history as a good coach, as the results from his plan become evident after the first month, his players really do the full buy in and are motivated that they see that the coach does know what he’s talking about and trust him implicitly. Besides the solid game plan and execution, with that trust, when the coach changes the plan in a particular game, or pushes the buttons of the guy or guys to get more out, that is bought in 100% as well by the team and player due to the past success, and then the whole is greater then the sum of the parts, with no doubt in the room who the leader is.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Yes I would.
But that's also not the argument I've made.

Confused. Does yes mean more or less?

[SuperMatt18]

I think the coaching can be better but this does just feel like "one of those seasons" for this team where it's hard to pinpoint why they lose.

By all metrics this team outshoots, outchances, and outperforms their opponents but find themselves losing more than they win.

Usually its some combination of untimely goals, weird bounces (ex.two deflected point shots go top corner in 17 seconds last night), and mental lapses (ex. Frolik back pass) that do this team in.

I have a tough time blaming that all on the coach.

We have a top 5 team for Corsi % (Carolina, Boston, Calgary, Chicago, Pittsburgh), Top 5 in Scoring Chances For (Boston, Carolina, Calgary, Chicago, Tampa Bay), are in the top half of save percentage (14th).

So there are some good things going here - and that isn't all done in spite of the coach.

The biggest issue with the team this year is scoring goals - ES or PP this team just can't find the net and the risk is I'm not sure the coach can teach shooting talent.

From a pure shooting percentage perspective this team shoots pretty poorly:

5v5: 22nd 7.17% (Down from 16th and 7.60%)
PP: 24th 11.32% (Down from 11th last year at 13.61%)

So pretty big YoY decline at both ES and the PP but this is even worse when you look at it as a percentage of overall shot attempts. As a previous Bingo post mentioned this team has missed the net and flubbed chances at a remarkable rate this season.

When you look at goal as a % of total shot attempts:

5v5: 27th 3.66% (Down from 13th and 4.43% in 16-17)

League average is 4.13% This season. If they shot at even 4.0% that is 12 more Even Strength goals this season, if they shoot at last years 4.43% that is 26 more goals this season.

That is a crazy drop year to year for a team with similar coaching staff and most of the main forwards being the same.

It's the same story on the PP.

PP: 27th 5.75% (Down from 12th last year at 7.18%)

Once again if they shoot at the league average of 6.93% of shot attempts on the PP being goals that would mean 8 more PP goals. If the same roster would just match what they did last year then it's 10 more PP goals.

So the real question is why did this team forget how to shoot. The roster is mostly the same, the system is mostly the same, and the coaches are all the same but the shooting percentages have plummeted.

If they were even league average at shooting that is 20 more goals, if they have the exact same #s as last year that is 35 more goals.

Really that is the teams biggest problem at this point and I don't think it's the coach telling them to miss the net.

[Red]

Nothing personal SuperMatt18 but I long for the days when the % symbol will only be used for goalies and special team success rates.

Reading hockey posts has become such a mental exercise these days.
I don't know how we were able to keep the Oilers = No good thread without throwing some acronyms and % in the title.

[SuperMatt18]

Just to top up on the comparisons vs. Vegas.

ES: 4.68 % of ES shot attempts results in a goal (or a full percentage better than Calgary).

For comparison here are Gerard Gallant coached team's in Florida:

14/15: 4.10% (Missed Playoffs)
15/16: 5.11% (Won Division)
16/17: 3.70% (Fired)

So doesn't look like it's a "coach" driven thing.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Confused. Does yes mean more or less?

If someone is making an argument that is just good coach, bad luck, than I would agree that is an over simplification.
But I don't think that's the argument I've made.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Red

Nothing personal SuperMatt18 but I long for the days when the % symbol will only be used for goalies and special team success rates.

Reading hockey posts has become such a mental exercise these days.
I don't know how we were able to keep the Oilers = No good thread without throwing some acronyms and % in the title.

I'll summarize.

We probably shouldn't over react to a really poor shooting percentage.

Or else we might actually make a similar mistake to Florida in 16/17 when they fired Gallant after a horrible start and a season where they had a horrible shooting percentage.

[habernac]

Loved Gallant in Montreal as well. I knew it was inevitable that he'd leave unless he suddenly learned to speak French.

[Red]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'll summarize.

We probably shouldn't over react to a really poor shooting percentage.

Or else we might actually make a similar mistake to Florida in 16/17 when they fired Gallant after a horrible start and a season where they had a horrible shooting percentage.

I understand what you are saying. I just find the statistics talk a bit much in hockey talks. The moneyball stuff.
Miss the "simple" gooder players make gooder plays and get more of them goals conversations. Or how a guy X has this ability or that talent. Now it's all CF% this and HERO that.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I'll summarize.

We probably shouldn't over react to a really poor shooting percentage.

Or else we might actually make a similar mistake to Florida in 16/17 when they fired Gallant after a horrible start and a season where they had a horrible shooting percentage.

US thanksgiving has long since passed, this isn’t a bad start. Also Gallant had won the division.

Here we are at the point where they barely made the playoffs and gotten swept, and are now in the last quarter of the season.

One is more knee jerk than the other.

[I_H8_Crawford]

My issue is everyone who says it's just "bad luck" or what-have-you... here's GG's coaching record:

Team Year Regular season Postseason
G W L OTL Pts Finish Result
DAL 2011–12 82 42 35 5 89 4th in Pacific Missed playoffs
DAL 2012–13 48 22 22 4 48 5th in Pacific Missed playoffs
CGY 2016–17 82 45 33 4 94 4th in Pacific Lost in First Round (ANA)
Total 212 109 90 13 231

And with this year looking to be another .500 season and no playoffs, seems to be a trend, not just bad luck.

I like GG, and think he's a very good Xs and Os coach, but his in game management is awful, and has not seemed to improve much at all. He can't read players when they are going (or not), he rarely makes changes to his plan. For cripes sake, I heard a clip this past week on the Fan of Warrener calling out GG for overplaying his 4th line in the 3rd period when down (I was in Mexico so didnt see those losses)... we are 85%+ of the way through the season, and this guy STILL won't make adjustments.

Not to mention that things like putting your best Offensive D-man on your #1 PP unit takes 2/3s of the season, inability to put players on their off-wings on the PP, hell it hasn't been until recently that I've noticed GG is starting to double-shift Gaudreau...

Warrener on the Fan said it best... "at the end of the year, Glen can't say he rode his top guys, because he didn't"

[colbym72]

Originally Posted by I_H8_Crawford

My issue is everyone who says it's just "bad luck" or what-have-you... here's GG's coaching record:

Team Year Regular season Postseason
G W L OTL Pts Finish Result
DAL 2011–12 82 42 35 5 89 4th in Pacific Missed playoffs
DAL 2012–13 48 22 22 4 48 5th in Pacific Missed playoffs
CGY 2016–17 82 45 33 4 94 4th in Pacific Lost in First Round (ANA)
Total 212 109 90 13 231

And with this year looking to be another .500 season and no playoffs, seems to be a trend, not just bad luck.

I like GG, and think he's a very good Xs and Os coach, but his in game management is awful, and has not seemed to improve much at all. He can't read players when they are going (or not), he rarely makes changes to his plan. For cripes sake, I heard a clip this past week on the Fan of Warrener calling out GG for overplaying his 4th line in the 3rd period when down (I was in Mexico so didnt see those losses)... we are 85%+ of the way through the season, and this guy STILL won't make adjustments.

Not to mention that things like putting your best Offensive D-man on your #1 PP unit takes 2/3s of the season, inability to put players on their off-wings on the PP, hell it hasn't been until recently that I've noticed GG is starting to double-shift Gaudreau...

Warrener on the Fan said it best... "at the end of the year, Glen can't say he rode his top guys, because he didn't"

I am curious to know what would happen if Dougie and Gio got more minutes. Guys like Doughty who often you see playing in the high high 20s or even 30 some nights. Could they handle that?

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

US thanksgiving has long since passed, this isn’t a bad start. Also Gallant had won the division.

Here we are at the point where they barely made the playoffs and gotten swept, and are now in the last quarter of the season.

One is more knee jerk than the other.

True - one is more knee jerk.

But it doesn't change that in both scenarios you are blaming the coach for what really is something the coach doesn't fully impact.

Shooting percentage is what is doing this team in right now - and it's at ES and on the PP.

The team's style has some role to play here but even then it doesn't explain going from 4.43% to 3.66% with the same coaching staff and roster.

Those 10-12 goals would go a long way to this team being solidified in the top 3 in their division this season.

[I_H8_Crawford]

If one of us were to jump into a time machine, go back to September 2017 and say the following would happen for the Flames this year:

1) Gaudreau top-10 in NHL points
2) Monahan 30+ goals
3) Hamilton #1 Dman in scoring
4) Smith top-10 goalie
5) Flames miss playoffs

I think that poster would have been crucified for the last one... I don't think anyone would believe that having that many good things going on would lead to a non-playoff team.

This team IS less than the sum of its parts, and I do place that blame on GG. Now, if he is replaced, and the team still is mediocre results, it's time to look at blowing it up (again).

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Red

I understand what you are saying. I just find the statistics talk a bit much in hockey talks. The moneyball stuff.
Miss the "simple" gooder players make gooder plays and get more of them goals conversations. Or how a guy X has this ability or that talent. Now it's all CF% this and HERO that.

I think these stats just underlines that a bit. Clearly there is some type of coaching / talent related issue that means this team shoots at a terrible percentage

Think a big part of this problem is talent related, and another part is the fact that our d-men contribute an abnormal % of our shots.

Look at the individual percentages for players on this team.

Monahan: 8.06% (10.9% of Scoring Chances)
Ferland: 7.95% (11.86%)
Gaudreau 7.24% (12.03%)

Top line is pretty good.

Tkachuk: 5.91% (9.35%)
Backlund: 3.53% (6.30%)
Frolik: 2.91% (5.61%)

Second line has been pretty bad outside of Tkachuk.

Jankowski: 6.29% (9.09%)
Bennett: 4.55% (7.52%)
Hathaway: 2.13% (3.28%)

Third line Janko and Bennett have done alright but Hathaway has no talent.

Stajan: 4.88% (7.41%)
Brouwer: 4.42% (10.0%)
Lazar: 2.11% (3.08%)

Outside of Lazar who is snakebit and usually misses the net by 25 feet the fourth line has been fine at converting (they don't generate much though).

So then a big issue is our d-core taking a lot of shot attempts. Our d-men have combined for 1372 shot attempts and only Gio and Dougie are good at converting their scoring chances into goals.

Giordano: 2.36% (8.86%)
Hamilton: 2.07% (7.69%)
Kulak: 1.46% (6.45%)
Stone: 1.08% (4.65%)
Brodie: 1.02% (3.85%)
Hamonic: 0.46% (2.08%)

Really it's namely an issue for Backlund, Frolik, Lazar, Hathaway, Brodie, Hamonic, Stone.

They have combined for 23 goals on 503 scoring chances, an abysmal 4.57% rate of converting scoring chances (League average is 8.53%). 2 of those guys being 2/3 of our 2nd line and a line that's really good at creating scoring chances doesn't help.

So it's an issue for 4 forwards and most of our d-core. Part of that may be coaching though. Too many shots from our dcore at 5v5 in the offensive zone.

[Resolute 14]

Those shooting percentages are only half the equation though.

Player usage is the other half. And when you have a guy like Troy Brouwer, who generates half or less of the number of shot attempts as anyone in our top six by that metric and puts only about 40% as many shots on goal as those guys, one has to ask why he's getting 60-80% as many minutes as those guys.

For someone like Backlund and Frolik, those very low shooting percentages tell the story of those players individually. But for the lack of team success, it goes back to why players like Hathaway, Brouwer and Stajan are getting so much ice time at the expense of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Bennett, etc.

Our team shooting percentage is lower, in part, because Gulutzan overplays inferior players.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Those shooting percentages are only half the equation though.

Player usage is the other half. And when you have a guy like Troy Brouwer, who generates half or less of the number of shot attempts as anyone in our top six by that metric and puts only about 40% as many shots on goal as those guys, one has to ask why he's getting 60-80% as many minutes as those guys.

For someone like Backlund and Frolik, those very low shooting percentages tell the story of those players individually. But for the lack of team success, it goes back to why players like Hathaway, Brouwer and Stajan are getting so much ice time at the expense of Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan, Bennett, etc.

Our team shooting percentage is lower, in part, because Gulutzan overplays inferior players.

Don't disagree that usage could be better but that should show up in the overall numbers.

And the team is top 5 in scoring chance differential, and top 5 in Corsi differential. So it's not generating the chances that's the issue, it's finishing them. And among forwards the big culprits are Frolik, Backlund, Hathaway, & Lazar.

Really Hathaway is probably the only one of those 4 you can argue is playing too high up the lineup. Hell I'm not even arguing they shouldn't fire GG, I just think they should be careful before make sweeping changes to this team.

Get younger in the bottom 6, hope that 3M shooting talent bounces back, & replace Stone with Andersson. Do those for sure and only fire the coach if it's a proven winner like Quinville coming it. Don't fire GG for another young, unproven guy because my guess then is it wouldn't actually be an improvement.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by colbym72

[/B]

I am curious to know what would happen if Dougie and Gio got more minutes. Guys like Doughty who often you see playing in the high high 20s or even 30 some nights. Could they handle that?

When Warrener says that he's talking about the 3rd and 4th line getting regular shifts late into games where the team has been trailing and not necessarily the deployment of Dougie and Gio. It's pretty evident the morning guys are not a fan of this coach as they have been second guessing him all season. Warrener and Pinder seem to be expecting him to get a pink slip following the season.

[belsarius]

So just curious about this ice-time narrative. I used the top 12 ice-time per game for the Flames, the Preds and the Jets; both overall and 5v5. I didn't have time to do more but I would be interested if someone did. I used these teams as I think that's kind of the comparable teams the Flames are trying to build.

Calling the top 3 icetime line 1, etc, the Flames actually use their top end talent move than the other two teams and sit their fourth line more.

CGY NAS WPG
Line 1
OV 32% 30% 31%
EV 30% 27% 29%

Line 2
OV 28% 26% 27%
EV 28% 26% 26%

Line 3
OV 23% 25% 24%
EV 23% 25% 24%

Line 4
OV 18% 19% 19%
EV 20% 22% 21%

There isn't a whole lot of variation, and in today's NHL I wouldn't expect there to be. Individually there are some differences, Nashville didn't have a regular play under 9 mins while both Calgary and Winnipeg had one low man. Winnipeg is the only team with Forwards over 20 mins a game in Scheifele and Wheeler. But overall by the lines the Flames use their top 6 more than the others and rely on their 3rd line a lot less. 4th line is lowest but not by much.

If anything you could rationalize that GG uses players in wrong situations, but timing wise, at least using the Preds and the Jets, he is using his guns more and not relying on the bottom lines to carry the load.

Like I said if I had time to do more I would because it interests me how the eye-test actually matches the utilization. Maybe I'll update with more this evening.

EDIT - Bah formatting.. I will try to fix that later