Closing the Book on 2017-18

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Gulutzan plays solely to get high Corsi, and the expected result was to win games from that. The Flames under Gulutzan had great possession numbers, the problem is the chances generated were quite low chance shots with teams able to prepare for a very predictable Flames offense. I can bet you that by the end of the year the number of blocked shots against with Peters should be lower than under Gulutzan.

Peters so far, while he does obviously play a possession game, also strives for quick turnovers and activates Defense a lot to get an advantage. How many times have you see a D to D pass to start a rush with Peters? You never see it unless it's to get out of danger. Under Gulutzan you would always see a D to D pass, and all 5 man moving as a unit. It made the Flames get great Corsi, but be a so called 'unlucky' team.

The Flames last year were one of the most boring teams I have ever seen, and the worst part is they were a boring losing team. Each missed assignment would turn into a 2 on 1 or poor defensive coverage, all of a sudden it's 4-1 despite the Flames playing 'good hockey' and outshooting their opponent by 10 shots.

That's why advanced stats are pure garbage. Good Corsi is a result of playing good hockey, it is not the reason.

That's not true. I'm pretty confident he wanted to win. Does he believe possession stats disclose winning practices? Sure.

GG coached a system that the majority of the coaches in this league, including the highly thought of ones like Babcock and Cooper, employ. IMO his downfall was (a) he didn't have quite the personnel to execute it properly; (b) he lacked the ability to motivate the men to do it properly; (c) he failed to tinker with the plan enough when it wasn't working mid game.

[Locke]

Thank God Glen Gulutzan is gone.

I never thought I'd find a coach I disliked more than Brent Sutter.....yet here we are.

[Monahan For Mayor]

@Flash Waken

Hartleys flames were extremely under taleneted, much worse then gulutzans. Yet they were extremely fun to watch. Gulutzan hockey was just boring.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Gulutzan plays solely to get high Corsi, and the expected result was to win games from that. The Flames under Gulutzan had great possession numbers, the problem is the chances generated were quite low chance shots with teams able to prepare for a very predictable Flames offense. I can bet you that by the end of the year the number of blocked shots against with Peters should be lower than under Gulutzan.

Peters so far, while he does obviously play a possession game, also strives for quick turnovers and activates Defense a lot to get an advantage. How many times have you see a D to D pass to start a rush with Peters? You never see it unless it's to get out of danger. Under Gulutzan you would always see a D to D pass, and all 5 man moving as a unit. It made the Flames get great Corsi, but be a so called 'unlucky' team.

The Flames last year were one of the most boring teams I have ever seen, and the worst part is they were a boring losing team. Each missed assignment would turn into a 2 on 1 or poor defensive coverage, all of a sudden it's 4-1 despite the Flames playing 'good hockey' and outshooting their opponent by 10 shots.

That's why advanced stats are pure garbage. Good Corsi is a result of playing good hockey, it is not the reason.

Yeah the numbers above don't support that at all.

You don't run up high counts for high and medium shot attempts and shots without actually having a lot of high and medium danger shot attempts and shots.

They didn't go in enough, for sure.

The team led the league in missing the net, and maybe they were too tight and couldn't finish.

But they didn't play for corsi with a bunch of low danger shot attempts.

[bigpete]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

The stats sure don't match the eye test. I stopped watching out of boredom around game 60. When I was watching we didn't look very dangerous most nights.

I agree. I remember a lot of games being snorefests last year. I had to think hard after the game to try and remember if they had more than 2 or 3 high danger chances throughout the whole game.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Monahan For Mayor

@Flash Waken

Hartleys flames were extremely under taleneted, much worse then gulutzans. Yet they were extremely fun to watch. Gulutzan hockey was just boring.

Imo, 1 season of Hartley was fun to watch, but I don't think I turned off more games as a fan than I did during his tenure.

Gulutzan last season was close though.

[jammies]

Bingo still trying to prove it wasn't the coach and his terrible, stats-focused system.So the "data" doesn't match up with the poor record? Well - the data is wrong, GG should have been fired while there was still a chance to salvage the season, and advanced statistics are useless noise.

[GranteedEV]

We need so more info to really "close the book". Goalie have to slide across or just hold position? Were shots high or low or midsection? Were shots shortside or farside? How much time was there to release before the shot was taken? Was the shot a collect and wrister or a one-time slapper?

[stone hands]

Hartley exciting brand of hockey lasted exactly one and a half miracle seasons on the back of a norris level Brodie and gio and unsustainable 3rd period comebacks

People seem to forget the rest of his tenure, which mainly featured the flames finishing poor enough to draft the likes of Monahan, Bennett and tkachuk around one freak playoff appearance against the actual best possible playoff opponent they could have drawn

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That's not true. I'm pretty confident he wanted to win. Does he believe possession stats disclose winning practices? Sure.

GG coached a system that the majority of the coaches in this league, including the highly thought of ones like Babcock and Cooper, employ. IMO his downfall was (a) he didn't have quite the personnel to execute it properly; (b) he lacked the ability to motivate the men to do it properly; (c) he failed to tinker with the plan enough when it wasn't working mid game.

Of course it's true. Gulutzan coached to grab high Corsi. Nobody has said he didn't want to win. Of course he did. But his systems and style impeded success none the less. In part because he is the kind of coach who thinks that a stat designed to measure workload for a goaltender was the unquestioned path to success. And he was wrong.

As for reasons why he's done here, you can add (d) his system was slow as hell and boring as heck. It lulled everybody except the opposition defence into boredom. Actually, I'm sure they were pretty bored too, given how predictable we were. Primarily because of point (c).

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Hartley exciting brand of hockey lasted exactly one and a half miracle seasons on the back of a norris level Brodie and gio and unsustainable 3rd period comebacks

People seem to forget the rest of his tenure, which mainly featured the flames finishing poor enough to draft the likes of Monahan, Bennett and tkachuk around one freak playoff appearance against the actual best possible playoff opponent they could have drawn

The Monahan draft can't be pinned on him. No Training Camp as a new coach in a lockout shortened season. Full roster overhaul with Kipper, Bouwmeester and Iginla gone by season's end. Even then he got the only Flames play out of JBo that looked like the JBo we thought we were originally getting.

Bennett draft, we went into the season expecting to pick first and he had the team playing exciting competitive in the second half.

playoffs year, speaks for itself. Imagine if Gio was healthy. Gio / Brodie being Norris level was his machination as he gave them a green light to utilize their talent.

Post-playoff year, Brodie missed the first few weeks which put them behind the eightball recordwise especially with Hamilton's slow transition into his system. Clawed back into a playoff spot by December and played exciting hockey including the longest home win streak in franchise history. Were on a 3 game win streak when Ramo went down for good and Hiller cost them the season against an otherwise easy schedule. Became sellers at the deadline (=Dube/Parsons/Phillips) and still finished 11th in goal scoring. Hartley's PK deserves some serious blame but not his overall strategy. Even the possession argument a bit overstated as they were a +50% corsi team as the season wound down (post Russell trade).

[Monahan For Mayor]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Imo, 1 season of Hartley was fun to watch, but I don't think I turned off more games as a fan than I did during his tenure.

Gulutzan last season was close though.

Fair enough. Gulutzan had me not even turning the games on.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jammies

Bingo still trying to prove it wasn't the coach and his terrible, stats-focused system.So the "data" doesn't match up with the poor record? Well - the data is wrong, GG should have been fired while there was still a chance to salvage the season, and advanced statistics are useless noise.

Ok man ... keep your head in the sand then. I'm fine with that.

Still trying to prove
Data is wrong
useless noise

Sounds like you are open to new ideas for sure!

To me this has been interesting. I've changed my opinion on a pile of these stats through healthy debate about what is and isn't good information. We went from corsi to chance splits, debating what those are. Now new information is out that really breaks things down.

As I've said 100 times, this isn't bringing in models with wild assumptions and tricky math. It's counting occurences of events. If the masses want to say they were a perimeter team that was trying to out corsi everyone, the numbers don't show that.

You can either take that in, or bury your head. Seems like you've made up your mind.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

We need so more info to really "close the book". Goalie have to slide across or just hold position? Were shots high or low or midsection? Were shots shortside or farside? How much time was there to release before the shot was taken? Was the shot a collect and wrister or a one-time slapper?

I mean close the book as in last time I bring up last year I promise, not as in this is all the information to make a definitive claim one way or the other.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Of course it's true. Gulutzan coached to grab high Corsi. Nobody has said he didn't want to win. Of course he did. But his systems and style impeded success none the less. In part because he is the kind of coach who thinks that a stat designed to measure workload for a goaltender was the unquestioned path to success. And he was wrong.

As for reasons why he's done here, you can add (d) his system was slow as hell and boring as heck. It lulled everybody except the opposition defence into boredom. Actually, I'm sure they were pretty bored too, given how predictable we were. Primarily because of point (c).

I think the reason he's done here is less about the system, though I do think they play a faster brand of hockey now, and more about bench management, and specifically managing the psyche of a young hockey team.

Treliving alluded to that in the off season, and we've certainly seen the difference with Peters and his reactions to a) the team not playing well b) the other team playing well and c) not getting the calls you think you deserve.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Still trying to prove
Data is wrong
useless noise

That's a terrible haiku.

[nik-]

I mean when the data doesn't correlate to the results over a season, who cares if it's "right" or "wrong" because it's clearly not important.

These stats are quickly becoming something for fans to clutch to to make themselves feel better because their team is "really not as bad as the standings show". In the end, it's just the equivalent of a bottle of whiskey when you break up with your girlfriend. Makes you feel better, but it's not doing anything real for you.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Ok man ... keep your head in the sand then. I'm fine with that.

Still trying to prove
Data is wrong
useless noise

Sounds like you are open to new ideas for sure!

To me this has been interesting. I've changed my opinion on a pile of these stats through healthy debate about what is and isn't good information. We went from corsi to chance splits, debating what those are. Now new information is out that really breaks things down.

As I've said 100 times, this isn't bringing in models with wild assumptions and tricky math. It's counting occurences of events. If the masses want to say they were a perimeter team that was trying to out corsi everyone, the numbers don't show that.

You can either take that in, or bury your head. Seems like you've made up your mind.

Hes right though.

Glen Gulutzan should have been fired while there was still hope. You can quote the stats I suppose but the writing was on the wall, you could clearly see that he was not 'the guy.'

Edmonton hired him. Edmonton. The Oilers. Need I say more?

He was useless. He was actually worse than useless he was actively detrimental.

I find it strange that you point at the stats as some form of vindication.



Apparently we were a good team and Ol' Gul was a good coach but we just didnt win enough?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hes right though.

Glen Gulutzan should have been fired while there was still hope. You can quote the stats I suppose but the writing was on the wall, you could clearly see that he was not 'the guy.'

Edmonton hired him. Edmonton. The Oilers. Need I say more?

He was useless. He was actually worse than useless he was actively detrimental.

I find it strange that you point at the stats as some form of vindication.



Apparently we were a good team and Ol' Gul was a good coach but we just didnt win enough?

Not sure I'm pointing to stats for vindication.

It was a long debate on this site with many pointing to the lack of clarity around certain stats as an issue in getting to an answer. A recent change to those stats bring clarity.

Where am I suggesting Gulutzan shouldn't have been fired?

But attacking the stats or suggesting they are noise is silly.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Imo, 1 season of Hartley was fun to watch

More or less. The Find-A-Way Flames were a combination of luck and a lag on oppo pro-scouts countering his system (which I'll loosely describe as "activate the D/stretch pass/block shot"). Once their shooting % went back to earth and other NHL teams got wise to him he didn't adjust and the team went from fun to agonizingly frustrating.

I don't know what Gulutzan would have done with the Forward Core we have now but I'm fairly certain he'd screw up the D because of his obsession with R/L balance (and now lack of Dougie) and I'm pretty sure we'd still be seeing Cameron's impotent powerplay.