The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Itse

In my limited experience, they do notably better than than corsi, and actually better than combined with corsi which was surprising.

I have not done in any way a statistically valid analysis, just toyed with them a little though. I encourage people to make their own experiments, especially since there's lots of ways to do this stuff.

The experience has made me personally highly sceptical of the usefulness of corsi for these predictions. I consider it to be like plus/minus for players; uninteresting / irrelevant on its own, but if you limit the context right and combine corsi with other information, it's a neat addition to what we already have.

It's not as good as zone starts, which is another stat that's started to gain attention at the same time as corsi. Zone starts puts a number on something that I at least have a really hard time tracking just by eyeballing it.

I'll stop with the thread derail after this but I checked last years standings to still better try and understand it all. The thing with using goal differential, and forgive me if I'm doing a bad job explaining this, is wining percentage is a dependent event. The team that scores more than it's opposition wins more. But since they're directly related it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. A few bounces can win you the game and it'll increase your goal differential at the same time.

I started by looking at the 5v5 CF%, Goal Differential and Actual standings at thanksgiving last year and compared them to the final standings at the end of the season. What I found for last year is that goal differential and the actual standings are in fact the best way at predicting the final standings. Goal differential was within 4.6 positions and the standings were withing 4.7. My standings are only ranked on points and don't include tie breakers at this moment so I'd call that difference statistically insignificant. Corsi however was off by 7.3 - far worse.

I then thought that it's not truly fair to use that as a predictor since the results to date, approximately 25%, are influencing the final results. So I decided to see how the predictors (5v5 CF%, Goal Diff, Standings) predict the rest of the season. It turns out none of them are very good. Goal Diff and Standings drop to 6 and 6.1 respectively and Corsi is 7.8.

What's interesting is the biggest outlier of all of them were the Flames last year and particularly using goal diff as a predictor. Their goal diff was 30th at thanksgiving. After thanksgiving they were the 8th best team. Another interesting note was last years Oilers. At thanksgiving they were the 7th best CF%, 7th best goal differential and 7th in the standings. After thanksgiving they were the 7th best team and they finished 8th overall.


TL;DR - the current standings are actually the best predictor of the final standings. How boring.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I think part of the problem is we are arguing the wrong question. The fire Gulutzan crew are making it a Gulutzan is terrible argument. He’s not terrible - the Flames have a winning record under him for starters. NHL coaching is an elite club and you don’t get there if you’re terrible.

To me the question is, is he an excellent coach. The Flames based on talent and age should be a top 10 team, trending towards top 5. Is Gulutzan a top 10 or 5 coach? I think there are good arguments that he’s not demonstrating characteristics usually associated with coaching excellence - preparation, identity, making players better, .... - but there is no objective standard for what makes a great coach except winning.

So far my assessment is he is an average coach which may not be enough to take the team to the next level

This is a very reasonable way to conceptualize this question. Obviously the Flames are having success, but could they have more success with someone else at the helm?

This of course begs the question, how many "game changer" coaches are in the league, and more over, how many of these Elite coaches are looking for a job? The answer to this question is grim.

So again the question becomes, Is Gulutzan the best option. At the moment I do believe that yes he is.

[Red]

Originally Posted by kevman

I'll stop with the thread derail after this but I checked last years standings to still better try and understand it all. The thing with using goal differential, and forgive me if I'm doing a bad job explaining this, is wining percentage is a dependent event. The team that scores more than it's opposition wins more. But since they're directly related it doesn't necessarily tell the whole story. A few bounces can win you the game and it'll increase your goal differential at the same time.

I started by looking at the 5v5 CF%, Goal Differential and Actual standings at thanksgiving last year and compared them to the final standings at the end of the season. What I found for last year is that goal differential and the actual standings are in fact the best way at predicting the final standings. Goal differential was within 4.6 positions and the standings were withing 4.7. My standings are only ranked on points and don't include tie breakers at this moment so I'd call that difference statistically insignificant. Corsi however was off by 7.3 - far worse.

I then thought that it's not truly fair to use that as a predictor since the results to date, approximately 25%, are influencing the final results. So I decided to see how the predictors (5v5 CF%, Goal Diff, Standings) predict the rest of the season. It turns out none of them are very good. Goal Diff and Standings drop to 6 and 6.1 respectively and Corsi is 7.8.

What's interesting is the biggest outlier of all of them were the Flames last year and particularly using goal diff as a predictor. Their goal diff was 30th at thanksgiving. After thanksgiving they were the 8th best team. Another interesting note was last years Oilers. At thanksgiving they were the 7th best CF%, 7th best goal differential and 7th in the standings. After thanksgiving they were the 7th best team and they finished 8th overall.


TL;DR - the current standings are actually the best predictor of the final standings. How boring.

The more you dig the more you find out that simple stats are better. The more you win the better your standings

Kidding aside, no team i going far when they are bottom 10 in goals against. So whether we like GG or not, let's hope that that stat gets significantly better. With Smith playing lights out this team should be top 5 in GA. Lots of room to improve.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, at the quarter-season pole, what predictions exactly does current goal differential make? This seems to me to be a good indicator of past performance, but I don’t see how we can extrapolate from this figure what should happen in the future.

It doesn't predict, it nearly guarantees that the team will not be successful while being bottom 10 in GA.

I don't know for sure but I'm don't think we can find many examples of successful teams with bottom 10 GA.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Red

It doesn't predict, it nearly guarantees that the team will not be successful while being bottom 10 in GA.

I don't know for sure but I'm don't think we can find many examples of successful teams with bottom 10 GA.

At thanksgiving last year these were the worst 10 teams for goal diff

Dallas Stars
Philadelphia Flyers
Calgary Flames
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets
Vancouver Canucks
Arizona Coyotes
New York Islanders
St Louis Blues
Pittsburgh Penguins

Four of them made the playoffs. Turns out this one doesn't tell much either...

[Cecil Terwilliger]

That's because goal diff isn't a good predictor of future outcomes. However it is a good indicator of a team's current record.

In April, give me a list of NHL teams and their goal diff and I'll rank them pretty accurately using goal diff with their actual spot in the league standings.

[Red]

Originally Posted by kevman

At thanksgiving last year these were the worst 10 teams for goal diff

Dallas Stars
Philadelphia Flyers
Calgary Flames
Toronto Maple Leafs
Winnipeg Jets
Vancouver Canucks
Arizona Coyotes
New York Islanders
St Louis Blues
Pittsburgh Penguins

Four of them made the playoffs. Turns out this one doesn't tell much either...

How so?

They obviously had to improve leaps and bounds, no?

When this team plays like a top team for a decent clip I will give GG the credit.
My take is that the Flames are playing poorly, have all season. The wins have been ugly for most part. The pro GG crows keeps saying that the team record speaks for itself.i feel that the team record is misleading.
History shows that if we continue the same level of play we will not be successful. Something has to change

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, at the quarter-season pole, what predictions exactly does current goal differential make? This seems to me to be a good indicator of past performance, but I don’t see how we can extrapolate from this figure what should happen in the future.

The predictive power of any stat is limited, since they can only assume things will continue as they are without change. To me the only thing goal differential tells me at this point is whether teams deserve to be where they are. Flash in the pan Vegas has a strong goal differential. Without digging deeper they appear legit. Calgary’s differential is poor, San Jose’s is much better - expect those two to change places. Edmonton’s is truly no good, no surprises there. Chicago is strong and will surely get a wildcard spot at least.

Drilling down to look at trends, other stats could add nuance to the analysis, but so far this tells me - if nothing changes - Calgary will be in a dogfight for the last wildcard spot. I wouldn’t put money on this (yet) nor do I expect this to be where things end up. Vegas has to be overachieving and Calgary underachieving right? The Peter Maher second quarter will paint a better picture.

[Robbob]

Part of the problem with looking at goal dif at the start of the season is teams are still working out kinks. The rosters are far from settled.

All teams go through a steady elevation of play through the season. The good teams continue to elevate while the bad teams hit that ceiling and and the gap starts to widen. Historically you see it happens around now (after 20 games) and again after the all star break. It is the old Peter Maher adage that you look at games 20 to 40 for a team to get a better sense of what they are.

To that extent, I fully expect this team to start playing better and start tightening up aspects of their game.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Part of the problem with looking at goal dif at the start of the season is teams are still working out kinks. The rosters are far from settled.

All teams go through a steady elevation of play through the season. The good teams continue to elevate while the bad teams hit that ceiling and and the gap starts to widen. Historically you see it happens around now (after 20 games) and again after the all star break. It is the old Peter Maher adage that you look at games 20 to 40 for a team to get a better sense of what they are.

To that extent, I fully expect this team to start playing better and start tightening up aspects of their game.

This is pretty much my opinion too. This is just a gut feeling from following the league for some years, but I consider the first 10 games or so to be the most prone to wild outliers. Teams with no expectations regurarly come out gangbusters, while teams with lots of expectations on them have a lot of trouble. Teams that made it deep into the playoffs often have trouble at the start of next season. Generally speaking I don't give much weight to the start of the season as a predictor.


Since this is technically a Gulutzan thread;
What's weird about this season in comparison to last is that despite having mostly the same lineup, we're almost the polar opposite as a team.

Last season we were a team with no real superstars, shaky goaltending but really good depth, and not that much in the way of expectations. This season we're one of the most top-heavy teams in the league with good goaltending and bad depth, and a lot of expectations on them.

In essence, Gulutzan has been put in an almost polar opposite situation, and without much in the way of prior warning. Relative to that I think he's doing okay.

I think he'll be forced to make changes to the system that he wasn't expecting to have to consider, and he'll have to implement those changes midseason which is always tricky. But there's also a limit to how much one can change a system on the fly, so overall this is good test to his system.

The above might sound defensive towards Gulutzan, but really it's not meant that's way. I think a good coach should be able to handle this challenge. A mediocre coach might not, and I'm okay with firing mediocre coaches.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JerryUnderscore

I'm sorry, I don't mean this to be snarky, but what points have you made?

I initially provided some advanced stats to show that the team is performing well except in terms of shooting percentage. This would indicate that the system the coach has implemented is working and they just aren't getting the puck to go in. The low shooting percentage hardly seems like a coaching issue since they are continuing to get scoring chances as well as high danger scoring chances.

You responded by saying that you disregard advanced stats and then later suggested that no one has been able to provide you with a legitimate argument that Gulutzan is a good coach.

You then suggested that "Special teams, breakouts, response to adversity, etc" are appropriate metrics to judge a coach by. However, even if we want to accept that those are the ways to measure a coach's success, how do you do that?

Special teams can be somewhat cut and dry if you simply want to look at their success rate. However, breakouts and response to adversity are way more subjective.

I'm completely willing to listen to an argument for why Gulutzan is not a good head coach, but if the argument essentially comes down to "I just don't feel like he's that good" I don't see that as a valid argument. It's an opinion you're entitled to have but it's not a valid argument.

Sigh.

I did not say that. Not even close. In fact, in the post you quoted, I said: 'you make some valid supporting arguments'.

As for me making arguments as to why he isn't a good head coach, I have already done so multiple times in the various threads on the topic, and (unlike some posters), I don't like re-stating the same things over and over.

Also, the fact of the matter is that I have already stated that, for a rebuilding team, I think that he is a good coach (because he is a good Xs and Os guy and a good teacher. He is a smart hockey guy, as I have also said multiple times).

I just don't think he is the right coach for the Flames right now. Again, it isn't black and white. It is possible to not think he is the right coach for the Flames without thinking that he is a terrible coach. But since you seem determined to have me make some arguments against him, I will state them again:

I don't like the way the Flames' D are being asked to always circle back with the puck. Sometimes glass and out is a good play. Also, having the D holding on to the puck in their own end longer gives the forecheckers a chance to get on them, and is causing them to spend too much time battling for pucks behind their own net, and too little time joining in the rush.

I don't like the breakout. For two reasons: 1) the winger is usually facing the corner, with his back to the defenseman as he receives the pass from our Dman. This makes it really easy for the opposing Dman to pinch and disrupt the play, which is significantly increasing the amount of zone time in our own end. 2) He is asking them to make little 5-10 foot passes in their own zone. The idea is to have puck support, but the problem is that these short passes end up in skates a lot, causing far too many turnovers. Other teams have been all over our breakout, and that has been causing far too many turnovers in our end.

I don't like the way the forwards are standing at centre ice, waiting for a pass from the D, and then just chipping it in. Two reasons: 1) we suck at dump and chasing, and 2) it doesn't utilize the Dmen in our offense, which should be a strength of our game. The Flames are most dangerous off the rush as a transition team. But Gulutzan has them playing more of a zone to zone style.

I don't like the player utilization, particularly on the PP. He has Gaudreau, Brodie, and Versteeg as the high man and two wings. None of the three are shooters. Having no shooting threats allows the PK to focus down low much more easily. IMO, Gaudreau should be on the off wing (where Versteeg currently is), with two shooters holding the other wing and high positions (Hamilton and Giordano would do just fine). Also, continuing to run Brouwer as the low man, when he has Tkachuk (especially) or Ferland to go to, is a crime.

I don't like the way he (over)utilizes Brodie, playing him 25 minutes a night and against the stiffest competition. Brodie should be a 3/4 guy, that is getting more favourable competition and better situational exposure, so that he is free to jump into the rush more. When he is getting defensive zone starts against the other teams' top lines, that is when he is exposed defensively, and he coughs up too many pucks.

While I like rolling 4 lines (over the course of a season, it really helps to avoid wearing guys out), there are times when you need to shorten the bench. When you're down a goal or two in the third period, you don't parade 4 lines. A novice coach knows this. And this goes back to him being a good rebuilding coach, but maybe not the right guy for the current team. When you're in win-now mode, you have to shorten the bench at times.

A coach defines the personality of a team. And the Flames aren't exactly the most physical or aggressive team in the league. Having Gulutzan standing there stoically, never arguing with the refs, never getting excited, never calling time-outs to regroup the troups, never stirring the pot, creates the wrong atmosphere for this team, IMO. Personally, I prefer more even-keeled coaches to the really crazy ones, but there are times when the coach has to fight for the team. And IMO, this team is more needing of that than some other teams might be. They need more passion and leadership from him on the bench.

I'll stop here. You asked for some arguments (even though I have made all of these before), so there you go. And none of them required any counting stats to back them up. I don't expect everyone to agree with them, nor anyone to agree with all of them, but those are my observations and opinions.

Having stated them, I will say again, that just because I don't think he is the right coach for this team does not mean that I think everything he does is stupid or terrible. Of course the Flames are going to win some games (hopefully enough), and no, you can't blame all the losses or the giveaways on a coach.

But IMO, this team is not playing a style that maximizes its talent. And they are not playing to the best of their abilities.

When a coach is still talking about implementing his systems (and the fact that the team isn't yet) more than 100 games into the coach's tenure, you have to ask if the system is too difficult or rigid to implement. Or possibly that it just doesn't suit the types of players he has.

[JT96912]

Long time lurker. Born in 1973, have been a Flames fan since 1985. Anyway, I just wanted to add my opinion to this thread. Gulutzan is ok in my opinion. Not great, not bad, just ok. He is too stubborn with his line mix ups and slow on game time moves and time outs. He is making a great team good. He will be here for a while and I think all we can hope for as fans is for him to recognize and work on his faults. As he improves the team should too. Really enjoying this year with better goaltending. The last few years were super frustrating without consistent netminders.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Sigh.

I did not say that. Not even close. In fact, in the post you quoted, I said: 'you make some valid supporting arguments'.

As for me making arguments as to why he isn't a good head coach, I have already done so multiple times in the various threads on the topic, and (unlike some posters), I don't like re-stating the same things over and over.

Also, the fact of the matter is that I have already stated that, for a rebuilding team, I think that he is a good coach (because he is a good Xs and Os guy and a good teacher. He is a smart hockey guy, as I have also said multiple times).

I just don't think he is the right coach for the Flames right now. Again, it isn't black and white. It is possible to not think he is the right coach for the Flames without thinking that he is a terrible coach. But since you seem determined to have me make some arguments against him, I will state them again:

I don't like the way the Flames' D are being asked to always circle back with the puck. Sometimes glass and out is a good play. Also, having the D holding on to the puck in their own end longer gives the forecheckers a chance to get on them, and is causing them to spend too much time battling for pucks behind their own net, and too little time joining in the rush.

I don't like the breakout. For two reasons: 1) the winger is usually facing the corner, with his back to the defenseman as he receives the pass from our Dman. This makes it really easy for the opposing Dman to pinch and disrupt the play, which is significantly increasing the amount of zone time in our own end. 2) He is asking them to make little 5-10 foot passes in their own zone. The idea is to have puck support, but the problem is that these short passes end up in skates a lot, causing far too many turnovers. Other teams have been all over our breakout, and that has been causing far too many turnovers in our end.

I don't like the way the forwards are standing at centre ice, waiting for a pass from the D, and then just chipping it in. Two reasons: 1) we suck at dump and chasing, and 2) it doesn't utilize the Dmen in our offense, which should be a strength of our game. The Flames are most dangerous off the rush as a transition team. But Gulutzan has them playing more of a zone to zone style.

I don't like the player utilization, particularly on the PP. He has Gaudreau, Brodie, and Versteeg as the high man and two wings. None of the three are shooters. Having no shooting threats allows the PK to focus down low much more easily. IMO, Gaudreau should be on the off wing (where Versteeg currently is), with two shooters holding the other wing and high positions (Hamilton and Giordano would do just fine). Also, continuing to run Brouwer as the low man, when he has Tkachuk (especially) or Ferland to go to, is a crime.

I don't like the way he (over)utilizes Brodie, playing him 25 minutes a night and against the stiffest competition. Brodie should be a 3/4 guy, that is getting more favourable competition and better situational exposure, so that he is free to jump into the rush more. When he is getting defensive zone starts against the other teams' top lines, that is when he is exposed defensively, and he coughs up too many pucks.

While I like rolling 4 lines (over the course of a season, it really helps to avoid wearing guys out), there are times when you need to shorten the bench. When you're down a goal or two in the third period, you don't parade 4 lines. A novice coach knows this. And this goes back to him being a good rebuilding coach, but maybe not the right guy for the current team. When you're in win-now mode, you have to shorten the bench at times.

A coach defines the personality of a team. And the Flames aren't exactly the most physical or aggressive team in the league. Having Gulutzan standing there stoically, never arguing with the refs, never getting excited, never calling time-outs to regroup the troups, never stirring the pot, creates the wrong atmosphere for this team, IMO. Personally, I prefer more even-keeled coaches to the really crazy ones, but there are times when the coach has to fight for the team. And IMO, this team is more needing of that than some other teams might be. They need more passion and leadership from him on the bench.

I'll stop here. You asked for some arguments (even though I have made all of these before), so there you go. And none of them required any counting stats to back them up. I don't expect everyone to agree with them, nor anyone to agree with all of them, but those are my observations and opinions.

Having stated them, I will say again, that just because I don't think he is the right coach for this team does not mean that I think everything he does is stupid or terrible. Of course the Flames are going to win some games (hopefully enough), and no, you can't blame all the losses or the giveaways on a coach.

But IMO, this team is not playing a style that maximizes its talent. And they are not playing to the best of their abilities.

When a coach is still talking about implementing his systems (and the fact that the team isn't yet) more than 100 games into the coach's tenure, you have to ask if the system is too difficult or rigid to implement. Or possibly that it just doesn't suit the types of players he has.

You are correct, I disagree with a whole lot of those. A whole lot of those are not reflective of GG's system. The breakout you described certainly isn't - it is what happens when a player doesn't follow the system and gets out too far ahead of the play - that's when they have to stop, turn and stand still. In the correct implementation they are all moving forward.

I've seen GG argue with refs plenty of times. He doesn't scream, but I don't want Patrick Roy (or Jim Playfair) on the bench.

He doesn't insist on rolling four lines when down by a goal or two at the end of the game. People go overboard looking for this. He was being criticized in the last couple games for having the fourth line out with 6 minutes to go (and up by two last game).

Time outs are both overrated and rarely used by coaches for momentum changes. And with TV timeouts, there's plenty of chances to regroup without wasting a timeout to yell at your players.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He doesn't insist on rolling four lines when down by a goal or two at the end of the game. People go overboard looking for this. He was being criticized in the last couple games for having the fourth line out with 6 minutes to go (and up by two last game).

He certainly does.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

He certainly does.

Not at the end of the game - three minutes or less. Name me a time he did. He didn't even do it when tied two games ago. He was being called out for it with 6 whole minutes to go.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Not at the end of the game - three minutes or less. Name me a time he did. He didn't even do it when tied two games ago. He was being called out for it with 6 whole minutes to go.

I want this to be true. It would quiet a lot of the repetitive complaining that gets so tiring in these threads.

[theg69]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Not at the end of the game - three minutes or less. Name me a time he did. He didn't even do it when tied two games ago. He was being called out for it with 6 whole minutes to go.

Unfortunately he does do it when tied - remember the Stajan penalty at 17:59 of the 3rd period when tied with Philly?

Even with 6 minutes to go in a tied game on the road, there is an argument that the fourth line (that gets cratered in terms of possession and chances) shouldn't be out. Part of it is how awful our bottom 6 has been this year, but the coach has to take some of the blame for that. Further to that - I think if he wants to have the fourth line out at that juncture (less than 10 min left in a close game) - they should be insulated with the top pairing (Gio-Hamilton) and not put out with the 3rd pairing. I still felt that the coaching decision there was responsible for wasting a great night by our top line.

I would tend to agree that GG is not a terrible coach - but he is what typifies mediocre. He tends to be stubborn to make changes that are obvious to a message board but does have some innate flexibility to make those changes (what else would explain not icing the "ideal lineup" most of us wanted until almost a quarter way through the season).

I think posters on both sides do make some good points and I actually would agree with a lot of them - but that just confirms how I feel about him - which is mediocre and so-so. I do hope that if a coach with a fantastic track record comes along, that we make the move to get him - just because I do agree with the sentiment that GG isn't the right coach to take this team to the promised land.

[stone hands]

cp's ideal flames coach:

only plays rookies
doesnt put the 4th line out until the team eventually gets up 10-0 because they're the best squad ever assembled in the history of the nhl
0 shots against(all season)
gets tossed from more games than bob probert so he can rally the troops
what am i missing

*work in progress*
Calls a time out in the first period because the other team has a good shift.
implements a system a monkey could figure out, yet is complicated enough that the opposing team cannot
Pulls the goalie after he has allowed three goals.
sends players who had a bad shift straight to the press box.
unkempt raging taskmaster who doesnt look at instant replay

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

I want this to be true. It would quiet a lot of the repetitive complaining that gets so tiring in these threads.

IMO, it's come down to complaining that GG is overusing them whenever the fourth line is on the ice, from the fourth shift of the game onward.

Look at their shifts and ice time some time. Familton had 6:29, Brouwer had 9:43 (including PK). Versteeg had more but that included a PP, plus IIRC he and Bennett shifted spots in that game, which evened out their respective minutes.

So it looks to me like, in that really tight game, the fourth line got something like 6-8 minutes as a unit - or about 3-5 shifts total. That's 2-3 minutes per period. I'd bet that they got maybe two shifts in the third.

The Avs game was no different. Familton had 7 minutes, Brouwer 9, Stajan 10. The latter two killed penalties (there were three).

Against Dallas, Lazar got 8:51, Versteeg got 9:54 (but played PP) and Brouwer got almost 13 (but killed a large part of the 5 penalties, including a big chunk of 5 on 3). Dallas got their two goals in the third between 12 and 14 minutes in. There was a PP from 15:44-17:44, so they didn't play then. They didn't play with the goalie pulled. So when exactly was the "fourth line on at a critical time" issue?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by stone hands

cp's ideal flames coach:

only plays rookies
doesnt put the 4th line out until the team eventually gets up 10-0 because they're the best squad ever assembled in the history of the nhl
0 shots against(all season)
gets tossed from more games than bob probert so he can rally the troops
what am i missing

Calls a time out in the first period because the other team has a good shift.