[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

If this is directed towards me, it's another example.

An example of what though?

You compiled a list of out of context quotes that you certainly think seems to prove something.

It's out of context.

So it's an example of what exactly? Treating someone obviously in attack mode with a degree of sarcasm certainly isn't an example of thinking "my analysis is better" or that "I work harder than you".

You seem to have a personal issue with me, and I'm good with that. But if you think you've done anything but copy and paste example of someone responding to an argument on a message board I think you're sadly mistaken.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I dunno about a serious allegation. It's just a sports team forum, and he made a passing comment about you being in bed with the team because of the hard stance you were taking.

It's not like he accused you of making millions off insider trading or something serious like that.

I think anytime you need to discredit someone that you disagree with by suggesting the opposing opinion is paid for it's a pretty drastic step.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Eh? Questioning the process would extend to whatever led to Treliving’s belief that no additional interviews were required, and to land on Peters as the answer long before asking of other coaches what their answers would be to the question of “What would you do with this group?”

I really don’t get what you’re saying here... there should be no debate about not following a typical head coach hiring process?

That I agree that the GM is under fire for his coaching decision, regardless of process.

And that if you already know who you want to hire in a short window of time available you don't a) have time to do the normal process of interviewing many and b) likely don't need to go through that process at all if you have the man picked.

But just my opinion, you're welcome to focus on what you want.

If I'm handing the keys to a big asset to a manager I want conviction in decisions, not a long drawn out process to make sure he's not wrong.

[GioforPM]

Did I wander into the "When does Bingo Start Feeling the Heat" thread?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think anytime you need to discredit someone that you disagree with by suggesting the opposing opinion is paid for it's a pretty drastic step.

It was more the shift to hyper Flames defense mode by the three most active mods in the midst of a PR battle the Flames were getting dominated in.

But yeah, if you want to think it was just because I disagreed, that's fine.

And no, you've brought it up several times. Not once. Not that I personally care, bring it up all you want, but hockeyguy15 is right.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Eh? Questioning the process would extend to whatever led to Treliving’s belief that no additional interviews were required, and to land on Peters as the answer long before asking of other coaches what their answers would be to the question of “What would you do with this group?”

I really don’t get what you’re saying here... there should be no debate about not following a typical head coach hiring process?

I think the message here is twofold:

1) Hiring a NHL coach is not like hiring personnel for practically any position any one of us is likely familiar with. Given the highly narrow specialization and the infinitesimally small pool of candidates the hiring process is almost certainly going to appear different from the outside. Also, I think it is pretty clear that not every situation will follow the same processes. Bill Peters was hired in a time-crunch, which helps to explain a lot about what happened this summer.

2) Without knowing any specifics about the hiring process it is probably not advisable to form very strong opinions about it. In this case it is a fact that there is more we don't know about the process behind Bill Peters's hire than what we know. Under these conditions it is understandable for people to be curious or puzzled, or to wonder about matters of thoroughness. However, a number of the assertions about what Treliving should have done; what he did or did not do are unjustifiably strong in the face of what has been publicly disclosed.

Results will be the arbiter on the quality of Bill Peters's hire, but we won't know those for some time yet.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

2) Without knowing any specifics about the hiring process it is probably not advisable to form very strong opinions about it. In this case it is a fact that there is more we don't know about the process behind Bill Peters's hire than what we know. Under these conditions it is understandable for people to be curious or puzzled, or to wonder about matters of thoroughness. However, a number of the assertions about what Treliving should have done; what he did or did not do are unjustifiably strong in the face of what has been publicly disclosed.

Results will be the arbiter on the quality of Bill Peters's hire, but we won't know those for some time yet.

Ah yes: the Rumsfeld defense.

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

I'm going to go off of: whatever process there was led to a questionable hire given the more experienced, proven, and successful coaches available. My starting point - rightfully, in my view - is therefore that the unknowable should be cast negatively and under suspicion.

Results can overturn this, of course (and will, if positive).

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

An example of what though?

You compiled a list of out of context quotes that you certainly think seems to prove something.

It's out of context.

So it's an example of what exactly? Treating someone obviously in attack mode with a degree of sarcasm certainly isn't an example of thinking "my analysis is better" or that "I work harder than you".

You seem to have a personal issue with me, and I'm good with that. But if you think you've done anything but copy and paste example of someone responding to an argument on a message board I think you're sadly mistaken.

It's an example of you not accepting someone else's analysis as being at the same level as your analysis. Even in this response you say all I've done is copy and paste and I'm sadly mistaken. We've even got the full context from this thread and you've simply dismissed my analysis because it doesn't fit what you're looking for.


My point was that there are multiple examples of you talking down to others and dismissed their conclusions because they didn't do a deep dive like you did. Throughout the last year multiple people came to the conclusion GG needed to be fired for the Flames to be successful in the future. You ended up getting there but were dismissive of some people who didn't use your method or use advanced stats. When you used the example of looking in the house for your keys when they were in the garage, it was the same thing as the GG debate. Many of us didn't need to look around the house to know GG needed to be fired. We knew it was in the metaphorical garage.


I don't have a personal issue with you. I don't know you and I've never met you. In 9 years I've responded to about 12 of your posts. I have an opposing view from you on a couple of items. I have shown a number of examples that supports my view. You dismissed them as out of context and made a large leap to this being a personal issue. That's simply not true. I believe that you think your analysis is better than everyone's. That's my belief, and I have multiple reasons for thinking that. You saying that I'm taking things out of context isn't going to change my opinion. I'm okay to leave it at that.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think anytime you need to discredit someone that you disagree with by suggesting the opposing opinion is paid for it's a pretty drastic step.

I didn't see it as much of a personal attack as you did, more of a passing comment to highlight the fact that you were in the large minority and taking a hardline on it.

If you want to keep a grudge that's totally up to you, but I just think you are making the comment way more serious than it was intended to be.

Even if you were on the take so what? It's just a forum.

Anytime he opens his mouth you throw this comment at him and use it as an excuse to invalidate his opinion. Isn't it time to either let it go or just ignore him already?

[dino7c]

Takes more than 11 games to evaluate a coach or a trade...this TRADE thread has gone off the rails

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the message here is twofold:

1) Hiring a NHL coach is not like hiring personnel for practically any position any one of us is likely familiar with. Given the highly narrow specialization and the infinitesimally small pool of candidates the hiring process is almost certainly going to appear different from the outside. Also, I think it is pretty clear that not every situation will follow the same processes. Bill Peters was hired in a time-crunch, which helps to explain a lot about what happened this summer.

That was a lot of words spent to say "It's okay that Brad Treliving failed to perform proper due diligence because Bill Peters had a limited time to exit his contrct."

2) Without knowing any specifics about the hiring process it is probably not advisable to form very strong opinions about it. In this case it is a fact that there is more we don't know about the process behind Bill Peters's hire than what we know. Under these conditions it is understandable for people to be curious or puzzled, or to wonder about matters of thoroughness. However, a number of the assertions about what Treliving should have done; what he did or did not do are unjustifiably strong in the face of what has been publicly disclosed.

Not really. The media may not always know how many potential coaches a GM interviews or seriously considers, but very rarely do they tell us that the pool was exactly one candidate. It's understandable when it's Toronto getting Mike Babcock. When it's a guy with no track record of success at this level, then yeah, people are going to view the decision skeptically. And like it or not, until Brad Treliving proves he was the smartest guy in the room, people have every right to question his decision making. Especially given his own pedestrian track record.

Results will be the arbiter on the quality of Bill Peters's hire, but we won't know those for some time yet.

When we say 'results', do we mean wins and losses or Corsi and high danger scoring chances?

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Takes more than 11 games to evaluate a coach or a trade...this TRADE thread has gone off the rails

[GullFoss]

Summary of last five pages

I) Bingo is (mostly unfairly) taking a lot of heat for (1) defending the Peters hiring process and (2) his use of advanced stats to say he still can't say Gully was a bad coach (3) his critiquing style of views that differ from his own with respect to 1 and 2

Gullfoss's take: Bingo is getting called out on these topics for three reasons. One - he's been the most passionate defender of Gully and Peters hiring process (fair). Two - because Calgarypuck its his site, he's held to a higher standard (probably not fair). Third - While Bingo is one of the most respectful posters on this site, he sometimes fails to communicate that he has considered posts that fall on the other-side of the debate may have merit before he critiques them. And because his posts are so well thought out, this irks a lot of posters on the otherside of these debates because they feel like he thinks their arguments are stupid

II) Bingo is really bad at analogies

Gullfoss's take: that was a terrible analogy


Meanwhile, there is literally nothing in the last five pages plus that is discusses the trade. My conclusion on the trade is: "looks like a really good move from an asset management perspective, mostly because Lindholm is better than advertised and Hanifin is so young. Gio-Dougie is harder to replace that I thought though, (and the advanced stats suggested it would be really hard to replace them). Gio was clearly the better part of that pairing, but Hamilton added something that none of the other five defenseman aren't yet able to bring"

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

It's an example of you not accepting someone else's analysis as being at the same level as your analysis. Even in this response you say all I've done is copy and paste and I'm sadly mistaken. We've even got the full context from this thread and you've simply dismissed my analysis because it doesn't fit what you're looking for.

What is your analysis?

My point was that there are multiple examples of you talking down to others and dismissed their conclusions because they didn't do a deep dive like you did. Throughout the last year multiple people came to the conclusion GG needed to be fired for the Flames to be successful in the future. You ended up getting there but were dismissive of some people who didn't use your method or use advanced stats.

I always read Bingo's supposed dismissals as borne of frustration with people who were failing to grasp the intent in his discussions about the coach. (To be clear: I am not talking about everyone.) To me, his presentations were always working to cut through the numbers as a means to find reasons for why the record was not aligned to the analytical picture. Despite this he has had to constantly weather responses which disparage the "deep dive," while offering few good alternative explanations that ventured much beyond "corsi sucks."

[sa226]

I can't believe Im wading into this debate. I've lost track of where we are with it. It seems like there are narratives that are creating themselves.

I understand that an exhaustive interview and search process is desired. Especially at this level. Who was available to interview? All I've got is Vigneault and Sutter. Then a plethora of potential assistant coaches. How would we feel if the hire was an assistant coach with no head coaching experience?

Treliving did the search, that we all desired. That resulted in the Gulutzan hire. I would imagine he has data from that search. As well its not like he hired Peters because he liked his haircut. Treliving worked closely with Peters when he was the GM of team Canada at the world championships.

I bet Treliving is on most people's list of hardest working GMs in the league.

We don't know the role that budget and ownership has played in the hire.

When things aren't going how we want, we start looking for the boogeyman. With the above points in mind I just think the hiring of Peters is the wrong place to look.

[VilleN]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

When we say 'results', do we mean wins and losses or Corsi and high danger scoring chances?

Obviously wins/losses are the ultimate marker of success. It is the metric that points to success across the board; GM, coach, roster, etc. However, how do you measure the success of each individual part? If a team has great underlying numbers, but that isn't translating to on ice results, perhaps the roster and therefore GM are to blame. What if underlying numbers are bad but the roster appears objectively good (ie good on paper), perhaps there is a coaching issue.

When a team isn't performing it doesn't mean you need to fire everyone and restart from scratch. You need to analyze what is wrong and make the corrective actions.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

What is your analysis?


I always read Bingo's supposed dismissals as borne of frustration with people who were failing to grasp the intent in his discussions about the coach. (To be clear: I am not talking about everyone.) To me, his presentations were always working to cut through the numbers as a means to find reasons for why the record was not aligned to the analytical picture. Despite this he has had to constantly weather responses which disparage the "deep dive," while offering few good alternative explanations that ventured much beyond "corsi sucks."

Whenever I see "deep dive" in one of these posts, it's like seeing "SJW" in a political forum. It's a huge tell.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

It was more the shift to hyper Flames defense mode by the three most active mods in the midst of a PR battle the Flames were getting dominated in.

But yeah, if you want to think it was just because I disagreed, that's fine.

And no, you've brought it up several times. Not once. Not that I personally care, bring it up all you want, but hockeyguy15 is right.

I said four times actually. It might be three or five.

And if you wish to go back you'll see me staying out of the arena debate for the most part. And when I tried to venture in it was almost always with an equal distaste to how both sides have handled it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I always read Bingo's supposed dismissals as borne of frustration with people who were failing to grasp the intent in his discussions about the coach. (To be clear: I am not talking about everyone.) To me, his presentations were always working to cut through the numbers as a means to find reasons for why the record was not aligned to the analytical picture. Despite this he has had to constantly weather responses which disparage the "deep dive," while offering few good alternative explanations that ventured much beyond "corsi sucks."

Honestly, the arguments made - by a few - appeared to be attempting to find numbers to argue Gultuzan was a good coach despite the lack of results. It was less analysis and more rationalization. This is a problem I have with a number of advanced stat guys. They try to fit the data to their conclusion rather than the other way around.

And that is why the "deep dive" has been so disparaged. Trying to argue Gulutzan was a good coach despite the team's awful record and plodding, slow, boring style; despite his clear inability to respond to anything happening on the ice; despite his unwillingness to do anything to change up what wasn't working; and despite his love affair with crappy players was never going to sell.

If there was frustration, it was because nobody was buying what was easily disproven by what we saw on the ice night in and night out.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

It's an example of you not accepting someone else's analysis as being at the same level as your analysis. Even in this response you say all I've done is copy and paste and I'm sadly mistaken. We've even got the full context from this thread and you've simply dismissed my analysis because it doesn't fit what you're looking for.


My point was that there are multiple examples of you talking down to others and dismissed their conclusions because they didn't do a deep dive like you did. Throughout the last year multiple people came to the conclusion GG needed to be fired for the Flames to be successful in the future. You ended up getting there but were dismissive of some people who didn't use your method or use advanced stats. When you used the example of looking in the house for your keys when they were in the garage, it was the same thing as the GG debate. Many of us didn't need to look around the house to know GG needed to be fired. We knew it was in the metaphorical garage.


I don't have a personal issue with you. I don't know you and I've never met you. In 9 years I've responded to about 12 of your posts. I have an opposing view from you on a couple of items. I have shown a number of examples that supports my view. You dismissed them as out of context and made a large leap to this being a personal issue. That's simply not true. I believe that you think your analysis is better than everyone's. That's my belief, and I have multiple reasons for thinking that. You saying that I'm taking things out of context isn't going to change my opinion. I'm okay to leave it at that.

Whatever floats your boat man.

Seemed like you were harbouring some pretty big feelings from 8 months ago to take the conversation where you did about my posting style.

If you're happy thinking that I run around thinking I'm superior to others, I'm pretty content to leave you in that thought process. Twenty one years of owning a website is bound to attract a few detractors.