Jacques Lemaire hired as Special Assignment Coach

[bustaheims]

Low end players can be coached to perform beyond their skill levels.  This could translate into team success.  We'll see by Christmas which direction the team will take with the new coaching staff.

There's a limit on how far beyond their skill level any player can perform, and, the reality is, it's zero percent. If they can reach that level of performance, that is, by definition, within their skill level. Outside of the extremely remote likelihood that every player on the roster has a career season, this team will be near the bottom of the league all season. The thing about coaching is that even the best of coaches has a minimal impact on the team's success - that's part of why so few coaches have won the Cup with multiple teams. Bad coaching has a much more significant impact than good.

 

[Redleaf]

Low end players can be coached to perform beyond their skill levels.  This could translate into team success.  We'll see by Christmas which direction the team will take with the new coaching staff.

There's a limit on how far beyond their skill level any player can perform, and, the reality is, it's zero percent. If they can reach that level of performance, that is, by definition, within their skill level. Outside of the extremely remote likelihood that every player on the roster has a career season, this team will be near the bottom of the league all season. The thing about coaching is that even the best of coaches has a minimal impact on the team's success - that's part of why so few coaches have won the Cup with multiple teams. Bad coaching has a much more significant impact than good.

Team greater than the sum of its parts=trap

 

[herman]

Team greater than the sum of its parts=trap

You rang?

 

[bustaheims]

Team greater than the sum of its parts=trap

The thing is, that's just not true. The teams that successfully implemented the trap and won anything of note with it were all highly skilled teams with excellent to elite goaltending. The Devils one of the top goalies of his generation (and some would argue of all time) behind a team that was among the highest scoring in the league in the years they won the Cup. Minnesota had some very skilled offensive players and excellent goaltending. The Leafs of the mid to late 90s tried to play the trap, and failed miserably. So did dozens of other teams. Even a system like the trap relies on having high skilled players to be executed successfully. None of those teams were greater than the sum of their parts, they just structured their game to get the maximum benefit out of their strengths.

 

[Leaflifer]

Busta, I don't disagree with the perception that the Leafs will not be a threat next year, but it's not reasonable to suggest that 2 teams of equal talent, but one having good coaching, training, strategy would not out-perform the other.

But somehow I doubt that's what your implying.

 

[bustaheims]

Busta, I don't disagree with the perception that the Leafs will not be a threat next year, but it's not reasonable to suggest that 2 teams of equal talent, but one having good coaching, training, strategy would not out-perform the other.

But somehow I doubt that's what your implying.

If one has good coaching and the other bad, then, yeah, one will definitely out perform the other. If both have good coaching, however, the difference between their performances will really come down to randomness/luck and/or the differences in their goaltending, injuries and such - even if one coach is perceived to be a better coach than the other. What a good coach does help a team to play as close to their maximum potential as possible. That potential is still decided by the team's talent level.

 

[Leaflifer]

Busta, I don't disagree with the perception that the Leafs will not be a threat next year, but it's not reasonable to suggest that 2 teams of equal talent, but one having good coaching, training, strategy would not out-perform the other.

But somehow I doubt that's what your implying.

If one has good coaching and the other bad, then, yeah, one will definitely out perform the other. If both have good coaching, however, the difference between their performances will really come down to randomness/luck and/or the differences in their goaltending, injuries and such - even if one coach is perceived to be a better coach than the other. What a good coach does help a team to play as close to their maximum potential as possible. That potential is still decided by the team's talent level.

OK. All things being equal, then yes. You mentioned some factors that could sway the outcomes. As a side note, I thought RC was a pretty good coach with a pretty bad team, and he was all to painfully aware of that, even when they won.

For the sake of discussion, if coaching was equal, are the Leafs better or worse without Kessel? Would they have quit without him? Did he have enough negative impact in the dressing room to foster last years team performance? Does his poor +\- tarnish his point total?

My opinion is that there was something not clicking with that team mentally. I can't say for sure, but there was a lot of talk about culture change, getting rid of a lazy mentality, and the next week he was gone for a bag o' pucks.

While I think the Leafs will not win, I don't think they will do any worse. I'm a believer that in sports attitude means a lot. We've all seen a team win because they wanted it more.

 

[Kin]

If one has good coaching and the other bad, then, yeah, one will definitely out perform the other. If both have good coaching, however, the difference between their performances will really come down to randomness/luck and/or the differences in their goaltending, injuries and such - even if one coach is perceived to be a better coach than the other. What a good coach does help a team to play as close to their maximum potential as possible. That potential is still decided by the team's talent level.

And it's probably worth mentioning that "bad" coaching is probably going to be pretty rare in the NHL. Especially when you reach a certain level in the standings.

I think it's like you say, good coaching is a component of a good team but it doesn't make for a good team.

 

[bustaheims]

OK. All things being equal, then yes. You mentioned some factors that could sway the outcomes. As a side note, I thought RC was a pretty good coach with a pretty bad team, and he was all to painfully aware of that, even when they won.

I'd have to disagree about Carlyle. I think he provided some really bad coaching for the Leafs. He attempted to get them to play systems that didn't work, were outdated and were ill-suited for the roster. It didn't help that they were a bad team, but he made them look a lot worse than they were. I don't think their record suffered, but the calibre of their play and the perception of a number of the players on the roster certainly did.

For the sake of discussion, if coaching was equal, are the Leafs better or worse without Kessel? Would they have quit without him? Did he have enough negative impact in the dressing room to foster last years team performance? Does his poor +\- tarnish his point total?

Well, right off the bat, a lot of what you're asking about are thing we fundamentally cannot know. We have absolutely no idea what Kessel was like in the dressing room - though, most of his teammates appeared to like him, so it feels unlikely he was a negative influence. I'd also say a significant portion of the team quit long before Kessel did. While it's true he was having trouble producing, his effort level didn't sag the way many others did. He was still trying out there until it was clear there was no hope. As for his +/- . . . well, if you're going to use a pretty awful stat to make any kind of argument, you're going to end up with a pretty awful argument. From an objective standpoint, the team is definitely worse without Kessel. How many teams would be made better by taking away their top scorer and most talented player? I don't think it would be true of any in the short-term.

My opinion is that there was something not clicking with that team mentally. I can't say for sure, but there was a lot of talk about culture change, getting rid of a lazy mentality, and the next week he was gone for a bag o' pucks.

I might put some stock into that if it wasn't painfully clear in February that Kessel was going to be traded this summer. The timing of the comments was largely coincidental, and more likely directed at a number of the players the team knew they were unlikely to be able or didn't want move this summer. It was telling them to shape up or

While I think the Leafs will not win, I don't think they will do any worse. I'm a believer that in sports attitude means a lot. We've all seen a team win because they wanted it more.

We've walked away from things believing that the team that wanted it more won, but the reality is that, in situations like that, it's really the team that had the bounces play in their favour that won. Attitude can play into things, but the impact is significantly lower than we as fans often believe it to be. "Wanting it more" usually breaks down to thinks like how much energy players had left - both physical and mental. I mean, we're talking about professional athletes going head to head. Outside of rare cases, both teams want it just as much, it's just that only one team can win. One bounce in their favour, one slightly more rested player, and suddenly, they wanted it more.

 

[bustaheims]

And it's probably worth mentioning that "bad" coaching is probably going to be pretty rare in the NHL. Especially when you reach a certain level in the standings.

Yeah. At the NHL level, "bad" coaching is more about sticking with outdated systems or attitudes, or trying to turn a group of players into something they're not. It's more about not being able to adapt. You don't get to the NHL by being a bad coach, but you don't stick around for a lengthy career at the NHL level if you're "bad" in comparison to the other guys available or employed by NHL teams.

 

[Redleaf]

OK. All things being equal, then yes. You mentioned some factors that could sway the outcomes. As a side note, I thought RC was a pretty good coach with a pretty bad team, and he was all to painfully aware of that, even when they won.

I'd have to disagree about Carlyle. I think he provided some really bad coaching for the Leafs. He attempted to get them to play systems that didn't work, were outdated and were ill-suited for the roster. It didn't help that they were a bad team, but he made them look a lot worse than they were. I don't think their record suffered, but the calibre of their play and the perception of a number of the players on the roster certainly did.

For the sake of discussion, if coaching was equal, are the Leafs better or worse without Kessel? Would they have quit without him? Did he have enough negative impact in the dressing room to foster last years team performance? Does his poor +\- tarnish his point total?

Well, right off the bat, a lot of what you're asking about are thing we fundamentally cannot know. We have absolutely no idea what Kessel was like in the dressing room - though, most of his teammates appeared to like him, so it feels unlikely he was a negative influence. I'd also say a significant portion of the team quit long before Kessel did. While it's true he was having trouble producing, his effort level didn't sag the way many others did. He was still trying out there until it was clear there was no hope. As for his +/- . . . well, if you're going to use a pretty awful stat to make any kind of argument, you're going to end up with a pretty awful argument. From an objective standpoint, the team is definitely worse without Kessel. How many teams would be made better by taking away their top scorer and most talented player? I don't think it would be true of any in the short-term.

My opinion is that there was something not clicking with that team mentally. I can't say for sure, but there was a lot of talk about culture change, getting rid of a lazy mentality, and the next week he was gone for a bag o' pucks.

I might put some stock into that if it wasn't painfully clear in February that Kessel was going to be traded this summer. The timing of the comments was largely coincidental, and more likely directed at a number of the players the team knew they were unlikely to be able or didn't want move this summer. It was telling them to shape up or

While I think the Leafs will not win, I don't think they will do any worse. I'm a believer that in sports attitude means a lot. We've all seen a team win because they wanted it more.

We've walked away from things believing that the team that wanted it more won, but the reality is that, in situations like that, it's really the team that had the bounces play in their favour that won. Attitude can play into things, but the impact is significantly lower than we as fans often believe it to be. "Wanting it more" usually breaks down to thinks like how much energy players had left - both physical and mental. I mean, we're talking about professional athletes going head to head. Outside of rare cases, both teams want it just as much, it's just that only one team can win. One bounce in their favour, one slightly more rested player, and suddenly, they wanted it more.

How are you going to explain it when the Leafs do better than they did last year? 

 

[Leaflifer]

OK. All things being equal, then yes. You mentioned some factors that could sway the outcomes. As a side note, I thought RC was a pretty good coach with a pretty bad team, and he was all to painfully aware of that, even when they won.

I'd have to disagree about Carlyle. I think he provided some really bad coaching for the Leafs. He attempted to get them to play systems that didn't work, were outdated and were ill-suited for the roster. It didn't help that they were a bad team, but he made them look a lot worse than they were. I don't think their record suffered, but the calibre of their play and the perception of a number of the players on the roster certainly did.

For the sake of discussion, if coaching was equal, are the Leafs better or worse without Kessel? Would they have quit without him? Did he have enough negative impact in the dressing room to foster last years team performance? Does his poor +\- tarnish his point total?

Well, right off the bat, a lot of what you're asking about are thing we fundamentally cannot know. We have absolutely no idea what Kessel was like in the dressing room - though, most of his teammates appeared to like him, so it feels unlikely he was a negative influence. I'd also say a significant portion of the team quit long before Kessel did. While it's true he was having trouble producing, his effort level didn't sag the way many others did. He was still trying out there until it was clear there was no hope. As for his +/- . . . well, if you're going to use a pretty awful stat to make any kind of argument, you're going to end up with a pretty awful argument. From an objective standpoint, the team is definitely worse without Kessel. How many teams would be made better by taking away their top scorer and most talented player? I don't think it would be true of any in the short-term.

My opinion is that there was something not clicking with that team mentally. I can't say for sure, but there was a lot of talk about culture change, getting rid of a lazy mentality, and the next week he was gone for a bag o' pucks.

I might put some stock into that if it wasn't painfully clear in February that Kessel was going to be traded this summer. The timing of the comments was largely coincidental, and more likely directed at a number of the players the team knew they were unlikely to be able or didn't want move this summer. It was telling them to shape up or

While I think the Leafs will not win, I don't think they will do any worse. I'm a believer that in sports attitude means a lot. We've all seen a team win because they wanted it more.

We've walked away from things believing that the team that wanted it more won, but the reality is that, in situations like that, it's really the team that had the bounces play in their favour that won. Attitude can play into things, but the impact is significantly lower than we as fans often believe it to be. "Wanting it more" usually breaks down to thinks like how much energy players had left - both physical and mental. I mean, we're talking about professional athletes going head to head. Outside of rare cases, both teams want it just as much, it's just that only one team can win. One bounce in their favour, one slightly more rested player, and suddenly, they wanted it more.

My point was missed. The questions I posed are strictly hypothetical to illustrate different perceptions on whether this team will improve by coaching (or not). Firstly, it's not the same team...so there will be no outcome that we can measure. We can argue different points (like the examples I posted, or the ones that you did) but they don't really add up to anything. That's why I used +/-, it's about as vague as pretty much every other factor in this discussion.

If they do better this year for some reason, does that prove that coaching can make a bad team good? Not in any way we can quantify anyway. So, no...it doesn't.

And vise versa.

I'm just stating the opinion that it can make a bad team better. That's not a stretch. Any of the factors pertaining to the Leafs in this case are mostly unknown. That's what I was getting at with the Kessel references.

It might be an interesting discussion, are the Leafs better off without Kessel, but we will never really know. There are too many other factors involved to say for sure.

 

[lamajama]

I would believe the inmates are no longer running the asylum and having so many players on shorter deals etc will mean more attention will be paid to what Babcock wants. We will certainly be wanting for goals but I believe the effort and attention will be far better than last year and that should mean more points. Not many but more....hopefully not too many more 

 

[dappleganger]

Does anyone feel like the Leafs are going to keep spinning their wheels? Kinda like Detroit the last few years?

Babcock will make this team good enough (better than the sum of their parts) but not good enough to be a real threat in the playoffs?

Better hope Marner and Nylander are the real deal. Adding all these high profile coaches and execs doesn't necessary mean a recipe for success. There's been a lot of talk around Leaf land about the need for a No. 1 center but we haven't had an elite goalie since Belfour either. Leafs will need so many much, better players.

 

[Bender]

Does anyone feel like the Leafs are going to keep spinning their wheels? Kinda like Detroit the last few years?

Babcock will make this team good enough (better than the sum of their parts) but not good enough to be a real threat in the playoffs?

Better hope Marner and Nylander are the real deal. Adding all these high profile coaches and execs doesn't necessary mean a recipe for success. There's been a lot of talk around Leaf land about the need for a No. 1 center but we haven't had an elite goalie since Belfour either. Leafs will need so many much, better players.

I don't understand fan logic sometimes. Nothing necessarily leads to anything in hockey, but that doesn't mean it's better to not surround your team with the best staff available.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[rdowdall]

And it's probably worth mentioning that "bad" coaching is probably going to be pretty rare in the NHL. Especially when you reach a certain level in the standings.

Yeah. At the NHL level, "bad" coaching is more about sticking with outdated systems or attitudes, or trying to turn a group of players into something they're not. It's more about not being able to adapt. You don't get to the NHL by being a bad coach, but you don't stick around for a lengthy career at the NHL level if you're "bad" in comparison to the other guys available or employed by NHL teams.

I think that's where people get confused though.  I think they look at it and say "Well Randy Carlyle was a bad coach, and Peter Horachek was a bad coach, and the Leafs finished 4th last", so now that they have a "better" coach, then the results should be better.  They think the removal of the negative equals a positive.

Again they lost Kessel, but fans are looking at it like "Well Kadri is going to have a better year offensively because bad coaching kept him back, and JVR is going to have a better year because bad coaching kept him back, and Gardiner is going to be better because bad coaching kept him back.  And Phanuef is going to be used properly because the bad coaching was the reason he was used improperly.  And the defensive system is going to be better so there is going to be less shots and therefore the goalie's are going to be better."

However, if you use the Devils again as an example, they switched coaches practically every year and they still kept on winning.  You could look at the Avalanche as well as they won cups under Crawford and Hartley with practically the same core of players. 

People like to point to instances like the Avalanche when Roy joined as coach, and the Miracle on Ice, and the heroic Canucks run of '81 as instances where a coach made an impact, but to quote Harry Neale "Show me a good coach and I will show you a good goaltender".

 

[bustaheims]

I think that's where people get confused though.  I think they look at it and say "Well Randy Carlyle was a bad coach, and Peter Horachek was a bad coach, and the Leafs finished 4th last", so now that they have a "better" coach, then the results should be better.  They think the removal of the negative equals a positive.

Again they lost Kessel, but fans are looking at it like "Well Kadri is going to have a better year offensively because bad coaching kept him back, and JVR is going to have a better year because bad coaching kept him back, and Gardiner is going to be better because bad coaching kept him back.  And Phanuef is going to be used properly because the bad coaching was the reason he was used improperly.  And the defensive system is going to be better so there is going to be less shots and therefore the goalie's are going to be better."

However, if you use the Devils again as an example, they switched coaches practically every year and they still kept on winning.  You could look at the Avalanche as well as they won cups under Crawford and Hartley with practically the same core of players. 

People like to point to instances like the Avalanche when Roy joined as coach, and the Miracle on Ice, and the heroic Canucks run of '81 as instances where a coach made an impact, but to quote Harry Neale "Show me a good coach and I will show you a good goaltender".

Exactly. I certain accept and expect the Leafs to look better this season. I think we'll see a better organized team that doesn't get hemmed into their own end for long stretches or frequent goes 10+ minutes without a shot. I don't expect that to translate into results all that much, because, at the end of the day, the Leafs are a less talented team than they were last season - and they weren't very talented last season either. The goaltending and defence might be better, but the offence will almost certainly be worse - so, that's probably a write-off. Combine that with most of their competition for the bottom spots in the league improving their talent levels, and you have a recipe for a bottom of the league team again.

 

[Highlander]

Again we have to go back to systems and Babcock has his players in position, if they don't play the position they won't be on his team. I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.
Not saying anything about overall standings but expect a lot more from this team on a no quit level.

 

[Kin]

I think that's where people get confused though.  I think they look at it and say "Well Randy Carlyle was a bad coach, and Peter Horachek was a bad coach, and the Leafs finished 4th last", so now that they have a "better" coach, then the results should be better.  They think the removal of the negative equals a positive.

Again they lost Kessel, but fans are looking at it like "Well Kadri is going to have a better year offensively because bad coaching kept him back, and JVR is going to have a better year because bad coaching kept him back, and Gardiner is going to be better because bad coaching kept him back.  And Phanuef is going to be used properly because the bad coaching was the reason he was used improperly.  And the defensive system is going to be better so there is going to be less shots and therefore the goalie's are going to be better."

However, if you use the Devils again as an example, they switched coaches practically every year and they still kept on winning.  You could look at the Avalanche as well as they won cups under Crawford and Hartley with practically the same core of players. 

People like to point to instances like the Avalanche when Roy joined as coach, and the Miracle on Ice, and the heroic Canucks run of '81 as instances where a coach made an impact, but to quote Harry Neale "Show me a good coach and I will show you a good goaltender".

Well, I also think there are some people who think of coaches as being like teams where, you know, the 1st place team is a little better than the 2nd place team who are a little better than the 3rd place team and on and on and the effect is cumulative so that the gap between, say, #1 and #15 gets to be pretty significant.

But what I think is more accurate is, like I said to Busta, the coaches in the league who are a real drag on their team are few and far between at this level. That effect isn't cumulative. So it's more like a slight edge, maybe, on the majority of teams in the league but that ultimately will pale in comparison to the difference in talent between clubs.

Really, I think people sometimes buy into the idea of a coach as a major difference maker because:

A) People like basic, easy to follow narratives and "The coach played a major role" is one.

B) Sports fans like to divine real meaning from outcomes and are uncomfortable with the huge role that random chance plays in things.

So when a team wins unexpectedly, people go looking for explanations like "Player X's veteran leadership blah blah blah" or "The coach's strategy was a stroke of whatever" when really, you know, dice simply come up snake eyes from time to time.

 

[Kin]

I witnessed the structure in Phoenix when Detroit played the Yotes and I can tell you, that everyone on that team knew where to be on the ice all the time. So if you can't learn you are out.

Except that's complete hogwash. I've watched Red Wings games with Babcock coaching them. Their players made mistakes. They get out of position or forget to cover their man. And not guys who then got shipped out the next day either.