Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Deebo]

This is most idiotic strategy I have seen in almost 30 years of following hockey worldwide. For a while the whole "Frig Corsi" was fun and I admit that I had fun of those stats people as well. I was wrong. It works in limited number of games (or even in a shortened season) but over the full season it is destined to fall apart sooner or later.

The Leafs "out corsi-ed" the opposition over the 5 game stretch of losses before the blues game.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The Leafs "out corsi-ed" the opposition over the 5 game stretch of losses before the blues game.

At even-strength they only had the advantage in 2 of those 5 games. And the margins in those two were smaller than the other 3 they were "out corsi-ed" in.

And they were "out fenwick-ed" in all 5 at even-strength.

 

[Coco-puffs]

This is most idiotic strategy I have seen in almost 30 years of following hockey worldwide. For a while the whole "Frig Corsi" was fun and I admit that I had fun of those stats people as well. I was wrong. It works in limited number of games (or even in a shortened season) but over the full season it is destined to fall apart sooner or later.

The Leafs "out corsi-ed" the opposition over the 5 game stretch of losses before the blues game.

Actually, only 3 of those games.  And in all cases, they were playing from behind. 

If you look at the Corsi 5on5 Close (ie, when the game is within 1 goal, which according to the advanced stats crowd is really what matters.... when you are down by 3 goals, they expect the opposition to play more defensively and for you to press more so stats are skewed):

Wash:  43.5%
Det:  48.4%
Tampa:  28.6%
Habs:  51%
Devils:  40%

Looking back, out of all those games, it was the Habs game that I thought they deserved to win.  Damn iron.

 

[Coco-puffs]

I think Nonis made a mistake not picking up one of the available forwards at the deadline, Moulson, Vanek or some of that nature would have been a nice upgrade. At first I was not so sure, given that they would have been rentals, but when I saw how little it took to get them, it would have added another quality player while putting pressure on the rest of this group to perform better. Then, of course, there is always the chance of resigning the guy if he likes Toronto. The downside of not doing anything, is potentially missing the playoffs and how does that help the development of the young guys on this team?

Once again:  The Leafs did not have the cap space to pick up any of those players.  The only way they could do it, was to move someone with equivalent cap space off the roster at the same time, which probably wouldn't have helped unless it was David Clarkson.

 

[Deebo]

The Leafs "out corsi-ed" the opposition over the 5 game stretch of losses before the blues game.

At even-strength they only had the advantage in 2 of those 5 games. And the margins in those two were smaller than the other 3 they were "out corsi-ed" in.

And they were "out fenwick-ed" in all 5 at even-strength.

So there is more to the evaluation of performances than shot totals and context matters?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

The Leafs "out corsi-ed" the opposition over the 5 game stretch of losses before the blues game.

At even-strength they only had the advantage in 2 of those 5 games. And the margins in those two were smaller than the other 3 they were "out corsi-ed" in.

And they were "out fenwick-ed" in all 5 at even-strength.

So there is more to the evaluation of performances than shot totals and context matters?

Who has said there isn't?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So there is more to the evaluation of performances than shot totals and context matters?

Correct. I don't believe the team who shoots more wins every game.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So there is more to the evaluation of performances than shot totals and context matters?

Correct. I don't believe the team who shoots more wins every game.

Please enjoy this image of straw, man.

 

[Frank E]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

Fair enough. But we haven't had much luck in the recent past with the strategy of changing coaches in the hopes of improving the play of this team.

Didn't have much luck in changing goalies either until a good one came along.

So the strategy is to change coaches every couple of years until the team decides to actually play for one of them?

It may not sound entirely fair, but the reality is that it's a whole lot easier to fire the coach than revamp the roster.

Carlyle seems like a nice guy, but he knows how this business works...it's totally performance based.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

Fair enough. But we haven't had much luck in the recent past with the strategy of changing coaches in the hopes of improving the play of this team.

Didn't have much luck in changing goalies either until a good one came along.

So the strategy is to change coaches every couple of years until the team decides to actually play for one of them?

It may not sound entirely fair, but the reality is that it's a whole lot easier to fire the coach than revamp the roster.

Pretty much.  It's really hard to determine whether a team has "decided to play" for a coach or not - but far less difficult to hire a new coach than try to change the roster and configure one that "decides to play" for this coach.  I mean, you could make that argument for every coach that's ever been fired then - team just decided not to play for him I guess.  But then wouldn't it also be part of the coach's job to get the team to buy in?

Just seems like the simplest answer if you're the GM - you put this roster together so you obviously must believe in it.  Makes sense to try a new coach (this one isn't even one Nonis hired) before you blow it up.

 

[Deebo]

So there is more to the evaluation of performances than shot totals and context matters?

Correct. I don't believe the team who shoots more wins every game.

Please enjoy this image of straw, man.

From just the first page of your post history:

As has been said many times, they're on pace to give up some of the most shots on goal in history .... how can you get much worse than that?

Giving up the most shots on goal in history, so it can't get worse?

basically the Leafs were a 48.9% possesion team in Wilson's last year here.  Last season they were 45%, and this season are 43.7% ...  With 48.9% possession they're likely a pretty good team.

Possession stats based on SF/SA, so I interpret this post to say that if the leafs SF/SA totals were better, they'd likely be pretty good team.

You may not explicitly say that shots for and against is the only thing that matters, but the basis of what appears to be the bulk of your evaluations of the team are based on SF/SA so it seems that you feel that way. Apologies if you don't.

 

[Deebo]

Just seems like the simplest answer if you're the GM - you put this roster together so you obviously must believe in it.  Makes sense to try a new coach (this one isn't even one Nonis hired) before you blow it up.

Firing the coach or blowing up the roster aren't the only options.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So there is more to the evaluation of performances than shot totals and context matters?

Correct. I don't believe the team who shoots more wins every game.

Please enjoy this image of straw, man.

From just the first page of your post history:

As has been said many times, they're on pace to give up some of the most shots on goal in history .... how can you get much worse than that?

Giving up the most shots on goal in history, so it can't get worse?

basically the Leafs were a 48.9% possesion team in Wilson's last year here.  Last season they were 45%, and this season are 43.7% ...  With 48.9% possession they're likely a pretty good team.

Possession stats based on SF/SA, so I interpret this post to say that if the leafs SF/SA totals were better, they'd likely be pretty good team.

You may not explicitly say that shots for and against is the only thing that matters, but the basis of what appears to be the bulk of your evaluations of the team are based on SF/SA so it seems that you feel that way. Apologies if you don't.

I feel that to be the biggest issue surrounding the team right now (the degree to which they get outshot).  You're taking that to an illogical conclusion and diverting the issue.

If they were last in the league in goals scored and we always discussed their offensive issues - would that mean that goal scoring is the only performance evaluation necessary and should be presented without context?

Systems issues have been discussed.  Personnel issues (4th line, overuse of McClement, use of Clarkson, use of D, etc.) have been discussed ad nauseum.

The reality is you're never going to get a completely perfect contextual discussion - most people don't have the time of day or the requisite ability to do it.  We could pick out posts of members all day and say "oh so goals is the only important criteria" etc.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Just seems like the simplest answer if you're the GM - you put this roster together so you obviously must believe in it.  Makes sense to try a new coach (this one isn't even one Nonis hired) before you blow it up.

Firing the coach or blowing up the roster aren't the only options.

Blowing up the roster or firing the coach is the only option.

Phewf, that time I really did say it!

If you think the issue is the makeup of the team and the team not playing for the coach, then you have systemic issues with the leadership and core of the team.  You're not addressing that issue without a huge remodeling of the team, or else you're going to be stuck with the same issues.  If that's what you believe.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Possession stats based on SF/SA, so I interpret this post to say that if the leafs SF/SA totals were better, they'd likely be pretty good team.

Given how well the goaltending has been this season, how well our scorers have performed, and how close we are to the playoffs right now, you don't think that if the Leafs were even just an average possession team that they'd be firmly in the playoffs?

 

[Deebo]

Phewf, that time I really did say it!

Those are two options you presented in that post.

If you think the issue is the makeup of the team and the team not playing for the coach, then you have systemic issues with the leadership and core of the team. You're not addressing that issue without a huge remodeling of the team, or else you're going to be stuck with the same issues.  If that's what you believe.

And the rest of this post implies that you think that those are the only two options that will result in improvement.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

If you think the issue is the makeup of the team and the team not playing for the coach, then you have systemic issues with the leadership and core of the team. You're not addressing that issue without a huge remodeling of the team, or else you're going to be stuck with the same issues.  If that's what you believe.

And the rest of this post implies that you think that those are the only two options that will result in improvement.

Because you're taking my post out of the string of replies and isolating it.  I was responding to Frank, who was replying to Redleaf's comments about changing coaches when, in his opinion, it is the team not actually playing for the coach.  IN THAT SCENARIO Mr. Context, then those are the options I think are available to improve the team - if the team isn't playing for a coach, then it represents a deficiency in the core of the team that needs to be severely remedied.

Again, never did I present those as the only two options available to a team.  I responded to the specific comments that were being made in that string of comments.  If you would like to continue to parse these responses with straw man arguments, be my guest.

 

[Deebo]

Possession stats based on SF/SA, so I interpret this post to say that if the leafs SF/SA totals were better, they'd likely be pretty good team.

Given how well the goaltending has been this season, how well our scorers have performed, and how close we are to the playoffs right now, you don't think that if the Leafs were even just an average possession team that they'd be firmly in the playoffs?

I don't think that SV% would stay the same if they possession numbers were different.

Accorinding to this link:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/nhl-goalies-better-with-high-shot-volumes/

You'll see that .925 SV% is only slightly better than average when goalies are facing 35 shots per 60 minutes.

 

[TML fan]

I don't think I am, because nobody said those words.

Yeah, I mean I guess that statement needs to be expanded on a bit. Could my neighbour George coach this team better? Probably not. Do I think a qualified NHL coach who has a better idea of how to win in the NHL today and has strategies that are better suited for this team would be better? Definitely.

Fair enough. But we haven't had much luck in the recent past with the strategy of changing coaches in the hopes of improving the play of this team.

Didn't have much luck in changing goalies either until a good one came along.

So the strategy is to change coaches every couple of years until the team decides to actually play for one of them?

The strategy is to find a coach who doesn't make his team worse than it is.

 

[Highlander]

Then why don't we start with a coach that will not tolerate more than 30 shots a night and would strive to keep it to 25?  Oh wait, we have one of these in our trunk?how fortunate.  Randy wants the opposition to shoot unlimited shots at our miracle goalies, Mr. Spott has thrown down the gauntlet with his statement.  Perhaps Mr. Leiweke is listening?