All Purpose Coaching Thread - Maurice, Assistants, Potential Replacements etc.

[Board Bard]

You'll end up with a less accurate number that way.

No, you end up with less accurate numbers when you pretend that losses are ties, like you are.

 

[Maukkis]

No, you end up with less accurate numbers when you pretend that losses are ties, like you are.

You do realize that regardless of how you see it, points are awarded for OT losses and those are factored in when calculating the actual standings?

 

[Board Bard]

You do realize that regardless of how you see it, points are awarded for OT losses and those are factored in when calculating the actual standings?

So what? That doesn't turn a loss into a tie.

 

[Maukkis]

So what? That doesn't turn a loss into a tie.

Lol. Talk about purposefully ignoring a fact.

 

[Board Bard]

Lol. Talk about purposefully ignoring a fact.

Fact: a loss is a loss.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Fact: a loss is a loss.

Some losses come with the added benefit of a point, so no: a loss is not a loss.

I'm far from the biggest Maurice supporter, but shouldn't we judge all coaches using the same metrics? Even Q doesn't look that great if you turn his ties into straight up losses.

Strange argument to make.

 

[Board Bard]

Some losses come with the added benefit of a point, so no: a loss is not a loss.

I'm far from the biggest Maurice supporter, but shouldn't we judge all coaches using the same metrics? Even Q doesn't look that great if you turn his ties into straight up losses.

Strange argument to make.

A loss is a loss, period. All the hoping and wishing and NHL points manipulation do not change that.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

A loss is a loss, period. All the hoping and wishing and NHL points manipulation do not change that.

Who's wishing? I'm simply stating fact: the NHL awards a point for those OTL's.

Answer me this: do you receive a point after getting a game to OT?

 

[Festinator]

So what? That doesn't turn a loss into a tie.

It literally does when it comes to the standings.

 

[Board Bard]

Who's wishing? I'm simply stating fact: the NHL awards a point for those OTL's.

Answer me this: do you receive a point after getting a game to OT?

Answer me this: The NHL calls a loss in overtime an Overtime Loss (OTL) and a loss in a shootout a Shootout Loss (SOL). Are those losses, or are they some make-believe thing that aren't losses?

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Answer me this: The NHL calls a loss in overtime an Overtime Loss (OTL) and a loss in a shootout a Shootout Loss (SOL). Are those losses, or are they some make-believe thing that aren't losses?

Different argument. Those differences are used to calculate ROW.

You didn't answer my question, BTW.

 

[Board Bard]

Different argument. Those differences are used to calculate ROW.

You didn't answer my question, BTW.

Your question (i.e. strawman) is irrelevant to wins-losses.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

Your question (i.e. strawman) is irrelevant to wins-losses.

No, it's really not. You're attempting to equate what used to be a Tie with a straight up Loss. It's not a strawman to suggest that it's disingenuous to lump OT losses in with regular losses in order to make a point about Maurice's record.

And you still haven't answered my question. It's important to the argument, really.

 

[Gm0ney]

Now that Chevy has shown that he's been an effective GM, most of the fire from those more negatively inclined has turned on Maurice, even though the team has been at least as effective as the Babcock-coached team this season. It will be interesting to see what other refuge of negativity will be found if Maurice coaches this team on a very strong run.

You give a GM 6 or 7 years and sooner or later he's going to put together a winner...

 

[tbcwpg]

I'm ok with including OT losses in with regular ones. In years past, you didn't get a point for an OT loss so that's fair.

Shootout losses should definitely not be included though. Throw them in with the ties.

 

[YWGinYYZ]

I'm ok with including OT losses in with regular ones. In years past, you didn't get a point for an OT loss so that's fair.

In years-years past, you both got a point for the tie and went home for the night.

 

[Gm0ney]

I'm ok with including OT losses in with regular ones. In years past, you didn't get a point for an OT loss so that's fair.

Shootout losses should definitely not be included though. Throw them in with the ties.

Yes, this would be consistent with the pre-1999 points system. OT losses are losses. Shootout losses are ties.

If Maurice's career were played entirely under the pre-1999 rules, he'd have more losses that currently appear on his record. Hockey Reference doesn't distinguish between OT and SO losses though, so we'd have to estimate...I come up with 52 more losses (and 55 more ties)*. So his estimated career record would be 617-632-154 for a .495 win percentage.

* Maurice had 16 OTL prior to the introduction of the shootout, so we can count those as straight losses under the pre-1999 system. He has 91 OTL since the shootout - and this includes shootout losses - so based on the leaguewide number of games that end in shootouts vs. a decision in OT (~60%) that comes to 36 losses in OT, plus those 16 from the pre-shootout era = 52 losses and 55 ties.

 

[Peggy]

Some losses come with the added benefit of a point, so no: a loss is not a loss.

I'm far from the biggest Maurice supporter, but shouldn't we judge all coaches using the same metrics? Even Q doesn't look that great if you turn his ties into straight up losses.

Strange argument to make.

at the end of the day a loss is a loss
they called loser points for a reason

you can call them ties since the game sigfncisntly changes from 60 minutes to OT to shoot out
But some say a tie is worse than a loss

 

[nobody important]

In years-years past, you both got a point for the tie and went home for the night.

And that's the way it should have stayed, instead of introducing gimmicky mini-games and skills comps. If the billions of people who watch soccer can live with draws, so can we.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I don't like the idea of Wheeler playing centre, that's where I find that's the place he'll be more likely to struggle, and he's very prone to struggling, so that says a ton. Would rather these be the lines:

Perreault-Little-Wheeler
Laine-Connor-Ehlers
Lowry-Copp-Armia
Matthias-Hendricks-Tanev


I would also add Roslovic, but he'll be an option if one more guy gets injured. Would add Roslovic because he can add more impact and fill a good amount of void of Scheifele being out. Also, Connor can play centre, but it's better with him at centre than Wheeler, Laine or Ehlers. Also want to see what that line can do.

 

[Eyeseeing]

I enjoyed the OTL discussion above.
A loss is a loss .... meh.
I am not Maurice’s biggest fan but I am not disappointed so far with his handling of the roster.

 

[Whileee]

No, you end up with less accurate numbers when you pretend that losses are ties, like you are.

So by your new system the Jets and Leafs had the same record last season, despite having a ton more injuries and a tougher schedule. I guess Maurice has now been out coaching Babcock for three straight seasons, by your logic.

 

[Board Bard]

So by your new system the Jets and Leafs had the same record last season, despite having a ton more injuries and a tougher schedule. I guess Maurice has now been out coaching Babcock for three straight seasons, by your logic.

What new system is that? What I'm quoting is a simple calculation of wins (of any kind) vs. losses (of any kind). [mod]

 

[Whileee]

What new system is that? What I'm quoting is a simple calculation of wins (of any kind) vs. losses (of any kind). [mod]

NHL games have 60 minutes (3 twenty-minute periods) of regulation time. If one team outscores the other during regulation time they win, and the other team loses with no point awarded to the loser. If teams are tied after regulation, they both get a point for the regulation draw, just as they did for decades.. Then we get the gimmicks to determine which team gets an extra point. I know the five-year olds in my neighborhood can understand the difference between a regulation loss and a regulation draw.

So I guess you concede that based on your interpretation Maurice has had more success than Babcock over the past three seasons, right? This is the coaching thread, after all.

 

[JetsFan815]

Someone could use the last few pages of this thread to write a post-graduate thesis about what a "loss" means in the NHL.