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

Status
Not open for further replies.

RageQuit77

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
5,200
3,724
Finland, Kotka
I don't like the current point system (not lonely spirit in this matter).

If these 'loser points' don't make sense, you can switch the perspective; Both teams get one point if they tie in regulation, but the team that manages to win OT/SO is awarded extra point for it's win.

That way we don't have to talk about loser points as teams in fact tied the real game, and what happens after that is more about gimmicks (particularly SO). I'm not entirely sure what is the logic of artificial, and forced search for winner in a game where it is indeed possible that two teams are equal in their play a game's end result showing that too.

Playoffs are of course different thing, but even there it would be possible tie games and determine series winner using other tie-breaking criteria.

If it would up to me, I would re-introduce old good 2-1-0 point system (including one shortened period of non-sudden death OT) for regular season games, and as many as needed full non-sudden death OTs for playoffs, and get rid of SOs altogether.
 

Mud Turtle

Registered User
Jul 26, 2013
8,058
18,233
There is a massive flaw in your post. You included OT losses as regulation losses and calculated the point percentage from that data. Doesn't work that way.

Maurice is 156-123-39 in 318 games with the Jets = .552.

Maurice is a sub 500 coach. He has lost more games than he has won.
500 used to be such an easy way of gauging how good teams were.
Now, since overtime wins don’t have a special category and are Utomatically lumped into general WINS, the same needs to be applied to overtime losses. To see if a team is above or below the 500 mark, overtime wins and losses both need to be lumped into general wins and losses.
If you do that, Maurice is sub 500 in his career.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
Maurice is a sub 500 coach. He has lost more games than he has won.
500 used to be such an easy way of gauging how good teams were.
Now, since overtime wins don’t have a special category and are Utomatically lumped into general WINS, the same needs to be applied to overtime losses. To see if a team is above or below the 500 mark, overtime wins and losses both need to be lumped into general wins and losses.
If you do that, Maurice is sub 500 in his career.

Using this approach:

2014/15 to 2017/18

Maurice (with Jets): 139W, 145L
Babcock (same timeframe): 135W, 149L

So, over the last 280+ games Maurice (with the Jets) has a superior record to Babcock (with the Wings and Leafs). Since that seems to be the main basis for critiquing Maurice, it seems that he's performing better than Babcock at this point in their careers, right?
 

Board Bard

Dane-O-Mite
Jun 7, 2014
7,886
5,054
Maurice is a sub 500 coach. He has lost more games than he has won.
500 used to be such an easy way of gauging how good teams were.
Now, since overtime wins don’t have a special category and are Utomatically lumped into general WINS, the same needs to be applied to overtime losses. To see if a team is above or below the 500 mark, overtime wins and losses both need to be lumped into general wins and losses.
If you do that, Maurice is sub 500 in his career.

Exactly. People are quick to eliminate OT and SO losses from a coach's win-loss record but they'll happily lump OT and SO wins into the same record like there's some kind of magical difference. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again for the ostriches: a loss is a loss, just like a win is a win.

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.

Who cares about Babcock? He's not coaching the Jets (unfortunately). But if you feel the need to obsess on him and use him as a strawman, no, he isn't a worse head coach than Maurice. He's better, by a multitude of playoff series, a Stanley Cup, and numerous international gold medals, including two (so far) at the Olympics, at the WJC, and at the IIHF World Championship. His success internationally makes him the only coach in history to earn entry into the IIHF's Triple Gold Club. Obviously his success in the NHL has earned him mega-millions and his choice of jobs. Comparing Maurice to Babcock is like comparing Pee-wee Herman (post-movie theatre) to Rambo.
 

YWGinYYZ

Registered User
Jul 3, 2011
28,480
7,117
Toronto
Exactly. People are quick to eliminate OT and SO losses from a coach's win-loss record but they'll happily lump OT and SO wins into the same record like there's some kind of magical difference. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again for the ostriches: a loss is a loss, just like a win is a win.

Given the differences between the eras of ties, SO losses not getting a point, and the current setup, the basic standard for calculating winning percentages is usually as a percentage of overall points that can be achieved.

Unless there's a reason for not doing it the "standard" way, in order to drive some point home?

I don't even much care for Maurice (truly: go look at my takes on him), but I don't understand why it's necessary to use some obscure mechanism to show that he sucks.

And I will repeat: a loss is not a loss. Some losses come with a point, while others garner no points. I get what you're getting at, I just disagree with it because it's not a common method of calculating win/loss percentages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dayofthedogs

Board Bard

Dane-O-Mite
Jun 7, 2014
7,886
5,054
I don't even much care for Maurice (truly: go look at my takes on him), but I don't understand why it's necessary to use some obscure mechanism to show that he sucks.

Wins-losses is an obscure mechanism now? Haha, that's rich. What's next, fingers are an obscure mechanism for counting to ten?

I get what you're getting at, I just disagree with it because it's not a common method of calculating win/loss percentages.

No, it's the only way of calculating win/loss percentage. What you're looking for is points percentage, which is not what I'm talking about.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
Exactly. People are quick to eliminate OT and SO losses from a coach's win-loss record but they'll happily lump OT and SO wins into the same record like there's some kind of magical difference. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again for the ostriches: a loss is a loss, just like a win is a win.



Who cares about Babcock? He's not coaching the Jets (unfortunately). But if you feel the need to obsess on him and use him as a strawman, no, he isn't a worse head coach than Maurice. He's better, by a multitude of playoff series, a Stanley Cup, and numerous international gold medals, including two (so far) at the Olympics, at the WJC, and at the IIHF World Championship. His success internationally makes him the only coach in history to earn entry into the IIHF's Triple Gold Club. Obviously his success in the NHL has earned him mega-millions and his choice of jobs. Comparing Maurice to Babcock is like comparing Pee-wee Herman (post-movie theatre) to Rambo.

Obviously, you care a lot about Babcock (which is why I used him as the comparison).

Maybe he'd be a good choice for those short international tournaments when he has the very best talent in the world at his disposal. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty irrelevant. I didn't even know there was a "Triple Gold Club" (which I couldn't care less about when thinking about an NHL coach).

Do you agree that over the past 4 seasons (since Maurice joined the Jets), Maurice's coaching record is better than Babcock's?
 
  • Like
Reactions: libertarian

Board Bard

Dane-O-Mite
Jun 7, 2014
7,886
5,054
Do you agree that over the past 4 seasons (since Maurice joined the Jets), Maurice's coaching record is better than Babcock's?

Well, I'm not going to take the time to count numbers, but I wouldn't agree that anything of Maurice's is better than Babcock's, apart from the length of his list of bonehead decisions.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
Well, I'm not going to take the time to count numbers, but I wouldn't agree that anything of Maurice's is better than Babcock's, apart from the length of his list of bonehead decisions.

No need to take time to count numbers, I did that for you...

...as long as his boneheaded decisions results in a better record that's what matters, right?

(By the way, my actual point isn't that I think that Maurice is a better coach than Babcock, but rather than a raw assessment based on coaching record is an insufficient way to assess coaching capability).
 

Gm0ney

Unicorns salient
Oct 12, 2011
14,428
12,680
Winnipeg
Using this approach:

2014/15 to 2017/18

Maurice (with Jets): 139W, 145L
Babcock (same timeframe): 135W, 149L

So, over the last 280+ games Maurice (with the Jets) has a superior record to Babcock (with the Wings and Leafs). Since that seems to be the main basis for critiquing Maurice, it seems that he's performing better than Babcock at this point in their careers, right?

I'm not sure why anyone thinks the argument that Maurice is a bad coach rests solely on his poor W-L record (however you want to slice it). But results matter - it's part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as meaningless, but it's not the only piece of evidence.

And the comparison between Maurice's loss record and Arbour's or Bowman's isn't apples-to-apples because Maurice played under a system that hides some losses as OTLs.

Adjusting for era, the coaching loss leader list:
CoachWLTPct
Maurice617632154.495
Trotz736619143.539
Ruff736 615 142 .541
Wilson648609144.514
Bowman1244583314.654
Arbour782 577248.564
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mud Turtle

10Ducky10

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jul 5, 2015
13,784
11,429
Maurice says we will probably see a different lineup from home to away games.
 

Whileee

Registered User
May 29, 2010
46,061
33,043
I'm not sure why anyone thinks the argument that Maurice is a bad coach rests solely on his poor W-L record (however you want to slice it). But results matter - it's part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as meaningless, but it's not the only piece of evidence.

And the comparison between Maurice's loss record and Arbour's or Bowman's isn't apples-to-apples because Maurice played under a system that hides some losses as OTLs.

Adjusting for era, the coaching loss leader list:
CoachWLTPct
Maurice617632154.495
Trotz736619143.539
Ruff736 615 142 .541
Wilson648609144.514
Bowman1244583314.654
Arbour782 577248.564
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Now, all you need to do is adjust for the quality of the line-up and you'll be able to more accurately assess the quality of the coaches.

I am not a big Maurice fan (as my post history will attest), but I really think it is a weak analysis to compare Maurice and his record with the Whalers / Canes / Leafs / Jets to coaches who have had much stronger teams.

I think Babcock is a better coach than Maurice, but his record over the past 4 seasons has been worse than Maurice's. Why? Because he hasn't had a very strong roster to coach. The same lens should be applied to Maurice's career coaching record.
 

Gm0ney

Unicorns salient
Oct 12, 2011
14,428
12,680
Winnipeg
Now, all you need to do is adjust for the quality of the line-up and you'll be able to more accurately assess the quality of the coaches.

I am not a big Maurice fan (as my post history will attest), but I really think it is a weak analysis to compare Maurice and his record with the Whalers / Canes / Leafs / Jets to coaches who have had much stronger teams.

I think Babcock is a better coach than Maurice, but his record over the past 4 seasons has been worse than Maurice's. Why? Because he hasn't had a very strong roster to coach. The same lens should be applied to Maurice's career coaching record.

Bad teams are built by bad GMs, who hire bad coaches. It's the circle of life! :laugh:

Really, though, it's a "results based business" so how does a guy who's rarely managed to put together very good W-L results stick around? Is it more likely that he's a good coach with bad luck or he's a bad coach with good (employment) luck?
 

grieves

silent prayer
Apr 27, 2016
3,556
2,672
I reserve the right to post this message, and promise to withhold further similar actions this year.

Laine has not been deployed in situation where he can benefit the team most. His Corsi For Events have not been maximized while the player himself has proven himself to be the most efficient goal scorer in the league (xGoals used as parameter).
Not once has the coaching staff been interested so far about putting arguably the best duo in the league together. In-game, out-of-game, not ****ing once just to even see if there is anything to it, no matter if CSW scores 4 goals in a month.
How much more should Armia prove himself to deserve at least a look?
How many mistakes can some veterans make to suffer at least the tiniest amount of consequences, just to at least send a signal that this is not some club house for the inner circle?
New PP deployment is putting the most effective goal-scorer on his off-wing while putting a solid RW to his off-wing, when we already have a small amount of data that this is a bad idea.
Where did Helle get his training in the off-season?
How laughable has our PK system been?

I don't want to get on Maurice. I want to get on all of the coaching staff and I want them all gone.

And that is the end of that.
 

puck stoppa

Registered User
Jul 5, 2011
12,905
6,441
Winnipeg
It's evident PMo is a players coach and the guys are playing hard for him right now. It would have been easy for team to fold after Scheif injury but good leadership at the top with coach, and down to cappies (yes, even glue Hendy no matter how we all laugh at glue, the new voice in the room helps) means the room is strong as others follow. Our special teams have improved and so have the stupid penalties for the most part so I have to give credit where it's due across the board to all staff. Let's hope for the same into the new year.
 

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,529
38,962
Winnipeg
It's evident PMo is a players coach and the guys are playing hard for him right now. It would have been easy for team to fold after Scheif injury but good leadership at the top with coach, and down to cappies (yes, even glue Hendy no matter how we all laugh at glue, the new voice in the room helps) means the room is strong as others follow. Our special teams have improved and so have the stupid penalties for the most part so I have to give credit where it's due across the board to all staff. Let's hope for the same into the new year.
Agreed across the board. I really liked how Maurice and Wheeler handled the situation. The right buttons have been pushed with this team and their confidence is sky high.
 

MrBoJangelz71

Registered User
Jan 14, 2014
4,948
5,987
Then you must also want the Jets to lose pretty much every game for the rest of the season, cause that's about what it would take now to get all our coaches fired.

I’m sure if Laine was being used “better”, grieves would be fine with that?

And btw, if Laine is on the first line, and number 1 pp unit, what other ice should we be giving Laine that Maurice and company are robbing him of?

Ridiculous statement towards a coaching staff that has done a very good job developing this team, and addressing our weaknesses, while having us sitting 1st in our division, 2nd in the conference and 3rd in the league.
 

KingBogo

Admitted Homer
Nov 29, 2011
31,529
38,962
Winnipeg
I reserve the right to post this message, and promise to withhold further similar actions this year.

Laine has not been deployed in situation where he can benefit the team most. His Corsi For Events have not been maximized while the player himself has proven himself to be the most efficient goal scorer in the league (xGoals used as parameter).
Not once has the coaching staff been interested so far about putting arguably the best duo in the league together. In-game, out-of-game, not ****ing once just to even see if there is anything to it, no matter if CSW scores 4 goals in a month.
How much more should Armia prove himself to deserve at least a look?
How many mistakes can some veterans make to suffer at least the tiniest amount of consequences, just to at least send a signal that this is not some club house for the inner circle?
New PP deployment is putting the most effective goal-scorer on his off-wing while putting a solid RW to his off-wing, when we already have a small amount of data that this is a bad idea.
Where did Helle get his training in the off-season?
How laughable has our PK system been?

I don't want to get on Maurice. I want to get on all of the coaching staff and I want them all gone.

And that is the end of that.
And you want to know what is more likely? That Maurice hasn't reached the mid point in his tenure as the Jets head coach. TNSE is a fiercely loyal organization and Maurice has been portrayed by both ownership and management as being the good soldier and being willing to coach a very young and inexperienced team over the past couple seasons. Now that this team has made the next step towards contender status Maurice will be given a very long leash to take it all the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: libertarian

Dayofthedogs

Bettman's hammer
Feb 20, 2016
2,113
1,038
Winnipeg
A lot of coaches would have stapled Laine's ass to the bench or 3rd or 4th line at various points in the last season and a half.

Regardless of what I think about PoMo... He's given his young players plenty of chances to succeed in high leverage situations.

Frankly it's to the point now where the "Laine isn't being used properly" band wagon just makes me sad.
 

Dayofthedogs

Bettman's hammer
Feb 20, 2016
2,113
1,038
Winnipeg
I'm not even sure you guys realize how bad it makes Laine look when it's insisted that he is pretty much useless not playing with Chef.... Which he isn't.

This is starting to feel like the whole Petan schtick
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ducky10

libertarian

Registered User
Jul 27, 2017
3,389
3,891
Middle Earth
And you want to know what is more likely? That Maurice hasn't reached the mid point in his tenure as the Jets head coach. TNSE is a fiercely loyal organization and Maurice has been portrayed by both ownership and management as being the good soldier and being willing to coach a very young and inexperienced team over the past couple seasons. Now that this team has made the next step towards contender status Maurice will be given a very long leash to take it all the way.

Great post KingBogo!

Not only will PoMo get that long leash he deserves to get it. This Jets team that Chevy as created is by far the most talented team PoMo has ever coached and I happen to believe he is the right coach for the Jets to win a cup or two.
 

Ducky10

Searching for Mark Scheifele
Nov 14, 2014
19,809
31,386
It's ok to be critical of Maurice but it's also ok to give him some credit for having this team playing as cohesively as it is. Much of the criticism at this point is just a matter of being stubborn and narrow minded. The expectation of perfection is silly, this team is playing well on so many levels and in so many areas, ignoring that lacks all credibility to me. Suggesting ways the team can improve is fine, being critical because it's not being done the way you want is cheap.
 

JetsFan815

Registered User
Jan 16, 2012
19,122
23,879
So far this season the following people are responsible for Laine "not being put in a position to succeed" according to his most hardcore fanboys:

* Little for playing an "old school" north-south game, trying to cycle the puck which for inexplicable reasons isn't conducive to "skill players", & not having the "vision" to find PL
* Ehlers for playing a "selfish and greedy" game, being too impressive with his skating abilities, not passing to Laine and not having the "iq" to make plays
* Wheeler for being a "selfish veteren" and "bullying" the coach into giving him top line minutes with Scheif and a key role on the PP. (Also not passing to Laine)
* Byfuglien for being tunnel visioned on the PP and not passing to Laine enough
* Trouba for shooting too much from the point and not passing to Laine (that not passing thing comes up a lot doesn't it?)
* Chevaldayoff and Mark Chipman for secretly undertaking a conspiracy to suppress Laine's point totals
* Maurice for not putting Laine with Schiefele, putting him with Little, not forcefeeding Laine top minutes every night inspite of his defensive issues, and in general not tailoring the entire team to maximize Laine's point totals

Expected to join this list in the foreseeable future:
* Kyle Connor

It's ok to be critical of Maurice but it's also ok to give him some credit for having this team playing as cohesively as it is. Much of the criticism at this point is just a matter of being stubborn and narrow minded. The expectation of perfection is silly, this team is playing well on so many levels and in so many areas, ignoring that lacks all credibility to me. Suggesting ways the team can improve is fine, being critical because it's not being done the way you want is cheap.

Maurice has this team playing like an elite team by pretty much all metrics since mid-November and deserves respect for that. Maurice is getting great results and looking the like the coach of the 14-15 Jets. I was critical of him to start the season but credit must be given where it's due. He did get lucky in that he was able to get KC in the lineup due to an injury despite sending him to the minors to start the season but props to Maurice for putting Connor in a position to succeed.

Now if only he can get the PK on track, it's not killing us yet but that's a clear area of improvement. Esp against skilled PPs
 

YWGinYYZ

Registered User
Jul 3, 2011
28,480
7,117
Toronto
Maurice has this team playing like an elite team by pretty much all metrics since mid-November and deserves respect for that. Maurice is getting great results and looking the like the coach of the 14-15 Jets. I was critical of him to start the season but credit must be given where it's due.

I'm at the same place. Was very concerned by the collapse and poor play in the first two games, then concerned that we were riding a high PDO. All metrics have swung around, and it shows in the game we're seeing on ice. He's done a good job in getting all the players on the same page.

PK is working - looks like hell, but for some reason, it's working. Reminds me a bit too much of a shooting gallery, but they do seem to be taking away passing lanes.

I agree that this team is looking more like the 14-15 team during their dominant stretches - the difference now is that this team has a lot more raw talent than the other edition. They're also a fair sight younger, to boot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->