Let us take a stroll down Carlyle road (One Year Anniversary)

[X66]

Love that the internet standard of what makes a good coach is team corsi, myopic analysis disguising itself an insightful...

Or, wait for it, OR, we can look at corsi, look at the eye test, look at shots for/against charts WITH quality of shots, we can look how how someone utilizes a team, or how they were with 2 different teams.

There is a lot, a ton, more information provided here outside of just corsi.

 

[X66]

If shot differentials are important now, riddle me this… what did you think of Ron Wilson?

[/pre]

I didn't mind Wilson as a coach, I've defended him before and back it up with statistics. He wasn't my first choice but compared to Carlyle, he was the modern day Scotty Bowman.

"Randy Carlyle vs. Bruce Boudreau and Ron Wilson


In the year Carlyle was fired from the Ducks, his team averaged 26 shots for and 31 against. That same season when Boudreau took over, the Ducks finished the season with 1626 shots allowed and 1657 shots for under Boudreau. When you combine both coaches, the Ducks allowed for were 2367 and shots for were 2291, meaning Carlyle’s coached team was outshot 741 to 634.

The Ducks finished that season with an average of 27.9 shots allowed and 28.8 shots against, Boudreau was a miracle worker considering Carlyle had them at 26 and 31 for a quarter of the season. The Ducks under Boudreau that season allowed 28 shots against and 28.5 shots for.

Ron Wilson was not the perfect coach for the Maple Leafs, but he was not nearly as bad as Carlyle. Carlyle’s job security is masked behind the stellar(franchise record) save percentages of James Reimer and Jonathan Bernier(Individual seasons). If Ron Wilson teams were ever afforded that type of goaltending he would have undoubtedly coached the Leafs longer than he had.

Before Wilson was fired in the 2011/2012 season, he had the Leafs averaging 27.64 shots against. In that 11 game span that had Wilson fired, the team still only had an average of 30 shots a game allowed.

The Goaltenders under Ron Wilson that season faced an average amount of shots of:

Gustavsson: 27.9
Reimer: 28.3
Scrivens: 27.3

Compared to what the Leafs goalies have faced the last 2 years, and that seems impossible to imagine.

In fact, in the same year that Wilson was fired, the following 18 games that Carlyle took over, the team averaged a mere 25 shots a game and allowed a whopping 31 shots allowed, so a 6 shot differential. Par for the course for Carlyle Leaf teams.

Time for change"

 

[indigobuffalo]

I didn't mind Wilson as a coach, I've defended him before and back it up with statistics. He wasn't my first choice but compared to Carlyle, he was the modern day Scotty Bowman.

"Randy Carlyle vs. Bruce Boudreau and Ron Wilson


In the year Carlyle was fired from the Ducks, his team averaged 26 shots for and 31 against. That same season when Boudreau took over, the Ducks finished the season with 1626 shots allowed and 1657 shots for under Boudreau. When you combine both coaches, the Ducks allowed for were 2367 and shots for were 2291, meaning Carlyle’s coached team was outshot 741 to 634.

The Ducks finished that season with an average of 27.9 shots allowed and 28.8 shots against, Boudreau was a miracle worker considering Carlyle had them at 26 and 31 for a quarter of the season. The Ducks under Boudreau that season allowed 28 shots against and 28.5 shots for.

Ron Wilson was not the perfect coach for the Maple Leafs, but he was not nearly as bad as Carlyle. Carlyle’s job security is masked behind the stellar(franchise record) save percentages of James Reimer and Jonathan Bernier(Individual seasons). If Ron Wilson teams were ever afforded that type of goaltending he would have undoubtedly coached the Leafs longer than he had.

Before Wilson was fired in the 2011/2012 season, he had the Leafs averaging 27.64 shots against. In that 11 game span that had Wilson fired, the team still only had an average of 30 shots a game allowed.

The Goaltenders under Ron Wilson that season faced an average amount of shots of:

Gustavsson: 27.9
Reimer: 28.3
Scrivens: 27.3

Compared to what the Leafs goalies have faced the last 2 years, and that seems impossible to imagine.

In fact, in the same year that Wilson was fired, the following 18 games that Carlyle took over, the team averaged a mere 25 shots a game and allowed a whopping 31 shots allowed, so a 6 shot differential. Par for the course for Carlyle Leaf teams.

Time for change"

Carlyle clearly figured out the trick to winning with Reimer is to allow 40+ shots a game. Wilson clearly never discovered that gem.

 

[X66]

When did you move from save percentages to those charts on shots?

Wasn't your point that that "record is only salvaged due to the best save percentages in franchise history in consecutive years" ?

Yep. That was your point all right. I guess you've figured out that .917 is better than .912 so we can move on

[/pre]

I am capable of arguing many things, as I've proved in this thread. I do not rely on straw man arguments, much like you do.

You are confused with the save percentage argument, which is okay, because it is such a small point but that's expected.

2012/2013
Leafs Goaltending combo .919sv%
Including James Reimer's franchise best save percentage for goaltenders that played over 30 games and .924sv%

2013/2014
Leafs Goaltending combo .918 sv%
Including a franchise best for goaltenders that played over 50 games, Bernier's .923s%

2014/2015
Up until Carlyle was fired
Leafs Goaltending Combo .912 sv%
Including 28 games of Bernier posting a .920sv%

=.916sv%(which is not .912, so we can move on) in season Carlyle started the season as our coach, and also includes 3 of the franchises highest save percentages for goalies that have played 25 or more games for the organization

But this is where you FAIL to see the CONTEXT

The shot charts serve more than just to show Carlyle was a terrible coach, that you should expect the Leafs save percentage to increase this year because the chances they've faced are easier(as proven by the chart). To have a .916sv% when considering the shots selection and amount we gave up is remarkable.

Pook, you're not winning this.

lol

 

[Pookie]

I am capable of arguing many things, as I've proved in this thread. I do not rely on straw man arguments, much like you do….

Sigh

Goals Against 563
Shots Against 6429

Save Percentage .912



Let me ask you this. What makes you happy about trying to discredit a Coach that has survived in the NHL for the better part of a decade?

Incidentally, it was Carlyle's Ducks that beat Babcock's Wings in the Conference Finals en route to that Cup. Surely if Babcock is a great a legend as you claim, beating him head to head must be worth something… wouldn't you say?

 

[X66]

I look at contemporary examples of coaching. I use sample sizes of 4 to 5 years for Carlyle because it's his most recent body of work. He has shown he is incapable of adapting.

What did you use to tally those goals allowed btw?

 

[ITM]

Carlyle had profound insight into the clubs problems. I think management knew where most of the problems lay and to say Carlyle was one of those most responsible with the performance of the club, doesn't really do justice to the magnitude of the dilemma he signed on to take on.

Every action taken by Shanahan and including Carlyle's fire confirms that no single NHL coach could undo what years of mismanagement wrought. More's the point, the latitude given to the new management team and including the right to refer repeatedly to "time" as this club's most oft repeated organizational message is uncharted territory.

Before Shanahan, Babcock, LL, Hunter and Dubas, there's been merely images of a managerial colossus befitting the Toronto Maple Leafs. With the real thing in place now, I'm not sure how fair it is to any coach prior to Babcock, to compare and contrast tenures under disproportionate duress and call it "reasonable assessment."

 

[shelf]

I am capable of arguing many things, as I've proved in this thread. I do not rely on straw man arguments, much like you do.

You are confused with the save percentage argument, which is okay, because it is such a small point but that's expected.

2012/2013
Leafs Goaltending combo .919sv%
Including James Reimer's franchise best save percentage for goaltenders that played over 30 games and .924sv%

2013/2014
Leafs Goaltending combo .918 sv%
Including a franchise best for goaltenders that played over 50 games, Bernier's .923s%

2014/2015
Up until Carlyle was fired
Leafs Goaltending Combo .912 sv%
Including 28 games of Bernier posting a .920sv%

=.916sv%(which is not .912, so we can move on) in season Carlyle started the season as our coach, and also includes 3 of the franchises highest save percentages for goalies that have played 25 or more games for the organization

But this is where you FAIL to see the CONTEXT

The shot charts serve more than just to show Carlyle was a terrible coach, that you should expect the Leafs save percentage to increase this year because the chances they've faced are easier(as proven by the chart). To have a .916sv% when considering the shots selection and amount we gave up is remarkable.

Pook, you're not winning this.

lol

12-13 Leafs ranked 9th in SV%
13-14 Leafs ranked 12th in SV%

Sure it might have set franshise records but thats mostly just because save percentages have been steadily going up for a long time. Leafs goaltending during Carlyle tenure was hardly game changing.

2015- Blackhawks 2nd in SV%
2014- Kings 2nd in SV%
2013- Blackhawks 2nd in SV%
2012- Kings 3rd in SV%
2011- Bruins 1st in SV%

Is it not possible that certain coaches can implement systems that allow goaltenders to have a higher SV%. Do coaches get zero credit for goaltending performance.

 

[Dustin]

Whats the point of any of this? Carlyle has won before but couldn't here. We can debate as to why that was but to lay the full brunt of the blame at his feet is quite unrealistic. Management from top to bottom over the last 5 years are responsible for the record. As are the players. It will be largely a forgotten time period for the club. Hopefully a precursor to better times in fact.

 

[Pookie]

Carlyle had profound insight into the clubs problems. I think management knew where most of the problems lay and to say Carlyle was one of those most responsible with the performance of the club, doesn't really do justice to the magnitude of the dilemma he signed on to take on.

Every action taken by Shanahan and including Carlyle's fire confirms that no single NHL coach could undo what years of mismanagement wrought. More's the point, the latitude given to the new management team and including the right to refer repeatedly to "time" as this club's most oft repeated organizational message is uncharted territory.

Before Shanahan, Babcock, LL, Hunter and Dubas, there's been merely images of a managerial colossus befitting the Toronto Maple Leafs. With the real thing in place now, I'm not sure how fair it is to any coach prior to Babcock, to compare and contrast tenures under disproportionate duress and call it "reasonable assessment."

Insightful response.

I would add to it in that probably the biggest difference is the approach of Ownership with Tim Leiweke leaving.

I don't know if people recall 2013 but Tim said a lot of things about MLSE teams. He spent a boatload of money on Jermain Defoe and Michael Bradley for TFC, claimed they were fixed and promised playoffs. They missed.

While preaching accountability and results, he also said the following things about the Leafs in October of 2013:

"Leafs should expect to win, and because of the year we had last year (2012-13), we want to continue to build upon that success."

In detailing the MLSE clubs and their chances of success, he pointed to the hockey club first.

"The Leafs are close," he said.

“And I will say it, front and centre with the cameras rolling: Could not be more excited about the parade route,” Leiweke said. “And we’re going to throw you one, I promise.”

Leiweke hired Shanahan under those expectations. And he set out to deliver what his boss wanted but then something happened. Leiweke opted to leave… in the slowest leave I've seen but opted to leave.

That brought a void in power at the top and the flexibility to make different decisions and influence the Board. The climate that this management group operates under changed. Had that not happened, Shanahan and Co would be under the very same culture that previous managers operated under.

Leiweke leaving was one of the more defining moments for the Leafs in retrospect.

 

[hoglund]

He won a Stanley Cup so he couldn't have been that bad of a coach. He was fired when the Leafs were still in a playoff spot, it made no sense and I watched very few games after the firing, they gave up, so did I (on the season that is, not the team entirely) I've seen most games this season.

 

[Ovate]

He won a Stanley Cup so he couldn't have been that bad of a coach. He was fired when the Leafs were still in a playoff spot, it made no sense and I watched very few games after the firing, they gave up, so did I (on the season that is, not the team entirely) I've seen most games this season.

Leafs weren't in a playoff spot when Carlyle got fired. I don't know how many times that needs to be repeated. Florida was one point behind with three games in hand (which they won all of).

Also, have you seen the roster Carlyle had when he won a cup? Horachek could have won with that roster.

 

[hoglund]

Leafs weren't in a playoff spot when Carlyle got fired. I don't know how many times that needs to be repeated. Florida was one point behind with three games in hand (which they won all of).

Also, have you seen the roster Carlyle had when he won a cup? Horachek could have won with that roster.

They were still a point ahead of Florida, until Florida won those games in hand, they're behind the Leafs. The Leafs are 10 points behind Montreal, but the Leafs have 3 games in hand, does that REALLY mean that they're only 4 points behind Montreal?, of course not.

 

[Ovate]

They were still a point ahead of Florida, until Florida won those games in hand, they're behind the Leafs. The Leafs are 10 points behind Montreal, but the Leafs have 3 games in hand, does that REALLY mean that they're only 4 points behind Montreal?, of course not.

So you're saying that we should assume teams will lose all games in hand?

 

[Pookie]

You can't assume they will win games in hand and can't assume they will lose.

Which is why you go with the results of the day. The games in hand are a wildcard… even an asset but mean nothing until they have been played.

 

[hoglund]

So you're saying that we should assume teams will lose all games in hand?

I think you have to look at the team with the games in hand's record and their current streak. If they're a .500 team, they'll probably win 1 or 2 of the 3, if they're in a slump they'd be likely to lose 2 or 3. When Carlyle was fired the leafs WERE in a playoff spot in the newspaper standings, that IS a FACT. You don't have to attempt to repeat yourself in saying that the Leafs weren't in a playoff spot, because they WERE.

 

[Ovate]

You can't assume they will win games in hand and can't assume they will lose.

Which is why you go with the results of the day. The games in hand are a wildcard… even an asset but mean nothing until they have been played.

That's not true at all. The best guess is for a team to continue at their current points percentage.

No team should be thought of as a playoff team simply because they played more games earlier, especially if they earned fewer points per game than a team that played fewer games.

 

[hoglund]

That's not true at all. The best guess is for a team to continue at their current points percentage.

No team should be thought of as a playoff team simply because they played more games earlier, especially if they earned fewer points per game than a team that played fewer games.

3 games isn't a large enough sample size to the teams current points percentage. 3 games could easily no wins or all wins because it's only 3 games, most likely it would be 2 or 3 points for most teams, but if they were playing 3 games on the road vs @1 teams then 0 points could be realistic. That wasn't the point of this thread, this was about Carlyle and he was fired when the Leafs were in a playoff spot.

 

[burpsalot]

I think you have to look at the team with the games in hand's record and their current streak. If they're a .500 team, they'll probably win 1 or 2 of the 3, if they're in a slump they'd be likely to lose 2 or 3. When Carlyle was fired the leafs WERE in a playoff spot in the newspaper standings, that IS a FACT. You don't have to attempt to repeat yourself in saying that the Leafs weren't in a playoff spot, because they WERE.

Not that I really care, but but they weren't in a playoff spot unless the league decided not to bother playing the full 82 game schedule. Playoffs spots are determined based on an 82 game schedule & are decided as the games are ALL completed or when there is no longer a mathematical possibility for things to change between that period & all 82 games being played by all teams.

The midseason or throughout the season standings & "calling them in the playoffs" is just an inaccurate simplification. If someone wants to judge whether a team is likely to make the playoffs or in playoff contention prior to the end of the season or the mathematical conclusion of standings, your best & most accurate way of guessing future playoff standings is winning percentage.

 

[Pookie]

That's not true at all. The best guess is for a team to continue at their current points percentage.

Do you gamble? Or at least play odds?

Each game is an independent event.

 

[Ovate]

Do you gamble? Or at least play odds?

Each game is an independent event.

Do you understand the concept of EV based on the empirical results from earlier in the season? It's by no means perfect, but it's the best guess that can be made. It's a hell of a lot better than assuming they'll lose, or rewarding teams that played more games early (which is the exact same thing as assuming the other team will lose).

 

[MikeBabchuk]

Have to say - I've never understand the obsession of this fanbase to consistently rip people who are no longer apart of this organzation.

He came, did the best he could, wasn't good enough, and now he's not here anymore.

Appreciate the effort he put in, and acknowledge that he wasn't the right man. That's it.

Why are we ripping Randy, though?

He didn't insult us as fans. He didn't half-ass his job while he was here.

He changed himself a lot to try and assimilate into this market too.

I hate that Leafs fans just constantly cut people down who are no longer linked to the organization.

Meh. I hate when coaches cut players down that are with the organization, and then those players leave the organization and prove Carlyle was incompetent.

My mom could coach an NHL team and do her best. It doesn't mean she's immune to criticism if she totally failed, which can be evidenced empirically in Carlyle's case. It's not a subjective opinion that Carlyle proved to be an incompetent coach, it's an objective fact.

 

[MikeBabchuk]

He won a Stanley Cup so he couldn't have been that bad of a coach. He was fired when the Leafs were still in a playoff spot, it made no sense and I watched very few games after the firing, they gave up, so did I (on the season that is, not the team entirely) I've seen most games this season.

I do think at that point he should have finished out the season. We probably would have missed the playoffs anyway, but Horachek was a total disaster.

 

[Menzinger]

Carlyle had profound insight into the clubs problems. I think management knew where most of the problems lay and to say Carlyle was one of those most responsible with the performance of the club, doesn't really do justice to the magnitude of the dilemma he signed on to take on.

Every action taken by Shanahan and including Carlyle's fire confirms that no single NHL coach could undo what years of mismanagement wrought. More's the point, the latitude given to the new management team and including the right to refer repeatedly to "time" as this club's most oft repeated organizational message is uncharted territory.

Before Shanahan, Babcock, LL, Hunter and Dubas, there's been merely images of a managerial colossus befitting the Toronto Maple Leafs. With the real thing in place now, I'm not sure how fair it is to any coach prior to Babcock, to compare and contrast tenures under disproportionate duress and call it "reasonable assessment."

Yes Carlyle wasn't the only problem - in fact if also argue that poor managment post lockout has been the organization's biggest problem.

That still doesn't explain the numerous poor on ice decisions Carlyle made during his tenure - playing Mclemment 15 minutes a night on a regular basis, refusing to break up lines that were a defensive mess or even trying to change their usage. Driving players like Grabo and MacArthur out of town.

Unacceptable by any measure.

 

[hoglund]

I do think at that point he should have finished out the season. We probably would have missed the playoffs anyway, but Horachek was a total disaster.

I think Carlyle was fired at the wrong time, the Leafs were in contention and arguably in a playoff spot, the firing killed the season and took the world juniors gold out of the spotlight, it was wrong in all aspects.