Post-Game Talk: Streak busted! Jets win 3-2

[10Ducky10]

I have asked a couple of times why nobody is calling for his or Huddy's head this season. I mean look at the horrendous goalkeeping!!! and that defence!!!

 

[Ducky10]

I'd love to hear about what a coach does...

Apparently sends which guys to hop over the boards and leaves the rest up to them.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Dish it out?

Yes. you're even continuing to do so.

Are you Paul Maurice?

No.

Seriously get some perspective.

I'm fine, thanks for your concern.

I was pointing out to another poster why this **** spiral into non-sense.

It spiralled because you began communicating as you are now, never addressing a single comment I made with an actual response other than asking for validation of my argument that players are ultimately responsible for wins & losses, when it's literally eschewed game after game by the coaching community & was just used by Maurice following their last loss.

You may be the lone individual on hfboards that thinks coaches game plan>players game play. Please don't say "straw man" as your retort. I realize you never stated that, you simply didn't address it once after it was repeatedly stated by Weezeric, adammlis or myself. Players failing to execute shouldn't result in a change in tactics. What's needed is players executing. You decided to argue otherwise.

It's evident by your logic we should trade every player of worth on this team, sign some AHL veterans & use the budget to hire all of Hitchcock, MacLean, Roy, Harley, Trotz & Torterelli. After all players don't matter, coaches do. $18 million on coaches should win us the cup!

Bashing, oh that word. Sounds like you take it personally that I have very specific and articulate criticisms of a professional sports coach.

I believe your comment was "When a team can beat our forecheck or really get on top of our D on the opposing forecheck, PoMo doesn't adjust"...

There's no insight being offered at all. This sir is the very definition of vapid.

You aren't responding to anything. You are talking in tropes and vapid media styled rhetoric. Keeping variables uniform?

Keeping variables uniform within the context of a game allows exit meetings following each game to address the problems the team faced. It helps the team tweak the game plan when teams next face each other.

I wasn't trying to be fancy here by using the word "variable". I'm not sure why such common vernacular caused you to use the word "tropes" out of context.

Why is the coach on the bench? You think after 1200 games PoMo would have all the variable uniformity he needs see to change a tactic. How long does one need to keep the variables uniform for before an evaluation? That sounds pretty scientific.

Reading comprehension is something many online, including myself, often fail at. My comments had to do with keeping the game plan in effect so that post game critique can better isolate what went wrong as well as what went right.

Was too much asked of a particular player? Can he improve & overcome this obstacle in the future? Was the decision to attempt whatever tactic employed beyond his or the teams scope? What tactics should be employed instead?

Let's also not forget the game behind the game. Two weeks ago Maurice was seen on the bench talking to Ehlers with 2 minutes on the clock. Ehlers shortly afterwards was whispering to Bucky & covering his mouth. Immediately afterwards Ehlers took a penalty & this board exploded with "what the hell was that" "really dumb penalty, not even subtle" "why would he do that"? I made a comment on it alleging it was deliberate. It was the last post in the February 16th GDT thread against the Avs. I'd go further & allege this only occurred after the refs missed the fact the Jets had 6 men on the ice moments before & that this was likely deliberate as well. It's rare to have a 6-1 lead & the chance to get that kind of practice in.

The next day Maurice let it slip he was pleased the team had an opportunity for one last penalty kill, confirming, in my mind at least, that this final penalty was deliberate.

Sometime's there's something else behind what appears to be a bad decision.

So why do think PoMo get's paid millions over his career? sounds like a ****ing trivial job.

Maurice gets paid to develop talent, that's been his schtick since he entered the league. As a rule teams drop him once they believe they can compete. That could easily have been your point from the get go. Why is it me bringing this up?

Keeping variables uniform. if that isn't the best line i've heard around here in a while.

It's called the scientific method.

To answer your earlier query as to if I "am too busy consulting with kings on matters of great importance excuse"...no

But it shouldn't take an essay to explain what was repeated to you three times.

"Coaches coach. Players execute."

Words to that effect will be included in the post game comments from every losing coach tonight.

I'm through discussing something so trivial with you. Good day.

 

[Ducky10]

While I agree the Jets have done a great job of playing a consistent style and dictating games, I don't get at all why it is so controversial to suggest a coach might adjust to what another team might be employing against theirs. I've seen other teams do it to thr Jeta quite a bit.

It might be as simple as slowing someone up in the neutral zone or having a different release valve against the forecheck being employed, maybe even changing your forecheck and make the other team react.

I don't think at all anyone was suggesting a wholesale change in tactics and abandoning thr entire game plan was necessary. Maybe just a slight tweak to counteract what the opposition is successfully doing against you.

Also, I don't really think the Jets had a huge execution problem last night.

 

[Gm0ney]

I guess when you're heading into season 7 with 5 out of the last 6 featuring bottom-of-the-NHL starting goaltending results with 3 different starters - one of whom was a standout at every level previously and then went straight into the toilet - it's impolite to suggest that the goalie coach is the problem.

 

[Ducky10]

Did anyone ever state wins and losses were not ultimately the responsibility of the players? From my read nobody ever disputed that, only that coaches might be able to help their teams adjust to some things.

 

[Whileee]

I guess when you're heading into season 7 with 5 out of the last 6 featuring bottom-of-the-NHL starting goaltending results with 3 different starters - one of whom was a standout at every level previously and then went straight into the toilet - it's impolite to suggest that the goalie coach is the problem.

The Jets had a goalie problem. Now they don't. Coaches are the same. Goalies are different. I'm not sure what goalie coaches do or what credit or blame they deserve, but Hellebuyck looks outstanding and Hutch looks like he's bounced back nicely.

 

[pucka lucka]

It's called the scientific method.

To answer your earlier query as to if I "am too busy consulting with kings on matters of great importance excuse"...no

But it shouldn't take an essay to explain what was repeated to you three times.

"Coaches coach. Players execute."

Words to that effect will be included in the post game comments from every losing coach tonight.

I'm through discussing something so trivial with you. Good day.

Do you have a background is science? You think PoMo is using a scientific approach? Players say get pucks deep, get on the forecheck, give 110%. I guess that's all there is to it. That's what players say. Must be true!

The only truth in your world is that if anything goes wrong in a game, it's the players. I'd love to hear your incredibly scientific thoughts on how this is true and how you know it to be true.


Let's have it then guy. Explain science to me. Coaches coach. Hmmm. I wonder what my thoughts were on PoMo, if only what I said was recorded somewhere. Give me a break with this non-sense.

 

[pucka lucka]

While I agree the Jets have done a great job of playing a consistent style and dictating games, I don't get at all why it is so controversial to suggest a coach might adjust to what another team might be employing against theirs. I've seen other teams do it to thr Jeta quite a bit.

It might be as simple as slowing someone up in the neutral zone or having a different release valve against the forecheck being employed, maybe even changing your forecheck and make the other team react.

I don't think at all anyone was suggesting a wholesale change in tactics and abandoning thr entire game plan was necessary. Maybe just a slight tweak to counteract what the opposition is successfully doing against you.

Also, I don't really think the Jets had a huge execution problem last night.

Here's the thing, I didn't think the Jets had a huge execution problem last night either, but I saw a enough to remind me of PoMo's lack of adjustments.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I guess when you're heading into season 7 with 5 out of the last 6 featuring bottom-of-the-NHL starting goaltending results with 3 different starters - one of whom was a standout at every level previously and then went straight into the toilet - it's impolite to suggest that the goalie coach is the problem.

As I've argued many times before. If you put lipstick on a pig, guess what it's still a pig. Nobody was making Pavelec into George Vezina. People have unrealistic expectations of how much a goalie coach is capable of doing. Garbage in...garbage out basically..

I have also asked many times what it is exactly that Flaherty is or isn't doing that makes him such a terrible coach. All I ever get back is Pav stats or Hutch stats or last year Helle stats.

This is an area of the game that the vast majority of posters here are extremely unqualified to comment on. It's just a venting mechanism IMO

 

[pucka lucka]

As I've argued many times before. If you put lipstick on a pig, guess what it's still a pig. Nobody was making Pavelec into George Vezina. People have unrealistic expectations of how much a goalie coach is capable of doing. Garbage in...garbage out basically..

I have also asked many times what it is exactly that Flaherty is or isn't doing that makes him such a terrible coach. All I ever get back is Pav stats or Hutch stats or last year Helle stats.

This is an area of the game that the vast majority of posters here are extremely unqualified to comment on. It's just a venting mechanism IMO

So what had Flaherty done? Helle got his own coach in the offseason and we saw dramatic improvement. Hutch is lights out in the AHL, but shit once Flaherty gets a hold of him. I am curious at what point you need to results to be considered, competent, never mind good

 

[Aavco Cup]

So what had Flaherty done? Helle got his own coach in the offseason and we saw dramatic improvement. Hutch is lights out in the AHL, but **** once Flaherty gets a hold of him. I am curious at what point you need to results to be considered, competent, never mind good

You realize that Flaherty is prevented by the CBA from working on ice with any Jets goalie right? It is not allowed for Helle to work with Flaherty in the offseason.

You expect our goalies to just take the summer off and not work on their trade ?

Every goalie in the NHL has a summer coach. So what was the point you were trying to make exactly? That there is somehow something nefarious about it.... get real.

I am not claiming Flaherty is good at his craft....all I say is the people who claim he isn't don't know what they are talking about and are full of it. See the difference?

 

[Garbox]

While I agree the Jets have done a great job of playing a consistent style and dictating games, I don't get at all why it is so controversial to suggest a coach might adjust to what another team might be employing against theirs. I've seen other teams do it to thr Jeta quite a bit.

It might be as simple as slowing someone up in the neutral zone or having a different release valve against the forecheck being employed, maybe even changing your forecheck and make the other team react.

I don't think at all anyone was suggesting a wholesale change in tactics and abandoning thr entire game plan was necessary. Maybe just a slight tweak to counteract what the opposition is successfully doing against you.

Also, I don't really think the Jets had a huge execution problem last night.

Was about to write something similar. I guess we shouldn't talk about changing tacticts, but more like making some tweaks. Every forecheck, d-zone and breakout systems etc can be exploited. So when that seems to be happening, coach needs to make some adjustments. Usually those adjustments are done between periods, but sometimes can try on a time-out. I remember seeing it many times that a team coming back from an intermission plays a bit differently, be it forecheck or breakout or anything.

 

[Jet]

I think the impact that a coach has on a team ties into emotion, personality, drive, passion and loyalty. It's the same group of characteristics that people who preach fancystats HATE, because it's hard to quantify.

It's so true that many of the coaching tactics are recycled throughout the league. Occasionally, someone comes up with something new, a 'cheat' against the current tactics, but with video and scouting others quickly catch on and either adopt or counter.

A top tier coach:

Recognizes the tactics employed by the opposition and plans to counter
Quickly identifies adjustments made by opposition in-game and addresses.
Is plugged into the chemistry and performance of players - individually and together, and juggles/ changes lines and pairs to respond

The biggest thing a coach does is works on the mental well being of the team. That is where you get chemistry. Working with the GM to have the right types of players. Saying the right thing. Knowing when to scold and when to hug. There are a lot of egos and very strong personalities on the team.

This is where things like having Hendricks playing becomes important. This is why just stacking your team with the the most skilled players in your org top to bottom doesn't work. Problem is, it's hard to measure how much of a teams success is dependent on this, which is why we see so many people who look at charts and graphs and war and corsi and on and on dislike a roster move that includes a 'glue' guy over a skill guy.

Why do you think so many smart hockey people - guys who've lived this their entire life and their entire livelihood depends on it make these decisions? Of course, coaches are human and they will make mistakes too, but until the fancystats community can accept and allow this important dynamic into their considerations they will always only be working off of part of the input.

 

[Aavco Cup]

^ fancy stats capture pretty much everything. Whatever motivational effect a coach has is entirely baked into stats and results.

What there is no way of measuring properly is a coach WOWYS. Would the team perform better or worse with a different coach. That is all speculation.

 

[Jet]

^ fancy stats capture pretty much everything. Whatever motivational effect a coach has is entirely baked into stats and results.

What there is no way of measuring properly is a coach WOWYS. Would the team perform better or worse with a different coach. That is all speculation.

Sure, fancystats capture the result BUT there is no way of capturing what impacts that coaches moves have on the performance of players via mental/ mood improvements. Confidence in hockey, for example, is extremely powerful. We see it all the time. Confidence can come from many things - internally and externally. That is what is missing in the stats.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Sure, fancystats capture the result BUT there is no way of capturing what impacts that coaches moves have on the performance of players via mental/ mood improvements. Confidence in hockey, for example, is extremely powerful. We see it all the time. Confidence can come from many things - internally and externally. That is what is missing in the stats.

That's exactly what I just said. It is measured. There's just nothing to compare it to.

 

[Calendal]

That's exactly what I just said. It is measured. There's just nothing to compare it to.

I would argue with the definition of measured in this context. We are measuring the end result, not effect of coaching. We can try to model the effect of coaching using some tools.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I would argue with the definition of measured in this context. We are measuring the end result, not effect of coaching. We can try to model the effect of coaching using some tools.

Measured in the broad context that the final output is measured. Not sure how you would go about modelling coaching input. Every minute of every game has coaching input.

 

[Flair Hay]

I think the impact that a coach has on a team ties into emotion, personality, drive, passion and loyalty. It's the same group of characteristics that people who preach fancystats HATE, because it's hard to quantify.

It's so true that many of the coaching tactics are recycled throughout the league. Occasionally, someone comes up with something new, a 'cheat' against the current tactics, but with video and scouting others quickly catch on and either adopt or counter.

A top tier coach:

Recognizes the tactics employed by the opposition and plans to counter
Quickly identifies adjustments made by opposition in-game and addresses.
Is plugged into the chemistry and performance of players - individually and together, and juggles/ changes lines and pairs to respond

The biggest thing a coach does is works on the mental well being of the team. That is where you get chemistry. Working with the GM to have the right types of players. Saying the right thing. Knowing when to scold and when to hug. There are a lot of egos and very strong personalities on the team.

This is where things like having Hendricks playing becomes important. This is why just stacking your team with the the most skilled players in your org top to bottom doesn't work. Problem is, it's hard to measure how much of a teams success is dependent on this, which is why we see so many people who look at charts and graphs and war and corsi and on and on dislike a roster move that includes a 'glue' guy over a skill guy.

Why do you think so many smart hockey people - guys who've lived this their entire life and their entire livelihood depends on it make these decisions? Of course, coaches are human and they will make mistakes too, but until the fancystats community can accept and allow this important dynamic into their considerations they will always only be working off of part of the input.

Hit the nail on the head.




Is that an acceptable post?

 

[Eyeseeing]

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph; look at how we're beating each other up after our fourth straight win en route to being a legit top Cup contender.

And while I'm absolutely, 100.0% positively guilty as charged here, man oh man do we need a truce. until the next game.

What we all need is a big fat group hug at Tavern United, preferably with a round on the house

Are pants optional?

 

[Calendal]

Measured in the broad context that the final output is measured. Not sure how you would go about modelling coaching input. Every minute of every game has coaching input.

I agree with the idea but disagree with the choise of word. We could say we are inferring or deducing (or any other synonym).

We can look at growth rings on trees and calculate yearly temperatures. That does not mean we are measuring those temperatures.

Apologies for the largely off-topic argument.

 

[Garbox]

I think the impact that a coach has on a team ties into emotion, personality, drive, passion and loyalty. It's the same group of characteristics that people who preach fancystats HATE, because it's hard to quantify.

It's so true that many of the coaching tactics are recycled throughout the league. Occasionally, someone comes up with something new, a 'cheat' against the current tactics, but with video and scouting others quickly catch on and either adopt or counter.

A top tier coach:

Recognizes the tactics employed by the opposition and plans to counter
Quickly identifies adjustments made by opposition in-game and addresses.
Is plugged into the chemistry and performance of players - individually and together, and juggles/ changes lines and pairs to respond

The biggest thing a coach does is works on the mental well being of the team. That is where you get chemistry. Working with the GM to have the right types of players. Saying the right thing. Knowing when to scold and when to hug. There are a lot of egos and very strong personalities on the team.

This is where things like having Hendricks playing becomes important. This is why just stacking your team with the the most skilled players in your org top to bottom doesn't work. Problem is, it's hard to measure how much of a teams success is dependent on this, which is why we see so many people who look at charts and graphs and war and corsi and on and on dislike a roster move that includes a 'glue' guy over a skill guy.

Why do you think so many smart hockey people - guys who've lived this their entire life and their entire livelihood depends on it make these decisions? Of course, coaches are human and they will make mistakes too, but until the fancystats community can accept and allow this important dynamic into their considerations they will always only be working off of part of the input.

I think that those top tier coaches most importantly have an effective system (means, it's not totally idiotic and is easy enough for the players to execute), can sell his system for his players and tweak it where needed due to quality of those players. Immediately after that comes those reactionary qualities. I think that first and foremost good teams are going into a game trying to execute their systems. They do have those team meetings where they watch how the opponent will most likely play (how high they forecheckfand how hard they will be pressuring) , but I don't think they actually change anything at that point.
If a team is an underdog they have to adapt their play more against different teams.

 

[Jet]

I think that those top tier coaches most importantly have an effective system (means, it's not totally idiotic and is easy enough for the players to execute), can sell his system for his players and tweak it where needed due to quality of those players. Immediately after that comes those reactionary qualities. I think that first and foremost good teams are going into a game trying to execute their systems. They do have those team meetings where they watch how the opponent will most likely play (how high they forecheckfand how hard they will be pressuring) , but I don't think they actually change anything at that point.
If a team is an underdog they have to adapt their play more against different teams.

I don't disagree, but I think any coach that can make it to the NHL probably has that by default.

 

[John Agar]

Unfortunately, Scotch unlike wine, will not age in the bottle.

Yes we know... we know...

No Scotch for you !!!