Confirmed with Link: Boucher: to return or not to return, that is the question

[RAFI BOMB]

well that was a whole he'll of a lot of nothing

you use words like failings,rationale and tactics. Fine words. All 3 of them.

another word you used is context. it's all about context I think you said.

so how about you use the 3 words and provide some context.

what failings?

I'm not trying to be an ass but if you want to have a point of view and debate then you'd need to get into some specifics.

personally I thought he overplayed the 2Ps. Smith came along and settled in there nicely so thats working better lately

It is self evident that he is a bad coach. Look at his overall NHL performance as a coach. He is good for his first season and then bad his second season and then struggles again in his third season. I provided a list of some of his failings in another post.

You and that other poster seem to think he is a good coach so how about you two provide some evidence for that.
A lot of the positives this year aren't necessarily the result of Boucher's coaching. Chabot had already shown he was a good prospect in junior and the world junior championship. Boucher never coached Batherson, Tkachuk, Lajoie or Jaros before. Batherson was succeeding just fine n the AHL without Boucher coaching him and it was clear that he is talented with or without coaches. Tkachuk was also highly touted and many knowledgeable hockey people were confident in his NHL upside and how his game would translate over. White has been highly touted elsewhere by Patrick Kane, he was a good prospect and needed to put his game together in full. Aside from them Stone and Duchene are both excellent players and they are in contract years coming off a terrible season, both were very motivated to have big years.

So if we pause for a second and question maybe Boucher has very little to do with the individual success of Stone, Duchene, Chabot, White, Tkachuk, Batherson, Lajoie and Jaros. What else is Boucher doing that is good in your eyes?

If Boucher isn't really responsible for the success of those players and if another competent NHL coach would likely get similar success with those players then what makes Boucher valuable?

 

[JD1]

So if we pause for a second and question maybe Boucher has very little to do with the individual success of Stone, Duchene, Chabot, White, Tkachuk, Batherson, Lajoie and Jaros. What else is Boucher doing that is good in your eyes?

If Boucher isn't really responsible for the success of those players and if another competent NHL coach would likely get similar success with those players then what makes Boucher valuable?

that really isn't the way coaching or life in general works. he's the coach, you can't just arbitrarily say he deserves no credit for what is working out well. we're scoring a ton of goals. he deserves no credit for altering his system to enable that? he was criticized for not being able to adapt but the way we play is pretty different from how we used to play.

I can't no more say he doesn't deserve blame for anything wrong than you can say he doesn't deserve credit for anything right.

as far as I understand he was asked to play youth. he is. and they're doing reasonably well.

There's some things I dislike. At one point the other night I heard an announcer comment on a montreal line that's been together since camp. I wish. I don't like the constant line juggling.

I saw your list of reasons. imo some are legit. many are not. if I spend anytime on my desktop in the next couple of days maybe I'll go thru that list but not gonna do that on my phone

 

[RAFI BOMB]

that really isn't the way coaching or life in general works. he's the coach, you can't just arbitrarily say he deserves no credit for what is working out well. we're scoring a ton of goals. he deserves no credit for altering his system to enable that? he was criticized for not being able to adapt but the way we play is pretty different from how we used to play.

I can't no more say he doesn't deserve blame for anything wrong than you can say he doesn't deserve credit for anything right.

as far as I understand he was asked to play youth. he is. and they're doing reasonably well.

There's some things I dislike. At one point the other night I heard an announcer comment on a montreal line that's been together since camp. I wish. I don't like the constant line juggling.

I saw your list of reasons. imo some are legit. many are not. if I spend anytime on my desktop in the next couple of days maybe I'll go thru that list but not gonna do that on my phone

Actually that is exactly how life works. The challenge is trying to separate out causality, correlation and coincidence. Boucher certainly plays some causal role in the success of Stone, Duchene, Tkachuk, Chabot, White and Batherson but that causal role is minor. It is very unlikely that if you replace Boucher with a handful of other NHL caliber coaches that you would see much if any decrease in performance of the players I listed. If Quenneville or Stevenson was brought in to replace Boucher do you see a decrease in performance of the players I listed? Therefore while he may deserve some credit to their success, that credit is minor.

Now we also know he had a short tenure in Tampa Bay. He made the conference finals year 1 but was fired 31 games into his 3rd season. He then was out of the NHL for 3 seasons. I don't know what the average career of NHL coaches are but it must be short. The Senators had Paddock, Clouston, Maclean and Cameron all as NHL coaches and none got another head coaching gig after being fired. If we sifted through the data we would likely find a substantial number of coaches that only had a few years and then never coached in the NHL again. So Boucher got a second chance in the NHL which is rare. He comes into Ottawa and takes them to the conference final playing a fairly boring defensive style. So that was an interesting piece of data because it is uncommon for a coach to take a team to the conference final in his first season on two separate teams. But then he followed up his second season in Ottawa with a horrible year just like he did in Tampa Bay and then in his third year he is having a weak performance again but some of that is due to the fact that the team is going through a rebuild. So Boucher certainly isn't 100% responsible for the poor results in Tampa or the poor results in Ottawa but there is enough indication that he has faults as a coach and those faults contribute to the poor performance overall.

There is a risk of a lot of false assumptions that can occur based on his performance. The one that seems to be the case around here is that Boucher's history of taking two teams to the conference final in his first season is an indication that he is a very good coach. That by extension he just isn't being provided a good enough team to work with and that if he was given a better team he would be able to get better playoff results over time. The flaw with this assumption is that it doesn't factor in the possibility that Boucher could very well be a short lived coach. He might be able to get good performance in year one but he may do a number of things that don't work over longer periods of time and that his style or tactics are unsustainable.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Every time someone looks back fondly on Maclean I just remember this board during a lot of Macleans tenure.

GSN
and Phillips slotting in for 22 minutes a night.

...kinda like how Boucher has Smith and Pyatt as his favorites.

At the end of the day, all coaches love their grinders.

 

[JD1]

Actually that is exactly how life works. The challenge is trying to separate out causality, correlation and coincidence. Boucher certainly plays some causal role in the success of Stone, Duchene, Tkachuk, Chabot, White and Batherson but that causal role is minor. It is very unlikely that if you replace Boucher with a handful of other NHL caliber coaches that you would see much if any decrease in performance of the players I listed. If Quenneville or Stevenson was brought in to replace Boucher do you see a decrease in performance of the players I listed? Therefore while he may deserve some credit to their success, that credit is minor.

Now we also know he had a short tenure in Tampa Bay. He made the conference finals year 1 but was fired 31 games into his 3rd season. He then was out of the NHL for 3 seasons. I don't know what the average career of NHL coaches are but it must be short. The Senators had Paddock, Clouston, Maclean and Cameron all as NHL coaches and none got another head coaching gig after being fired. If we sifted through the data we would likely find a substantial number of coaches that only had a few years and then never coached in the NHL again. So Boucher got a second chance in the NHL which is rare. He comes into Ottawa and takes them to the conference final playing a fairly boring defensive style. So that was an interesting piece of data because it is uncommon for a coach to take a team to the conference final in his first season on two separate teams. But then he followed up his second season in Ottawa with a horrible year just like he did in Tampa Bay and then in his third year he is having a weak performance again but some of that is due to the fact that the team is going through a rebuild. So Boucher certainly isn't 100% responsible for the poor results in Tampa or the poor results in Ottawa but there is enough indication that he has faults as a coach and those faults contribute to the poor performance overall.

There is a risk of a lot of false assumptions that can occur based on his performance. The one that seems to be the case around here is that Boucher's history of taking two teams to the conference final in his first season is an indication that he is a very good coach. That by extension he just isn't being provided a good enough team to work with and that if he was given a better team he would be able to get better playoff results over time. The flaw with this assumption is that it doesn't factor in the possibility that Boucher could very well be a short lived coach. He might be able to get good performance in year one but he may do a number of things that don't work over longer periods of time and that his style or tactics are unsustainable.

causalityand causation

my favourite hf boards words

 

[RAFI BOMB]

causalityand causation

my favourite hf boards words

They are scientific words used primarily in the evaluation of empirical data. There is a whole field in mathematics on causation which helps to explore the limitation and failings of statistical analysis and statistical models. It can be a challenge to make accurate inferences from data sets. It is inaccurate to misattribute coincidences or correlations in phenomena with causal relations. Even then some causal relations may have probabilistic outcomes which challenges the understanding further.

 

[Cloud]

Also:

• overuse of 11-7 earlier in the year

idk, I was fine with this...I figure the logic was to ease in the new kids on defense rather than throw them to the wolves so to speak playing more minutes every night.

• constantly line juggling not allowing players to develop chemistry

once again, bunch of new faces this year...every coach juggles lines trying to find what works..that takes some games and things have settled in now although all coaches usually continue to make changes based on what they are seeing on the ice...this isn't new.

• benching skilled prospects for large stretches of time such as white and batherson

large stretches of time is an exaggeration...that being said...it's way easier to send a message to a rookie than it is to a more experienced "stuck in their ways" player. And a few points down you complain about Boucher not holding players accountable enough...so which is it?

• keeping two borderline AHL players in the lineup in Pyatt and Pajaarvi and playing them excessive minutes

This is on Dorion....Boucher may have some of a say in what players are on the roster but the buck stops with Dorion...so blame him for this issue. And again with the minutes..if you are personally fine with throwing the kids to the wolves then fair enough...personally I don't think that's a recipe for success or nurturing their confidence.

• favoritism towards plugs (pyatt, paajarvi) just like last year (Dumont, Oduya, Pyatt)

so would you rather we rolled 3 lines?...Pyatt and co get their minutes and while I agree we could have better players in those roles...again...blame Dorion.

• Giving up way too much space in the defensive zone by getting players to collapse

This I agree with and has been my biggest beef with Boucher. I'd much rather see more pressure on trying to retrieve the puck rather than constantly collapsing in front of Anderson.

• overemphasis on stick checking as opposed to checking, defense rarely takes the body to impede zone entry

I don't feel this is that big of a thing. And it's also hard to say if that gripe is on Boucher or the players.

• dumb line combinations such as pyatt on the first line

I really think Boucher did that to send a message, which was start being more defensively responsible or you'll get the plugs on your line screwing up your offensive numbers. You did want more discipline from the coach.

• sitting back on leads and playing passively instead of maintaining offensive pressure

This is so 2 years ago....not even relevant this year.

• not holding players accountable (blames rookies for mistakes and losses but when veterans do the same mistake they don't see limited ice time, are scratched or called out by coaches)

so you'd rather Mike Keenan as coach?...but seriously....I think he is holding players accountable...perhaps just not as strictly as you'd like him to.

• not dressing the best roster he can (paul and Chlapik down in belleville when they should be taking Pyatt ad Paajarvi's spots)

again...Dorion.

• other than that three games there were no trends suggesting improvements in defensive zone coverage or that shot against would decline

Boucher's on record for not concentrating on Defense until just recently...if you want to take issue with that fine...personally I'm fine with that strategy. Our defense was going to be a tire fire starting the year AND moving forward, what with the personnel Boucher was given to work with.

• restricting playing time of key prospects and potentially preventing their ability to grow by doing so

again, I've no issues with easing in the rookies...this isn't a coaching error...you just have a different philosophy.

• passing is still somewhat weak, the team can still struggle at times to put three or more passes together leading to turnovers and lost possession time

this is totally on the players. No coach is teaching them to be poor passers or to create turnovers.

• team can struggle to sustain possession in the offensive zone

Their goal totals so far this year fly in the face of this statement. Their offensive zone play is not only fine, it's the best it's been in years.

• shot attempts are in the bottom ten in the league so offensive success is contingent on unsustainable shooting percentages

time will tell. You may be right but it's too hard to predict. Personally I'd be more interested in the quality scoring chances vs shots taken. Either way there's no reason to be concerned about the teams scoring ability at the moment.

• Poor defensive coverage by defensive players (multiple times where Ceci, Boro, and Harpur make really poor reads of defensive plays and take them selves out of the play. Also poor defensive play by so called defensive forwards such as pyatt and paajarvi leading to bad turnovers in the defensive zone)

once again that's a personnel issue...you really think any other coach is going to come in here and magically turn all the players everyone loves to hate into better players? You and Aaragorn are quick to point out that Boucher should take no credit in the solid play of Stone, Tkchuck, Duch and the other players playing well...then why should be be responsible for these AHL players as you called them, consistently playing poorly?
All in all you made one decent point....not enough to fire the coach.

 

[JD1]

They are scientific words used primarily in the evaluation of empirical data. There is a whole field in mathematics on causation which helps to explore the limitation and failings of statistical analysis and statistical models. It can be a challenge to make accurate inferences from data sets. It is inaccurate to misattribute coincidences or correlations in phenomena with causal relations. Even then some causal relations may have probabilistic outcomes which challenges the understanding further.

in part I do data analytics for a living so ya I think i have the concept down

 

[JD1]

They are scientific words used primarily in the evaluation of empirical data. There is a whole field in mathematics on causation which helps to explore the limitation and failings of statistical analysis and statistical models. It can be a challenge to make accurate inferences from data sets. It is inaccurate to misattribute coincidences or correlations in phenomena with causal relations. Even then some causal relations may have probabilistic outcomes which challenges the understanding further.

they are fancy words...I read them here more than I hear them at work

 

[RAFI BOMB]

in part I do data analytics for a living so ya I think i have the concept down

So you would understand there applicability in this context. Inevitably there would be many assumptions that go into any evaluation of the performance of teams or coaches as there would be many causal factors. It is a complex adaptive system and based on emergent dynamics. There are likely elements of chaos theory applicable as well

 

[JD1]

So you would understand there applicability in this context. Inevitably there would be many assumptions that go into any evaluation of the performance of teams or coaches as there would be many causal factors. It is a complex adaptive system and based on emergent dynamics. There are likely elements of chaos theory applicable as well

based on emergent dynamics you say?

I laughed at the words you used because they are used on HF boards all the time and here's how theyvare used:

I haven't really got a f***ing clue whether youre right or wrong and it's all hypothetical anyway...but I can throw around a causality here and a correlation there and maybe the other guy won't get it, think I'm smart and go away

look if you want to take away everything the team does well and not attribute anything to boucher but assign blame for everything they don't and assign it to boucher then have it....enjoy yourself

 

[Liver King]

Playing young players when all you have is young players is not a positive quality of a coach - it's a quality ANY coach would Impliment here.

You fire the coach to get a better coach - those that defend Boucher (the two of you) provide absolutely zero reasons why he should stay on as head coach because there are none in the midst of the several negatives that are being discussed.

Hes easily replaced - and should be replaced
His track record is terrible for a reason.

This team is last in the division and he just coached one of the worst seasons in franchise history- 'credit him for what the team does well' - sure, we are great at losing

Bye bye Guy Boucher

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Playing young players when all you have is young players is not a positive quality of a coach - it's a quality ANY coach would Impliment here.

You fire the coach to get a better coach - those that defend Boucher (the two of you) provide absolutely zero reasons why he should stay on as head coach because there are none in the midst of the several negatives that are being discussed.

Hes easily replaced - and should be replaced
His track record is terrible for a reason.

This team is last in the division and he just coached one of the worst seasons in franchise history- 'credit him for what the team does well' - sure we are great at losing

Bye bye Guy Boucher

Can you get a better coach at the same salary or less is the big question. You probably can because is my guess you can usually get an up and coming coach because there are so few head coaching slots.

 

[Liver King]

Can you get a better coach at the same salary or less is the big question. You probably can because is my guess you can usually get an up and coming coach because there are so few head coaching slots.

You can absolutely get a better coach than Boucher

The bigger question is can you get a legit established NHL coach- not sure if that is possible with Dorion and Melnyk here

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

You can absolutely get a better coach that Boucher

I agree....I just don’t care I guess.

Just waiting for Chabot to leave ina few years and for us to cut even more salary.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

based on emergent dynamics you say?

I laughed at the words you used because they are used on HF boards all the time and here's how theyvare used:

I haven't really got a ****ing clue whether youre right or wrong and it's all hypothetical anyway...but I can throw around a causality here and a correlation there and maybe the other guy won't get it, think I'm smart and go away

look if you want to take away everything the team does well and not attribute anything to boucher but assign blame for everything they don't and assign it to boucher then have it....enjoy yourself

That isn't what I said in the post where I mentioned causality. Your responses look like you are trolling. I said that Boucher plays a relatively minor role in the success of the players i mentioned. That if you were to replace him with a competent NHL coach that you would likely get comparable results therefore it isn't a big loss to let him go. I also said that he wasn't entirely responsible for the poor performance in Tampa and ottawa but that he was a contributing factor. The way i see it he is a mediocre coach just line the hundreds of other mediocre coaches that have short NHL careers. Given that i don't see the point in keeping him any longer because I find see a coach who will last long in this league.

Your responses were kind of underhanded. You took my first post and then mocked the use of causality and causation and followed saying they are fancy words. You were kind of implying that people on here use them to sound smart and to use it to mask a weak argument. Just because I use fancy words by your standards that doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about or am hiding behind them to cover up a weak argument. I study a lot of complex subjects and use that knowledge to broaden my understanding of the world. I apply those concepts and words where I feel they are appropriate.

Honestly you complained that I didn't provide an argument or examples as to why I see Boucher as flawed. I took the time to respond and add more information and rather than debating what I had to say you just discussed other things line your opinions on the use of causality and causation and what it may or may not mean about the person using it.

And here we end with you still believing Boucher is a good or competent coach and nevhsving wasted my time taking your bait in asking for more information. So I guess we will leave it at that.

 

[DJB]

Is it me or are we seeing a 1 -4 neutral zone trap type play again in an attempt to play better defensively?

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Is it me or are we seeing a 1 -4 neutral zone trap type play again in an attempt to play better defensively?

I think what you are seeing is likely accurate. Since other poster mentioned before that Boucher can coach offense or defense but not both at the same time. So if what they said is accurate then we will likely see extremes where we will go from an aggressive forecheck to something like the neutral zone trap. Then when the offense isn't working another more offensive tactic shift will occur which will inevitably lead to more defensive breakdown and goals against

 

[JD1]

That isn't what I said in the post where I mentioned causality. Your responses look like you are trolling. I said that Boucher plays a relatively minor role in the success of the players i mentioned. That if you were to replace him with a competent NHL coach that you would likely get comparable results therefore it isn't a big loss to let him go. I also said that he wasn't entirely responsible for the poor performance in Tampa and ottawa but that he was a contributing factor. The way i see it he is a mediocre coach just line the hundreds of other mediocre coaches that have short NHL careers. Given that i don't see the point in keeping him any longer because I find see a coach who will last long in this league.

Your responses were kind of underhanded. You took my first post and then mocked the use of causality and causation and followed saying they are fancy words. You were kind of implying that people on here use them to sound smart and to use it to mask a weak argument. Just because I use fancy words by your standards that doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about or am hiding behind them to cover up a weak argument. I study a lot of complex subjects and use that knowledge to broaden my understanding of the world. I apply those concepts and words where I feel they are appropriate.

Honestly you complained that I didn't provide an argument or examples as to why I see Boucher as flawed. I took the time to respond and add more information and rather than debating what I had to say you just discussed other things line your opinions on the use of causality and causation and what it may or may not mean about the person using it.

And here we end with you still believing Boucher is a good or competent coach and nevhsving wasted my time taking your bait in asking for more information. So I guess we will leave it at that.

I am mocking you and I have been since you used those words.

and I'm indifferent to boucher. stay or go. whatever.

I could use the same arguments you used to explain why Boucher doesn't deserve credit for good play to explain why he doesn't deserve blame for bad play.

can you infer from Boucher's 2nd year in both TB and ottawa that he's a bad coach? idk. I do know he had garbage goaltending in both those years.

is someone else going to come in here and make us a playoff team? not right now, not with this roster.

anyway....to your comment about me not replying to the points you made....I did say I wasn't going to respond on while on my phone ... too much typing needed

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I am mocking you and I have been since you used those words.

and I'm indifferent to boucher. stay or go. whatever.

I could use the same arguments you used to explain why Boucher doesn't deserve credit for good play to explain why he doesn't deserve blame for bad play.

can you infer from Boucher's 2nd year in both TB and ottawa that he's a bad coach? idk. I do know he had garbage goaltending in both those years.

is someone else going to come in here and make us a playoff team? not right now, not with this roster.

anyway....to your comment about me not replying to the points you made....I did say I wasn't going to respond on while on my phone ... too much typing needed

Don't waste your time with any more of a rebuttal to any of my points. I have no interest in hearing what you have to say. You seem smug for mocking people that use causality or other terms that you don't like. I have got enough of a sense of what a further duscussion with you would be like to know it is a waste of my time

 

[DJB]

I think what you are seeing is likely accurate. Since other poster mentioned before that Boucher can coach offense or defense but not both at the same time. So if what they said is accurate then we will likely see extremes where we will go from an aggressive forecheck to something like the neutral zone trap. Then when the offense isn't working another more offensive tactic shift will occur which will inevitably lead to more defensive breakdown and goals against

Agreed . I think its why we are seeing a complete lack of sustainable offensive pressure the last few games.

Extremely frustrating to go back to the trap crap

 

[JD1]

Don't waste your time with any more of a rebuttal to any of my points. I have no interest in hearing what you have to say. You seem smug for mocking people that use causality or other terms that you don't like. I have got enough of a sense of what a further duscussion with you would be like to know it is a waste of my time

I'm smug? yes I mocked you.

why did you feel the need to give me a full blown explanation talking about science and math? was that an I'm superior thing you did there?

I'm not here using fancy words and then providing a full blown explanation of what the words mean...all while presuming the person I'm talking to doesn't understand them

I have degrees in computer science and commerce and a lifetime of professional experience in analyzing data and drawing inference from it. but I can talk about hockey without using correlation and causation.

so ya I mocked you.

If I do find the time to go through your points....I'll go down the path of correlation and causation and the inferences you can and cannot make.

 

[Liver King]

^ lmfao you can absolutley infer Boucher was a bad coach in the 2nd year of TB and Ottawa tenures

That's gotta be one of the dumbest comments I have read in a while

 

[Liver King]

I'm smug? yes I mocked you.

why did you feel the need to give me a full blown explanation talking about science and math? was that an I'm superior thing you did there?

I'm not here using fancy words and then providing a full blown explanation of what the words mean...all while presuming the person I'm talking to doesn't understand them

I have degrees in computer science and commerce and a lifetime of professional experience in analyzing data and drawing inference from it. but I can talk about hockey without using correlation and causation.

so ya I mocked you.

If I do find the time to go through your points....I'll go down the path of correlation and causation and the inferences you can and cannot make.

You are just getting crushed right now. Your argument boils down to "I dont know what to infer and I don't know if Boucher is a good coach or not - but I have points I may right at some point - what I can tell you now is I dont like big words, they scare me like spiders"

That's just f***ing hilarious. Take the L and have a goodnight

 

[Yourkeyparka]

So you would understand there applicability in this context. Inevitably there would be many assumptions that go into any evaluation of the performance of teams or coaches as there would be many causal factors. It is a complex adaptive system and based on emergent dynamics. There are likely elements of chaos theory applicable as well

Chaos Theory is exactly what we see with Boucher coaching this team. The only emergent dynamic of his coaching is mounting losses into black holes of making fans anti-matter about the team.