Coach Paul MacLean

[Micklebot]

We had three goalies riding around .940 save percentage. If you think back to those games, we were outplayed pretty much every game until near the end of the season when guys started coming back from injury. The way the "pesky" Sens won was to ride all-world goaltending, stay within a goal close to the end of a game, pop one in, and get at least a point. If Bishop was in net we were good for two, because he also rode an unsustainable string of shootout wins.

To look at it a different way, we were giving up north of 40 shots a game. Say our goaltending was at about .915 or so rather than in the unsustainable .940 range. That averages out to giving up one extra goal per 40 shot game. Of course some game we would not have given up that extra goal, and others we may have given up an extra 2 or 3 goals. Imagine our drop in point total if about half of the games where we ended up tied (and we gain either 1 or 2 points, depending on the OT and shootout) was an outright loss with no points. Now imagine if about half the games we won outright by one goal ended up tied, where we may still have had 2 points but would occasionally had one instead.

We ended that year as a 7 seed with a five point cushion over 9th place. (note ROW cant be calculated because we are adjusting wins and losses.) So if we drop 5 or more points in the standings by giving up all of those extra goals we are on the outside looking in, and the Jets 2.0 would have had their first playoff berth. I think the difference between .940 and .915 is in the 7 point range, but there is no way of proving it for sure one way or another because it is hypothetical.

A couple points;

1) We only gave up >40 shots 5 times, Feb was our highest SA/G at 34. If we look at just Jan-Mar (as you mention we played better in Apr), our average SA was 32.65. The difference between a .94 and .915 would be .8 goals a game. Still big, but a fairly substantial difference.

2) Team goaltending was only .940 for the first 21 games (.944). From Mar on it opperated at .923. Season average was .933 and the Jan-Mar span was .935. The difference between .935 and .915 at 32.65 SA/G is .65 goals a game, bringing us further from your initial estimate of a goal a game.

3) April, when guys started coming back, was acually our worst month form a pts per game perspective (paced at 76pts per 82 ganes) all while outshooting the opposition by 108 shots over that span (8.3 per game), so we had our share of unsustainable bad bounces to go along with the good ones.

Hot goaltending certainly helped; after the initial 21 games where it opperated at an outlandish .944%, our pace was for 88pts/82 games which if all else stayed the same would have been good enough for 9th in the east, just outside a playoff birth. That said, our shooting % was terrible (.0676 for the first 21 games, and .0724 for the next 27). Part of that is because our key offensive talent was injured, so it's hard to predict what it wold have looked like over a larger sample.

I think it's too easy to say the team was simply reliant on unsustainable goaltending when explaining the season; we were't a defensive juggernaught, but I also don't think we were being as badly outplayed as you suggest. The compete level was very high that year, and they did do a much better job of reducing the quality of shots if not the quantity than this past year (you can see it in shot heatmaps).

Truth be told, February is the month that was truly unsustainable, with a .945 sv% buoying up an anemic offence. Jan was fine as the team could score with all of Spezza, Karlsson and Michalek in the lineup. March had good goaltending (.925) but not outlandish, coupled with good goal support, and we weren't being widely outshot. April was the opposite, we probaly should have done better than we did.

 

[GimmeMyJetpack]

It's so much easier to say that the save percentage was unsustainable. Obviously a sv% as high as the previous was unrealistic but to use that as a simple retort is erroneous in my mind. Maclean had a bad year. There is no doubt in my mind. He made terrible decisions. I can not count how many time I watch the Spezza line generate an O-zone faceoff situations only to see GSN come out on the ice. He rewarded grinders with more icetime when the stars were struggling because the grinders "did their job" which by eye test means simply that they threw a check at some point. There were several games when the third line played more than one of the top 2. He never seemed to punish the bottom 6 for mistakes or general terrible play unless their names were Zibby or Pageau or Conacher. He consistently failed to adjust properly on the fly especially on the Powerplay. I'll give him credit he did come up with several different entries but he failed to adjust when one was not working. All of these things are bound to happen at some point during the course of the season, coaches do make mistakes and that's ok. The big problem is that these occurred for the entire season. I give him credit he basically admitted he dropped the ball and that he is looking to take a new approach...we shall see if he can.

It was an awful season for him, for the team and obviously for us fans. It's kind of a good thing to have everything go bad at once. Hopefully this year both the coach and players can turn it around.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

3) April, when guys started coming back, was acually our worst month form a pts per game perspective (paced at 76pts per 82 ganes) all while outshooting the opposition by 108 shots over that span (8.3 per game), so we had our share of unsustainable bad bounces to go along with the good ones.

Doesn't this seem to happen a lot, though? Part of the mental aspect of the game, the regular Joes on the team see the stars come back, and they've been played so hard for so long without them, it's just so easy for the Joes to relax a bit. To sit back and lets the stars take the reigns. Unfortunately, most stars who come back from injury aren't 100% the first few weeks and need to get back up to speed, and aren't really capable of carrying the load in the same way they were when healthy.

As a result, a lot of teams tend to have a much greater chance of tripping up for a few games after the bigwig's return.

 

[Quo]

The Ewing Effect is the technical term I believe.

 

[Cosmix]

All it will take is having two goalies at about a .940 save percentage and PM will be Coach of the Year again, and fans will go back to loving him.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Hopefully, with the .940 save percentage the quantity of shots stays the same or goes down.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

It's so much easier to say that the save percentage was unsustainable. Obviously a sv% as high as the previous was unrealistic but to use that as a simple retort is erroneous in my mind. Maclean had a bad year. There is no doubt in my mind. He made terrible decisions. I can not count how many time I watch the Spezza line generate an O-zone faceoff situations only to see GSN come out on the ice. He rewarded grinders with more icetime when the stars were struggling because the grinders "did their job" which by eye test means simply that they threw a check at some point. There were several games when the third line played more than one of the top 2. He never seemed to punish the bottom 6 for mistakes or general terrible play unless their names were Zibby or Pageau or Conacher. He consistently failed to adjust properly on the fly especially on the Powerplay. I'll give him credit he did come up with several different entries but he failed to adjust when one was not working. All of these things are bound to happen at some point during the course of the season, coaches do make mistakes and that's ok. The big problem is that these occurred for the entire season. I give him credit he basically admitted he dropped the ball and that he is looking to take a new approach...we shall see if he can.

It was an awful season for him, for the team and obviously for us fans. It's kind of a good thing to have everything go bad at once. Hopefully this year both the coach and players can turn it around.

Wasnt the offense pretty decent last season? I mean we did rank 11 in goals per game. Our problem wasnt that the offense wasnt scoring it was that we were giving up too many chances. The Spezza and zibby line imo were two of the worst offenders

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The Ewing Effect is the technical term I believe.

lol, had to google that one....but it makes sense.

Guys suddenly get more ice time and (media/fan) attention, other guys (kids, minor leaguers) suddenly get a real opportunity to make an impression and show what they can do. The team itself goes into a like a code red, all hands on deck panic mode and guys get a bit of an extra jump in adrenaline and all that.

Once the star comes back, guys who have been playing over their heads for so long and are mentally & physically exhausted have the opportunity to fall back to earth. And the star isn't 100% and out of sync with the rest of the team, and momentum changes.

 

[Cosmix]

Wasnt the offense pretty decent last season? I mean we did rank 11 in goals per game. Our problem wasnt that the offense wasnt scoring it was that we were giving up too many chances. The Spezza and zibby line imo were two of the worst offenders

Goals/Game were 2.79 which was 11th in the league.

However, The team took too many minor penalties, with the worst offenders being Neil and Smith, plus to a lesser extent MacArthur and Gryba. Goals Against/Game was 3.15, 27th in the league. PiMs/ Game were 13.3, 28th in the league. Minor penalties were 379, worst in the league at 30th. The team was undisciplined in its play. No wonder the Coach says they are focusing on fundamental play and being competitive on the puck in their own zone. They stunk last year!

 

[GimmeMyJetpack]

Wasnt the offense pretty decent last season? I mean we did rank 11 in goals per game. Our problem wasnt that the offense wasnt scoring it was that we were giving up too many chances. The Spezza and zibby line imo were two of the worst offenders

Just because our defense was awful doesnt mean he didn't make mistakes on his offensive execution.

 

[Icelevel]

"good account of themselves"

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Hopefully the coaching style is not a repeat of last year. He sure does love his vets.

 

[Proust*]

My feel is that Paulrus (and Murray) both like guys who give it all in practice and are receptive to their coaching. Guys like Zach Smith and Colin Greening get rewarded via ice-time and contracts.

 

[Benjamin]

I like Maclean one day then dislike him the next.