Non-advanced team statistics with Babcock and Keefe (updated in OP 12/26/19)

[Ryan Michaels]

I call this the throw more waffles effect

I DO NOT ACCEPT HAPPINESS!
I DO NOT!
CAN GREEDLANDER SHOOT ME A COUPLE GRAND??? GOTTA TAKE MY CAR INTO THE SHOP

 

[Martin Skoula]

Pretty much bang on.

Stating random cases where coaching may not have mattered (even those are subjective) and using that to generalize his opinion into fact is pretty shameful for a guy who keeps advertising the scientific method.

It's also a study from the early 2000s where Randy Carlyle was considered an innovative coach. Colour me shocked that replacing a dinosaur with a dinosaur doesn't produce different results.

 

[ShaneFalco]

Or at least, proven wrong.

They can be proven wrong and still maintain they're stance

 

[ACC1224]

Lol. You're not digging yourself out of this one, sorry.

There’s no need to.

 

[Pookie]

Pretty much bang on.

Stating random cases where coaching may not have mattered (even those are subjective) and using that to generalize his opinion into fact is pretty shameful for a guy who keeps advertising the scientific method.

You seem unaware that your synopsis is not actually what transpired.

You seem unaware that citing academic research... published in a Journal... is totally and completely opposite to your synopsis of what transpired.

 

[Pookie]

you're welcome. I mean, I'd pick on some of your buddies some more, but they aren't posting while the team is winning so I can't. you're kind of having to carry the mail for the anti-Dubasites. kudos for showing up when there aren't a lot of losses to enjoy, by the way.

lots of people have said coaching doesn't matter or that it's overrated. you're hardly the first person to suggest this idea. it's not revolutionary.

thing is, in this particular case, the coach has completely changed everything the team does, and in an extremely obvious manner re-aligned strategy to personnel. that is not always the case in a coaching change. you don't often see head coaches trying to play a style that completely doesn't fit the players they have available. Not all coaches are Mike Babcock though, as he'd be the first to tell you.

I guess we enjoy different things about sport.

Me, I enjoy watching the players perform. I give them credit for their performance.

You, enjoying thinking life is “GM Mode” on a video game. You take away that credit and give it to a Coach so it fits your simplistic view.

(Well, not every Coach... you don’t credit Babcock for anything. You move credit around when it suits you)

“Touch ‘em all Cito.... you’ll never tell a player to hit a homer bigger than that in your life!!”

And this image, not sure who the player is but all Canadians know and remember that it was made possible by the elaborate systems and tactics of one man.... Coach Harry Sinden.

 

[Menzinger]

I guess we enjoy different things about sport.

Me, I enjoy watching the players perform. I give them credit for their performance.

You, enjoying thinking life is “GM Mode” on a video game. You take away that credit and give it to a Coach so it fits your simplistic view.

(Well, not every Coach... you don’t credit Babcock for anything. You move credit around when it suits you)

“Touch ‘em all Cito.... you’ll never tell a player to hit a homer bigger than that in your life!!”

And this image, not sure who the player is but all Canadians know and remember that it was made possible by the elaborate systems and tactics of one man.... Coach Harry Sinden.

Its literally not a zero sum issue where it has to be 100% one side or the other. This is a big problem you seem to have problem getting passed. I get you may be drawn to watch hockey for the players, which id presume is the same for most people here - but that's a way different issue from saying "coaching is irrelevant"

Not to mention, even with that Sinden example, the professional game at the NHL level has evolved leaps and bounds since then (id be surprised if anyone ever used the term "systems" to describe what coaches did in 1972) Hell, its evolved considerably since that study you always fall back on was piblished (2006, was it?).

 

[Pookie]

It's also a study from the early 2000s where Randy Carlyle was considered an innovative coach. Colour me shocked that replacing a dinosaur with a dinosaur doesn't produce different results.

You think this is the only academically published study?

 

[Pookie]

Its literally not a zero sum issue where it has to be 100% one side or the other. This is a big problem you seem to have problem getting passed. I get you may be drawn to watch hockey for the players, which id presume is the same for most people here - but that's a way different issue from saying "coaching is irrelevant"

Not to mention, even with that Sinden example, the professional game at the NHL level has evolved leaps and bounds since then (id be surprised if anyone ever used the term "systems" to describe what coaches did in 1972) Hell, its evolved considerably since that study you always fall back on was piblished (2006, was it?).

Menz - c’mon man. I can cite over a dozen academically published studies on the impact of coaching in the major sports.

The general consensus is largely the same.. coaching has minimal impact.

I didn’t come to this opinion on my own. I wondered, I looked it up and when confronted with the evidence decided that to view coaching in any other light would be foolish as it would be counter to research on the subject.

No amount of reasoning with folks that either don’t understand or choose not to... will change that.

I said the exact same things when Babcock was getting praise... and now I’m a Babcock supporter?

C’mon.

I’m challenging people’s views and rather than think... they choose to bash.

That’s not my problem.

 

[Menzinger]

Menz - c’mon man. I can cite over a dozen academically published studies on the impact of coaching in the major sports.

The general consensus is largely the same.. coaching has minimal impact.

I didn’t come to this opinion on my own. I wondered, I looked it up and when confronted with the evidence decided that to view coaching in any other light would be foolish as it would be counter to research on the subject.

No amount of reasoning with folks that either don’t understand or choose not to... will change that.

I said the exact same things when Babcock was getting praise... and now I’m a Babcock supporter?

C’mon.

I’m challenging people’s views and rather than think... they choose to bash.

That’s not my problem.

Pookie I do respect your pov on this (dont agree at all with it, obviously).

I just think you frame (or imply) your posts on the subject too frequently in that either/or context.

 

[Flipwon]

I know when my boss moved up the chain I enjoyed coming to the office a lot more.

Sometimes it's just not having to see a person's grubby face that helps you perform better day to day, even if things around you havent changed too much.

 

[LaPlante94]

I know when my boss moved up the chain I enjoyed coming to the office a lot more.

Sometimes it's just not having to see a person's grubby face that helps you perform better day to day, even if things around you havent changed too much.

Amen to that.

 

[Teeder Keon]

LOL great analogy

“ like button “

 

[Pookie]

Pookie I do respect your pov on this (dont agree at all with it, obviously).

I just think you frame (or imply) your posts on the subject too frequently in that either/or context.

Thanks. And it’s ok to disagree.

In terms of how I frame it, I think you’ll find the framing is being done by others.

Eg. “Pookie has to cheer for the Leafs to lose otherwise he will be wrong about the coach having an impact.” Huh? If Andersen goes down, we lose and it has nothing to do with the coach.

Or “Pookie is a Babcock apologist” Huh? Here are pages of posts in which I argued that any improvement in results under Babcock would be primarily due to the improvement in the talent level.

What I write has been very consistent on the coaching issue in professional sports over years on this forum. Talent. Health. Performance of that talent. Coaching way down on the list of influences.

I do think that I make a mistake in engaging certain folks that are very good at being loud but no where near as good at comprehension.

Maybe that’s not their goal

 

[Polaris1010]

Pookie I do respect your pov on this (dont agree at all with it, obviously).

I just think you frame (or imply) your posts on the subject too frequently in that either/or context.

There are some eternal truths in sports.

People do not agree with them. Such as the coach or manager in baseball, everyone thinks they can do a better job.

But the truth is . . . the coach rarely pushes the team over the top.

Would Bill Bellichik be considered the best coach ever in the NFL? No one cares because he had Brady playing for him.

Peter Caroll was considered a nice guy, who always finished second, he did not have what it took to coach a team up to be a top team. No one really believed in him. Then they drafted this small quarterback in the 3rd round, and Coach Caroll made Russell Wilson the starter.

All I am saying is that they fired Joe Quenville, and I do not think he has found another job in the NHL. Maybe he does not know how to coach anymore.

That is kind of funny. Weren't people in this forum braying about firing Quenville and hiring Babcock, or was it the other way around?

 

[stickty111]

Our defensive metrics under Keefe
CA/60: 56.02(16th)
XGA/60: 2.27(T11th)
SCA/60: 26.87(13th)
HDCA/60: 10.48(12th)

Score and Venue adjusted
CA/60: 52.83(10th)
XGA/60: 2.17(8th)
SCA/60: 25.52(13th)
HDCA/60: 10.03(10th)

I don't think we are good defensively, but we certainly aren't bad.

 

[killmak]

Well it has been 20 games and Keefes 31 points has matched the best 20 game stretch Babcock ever had as the leafs coach. It took Keefe 20 games to do what it took Babcock 230 regular season games to do. Sure its a hot streak but there is no way we would have been on such a hot streak with Babcock still as coach.

Oh and here are some stats to show the difference between the two on the season. Not only have the leafs been better offensively and defensively they have been better statistically by a large amount too. Babcock was not using the players properly and the more games they play under Keefe the more it shows.

	xGF	xGA	xGF%	GF	GA
Keefe	3.04	2.51	54.7	3.95	2.7
Babcock	2.67	2.83	48.6	3.1	3.5
Difference	0.37	-0.32	6.1	0.85	-0.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And stop with the injuries excuses, unless the injury is to Anderson the leafs have a good enough team to still win with a top player and some minor players on the IR.

Also the if Hutchinson won 3 games crap needs to stop too. In the 6 games he started when Babcock was coach the team had an xGF% of 43.9, your backup can't win half the games when the team plays that crappy in front of them. In the 3 games he has started under Keefe the teams xGF% was 54 as they actually played well and didn't need their backup to bail them out all game.

 

[Polaris1010]

Our defensive metrics under Keefe
CA/60: 56.02(16th)
XGA/60: 2.27(T11th)
SCA/60: 26.87(13th)
HDCA/60: 10.48(12th)

Score and Venue adjusted
CA/60: 52.83(10th)
XGA/60: 2.17(8th)
SCA/60: 25.52(13th)
HDCA/60: 10.03(10th)

I don't think we are good defensively, but we certainly aren't bad.

This current version of the Maple Leafs was an average to below average defensive team under Babcock.

This current version of the Maple Leafs is an average to below average defensive team under the new guy Keefe.

One coach wanted more defense, and stressed more defense.

The other coach, well, who knows. Maybe inmates run the asylum?

 

[Polaris1010]

Well it has been 20 games and Keefes 31 points has matched the best 20 game stretch Babcock ever had as the leafs coach. It took Keefe 20 games to do what it took Babcock 230 regular season games to do. Sure its a hot streak but there is no way we would have been on such a hot streak with Babcock still as coach.

Oh and here are some stats to show the difference between the two on the season. Not only have the leafs been better offensively and defensively they have been better statistically by a large amount too. Babcock was not using the players properly and the more games they play under Keefe the more it shows.

	xGF	xGA	xGF%	GF	GA
Keefe	3.04	2.51	54.7	3.95	2.7
Babcock	2.67	2.83	48.6	3.1	3.5
Difference	0.37	-0.32	6.1	0.85	-0.8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And stop with the injuries excuses, unless the injury is to Anderson the leafs have a good enough team to still win with a top player and some minor players on the IR.

Also the if Hutchinson won 3 games crap needs to stop too. In the 6 games he started when Babcock was coach the team had an xGF% of 43.9, your backup can't win half the games when the team plays that crappy in front of them. In the 3 games he has started under Keefe the teams xGF% was 54 as they actually played well and didn't need their backup to bail them out all game.

This team quit.

They quit on their coach.

Of course the stats will be skewed one way. Not by that much either.

All the young guys signed a fat contract given to them by the GM, and the very next season they quit on their coach.

Those stats do not matter for this team.

There is only one question.

Do quitters win in the playoffs?

 

[killmak]

There are some eternal truths in sports.

People do not agree with them. Such as the coach or manager in baseball, everyone thinks they can do a better job.

But the truth is . . . the coach rarely pushes the team over the top.

Would Bill Bellichik be considered the best coach ever in the NFL? No one cares because he had Brady playing for him.

Peter Caroll was considered a nice guy, who always finished second, he did not have what it took to coach a team up to be a top team. No one really believed in him. Then they drafted this small quarterback in the 3rd round, and Coach Caroll made Russell Wilson the starter.

All I am saying is that they fired Joe Quenville, and I do not think he has found another job in the NHL. Maybe he does not know how to coach anymore.

That is kind of funny. Weren't people in this forum braying about firing Quenville and hiring Babcock, or was it the other way around?

In any sport the coach can make a difference in either direction by playing to their players strength or by ignoring their players strength and doing it their way. We just went from a coach who did things his way no matter what to one that plays to his players strengths. Any coach that came in and had this team play to their strengths would have done as well as Keefe has. So while there may not be a huge difference between good coaches there sure is one between a bad one and a good one and we are seeing it. If you watch basketball you would have seen it last year when the Raptors went from Casey to Nurse. They went from someone who made everyone play his system his way no matter what to someone that worked around his players strengths and wasn't afraid to do things differently.

Anyways the difference between good coaches is minimal which is very true but there are a lot of bad ones out there so when you go from a bad one to a good one like we did you will notice a difference like we have noticed, and you will wonder why the hell the bad one wasn't fired sooner.

 

[Polaris1010]

In any sport the coach can make a difference in either direction by playing to their players strength or by ignoring their players strength and doing it their way. We just went from a coach who did things his way no matter what to one that plays to his players strengths. Any coach that came in and had this team play to their strengths would have done as well as Keefe has. So while there may not be a huge difference between good coaches there sure is one between a bad one and a good one and we are seeing it. If you watch basketball you would have seen it last year when the Raptors went from Casey to Nurse. They went from someone who made everyone play his system his way no matter what to someone that worked around his players strengths and wasn't afraid to do things differently.

Anyways the difference between good coaches is minimal which is very true but there are a lot of bad ones out there so when you go from a bad one to a good one like we did you will notice a difference like we have noticed, and you will wonder why the hell the bad one wasn't fired sooner.

I like your reply, but unfortunately I cannot share your enthusiasm.

Cheers.

 

[killmak]

This team quit.

They quit on their coach.

Of course the stats will be skewed one way. Not by that much either.

All the young guys signed a fat contract given to them by the GM, and the very next season they quit on their coach.

Those stats do not matter for this team.

There is only one question.

Do quitters win in the playoffs?

That is a huge difference. If you compare them to the rest of the league they would be 3rd in xGF under Keefe and 14th under Babcock. They would be 10th in xGA under Keefe and 25th under Babcock. I am not sure how you don't see that as a big difference. For xGF% they would be 2nd under Keefe and 21st under Babcock. That is the difference between a Stanley cup contender and a lottery team...

They may have quit under Babcock, or maybe Babcock quit on them and kept trying to force a square peg into a round hole over and over again. Either way the way the Leafs are playing I believe they can win in the playoffs but only time will tell. One thing is for sure though, when the leafs are on a power play in the playoffs we will get the pleasure of watching our best players play rather than watching a crappy 2nd unit on the ice for almost half the time.

 

[killmak]

I like your reply, but unfortunately I cannot share your enthusiasm.

Cheers.

Enjoy the leafs winning and if they get destroyed in the first round and out coached again I will happily join in on bashing the team and wanting management to blow it up. This is the year that Dubas has his coach finally coaching the way he built this team to play. If it doesn't work in the playoffs then it is time to try something else.

 

[Menzinger]

There are some eternal truths in sports.

People do not agree with them. Such as the coach or manager in baseball, everyone thinks they can do a better job.

But the truth is . . . the coach rarely pushes the team over the top.

Would Bill Bellichik be considered the best coach ever in the NFL? No one cares because he had Brady playing for him.

Peter Caroll was considered a nice guy, who always finished second, he did not have what it took to coach a team up to be a top team. No one really believed in him. Then they drafted this small quarterback in the 3rd round, and Coach Caroll made Russell Wilson the starter.

All I am saying is that they fired Joe Quenville, and I do not think he has found another job in the NHL. Maybe he does not know how to coach anymore.

That is kind of funny. Weren't people in this forum braying about firing Quenville and hiring Babcock, or was it the other way around?

Maybe im misunderstanding your post, but Quenville coaches for the Panthers now.....

I think youve got to lighten up a bit. The Leafs are currently playing the best stretch of hockey they have in some time. I dont undertsand how anyone can be negative about it

 

[A1LeafNation]

This team quit.

They quit on their coach.

Of course the stats will be skewed one way. Not by that much either.

All the young guys signed a fat contract given to them by the GM, and the very next season they quit on their coach.

Those stats do not matter for this team.

There is only one question.

Do quitters win in the playoffs?

St Louis 2019