About coaching changes. When teams usually decide they need new coach? When there is something wrong.
First... really appreciate your discussion points as it's refreshing to see an actual discussion.
On your point above, teams can decide to change a coach for a number of reasons. Sometimes it's performance. Sometimes it's personality. Sometimes owners want to appease fans.
In this case, why did Dubas make a change? ... we can only theorize.
We have had losing streaks before and in every year, we have a similar record in the next 20 games. So I can't say it was panic over the record.
We also know that our GM wants to eliminate bias from the conversation as much as possible. Dubas has argued in favour of mean regression many times as that "longer term" data would eliminate the Recency Bias that he feels clouds a number of decisions.
I quoted an article earlier where Dubas explained to the Board that
"PDO ... was a measure of luck, or variance. It was combined shooting and save percentage that tended to revert to 100. If a team is above 100, as the Leafs have been when hot, then that success is likely unsustainable. And vice-versa."
Dubas presumably believes what he says.
And of the 36 coaches to coach in the NHL this year, the team at the 23 game mark of this season under Babcock ranked 27th at a 99.1 PDO. Which means that this slump wasn't sustainable in Dubas' mind.
So why fire him? To me, it was an opportunity to put a person in that role that he lobbied for back in 2015. Someone he could trust. Valid reasons.
He used a slump as a the prime time to do it and analytically speaking... created the best chance for success for the new Coach as the slump would end and mean regression would happen naturally. As it did in the last 3 seasons under Babcock.
Interestingly, under Keefe's run of games... the Leafs are at the top of the league in PDO with a 103.8. (They are also at the top in shooting percentage which according to Dubas will cool off and regress)
Again, according to Dubas, this isn't sustainable but was likely to happen regardless of who was in charge.
I err on political firing based on player frustrations and misalignment with the GM.
If new coach can find some "magic potion" he can get better results past that short boost that changing coach usually gives a team. Usually teams that change coaches have lingering problems, like weak roster overall, injuries or leadership problems. Sometimes you actually have right player personnel like Penguins had 2009 and 2016 or Devils 2000, but coach is wrong. Sometimes it's just something you have to do, team isn't responding and coach is out of ideas. Then you change coach even though you know that isn't helping that much.
In our case I think we fell to that right personnel and wrong coach category. Then we get to that other part.
Hockey is complex it's fast paced, but so is soccer and football. That's why you need some kind of structure to your game. Forecheck is controlled it can be 2-1-2 or 1-2-2 etc. When you play in your own zone you defend zone or men. You have clear structure how you breakout, even if it's dump and chase your wingers are near offensive blue line or if you breakout with stretch passes you have to get man open on neutral zone. You say hockey is complex for auto play mode. Off course it is, but you have to have structure. Where you have puck support, when your dman has a puck or if it's on neutral zone do we try to dump it in or carry in. Then there are tendencies like on pinching and on physical play. Do you finish your checks or do you fall back to defend. Your coach decides is your forecheck active or do you apply pressure on neutral zone.
Keefe has changed our breakout, how we try to hang on the puck and how we play on offensive zone. All are active choices from head coach how we play and want to play. Off course it isn't perfect, because pace of the game and other team, but our players make some "auto play mode" decisions. On breakout we have more puck support and if we can't breakout we might circle back and keep puck possession. Using high forward on offensive zone is other example. Those decisions have to be on coaches control and then players use their skill around that. Structure and freedom to act around it. Actually now they can use more their creativity, than with Babcocks dump and chase system, when we tried to grind with our possession players. Players also need that structure, so they can play together. You have to have strategy, so it isn't game of five individuals. In perfect world that structure buys you more time on ice. You know were to pass before you have the puck.
Then there is GM who decides the team. Analytics who tell you what is working what isn't, then you decide if it's problem of execution rather than bad strategy. Scouting tells you that your opponent has weak defense and they can't handle pressure, so you can adjust your forecheck and apply your pressure. Next night your opponent has good defense, so you play safe etc.
Keefes system is working now and we see in the future if he can adapt, because teams will counter our play eventually. Babcock couldn't (or I say wouldn't) adapt and we were out coached. Our system didn't support our players. It wasn't on Dubas, because Keefe can have different system and players execute it very well, so it wasn't player personnel problem.
It was Babcock. Coaching changes doesn't always work and hockey isn't auto play, but still you need strategy and structure (that coach decides).
There are elements that have changed and line matching/juggling seems to be one of the main things that is different. And look, whatever is happening on the ice has been fun to watch.
I would caution though that in the world of eliminating recency bias in decisions... this team had the talent to be exactly where they are.
Last year at this point in time they had a 27-12-2 record for 56 points.
This year, they are 24-14-5 for 53 points.
Big picture, I'm not sure that much has changed. The team is where they expect to be.
Now, if given reasonable health and the same talent performance levels... the team can EXCEED expectations under Keefe... ie, win the Presidents' Trophy and Cup... he should absolutely take a bow when he collects his ring. It would be a collective effort of which he would have played a part.
