Paul MacLean Thread, Part II

[Caje]

Yost is right about this-because for anyone who pays attention, the Sun never ever crosses the GM and often floats the scenarios that Murrays' wants out there-they spin for him. The whole idea now is to put all the blame on Maclean for the failures of this season and pretend that he had nothing to do with the victories of the past 2 years. The green light is flashing-go ahead, take a run at the coach.

I lol'd. Yeah, the Sun never crosses the GM, that's why they trashed the EK pick. I can think of a million other examples too.

Give me a break.

 

[The Fuhr*]

Yost is right about this-because for anyone who pays attention, the Sun never ever crosses the GM and often floats the scenarios that Murrays' wants out there-they spin for him. The whole idea now is to put all the blame on Maclean for the failures of this season and pretend that he had nothing to do with the victories of the past 2 years. The green light is flashing-go ahead, take a run at the coach.

No one is to remember how they botched the Alfie situation, over estimated the readiness of the young D to take over.(Sure the Gonchar contract would have been too rich but what about hanging on to Benoit or bringing in another steady, experienced D man) etc

And the constant playing of Cowen-does anyone really think that was all Macleans idea? Murray is a very hands on GM when it comes to coaching.

We have all seen this before-whether this year or early next year, the heat is all on Maclean , and none of it on management ...Look at Garrioch's grading-he doesn't even grade management.

This is true... Stuff like this is why I began hating BM

Nothing is ever his fault... He scapegoates everyone

 

[Hossa18]

This is true... Stuff like this is why I began hating BM

Nothing is ever his fault... He scapegoates everyone

You never liked B. Murray because he took Muckler's job.

 

[The Fuhr*]

You never liked B. Murray because he took Muckler's job.

I was very much a big fan of the team after BM was in charge
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=437412

It was the decisions he made over time that made me turn on him.

 

[HavlatMach9]

it's a sad and pathetic vendetta anyhow

I expect MacLean to rebound and he should return as Murray has said he overestimated some of our players this year.

 

[pepty]

I lol'd. Yeah, the Sun never crosses the GM, that's why they trashed the EK pick. I can think of a million other examples too.

Give me a break.

Right lets see those millions of other examples.

They take runs at the draftees and other players
but the draft is about the only time you hear peeps out of these
toadies about management decisions.

 

[arglebargle]

The Karlsson pick was an easy target at the time because most fans see the phrase "small european defenseman" and instantly believe its a terrible pick.

 

[FlyingJ]

Of course Cowen was omitted. He started the season playing terribly and didn't improve in the slightest. Just a completely awful season.

The worst part is that he got more years and more AAV than Subban did when he held out last year. Just a complete and utter mismanagement by Bryan Murray.

The reason I find his omission surprising is because about a month ago MacLean was asked about the growth of some of the young players, particularly on defence. IIRC, he said he felt Gryba and Cowen had both improved more than Wiercioch. Now today, he doesn't even mention Cowen among the young players who grew. No question Cowen has was a trainwreck this year (when not paired with Karlsson to cover him up), but for MacLean to finally stop pushing the line that Jared Cowen is a good player (or that he "wants to be good") is both refreshing and eyebrow-raising.

I'm also disappointed no members of the media had the courage to call him out today on his use of players during the season.Particularly overusing Cowen, Neil, Greening, Smith, and Phillips while not using guys like Wiercioch and Zibanejad more.

 

[arglebargle]

I'm also disappointed no members of the media had the courage to call him out today on his use of players during the season.Particularly overusing Cowen, Neil, Greening, Smith, and Phillips while not using guys like Wiercioch and Zibanejad more.

At some point you have to wonder how much pressure Murray put on him to play guys like Cowen and Greening, what with both of them getting extensions in the offseason prior.

Pressure from Murray to play GSN and get more hits or something makes more sense to me than MacLean just not noticing that GSN was a terrible line that sucked at puck possession and giving them 15 minutes per game.

 

[FlyingJ]

At some point you have to wonder how much pressure Murray put on him to play guys like Cowen and Greening, what with both of them getting extensions in the offseason prior.

Pressure from Murray to play GSN and get more hits or something makes more sense to me than MacLean just not noticing that GSN was a terrible line that sucked at puck possession and giving them 15 minutes per game.

True, but also possible MacLean appreciated their more lunchpail status. Hard-working grinders and all. MacLean did mention in the press conference that he tried to be more demanding. Perhaps he saw GSN as trying really hard, so he decided to reward them to teach other players something. Too bad that line cost the Sens badly in their own end.

I keep going back to this. Effort is great, but you have to have the smarts to channel that effort into something productive. I can flail around in an attempt to get out of quicksand. I'll be trying really hard, but it's not going to get me anywhere. Maybe MacLean needs to come to that realization.

 

[Micklebot]

Yost is right about this-because for anyone who pays attention, the Sun never ever crosses the GM and often floats the scenarios that Murrays' wants out there-they spin for him. The whole idea now is to put all the blame on Maclean for the failures of this season and pretend that he had nothing to do with the victories of the past 2 years. The green light is flashing-go ahead, take a run at the coach.

No one is to remember how they botched the Alfie situation, over estimated the readiness of the young D to take over.(Sure the Gonchar contract would have been too rich but what about hanging on to Benoit or bringing in another steady, experienced D man) etc

And the constant playing of Cowen-does anyone really think that was all Macleans idea? Murray is a very hands on GM when it comes to coaching.

We have all seen this before-whether this year or early next year, the heat is all on Maclean , and none of it on management ...Look at Garrioch's grading-he doesn't even grade management.

Must be why Brennan likes to bash Karlsson, the team secretly wants to run him out of town.

 

[pepty]

Must be why Brennan likes to bash Karlsson, the team secretly wants to run him out of town.

I don think anyone is arguing that everything the Sun writes is dictated by management .

Brennan has his own axe to grind with Karlsson.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

That's not what he said though. He said that the Sun gets the "green light" from the Senators organization to run players/coaches out of town. That's completely ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous but that's not what he said

He said that he thinks management has told the Sun that it was ok to rib Maclean in the media

 

[arglebargle]

Yeah it's entirely possible that Murray has intimated to the Sun writers that, should they choose to take a collective dump on MacLean throughout the offseason, they won't be looked on unfavorably when it's time to give out exclusives or leak information and whatnot.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I have heard that a lot, but until recently didn't bother looking into it. Here is what I found for scoring chances (shots within the homeplate area):

This year (82 games)
974 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 19.3 feet
Shooting Percentage: 138 goals / 974 shots = 14.2%

Last year (48 games)
377 total Shots and Goals (644 prorated to 82 games).
Average distance: 19.1 feet
Shooting Percentage: 47 goals / 377 shots = 12.5%

2 years ago, (82 games)
971 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 19.6 feet
Shooting Percentage: 139 goals / 971 shots = 14.3%

To be honest, I was shocked at how big of a difference there was last year. I still remember Anderson and co. making huge stop after huge stop, but thats over 300 extra scoring chances when you adjust for games played. I have to beleive that there is an issue with the data because while I can beleive there was a difference, that's just absurd (maybe I screwed something up...).

This year compared to 2 years ago is more interesting imo as it implies that we weren't substantially different when it comes to scoring chances allowed despite allowing far more goals this year.

It's not just distance from the net, but the angle to the net. If the only place you can shoot is from the boards but maybe a foot from the goal line, the goalie will stop that 999 times out of 1000...but if you shoot form the same distance but your near the center of the ice, you'll get the shot in or a juicy rebound on a fairly regular basis.

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

I have heard that a lot, but until recently didn't bother looking into it. Here is what I found for scoring chances (shots within the homeplate area):

This year (82 games)
974 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 19.3 feet
Shooting Percentage: 138 goals / 974 shots = 14.2%

Last year (48 games)
377 total Shots and Goals (644 prorated to 82 games).
Average distance: 19.1 feet
Shooting Percentage: 47 goals / 377 shots = 12.5%

2 years ago, (82 games)
971 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 19.6 feet
Shooting Percentage: 139 goals / 971 shots = 14.3%

To be honest, I was shocked at how big of a difference there was last year. I still remember Anderson and co. making huge stop after huge stop, but thats over 300 extra scoring chances when you adjust for games played. I have to beleive that there is an issue with the data because while I can beleive there was a difference, that's just absurd (maybe I screwed something up...).

This year compared to 2 years ago is more interesting imo as it implies that we weren't substantially different when it comes to scoring chances allowed despite allowing far more goals this year.

So does this in fact confirm that defense is the main issue and not goaltending. Sorry im having trouble understanding what exactly this chart means.

Also i know coaches keep record of scoring chances against and goalie save percentage on scoring chances. You dont by any chance have those numbers.

 

[Ice-Tray]

What did I just walk into here?

Fuhr and a collection of his acolytes revealing the secrets of Murray's secret mind control?

Illuminati plots to topple the coaching powers that be.

Hints of scandal and betrayal, behind whispered posts and blogs of shadowy intrigue...

And to think that the real world is just on the other side of the door...

 

[Quo]

I don think anyone is arguing that everything the Sun writes is dictated by management .

Brennan has his own axe to grind with Karlsson.

So where do you draw the line between story lines pushed by management and SUN editorial acting independantly?

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

What did I just walk into here?

Fuhr and a collection of his acolytes revealing the secrets of Murray's secret mind control?

Illuminati plots to topple the coaching powers that be.

Hints of scandal and betrayal, behind whispered posts and blogs of shadowy intrigue...

And to think that the real world is just on the other side of the door...

The real world is terribly boring.

join us....

 

[CanadianHockey]

At some point you have to wonder how much pressure Murray put on him to play guys like Cowen and Greening, what with both of them getting extensions in the offseason prior.

Pressure from Murray to play GSN and get more hits or something makes more sense to me than MacLean just not noticing that GSN was a terrible line that sucked at puck possession and giving them 15 minutes per game.

Pretty sure Murray publicly commented that he wanted Wier to play more.

So where do you draw the line between story lines pushed by management and SUN editorial acting independantly?

Pretty much what I was going to ask.

 

[Micklebot]

It's not just distance from the net, but the angle to the net. If the only place you can shoot is from the boards but maybe a foot from the goal line, the goalie will stop that 999 times out of 1000...but if you shoot form the same distance but your near the center of the ice, you'll get the shot in or a juicy rebound on a fairly regular basis.

Look at the links. Those numbers represent only shots that came from the home plate; the area from the post to the faceoff circles and the straight back to the top of the circle. So all these shots are coming from an area most would consider near center of the ice. It doesn't however provide any details on screens, tips (a tip would likely just be considered a shot), or passes imediately prior to the shot. It also omits misses and posts.

So does this in fact confirm that defense is the main issue and not goaltending. Sorry im having trouble understanding what exactly this chart means.

See above. It just shows shot location info and totals for all the shots within the home plate area. If we're allowing 50% more shots from high quality scoring areas, making roughly 40% of all our shots against quality chances (league wide sv% from that area is about .863) it would likely make goalie numbers plumet.

Suffice it to say, if the data is close to accurate (up for debate), it imo shows just how horrible defensively Ottawa has been and provides a bit of vindication for Lehner and Anderson. Way too many high end chances for anyone to look good. They were, however, still below league average from that area (.858 sv% vs .863 league wide, which would mean about 5 less goals had they been average)

Also i know coaches keep record of scoring chances against and goalie save percentage on scoring chances. You dont by any chance have those numbers.

I'm pretty sure the site pulls the info from the NHL Real time Stats system which is notoriously poor quality data. Coaches likely have more robust data.

That said, it does have the Sh% so sv% for 2014 would be .858, 2013 was .875, and 2012 was .857.

 

[CanadianHockey]

So does this in fact confirm that defense is the main issue and not goaltending. Sorry im having trouble understanding what exactly this chart means.

Also i know coaches keep record of scoring chances against and goalie save percentage on scoring chances. You dont by any chance have those numbers.

Shows that the goaltending last year was inflated by much better defensive play.

The defensive system as a whole is worse this year than last.

I would point out that this doesn't support the view that we should scapegoat our stars, considering we made the playoffs in 2012 with similar numbers to this season and those stars in the lineup.

 

[Micklebot]

Shows that the goaltending last year was inflated by much better defensive play.

The defensive system as a whole is worse this year than last.

I would point out that this doesn't support the view that we should scapegoat our stars, considering we made the playoffs in 2012 with similar numbers to this season and those stars in the lineup.

One thing I thought was interesting; when you restrict the sample to when Spezza is on ice, he actually allowed fewer shots this year than he did in 2011-12, but his on ice sv% was far worse this year (and for that matter out of whack with the team norm).

2014:
288 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 19.8 feet
Shooting Percentage: 57 goals / 288 shots = 19.8%

2012:
353 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 18.9 feet
Shooting Percentage: 50 goals / 353 shots = 14.2%

When you adjust for total time on ice, it works out to about the same number of shots, but the Sh% is what really makes him look bad. How much of that is on him, and how much is bad fortune/bad goaltending is another question though.

 

[Jackie Treehorn]

One thing I thought was interesting; when you restrict the sample to when Spezza is on ice, he actually allowed fewer shots this year than he did in 2011-12, but his on ice sv% was far worse this year (and for that matter out of whack with the team norm).

2014:
288 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 19.8 feet
Shooting Percentage: 57 goals / 288 shots = 19.8%

2012:
353 total Shots and Goals.
Average distance: 18.9 feet
Shooting Percentage: 50 goals / 353 shots = 14.2%

When you adjust for total time on ice, it works out to about the same number of shots, but the Sh% is what really makes him look bad. How much of that is on him, and how much is bad fortune/bad goaltending is another question though.

It's interesting for sure. It seems like he was on the ice for a lot of atrocious defending, so i want to say that he had an effect on sv%. The problem there is memory is notoriously unreliable.
I'm sure its a bit of both, maybe he was unlucky in that he was on the ice for more unlucky/bad goals against. I'm sure he also contributed to the other team having some great chances.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Honestly I don't remember a whole lot of no-look drop-passes that went the other way from Spezza this year

Surely he made a few but none as bad as the drop-to-Kuba-and-get-scored-on-in-OT in 2010