Torts nominated for Jack Adams

[cslebn]

But why did those teams with established teams make the coaching changes they did? Probably because they wanted to get over the hump and win. That is exactly what I'm saying is they had good teams but they felt the prior coach couldn't take them far enough.
Just look at Torts he doesn't really hang around a team very long after Tampa (6.5 years), he went to NYR for 4 seasons and we all saw how that ended, then to Vancouver for one season. He grinds on the skilled offensive players. Maybe after time some of them understood what he was doing, but most of those guys tire of his style.
That's all I'm saying. We saw it with Bread, he wanted out. We see it with Free Agents - offensively gifted forwards won't choose to play here.
Now I'm fine if we're happy finishing 3rd, 4th or 5th in the Metro. He will get the most out of his players, but the gifted offensive players will want out, and others won't come willingly.
I think to take the next step you need change.

to be fair, those teams hired experienced coaches with Trotz and Q. That’s almost just rearranging chairs in the deck really.

Also, I don’t think Torts has anything to do with bread leaving.

 

[Monstershockey]

But why did those teams with established teams make the coaching changes they did? Probably because they wanted to get over the hump and win. That is exactly what I'm saying is they had good teams but they felt the prior coach couldn't take them far enough.
Just look at Torts he doesn't really hang around a team very long after Tampa (6.5 years), he went to NYR for 4 seasons and we all saw how that ended, then to Vancouver for one season. He grinds on the skilled offensive players. Maybe after time some of them understood what he was doing, but most of those guys tire of his style.
That's all I'm saying. We saw it with Bread, he wanted out. We see it with Free Agents - offensively gifted forwards won't choose to play here.
Now I'm fine if we're happy finishing 3rd, 4th or 5th in the Metro. He will get the most out of his players, but the gifted offensive players will want out, and others won't come willingly.
I think to take the next step you need change.

Any head coach hiring is to get a team over the hump. It is basically the easiest thing to do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Torts was brought in to get over the hump. This was probably his last chance to get a job because of his reputation. If he didn't change his ways he would have already been gone and probably wouldn't get another chance. I don't think he grinded Panarin at all as he was very productive here. He was never going to sign here because he wanted the spotlight and big city. He made no bones about it. Even if Columbus gets the success like what the Indians here in Cleveland have had, they will still be a tough draw for top notch free agents. It has nothing to do with coaching, or even how good the team is, and everything to do with location. It is no different as to how the Indians really have to grow from within. They have developed some serious talent since the 90's, all who have left for bigger stages. We have one of the better managers in baseball and we have pretty much no chance at keeping Lindor. They offered him a huge contract two years ago and he turned it down. Look at the guys they have lost over the years, all guys they developed, one guy in the hall of fame, first chance they got they were gone. We still could only get free agents that maybe had a couple good years left. Same thing for Columbus, they pretty much have to rely on scouting and developing players, then maybe getting someone through a trade to finish a contract, or sign an aging vet who may give them 1 or 2 good seasons. Kind of like what they have been doing. Having a big name coach still probably wouldn't be enough to get guys here.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Check the rosters of each team and you may have your answer. Our one and only chance was when Jarmo loaded up adding Duchene and keeping Bread and Bob did we have a shot.

In some cases - but do you see the Blues as loaded last year?
Also the Caps were well know chokers before they eventually won. A good/great regular season team that usually lost early.

 

[JacketsDavid]

Any head coach hiring is to get a team over the hump. It is basically the easiest thing to do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Torts was brought in to get over the hump. This was probably his last chance to get a job because of his reputation. If he didn't change his ways he would have already been gone and probably wouldn't get another chance. I don't think he grinded Panarin at all as he was very productive here. He was never going to sign here because he wanted the spotlight and big city. He made no bones about it. Even if Columbus gets the success like what the Indians here in Cleveland have had, they will still be a tough draw for top notch free agents. It has nothing to do with coaching, or even how good the team is, and everything to do with location. It is no different as to how the Indians really have to grow from within. They have developed some serious talent since the 90's, all who have left for bigger stages. We have one of the better managers in baseball and we have pretty much no chance at keeping Lindor. They offered him a huge contract two years ago and he turned it down. Look at the guys they have lost over the years, all guys they developed, one guy in the hall of fame, first chance they got they were gone. We still could only get free agents that maybe had a couple good years left. Same thing for Columbus, they pretty much have to rely on scouting and developing players, then maybe getting someone through a trade to finish a contract, or sign an aging vet who may give them 1 or 2 good seasons. Kind of like what they have been doing. Having a big name coach still probably wouldn't be enough to get guys here.

Mosters I was simply giving data to your response that "Hiring a coach to change the culture and then getting someone else to finish the job makes no sense. "

I showed data from past few seasons that it is relatively common for new coaches to win. THose aren't the guys who built those teams, new coaches were brought in to do something the old staff wasn't able to do.

Agree 100% changing coaches is the easiest thing to do. But there is a pattern in the NHL that many times the eventual SC champion comes froma team where a new HC was brought in. To me that makes sense regardless of you opinion that "Hiring a coach to change the culture and then getting someone else to finish the job makes no sense. "

 

[Monk]

I showed data from past few seasons that it is relatively common for new coaches to win. THose aren't the guys who built those teams, new coaches were brought in to do something the old staff wasn't able to do.

I think what the data you provided actually shows is that NHL coaches don't last very long. The average tenure for an NHL coach is ~3.5 years and the median is ~2.5 years - so isn't it extremely likely that "new" coaches are going to win the cup?

Maybe the coaching change is what got them there, maybe it's not. I just dunno that it's as conclusive as you're indicating.

 

[Monstershockey]

I think Monk nailed it. Teams are always changing coaches every few years. The examples cited were of situations that it worked. There are still a lot of other teams that switched coaches and it didn't work. Winning championships is extremely hard, and you can play well and coach well, and still lose games on fluke plays, or someone on the opposing team that you didn't expect to show up does. If you have a coach that is getting to the playoffs and the team is still buying in, there is no need to change coaches, you need the front office to get some guys to plug in to improve more. Tampa is doing that and they are on the cusp again. Cooper has been there 8 years, its still his first head coaching job in the NHL, and he has been successful. When you get to this point, there are still things you can control, but there are way too many things that are beyond any control. There is still quite a bit of luck teams need to get the job done.

 

[majormajor]

I hope we see a change in team strategy away from the safe-is-life approach* (why is everything so binary with Torts?) but I see no evidence that this team is anything less than 100% committed with Torts. They don't need a new voice to go all-out as a unit and make a run.

*For example, see how much better they played in the last couple games vs Tampa compared to the first few games. When they started pinching and playing aggressively they started dominating. There is a lot of wasted talent on this team when they spend the whole night playing prevent in their own end.

 

[Monstershockey]

While they may have played better against Tampa getting a little more agressive, in my opinion, I don't think this team can keep that kind of pace up all season. This team has talent, but it definitely tips toward the defensive side. Torts is coaching this team to its strengths. Once in a while they will have an offensive outburst, but it never lasts. I looked up safe is death a couple months ago and found an article saying they gave that up and took the sign down, that it was a thing of the past. Ironically, it was against Tampa, and the Jackets were shutout. They may have put the sign back up and went back to it since then. Its kind of funny also because we went to that game and my girlfriend wanted to sit in front of the cannon to hear it go off and be close to it. Figures we would get shutout that game. If you don't like the cannon that is the best place to sit as the plastic in front of it blocks most of the sound in front of it. The one time it did go off at the beginning of the game, I didn't really hear it.

 

[majormajor]

While they may have played better against Tampa getting a little more agressive, in my opinion, I don't think this team can keep that kind of pace up all season. This team has talent, but it definitely tips toward the defensive side. Torts is coaching this team to its strengths. Once in a while they will have an offensive outburst, but it never lasts. I looked up safe is death a couple months ago and found an article saying they gave that up and took the sign down, that it was a thing of the past. Ironically, it was against Tampa, and the Jackets were shutout. They may have put the sign back up and went back to it since then. Its kind of funny also because we went to that game and my girlfriend wanted to sit in front of the cannon to hear it go off and be close to it. Figures we would get shutout that game. If you don't like the cannon that is the best place to sit as the plastic in front of it blocks most of the sound in front of it. The one time it did go off at the beginning of the game, I didn't really hear it.

It seems to me that the player whose talent was most wasted by the hyper-defensive approach is Seth Jones. He played this year like a fantastic stay-at-home defender but he's more valuable as an aggressive player who pushes play forward. Right now he cautiously lets opponents gain the zone and just focuses on guarding the center of the ice, and while that has a certain baseline effectiveness, it's a waste of his talents.

Safe-is-death was definitively abandoned in March of 2019. I don't know when the sign came down but there was a marked shift in team strategy at that point. I welcomed it because we stopped forcing 4 on 3s all of the time (which inevitably ended up us 2 on 1s against) but we also stopped pinching and that's just cut sharply into our offensive zone time. The Jackets aren't a team that will score much on the rush, sometimes I think that is what people mean by "talent", but they are one of the best offensive cycle teams, and we need our D to step up more to take advantage of that.

 

[Monk]

It seems to me that the player whose talent was most wasted by the hyper-defensive approach is Seth Jones. He played this year like a fantastic stay-at-home defender but he's more valuable as an aggressive player who pushes play forward. Right now he cautiously lets opponents gain the zone and just focuses on guarding the center of the ice, and while that has a certain baseline effectiveness, it's a waste of his talents.

Agree with this, and I'd add it felt like Jones had no puck luck at all this year on offense - so his production was even lower than it might have otherwise been.

 

[Monstershockey]

Seth may have been a victim of having to play more defense because of the lack of finishing up front. He still had 30 points and he played 19-22 less games than he usually does. Had he not got hurt his numbers would have been higher, and also if there was more scoring from other guys his numbers would have been higher. He has a ton of ice time and I am willing to bet there were a lot of assists left out there because the guys up front weren't finishing. You look at the years his numbers were higher, the Jackets ranked a lot higher in goals for. Last season they were 28th in goals for and 3rd in goals against. Sometimes the play of others forces guys to have to adjust their game for the good of the team. The lack of goal scoring from other guys meant they had to play tighter defense to stay in games, which meant less offensive chances for Seth. They really had no choice but to play that way. I don't think he was wasted at all, he is, after all, a defenseman. I like offensively skilled d-men as much as anybody. Having guys like Seth and Zach at the same time is great, but it is even better when the guys up front are scoring and the defenseman don't have to be relied on to score.

 

[Monk]

This is worth a read (from 2014): What Predicts Whether an NHL Coach Will Be Fired, And Whether It Matters

A few highlights specific to the earlier convo:

"But the data shows firing a coach doesn’t, on average, help a team improve immediately."

"Playoff performance is no better under new coaches. Non-playoff teams go an average of 0.5 playoff rounds the following season, whether they fire their coach or not."

"With no evidence that the NHL’s rapid coaching churn is driving results, new NHL general managers may want to give it a second thought before hustling their coaches out the door."

 

[majormajor]

Seth may have been a victim of having to play more defense because of the lack of finishing up front. He still had 30 points and he played 19-22 less games than he usually does. Had he not got hurt his numbers would have been higher, and also if there was more scoring from other guys his numbers would have been higher. He has a ton of ice time and I am willing to bet there were a lot of assists left out there because the guys up front weren't finishing. You look at the years his numbers were higher, the Jackets ranked a lot higher in goals for. Last season they were 28th in goals for and 3rd in goals against. Sometimes the play of others forces guys to have to adjust their game for the good of the team. The lack of goal scoring from other guys meant they had to play tighter defense to stay in games, which meant less offensive chances for Seth. They really had no choice but to play that way. I don't think he was wasted at all, he is, after all, a defenseman. I like offensively skilled d-men as much as anybody. Having guys like Seth and Zach at the same time is great, but it is even better when the guys up front are scoring and the defenseman don't have to be relied on to score.

The defensive structure was dictated by Torts before 2019-20 began, he specifically cited the loss of Bob as the reason to play a very defensive game. There was no point where we were trying to play up tempo hockey and the goals weren't coming and we decided to shift focus to defense. The focus was day one. And it's right from the start of games, I don't know if you missed it but we played super cautiously all year, it had nothing to do with the score on the board.

Regarding finishing: The Jackets expected goals is 24th in the league, and they only underperformed that a little bit being 28th in actual goals 5v5. They also had terrible shooting percentage but once shot locations are factored in (as they are in expected goals models) the goals are only a little lower than you'd expect from the chances.

I'm not looking at Seth's point totals, I'm looking at the chances and the on-ice goals results. And there was noticeably less offensive opportunity being created this year relative to Seth's previous seasons. With his skillset I want him to be tilting the ice: making more pinches and defending higher up the ice to turn play forward and get the team more scoring chances. I respect the whole defend in your end thing but if that's all we want from Seth we might as well trade him for value and get Adam Pelech or Brett Pesce or someone who is only good for that sort of defense and will come much cheaper.

 

[Monstershockey]

True he said they would more defensively, and that was smart, as he had two goalies who were unproven at the time. Right, that they were not playing uptempo, but it became apparent that they were going to have trouble scoring. This team doesn't pass the puck well, and has very few playmakers. It really shows on the power play. You can play good defense without being cautious. I don't think they played cautious, but rather disciplined. It showed in the fact that they were one of the least penalized teams. Their problems persisted when they would get in the offensive zone, they were not good at moving the puck, and didn't create or capitalize on a lot of quality chances.

I looked on hockey reference and they had them 15th in xGF and 26th in aGF. That seems like kind of a big difference. I am not an advanced stat guy, so that doesn't really mean much to me. I have tried to read about and learn them, but I really don't see what they accomplish. I would rather just watch them play. No games are decided on expected goals, for or against. Just like game one against Toronto. Cam had the worst Corsi on the team, but the way it played out, he had the game winning goal, so that's what mattered.

With Seth, I guess I look at point totals because that's what counts. The goal is to produce points, and he was still pretty much in line with his normal offensive output, just a little lower. For having to play more defensively, he was still good offensively. I would like to have him do more offensively, but the way the season panned out, they had to play the way they did because that was their best chance to win. Factor in all the injuries, the AHL guys coming up and not being good offensively, the only way they were going to win games was to play a good defensive, disciplined game, and try to take advantage of what offensive chances they get.

 

[MoeBartoli]

In some cases - but do you see the Blues as loaded last year?
Also the Caps were well know chokers before they eventually won. A good/great regular season team that usually lost early.

The Blues draw fair comparison to the Jackets in some ways. Solid D-Corp backed by good goaltending (during the streak). They were stronger up the middle and overall had better forward play (the Bread/Duchene year notwithstanding)....As to the Caps, while they choked in the playoffs, their skill up front is superior, starting with this generation’s greatest goal scorer.

 

[majormajor]

True he said they would more defensively, and that was smart, as he had two goalies who were unproven at the time. Right, that they were not playing uptempo, but it became apparent that they were going to have trouble scoring. This team doesn't pass the puck well, and has very few playmakers. It really shows on the power play. You can play good defense without being cautious. I don't think they played cautious, but rather disciplined. It showed in the fact that they were one of the least penalized teams. Their problems persisted when they would get in the offensive zone, they were not good at moving the puck, and didn't create or capitalize on a lot of quality chances.

I don't expect the Jackets to score much on the rush (they were dead last). But they can score a lot by forcing turnovers and by pinching and forcing long cycles. At times the Jackets didn't really try to do those things much, they just backed off in loose puck situations. I would call that cautious play. They played the system in a discipline way, but the system itself is supremely cautious.

And again I don't mind that they don't try 4 on 3s all of the time like they were doing before, those didn't help us. I'm not asking for rush play. But Torts wants his D to carefully back up into their own end and not try to break up the rushes early unless it's a safe win. That means we don't get scored against on the rush (also #1 in the league, per ThePoint) but we also just end up stuck in our own end. A guy like Seth Jones could be breaking up plays and turning it the other way but he's stuck in his own end a lot. I want him pinching more and keeping the other club from getting in our end in the first place.

I looked on hockey reference and they had them 15th in xGF and 26th in aGF. That seems like kind of a big difference. I am not an advanced stat guy, so that doesn't really mean much to me. I have tried to read about and learn them, but I really don't see what they accomplish. I would rather just watch them play. No games are decided on expected goals, for or against. Just like game one against Toronto. Cam had the worst Corsi on the team, but the way it played out, he had the game winning goal, so that's what mattered.

I don't know the differences between hockey reference's xG model and naturalstattrick's. I do know that goals results are what ultimately matter, I'm not confused about that. You were the one who blamed the shooters for costing Seth points, something that xG can help us investigate. xG predicts goals better than just looking at shot totals and shooting percentages.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

Tonight's game will determine whether Torts gets fired tomorrow or he lives to see a few more days (figuratively speaking)

Let's put this in perspective. Until 2017 we NEVER lost to the eventual champs in the playoffs. The closest was in 2009, when Pittsburgh, then in a separate conference, beat Detroit in game 7 of the Cup finals. If Tampa Bay wins tonight it will have been 3 times in 4 years.

Plus we've maxed out our potential under Torts, like Notre Dame football seems to have maxed out its potential under Brian Kelly (but if they manage to win the national title this year, I'll be wrong, if not, I'm gonna want Urban Meyer, former OSU coach to replace him).

 

[Monstershockey]

Here is some perspective. Until 2017 Columbus lost to exactly 2 teams in the playoffs because they only made the playoffs twice, in 15 seasons. Yes, so fire a guy for helping this team get to the playoffs 4 years straight. Maybe Tampa should have fired Cooper for losing to the cup champs 3 times in 4 years.

 

[majormajor]

Tonight's game will determine whether Torts gets fired tomorrow or he lives to see a few more days (figuratively speaking)

Let's put this in perspective. Until 2017 we NEVER lost to the eventual champs in the playoffs. The closest was in 2009, when Pittsburgh, then in a separate conference, beat Detroit in game 7 of the Cup finals. If Tampa Bay wins tonight it will have been 3 times in 4 years.

Plus we've maxed out our potential under Torts, like Notre Dame football seems to have maxed out its potential under Brian Kelly (but if they manage to win the national title this year, I'll be wrong, if not, I'm gonna want Urban Meyer, former OSU coach to replace him).

I'm very confident Torts is not on the hot seat.

I also don't follow why losing to the eventual champs means he would be more likely to be on the hot seat. It could easily be spun the other way: Torts' Jackets haven't lost to any middling teams.

This team isn't fully built yet. It just lost it's top forward (this year's MVP candidate). It still beat the Leafs a year after taking out the Lightning. It seems like you might be taking for granted how hard that is to do.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

What another other Ohio team did in 1999 shows that constant failure in the postseason is not OK.

The Indians made the playoffs 5 years straight from 1995-99. But they never won the World Series. After blowing a 2-0 ALDS lead against the Red Sox, the Indians had finally had enough and fired Mike Hargrove.

 

[Monstershockey]

What another other Ohio team did in 1999 shows that constant failure in the postseason is not OK.

The Indians made the playoffs 5 years straight from 1995-99. But they never won the World Series. After blowing a 2-0 ALDS lead against the Red Sox, the Indians had finally had enough and fired Mike Hargrove.

That brilliant move lead to just 3 playoff appearences in the next 16 years. Hargrove's firing was more of an ego trip by John Hart than Hargrove's managing. Hargrove was a solid manager and his firing was a mistake.

 

[cslebn]

That brilliant move lead to just 3 playoff appearences in the next 16 years. Hargrove's firing was more of an ego trip by John Hart than Hargrove's managing. Hargrove was a solid manager and his firing was a mistake.

It'd be like suggesting because Tito hasn't won a series in Cleveland that the tribe should fire the best manager in the game.....

 

[Monstershockey]

It'd be like suggesting because Tito hasn't won a series in Cleveland that the tribe should fire the best manager in the game.....

Tito is an excellent manager. I just hope his health gets better. I would love to see him on the bench in the playoffs, but his well being is more important. Alomar has done a fine job in the interim.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

You mean Terry Francona. He needs to put his health first and retire.

In other news Torts' fate is sealed.

It was another Ohio team that made the mistake of keeping their coach on after he started 0-7 in the postseason.

When the Bengals lost in the wild card round in 2015 to the Steelers, Marvin Lewis being fired seemed like a sure thing. Especially after how they lost the game.

I picked Brian Kelly of Notre Dame to replace him, given his popularity in the city of Cincinnati having previously coached the Bearcats.

But to everyone's shock, Lewis was retained. That would come back to haunt Notre Dame as they regressed from a Fiesta Bowl appearance to 4-8 in 2016, which shockingly didn't cost Kelly his job. Though they have been to bowls every year since.

This decision hit the Bengals even harder. For the next three years, they fluctuated between 6 and 7 wins, finally parting ways with Lewis after 2018. But they fared even worse in 2019, winning only 2 games.

This serves as a cautionary tale against thinking constant failure in the postseason is OK, not a message a team wants to send.

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

To this day Brian Kelly is still at ND, much to my disappointment. I'd much prefer Urban Meyer.