View Single Post
06-03-2012, 09:51 AM
Miller Time
Registered User
Miller Time's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,838
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
winning % only matters in sports where there are only two results.
Playoffs - Win or Lose... his playoff win% is mediocre.

and while yes, in the regular season the presence of ties alters things, winning is still the primary objective, and certainly matters.

win % is one indicator, but certainly not the be-all/end-all, i didn't intend to imply that and should have probably specified it more clearly.

though the point remains, it seems odd that some posters are going to such lengths to celebrate a coach that ultimately was pretty average.

Originally Posted by MooseheadCanadiens View Post
Also the all time leader for losses, but I get your point and agree with it.
yup... and in Martin's case, he's 10th in wins, and 10th in losses.

when you look around in sports, you see a lot of this. excellence is what it is precisely b/c so few people achieve it. It's hard to find, and even harder to maintain.

just as there are "generational" players, same applies to the world of coaching. unlike players though, it is much more difficult to "measure" that excellence.

since winning is the ultimate objective of any team, it certainly should be one of the measuring sticks, but there obviously more to it.

Originally Posted by Teufelsdreck View Post
Lemaire's record includes his stint with the Canadiens at a time when he had to install an all-ice defensive system because the team was weak. In fact, I believe he invented (or reinvented) the trap.
and that's the thing with Martin... we certainly can't ignore that he had a few years coaching a recent expansion team with lots of young players and a limited budget...

but on the other hand, for about half of his time in Ottawa he was running a team that was among the league best in terms of talent (and i don't know exactly where the Sens ranked in the early 2000's salary-wise, but I strongly suspect they were in the upper tier of teams in terms of spending prior to the cap. Afterwards, they were a cap spending team until he was fired.

In florida he had another "re-building" squad, but he was brought in at a time where the team was starting to spend a bit more.

in montreal, he inhereted a cap spending team, and iirc, some of his staunchest supporters were also of the opinion that Gainey did a great job in the summer of 2009 assembling talent and "improving" the roster.

in all, looking even at just the years where he had a talented roster, I think the results still leave something to be desired, especially when it mattered the most (playoff time).

Originally Posted by Gabe84 View Post
I don't get why people get all riled up with MathMan's posts. All he ever does is try to rationalize the debate by bringing in advanced stats to show why a player or a coach is not as bad as the emotional posters of this board would like to think. Oftentimes, he makes good points. Sadly, most people just can't refute anything he says and back it up with strong evidences, so it almost always ends up with "WELL YOU'RE JUST BIASED SO THERE!"
problem is that he takes to the statistical extreme just as some take to the "emotional" extreme.

advanced stats are great at describing "what" happens, but don't directly explain "why"... people mistakenly apply their own subjective interpretation to the "why", but instead of acknowledging the interpretation factor, try to hide behind the "objectivity" of the stats.

also, there are no statistical models that account for all of the intangible factors that most definitely impact performance and results. Dismissing what can't (at least not yet) be measured as unimportant reveals a naivety about sports that is just as problematic as the pure emotional "i don't like player X therefore he sucks".

advanced stats are very useful and have their place, but applying them to sports in answering the "why" question ultimately involves subjectivity.... which makes it all the more dangerous b/c those who rely on them heavily tend to do so with an inflated sense of confidence which biases them even further.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote