HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Fire Wilson and McLellan?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-30-2012, 11:23 AM
  #51
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
lol,

that guy should get an award or something.

he QUANTIFIED LUCK, are you kidding me?

Ill give you an example.

wingels gets a one on one with the goalie, he actually had time to settle the puck and shoot "the hardest wrister on the team" point blank. but instead he panicked and tried an off balance snap shot. why? did luck drive him to not thrive under pressure?

burns gets open and thornton floats a really nice pass across the crease, burns completely shoots it wide. its composure, it was lacking.

marleau has the puck on a 3 on 1 and thornton makes the right play in driving out the defender. marleau passes right to the tape but instead of one timing it pavs tries to feather it into the net. funny the same play scored on niemi because of a one timer.

its execution

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:23 AM
  #52
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
I'm not a TMac lover but I don't see much real basis in Hockeyball's argument that it's primarily his fault. I don't think his assistant coaches have been productive but that's pure conjecture as well.

I am coming around to the belief that some of us (myself included) who thought this team was supremely talented is wrong. It's not and that's becoming more evident to me as the season winds down.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:25 AM
  #53
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF View Post
That's a hell of a revisionist history you got going there. I especially like your reasoning for the opening round loss to the Ducks. That's some nice work.
Great retort.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:26 AM
  #54
SpinTheBlackCircle
Global Moderator
Life as a Sharks fan
 
SpinTheBlackCircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 32,708
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Did you read the article, including the methodology? There's very little in the way of opinion anywhere in that piece.
"JLikens assumed each team had the same real shooting percentage"

"All 30 teams take the same number of shots"

__________________
Gots all my pertinence on it and such
SpinTheBlackCircle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:27 AM
  #55
SharksFan1
Registered User
 
SharksFan1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,001
vCash: 147
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
lol,

that guy should get an award or something.

he QUANTIFIED LUCK, are you kidding me?

Ill give you an example.

wingels gets a one on one with the goalie, he actually had time to settle the puck and shoot "the hardest wrister on the team" point blank. but instead he panicked and tried an off balance snap shot. why? did luck drive him to not thrive under pressure?

burns gets open and thornton floats a really nice pass across the crease, burns completely shoots it wide. its composure, it was lacking.

marleau has the puck on a 3 on 1 and thornton makes the right play in driving out the defender. marleau passes right to the tape but instead of one timing it pavs tries to feather it into the net. funny the same play scored on niemi because of a one timer.

its execution
Your right about the first and last one but the pass to Burns was tipped by the d-man and was flopping all over the place when it finally got to him.

SharksFan1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:28 AM
  #56
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
lol,

that guy should get an award or something.

he QUANTIFIED LUCK, are you kidding me?

Ill give you an example.

wingels gets a one on one with the goalie, he actually had time to settle the puck and shoot "the hardest wrister on the team" point blank. but instead he panicked and tried an off balance snap shot. why? did luck drive him to not thrive under pressure?

burns gets open and thornton floats a really nice pass across the crease, burns completely shoots it wide. its composure, it was lacking.

marleau has the puck on a 3 on 1 and thornton makes the right play in driving out the defender. marleau passes right to the tape but instead of one timing it pavs tries to feather it into the net. funny the same play scored on niemi because of a one timer.

its execution
Some players/teams have a strong mental makeup. This team for years does not. All your examples point to a poor mental makeup - lack of poise, panicking, overdoing it - whatever. It boils down to the same thing.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:28 AM
  #57
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SharksFan1 View Post
Your right about the first and last one but the pass to Burns was tipped by the d-man and was flopping all over the place when it finally got to him.
im going off the amount that he put it wide. he still connected with the puck and if the stick is pointing the right way it goes on net.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:30 AM
  #58
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
"JLikens assumed each team had the same real shooting percentage"

"All 30 teams take the same number of shots"
For the purposes of the study, those were natural assumptions to make. The goal is to examine how much observed team shooting percentages deviate from how a model that assumes all teams have the same shooting talent (and therefore any observed variance is luck) performs. That doesn't really make it an "opinion." It's also far from the first article I've linked to that comes to a similar conclusion regarding team shooting percentage.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:31 AM
  #59
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
2 1-goal games
1 1-goal game with an empty netter than made it a 2 goal game
1 2-goal game

....The best team won? You're sure? Despite the Sharks having home ice?
I had my hopes before the start of that series, but I believe the better team won. I think they were unfairly stacked, but that's just MHO.

I also thought we could beat the Nucks, but Ref's, injuries and bad luck put an end to that dream.

And nobody did beat the Hawks

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:34 AM
  #60
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
For the purposes of the study, those were natural assumptions to make. The goal is to examine how much observed team shooting percentages deviate from how a model that assumes all teams have the same shooting talent (and therefore any observed variance is luck) performs. That doesn't really make it an "opinion." It's also far from the first article I've linked to that comes to a similar conclusion regarding team shooting percentage.
probably my biggest issue with this.

sure pavelski is about to have a 30 goal season, but to say he has the same shooting talent as whitney, or richards, or perry/ryan just isnt right.

thornton is a horrible shooter, but he puts up 20 goals usually.

there IS parity in shooting talents, otherwise everyone would play a similar system i think. its why we looked at nash so hard at the deadline, we lacked that finishing ability in our top 6.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:37 AM
  #61
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
So you believe that with a better coach we would have beaten the Hawks and the Nucks?



Maybe. I don't know and neither do you. Anything is possible.



Not entirely. I think a terrible road trip, which included bad luck and a lot of injuries started it.



Our PK was doing excellent after the tweaks. You can say he waited to long, but coaches aren't perfect and there could be legitimate reasons why they tried that system as long as they did. They were still in good shape in the standings employing it.



Possible. They had plenty of chances yesterday. They didn't finish them. And they've beaten it before. The smells of execution more than system to me.



Again, you have no proof of this. Pure conjecture. We weren't beating the Hawks and we were likely going to lose against the Nucks regardless of injuries.



And there it is. Your confirmation bias. You thought this was a great team entering the year, unlike me, and therefore it must be the coach.
Actually going into this season I said I don't see us winning the cup because of our serious lack of forward depth. I said if it isn't fixed prior to the deadline we will have waited too long and we might as well stand pat (which we should have clearly). So if anything, THAT is a counter-point to my argument, and I do absolutely see it as a factor.

Right now, the team the Sharks are putting on the ice is deeper at every position (except maybe goaltending) than any team we have ever iced. We are leaving a lot of NHL talent in the press box on a nightly basis and that is not something we have had the luxury of doing in the past.

Do I think Coaching is the only issue? Absolutely not. I simply think its an issue, a fairly big one, and without resolving it it's very tough to judge which players are the problem.

I think for the most part the talent we have isn't being properly utilized and that is why production is down across the board. I think this has led to a lack of confidence in the players and is feeding that cycle. I would bet (though pure conjecture) that the Sharks are also getting mixed messages from the coaching staff and is contributing to their constant hesitation, scrambly play in critical situations, and general confidence.

I have laid out specific strategy issues and line-up choices. Painstakingly backed that up with relevant (though I admit, not totally conclusive) numbers, and even dared to admit this team won't make the playoffs before it was a reality. Again, I don't have anyway to 'prove' I am right, but I think I make a pretty good argument. I've certainly put the effort into providing as many specifics as I can.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:44 AM
  #62
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
probably my biggest issue with this.

sure pavelski is about to have a 30 goal season, but to say he has the same shooting talent as whitney, or richards, or perry/ryan just isnt right.

thornton is a horrible shooter, but he puts up 20 goals usually.

there IS parity in shooting talents, otherwise everyone would play a similar system i think. its why we looked at nash so hard at the deadline, we lacked that finishing ability in our top 6.
Holy crap dude read the ****ing post before commenting on it. They started with the assumption that all teams have the same shooting talent in order to compare that with reality to see how much actual results differ from what would be expected in a hypothetical universe where all teams have the same shooting talent. The differences are attributed to skill and he breaks down how much a component of skill shooting percentage is dependent on sample size.

Also this has nothing to do with individual players. Individual players quite obviously vary in shooting talent (but it takes several seasons to establish that talent...just because someone shoots 15% over 82 games while someone else shoots 7% we can't be fully certain one is a better shooter than the other - if those percentages remain the same over four or five seasons then we can conclude that it's at least overwhelmingly probable). It's teams as a whole that we're discussing here because it's the Sharks team as a whole that's going to miss the playoffs solely due to a poor shooting percentage.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:46 AM
  #63
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Actually going into this season I said I don't see us winning the cup because of our serious lack of forward depth. I said if it isn't fixed prior to the deadline we will have waited too long and we might as well stand pat (which we should have clearly). So if anything, THAT is a counter-point to my argument, and I do absolutely see it as a factor.
Well, you did say that the team starting the year was better than the team we finished with last year. It's our top 6 that isn't executing and our D hasn't exactly been stellar at times. Without that, our depth means nothing.

Quote:
I have laid out specific strategy issues and line-up choices. Painstakingly backed that up with relevant (though I admit, not totally conclusive) numbers, and even dared to admit this team won't make the playoffs before it was a reality. Again, I don't have anyway to 'prove' I am right, but I think I make a pretty good argument. I've certainly put the effort into providing as many specifics as I can.
Well then, we've both used a lot of thought and words to agree to disagree

Led Zappa is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:50 AM
  #64
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,456
vCash: 500
It's very likely that the Coyotes end up in Quebec next season.

If that happens, Maloney, Tippett, Doan, and Whitney will all likely be looking for work.

If you guys fire Wilson and McLellan you may be able to get all four.

rt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:52 AM
  #65
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rt View Post
It's very likely that the Coyotes end up in Quebec next season.

If that happens, Maloney, Tippett, Doan, and Whitney will all likely be looking for work.

If you guys fire Wilson and McLellan you may be able to get all four.
Why would Tippett and Maloney not go? They've done a fabulous job with that team. The new owners would be foolish to let them go.

If DW ever had a chance to sign Whitney as a UFA and didn't, he's a fool.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:55 AM
  #66
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Well, you did say that the team starting the year was better than the team we finished with last year. It's our top 6 that isn't executing and our D hasn't exactly been stellar at times. Without that, our depth means nothing.



Well then, we've both used a lot of thought and words to agree to disagree
Pretty much, and I am fine with people not agreeing. It's not like Doug Wilson is listening to any of us anyway.

The only issue I really have is with claims like "its bad lucks fault!". Bad luck can lose you a game, it's not going to tank an entire season. Beside the fact that you can watch the games and see, specifically, the mistakes they are making.

I agree though, the top-6 and defense are not executing, I just believe that is a systemic issue caused by poor coaching and poor strategy. You think it's a group failure, either is possible, I just think mine is more likely (and more easily fixed).

I do believe players need to be moved too though. Clowe (who I railed on a few seasons ago, then turned it around, and is now right back where he started), Murray, Handzus, etc are all problems. No doubt about it.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:56 AM
  #67
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Holy crap dude read the ****ing post before commenting on it. They started with the assumption that all teams have the same shooting talent in order to compare that with reality to see how much actual results differ from what would be expected in a hypothetical universe where all teams have the same shooting talent. The differences are attributed to skill and he breaks down how much a component of skill shooting percentage is dependent on sample size.

Also this has nothing to do with individual players. Individual players quite obviously vary in shooting talent (but it takes several seasons to establish that talent...just because someone shoots 15% over 82 games while someone else shoots 7% we can't be fully certain one is a better shooter than the other - if those percentages remain the same over four or five seasons then we can conclude that it's at least overwhelmingly probable). It's teams as a whole that we're discussing here because it's the Sharks team as a whole that's going to miss the playoffs solely due to a poor shooting percentage.
holy crap dude the very fact that your basing a statistical argument off of ASSUMPTIONS means its flawed.

doesnt mean its wrong, but its flawed. you can postulate all you want, but you cant prove a fact with assumptions. jesus

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:57 AM
  #68
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Why would Tippett and Maloney not go? They've done a fabulous job with that team. The new owners would be foolish to let them go.
They don't speak French.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:59 AM
  #69
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
Why would Tippett and Maloney not go? They've done a fabulous job with that team. The new owners would be foolish to let them go.

If DW ever had a chance to sign Whitney as a UFA and didn't, he's a fool.
It's Quebec. New owners like to bring in their own guys. Wouldn't surprise me to see the Yotes move to Quebec and bring in Patrick Roy (As Coach or GM or both).


As to Whitney, I assume you mean if Whitney said he wanted to come here and sign a contract here and DW passed, then he's a fool. I say that because if I were Whitney, I'd never come back to the team that almost ended my career by waiving me. I'd always want to play for other teams and kill that team.

ChompChomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 12:00 PM
  #70
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
holy crap dude the very fact that your basing a statistical argument off of ASSUMPTIONS means its flawed.

doesnt mean its wrong, but its flawed. you can postulate all you want, but you cant prove a fact with assumptions. jesus
Are you trolling right now or do you seriously not understand how a hypothesis works?

For the last time, the study compares the actual, real-life distribution of team shooting percentage at the NHL level with what that distribution would be if shooting percentage was 100% luck. The difference between the two illustrates what portion of shooting percentage is skill and what portion is luck.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 12:00 PM
  #71
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
They don't speak French.
This is actually probably true. Quebec is not like Montreal, most people do not speak English there period. If you don't speak French it is going to be a very difficult place to move your family.

I don't really want Tippet though, as i've said before the trap is not an effective strategy in the playoffs, and not the right strategy for this team either. Still, he'd be an upgrade over Mclellan most likely. I don't see DW going anywhere or I'd be all over grabbing Malony.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 12:02 PM
  #72
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Pretty much, and I am fine with people not agreeing. It's not like Doug Wilson is listening to any of us anyway.

The only issue I really have is with claims like "its bad lucks fault!". Bad luck can lose you a game, it's not going to tank an entire season. Beside the fact that you can watch the games and see, specifically, the mistakes they are making.

I agree though, the top-6 and defense are not executing, I just believe that is a systemic issue caused by poor coaching and poor strategy. You think it's a group failure, either is possible, I just think mine is more likely (and more easily fixed).

I do believe players need to be moved too though. Clowe (who I railed on a few seasons ago, then turned it around, and is now right back where he started), Murray, Handzus, etc are all problems. No doubt about it.
But we've seen this team for pretty much 7 years since the lockout. Always falling short somewhere and in doing so, looking like they "could have done more". Sure role players have come and gone and part of that core has changed over but it's pretty much been the same core for the most part. 2 coaches in that time. Same result.

I'd say firing TMac would just be a band aid. This team - and organization - needs an overhaul. Moving Clowe and Murray wouldn't be enough. Handzus would merely be a scapegoat, and I think you're smart enough to realize that. I'd deal Marleau, Boyle and Jumbo, too, (in that order). I don't care about NTCs. If DW (or owners) want a serious change, they'll do what's necessary.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 12:05 PM
  #73
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
It's Quebec. New owners like to bring in their own guys. Wouldn't surprise me to see the Yotes move to Quebec and bring in Patrick Roy (As Coach or GM or both).


As to Whitney, I assume you mean if Whitney said he wanted to come here and sign a contract here and DW passed, then he's a fool. I say that because if I were Whitney, I'd never come back to the team that almost ended my career by waiving me. I'd always want to play for other teams and kill that team.
Same - which is why I wrote If DW had a chance. I doubt it.

Our owners would be wise to look at Maloney and Tippett. They've done a great job with very little. What I don't know is their track record in drafting and development. Hard to say if the issues with Turris and others have been specific to Phoenix being a less than desirable destination or systematic.

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 12:06 PM
  #74
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I don't really want Tippet though, as i've said before the trap is not an effective strategy in the playoffs, and not the right strategy for this team either. Still, he'd be an upgrade over Mclellan most likely. I don't see DW going anywhere or I'd be all over grabbing Malony.
Did Tippett play the trap in Dallas, too, or is he doing that in Phoenix because he has "less talent"?

Gilligans Island is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 12:06 PM
  #75
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilligans Island View Post
But we've seen this team for pretty much 7 years since the lockout. Always falling short somewhere and in doing so, looking like they "could have done more". Sure role players have come and gone and part of that core has changed over but it's pretty much been the same core for the most part. 2 coaches in that time. Same result.

I'd say firing TMac would just be a band aid. This team - and organization - needs an overhaul. Moving Clowe and Murray wouldn't be enough. Handzus would merely be a scapegoat, and I think you're smart enough to realize that. I'd deal Marleau, Boyle and Jumbo, too, (in that order). I don't care about NTCs. If DW (or owners) want a serious change, they'll do what's necessary.
That would imply we EVER had a good coach. We haven't.

Let's be clear here, the Sharks have NEVER had a truly great coach.

Ron Wilson is an ******* and an idiot, and his time in Toronto proved that. He never won a cup even though he's played more games as a coach than most because hes NOT A GOOD COACH.

Darryl Sutter is also a terrible coach, and is now going to cause the Kings (my second favorite team) to wallow in mediocrity for who knows how long.

hockeyball is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.