I am not sure DW gets the boot, but it would not be without precedent. Deano put together some good teams in SJ, but once a highly touted team of his failed (02-03), he was fired. DW has had MUCH more success than Deano, but from the organization's standpoint, if they miss the playoffs this season, 11-12 is just as bad as 02-03.
If he gets the boot, IMHO so will TMac and the staff, and if Maloney and Tippett are avail, those guys are likely no brainers. Even if DW survives, if Tippett is avail he'll give him a hard look.
And maybe also Havi?
__________________
2011: Outcoached by Vigneault. 2012: Outcoached all season and postseason by Hitch.
2013: Outcoached by most coaches in the NHL. Who's left? 12 year olds on Xbox Live? SACK T-MAC NOW
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.
Your prerogative to blame it on the coaches. I'm more of the mindset it's the team. No sense in trying to patch things up at this point. Time to decide to start anew and do whatever it takes to expedite that - i.e, deal the untouchables now while they have some value.
Your prerogative to blame it on the coaches. I'm more of the mindset it's the team. No sense in trying to patch things up at this point. Time to decide to start anew and do whatever it takes to expedite that - i.e, deal the untouchables now while they have some value.
I coached sports for years. I didn't have the most talented players, and I'm sure I'm not the best coach in my league (not even close), but I had the room. The players respected me, listened to me, and tried their best to do what I asked. If my best player hadn't torn his ACL the morning of the championship, we win it all. Instead we lost, in a heart-breaker, in OT.
I coached sports for years. I didn't have the most talented players, and I'm sure I'm not the best coach in my league (not even close), but I had the room. The players respected me, listened to me, and tried their best to do what I asked. If my best player hadn't torn his ACL the morning of the championship, we win it all. Instead we lost, in a heart-breaker, in OT.
IMO, it's the coaching staff.
Yes your experience is incredibly relevant to coaching highly-paid professional athletes.
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.
Here ill simplify my reasoning a little.
one shooting % is a stat that has absolutely no context. if i take 1 shot and score once i get 100%, you realize how much a few games like that will affect your mean stat right? also it doesnt quantify the type of shot. so for instance if im skating, trip over my laces and bundle in the puck and thats my only shot and goal, i get 100% for the night. but a guy that takes 3 snipers and scores on all of them also gets 100%, there is no bonus for shots taken vs. shots scored.
the mere fact that shooting percentage doesnt quantify your ability to shoot, and then uses that as its main number to hypothesize for luck, inherently makes it flawed in my opinion. so when you build a model that assumes 100% is luck, then locate the difference in real results and use that to base your percentage in skill its flawed.
also, as youve stated in the past, individual players usually regress to a mean that has been shown over larger sample sizes. yet individual players dont matter in this hypothesis. again, not sure how you dont see a flaw in that.
no im not trolling, but the ways you use luck to define our inability is very biased and one sided, and lacks any substance.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a coach that took us to the WCF's twice is a failure. Nobody was beating the Hawks and we bareley had a shot at beating the Nucks, but it certainly wasn't coaching that cost us that series. As I've posted before, we entered PO's in 2009 against Ducks as banged up as we were in the the Nucks series. That was also his first year with the team. We were first in the conference at the All-Star break.
So why exactly was hiring Todd a mistake?
I totally agree. Todd's arguably out-coached the best coach in the world in the last 2 PO's (Babcock). I'd like to see what he could do with a better roster.
one shooting % is a stat that has absolutely no context. if i take 1 shot and score once i get 100%, you realize how much a few games like that will affect your mean stat right? also it doesnt quantify the type of shot. so for instance if im skating, trip over my laces and bundle in the puck and thats my only shot and goal, i get 100% for the night. but a guy that takes 3 snipers and scores on all of them also gets 100%, there is no bonus for shots taken vs. shots scored.
the mere fact that shooting percentage doesnt quantify your ability to shoot, and then uses that as its main number to hypothesize for luck, inherently makes it flawed in my opinion. so when you build a model that assumes 100% is luck, then locate the difference in real results and use that to base your percentage in skill its flawed.
also, as youve stated in the past, individual players usually regress to a mean that has been shown over larger sample sizes. yet individual players dont matter in this hypothesis. again, not sure how you dont see a flaw in that.
no im not trolling, but the ways you use luck to define our inability is very biased and one sided, and lacks any substance.
I honestly don't see how what you are saying is accurate. Shooting % is based on total shots taken (not shots per game) against total goals scored. At best what you are referring to is the small sample size argument, which is valid, but easily invalidated (simply set a shot taken threshold on your analysis).
The real reason SH% is an issue is because the team has a significant effect on it. If the team is creating a lot of odd man rushes, or is effective at traffic in front of the net, tip plays, etc, it's going to effect an individuals SH%. If they are playing top competition, or not, would be a huge difference too.
Put Pavelski out there consistently against poor competition quality and his SH% is going to go up, for instance.
I would postulate that the reason the Sharks SH% is so low is because they are not using effective offensive zone strategies to improve their shot quality. Cross crease passes, odd man rushes, break aways, traffic in the paint, quick passing plays, etc. These things clear shooting lanes and throw goalies out of position, the Sharks are terrible right now at ALL of these things. THATS why their shooting % sucks, because they take very low percentage shots.
I totally agree. Todd's arguably out-coached the best coach in the world in the last 2 PO's (Babcock). I'd like to see what he could do with a better roster.
Very specific situation. He has direct inside knowledge of Bacock's strategies and the players weaknesses. That is going to have a big impact. Plus we have a more talented roster imo.
I really don't see how you get significantly better than our roster, realistically.
I am not sure DW gets the boot, but it would not be without precedent. Deano put together some good teams in SJ, but once a highly touted team of his failed (02-03), he was fired. DW has had MUCH more success than Deano, but from the organization's standpoint, if they miss the playoffs this season, 11-12 is just as bad as 02-03.
If he gets the boot, IMHO so will TMac and the staff, and if Maloney and Tippett are avail, those guys are likely no brainers. Even if DW survives, if Tippett is avail he'll give him a hard look.
And maybe also Havi?
When's Tippet's contract up? We need to get him in here asap!
I honestly don't see how what you are saying is accurate. Shooting % is based on total shots taken (not shots per game) against total goals scored. At best what you are referring to is the small sample size argument, which is valid, but easily invalidated (simply set a shot taken threshold on your analysis).
The real reason SH% is an issue is because the team has a significant effect on it. If the team is creating a lot of odd man rushes, or is effective at traffic in front of the net, tip plays, etc, it's going to effect an individuals SH%. If they are playing top competition, or not, would be a huge difference too.
Put Pavelski out there consistently against poor competition quality and his SH% is going to go up, for instance.
I would postulate that the reason the Sharks SH% is so low is because they are not using effective offensive zone strategies to improve their shot quality. Cross crease passes, odd man rushes, break aways, traffic in the paint, quick passing plays, etc. These things clear shooting lanes and throw goalies out of position, the Sharks are terrible right now at ALL of these things. THATS why their shooting % sucks, because they take very low percentage shots.
im not arguing that SH% is a bad stat. only that its a bad stat to prove the percentage of luck/skill in team SH%. the very fact that you are adding context to the stat makes it completely different. so when you use the base stat with no context to prove something...its flawed. thats my point.
I would postulate that the reason the Sharks SH% is so low is because they are not using effective offensive zone strategies to improve their shot quality. Cross crease passes, odd man rushes, break aways, traffic in the paint, quick passing plays, etc. These things clear shooting lanes and throw goalies out of position, the Sharks are terrible right now at ALL of these things. THATS why their shooting % sucks, because they take very low percentage shots.
I'll give you the #'s from the small study. Breakaways ~25-33%, odd-mans 14-15%. By eyeball, the cross crease is ~10%. And finally, the tip/putback plays run about 3-5%. The higher percentage plays run risks that involve higher percentage chances going the other way. The trick is to find ways of incorporating those strategies while minimizing the risks thereof.
The other fallacy on luck is seen in who makes it in the NHL and who doesn't. Low percentage shooters generally don't stick long in the NHL. Personnel does matter when it comes to SH% as a team who takes "hockey" players who do everything else right but don't shoot well won't go far.
Watching the Sharks this year, there has been a huge emphasis on tip/putback and they have been relatively successful doing it. More than a goal per game. It's off the charts on my model with Detroit being the only team that has accomplished that level of success previously. The problem is that you won't go far going with 1gpg on tip/putback and 1gpg on PP. 2.3 or 2.4 gpg is not going to win the league.
Very specific situation. He has direct inside knowledge of Bacock's strategies and the players weaknesses. That is going to have a big impact. Plus we have a more talented roster imo.
I really don't see how you get significantly better than our roster, realistically.
Really? I'd say the Canucks, Blues, Penguins, Boston (if healthy) and Wings have much better rosters. Preds are getting close - they have much better goaltending and defense and more balance among their forwards.
not that it proves or disproves anything. just an alternate view point.
Didn't read that article, but let me say this about luck.
Luck exists, in the simple sense of the word. Things happen in this world that are not predictable or within our realm of control. If they did not, the world would not function properly.
However, does that mean you are totally at the mercy of 'luck'? No, you can control the amount luck has on you, you can limit it's potential impact and minimize it's effect on results.
So when we say "you make your own luck" what we are really saying is, you minimize the impact luck can have on you.
Really? I'd say the Canucks, Blues, Penguins, Boston (if healthy) and Wings have much better rosters. Preds are getting close - they have much better goaltending and defense and more balance among their forwards.
First of all 'realistically' meant, you have access to those players.
Second, I don't think any of those teams are signficantly more talented than the Sharks. Definitely not to the degree that a great system and coach could not overcome.
Didn't read that article, but let me say this about luck.
Luck exists, in the simple sense of the word. Things happen in this world that are not predictable or within our realm of control. If they did not, the world would not function properly.
However, does that mean you are totally at the mercy of 'luck'? No, you can control the amount luck has on you, you can limit it's potential impact and minimize it's effect on results.
So when we say "you make your own luck" what we are really saying is, you minimize the impact luck can have on you.
that article is almost in exact retort to what you just said. you should read it.
not saying you are wrong, but imagine it this way.
if you are playing chess with someone and you positioned your bishop just to get it in front of the pawns, the opponent doesnt recognize the danger and moves the pawn opposite corner forward so you take his rook no questions. was that luck?
what happens just...happens. the chain of events leading up is what we have control over. so by claiming luck bad or good in any situation is flawed. we just cant see all the variables quick enough.
im playing devils advocate here obviously. you could also say since we could never process the variables quick enough that is why luck exists to us.
in the end i think its just a thought process we use to explain events that we dont or cant understand.
Didn't read that article, but let me say this about luck.
Luck exists, in the simple sense of the word. Things happen in this world that are not predictable or within our realm of control. If they did not, the world would not function properly.
However, does that mean you are totally at the mercy of 'luck'? No, you can control the amount luck has on you, you can limit it's potential impact and minimize it's effect on results.
So when we say "you make your own luck" what we are really saying is, you minimize the impact luck can have on you.
For whatever reason people get all testy around the word "luck." Call it randomness, binomial variance, unexpected deviations from the mean - whatever. Luck is just a convenient word.
I would argue that the Sharks have done what they can to minimize the impact luck has on them. In hockey, the longer you control possession of the puck the less likely it is that a bad bounce will cost you a goal against and the more likely it is that a good bounce will produce a goal. And the Sharks have had more offensive-zone possession than all but five teams in the league this year.
This is the best article that will be written about hockey anywhere this year and it explains all of this far better than I could ever dream of and I'd suggest anyone interested in this discussion read it: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/0...nd-transience/
