Carlyle fired

[Leaflifer]

One of the 590 morning guys joked this morning that the 3 teams (Toronto, New Jersey and Edmonton) that most prominently hired analytics guys this summer have ironically all fired their coaches, as if the analytics did the teams no good.  If anything, I think Carlyle's firing in particular wasn't despite attention to analytics by the team and in the city, but rather because of it.  I feel pretty strongly that in years past, a coach in his team's position (borderline playoff team, a little above .500, not particularly falling short of general expectations) wouldn't have been fired, and I'm not even sure that there'd even be all that much discussion about firing him at this point of the season either.  It's justified in very many ways, but I think most of those ways weren't much part of the discussion even just a few years ago.

It's also a complete misunderstanding of how analytics impacts the team. Analytics isn't going to help at all if the decision makers and/or the coaching staff aren't listening and adapting based what the analysts are telling them. A poor possession team that keeps the same coach, who still puts what is basically the same poor possession system into place is going to remain a poor possession team, regardless of how much money they throw at analytics experts. It was never going to be a quick impact type thing. It's much more akin to scouting. It can take years for the full impact of an analytics department to be realized. The more vocal resistance to these advanced stats and analytics can't seem to (or refuse to) wrap their heads around that concept.

On the flipside, does an NHL level coach really need an analytics team to tell him his team doesn't have the puck enough?

 

[Kin]

One of the 590 morning guys joked this morning that the 3 teams (Toronto, New Jersey and Edmonton) that most prominently hired analytics guys this summer have ironically all fired their coaches, as if the analytics did the teams no good.  If anything, I think Carlyle's firing in particular wasn't despite attention to analytics by the team and in the city, but rather because of it.  I feel pretty strongly that in years past, a coach in his team's position (borderline playoff team, a little above .500, not particularly falling short of general expectations) wouldn't have been fired, and I'm not even sure that there'd even be all that much discussion about firing him at this point of the season either.  It's justified in very many ways, but I think most of those ways weren't much part of the discussion even just a few years ago.

I have to say that I think that any coach whose two seasons with any team ended with pretty remarkable collapses would be in fairly rough waters going into their third season, especially in this market. Just treading water at the 8 spot, I don't think, is really the sort of expecations anyone within the organization has for the team.

Anyways, while I think you're right that it would be unfair to look at these three teams and dismiss the analytics hires over the summer I do think it's fair to look at them and come to the conclusion that whatever advances might be being made in the collection of this data that's not the same thing as having success with it's implementation. That's something you hear on the Basketball end of things all the time with their own analytics movement.

The other thing I think that you might be able to conclude here, and that's also true in basketball, is that hires like these only really matter to the extent that the GM/Coach/whoever is on board with them. The thing that was so notable in Oakland with Billy Beane was that a GM was the guy who was advocating for and advancing the idea that on-field decisions be made with the numbers in mind and despite all of the gloating that some of the advanced numbers people did this summer of the "Sorry Grandpa, numbers win!" after these hires there's not a ton of evidence that any of these specific GMs really wanted to revolutionize the way they approached their possession issues.

 

[herman]

On the flipside, does an NHL level coach really need an analytics team to tell him his team doesn't have the puck enough?

No, but the analytics reveal how certain 'tried and true' tactics are no longer 'true' as the game evolves. Analytics are, by definition, reactive -- even then, it's only the first step of a reaction. As mentioned in the posts above (busta, Nik), the next steps of adaptation and execution need to take place in order for anything to bear fruit.

Where the Leafs (and other struggling teams) faltered so badly is that they let the results blind them to the flaws in their processes. If you recall all the MLHS interviews with the assistants GMs and coaches fired over the off season, there was a distinct hand waving motion with regards to looking at stats deeper than the scoreboard. This led to stubbornly insisting on carrying two enforcers to play 2 min a night, dump and chase, and spending a lot of cap space and buyouts and bad trades on immobile 'stay at home' defensemen.

For analytics to have a positive impact, there needs to be data to work with. Which means coaches need to try things out to see how the numbers shake out , or study everyone else's numbers to see if what they're doing is working. All of this takes time; innovation doesn't happen overnight. On a team comprised of individuals, you need a coach and a player development system from the bottom to the top that champions positive change and makes the effort to coach through misconceptions.

 

[Redleaf]

I was sort of hoping Spott would have been given the head coaching title. The guy looks like he has a future at the NHL level. Horacheck's career seems to be past its expiration date. No matter if Babcock is the target for next year.

I'm sure people will take shots at this but...I think Shanahan (leadership), Nonis (patience) and Babcock (systems) could be a pretty effective management team.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

One of the 590 morning guys joked this morning that the 3 teams (Toronto, New Jersey and Edmonton) that most prominently hired analytics guys this summer have ironically all fired their coaches, as if the analytics did the teams no good.  If anything, I think Carlyle's firing in particular wasn't despite attention to analytics by the team and in the city, but rather because of it.  I feel pretty strongly that in years past, a coach in his team's position (borderline playoff team, a little above .500, not particularly falling short of general expectations) wouldn't have been fired, and I'm not even sure that there'd even be all that much discussion about firing him at this point of the season either.  It's justified in very many ways, but I think most of those ways weren't much part of the discussion even just a few years ago.

I have to say that I think that any coach whose two seasons with any team ended with pretty remarkable collapses would be in fairly rough waters going into their third season, especially in this market. Just treading water at the 8 spot, I don't think, is really the sort of expecations anyone within the organization has for the team.

Yes, no doubt Carlyle was more than arguably on thin ice.  At the same time, I suppose I'm framing it from the standpoint that if Carlyle's "accomplishments" last year were considered more than sufficient not only to not fire him in the offseason but also to give him an extension, the mediocre accomplishment of treading water, by old school thinking, might even be considered a step forward for him and the team.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Lance Hornby has a bit of Staios talk in his latest article, I chuckled picturing how he was told about the job:

Steve Staios? NHL coaching career began rather abruptly on Tuesday.

?I was on the ice with the Marlies,? the Leafs manager of player development said. ?(Assistant GM) Kyle Dubas) banged on the glass and told me they needed me for Wednesday?s game.?

So, three years after his 1,001-game playing career ended, Staios was back on the bench, wearing a suit instead of a sweater, using a writing pad instead of elbow pads. He joined interim head coach Peter Horachek and Steve Spott as the second assistant.

?I had no intentions of coaching, but it was something I was asked to do to help,? the 41-year-old Staios said. ?I just leaned on my experience. I played a long time, was a forward, defenceman, captain and was on waivers. That?s helped me on the development side so far and those instincts took over. This will be a quick transition and a learning experience.?

Right after puck drop against the Capitals, the sights, sounds and thrill of a game came rushing back.

?When you?re a player, there?s the speed and the emotion. In player development, things slow down. As coach, things speed up again.?

Staios, a right winger, worked with the Leafs forwards in the game and during Wednesday?s practice, handled the seven defencemen.

?We?ll see how that morphs, get to know each other as a staff and move this thing forward. Bottom line, we need wins and whatever role I?m asked to take, I?ll do it.?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/08/the-more-things-change-for-the-leafs

 

[ZBBM]

Lance Hornby has a bit of Staios talk in his latest article, I chuckled picturing how he was told about the job:

Steve Staios? NHL coaching career began rather abruptly on Tuesday.

?I was on the ice with the Marlies,? the Leafs manager of player development said. ?(Assistant GM) Kyle Dubas) banged on the glass and told me they needed me for Wednesday?s game.?

So, three years after his 1,001-game playing career ended, Staios was back on the bench, wearing a suit instead of a sweater, using a writing pad instead of elbow pads. He joined interim head coach Peter Horachek and Steve Spott as the second assistant.

?I had no intentions of coaching, but it was something I was asked to do to help,? the 41-year-old Staios said. ?I just leaned on my experience. I played a long time, was a forward, defenceman, captain and was on waivers. That?s helped me on the development side so far and those instincts took over. This will be a quick transition and a learning experience.?

Right after puck drop against the Capitals, the sights, sounds and thrill of a game came rushing back.

?When you?re a player, there?s the speed and the emotion. In player development, things slow down. As coach, things speed up again.?

Staios, a right winger, worked with the Leafs forwards in the game and during Wednesday?s practice, handled the seven defencemen.

?We?ll see how that morphs, get to know each other as a staff and move this thing forward. Bottom line, we need wins and whatever role I?m asked to take, I?ll do it.?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/08/the-more-things-change-for-the-leafs

I though Staios was primarily a defenseman.  * scratches head *

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Lance Hornby has a bit of Staios talk in his latest article, I chuckled picturing how he was told about the job:

Steve Staios? NHL coaching career began rather abruptly on Tuesday.

?I was on the ice with the Marlies,? the Leafs manager of player development said. ?(Assistant GM) Kyle Dubas) banged on the glass and told me they needed me for Wednesday?s game.?

So, three years after his 1,001-game playing career ended, Staios was back on the bench, wearing a suit instead of a sweater, using a writing pad instead of elbow pads. He joined interim head coach Peter Horachek and Steve Spott as the second assistant.

?I had no intentions of coaching, but it was something I was asked to do to help,? the 41-year-old Staios said. ?I just leaned on my experience. I played a long time, was a forward, defenceman, captain and was on waivers. That?s helped me on the development side so far and those instincts took over. This will be a quick transition and a learning experience.?

Right after puck drop against the Capitals, the sights, sounds and thrill of a game came rushing back.

?When you?re a player, there?s the speed and the emotion. In player development, things slow down. As coach, things speed up again.?

Staios, a right winger, worked with the Leafs forwards in the game and during Wednesday?s practice, handled the seven defencemen.

?We?ll see how that morphs, get to know each other as a staff and move this thing forward. Bottom line, we need wins and whatever role I?m asked to take, I?ll do it.?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/08/the-more-things-change-for-the-leafs

I though Staios was primarily a defenseman.  * scratches head *

He played RW for a bit in the NHL with Atlanta.

 

[rdowdall]

Lance Hornby has a bit of Staios talk in his latest article, I chuckled picturing how he was told about the job:

Steve Staios? NHL coaching career began rather abruptly on Tuesday.

?I was on the ice with the Marlies,? the Leafs manager of player development said. ?(Assistant GM) Kyle Dubas) banged on the glass and told me they needed me for Wednesday?s game.?

So, three years after his 1,001-game playing career ended, Staios was back on the bench, wearing a suit instead of a sweater, using a writing pad instead of elbow pads. He joined interim head coach Peter Horachek and Steve Spott as the second assistant.

?I had no intentions of coaching, but it was something I was asked to do to help,? the 41-year-old Staios said. ?I just leaned on my experience. I played a long time, was a forward, defenceman, captain and was on waivers. That?s helped me on the development side so far and those instincts took over. This will be a quick transition and a learning experience.?

Right after puck drop against the Capitals, the sights, sounds and thrill of a game came rushing back.

?When you?re a player, there?s the speed and the emotion. In player development, things slow down. As coach, things speed up again.?

Staios, a right winger, worked with the Leafs forwards in the game and during Wednesday?s practice, handled the seven defencemen.

?We?ll see how that morphs, get to know each other as a staff and move this thing forward. Bottom line, we need wins and whatever role I?m asked to take, I?ll do it.?

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/01/08/the-more-things-change-for-the-leafs

I though Staios was primarily a defenseman.  * scratches head *

He was. 

 

[ZBBM]

OK guys, thanks.

However, in future articles about Kaberle, I think they should also mention that he played left wing in the dreams of many fans.

 

[Leaflifer]

Where the Leafs (and other struggling teams) faltered so badly is that they let the results blind them to the flaws in their processes.

But Carlyle said often last year in post game interviews that his team was under performing, even early in the season when they were winning. He wasn't convinced they were a good team, and a few of us here weren't either.

I'm not really arguing against analytics. I don't know much about it really. But I haven't read anything that surprised me regarding the data. Possession  numbers? Sure, or another way to look at it is the leafs spend too much time in their own end,  and the forwards don't provide back pressure.

This board is full of posts, pre-analytics, about specific issues the Leafs had/have that could result in poor puck possession. It just seems so vague.

There's got to more to it than that. Yes?

 

[herman]

Where the Leafs (and other struggling teams) faltered so badly is that they let the results blind them to the flaws in their processes.

But Carlyle said often last year in post game interviews that his team was under performing, even early in the season when they were winning. He wasn't convinced they were a good team, and a few of us here weren't either.

I'm not really arguing against analytics. I don't know much about it really. But I haven't read anything that surprised me regarding the data. Possession  numbers? Sure, or another way to look at it is the leafs spend too much time in their own end,  and the forwards don't provide back pressure.

This board is full of posts, pre-analytics, about specific issues the Leafs had/have that could result in poor puck possession. It just seems so vague.

There's got to more to it than that. Yes?

You're right. There is more to it than just the numbers, and Carlyle recognized a lot of the issues in play. In the last few seasons, Carlyle has never been happy with the process of our wins (management at the time seemed to be, though). However, he was never able to provide the team with a solution to their problem. I'll reiterate what I said earlier (pardon the self-quote):

Carlyle generally got the "what" to do part right, but he never seemed to realize that elaborating on "how" was also important. The disconnect was that Carlyle was brought up a certain way (and excelled), but wasn't able to adapt to the way the players need to learn these days, nor was he much interested in teaching.

[The] analytics reveal how certain 'tried and true' tactics are no longer 'true' as the game evolves. Analytics are, by definition, reactive -- even then, it's only the first step of a reaction. As mentioned in the posts above (busta, Nik), the next steps of adaptation and execution need to take place in order for anything to bear fruit.

I think we have a pretty good team. Playoff middle, really, if I'm only evaluating on the basis of talent. We have speed to burn, good puck handling (outside of Clarkson), above average goaltending that can steal games, and forwards that have a knack for threading pucks into the net. The only things holding us back were inefficient deployment (overloaded 2 lines), outdated tactics, and zero motivation by the talented players to play to the process (rather than the scoring alone).

By the small sample size of 2 games, we've already seen a sea change in the way we're playing, in the way the team is being coached. In the interviews coming out of Carlyle's firing, there are already reports that the players are welcomed to ask about the process (how do I play this situation? where should I be positioned?) and they're being taught the system instead of just having the message of 'compete' harder being ground into them. We're rolling 3.5 lines and giving youth with potential (Panik) a chance to blossom. CF% up from ~44% to ~55% (very small sample size, but that's a number we've never really achieved under the old regimes of Carlyle and Wilson).

 

[Redleaf]

Reposted from last nights GDT..

I wouldn't be too quick to jump onto the 'Carlyes gone, problem solved' bandwagon just yet. Teams usually have some jump for a while when a new coach comes on board. I also wouldn't dismiss the temporary effect of the words from Shanahan yesterday, about players being moved out if they didn't add some 'will' into their game right away.

Big question remains....does this well rounded game they showed theyre capable of playing last night, last the remainder of the season, or just for a few games, weeks, maybe a month before they slip back into the inconstant team we've watched the past few seasons?

 

[Bullfrog]

I think we have a pretty good team. Playoff middle, really, if I'm only evaluating on the basis of talent. We have speed to burn, good puck handling (outside of Clarkson), above average goaltending that can steal games, and forwards that have a knack for threading pucks into the net. The only things holding us back were inefficient deployment (overloaded 2 lines), outdated tactics, and zero motivation by the talented players to play to the process (rather than the scoring alone).

I'd put our goaltending as a good solid "average." It's good and, yes, they can steal games from time-to-time, but if you really look at all the goaltenders out there, it's nothing better than average. The only thing that might put it above average is the quality of our back-up.

In time, I think Bernier may become regarded as a top 10 goalie, but he's not there yet.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I agree with you Bullfrog, but it'll be interesting to see Bernier's numbers when he's not playing behind a defensive tire fire every night.

 

[sickbeast]

I think we have a pretty good team. Playoff middle, really, if I'm only evaluating on the basis of talent. We have speed to burn, good puck handling (outside of Clarkson), above average goaltending that can steal games, and forwards that have a knack for threading pucks into the net. The only things holding us back were inefficient deployment (overloaded 2 lines), outdated tactics, and zero motivation by the talented players to play to the process (rather than the scoring alone).

I'd put our goaltending as a good solid "average." It's good and, yes, they can steal games from time-to-time, but if you really look at all the goaltenders out there, it's nothing better than average. The only thing that might put it above average is the quality of our back-up.

In time, I think Bernier may become regarded as a top 10 goalie, but he's not there yet.

Reimer could be top 10 as well. Both have the potential to be truly great. Both of them are quite young still. I really think that Carlyle was a really bad coach for Reimer. He did not handle the goalies properly. Carlyle was "just ok" as a coach and that is being generous.

 

[Leaflifer]

Where the Leafs (and other struggling teams) faltered so badly is that they let the results blind them to the flaws in their processes.

But Carlyle said often last year in post game interviews that his team was under performing, even early in the season when they were winning. He wasn't convinced they were a good team, and a few of us here weren't either.

I'm not really arguing against analytics. I don't know much about it really. But I haven't read anything that surprised me regarding the data. Possession  numbers? Sure, or another way to look at it is the leafs spend too much time in their own end,  and the forwards don't provide back pressure.

This board is full of posts, pre-analytics, about specific issues the Leafs had/have that could result in poor puck possession. It just seems so vague.

There's got to more to it than that. Yes?

You're right. There is more to it than just the numbers, and Carlyle recognized a lot of the issues in play. In the last few seasons, Carlyle has never been happy with the process of our wins (management at the time seemed to be, though). However, he was never able to provide the team with a solution to their problem. I'll reiterate what I said earlier (pardon the self-quote):

Carlyle generally got the "what" to do part right, but he never seemed to realize that elaborating on "how" was also important. The disconnect was that Carlyle was brought up a certain way (and excelled), but wasn't able to adapt to the way the players need to learn these days, nor was he much interested in teaching.

[The] analytics reveal how certain 'tried and true' tactics are no longer 'true' as the game evolves. Analytics are, by definition, reactive -- even then, it's only the first step of a reaction. As mentioned in the posts above (busta, Nik), the next steps of adaptation and execution need to take place in order for anything to bear fruit.

I think we have a pretty good team. Playoff middle, really, if I'm only evaluating on the basis of talent. We have speed to burn, good puck handling (outside of Clarkson), above average goaltending that can steal games, and forwards that have a knack for threading pucks into the net. The only things holding us back were inefficient deployment (overloaded 2 lines), outdated tactics, and zero motivation by the talented players to play to the process (rather than the scoring alone).

By the small sample size of 2 games, we've already seen a sea change in the way we're playing, in the way the team is being coached. In the interviews coming out of Carlyle's firing, there are already reports that the players are welcomed to ask about the process (how do I play this situation? where should I be positioned?) and they're being taught the system instead of just having the message of 'compete' harder being ground into them. We're rolling 3.5 lines and giving youth with potential (Panik) a chance to blossom. CF% up from ~44% to ~55% (very small sample size, but that's a number we've never really achieved under the old regimes of Carlyle and Wilson).

I agree Carlyle wasn't the right coach for this group. I guess my question is what has been learned by analytics?  I don't see  how it can illustrate a problem that is undetectable by an NHL coach.

Poor puck possession numbers can be symptomatic of many things (poor FO%, poor back check, poor forechecking, playing the trap...). Where do analytics get into anything specific that would be beyond the scope of a group of NHL coaches?

The coaching staff still have to identify the problem and find a solution, even when the numbers are in (or out).

What am I missing?

 

[TML fan]

Carlyle believes his approach works. He's not going to change that regardless of what everyone and everything is telling him.

I've been saying it doesn't work for two and a half years. The numbers are just reinforcing it. And you know what? Maybe it does work... For a different team with a different group of players.

 

[sickbeast]

I think it was Carlyle's personality that did him in. He came across as an arrogant, pompous prick. If he looked like that in the media then imagine what he must have been like with the players. I'm sure he was a total jerk. You can know everything about the game of hockey but if you can't connect with the players you're not going to get your message across.

 

[Highlander]

totally disagree, Randy is actually a very nice man. The problem is his is old school and a bit of a dinosaur, didnt communicate with his players, the way they need to be coddled today. The old school was when Dad (or the Elder) said Jump, the question was How High??.not f___k you.
Any of us with kids can relate.
So no calling Randy names, its bad enough, he has to live in Sudbury