Horachek's impact on the team

[L K]

Still, the reality is that coaches don't really drive the bus. The superstars do. Every coach knows this.

I've read a lot of books by successful coaches over the years and to a one they've all talked about how figuring out how to motivate players was a big part of what made them successful.

To me it seems like one of the more difficult things to quantify and things that are hard to quantify tend to get diminished.  I'm sure most of us have worked at a job where the manager/owner was not the brightest bulb on the chandelier.  Morale gets killed and a working environment ends up toxic.  I don't know why really good financial renumeration makes that a non-issue in professional sports.

Whenever someone talks about Phil Jackson, the first thing they seem to mention is his ability to manage the egos of his players.  That it was this ability, not his triangle offense that made him a winning coach.  In hockey it seems to go the other way.  Coaching gets diminished far too often in terms of the effect it has on an organization.  I don't think a coach is the sole difference between a lottery team (under the old system not the new one where a team can miss the playoffs with like 95 points this year and still potentially draft 1st overall) and the playoffs but they certainly do have a pretty significant impact on how the team operates.

Horachek doing an awful job with the Leafs in no way validates Carlyle's performance with the team.  They are two distinct operations.  But for all of the garbage performances we have seen from the majority of the roster since he took over, there really hasn't been much of anything done to change what is going on.  It really looks to me like the coach has given up on the team as much as the players have given up on the team.

 

[L K]

I mean, for all the talk of how bad the Clarkson contract was look at the deal they traded it for. Horton was a player who couldn't get insured and Columbus still thought it was a good idea to offer him a ton of money over seven years.

From what I read, they couldn't get year one of the contract insured because they knew he was going to miss at least 30 games that season due to a shoulder injury and by the time they could try and insure the balance of the term, he had contracted this degenerative back condition so they ended up on the hook for the whole deal.

I thought the issue was that they couldn't get insurance for his shoulder and so they didn't insure his contract.  I think they would have been able to get insurance for other injuries. I think they tried to save the insurance money on a guy out with injury on the likely hope that he wouldn't get another long-term injury during rehab.

 

[Kin]

From what I read, they couldn't get year one of the contract insured because they knew he was going to miss at least 30 games that season due to a shoulder injury and by the time they could try and insure the balance of the term, he had contracted this degenerative back condition so they ended up on the hook for the whole deal.

Sure but that doesn't really make offering a 7 year deal to him seem much better. Especially considering that he was someone who'd missed significant time in the past to boot.

 

[Deebo]

From what I read, they couldn't get year one of the contract insured because they knew he was going to miss at least 30 games that season due to a shoulder injury and by the time they could try and insure the balance of the term, he had contracted this degenerative back condition so they ended up on the hook for the whole deal.

Sure but that doesn't really make offering a 7 year deal to him seem much better. Especially considering that he was someone who'd missed significant time in the past to boot.

No, I don't think it was the best idea but I thought you meant that it was a bad decision because they couldn't get the contract insured, not because of his history.

 

[ZBBM]

Still, the reality is that coaches don't really drive the bus. The superstars do. Every coach knows this.

I've read a lot of books by successful coaches over the years and to a one they've all talked about how figuring out how to motivate players was a big part of what made them successful.

And I'd agree that Horachek's fallen short here.  When he took over they were still technically in a playoff spot, after all, so it's not like the season was a lost cause at that point.

All I'm saying is that benching the team's so-called best players is a pretty radical step that coaches don't really contemplate.  And that, in the blame game for this miserable season, Horachek is way down the list of reasons why.  Close to the bottom, I'd say.

 

[ZBBM]

But for all of the garbage performances we have seen from the majority of the roster since he took over, there really hasn't been much of anything done to change what is going on.  It really looks to me like the coach has given up on the team as much as the players have given up on the team.

What else did you want him to do -- is it just cut the TOI for the top line, scratch them by turns, or did you have something else in mind?

 

[pmrules]

It's a chicken/egg question.  Did Bergeron and Chara improve their defensive game to the point of turning the franchise around so that they were both key members of a cup winner, or is it the other way around - the team got good and as a result, so did Bergeron/Chara?  As you say...hard to prove/disprove. 

Not so much. The easy way to look at that is to examine the +/-'s of players who were already widely acknowledged to be very good defensive players whether by acclimation or Selke voting or what have you and you still are left with nothing that really resembles a meaningful pattern.

Jere Lehtinen, on a very good 2002-2003 Stars team that got great goaltending, was a +39 to lead his team and won his third Selke trophy. The next year he was an even 0, despite other forwards on the team being as high as +21.

In 2003-2004 Kris Draper and Kirk Maltby were two of the best defensive forwards in the league and had the highest +/- on a good Red Wings team. In 05-06, their first season back, Draper and Maltby had the lowest +/-'s of all of the Red Wings regular forwards, despite multiple players being at +29.

So if you believe that defense is a relatively static thing for a hockey player, that Lehtinen and Draper didn't just forget how to play defensive hockey in the years after their Selkes, then there's really no way to reconcile a belief in the meaningfulness of +/-. Those swings can't be attributed to their teams or teammates, they're not a reflection in wild swings in their offensive production and if you're taking Selke voting seriously, those differences can't even be attributed to a swing in their defensive play either. Both Draper and Lehtinen were in the top 10 in Selke voting despite their much, much lower +/-'s.

The thing about thinking +/- isn't meaningful is I don't have to twist logic into preztels to explain things. I don't have to explain why Shea Weber had a lower +/- than Ryan Ellis last year or why, despite being on teams with relatively similar goal differentials and a significantly better offensive season at 5 on 5, Weber's +/- is lower than Andrei Markov's this year.

Shea Weber is pretty widely acknowledged as one of the best defensive players in the league if not the best, so he should be the guy where his +/- numbers are the most impressive in a league-wide or even just his own team-wide context and I don't think you can honestly look at his numbers the last few years and see any evidence of it.

So what is a useful stat?  I can point out numerous examples of where plus minus was indicative of a players relative offence/defence prowess.  Similarly, I can do that for other stats including goals (clarkson scored a lot in one season). That's where context is always needed.  Why can't it be the same for +/-?

 

[Kin]

All I'm saying is that benching the team's so-called best players is a pretty radical step that coaches don't really contemplate.

I didn't particularly advocate for that though. I just think it's rich that a guy whose job it is to motivate and hold these players accountable is publicly talking about what a crummy job he's done in that respect.

I don't know where he failed, I'm not inside the locker room, and I don't know what would have succeeded, I'm not being paid a lot of money to coach professional athletes, all I know is that the proof is in the pudding here.

 

[Chris]

Management doesn't seem to want to bring any of their promising young players into this mess (and who can blame them), so we're pretty much stuck with the lineup as is. And with Kadri and Holland out, who are you really going to bench.

I would just put together 4 lines with what we have and start the game playing each equally. If one or two look to be working harder, play those lines a bit more. I'd also break up that JVR-Bozak-Kessel line and put them all on different lines. Highly doubtful both Bozak and Kessel are here next season so they may as well get used to playing with others. Also give others (Panik especially) more PP time to see what they can do.

 

[Chris]

So what is a useful stat?  I can point out numerous examples of where plus minus was indicative of a players relative offence/defence prowess.  Similarly, I can do that for other stats including goals (clarkson scored a lot in one season). That's where context is always needed.  Why can't it be the same for +/-?

It can be, but good luck convincing some.

Saw an interesting quote this morning, Kessel was asked about being -35 and this was his reply:

Kessel pleaded guilty ? with an explanation.

?Kind of watch the goals that were scored on us,? he said of Thursday, when he and his pals were far from the scene of the crime on at least two, but ended a combined minus eight. ?That?s all I can say, I think we?ve been out there for a ton of empty-netters also."

Again, deflecting all responsibility. By the way, Phil - empty net goals don't count in +/-

Correction...empty net goals do count in +/-, my mistake...

 

[Al14]

But for all of the garbage performances we have seen from the majority of the roster since he took over, there really hasn't been much of anything done to change what is going on.  It really looks to me like the coach has given up on the team as much as the players have given up on the team.

What else did you want him to do -- is it just cut the TOI for the top line, scratch them by turns, or did you have something else in mind?

Pressbox, use the pressbox.  Embarrass Kessel, and his line mates, making them take turns sitting in the pressbox.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

By the way, Phil - empty net goals don't count in +/-

That's not true.

 

[Kin]

So what is a useful stat?  I can point out numerous examples of where plus minus was indicative of a players relative offence/defence prowess.

See, that's just it, I don't think you can. I think you can point out years where good offensive or defensive players played in conditions conducive to them having a high +/- but if +/- were a meaningful stat then there would be a consistent pattern of that and really, there tends not to be.

Similarly, I can do that for other stats including goals (clarkson scored a lot in one season). That's where context is always needed.  Why can't it be the same for +/-?

But the difference is that nobody argues that a player's individual defensive ability swings wildly from year to year. Anyone like Clarkson can be put in a situation where, because of linemates or PP time, he'll score more goals than he might otherwise but when we look at top defensive forwards or defensemen, their usage doesn't differ wildly from year to year. Shea Weber is always getting the tough assignments, Kris Draper was still a 3rd line checking centre. Their circumstances didn't change and yet the numbers did.

That's virtually the opposite from what happens with offensive totals. Put Kevin Stevens on Mario Lemieux's line and, yeah, Kevin Stevens looks great. But it's not like one year on Lemieux's line he scored 55 and then the next he scored 11. His situation remained a constant and so did the numbers.

Remember in my examples, Draper and Lehtinen still received a bunch of Selke votes despite having wildly lower +/-'s. Could you imagine any hockey writer looking at a goal scorer going from 39 goals to 8 goals and arguing that he still had a good offensive season?

 

[Chris]

By the way, Phil - empty net goals don't count in +/-

That's not true.

You're right, I had misread the description. They do count.

So how many empty net goals has Phil been on the ice for this season? How many is a "ton"? LOL

 

[LuncheonMeat]

So what is a useful stat?  I can point out numerous examples of where plus minus was indicative of a players relative offence/defence prowess.  Similarly, I can do that for other stats including goals (clarkson scored a lot in one season). That's where context is always needed.  Why can't it be the same for +/-?

It can be, but good luck convincing some.

Saw an interesting quote this morning, Kessel was asked about being -35 and this was his reply:

Kessel pleaded guilty ? with an explanation.

?Kind of watch the goals that were scored on us,? he said of Thursday, when he and his pals were far from the scene of the crime on at least two, but ended a combined minus eight. ?That?s all I can say, I think we?ve been out there for a ton of empty-netters also."

Again, deflecting all responsibility. By the way, Phil - empty net goals don't count in +/-

Correction...empty net goals do count in +/-, my mistake...

What a mess.  Bernier says the team played like a junior team, and Kessel's comments make it sound like maybe it's a goaltending issue, unless I misinterpreted that.

Then you've got Traikos' article which quotes one of the Leaf players with regard to the dressing room (not really a surprising comment, though): http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/20/toronto-maple-leafs-dressing-room-pretty-screwed-up-player-reveals/

?It?s pretty screwed up in here,? said the player, who requested that his name not be used.

Given the state of the team right now, it's hard to imagine them winning even another 2 or 3 games this season.

 

[L K]

But for all of the garbage performances we have seen from the majority of the roster since he took over, there really hasn't been much of anything done to change what is going on.  It really looks to me like the coach has given up on the team as much as the players have given up on the team.

What else did you want him to do -- is it just cut the TOI for the top line, scratch them by turns, or did you have something else in mind?

Well there are a number of options:
1) Change the lines
2) In game benching
3) Take away PP time
4) Reward other players in game with line promotions
5) Healthy scratches

We really aren't seeing any of those things.

 

[Kin]

The Leafs have given up 12 shorthanded goals this year and 10 empty netters, both of which are goals that Kessel would probably have been on the ice for and aren't really a measure of a forward's defensive aptitude.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The Leafs have given up 12 shorthanded goals this year and 10 empty netters, both of which are goals that Kessel would probably have been on the ice for and aren't really a measure of a forward's defensive aptitude.

Phil was on for 8 of the empty net goals against, and 6 of the shorthanded goals. Now, with that said, even if you look strictly just as even-strength 5v5 +/- Kessel, Bozak, and JVR are each -24. Roman Polak has them beat there as he's a -25. Don't see that many people complaining about his defensive play.

 

[L K]

The Leafs have given up 12 shorthanded goals this year and 10 empty netters, both of which are goals that Kessel would probably have been on the ice for and aren't really a measure of a forward's defensive aptitude.

Phil was on for 8 of the empty net goals against, and 6 of the shorthanded goals. Now, with that said, even if you look strictly just as even-strength 5v5 +/- Kessel, Bozak, and JVR are each -24. Roman Polak has them beat there as he's a -25. Don't see that many people complaining about his defensive play.

I don't want to diminish just how bad Kessel has been in the second half of the year but he was -4 through the end of December and is now -31 since the start of 2015.  Was he a good defensive player in the fall?  No.  But it really is just more argument for how useless +/- is.

I haven't loved Kessel's shot selection this spring either but he also has a 5.1% shooting percentage against a career 11% shooting percentage.  That affects his +/- too.

 

[Chris]

Where do you find stats like the above, i.e. how many empty net goals a player has been on the ice for? I've searched and not been able to locate that kind of info.

And, I don't really use +/- as a measure of a player's defensive ability, but rather as a measure of that players effectiveness at the ultimate goal of hockey...which is, after all, to score more goals than the opponent. I can see discounting empty net goals, but short-handed goals? Really no excuse for those. Phil's (and his linemates) large - values are a result of being ineffective both defensively and offensively.