Leafs hire Kyle Dubas as assistant GM, Loiselle and Poulin Dismissed

[895]

I think it's a good move.  And not just because of who they brought in and who they let go of.  Mostly it's because it signals that Shanahan was a good hire.  It signals that Shanny isn't just about making cosmetic changes like firing the coach and GM.  In fact he hasn't touched either so far.  Which was refreshing in and of itself.

I think that while the coach and GM are responsible for a lot, they probably get too much credit (and grief when things go wrong).  There are a lot of background personnel that hardly ever get noticed.  But Shanny noticed and he's slowly going to put good pieces in all key areas.

Running a successful hockey team isn't just about having a great coach and signing great free agents.  Those things are short term.  Coaches rarely last more than 5 years and free agents are lucky to stay for more than 1 year.  In the long term those do nothing to enhance the organization, in fact they may do the opposite: mask the real problems the organization has.

I think that if you do everything else well and have a strong visionary staff in the background, you can be like Detroit and turn anyone into a great coach and make every FA signing or draft pick look great.  And that's because the system works and Detroit is a great template for that. 

It's kinda like racing...if the car runs great, the driver will also look much better.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

This is a pretty interesting move by the Leafs, although I don't think the collective orgasm from many of the most critical of this Leafs regime was really warranted. 

Well you've got a segment of Leafs fans who have been vocally advocating for the team to use some sort of analytics in their decision-making processes while Nonis has been on record saying they have a budget for it that hasn't even been used.  In the face of that for the team to hire someone, while firing two of the 'old guard' (so to speak), who is well versed in integrating analytics into a more traditional management regime would seem to be a move that would warrant an outpouring of joy for that segment of Leafs fans who have wanted them to take this area more seriously.

Whether it works or not, the very fact they are doing this is a positive thing for the club.  Win or lose with all of the available information that you can possibly have, especially in a cap world where there is such little margin for error.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm perfectly happy to have a guy with a strong understanding of new'ish stats (actually, old stats regurgitated in a different way) but I'm more interested in seeing what he can bring in the sense of collecting his own stats.  I doubt the Leafs hired him to read Corsi charts to them.

I had done some reading on him even well before all this and kept up with some of the twitter conversations he's had with those in the analytics community, and it seems like the thing he stresses most is looking at zone entries, both from an offensive and defensive point of view. And in my opinion that's the most promising tool in the analystics world right now. If he really can get those cameras up and running at the ACC and have a team of people collecting data just from watching the games I think he can get some very promising information and maybe convince others on the team to rethink how they view or value some players.

 

[Joe S.]

And Dubas seemed to be really interested to learn from Nonis as well.  I really think it could work if Nonis is genuinely interested in exploring this aspect further - it could be a good combination.

This is a good point.  While I'm optimistic of this front office move, I really wonder how receptive Nonis will be to taking a newbie under his wing.  Sure, what choice does he have?  But at this point, he and Carlyle are quickly becoming a vestige of an old, redundant guard.  I mean, unless I'm missing something, the writing is not only the wall, it's written in HUGE LETTERS.  I think it would take a superhuman level of professionalism to train and help with the successful integration of your eventual replacement.

Nonis was once a young newbie under someone's wing. Unless he's a complete close minded jerk, he should be able to relate to this situation very well.

 

[Corn Flake]

NUMBERS!!!! NUMBERS!!!! GLORIOUS NUMBERS!!!

8) :-*

That's the undercurrent of Mirtle's argument IMO: analytics are the minimum that teams will need to implement to be competitive.  Dubas gets that.  But of course all analytics can ever tell you is how good a particular player is.  They are just an evaluative tool, ready to replace the eyeball-level opinions (however well-informed) of scouts who themselves are hard to evaluate.  All the analytics in the world won't make less talented players play better.  They could, however, make scouts better at their job.

Analytics are never going to replace eyeball level opinions no matter how much faith you have in them.  At best they can support or refute certain aspects in the evaluation of a player.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

NUMBERS!!!! NUMBERS!!!! GLORIOUS NUMBERS!!!

8) :-*

That's the undercurrent of Mirtle's argument IMO: analytics are the minimum that teams will need to implement to be competitive.  Dubas gets that.  But of course all analytics can ever tell you is how good a particular player is.  They are just an evaluative tool, ready to replace the eyeball-level opinions (however well-informed) of scouts who themselves are hard to evaluate.  All the analytics in the world won't make less talented players play better.  They could, however, make scouts better at their job.

Analytics are never going to replace eyeball level opinions no matter how much faith you have in them.  At best they can support or refute certain aspects in the evaluation of a player.

Who says they are? Anyone?  This is brought up almost every single time, Dubas himself said they won't.  Why is this continually paraded out?

If someone mentions a non-analytical opinion do I have to always say: "Your eyeball opinion will never be the only metric for evaluating a player, at best it can support or refute certain aspects of statistical analysis"?

 

[ZBBM]

NUMBERS!!!! NUMBERS!!!! GLORIOUS NUMBERS!!!

8) :-*

That's the undercurrent of Mirtle's argument IMO: analytics are the minimum that teams will need to implement to be competitive.  Dubas gets that.  But of course all analytics can ever tell you is how good a particular player is.  They are just an evaluative tool, ready to replace the eyeball-level opinions (however well-informed) of scouts who themselves are hard to evaluate.  All the analytics in the world won't make less talented players play better.  They could, however, make scouts better at their job.

Analytics are never going to replace eyeball level opinions no matter how much faith you have in them.  At best they can support or refute certain aspects in the evaluation of a player.

On the contrary, I can see a time when players are evaluated entirely by computer/robotics etc.  It's not like human scouting has a good track record.  I don't know the figures but it wouldn't surprise me if an analysis of all first rounders since the draft began would show that more than half never played more than a couple hundred games in the league.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm perfectly happy to have a guy with a strong understanding of new'ish stats (actually, old stats regurgitated in a different way) but I'm more interested in seeing what he can bring in the sense of collecting his own stats.  I doubt the Leafs hired him to read Corsi charts to them.

I had done some reading on him even well before all this and kept up with some of the twitter conversations he's had with those in the analytics community, and it seems like the thing he stresses most is looking at zone entries, both from an offensive and defensive point of view. And in my opinion that's the most promising tool in the analystics world right now. If he really can get those cameras up and running at the ACC and have a team of people collecting data just from watching the games I think he can get some very promising information and maybe convince others on the team to rethink how they view or value some players.

He was also big in the Soo (and this is something the coach needs to be in on if going this direction) on having player's 'make plays' and trust their skill to do more than just dump it in.  That doesn't mean never dump it in, but they were pretty much told that they were allowed to make plays and wouldn't be punished for doing so.

Maybe that's something that wouldn't work at the NHL level, but I feel like it could with younger players on a team.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

NUMBERS!!!! NUMBERS!!!! GLORIOUS NUMBERS!!!

8) :-*

That's the undercurrent of Mirtle's argument IMO: analytics are the minimum that teams will need to implement to be competitive.  Dubas gets that.  But of course all analytics can ever tell you is how good a particular player is.  They are just an evaluative tool, ready to replace the eyeball-level opinions (however well-informed) of scouts who themselves are hard to evaluate.  All the analytics in the world won't make less talented players play better.  They could, however, make scouts better at their job.

Analytics are never going to replace eyeball level opinions no matter how much faith you have in them.  At best they can support or refute certain aspects in the evaluation of a player.

On the contrary, I can see a time when players are evaluated entirely by computer/robotics etc.  It's not like human scouting has a good track record.  I don't know the figures but it wouldn't surprise me if an analysis of all first rounders since the draft began would show that more than half never played more than a couple hundred games in the league.

Little does CF know, half of the posters here have been replaced by robots.

 

[Corn Flake]

I'm perfectly happy to have a guy with a strong understanding of new'ish stats (actually, old stats regurgitated in a different way) but I'm more interested in seeing what he can bring in the sense of collecting his own stats.  I doubt the Leafs hired him to read Corsi charts to them.

I had done some reading on him even well before all this and kept up with some of the twitter conversations he's had with those in the analytics community, and it seems like the thing he stresses most is looking at zone entries, both from an offensive and defensive point of view. And in my opinion that's the most promising tool in the analystics world right now. If he really can get those cameras up and running at the ACC and have a team of people collecting data just from watching the games I think he can get some very promising information and maybe convince others on the team to rethink how they view or value some players.

Yeah it's pretty cool stuff he is into and I really like where it's going. I think it is far more useful and is truly "advanced" stuff.  We will likely never get much of a view into the actual information they get from it and what they glean from it but it's interesting stuff.

 

[Corn Flake]

Little does CF know, half of the posters here have been replaced by robots.

*Robot voice*
FIRE CARLYLE. FIRE CARLYLE. CARLYLE IS DUMB. CLARKSON IS A DUMMY. (repeat)

 

[cw]

Over the short term, maybe. But over the short term, they're not going to win a Cup anyway.

For the longer term, maybe he didn't see a GM right now that really overwhelmed him. Hiring the wrong guy that hangs around for a few years is likely to be worse than staying with Nonis for a year or so while he finds "the right guy" (for lack of a better term).

If Shanahan conducted a full GM search and decided that the candidates out there weren't to his liking, alright(although that almost certainly didn't happen because we'd probably have heard about it). But for a novice hockey executive like Shanahan to look at the wealth of candidates out there and decide that none of them were good enough to run the Leafs without interviews?

But my statement there is probably less about Nonis, who's always seemed relatively perfunctory in his duties, and more about Carlyle.

To assess what he was inheriting properly, which a good manager should do:
- it was a new role for Shanahan. as you mention
- he had to absorb what the MLSE board wanted
- he had to assess the franchise of talent
- he had to assess the performance of various managers and staff
- he had to oversee preparation for the draft and it's tough to bring in a GM just before the draft and expect much

A good GM search takes time. You have to short list, often get permission to talk to the candidate and then talk to folks who know the candidate, set up interviews around busy schedules, etc.

And when he does gas Nonis, the new GM will probably want to hire his own coach ... that may explain the Carlyle decision.

I realize a lot of teams do this around this time of year but that first year is often compromised. I could very well feel differently if Shanahan had been around all of last season. But he only came in in mid April. Not a lot of time to do all of the above just before the draft and have a good draft.

If they fail to make the playoffs next year, he can fire Nonis when it's apparent they'll fall short and he's had a year to collect and short list candidates as well as a better handle on why the team has fallen short and what else needs to be done.

With all the player personnel, coaching staff and systems changes, it's going to be hard for this team to get off to a good start.

If I'm Nonis, looking at the current roster and knowing my job is on the line if it doesn't make the playoffs, I'm not feeling very secure right now. Ditto for Carlyle.

Maybe this is all a foundation for a fire sale at the deadline, GM/coaching change and a shot at Conner McDavid ...

 

[Kin]

I think that if you do everything else well and have a strong visionary staff in the background, you can be like Detroit and turn anyone into a great coach and make every FA signing or draft pick look great.  And that's because the system works and Detroit is a great template for that. 

I feel like we've been hearing about how great a template the Red Wings are for an organization for about 20 years now and, honestly, I think we're starting to see just how much bunk it's been for that time. The Red Wings, over the last 10 years, have drafted one 20 goal scorer. They've drafted two regular defensemen. To find the last impact player that the Red Wings have drafted you probably have to go back to Kronwall in 2000.

The Red Wings at one time or another may have had some sort of leg-up on the rest of the league but the reality is that it's almost gone. They don't make all of their draft picks and signings look good. As a team they don't look all that poised for the rapidly approaching future. Their leading scorer last year was 40 years old and had 49 points.

It's just like the Devils. For years we heard about what a great system the Devils had and how great a talent evaluator Lamoriello was and then Stevens and Niedermayer leave, Brodeur gets old and...somehow the system went right along with them.

There's a reason the money is on the ice in this sport. The behind the scenes guys aren't going to be what drives a team. Realistically they're not even going to provide that much of an edge in finding the guys that do. You get the right players, by luck or whatever, and then they make executives look better than they are.

 

[Kin]

A good GM search takes time. You have to short list, often get permission to talk to the candidate and then talk to folks who know the candidate, set up interviews around busy schedules, etc....

Sure, but he had time. Mid-april gave him almost three months before the draft. I don't think the things on your list really require that sort of time to start making decisions. Especially when it seems pretty likely that Leiweke brought him under the general context of being unhappy with the direction the team was going in.

Anyways, I'm not necessarily saying that firing either Nonis or Carlyle was the right thing to do. I just don't understand the wisdom of doing things in this order. I mean, you're right, there was no rush to get these things done but everything you're saying about waiting a year to get a better handle on candidates available applies just as well to assistant coaches and assistant GMs. If Shanahan wasn't brought in here with an already strong opinion of how things needed to go then those moves look like housecleaning for the sake of the appearance of housecleaning. Especially since, as has been noted with some enthusiasm here, some of these hires seem specifically suited to addressing the loudest, most vocal criticisms of the team.

Again, this isn't intended on a judgment of those moves. Dubas might be good at his job, so might Spott and Horachek but I'm not going to rush to frame these moves to fit a certain agenda in light of the decisions to retain Nonis and Carlyle because to do so, I think, would essentially be making the argument that those two did solid jobs and were simply undercut by incompetent underlings which isn't an explanation for the Leafs' troubles I'm inclined to give any weight.

 

[Bullfrog]

One of the best things I've heard from his interviews: "our team had the lowest number of fights in the league."

 

[Kin]

One of the best things I've heard from his interviews: "our team had the lowest number of fights in the league."

I don't know why that's a good thing in and of itself. Last year the top 5 teams in fights were probably, on the whole, better than the bottom 5.

I think that in the pretty near future the number of fighting majors a team has is going to be largely incidental to how they do.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

One of the best things I've heard from his interviews: "our team had the lowest number of fights in the league."

Related to that, one thing I've read about him is that he likes to have as much talent in the line-up as possible, even on the 4th line. Obviously, he wouldn't have had anything to do with the Leafs decisions this offseason, but Shanny seems to have that same mentality so I'm sure that's something that came up in their talks.

And as much as we like to groan about Caryle's use of the 4th line, Nonis has to share some of that blame for not bolstering the clubs bottom-6 earlier.

 

[bustaheims]

On the contrary, I can see a time when players are evaluated entirely by computer/robotics etc.  It's not like human scouting has a good track record.  I don't know the figures but it wouldn't surprise me if an analysis of all first rounders since the draft began would show that more than half never played more than a couple hundred games in the league.

You're never going to completely remove the human element, but, what you are going to see with an increase in the use of analytics and more advanced stats (especially those that will hopefully develop in the future - advanced stats are really in their infancy right now) is a significant shift in how scouts evaluate players and how they value different attributes. Ideally, that will lead to improved scouting.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

One of the best things I've heard from his interviews: "our team had the lowest number of fights in the league."

Related to that, one thing I've read about him is that he likes to have as much talent in the line-up as possible, even on the 4th line. Obviously, he wouldn't have had anything to do with the Leafs decisions this offseason, but Shanny seems to have that same mentality so I'm sure that's something that came up in their talks.

And as much as we like to groan about Caryle's use of the 4th line, Nonis has to share some of that blame for not bolstering the clubs bottom-6 earlier.

In the same lowest fighting majors sentence, he mentioned how they also had the 2nd fewest PIMs in the league.  Also stated how that since they were a young team they would have to compete with the better/older teams with the bottom of their lineup by incorporating more skill into the lineup.

 

[Bullfrog]

One of the best things I've heard from his interviews: "our team had the lowest number of fights in the league."

I don't know why that's a good thing in and of itself. Last year the top 5 teams in fights were probably, on the whole, better than the bottom 5.

I think that in the pretty near future the number of fighting majors a team has is going to be largely incidental to how they do.

I should have expanded. It's a good indicator to me because I'm assuming the lack of fights had to do with a team structure or discipline that was advocated by the management. By extension, I'm hoping it means the emphasis is placed more largely on skill than toughness and it means the end to having Orr on the team.