Randy Carlyle/Leaf Coach thread

[Kin]

Rosehill only played 16 of 64 games under Wilson that season, and just 1 after Orr was waived. When Randy was hired Rosehill became a fixture in the line-up again and played 15 of 18 games.

My bad on the time frame. Still, the guy regularly dressed enforcers for two of his seasons here and did more often than not before coming to Toronto. I'm not convinced that he would have abandoned it completely.

 

[Redleaf]

But you'd make a coaching change just for the sake of it? Which Stanley cup winning coaches are currently available that would instantly improve this club's fortunes? If you don't have a clear cut guy at the top of that list your just shuffling the deck and could ultimately make this team worse in the process. How many full seasons in Toronto has Carlyle been given? Is his team currently in the bottom third of the league? Is his team a veteran laden one that is a perennial playoff team? I guess I'm The only one that thinks he deserves the chance to develop this team into a future challenger and not a current one?

No, I wouldn't make a coaching change just for the sake of it. I'd make one because this team has major issues that need to be dealt with, and step one of dealing with those issues is changing the coach. I also don't think changing the coach is an instant fix - I have never once been a proponent of that position. It's not going to help them this season - it's too late for that - but, if a coach with a style that better suited to the talent on the roster comes in, it will help them going forward. Also, the whole "Stanley Cup winning" thing doesn't mean jack to me. I really don't care what kind of success a coach had almost a decade ago. It's not relevant anymore. All for the rest of your arguments, Carlyle has had enough time to show what type of strategy he's intent on using and enough time to show that it's not working. He also has enough history of using this same set of strategies to show that he's unlikely to change. It also doesn't matter to me where they are in the standings when the reasons they're not in the bottom 3rd really come down to having great goaltending and being successful in the shootout - neither of which have much of anything to do with his coaching. The things he is responsible for have put the team near the bottom of the league in a number of important categories. It's also not like they're firmly entrenched in upper echelons of the league, either. They're currently 12th overall, but they're also only 7 points up on 25th. 7 points the other way would only pull them up to 8th. They're very firmly a middle of the pack team, and it wasn't all that long ago that there were very much a bottom 1/3 team, and another poor couple weeks and they'll be there again. It's not like they're a team filled with raw rookies and guys just establishing themselves in the league. The majority of the roster are established players. They may not be grizzled veterans, but they are very much experienced players.

And yet they are only three points out from being tied for third in the east. Go figure. Glass half empty < glass half full.

Maybe if they finish the season in third in the east, you'll ease off your 'fire the coach' stance and admit you're being a little overzealous about the whole thing?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Rosehill only played 16 of 64 games under Wilson that season, and just 1 after Orr was waived. When Randy was hired Rosehill became a fixture in the line-up again and played 15 of 18 games.

Yeah, it seemed to me like Wilson was evolving his thoughts on having an enforcer in the lineup.  He was dressing a 4th line of Dupuis-Steckel-Brown.

Here's a NP article from October 2011:

Can it be? Are Colton Orr and Jay Rosehill both out of the lineup as healthy scratches? Are the Toronto Maple Leafs going to have a fourth line that does not include a so-called ?enforcer??

If so, we congratulate head coach Ron Wilson on valuing talent over truculence.

This is not a team that is dripping with top-end talent. There is some skill sprinkled here and there, but not enough to warrant wasting a roster spot on players who offer little more than the ability to drop their gloves and punch opponents in the head.

...

Detroit, which had a league-low 13 fights last season, does not employ a fourth-line brawler. Neither does Pittsburgh, San Jose, Boston or many other top teams. Instead, they ask their fourth-line forwards to go out and play hockey.

...

The Leafs might have that in Philippe Dupuis, David Steckel and Mike Brown. They are not offensive studs, by any stretch of the imagination. None has scored more than six goals in a season. None has played on the power play. But unlike those they replaced, they are players that Wilson can entrust with more than five minutes of ice time.

?They?re trying to change the style of the fourth line, get guys that can play and put up some numbers,? said Dupuis, who played with typical fourth-line enforcers Cody McLeod and David Koci in Colorado last season.

?You won?t see two really tough guys on the fourth line anymore that can?t play. The guys that we have on the team now, they?re all real good hockey players. We can all play and be good out there.?

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/10/13/leafs-turn-to-talent-over-truculence/

Same author touched on a similar subject recently this season too: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2014/01/31/how-the-maple-leafs-underused-fourth-line-could-be-their-achilles-heel/

 

[Deebo]

does anyone have the win loss percentage when Mcclement plays on the 3rd line over the 4th?

2013/14 season based on McClement's TOI.

DNP        0-1-0          .000
6-9          1-1-0          .500
9-12        2-3-0          .400
12-15      8-6-1          .567
15-18      9-5-1          .633
18-21      8-4-3          .633
21-24      2-2-1          .500
Total      30-22-6      .580

 

[CarltonTheBear]

does anyone have the win loss percentage when Mcclement plays on the 3rd line over the 4th?

2013/14 season based on McClement's TOI.

DNP        0-1-0          .000
6-9          1-1-0          .500
9-12        2-3-0          .400
12-15      8-6-1          .567
15-18      9-5-1          .633
18-21      8-4-3          .633
21-24      2-2-1          .500
Total      30-22-6      .580

Like the Clarkson with or without record, I'm not really sure how valuable that information is. Their place in the line-up hasn't effected if our goaltending was insanely amazing or just great, or if Kessel and Kadri were hot. And those are the two factors that have essentially decided the vast majority of our games.

 

[bustaheims]

Maybe if they finish the season in third in the east, you'll ease off your 'fire the coach' stance and admit you're being a little overzealous about the whole thing?

Absolutely not. My stance on Carlyle has very little to do with their position in the standings and almost everything to do with their play on the ice. If, by some miracle, they win the Cup, then maybe I'll back off, but, absent that, my position will remain unchanged until the way the team plays changes.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

does anyone have the win loss percentage when Mcclement plays on the 3rd line over the 4th?

2013/14 season based on McClement's TOI.

DNP        0-1-0          .000
6-9          1-1-0          .500
9-12        2-3-0          .400
12-15      8-6-1          .567
15-18      9-5-1          .633
18-21      8-4-3          .633
21-24      2-2-1          .500
Total      30-22-6      .580

Like the Clarkson with or without record, I'm not really sure how valuable that information is. Their place in the line-up hasn't effected if our goaltending was insanely amazing or just great, or if Kessel and Kadri were hot. And those are the two factors that have essentially decided the vast majority of our games.

His ES TOI is more relevant to me than his total TOI.  Some games his total TOI looks high but there's 4:00-5:00 of PK time in there.  If his ES TOI is high it seems like the team has had a tough time producing offense, but I don't know how to easily check that.

 

[Redleaf]

Maybe if they finish the season in third in the east, you'll ease off your 'fire the coach' stance and admit you're being a little overzealous about the whole thing?

Absolutely not. My stance on Carlyle has very little to do with their position in the standings and almost everything to do with their play on the ice. If, by some miracle, they win the Cup, then maybe I'll back off, but, absent that, my position will remain unchanged until the way the team plays changes.

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Their play on the ice supersedes a winning record, a playoff berth and winning a round or two in the playoffs? I think I'm out of words.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Not even winning a round or two in the playoffs?

It really depends on how the team wins. If Bernier and/or Kessel steal us a round or two I'll still be thrilled because of the teams success, but it wouldn't change my opinion of Randy as a coach.

We can be Leaf fans and be happy when they win AND still have issues with parts of the team.

 

[bustaheims]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Their play on the ice supersedes a winning record, a playoff berth and winning a round or two in the playoffs? I think I'm out of words.

When they're winning because of goaltending while they're still playing poorly, yes. Their play on the ice absolutely supersedes their record, because it's their play on the ice that is really indicative of how well the team is performing. Winning a round or two because their goaltending steals them enough games is not going to change my position on the coach. As far as I'm concerned, this team is under performing relative to talent on the roster, and, until that stops, the coach will very much be in my crosshairs.

 

[Redleaf]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Not even winning a round or two in the playoffs?

It really depends on how the team wins. If Bernier and/or Kessel steal us a round or two I'll still be thrilled because of the teams success, but it wouldn't change my opinion of Randy as a coach.

We can be Leaf fans and be happy when they win AND still have issues with parts of the team.

I have no qualms with that, but can we not just be happy if we make it to the dance and maybe win a round or two? I mean....baby steps....right?    RIGHT?

 

[bustaheims]

I have no qualms with that, but can we not just be happy if we make it to the dance and maybe win a round or two? I mean....baby steps....right?    RIGHT?

I never said I'd be unhappy, just that I'd still want Carlyle replaced. Baby steps still need to made in the right direction.

 

[Kin]

I have no qualms with that, but can we not just be happy if we make it to the dance and maybe win a round or two? I mean....baby steps....right?    RIGHT?

Except baby steps are only encouraging if they're genuine signs of progress towards a goal. If the Leafs win a round or two because of Bernier it would be fun to watch but if they're stuck in the same gear they've been all year it wouldn't really be progress by any meaningful definition of the word.

 

[Redleaf]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Their play on the ice supersedes a winning record, a playoff berth and winning a round or two in the playoffs? I think I'm out of words.

When they're winning because of goaltending while they're still playing poorly, yes. Their play on the ice absolutely supersedes their record, because it's their play on the ice that is really indicative of how well the team is performing. Winning a round or two because their goaltending steals them enough games is not going to change my position on the coach. As far as I'm concerned, this team is under performing relative to talent on the roster, and, until that stops, the coach will very much be in my crosshairs.

Man, you guys are rough. Teams have been able to win some of the biggest tournaments on goaltending alone. It wouldn't upset me one iota if thats the major reason the Leafs end up with a cup. (Or even winning a round or two this year).

 

[Highlander]

thank Deebo but does anyone have the teams win loss record when McClemment is playing on line 3 or 4. it seems to me they win almost all games on line 4 and lose almost all games on line 3 or maybe I am sniffing to much glue

 

[#1PilarFan]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Their play on the ice supersedes a winning record, a playoff berth and winning a round or two in the playoffs? I think I'm out of words.

When they're winning because of goaltending while they're still playing poorly, yes. Their play on the ice absolutely supersedes their record, because it's their play on the ice that is really indicative of how well the team is performing. Winning a round or two because their goaltending steals them enough games is not going to change my position on the coach. As far as I'm concerned, this team is under performing relative to talent on the roster, and, until that stops, the coach will very much be in my crosshairs.

I'm in this camp too, and it's mostly because Carlyle has had more than enough time to fix the issues with this team and we're still seeing the same problems; giveaways, low offensive zone time, sloppy defensive play. It's not all on the coach, but at some point we have to ask what the issue really is. Is the team ignoring him? Are they playing the way he's asking them to play? This is a team that's continually outshot and we haven't seen any improvements over the course of the season. So what gives? Carlyle has no qualms with calling out his underperforming players, but what of him?

I don't know if he's incompetent, if he's being ignored or if he's misusing his players, but I do know that the Leafs can't continue to play like this and expect to win hockey games.

 

[bustaheims]

Man, you guys are rough. Teams have been able to win some of the biggest tournaments on goaltending alone. It wouldn't upset me one iota if thats the major reason the Leafs end up with a cup. (Or even winning a round or two this year).

Goaltending has been the difference in a number of major tournaments, but no team has won anything meaningful playing this poorly defensively relative to their opponents.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Their play on the ice supersedes a winning record, a playoff berth and winning a round or two in the playoffs? I think I'm out of words.

When they're winning because of goaltending while they're still playing poorly, yes. Their play on the ice absolutely supersedes their record, because it's their play on the ice that is really indicative of how well the team is performing. Winning a round or two because their goaltending steals them enough games is not going to change my position on the coach. As far as I'm concerned, this team is under performing relative to talent on the roster, and, until that stops, the coach will very much be in my crosshairs.

It's not unheard of either.  Denis Savard coached Chicago to only their 2nd winning season in 10 years in 2007-08 (40-34-8), a 17 point improvement from the season before.  They fired him 4 games into the next season.  the Devils fired Julien with the 2nd best record in the Eastern Conference because the GM didn't think Julien had the team prepared for the playoffs.

I'd say smart GMs look beyond simply the win/loss results.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

So nothing short of the cup deviates you from that position?  Their play on the ice supersedes a winning record, a playoff berth and winning a round or two in the playoffs? I think I'm out of words.

When they're winning because of goaltending while they're still playing poorly, yes. Their play on the ice absolutely supersedes their record, because it's their play on the ice that is really indicative of how well the team is performing. Winning a round or two because their goaltending steals them enough games is not going to change my position on the coach. As far as I'm concerned, this team is under performing relative to talent on the roster, and, until that stops, the coach will very much be in my crosshairs.

Man, you guys are rough. Teams have been able to win some of the biggest tournaments on goaltending alone. It wouldn't upset me one iota if thats the major reason the Leafs end up with a cup. (Or even winning a round or two this year).

A whole lot easier to win a short tournament on goaltending alone (is there a tournament in particular you're referring to) than it is to win the Stanley Cup on goaltending alone.

 

[Deebo]

does anyone have the win loss percentage when Mcclement plays on the 3rd line over the 4th?

2013/14 season based on McClement's TOI.

DNP        0-1-0          .000
6-9          1-1-0          .500
9-12        2-3-0          .400
12-15      8-6-1          .567
15-18      9-5-1          .633
18-21      8-4-3          .633
21-24      2-2-1          .500
Total      30-22-6      .580

Like the Clarkson with or without record, I'm not really sure how valuable that information is. Their place in the line-up hasn't effected if our goaltending was insanely amazing or just great, or if Kessel and Kadri were hot. And those are the two factors that have essentially decided the vast majority of our games.

His ES TOI is more relevant to me than his total TOI.  Some games his total TOI looks high but there's 4:00-5:00 of PK time in there.  If his ES TOI is high it seems like the team has had a tough time producing offense, but I don't know how to easily check that.

It's not perfect, but I removed ~1:10 seconds (His total PKTOI/times short handed) of TOI per PP in each game to arrive at ES TOI. Using this method, it appears that you are correct.

In games where McClement plays more has 16 or minutes in ESTOI, the Leafs GF/G is 2.00 and games where he plays less than 16 minutes at ES the GF/G is 3.00