Confirmed: Shanahan to be named president of the Maple Leafs

[GYBE]

Well, the biggest problem is he was signed to a massive, 7-year deal only 5 months ago. Which means we'd probably have to eat a lot of salary to move him.

Again, this begs the question. How can Shanahan want to keep Nonis when two of his three big contracts (Kessel, Clarkson, Phaneuf) have been absolute disasters? How can the franchise claim to have any vision or plan when they want to undo long-term commitments so soon after signing them? We look like a joke, yet again.

I want a reporter to ask Nonis why he made such a lengthy commitment to Phaneuf if he wasn't absolutely sure he was part of the future. 7 year extension that he regrets after 5 months! Unbelievable.

[ATLTimekeeper]

The way I think Kypreos made it sound was that Shanahan doesn't believe in Phaneuf, which means that Nonis would just be following orders. I know around Shanahan's opening presser, he made a dig at the leadership on the roster. I'll believe it when I see it, though, because I don't think that contract is going anywhere and I don't think that Dion is going to take any kind of demotion well.

[Brew666]

I just wrote the friggin' sequel to War and Peace and somehow hit the shortcut to back and lost everything I've been writing. I have a reply coming but not sure if I time to get it down today now.

In a nutshell, I'm still not convinced it's the system. The advanced data doesn't prove it's systematic. It shows correlations but doesn't explain the correlations nor does it dismiss some important variables. And I also believe there has been proof that system can work, if in short periods of time in the least [not last season when their shot % was not within a standard deviation].

Quickly, is extraskater.com the best webiste for adv. stats? What's recommended? I also have a rebuttal regarding possession and would like to show my thought process if I can.

[GYBE]

I find extraskater to be the best out there, but that's just my personal preference. Behindthenet is good too.

I'll use this opportunity to present more evidence of Carlyle's incompetence, compiled by guys much smarter than I am.

This is a chart showing how three ex-Leafs were very good under Ron Wilson, became terrible under Randy Carlyle, then magically became good again on a new team:



This is a chart showing how Leafs players keep having worse possession numbers the longer they play with Carlyle. Every year, things get worse. You'll probably have to open it in a new tab to see all the players listed.



These players aren't cherry-picked. It's everyone that played at least 10 games under Wilson and Carlyle.

Key excerpt from the article:

There's no other way to put this: Randy Carlyle has decimated the Toronto Maple Leafs possession not just on the team level, but also on the individual level. Of the 14 players looked at in 11-12, four remained within 1% of their Corsi under Wilson after Carlyle took over: Grabovski, MacArthur, Gunnarsson, and Frattin. The other ten players all saw their Corsi fell, often pretty dramatically.

The effect really becomes obvious the next year: not a single player had a higher Corsi in Randy Carlyle's first full season behind the bench (12-13) than they did under Ron Wilson the previous year. Zero. No players. The average drop was 5.2%!

Amazingly, the effect actually continued this past season, as only one player in this group (Nikolai Kulemin) saw his Corsi % rise between 2012-13 and 2013-14. It rose 0.6%. The remaining 8 players all saw their Corsi % fall again. This time the average drop was 1.6%. That means the combined average drop for players who have stayed with the team since Ron Wilson coached is 6.8%. To give you some idea how insane that is, 6.8% is the gap between the league's best Corsi team this season (the LA Kings) and the 19th ranked Philadelphia Flyers.

"OK," you're thinking, "that sounds pretty bad. But at least the worst is over. Carlyle's coaching surely can't get any worse." If only. If only! The Toronto Maple Leafs' Fenwick Close over the full 82 game season this year was 41.5%. But over the last 30 games it's even lower: just 39.3%. As bad as Carlyle's effect on possession has been, it's still getting worse.

As I said, there's no other way to put this except to say that Randy Carlyle has decimated the Leafs' possession numbers (and continues to do so). The effect is virtually universal among players who have played for the Leafs, both those who have left like Clarke MacArthur and those who have stayed like Phil Kessel. The effect is also clear at the team level. And the effect is not minor: players who have been with the Leafs for the past three years have seen their Corsi % fall by 6.8% and it's still falling.

Full article here

That's from Pension Plan Muppets, the SB Nation Leafs blog that does some great stuff. Anyone interested in this sort of reading should go HERE where they have compiled a list of Carlyle's "accomplishments" in Toronto. Articles include "Carlyle teaches his D-men to give up their own blue line on the rush," "Carlyle can't coach a breakout," "Carlyle can't coach backside pressure" and "The Leafs are a joke in their own end, and it's Carlyle's fault," among others.

I understand it can seem like fans are just biased against this guy they blame for the teams problems. But it really is the only conclusion when you examine the data.

Non-Leafs fans are seeing the exact same thing. One of my favourite writers is Tyler Dellow (aka mc79hockey). Besides being a great twitter follow, he writes some fascinating article on his blog. Excerpt from "The Carlyle Effect:"

In the big picture, we’re seeing the same thing. Carlyle’s teams go in the toilet in terms of shot differential. The most important question to ask here is why. For me, I’m a believer in tactics, things that are real and tangible. My best guess is that Carlyle asks his teams to do things that are not beneficial. It’s possible that he’s just a jerk and people despise him and that’s why the numbers are bad but even if that’s the case, it’s going to show up in the play. His teams have to be doing things differently than the teams coached by Boudreau (when he replaced him) and Wilson (prior to being replaced).

Full article here.

I don't want to be a jerk and dismiss contrary opinions. But the evidence is so damning, I don't see how someone could support Carlyle unless they believe (as the Leafs apparently do) that possession stats are meaningless. To those people, I would ask why they think constantly being outshot at historic levels is a sustainable model for success in hockey.

[Brew666]

Sorry for the delay and sadly I don't have all my thoughts down either so it might be a bit patchy, likely repetitive, and all over the map, but I figured it was better to post something then wait even longer to post.

I’ll say this as a precursor because everything I’m going to say below is going to seem like I’m pro Carlyle, and I’m not at all. I do have an issue with Carlyle as a coach, some of it systematic but more b/c of the fact that I don’t think he’s adaptable, failed to create an environment where players can focus on the task at hand [one game] and I think that’s more important than any specific system. Coaches have to recognize you can’t motivate every player the same way, they’re individuals and need to be treated differently. Maybe this is why there is a trend to hire multiple coaches, to handle different personalities, I don’t know. It doesn’t seem like Carlyle has much of relationship with the players and I think in this day and age, that’s important, hence Shanahan reaching out to all the players when first hired. I don’t think it was Roy’s system that made Colorado improve. There are a number of variables involved. Colorado got embarrassed last year and they’re back-up goaltender called them out b/c player’s on the team were more worried about their summer break then the next hockey game. I’m sure that weighed on some people in the dressing room. Roy quickly showed that he was on their side and willing to stick up for them against Anaheim early in the season. I’m sure Sakic and Roy talked with all the players and if you have two hall of famers, you’re going to listen. A system is not going to make a bad team good or a good team bad. There are a ton of variables involved that go way beyond a coaches tactics. Personally, I think all this systematic talk is complete bull and it gives media members a storyline b/c reporting on hockey is now 365 days a year. The idea that it’s the system that is the problem is nothing more than a theory that a lot of people are hanging their hats on but it has no bearing.

I would say 80% of the problem is the players and 20% is Carlyle/coaching. Individual players have to take it seriously. Individuals have to buy into a system. I don’t think there is one team/coach/sr mgmt that has a different on-ice strategy that gives them a clear advantage. This isn’t about some teams playing a new style influenced by advanced stats and others teams playing old school hockey willing to only dump and chase. That’s complete b.s. It’s about the players on the ice and mgmt building a team properly. Having Orr and McClaren on a 4th line is a complete waste. Gunnarrson is not a 1st line dman. Phaneuf is a #2-4 dman. And people wonder why this team gives up so many shots? It’s b/c the team isn’t good defensively. They’re overmatched every night. I think fenwick is a good stat and it shows how overmatched Phaneuf and Gunnar are. We have a bunch of above average to average dmen. Their best stay at home defenseman is Tim Gleason, someone who isn't even worth his contract.

It can be argued that centre is the most important player position b/c of their effect on both ends of the ice. Good teams have players like Kopitar, Toews, Bergeron who are all great two centremen. Go through every good team and they likely have a solid d core, and quality centreman who can play two ways. Leafs have neither of these.

Watching the Leafs, I saw a team that couldn't get the puck out of their own end, made costly turnovers in their own zone and neutral zone; couldn't get the puck in deep in the offensive zone and maintain pressure, lost battles in the corners and along the boards. This all results in a poor corsi but none of it was systematic. The players were being outworked. How many times did we hear this team didn’t play a full 60 minutes? Sat on a lead? This team has been successful in spurts due to outworking the opposition but they didn’t do it last year. They might work for 40 minutes but that was the best we got last year. A few years ago the problem was we had too many euros and not enough Toronto kids. Hometown Toronto boys would come in town and have a great game b/c they were motivated, outworked the Leafs.

The best this current Leafs’ roster has ever done in a season is 84 pts. Here are the results from 2009-2010 [we can go further back but I feel it was a bit of a different core before this point although similar results] to present for this current regime.

2009-2010 - 83 pts
2010-2011 - 80 pts
2011-2012 - 84 pts
2012-2013 - 51 pts
2013-2014 - 84 pts

Other than the shortened season, this team has finished with a 4 point difference in 5 years. Different coaches, some new pieces here and there, but the results are the same.

When do we look at the core and stop blaming the coaches, the system, lack of Toronto/Canadian players? These players have had it too easy to this point and have yet to be held accountable. Coaches and mgmt have, but never the players. I think it's time we recognize the players are the biggest part of the problem. They tuned out Wilson and I think they're tuning out Carlyle.

Hockey isn't a chess match. It’s about reading the other teams and making simple plays. It’s about outworking the other team which leads to possession. Be the first to the puck in the corner, win the battles in the corners and along the boards. Hockey is way too fast of a game to say carry it in and do nothing else. If any team did that, you rush the puck holder. It’s about recognizing what the other team is giving you and capitalizing. You need players capable of carrying in the puck, you can just tell someone to do it. Having Toews or Crosby carrying the puck versus Kadri or whoever else is also a big difference too. Toews et al. have the ability to carry the puck through the neutral zone and then make a competent play, not result in a turnover. This isnt a tactic, it's the fact that they can and do it well. Teams need to pressure the puck, be strong on the puck, etc. Every player in that dressing room is aware of that but they play hesitant/conservative hockey. They sit on leads, etc. They never seemed to play with any urgency in their game. If any team plays like that, they're going to lose. Nothing I see is systematic, it’s individual decisions made in the spur of the moment. Maybe with experience, they’ll learn but it’s not like they’re robots out there doing what Carlyle is instructing. They're all making decisions on the ice not following a set of instructions.

This is a chart showing how three ex-Leafs were very good under Ron Wilson, became terrible under Randy Carlyle, then magically became good again on a new team:


This is a chart showing how Leafs players keep having worse possession numbers the longer they play with Carlyle. Every year, things get worse. You'll probably have to open it in a new tab to see all the players listed.

These players aren't cherry-picked. It's everyone that played at least 10 games under Wilson and Carlyle.

Key excerpt from the article:

There's no other way to put this: Randy Carlyle has decimated the Toronto Maple Leafs possession not just on the team level, but also on the individual level. Of the 14 players looked at in 11-12, four remained within 1% of their Corsi under Wilson after Carlyle took over: Grabovski, MacArthur, Gunnarsson, and Frattin. The other ten players all saw their Corsi fell, often pretty dramatically.

The effect really becomes obvious the next year: not a single player had a higher Corsi in Randy Carlyle's first full season behind the bench (12-13) than they did under Ron Wilson the previous year. Zero. No players. The average drop was 5.2%!

Amazingly, the effect actually continued this past season, as only one player in this group (Nikolai Kulemin) saw his Corsi % rise between 2012-13 and 2013-14. It rose 0.6%. The remaining 8 players all saw their Corsi % fall again. This time the average drop was 1.6%. That means the combined average drop for players who have stayed with the team since Ron Wilson coached is 6.8%. To give you some idea how insane that is, 6.8% is the gap between the league's best Corsi team this season (the LA Kings) and the 19th ranked Philadelphia Flyers.

"OK," you're thinking, "that sounds pretty bad. But at least the worst is over. Carlyle's coaching surely can't get any worse." If only. If only! The Toronto Maple Leafs' Fenwick Close over the full 82 game season this year was 41.5%. But over the last 30 games it's even lower: just 39.3%. As bad as Carlyle's effect on possession has been, it's still getting worse.

As I said, there's no other way to put this except to say that Randy Carlyle has decimated the Leafs' possession numbers (and continues to do so). The effect is virtually universal among players who have played for the Leafs, both those who have left like Clarke MacArthur and those who have stayed like Phil Kessel. The effect is also clear at the team level. And the effect is not minor: players who have been with the Leafs for the past three years have seen their Corsi % fall by 6.8% and it's still falling.

I understand it can seem like fans are just biased against this guy they blame for the teams problems. But it really is the only conclusion when you examine the data.

Non-Leafs fans are seeing the exact same thing. One of my favourite writers is Tyler Dellow (aka mc79hockey). Besides being a great twitter follow, he writes some fascinating article on his blog. Excerpt from "The Carlyle Effect:"

In the big picture, we’re seeing the same thing. Carlyle’s teams go in the toilet in terms of shot differential. The most important question to ask here is why. For me, I’m a believer in tactics, things that are real and tangible. My best guess is that Carlyle asks his teams to do things that are not beneficial. It’s possible that he’s just a jerk and people despise him and that’s why the numbers are bad but even if that’s the case, it’s going to show up in the play. His teams have to be doing things differently than the teams coached by Boudreau (when he replaced him) and Wilson (prior to being replaced).

I think corsi is the most overrated stat in hockey right now. It’s above +/- but not much better and it's being treated like the be all, end all. And it doesn't even measure possession but where people get shots from. Possession equals dominance in hockey but I don't think you need a[n] [advanced] stat to tell you that. You could probably watch a game, take a guess which team had the higher possession and be right most of the time.

Individually, it doesn't eliminate a lot of variables and can be skewed by your linemates and who you line-up against. I think at a team level it has value [in a general picture] but don't agree with measuring individuals with corsi b/c there are too many variables involved to get a proper measurement. Jonas Hoglund probably had a great corsi for the fact that he was on a line w/ Sundin. I could be a on a line that produces 10 shots and be completely responsible for 3 turnovers and my corsi rating would be better than someone who in on a line that produced five shots and didn't give up any. If you have a goalie who can handle the puck, that's going to improve your team's corsi rating as well b/c it doesn't allow the other team to get possession of the puck deep in their zone.

Corsi doesn't account when your possession results in a turnover and this is huge in my opinion. It's the difference between making the right play and the wrong play. If you're creating a turnover in your own zone or neutral zone it's the wrong play. It's better to dump it, in that case.

If corsi is as important as the media lead us to believe, then why isn't there a bigger differential between Wilson's and Carlyle's teams results b/c Wilson's teams had a better corsi rating? Why did Carlyle and his archaic tactics somehow bring the Stanley cup finalists to the brink of elimination last year and Wilson's better corsi team never had a whiff? Why has this team been plagued with the same problem of not being able to close out games? Why did they both have epic losing streaks that cost them a playoff spot?

It's because it comes down to the players. They're not as good as as the other teams and they can win games but outworking them, but they don't. A great team is a talented team that outworks everyone.

The media is going on correlations [good teams have a good corsi rating and bad teams have a bad corsi rating] and saying they're tangible b/c it's a quantitative measure. They say he must be doing something different because different coaches with the same players have a better corsi. Carlyle kills individuals corsi but what is the explanation? Just because something doesn't have a quantitative measure doesn't mean it's not a variable.

Now that I've said all that, I'll say that the mere fact that Carlyle constantly has a negative corsi [a team's dominance] is not a good thing but again the correlation doesn't suggest on-ice tactics. It suggests he's not a good coach but it doesn't eliminate other variables. Tactically, you can look at the fact that he relies on his #1 line and d a lot and I don't think this team has the make-up for it but not sure how much of a factor that is in the end. Teams do this and win. His recognition and stubbornness are at issue here. I think player's want a coach who is on the same side of them, not a me vs. them mentality.

I don't want to be a jerk and dismiss contrary opinions. But the evidence is so damning, I don't see how someone could support Carlyle unless they believe (as the Leafs apparently do) that possession stats are meaningless. To those people, I would ask why they think constantly being outshot at historic levels is a sustainable model for success in hockey.

I wanted Carlyle fired but can understand Shanahan's decision to keep him around. Carlyle has his faults [like every other coach] but he's the lesser evil of what's available. Toronto is not a market I don't think you want a coach cutting his teeth in. In this market you need a coach who can handle the media, who can keep his players focused. And who available fits that bill? No one available at the moment. I forget where I read it [I'm sure I can find it if necessary] but Carlyle has lost a lot of power/control this year and I'm curious to see how that translates.

And as much as the fans don't want to hear it, I think this year will be about assessing what the team has. Shanny is coming from outside and needs to see things first hand to make his own assessment. I'm sure he's aware that this team isn't a playoff team but he wants to know what he has.

I hope they take a step back as a franchise to take a few giant steps forward. If FLA is dangling the #1, take it b/c you're going to be getting a franchise dman. Don't sign anymore long term deals. Let most of the FAs walk and 'tank' for next year's draft. That team will be more suited for deep playoffs run than this current team.

The only way this team has won is by outworking opponents and it's something they don't recognize. Part of that falls on the coaching staff but you have to look at the individuals who make up the team, especially when there are correlations that go beyond Carlyle. No one in that room ever held them or their teammates accountable, it was all lucky bounces, etc. I don’t care what system you’re running, if you’re a team that has most of it’s players playing in a role above their talent and are outworked every night, the result isn’t going to be good.

[Brew666]

And just to quickly add

I'm ok w/ keeping Carlyle b/c I don't think they're making the playoffs this year. I think they're taking a step back. Bringing in a new coach wasn't going to change much and you kind of have to wait for them to eff up before you let them go. If they feel there will be a higher quality of coach on the market next year, why not wait a year? Not many coaches have the same track record as Carlyle either. If it's going to be a waste year [in terms of trying to win the cup] who is coaching isn't that important in the end if you don't believe they have the pieces to go anywhere.

I also want to say I'm not against advanced stats at all and in fact look forward to the day they can bring further value but it's not there yet. Comparing hockey's advanced stats to baseball's is apples and oranges at this point.