Does Size Really Matter? Is this Regier's Thinking?

[fan2456]

I almost wonder if it's a "Buffalo" thing. This city has a habit of hanging onto things long after they should have been discarded. This city has an inferiority complex and detachment issues, and I wonder if that doesn't affect the Sabres as a club? Buffalo has always been stubborn.

The Aud? The Peace Bridge?

[TrueBlueGED]

Holy crap. I get buried with work for a few days and come back to this. If good statistics and causal inference were New Orleans, this thread is Katrina. The statistics tossed around in this thread simply mean nothing, one way or the other. So 12 of the past 20 Cup winners have been 1st or 2nd year coaches (60%). Meanwhile, the league average coaching tenure is 2.3 years, of which 77% of coaches never reach. See the problem here? The "result" that most coaches win a Cup in their first or second year is being entirely driven by the fact that most coaches only coach 2 years. If you look at it proportionally, the results are even worse. You have 77% of new coaches winning 60% of Cups, and 23% of tenured coaches winning the other 40%. You do the math, it's not that hard.

 

That's not to mention none of this takes into account any measure of player turnover. And no, it's not a sample selection problem, it's a population distribution problem. Seeing as in the entire universe of coaches, few make it to 3 years, of course you're going to have most Cups won by the new guys. You cannot infer from this that you need a new coach to win a Cup, because there is no causal process there beyond the nature of the league. And no, you can't use this data to support the "coaching doesn't matter" perspective either. Simply put, this data is garbage, and fails to support anybody's argument.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Holy crap. I get buried with work for a few days and come back to this. If good statistics and causal inference were New Orleans, this thread is Katrina. The statistics tossed around in this thread simply mean nothing, one way or the other. So 12 of the past 20 Cup winners have been 1st or 2nd year coaches (60%). Meanwhile, the league average coaching tenure is 2.3 years, of which 77% of coaches never reach. See the problem here? The "result" that most coaches win a Cup in their first or second year is being entirely driven by the fact that most coaches only coach 2 years. If you look at it proportionally, the results are even worse. You have 77% of new coaches winning 60% of Cups, and 23% of tenured coaches winning the other 40%. You do the math, it's not that hard.

 

That's not to mention none of this takes into account any measure of player turnover. And no, it's not a sample selection problem, it's a population distribution problem. Seeing as in the entire universe of coaches, few make it to 3 years, of course you're going to have most Cups won by the new guys. You cannot infer from this that you need a new coach to win a Cup, because there is no causal process there beyond the nature of the league. And no, you can't use this data to support the "coaching doesn't matter" perspective either. Simply put, this data is garbage, and fails to support anybody's argument.

 

wow. :worthy:

[LastPommerFan]

Holy crap. I get buried with work for a few days and come back to this. If good statistics and causal inference were New Orleans, this thread is Katrina. The statistics tossed around in this thread simply mean nothing, one way or the other. So 12 of the past 20 Cup winners have been 1st or 2nd year coaches (60%). Meanwhile, the league average coaching tenure is 2.3 years, of which 77% of coaches never reach. See the problem here? The "result" that most coaches win a Cup in their first or second year is being entirely driven by the fact that most coaches only coach 2 years. If you look at it proportionally, the results are even worse. You have 77% of new coaches winning 60% of Cups, and 23% of tenured coaches winning the other 40%. You do the math, it's not that hard.

 

That's not to mention none of this takes into account any measure of player turnover. And no, it's not a sample selection problem, it's a population distribution problem. Seeing as in the entire universe of coaches, few make it to 3 years, of course you're going to have most Cups won by the new guys. You cannot infer from this that you need a new coach to win a Cup, because there is no causal process there beyond the nature of the league. And no, you can't use this data to support the "coaching doesn't matter" perspective either. Simply put, this data is garbage, and fails to support anybody's argument.

 

I'll need more explanation on how the lack of correlation between coaches and championships over the last 20 years does not lead to "coaching seems to have little impact on winning a championship." The data is garbage because it shows no correlation. Lack of correlation tends to indicate that the x (coaching) in question is not significantly affecting the y (championships). Also, data that indicates coaches do not repeat as champions, further indicates that x has little effect on y.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Holy crap. I get buried with work for a few days and come back to this. If good statistics and causal inference were New Orleans, this thread is Katrina. The statistics tossed around in this thread simply mean nothing, one way or the other. So 12 of the past 20 Cup winners have been 1st or 2nd year coaches (60%). Meanwhile, the league average coaching tenure is 2.3 years, of which 77% of coaches never reach. See the problem here? The "result" that most coaches win a Cup in their first or second year is being entirely driven by the fact that most coaches only coach 2 years. If you look at it proportionally, the results are even worse. You have 77% of new coaches winning 60% of Cups, and 23% of tenured coaches winning the other 40%. You do the math, it's not that hard.

 

That's not to mention none of this takes into account any measure of player turnover. And no, it's not a sample selection problem, it's a population distribution problem. Seeing as in the entire universe of coaches, few make it to 3 years, of course you're going to have most Cups won by the new guys. You cannot infer from this that you need a new coach to win a Cup, because there is no causal process there beyond the nature of the league. And no, you can't use this data to support the "coaching doesn't matter" perspective either. Simply put, this data is garbage, and fails to support anybody's argument.

 

 

There has only been 1 Coach since 1950 that hasn't won his first Cup with a team within 5 years.

 

That is 94% of Stanley Cups won, are won by someone that got the job done early on with a team, and deserved to hang on to their job because of it...thus leading to future Stanley Cup victories.

 

Your arguement about roster turnover is even more damning to Ruff, since if the average roster turns over every 4 years....it is like he has had 4 shots at the cycle and has failed each time.

 

The data isn't so much to prove who wins.....it is to show what a ridiculous notion it is to give the same guy 15 years with nothing to show for it...when there is pretty much zero precedent for it in a logical league where almost every other team has a Championship for their city while Buffalo has employed the same coach for 40% of the franchise's existance.....

[SwampD]

"As soon as Darryl came in everything changed."

[LastPommerFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Sutter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Quenneville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Burns

 

All three have won/will win their first Stanley cups after their 10th year coaching. Would the argument go that getting fired makes you a better coach the second, or third, time around?

[TrueBlueGED]

I'll need more explanation on how the lack of correlation between coaches and championships over the last 20 years does not lead to "coaching seems to have little impact on winning a championship." The data is garbage because it shows no correlation. Lack of correlation tends to indicate that the x (coaching) in question is not significantly affecting the y (championships). Also, data that indicates coaches do not repeat as champions, further indicates that x has little effect on y.

 

Let's assume that the null hypothesis says coaching doesn't matter. Some in this thread have proposed the alternate hypothesis that coaching matters (in particular, coaches' tenure...but let's keep this simple here). I feel we can confidently reject the alternate hypothesis based on the data presented in this thread. However, rejecting the alternate is not the same thing as supporting the null. Just because the data cannot prove coaching matters, does not necessarily mean it proves that coaching does not matter.

[LastPommerFan]

Let's assume that the null hypothesis says coaching doesn't matter. Some in this thread have proposed the alternate hypothesis that coaching matters (in particular, coaches' tenure...but let's keep this simple here). I feel we can confidently reject the alternate hypothesis based on the data presented in this thread. However, rejecting the alternate is not the same thing as supporting the null. Just because the data cannot prove coaching matters, does not necessarily mean it proves that coaching does not matter.

 

What about the lack of repeats? If the hypothesis is "Great Coaches win championships" we would be able to see a subset of coaches (like in the NBA) that win multiple championships despite roster changes (Jackson, Riley, Popovich). In the NHL there is 1, Bowman with the wings after his championships with the Habs (the Pens don't count, as he inherited the defending champs), in recent history, you have to go back to Toe Blake more than 50 years ago to find another. (Arbor, Sather, and Fred Shero won multiple cups with basically the same roster)

[TrueBlueGED]

There has only been 1 Coach since 1950 that hasn't won his first Cup with a team within 5 years.

 

That is 94% of Stanley Cups won, are won by someone that got the job done early on with a team, and deserved to hang on to their job because of it...thus leading to future Stanley Cup victories.

 

Your arguement about roster turnover is even more damning to Ruff, since if the average roster turns over every 4 years....it is like he has had 4 shots at the cycle and has failed each time.

 

The data isn't so much to prove who wins.....it is to show what a ridiculous notion it is to give the same guy 15 years with nothing to show for it...when there is pretty much zero precedent for it in a logical league where almost every other team has a Championship for their city while Buffalo has employed the same coach for 40% of the franchise's existance.....

 

Actually, very few coaches have won multiple Cups. Since 1927, only 14 coaches have won multiple Cups with the same team. Aside from a select few, winning a Cup really isn't a good indication that another one is on the way. And hiring a "proven winner" is probably the worst decision an organization can make. Unless, of course, the proven winner's later failings are due to things beyond his control, thus helping to support the idea that coaching is overrated :angel:

 

http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/topics/leadership/debunking-the-proven-winner-myth-in-the-national-hockey-league

 

The roster turnover argument only really damns Ruff if the roster turnover resulted in a superior roster. For example, I don't think anybody can really argue that the roster turnover of Black Sunday and the Sabres' subsequent regression the following season is really an indication of coaching failure.

 

The data shows nothing, The only thing the data shows is that coaching turnover is rampant. And seeing as so many teams fire their coach after 2 years, I could make the argument that coaching turnover is largely a failure, and may decrease probability of success. See, most franchises fire a coach, continue to suck, then fire the next guy and so on in an endless cycle. In fact, maybe firing a coach is the worst decision a franchise can make! (No, I'm not arguing it as a real point, just saying plenty of crappy inferences can be drawn from the data, all of which are invalid).

 

 

"As soon as Darryl came in everything changed."

 

I got drunk and had sex this weekend. Therefore, getting drunk makes me more appealing to women, so I'm going to get drunk more often. Anecdote, meet toilet. Do you want to flush, or should I? :P

 

What about the lack of repeats? If the hypothesis is "Great Coaches win championships" we would be able to see a subset of coaches (like in the NBA) that win multiple championships despite roster changes (Jackson, Riley, Popovich). In the NHL there is 1, Bowman with the wings after his championships with the Habs (the Pens don't count, as he inherited the defending champs), in recent history, you have to go back to Toe Blake more than 50 years ago to find another. (Arbor, Sather, and Fred Shero won multiple cups with basically the same roster)

 

Yea, that's an entirely different argument with different data to back it up. Dating back to 1927, 7 coaches have won 38 of the Cups. I'd consider them outliers. Basically, we have this: great coaches are more likely to win multiple coaches than one year wonders, and a lot of this is due to the nature of competition in the early days of the NHL. I don't think anybody is going to argue that there are also a bunch of horrible coaches, who bring down their team. And then there's everyone else somewhere in the middle, which is the vast majority of coaches.

 

Actually, given this and the article I linked, maybe the best policy is to immediately fire a coach after he wins a Cup. I mean, statistically he's almost certain to not win another one with the same team, so may as well roll the dice on a new guy. The Kings should fire Sutter :o

[LastPommerFan]

Actually, given this and the article I linked, maybe the best policy is to immediately fire a coach after he wins a Cup. I mean, statistically he's almost certain to not win another one with the same team, so may as well roll the dice on a new guy. The Kings should fire Sutter :o

 

Or he might die of cancer and get replaced by Scotty Bowman... :ph34r:

[SwampD]

<words>

 

I got drunk and had sex this weekend. Therefore, getting drunk makes me more appealing to women, so I'm going to get drunk more often. Anecdote, meet toilet. Do you want to flush, or should I? :P

 

<more words>

Well, looks like you're gettin' laid this weekend. That makes 2 of the past four weekends. I think you're on to something.

[nobody]

All three have won/will win their first Stanley cups after their 10th year coaching. Would the argument go that getting fired makes you a better coach the second, or third, time around?

 

You learn from your mistakes?

 

If at first you don't succeed; try, try again?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Darryl_Sutter

http://en.wikipedia....oel_Quenneville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Burns

 

All three have won/will win their first Stanley cups after their 10th year coaching. Would the argument go that getting fired makes you a better coach the second, or third, time around?

 

I think it is the "tune out" factor....and the fact that poor management is assumed to breed continued poor management.

 

Many here who want Ruff gone have said he may go on and win somewhere else. It seems fairly obvious that in the history of the entire league, nobody has been given the shot Ruff has with his lack of results. Barry trotz is the closest example, and at least he has the excuse of starting from scratch with an AHL-like roster.

 

Why are so many fans assured Ruff and Regier can't win here? Because we know them like family. We know their major flaws and have not seen them corrected for the most part. If Ruff were to go to a different team with different management and roster philosophy.....maybe he wins. Maybe their roster will jive more with his techniques.....but given the data.....NOBODY has been allowed to fail in one place so long.

 

The financial world is similar. You manage a big fund....sooner or later you are going to have a bad patch or blow up. You get fired, and if you are good....someone else hires you to manage. The turnover is pretty much that of a coach. Maybe you have more options or better tools at a different place. Maybe what you know works all along except for rare cases. Bottom line....if your bottom line lacks for an extended period of time at one place....GONE!

 

You learn from your mistakes?

 

If at first you don't succeed; try, try again?

 

And if you are rewarded time and time again for falling short and nothing changes around you........

[LastPommerFan]

I think it is the "tune out" factor....and the fact that poor management is assumed to breed continued poor management.

 

Many here who want Ruff gone have said he may go on and win somewhere else. It seems fairly obvious that in the history of the entire league, nobody has been given the shot Ruff has with his lack of results. Barry trotz is the closest example, and at least he has the excuse of starting from scratch with an AHL-like roster.

 

Why are so many fans assured Ruff and Regier can't win here? Because we know them like family. We know their major flaws and have not seen them corrected for the most part. If Ruff were to go to a different team with different management and roster philosophy.....maybe he wins. Maybe their roster will jive more with his techniques.....but given the data.....NOBODY has been allowed to fail in one place so long.

 

The financial world is similar. You manage a big fund....sooner or later you are going to have a bad patch or blow up. You get fired, and if you are good....someone else hires you to manage. The turnover is pretty much that of a coach. Maybe you have more options or better tools at a different place. Maybe what you know works all along except for rare cases. Bottom line....if your bottom line lacks for an extended period of time at one place....GONE!

 

And if you are rewarded time and time again for falling short and nothing changes around you........

 

I'll agree that a change may be good for Ruff. But I don't think the evidence points to a change having any impact on the Sabres. Other than making some fans happy. I think it's better to focus on other things, but the general population can't seem to get past those two names. At this point I want them fired just so we can get to the discussion of what will make the team better.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

What about the lack of repeats? If the hypothesis is "Great Coaches win championships" we would be able to see a subset of coaches (like in the NBA) that win multiple championships despite roster changes (Jackson, Riley, Popovich). In the NHL there is 1, Bowman with the wings after his championships with the Habs (the Pens don't count, as he inherited the defending champs), in recent history, you have to go back to Toe Blake more than 50 years ago to find another. (Arbor, Sather, and Fred Shero won multiple cups with basically the same roster)

 

What? Look at the list I made......and the best coaches were limited by runs from the other best coaches....

 

Bowman, Toe Blake, Imlach, Sather, Arbour.....29 Cups from 1956 to 2002.....5 guys controlled 62% of the championships over 5 decades. Arbour started his career with an expansion team, Sather took over a WHA team.

 

All of those guys either moved on for more control or a challenge (Bowman,Imlach), retired on top (Blake), got fired after missing the playoffs 2 years off of 4 cups (Sather)........

 

then we get to Darcy's buddy Al Arbour again........not only did he take the longest of any coach in the modern area to win a Cup with his first team.....but he also was given the longest amount of time to wallow in failure after winning a Cup.

 

Darcy Regier's model is built off of the OUTLIER in NHL coaching history, not only on the front end, but on the back end. For all his spreadsheets, you would think he'd be able to identify that was a once in a century scenario.

 

If there weren't 5 different ownership groups involved in their tenure....there probably is no way in hell these guys could survive so long.......the only ones left to suffer have been the fans as each owner got to be put out of their misery.

[LastPommerFan]

What? Look at the list I made......and the best coaches were limited by runs from the other best coaches....

 

Bowman, Toe Blake, Imlach, Sather, Arbour.....29 Cups from 1956 to 2002.....5 guys controlled 62% of the championships over 5 decades. Arbour started his career with an expansion team, Sather took over a WHA team.

 

All of those guys either moved on for more control or a challenge (Bowman,Imlach), retired on top (Blake), got fired after missing the playoffs 2 years off of 4 cups (Sather)........

 

then we get to Darcy's buddy Al Arbour again........not only did he take the longest of any coach in the modern area to win a Cup with his first team.....but he also was given the longest amount of time to wallow in failure after winning a Cup.

 

Darcy Regier's model is built off of the OUTLIER in NHL coaching history, not only on the front end, but on the back end. For all his spreadsheets, you would think he'd be able to identify that was a once in a century scenario.

 

If there weren't 5 different ownership groups involved in their tenure....there probably is no way in hell these guys could survive so long.......the only ones left to suffer have been the fans as each owner got to be put out of their misery.

 

You ignored my argument. We can eliminate the repeats of Sather, Arbour, and Shero because they won with basically the same roster and never again. The only guys who you could argue as "coach leads to championship are Blakes wins in the 50s and 60s and Bowman's wins with the wings in the late 90s. And they are separated by almost 40 years. On the other hand there are 3 basketball coaches in the last 20 years that have won cups with significantly different teams/rosters. That's what we'd see if coaching made a difference in championships in hockey.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

You ignored my argument. We can eliminate the repeats of Sather, Arbour, and Shero because they won with basically the same roster and never again. The only guys who you could argue as "coach leads to championship are Blakes wins in the 50s and 60s and Bowman's wins with the wings in the late 90s. And they are separated by almost 40 years. On the other hand there are 3 basketball coaches in the last 20 years that have won cups with significantly different teams/rosters. That's what we'd see if coaching made a difference in championships in hockey.

 

Got ya...sorry

[LastPommerFan]

Got ya...sorry

 

But I'm with ya on the 5 owners is the only reason this has been allowed to happen. To be clear, my argument remains: coaching in the NHL has very little impact on championships.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

If there weren't 5 different ownership groups involved in their tenure....there probably is no way in hell these guys could survive so long.......the only ones left to suffer have been the fans as each owner got to be put out of their misery.

 

Sorry to snip ... I've missed you during my break from the board ... :wub: .

 

What odds would you give me on Mr. Pegula's tenure as owner ... what's the over/under? ... :angel: .

 

EDIT: I'm trying to be a good boy.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Sorry to snip ... I've missed you during my break from the board ... :wub: .

 

What odds would you give me on Mr. Pegula's tenure as owner ... what's the over/under? ... :angel: .

 

EDIT: I'm trying to be a good boy.

 

:P

 

7 years

[X. Benedict]

Holy crap. I get buried with work for a few days and come back to this. If good statistics and causal inference were New Orleans, this thread is Katrina.

 

:lol: I haven't even read the rest of your post yet.

[LGR4GM]

I got drunk and had sex this weekend. Therefore, getting drunk makes me more appealing to women, so I'm going to get drunk more often. Anecdote, meet toilet. Do you want to flush, or should I? :P

Perhaps one of the best analogies I have read in order to defiantly use crazy logic to prove a point. Bravo, and you are correct, the statistics prove nothing because correlation is not cause and effect. Again I applaud this, bravo. :worthy: :clapping:

[drnkirishone]

oo TrueBluePhD your quickly becoming one of my favorites here lol

[SwampD]

Perhaps one of the best analogies I have read in order to defiantly use crazy logic to prove a point. Bravo, and you are correct, the statistics prove nothing because correlation is not cause and effect. Again I applaud this, bravo. :worthy: :clapping:

The quote I posted was from an actual Kings player after game three. It absolutely proves a point. We are told all the time that changing the coach would not make a bit of difference to the Sabres (ironically, we are often told they would end up worse), yet in two of the last four seasons, changing coaches has made a huge difference to a team.

 

And just to reiterate, that's coming from an actual NHL player, someone who acually plays on one of those NHL teams.