Dan Byslma Needs to Go?

[Stoner]

... and of course the fact that Murray hired Bylsma has to be factored in.

[TrueBlueGED]

Didn't our possession stats improve as the year went on last season? I'd like to see a breakdown of first half/second half.

 

I split the season roughly into thirds, though the first third isn't quite a third. Just easier to do it by months, and looking at the data, cutting it differently wouldn't change much of anything.

 

October 1 - December 1

CF%: 46.74 (26th)

CF/60: 48.32 (28th)

CA/60: 55.07 (17th)

 

December 1 - February 1

CF%: 45.91 (24th)

CF/60: 48.85 (25th)

CA/60: 57.56 (19th)

 

February 1 - end of season

CF%: 47.12 (26th)

CF/60: 51.98 (27th)

CA/60: 58.33 (23rd)

 

So no, the possession numbers did not improve as the season went on. 

... and of course the fact that Murray hired Bylsma has to be factored in.

 

Yes, it does.

[WildCard]

... and of course the fact that Murray hired Bylsma has to be factored in.

Agreed. Though he did go hard after Babcock first, that was an obvious choice.

 

Todd Richards for Buffalo, please

[Thorner]

The roster definitely matters, and I don't want my Bylsma criticism to be construed as giving Murray a free pass. I thought Murray had a pretty disappointing offseason in terms of addressing holes and adding NHL-caliber depth. We'll never know whether or not he tried to add beyond the Vesey and Stamkos not-meant-to-be's, but whether he just couldn't get the job done or didn't think there was a job to be done (or alternatively, simply felt the remaining available pieces were not worth pursuing), the roster's not as good as it could have been. 

 

But that doesn't absolve Bylsma of having a flawed system and misusing the talent that he does have at his disposal. It shouldn't absolve him, anyway.

Good post.

 

... and of course the fact that Murray hired Bylsma has to be factored in.

That's the kicker.

[SwampD]

I split the season roughly into thirds, though the first third isn't quite a third. Just easier to do it by months, and looking at the data, cutting it differently wouldn't change much of anything.

 

October 1 - December 1

CF%: 46.74 (26th)

CF/60: 48.32 (28th)

CA/60: 55.07 (17th)

 

December 1 - February 1

CF%: 45.91 (24th)

CF/60: 48.85 (25th)

CA/60: 57.56 (19th)

 

February 1 - end of season

CF%: 47.12 (26th)

CF/60: 51.98 (27th)

CA/60: 58.33 (23rd)

 

So no, the possession numbers did not improve as the season went on. 

 

I seem to remember that we were winning more by the end of the season, no? Or did my eyes lie to me there, as well.

 

Here are our records during those thirds.

 

10-12-2     24gp

 

10-14-2     26gp

 

15-10-7     32gp

 

It looks like we were winning at a slightly higher rate by the end (or at least collecting more points in OT). Not sure what it means.

[WildCard]

I seem to remember that we were winning more by the end of the season, no? Or did my eyes lie to me there, as well.

 

Here are our records during those thirds.

 

10-12-2     24gp

 

10-14-2     26gp

 

15-10-7     32gp

 

It looks like we were winning at a slightly higher rate by the end (or at least collecting more points in OT). Not sure what it means.

The kids got better and developed chemistry. I think that happens no matter who the coach is

[SwampD]

The kids got better and developed chemistry. I think that happens no matter who the coach is

My point was more about why didn't our possession #s get better as we were winning more?

[TrueBlueGED]

My point was more about why didn't our possession #s get better as we were winning more?

 

I'm not doing the legwork on this, but did our shooting and/or save percentages get better? Percentages explain past outcomes, possession predicts future outcomes. More or less, anyway. Strength of schedule, parade of backup goalies, better special teams...could be any number of things. 

[SwampD]

I'm not doing the legwork on this, but did our shooting and/or save percentages get better? Percentages explain past outcomes, possession predicts future outcomes. More or less, anyway. Strength of schedule, parade of backup goalies, better special teams...could be any number of things. 

Boy, I kinda feel like I'm talking to someone about religion.

 

Well, I guess I kinda am.

 

:devil:

[TrueBlueGED]

Boy, I kinda feel like I'm talking to someone about religion.

 

Well, I guess I kinda am.

 

:devil:

 

Shouldn't you be trying to dig the puck out of the corner to entertain yourself rather than harassing me? :p

[Brawndo]

Agreed. Though he did go hard after Babcock first, that was an obvious choice.

 

Todd Richards for Buffalo, please

 

How about Kris Knoblauch the HC of Erie Otters, his name was floated as someone who is ready to make the next step. 

[Doohicksie]

How about Kris Knoblauch the HC of Erie Otters, his name was floated as someone who is ready to make the next step. 

 

Wouldn't the next step be the AHL?

[Jsixspd]

Pittsburgh won the Cup last season.  They must be really missing ole Disco Dan's hand on the con down there ("Dan?  Dan who?")  

[That Aud Smell]

More and more, the thread title appears to have anticipated what was coming to pass.

[inkman]

Pittsburgh won the Cup last season. They must be really missing ole Disco Dan's hand on the con down there ("Dan? Dan who?")

Well the name of the thread is "Dan Bylsma needs to go" not "Our Stanley Cup winning coach is great, what else could be the problem".

[WildCard]

More and more, the thread title appears to have anticipated what was coming to pass.

;)

[GoPre]

Better coaches may be out there, but if the Sabres were so quick to get rid of a coach, especially w/ a roster missing key players, why would a high level coach consider Buffalo? Sure, one can easily argue a job is a job. Don't pass it on it. But quite certain a coach the Sabres could pursue would view it as a possible risk. From that coach's perspective, he may feel there are too many question marks. What if coaching the Sabres ended up hurting his resume' due to the possible same results as Bylsma? Buffalo needs to give Bylsma the entire season. After it's over assess the situation and go from there.  

Edited October 28, 2016 by GoPre

[bunomatic]

Better coaches may be out there, but if the Sabres were so quick to get rid of a coach, especially w/ a roster missing key players, why would a high level coach consider Buffalo? Sure, one can easily argue a job is a job. Don't pass it on it. But quite certain a coach the Sabres could pursue would view it as a possible risk. From that coach's perspective, he may feel there are too many question marks. What if coaching the Sabres ended up hurting his resume' due to the possible same results as Bylsma? Buffalo needs to give Bylsma the entire season. After it's over assess the situation and go from there.  

Yup

[TrueBlueGED]

Better coaches may be out there, but if the Sabres were so quick to get rid of a coach, especially w/ a roster missing key players, why would a high level coach consider Buffalo? Sure, one can easily argue a job is a job. Don't pass it on it. But quite certain a coach the Sabres could pursue would view it as a possible risk. From that coach's perspective, he may feel there are too many question marks. What if coaching the Sabres ended up hurting his resume' due to the possible same results as Bylsma? Buffalo needs to give Bylsma the entire season. After it's over assess the situation and go from there.

I don't think perception of the team in coaching circles is an especially compelling reason to not pull the trigger on Bylsma if it's something that has to be done. Any good coach will be interested in one of 30 NHL jobs, especially when that job includes Eichel and crew--coaches likely think they can win here. That'll trump any worries about not having enough rope from management.

 

Perhaps more importantly, we still have a set of young and developing players...if Bylsma is stifling their development, then any potential perception consequences of firing him be damned. The right coach to develop Jack, Sam, et al. is easily the most important consideration. Tampa fired Melrose less than halfway into his first year with the team because of his impact on Stamkos.

[Stoner]

I hate crockpot theories! (Wait... I love them.) But, come on, unless there's some serious happening behind the scenes, Bylsma is not getting fired a few games into his second season with two top players out of the lineup. Even if Murray wanted to, Terry would surely veto it.

[TrueBlueGED]

I hate crockpot theories! (Wait... I love them.) But, come on, unless there's some serious ###### happening behind the scenes, Bylsma is not getting fired a few games into his second season with two top players out of the lineup. Even if Murray wanted to, Terry would surely veto it.

Oh, I don't think it's going to happen. I just think the reasons it won't are not strong reasons.

[3putt]

I don't think perception of the team in coaching circles is an especially compelling reason to not pull the trigger on Bylsma if it's something that has to be done. Any good coach will be interested in one of 30 NHL jobs, especially when that job includes Eichel and crew--coaches likely think they can win here. That'll trump any worries about not having enough rope from management.

 

Perhaps more importantly, we still have a set of young and developing players...if Bylsma is stifling their development, then any potential perception consequences of firing him be damned. The right coach to develop Jack, Sam, et al. is easily the most important consideration. Tampa fired Melrose less than halfway into his first year with the team because of his impact on Stamkos.

Objection! Assumes fact not in evidence.  Coaching opportunities are cyclical.  They are not federal judges.  If the opportunity seems tenuous and there is a history of knee jerk reactions to temporary conditions, a good coach may decide to wait for the next opportunity.  Remember Babcock created essentially his own position by simply making himself available and driving the process.

[TrueBlueGED]

Objection! Assumes fact not in evidence. Coaching opportunities are cyclical. They are not federal judges. If the opportunity seems tenuous and there is a history of knee jerk reactions to temporary conditions, a good coach may decide to wait for the next opportunity. Remember Babcock created essentially his own position by simply making himself available and driving the process.

Overruled. How many guys waiting for their first NHL gig are really going to turn one down, particularly with some of the top end pieces we have in place? The Babcocks of the world maybe, but they're also rarely available anyway...and Babcock chose Toronto, which wasn't exactly a picture of stability (obviously he believed in Shanahan, but he had no track record as an executive and MLSE has been known to meddle). He took a chance on uncertainty because of the upside.

Edited October 28, 2016 by TrueBlueGED

[3putt]

Overruled. How many guys waiting for their first NHL gig are really going to turn one down, particularly with some of the top end pieces we have in place? The Babcocks of the world maybe, but they're also rarely available anyway...and Babcock chose Toronto, which wasn't exactly a picture of stability (obviously he believed in Shanahan, but he had no track record as an executive and MLSE has been known to meddle). He took a chance on uncertainty because of the upside.

but your premise is that there is a good coach waiting out there.  A new coach waiting for his shot may or may not be good.  If they truly feel they are the next big thing, they will shoot their career in the foot by jumping into a situation that may permanently derail their career.  Many do and are taken off the future consideration list.  Pettine is an example. 

[TrueBlueGED]

but your premise is that there is a good coach waiting out there. A new coach waiting for his shot may or may not be good. If they truly feel they are the next big thing, they will shoot their career in the foot by jumping into a situation that may permanently derail their career. Many do and are taken off the future consideration list. Pettine is an example.

I think we can agree that there is currently a good coach not employed as a head coach in the NHL who is looking for their chance. Whether Murray can zero in on him is another matter, of course.

 

Sure, an up and comer may not necessarily jump at the first opportunity, but most opportunities are going to have various warts since good teams are normally having enough success to not create a vacancy...and if they do, they also carry a huge amount of "win now" pressure. And coaches don't want to miss their chance to make the jump, either. What if a hot junior coach passes, then has a couple of down years in junior, and all the sudden is off the NHL radar?

 

I just don't think any credible coach is going to say "Oh they fired Bylsma quickly because they thought he was doing a poor job, I better steer clear" when everything is taken into account. Hell, with the ego on these guys they probably think more along the lines of "He got fired for failing. I'm not not going to fail."