TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Brawndo said: Based on these quotes from Jonathan Willis from The Athletic think waiting might be a good option. Those quotes are pretty rough, I think. Seems like a guy who could accentuate our problems as likely as solve any of them.
Brawndo Posted April 8, 2019 Author Report Posted April 8, 2019 50 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said: Are you willing to wait? Other options could be gone by then, if it even happens. Dump and Chase Loading up top lines with talent Inconsistent special teams. All those might be worth waiting for.
nfreeman Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 Further to the "is McL a stupid dinosaur who rejects analytics?" question, here is an interview with him from just a couple of weeks ago: https://epellefsen.podbean.com/e/leadership-from-behind-the-bench-todd-mclellan/ They get into his approach to analytics at about the 9:30 mark. Essentially, he says that analytics are a tool to be considered, but they have limitations. He repeats the "the best analytics are my 2 eyeballs" line that has given heartburn to some posters here. 1 1
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, nfreeman said: Further to the "is McL a stupid dinosaur who rejects analytics?" question, here is an interview with him from just a couple of weeks ago: https://epellefsen.podbean.com/e/leadership-from-behind-the-bench-todd-mclellan/ They get into his approach to analytics at about the 9:30 mark. Essentially, he says that analytics are a tool to be considered, but they have limitations. He repeats the "the best analytics are my 2 eyeballs" line that has given heartburn to some posters here. It's just the kind of thing somebody says when they don't believe they're useful but also don't want to be hounded by questions about it. 1
WildCard Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 10 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: Those quotes are pretty rough, I think. Seems like a guy who could accentuate our problems as likely as solve any of them. He's just Housley with more experience. Most likely a better offensive system, but I see no reason to believe in his player usage, lines, or anything else that drove us mad with Phil 10 minutes ago, Brawndo said: Dump and Chase Loading up top lines with talent Inconsistent special teams. All those might be worth waiting for. If we go back to a dump and chase... 1
gilbert11 Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 1 hour ago, IKnowPhysics said: I'm sorry, did you forget? In that second photo he sure looks like Charles Bronson. Put a ‘stache on him and he’s a dead ringer. 1
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, Brawndo said: Still doesn’t make me feel better Nope. I don't want to be misunderstood as the numbers are always right, or paint the entire picture. But this is the description of someone who will take numbers into account only if they match his existing evaluation. Just as you shouldn't only follow the stats, you shouldn't only follow your eyes.
Brawndo Posted April 8, 2019 Author Report Posted April 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, spndnchz said: ? This cannot be good The Wild just fired their analytics guru. Zero chance he comes here
PerreaultForever Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) Don't like it. See no way a guy who couldn't get it done with McDavid and Draisaitl will get it done with Jack and Sam. Always thought San Jose had a roster that underachieved under him as well. A lot of early playoff exits despite a solid line up. I'm going to hope this rumor is just him using us to increase his L.A. pay. Edited April 8, 2019 by PerreaultForever 1
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said: Don't like it. See no way a guy who couldn't get it done with McDavid and Draisaitl will get it done with Jack and Sam. Always thought San Jose had a roster that underachieved under him as well. A lot of early playoff exits despite a solid line up. I'm going to hope this rumor is just him using us to increase his L.A. pay. If you have 3 NHL forwards worth a damn, it's hard to do much, regardless of how good they are.
dudacek Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 (edited) Hmmm... McLellan was a successful coach with good players and found lacking with bad players... Don’t know who he is, but give me a leader of men who hires a staff he trusts that can provide a flexible strategy, a strong grasp of tactics, and a gift for teaching. And get that guy a goalie and a second-line centre. Edited April 8, 2019 by dudacek 2
PerreaultForever Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: If you have 3 NHL forwards worth a damn, it's hard to do much, regardless of how good they are. Just saying our roster and theirs are very similar with similar flaws but their top guys better than ours and he was fired there so I just don't see what he has that'd make me think he makes us better. The under achieving in San Jose part is maybe more significant. 1
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said: Just saying our roster and theirs are very similar with similar flaws but their top guys better than ours and he was fired there so I just don't see what he has that'd make me think he makes us better. The under achieving in San Jose part is maybe more significant. Well, they don't have the guy who is 2 years from being the best defenseman in the world. I get the San Jose stuff, but how much of it was underachieving versus simply getting stuck against the Kings and Hawks in their prime? No shame in losing to those teams. 2
Torpedo Forecheck Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 I've read and understand the analytics. I am what some people would probably call an analytics guy. Numbers play a role, but quite frankly aren't as enlightening as some of you believe in regards to certain things.They are being overrated by the numbers crowd pure and simple. Many times they just matchup with what you see. And, sometimes they are way off based on the fact the models used don't capture everything needed in a continous action game. Does anyone really believe these Corsis truly represent the Sabres 50.0 and Lightning 51.6? This is a stat I see frequently sited on here and I'm not trying to cherry pick as there are a ton of other examples. People complaining about this guy using his eyeballs are being naive. The infamous Tangotiger (analytics guru) once said "in small samples a good scout can be superior to the numbers". Now if you want to talk about the tactics of the game and something like PP goals often originating down low, well that is something a coach can use. There are tons of examples of this, and if a coach rejects using data that is helpful, he won't be coaching too much longer. If however he rejects data that he finds lacking, well that is his perogative. Personally, I'm just tired of someone saying this defenseman has a 54.0 Corsi and ignores the rest of his game (which is alot) that is as bad as the coach who refuses to use any analytics. JMO 5
klos1963 Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 18 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said: Don't like it. See no way a guy who couldn't get it done with McDavid and Draisaitl will get it done with Jack and Sam. Always thought San Jose had a roster that underachieved under him as well. A lot of early playoff exits despite a solid line up. I'm going to hope this rumor is just him using us to increase his L.A. pay. Made the conference finals twice in San Jose. That's not underachieving. It's not winning the cup, but not a failure either.
PerreaultForever Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 3 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: Well, they don't have the guy who is 2 years from being the best defenseman in the world. I get the San Jose stuff, but how much of it was underachieving versus simply getting stuck against the Kings and Hawks in their prime? No shame in losing to those teams. I remember L.A. coming back and knocking them out one year and a lot of early exits. Can't remember to who but I have it in my head that they were a good regular season team but always faltered in the playoffs and often were too soft. Same thing for Boudreau teams.
TrueBlueGED Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said: I've read and understand the analytics. I am what some people would probably call an analytics guy. Numbers play a role, but quite frankly aren't as enlightening as some of you believe in regards to certain things.They are being overrated by the numbers crowd pure and simple. Many times they just matchup with what you see. And, sometimes they are way off based on the fact the models used don't capture everything needed in a continous action game. Does anyone really believe these Corsis truly represent the Sabres 50.0 and Lightning 51.6? This is a stat I see frequently sited on here and I'm not trying to cherry pick as there are a ton of other examples. People complaining about this guy using his eyeballs are being naive. The infamous Tangotiger (analytics guru) once said "in small samples a good scout can be superior to the numbers". Now if you want to talk about the tactics of the game and something like PP goals often originating down low, well that is something a coach can use. There are tons of examples of this, and if a coach rejects using data that is helpful, he won't be coaching too much longer. If however he rejects data that he finds lacking, well that is his perogative. Personally, I'm just tired of someone saying this defenseman has a 54.0 Corsi and ignores the rest of his game (which is alot) that is as bad as the coach who refuses to use any analytics. JMO 1st bold: But the thing is, eyes don't capture everything either. How often do you lay this exact critique on the eye test? Most people apply this particular critique asymmetrically. 2nd bold: I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to elaborate? 3rd bold: Of course. But at the same time, nobody is saying to base decisions solely on small samples. 4th bold: Naturally it's the coaches prerogative. However, if the coach always just happens to find the data lacking when it disagrees with his judgment, then that's a problem. There's not a problem with sometimes rejecting the data, but there is a big problem with always rejecting it.
IKnowPhysics Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 19 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: Well, they don't have the guy who is 2 years from being the best defenseman in the world. Brett Burns won the Norris in 2016-17; Todd McLellan coached him in 2014-15. McLellan was fired by San Jose after the season in which he coached the guy who was 2 years from being the best defenseman in the world. ? 1
nfreeman Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 19 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: 1st bold: But the thing is, eyes don't capture everything either. How often do you lay this exact critique on the eye test? Most people apply this particular critique asymmetrically. -snip- 4th bold: Naturally it's the coaches prerogative. However, if the coach always just happens to find the data lacking when it disagrees with his judgment, then that's a problem. There's not a problem with sometimes rejecting the data, but there is a big problem with always rejecting it. Both of these are fair points. From our perspective, though, we really have no idea how applicable they are (if at all) to any particular coach. You could certainly be right that McL is just paying lip service to the use of analytics -- but we'd need a lot more data (heh) to know whether it's actually the case. Put another way, how many coaches have come out and said that they emphasize analytics in their approach to coaching? (For that matter, how many have come out and expressly disavowed analytics? Nolan is the only one I know of.)
Andrew Amerk Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Brawndo said: I sure hope so.
LGR4GM Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 1 hour ago, nfreeman said: Further to the "is McL a stupid dinosaur who rejects analytics?" question, here is an interview with him from just a couple of weeks ago: https://epellefsen.podbean.com/e/leadership-from-behind-the-bench-todd-mclellan/ They get into his approach to analytics at about the 9:30 mark. Essentially, he says that analytics are a tool to be considered, but they have limitations. He repeats the "the best analytics are my 2 eyeballs" line that has given heartburn to some posters here. Not really liking this so much.
Torpedo Forecheck Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 38 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said: 1st bold: But the thing is, eyes don't capture everything either. How often do you lay this exact critique on the eye test? Most people apply this particular critique asymmetrically. 2nd bold: I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to elaborate? 3rd bold: Of course. But at the same time, nobody is saying to base decisions solely on small samples. 4th bold: Naturally it's the coaches prerogative. However, if the coach always just happens to find the data lacking when it disagrees with his judgment, then that's a problem. There's not a problem with sometimes rejecting the data, but there is a big problem with always rejecting it. 1. Agreed, the best result is a combination of analysis and scouting. 2. Corsi is often quoted on here yet in this instance it is so obvious that other factors are missing. On an individual level, who you are on the ice with is not dealt with and has some of the same problems old fashioned +/- has. 3. There are folks on this forum who have said they have a problem with the eyeball test. 4. No, but he won't be coaching long if he doesn't use the tools at his disposal. If there is a real advantage and some other coach is getting it and you're not, you are hurting yourself. 1
Recommended Posts