qwksndmonster Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 If it really is insignificant, then why is it alweays brought up that the Sabres would be even worse if the got rid of Ruff? Can't have it both ways. (not necessarily you LPF) I have only been on this board for about a year, but I think about 90% of the time I've seen someone saying this, it's been in the exact manner that you're using it right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I have only been on this board for about a year, but I think about 90% of the time I've seen someone saying this, it's been in the exact manner that you're using it right here. Can we make it 99%? That way I can feel like a 1%-er for a while... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwksndmonster Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Can we make it 99%? That way I can feel like a 1%-er for a while... My made up percentages are non-negotiable. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 If it really is insignificant, then why is it alweays brought up that the Sabres would be even worse if the got rid of Ruff? Can't have it both ways. (not necessarily you LPF) it's not that they would be worse, it's that it doesn't matter. Time and again D4rk, myself, LPF, and some others have been saying the product starts with what is on the ice (personally, I think it starts with the GM building the team). The coach is the last straw on the camel's back. I think that changing the coach doesn't have nearly the same effect as turnover in the depth chart. I guess the rub Ghost, is that you argue that changing coaches has a definitively positive relationship with success. But LPF and myself have a bit of a nihilistic approach that it doesn't matter how long the coach has been there. Al Arbour won four in a row with the Isles. Bowman won four in a row with the Canadiens. Sather won 4 in 5 years with the Oilers. How much of that had to do with the coaches? How much of that was because those teams were special? If the evidence shows anything, it's that building a good team is much more important than having the right coach. By that logic it shouldn't matter if Ruff is here another 15 years so long as a Stanley Cup contender is built beneath him. Simply two different ways of looking at the numbers. Just another thought, but think about college hockey. Coaches stay in positions for decades in college hockey and it's the norm, regardless of whether or not they even bring in a championship in their tenure. But the makeup of the players changes every year and that change in players is what allows college coaches to win championships. It all starts on the ice as far as I'm concerned. exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 it's not that they would be worse, it's that it doesn't matter. Time and again D4rk, myself, LPF, and some others have been saying the product starts with what is on the ice (personally, I think it starts with the GM building the team). The coach is the last straw on the camel's back. I think that changing the coach doesn't have nearly the same effect as turnover in the depth chart. I get all that, and I'm saying I disagree. Coaching does matter. Coaching changes do have an effect. And I bet there are two teams still playing that agree with me, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I get all that, and I'm saying I disagree. [1] Coaching does matter. [2]Coaching changes do have an effect. And I bet there are two teams still playing that agree with me, as well. i'll allow the possibility that statement #2 is true, in that firing the coach sends a message to the team. But I think the results are mixed. And pointing to NJ and LA as your evidence could be like saying you want to finish outside the top 10 in scoring. 14 teams changed coaches, 57% of them missed the playoffs. 16 teams kept coaches, and 38% missed the playoffs. But the record over the last 20 years, as pointed out by Ghost, says that coaching is not that important. That only one coach has repeated in that time is further evidence that there is nothing special about a "good coach". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 it's not that they would be worse, it's that it doesn't matter. Time and again D4rk, myself, LPF, and some others have been saying the product starts with what is on the ice (personally, I think it starts with the GM building the team). The coach is the last straw on the camel's back. It actually starts with the owner and the organizational culture he creates. Our owner started to change the culture last year and the process will be accelerated in the next month. If Staal or Parise is a Sabre next year and the team is failing at mid- season, Ruff should go. If the team is out of the playoffs again next year, Darcy should go, it least in a culture that demands success. The angry mobs may be right, but one year - Pegula started with a clean slate whether you like it or not - hasn't proven that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 i'll allow the possibility that statement #2 is true, in that firing the coach sends a message to the team. But I think the results are mixed. And pointing to NJ and LA as your evidence could be like saying you want to finish outside the top 10 in scoring. 14 teams changed coaches, 57% of them missed the playoffs. 16 teams kept coaches, and 38% missed the playoffs. But the record over the last 20 years, as pointed out by Ghost, says that coaching is not that important. That only one coach has repeated in that time is further evidence that there is nothing special about a "good coach". While it might say that coaching is not that important, it absolutely says that choaching changes are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 While it might say that coaching is not that important, it absolutely says that choaching changes are. if 60% of the coaches who win the Cup are in their first 2 years (70% excluding Bowman) by all means fire the coach every other year i'll allow the possibility that statement #2 is true, in that firing the coach sends a message to the team. But I think the results are mixed. And pointing to NJ and LA as your evidence could be like saying you want to finish outside the top 10 in scoring. 14 teams changed coaches, 57% of them missed the playoffs. 16 teams kept coaches, and 38% missed the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Cal 2nd year Edm 8th,9th,11th,12th.....Sather won 1st Cup 8th year coaching Mon 1st NY 7th,8th,9th,10th.......Arbour won 1st cup 11th year total coaching Mon 2nd, 5th,6th,7th,8th .... Bowman won 1st Cup 6th year overall coaching Phi 3rd, 4th Bos 3rd Mon 1st Bos 4th Mon 1st Mon 1st,2nd,3rd,4th,5th,10th,11th,12th,13th Toe Blake Tor 4th,5th,6th,9th Punch Imlach Chi 3rd Det 1st Det 3rd, 5th, 7th Mtl 4th,6th,13th.....Dick Irvin didn't win his 1st Cup until his 15th year......and started coaching in 1928. He did however make it to the Cup 8 times in that 15 year span Tor 1st Since 1950, EVERY SINGLE STANLEY CUP WINNING COACH HAD BEEN WITH THEIR TEAM 4 YEARS OR LESS BY THE TIME THEY WON THEIR 1st CUP Except: Al Arbour didn't win his 1st Cup until his 7th year...........Bowman won it in Arbour's 3rd,4th,5th and 6th years Glen Sather didn't win until his 8th year.......Bowman won in Sather's 1st,2nd,3rd and Arbour won in Sather's 4th,5th,6th and 7th years So......since 1950, only 2 coaches won their 1st Cup with their team after 4 years, and those 2 coaches were stuck behind Scotty Bowman and Al Arbour Edit.....Excuse me! Sather coached the WHA Oilers his 1st 3 years so it was really his 5th season he won a Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dEnnis the Menace Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I just want Lindy to win a cup with us :( all these stats on a Friday afternoon make my head hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 The rundown of Cup Winning Coaches since 1950 1st year with team: 13 2nd year with team: 6 3rd year with team: 6 4th year with team: 7 5th year with team: 1 7th year with team: 1 Since 1950, the winning coach of the Stanley Cup had done so after being with his team AN AVERAGE OF LESS THAN 2.5 YEARS AGAIN......PLEASE........SOMEONE SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN POSSIBLY EXPECT LINDY RUFF TO LEAD THE BUFFALO SABRES TO A STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONSHIP AND PLEASE ALSO JUSTIFY HIS 15 YEAR TENURE Thank you again for your time I just want Lindy to win a cup with us :( all these stats on a Friday afternoon make my head hurt. I like to call them FACTS.....not stats. i think this proves that unless a Coach wins a Cup with a team......his message gets old and stale, and most rational organizations make a change because it is understood. Lindy had his shot in his 2nd year.....he couldn't pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 The rundown of Cup Winning Coaches since 1950 1st year with team: 13 2nd year with team: 6 3rd year with team: 6 4th year with team: 7 7th year with team: 1 8th year with team: 1 Since 1950, the winning coach of the Stanley Cup had done so after being with his team AN AVERAGE OF 2.5 YEARS AGAIN......PLEASE........SOMEONE SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN POSSIBLY EXPECT LINDY RUFF TO LEAD THE BUFFALO SABRES TO A STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONSHIP AND PLEASE ALSO JUSTIFY HIS 15 YEAR TENURE Thank you again for your time I like to call them FACTS.....not stats. i think this proves that unless a Coach wins a Cup with a team......his message gets old and stale, and most rational organizations make a change because it is understood. Lindy had his shot in his 2nd year.....he couldn't pull it off. I think what it proves is that a team has to do two things: 1. Win early on with a coach 2. Turnover the roster every three to four years or so if it hasn't shown winning potential. A GM married to both his players and his coach is a poor model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I think what it proves is that a team has to do two things: 1. Win early on with a coach 2. Turnover the roster every three to four years or so if it hasn't shown winning potential. A GM married to both his players and his coach is a poor model. I can agree with that... Is it any coincidence that Darcy Regier studied under the only Coach since 1950 to take longer than 5 years with a team to win his first Cup? If you grow up in a sheltered home with nothing but 7 foot people, I guess you could be fooled into thinking that everyone is 7 feet tall. A GM of a hockey team making millions of dollars a year shouldn't be that sheltered. Do you think Darcy will show this spreadsheet to Pegula? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Those numbers don't hold water. I'm not an expert in statistics, but I'm sure a smarter guy than me can show how GoDD's numbers have very little meaning when the average coach lasts two years. Statistically if half the coaches are in their second year or less that means there is a 50/50 chance the cup-winning coach will be two or less. Conversely, how many guys get to five years without winning the cup? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 Seems to me there's a few years missing there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I can agree with that... Is it any coincidence that Darcy Regier studied under the only Coach since 1950 to take longer than 5 years with a team to win his first Cup? If you grow up in a sheltered home with nothing but 7 foot people, I guess you could be fooled into thinking that everyone is 7 feet tall. A GM of a hockey team making millions of dollars a year shouldn't be that sheltered. Do you think Darcy will show this spreadsheet to Pegula? haha I hope Darcy just shows it to himself. I do think he is working towards achieving turnover in the roster so I don't think it's unlikely that we'll see Lindy take a team to the Conference Finals within the next two seasons like he has before with a refreshed roster (97-98, 98-99, 05-06, 06-07). If you figure the shelf life of a coach is 4-5 seasons then it almost seems that Darcy desires to wait out the cycle instead of changing coaches. It's almost time again for the cycle to come around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbs Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 I think what it proves is that a team has to do two things: 1. Win early on with a coach 2. Turnover the roster every three to four years or so if it hasn't shown winning potential. A GM married to both his players and his coach is a poor model. Average coaching length seems to agree with this: "Current NHL coaches, in keeping with the slippery nature of their sport, can expect to be behind their benches an average of only 2.3 seasons—the lowest average among the four sports." - http://bookofodds.com/Daily-Life-Activities/Sports/Articles/A0763-Head-Coach-Don-t-Let-the-Door-Hit-You-on-the-Way-Out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 1, 2012 Report Share Posted June 1, 2012 And all this means everyone is arguing up the wrong tree. How many 15 year coaches failed to win the cup in the 16th year? Zero. No 15 year coach in the history of the league has failed to win the cup! We're a sure thing now! My point is if you normalize the stats for average tenure, a statistician will tell you that the results are insignificant. Further, the rapid turnover of coaches, and the rarity of repeats in todays game mean the coach is not a very important part of winning the cup. If good coaches made a difference you would see good coaches winning multiple cups. You can call the stats facts all, and it would be true. But don't make the error of calling the conclusions you draw from thoae stats facts as well. Especially when you haven't normalized or contextualized them. Players win the cup. We need better players. That is on darcy, and if he can't fix the forwards and make the ECF next season, you'll see me on the picket lines calling for his head just like you guys. But as for Ruff. I don't care. It's a waste of time to worry about. It's about the players (and indirectly the GM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 haha I hope Darcy just shows it to himself. I do think he is working towards achieving turnover in the roster so I don't think it's unlikely that we'll see Lindy take a team to the Conference Finals within the next two seasons like he has before with a refreshed roster (97-98, 98-99, 05-06, 06-07). If you figure the shelf life of a coach is 4-5 seasons then it almost seems that Darcy desires to wait out the cycle instead of changing coaches. It's almost time again for the cycle to come around. I would have been fine if Pegula canned Regier day 1 and kept Ruff. You would have a different roster set built and Ruff could start from scratch. I don't think Lindy Ruff is a bad coach. If he goes somewhere else he may very well win a Cup. Look at Sutter in LA. good coach, hasn't gotten it done yet, but different crew, different scenario....maybe it happens. I don't mind the 4-5 year turnover idea.....but it seems to be the same type of player we turn over. You have to unscrew some of the lightbulbs to figure out which ones are causing the whole strand to burn out. Thanks for the discussion. We all work better together than against each other. Seems to me there's a few years missing there. How ya figure? Remember, you have to account for coaches with multiple cups on the same team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 I would have been fine if Pegula canned Regier day 1 and kept Ruff. You would have a different roster set built and Ruff could start from scratch. I don't think Lindy Ruff is a bad coach. If he goes somewhere else he may very well win a Cup. Look at Sutter in LA. good coach, hasn't gotten it done yet, but different crew, different scenario....maybe it happens. I don't mind the 4-5 year turnover idea.....but it seems to be the same type of player we turn over. You have to unscrew some of the lightbulbs to figure out which ones are causing the whole strand to burn out. Thanks for the discussion. We all work better together than against each other. Hopefully what we'll see under Pegula is turnover in players that will make the most impact when they're rotated out of the team. A guy like Derek Roy is a perfect example of a player that Darcy should be looking to move that maybe he wouldn't have in years past. I think Lindy can get the job done here, but it's up to Darcy to make sure the right players are here. And this team is very much lacking in some crucial areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 Average coaching length seems to agree with this: "Current NHL coaches, in keeping with the slippery nature of their sport, can expect to be behind their benches an average of only 2.3 seasons—the lowest average among the four sports." - http://bookofodds.co...-on-the-Way-Out those are good numbers to go with this, thanks.... Average coaching gig in NHL 2.3 years 77% of NHL coaches don't make it to the average 1 in 15 keep their job over 5 years Considering that Stanley Cup winners get the job done in their first 4 years.......you can assume those are the guys that last over 5 years for the most part That's why people scratch their heads with Ruff. The only example I could find of a guy keeping his job that long without a Cup was Dick Irvin, who went 15 years. You have to go back to 1928 and the start of his career, yet he went to the Cup 8 times in those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 2, 2012 Report Share Posted June 2, 2012 those are good numbers to go with this, thanks.... Average coaching gig in NHL 2.3 years 77% of NHL coaches don't make it to the average 1 in 15 keep their job over 5 years Considering that Stanley Cup winners get the job done in their first 4 years.......you can assume those are the guys that last over 5 years for the most part That's why people scratch their heads with Ruff. The only example I could find of a guy keeping his job that long without a Cup was Dick Irvin, who went 15 years. You have to go back to 1928 and the start of his career, yet he went to the Cup 8 times in those years. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 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. But just like all those old buildings - they become popular again. :) Maybe someone now needs to analyze the tenure of GMs in terms of winning the Cup. Then we can compare the GMs, the coaches and the amount of games the goalies played to find the ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 But just like all those old buildings - they become popular again. :) Maybe someone now needs to analyze the tenure of GMs in terms of winning the Cup. Then we can compare the GMs, the coaches and the amount of games the goalies played to find the ideal. I made a spread sheet of coach/gm tenure and how far/if they made it in the playoffs - can't be bothered to find it, but it is somewhere on this website. It does not have the number of games played by the goalie though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.