Updated Todd McLellan OUT of the Running Sabres HC Position

[LGR4GM]

Corsi is a tool. 

[Andrew Amerk]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Corsi is a tool. 

HEYYYYYY!

Dont talk about Jim Corsi like that!

 

[Derrico]

1 hour 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. 

This seems to be the narrative but I'm not sure it's right.  Mcdavid and Eichel will always have that parallel (obv mcdavid much better) but the teams are not overly similar to me.  For one, I don't see Edmonton having a Dahlin or even a Montour on their blue line to be honest.  

[Doohickie]

He's a JAC.  Kind of like a JAG but with coaches.

Edited April 9, 2019 by Doohickie

[dudacek]

51 minutes ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

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.

Corsi is just a glorified version of shots on goal - a bit more accurate measurement of what eyeballing broadcasters used to call “territorial play”

[Zamboni]

By some fans perspectives .... all coaches underachieve except the one who win the cup. And yet most GMs don’t think that way at all. If they did, there would be 30 head coaching vacancies every year since all those coaches sucked and underachieved. 

Am I doing it right?

 

IMO you can actually have very good or great coaches and still not win a cup and yet, they aren’t underachievers. 

[inkman]

2 hours 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. 

I'll take underachieving vs laughing stock any day. Let the expectations be the Stanley Cup and just fall short. I may skin my meat sword thinking about it.

[dudacek]

Well this might soothe @LGR4GM a bit.

From Vogl in the Athletic:

“The more Dan Boyle talked about Todd McLellan, the more things he checked off Buffalo fans’ wish list.

According to the longtime defenseman, McLellan knows which players to use, how to use them and when to use them. The coach has the ability to adapt to a changing game and prepare his players properly. He’s willing to listen to players and cater the game plan to their strengths.

Then there was the money quote:

“Some coaches it’s, ‘This is the way we’re going to play it, and if it’s not working we just have to do it better,’” Boyle said Monday. “Personally, I don’t think that’s right. With today’s world with the technology and teams taking things away, you’ve got to adjust and you’ve got to adapt. We were always a very well-prepared team.”

[bunomatic]

This thing they call the playoffs seems to relieve many good coaches of their duties in short order. Methinks there will be a few more candidates in the coming weeks.

[North Buffalo]

interesting article in athletic: https://theathletic.com/912940/2019/04/08/as-sabres-court-todd-mclellan-a-look-at-the-philosophy-he-could-bring-to-buffalo/

[SDS]

2 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

interesting article in athletic: https://theathletic.com/912940/2019/04/08/as-sabres-court-todd-mclellan-a-look-at-the-philosophy-he-could-bring-to-buffalo/

I’m not sure what percentage of readers here have subscriptions to the Athletic. 

[Derrico]

I do and appreciate the link!

[North Buffalo]

23 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m not sure what percentage of readers here have subscriptions to the Athletic. 

Yeh but Im not sure I can can copy and paste legally.  Will try and highlight tomorrow.

[SDS]

22 minutes ago, Derrico said:

I do and appreciate the link!

It’s just that it’s hard to discuss something if you don’t know what it says.

[Brawndo]

 

[JJFIVEOH]

I'd take McClellan over Viagneult. (Could we have two coaches that are so difficult to type?). I just like the fact that Botts is shooting for a coach with experience. I'm sick of this rookie crap. And that goes for Botts as well. Go for a veteran coach. 

[TrueBlueGED]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

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.)

Just the other day Mike Babcock said he uses xG (expected goals) to evaluate defensemen. After all, there's a reason he loves Rielly and Gardiner despite their numerous defensive zone gaffes. Jon Cooper has regularly talked about it in the past. Those are two that come to mind, and they're not exactly scrubs.

[TrueBlueGED]

3 hours ago, Torpedo Forecheck said:

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.

2. Can you find me examples of where you think it has been misused? It gets mentioned in one-game contexts here and there, but I've never gotten the impression that those doing so think it is definitive.

3. Yes, me and....not many others. I could probably count on one hand the number of times I have persuaded anyone with statistics if it disagrees with their eyes.

[klos1963]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

I’m not sure what percentage of readers here have subscriptions to the Athletic. 

it's worth it. Always a few articles of interest every day.

[TrueBlueGED]

36 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I'd take McClellan over Viagneult. (Could we have two coaches that are so difficult to type?). I just like the fact that Botts is shooting for a coach with experience. I'm sick of this rookie crap. And that goes for Botts as well. Go for a veteran coach. 

Since Lindy was fired, we've had 2 experienced coaches and 2 rookies. Since the tank, it's been 1 and 1. It's not like we haven't failed with the experienced route.

[Sabel79]

45 minutes ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I'd take McClellan over Viagneult. (Could we have two coaches that are so difficult to type?). I just like the fact that Botts is shooting for a coach with experience. I'm sick of this rookie crap. And that goes for Botts as well. Go for a veteran coach. 

And here I was worried about wether you’d ruined your pants over the Quenville hire in Florida.  But I guess you’re a Canes fan now.  Do us all a favor and give us a heads up on who it’ll be next year.  

[matter2003]

31 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Just the other day Mike Babcock said he uses xG (expected goals) to evaluate defensemen. After all, there's a reason he loves Rielly and Gardiner despite their numerous defensive zone gaffes. Jon Cooper has regularly talked about it in the past. Those are two that come to mind, and they're not exactly scrubs.

Is it possible a coach can naturally "see" the same things analytics would tell him so that it doesn't make a difference whether he uses them or not because he's come to the same conclusion?

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, JJFIVEOH said:

I'd take McClellan over Viagneult. (Could we have two coaches that are so difficult to type?). I just like the fact that Botts is shooting for a coach with experience. I'm sick of this rookie crap. And that goes for Botts as well. Go for a veteran coach. 

Oh why do you care?  The Sabres are your second team now anyway.  Haha

[TrueBlueGED]

4 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

Is it possible a coach can naturally "see" the same things analytics would tell him so that it doesn't make a difference whether he uses them or not because he's come to the same conclusion?

A coach can reach the same conclusions with the numbers, but it's basically impossible for him to see all of the data. Human memory and cognition is just pretty terrible that way. Whether you think that's a meaningful distinction is up to you, but I think it is.

[JJFIVEOH]

25 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

And here I was worried about wether you’d ruined your pants over the Quenville hire in Florida.  But I guess you’re a Canes fan now.  Do us all a favor and give us a heads up on who it’ll be next year.  

I have said, REPEATEDLY the Sabres are #1 team and always will be. Don't go trashing me because of my avatar. I have had 3 home teams and the only reason I have a Canes avatar is it's the only one of my three teams that is actually in the playoffs. You are unfairly treating me.