Horachek's impact on the team

[Heroic Shrimp]

NHL Coaches winning the Stanley Cup with more than one organization:

Dick Irvin - Toronto (1932), Montreal (1944)
Scotty Bowman - Montreal (1973), Pittsburgh (1992), Detroit (1997)

It has happened but the odds are against a coach striking lightning with two separate organizations.

C'mon, man, everybody knows that Tommy Gorman also won back-to-back Cups in 1934 and 1935 with the Montreal Maroons and Chicago Black Hawks.  Okay, actually, pretty much nobody knows that, but he did.

Maybe we can coax Tommy Gorman out of the grave for one last kick at the can.

 

[Highlander]

Love the name Goreman, yes lets dig him us, use his DNA for a clone and in 18 years we have a new head coach!
Actually I think we all need to take a chill pill, put our feet up and enjoy the process, because at some point we are going to improve, just another few years of patience (and valium).

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

There's no such thing as puck luck, though.  We notice all the "bounces" when they don't go our way but tend to ignore it when the same thing happens to the other team.

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other.  Hockey is full of luck, maybe moreso than any other professional sport.

 

[Highlander]

I think hockey is more a game of momentum than just about any other sport, maybe because of the speed of the game the momentum can change on a dime.  And momentum can take games to regain and sees to last in streaks, winning or losing.  Seems to me that momentum can change on a lucky bounce or an unlucky bounce. I do believe in luck, seen enough of its workings in my own life. 

 

[ZBBM]

There's no such thing as puck luck, though.  We notice all the "bounces" when they don't go our way but tend to ignore it when the same thing happens to the other team.

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other.  Hockey is full of luck, maybe moreso than any other professional sport.

No, what I'm saying is that what we call "luck" is just the result of biased attention.  The "bounces" are just regular physics and nothing else, and like your PDO chart they all tend to come back to the mean in terms of which team benefits from the physics.

For example, what we call a "near miss" -- guys hits the post, say -- is the same, in terms of results that matter in the game, as a shot that missed by 20 feet.  Neither was ever going to go in, in terms of their trajectory as described in physical terms.  But one is "bad luck" and the other is just a miss that we don't attach any supernatural significance to.

 

[bustaheims]

What people generally attribute to luck is really more attributable to randomness. All sorts of difficult/impossible to predict things can have impacts. Like, the way the ice cracks and snow develops can have enough impact on the path of a puck to make the difference between hitting the blade of a stick in the right spot to go into the net or to hit off the post. Sometimes, it seems like the random events fall in favour of a team, but, that's where bias kicks in.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Steve Burtch has some really good stuff on Twitter, I'd advise most to take a look at his timeline today.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

What people generally attribute to luck is really more attributable to randomness.

To me it's basically the same thing - randomness, luck, chance.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

There's no such thing as puck luck, though.  We notice all the "bounces" when they don't go our way but tend to ignore it when the same thing happens to the other team.

Those two sentences seem to contradict each other.  Hockey is full of luck, maybe moreso than any other professional sport.

No, what I'm saying is that what we call "luck" is just the result of biased attention.  The "bounces" are just regular physics and nothing else, and like your PDO chart they all tend to come back to the mean in terms of which team benefits from the physics.

For example, what we call a "near miss" -- guys hits the post, say -- is the same, in terms of results that matter in the game, as a shot that missed by 20 feet.  Neither was ever going to go in, in terms of their trajectory as described in physical terms.  But one is "bad luck" and the other is just a miss that we don't attach any supernatural significance to.

I'm talking things like Bozak (or any other player, but there's an example we know) going on a tear with a sky-high SH% early in the season.  He was getting fortunate/lucky that shots were going in so frequently.  There's a lot of luck involved in whether a shot is stopped or not (don't need to state that skill is important too) and so a player can go on a good or poor stretch with shots either going in or not.  So more generally there is 'puck luck' which influences SH% and SV%.

 

[sickbeast]

You guys think this is luck? 1 goal in 4 games? You must be die hard fans to believe that nonsense. I'm a fan as well but I want them to blow this team up at this point. Seeing sundin's interview over the holidays reminded me of what a true captain and leader should be like. The leafs suck this season. It's not due to bad luck. Phaneuf and kessel both need to go.

 

[freer]

You guys think this is luck? 1 goal in 4 games? You must be die hard fans to believe that nonsense. I'm a fan as well but I want them to blow this team up at this point. Seeing sundin's interview over the holidays reminded me of what a true captain and leader should be like. The leafs suck this season. It's not due to bad luck. Phaneuf and kessel both need to go.

And according to the press those are the only two that wont go! So I guess we are screwed then

 

[Redleaf]

You guys think this is luck? 1 goal in 4 games? You must be die hard fans to believe that nonsense. I'm a fan as well but I want them to blow this team up at this point. Seeing sundin's interview over the holidays reminded me of what a true captain and leader should be like. The leafs suck this season. It's not due to bad luck. Phaneuf and kessel both need to go.

And according to the press those are the only two that wont go! So I guess we are screwed then

We're screwed. 8)

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

You guys think this is luck? 1 goal in 4 games? You must be die hard fans to believe that nonsense.

Yes?  You provide no argument as to why it's not luck/randomness.  The stats show that they've actually been increasing their scoring chances for from where it was when Carlyle was fired.

It's really not a hard thing to grasp that a team could go cold like this.  Happened to a Leafs team in the 1954 season:

The last time the Toronto Maple Leafs were shut out three times in four games, they were riding high in the standings, off to a 23-12-8 start before the goals suddenly dried up.

Top scorers Sid Smith and Harry Watson inexplicably went cold against Detroit, Montreal and Boston back in January of 1954, part of a disappointing season in which the Leafs were eliminated in the first round in five games.

...

How uncommon is one goal in four games? Well, the average NHL team in this era scores about 11 goals every four games. That ebbs sometimes in short stretches, and last season the Leafs had one ugly patch in which they scored just four times in five games in November.

They pulled out of it and went on a run in January ? only to have their scoring dry up again late in the year.

According to A.C. Thomas from the terrific stats website war-on-ice.com, only six teams leaguewide have had a four-game stretch with only one goal in the past 12 seasons. It?s so rare it happens only once every 4,800 games or so ? or every 50-plus years per team, depending on league scoring levels.

Historically speaking, the Leafs were due for one, but it?s the timing ? with a new coach and the team already mired in a losing skid ? that has been so demoralizing for the group.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/leafs-beat/mirtle-numbers/article22514362/

@SteveBurtch 

Kessel, JvR and Kadri rolling 5 game individual Scoring Chances at 5v5 - all 3 increasing over the last 4-5 games.

Their PDO (ES SH% + SV%) under Horachek through 6 games has been 94.1:

@SteveBurtch

since 2002-03 - the #Leafs have had 52 distinct 6 game stretches with a PDO under 94.1

@SteveBurtch

Pat Quinn's 2002-03, 04-05, and 05-06 #Leafs teams underwent 21 distinct 6 game stretches where they had under 94.1 PDO

Rough stretches happen.  It's important to not let it ruin the focus on the process over the results.  The team is getting scoring chances they're just not going in right now.  Sometimes they go in the opposite - a flood of them.  In both cases it's not sustainable.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

@SteveBurtch 

Kessel, JvR and Kadri rolling 5 game individual Scoring Chances at 5v5 - all 3 increasing over the last 4-5 games.

Their PDO (ES SH% + SV%) under Horachek through 6 games has been 94.1:

@SteveBurtch

since 2002-03 - the #Leafs have had 52 distinct 6 game stretches with a PDO under 94.1

@SteveBurtch

Pat Quinn's 2002-03, 04-05, and 05-06 #Leafs teams underwent 21 distinct 6 game stretches where they had under 94.1 PDO

Rough stretches happen.  It's important to not let it ruin the focus on the process over the results.  The team is getting scoring chances they're just not going in right now.  Sometimes they go in the opposite - a flood of them.  In both cases it's not sustainable.

And the Leafs have a shooting percentage of 3.6 since Horachek took over.  That (is REALLY brutal) will correct, likely sooner than later.

http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2015/01/19/corsi-shooting-percentage-randy-carlyle-era/

 

[Rebel_1812]

I think the leafs haven't responded to the coach as much as shannan's promise to move players if the team doesn't turn around.  They are spending at the cap, so if these players can't even make the playoffs the team should be blown up.  Its interesting that playing a different playstyle with a different coach yields the same results as before if not worse.  Randy had the team over 0.500% before he was fired if I'm not mistaken.  They have won one game since.

 

[freer]

After the OTT game the leafs are off for 7 or 8 days. Is the NHL in a freeze during this time? I mean are trades, or team practices still allowed to happen?

We should have the injured players back.

IF we can get one point from OTT, It will be like starting a new season, with 34 games in it. We play ever team above us in the race at least once.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

IF we can get one point from OTT, It will be like starting a new season, with 34 games in it. We play ever team above us in the race at least once.

Dude, let it go. Right now Boston is on pace for 96 points. Let's say that's what is needed to make the playoffs. That means that the Leafs would need 49 points in their remaining 35 games, that's .700 hockey. They would pretty much need to be the best team in the NHL for the rest of the season.

 

[bustaheims]

IF we can get one point from OTT, It will be like starting a new season, with 34 games in it. We play ever team above us in the race at least once.

They also all play each other, which means they're guaranteed points. Given the Leafs' current situation, unless they can pull off a 10+ game winning streak coming out of the All Star break, it just ain't happening.

 

[TML fan]

At least it's over earlier this year.

 

[Highlander]

I do understand everyones lack of patience but to me this was almost completely expected. The team is in turmoil, went into the standard Carlyle tailspin, new coach, west coast trials, home with no confidence and missing three of their best players.  Imagine if Komorav, Holland and Lupul had been taking a regular 2nd or 3rd line shift the past 6 games?  Perhaps a few different results and not so dreadful a team outlook?