Coach Q's actual playoff ability

[Marotte Marauder]

Some other threads seem to support Q as all knowing and how to tweak a team, i.e. Stalberg benching.

Admittedly, I thought it was stupid so I did a little research.

We know playoffs is when the intensity picks up for players and coaches. Q's career regular season records are .612, playoff record is .518. A significant dropoff rather than raising of performance, so it would seem.

I looked back over the last 20 Cup winners and checked their coach's performance for perspective relative to Q. A couple of coaches have playoff records better than regular season for their careers (Robinson, Demers, Hartley).

Most have a slight dropoff from regular season to playoff performance. The only coach with a dropoff similar to Q is Dan Bylsma, not quite Scotty Bowman part deaux.

The following recent coaches have better playoff records relative to regular season than Coach Q: Laviollette, Babcock, Crawford, Sutter, Julien, Lemaire, Keenan, Bowman, Hitchcock, Tortorella, Carlyle and Pat Burns.

Let's just temper the Coach Q knows what he is doing just a bit, eh?

 

[TorMenT]

Interesting, thanks for the info.

 

[BobbyJet]

Some other threads seem to support Q as all knowing and how to tweak a team, i.e. Stalberg benching.

Admittedly, I thought it was stupid so I did a little research.

We know playoffs is when the intensity picks up for players and coaches. Q's career regular season records are .612, playoff record is .518. A significant dropoff rather than raising of performance, so it would seem.

I looked back over the last 20 Cup winners and checked their coach's performance for perspective relative to Q. A couple of coaches have playoff records better than regular season for their careers (Robinson, Demers, Hartley).

Most have a slight dropoff from regular season to playoff performance. The only coach with a dropoff similar to Q is Dan Bylsma, not quite Scotty Bowman part deaux.

The following recent coaches have better playoff records relative to regular season than Coach Q: Laviollette, Babcock, Crawford, Sutter, Julien, Lemaire, Keenan, Bowman, Hitchcock, Tortorella, Carlyle and Pat Burns.

Let's just temper the Coach Q knows what he is doing just a bit, eh?

No surprise for me. I cringe most every game when I see obvious things get overlooked by Q. Benching Stalberg was absolutely ridiculous as are his love affairs with Kruger, Shaw and Saad. I love Saad as well, but Q is expecting way too much from him, and placing him in situations that few rookies can handle. The PP has been terrible for over a year now, and players continue to stand around unchecked in front of Crawford. The head coach needs to be held accountable for these flaws, whether it be the system or otherwise.

 

[unbridledid]

You think stalberg would have turned around game 2 ?


Babcock is a great coach... So is Q.

It's up to the players to decide who wins the series. I bet Stalberg is in game 3, and it's time for him to step up. If Stally doesn't I expect his supporters to chime up.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

You think stalberg would have turned around game 2 ?


Babcock is a great coach... So is Q.

It's up to the players to decide who wins the series. I bet Stalberg is in game 3, and it's time for him to step up. If he doesn't I expect his supporters to chime up.

I think at up 1-0 you keep the pedal to the metal and throw a "new" speed element at the Wings and make them respond. Maybe it would have been contagious, who knows.

I showed my support that Q is so-so at best, what can you show to the contrary? Has he gone far with an overperforming club or has he had a couple of stinkers with loaded clubs?

 

[unbridledid]

I think at up 1-0 you keep the pedal to the metal and throw a "new" speed element at the Wings and make them respond. Maybe it would have been contagious, who knows.

I showed my support that Q is so-so at best, what can you show to the contrary? Has he gone far with an overperforming club or has he had a couple of stinkers with loaded clubs?

Yet they went up 1-0 without the "speed element" you speak of.

Let him in and see what he does. It's up the players and if he doesn't perform you best hold him accountable. They lose as a team and played as flat as a pancake in game 2. If you think Stalberg would have turned around game 2 you are tilting at windmills.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Yet they went up 1-0 without the "speed element" you speak of.

Let him in and see what he does. It's up the players and if he doesn't perform you best hold him accountable. They lose as a team and played as flat as a pancake in game 2. If you think Stalberg would have turned around game 2 you are tilting at windmills.

I said I don't know if they would have won Sat. with VS or not. What I do know is that I prefer to battle with my best guys on the ice.

 

[unbridledid]

I said I don't know if they would have won Sat. with VS or not. What I do know is that I prefer to battle with my best guys on the ice.

With that effort they lose against a motivated wings team and there isn't a question about it.

Ice Stally in game 3 and let's see what he has to offer... he best step up !

 

[Marotte Marauder]

With that effort they lose against a motivated wings team and there isn't a question about it.

Ice Stally in game 3 and let's see what he has to offer... he best step up !

I'd guarantee he's the most dangerous player on his line.

 

[madgoat33]

real question is, when do we see "playoff" bolland who makes up for his poor regular seasons?

 

[HockeySauce]

real question is, when do we see "playoff" bolland who makes up for his poor regular seasons?

Seaons, plural?

This board and scapegoats, I don't get it. Everyone needs one.

The only "poor" season Bolland's had since his rookie year was this season. The Cup year he was coming off back surgery, so him taking a while to get up to speed is more than reasonable, and some might say, rationale - but what, that word's not allowed to be used on this board, is it?

 

[Illinihockey]

Some other threads seem to support Q as all knowing and how to tweak a team, i.e. Stalberg benching.

Admittedly, I thought it was stupid so I did a little research.

We know playoffs is when the intensity picks up for players and coaches. Q's career regular season records are .612, playoff record is .518. A significant dropoff rather than raising of performance, so it would seem.

I looked back over the last 20 Cup winners and checked their coach's performance for perspective relative to Q. A couple of coaches have playoff records better than regular season for their careers (Robinson, Demers, Hartley).

Most have a slight dropoff from regular season to playoff performance. The only coach with a dropoff similar to Q is Dan Bylsma, not quite Scotty Bowman part deaux.

The following recent coaches have better playoff records relative to regular season than Coach Q: Laviollette, Babcock, Crawford, Sutter, Julien, Lemaire, Keenan, Bowman, Hitchcock, Tortorella, Carlyle and Pat Burns.

Let's just temper the Coach Q knows what he is doing just a bit, eh?

Rate stats are a bit meaningless without putting their actual record in there due to sample size issues

 

[LarmerSavardSecord]

Some other threads seem to support Q as all knowing and how to tweak a team, i.e. Stalberg benching.

Admittedly, I thought it was stupid so I did a little research.

We know playoffs is when the intensity picks up for players and coaches. Q's career regular season records are .612, playoff record is .518. A significant dropoff rather than raising of performance, so it would seem.

I looked back over the last 20 Cup winners and checked their coach's performance for perspective relative to Q. A couple of coaches have playoff records better than regular season for their careers (Robinson, Demers, Hartley).

Most have a slight dropoff from regular season to playoff performance. The only coach with a dropoff similar to Q is Dan Bylsma, not quite Scotty Bowman part deaux.

The following recent coaches have better playoff records relative to regular season than Coach Q: Laviollette, Babcock, Crawford, Sutter, Julien, Lemaire, Keenan, Bowman, Hitchcock, Tortorella, Carlyle and Pat Burns.

Let's just temper the Coach Q knows what he is doing just a bit, eh?

Your research is interesting but the red flag was that you were only included data that supported your premise but left the rest to “trust me.”

I’m not going to look at retired HOF guys, they aren’t meaningful to the conversation. So I just looked at Babcock, and it turns out his playoff WIN% in the playoffs as coach of the Wings dropped by much more than Q’s had under the Hawks. It’s not even close if we’re parsing small sample sizes:

Q: RS 63%, PO 58%; -0.05
B: RS 68%, PO 56%; -0.12

And this doesn’t take into account that DET had better seeds in most of those years, so easier opponents net-net.

I have no problem with saying Babcock is a better coach- he may be the best in the NHL - but you can’t base it on shoddy data.

 

[Bubba88]

I agree. MM should be our coach, he would have a 3-0 series lead already against the Wings. What does the SC winning and future HoF coach know - who won the Adams and is nominated for it again.


Not to mention that he only included that stats that help him making his point

 

[EmeticDonut]

Why isn't MM coaching in the NHL? Or even the AHL? He obviously is the better coach than that amateur Quenneville.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Your research is interesting but the red flag was that you were only included data that supported your premise but left the rest to “trust me.â€

I’m not going to look at retired HOF guys, they aren’t meaningful to the conversation. So I just looked at Babcock, and it turns out his playoff WIN% in the playoffs as coach of the Wings dropped by much more than Q’s had under the Hawks. It’s not even close if we’re parsing small sample sizes:

Q: RS 63%, PO 58%; -0.05
B: RS 68%, PO 56%; -0.12

And this doesn’t take into account that DET had better seeds in most of those years, so easier opponents net-net.

I have no problem with saying Babcock is a better coach- he may be the best in the NHL - but you can’t base it on shoddy data.

Shoddy data? It's simply the last xx Cup winners career records. No attempt to parse or skew the data was made, it was taken in total.

Why would you wish to use a smaller data set?

 

[BobbyJet]

I agree. MM should be our coach, he would have a 3-0 series lead already against the Wings. What does the SC winning and future HoF coach know - who won the Adams and is nominated for it again.


Not to mention that he only included that stats that help him making his point

Hello Pot ... meet kettle.

Tonight's game, we'll see what adjustments are mad by Q. Prove to us that you can respond and get this team motivated again, like Babcock did after their poor showing in game 1. I don't expect Hawks to win every game, but there is no excuse for that performance we witnessed on Saturday.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

For those who wish to see all the data

KEENAN 672 531 147 36 1527 .551 173 96 77 0 .555

TORTS 410 340 37 67 924 .541 77 38 39 0 .494

JULIEN 375 230 10 79 839 .604 74 40 34 0 .54
1
BABCOCK 445 232 19 90 999 .635 117 71 46 0 .607

Q 660 389 77 85 1482 .612 139 72 67 0 .518

LEMAIRE 617 458 124 63 1421 .563 117 61 56 0 .521

CRAWFORD 549 421 103 78 1279 .556 83 43 40 0 .518

SUTTER 461 349 101 46 1069 .559 121 63 58 0 .521

HITCH 605 382 88 83 1381 .596 130 70 60 0 .538

LAVI 389 279 25 63 866 .573 82 43 39 0 .524

BURNS 501 353 151 14 1167 .573 149 78 71 0 .523

CARLYLE 305 208 - 69 679 .583 62 36 26 0 .581

BYLSMA 201 92 - 25 427 .671 50 28 22 0 .560

 

[BobbyJet]

I agree. MM should be our coach, he would have a 3-0 series lead already against the Wings. What does the SC winning and future HoF coach know - who won the Adams and is nominated for it again.


Not to mention that he only included that stats that help him making his point

It wouldn't be the first time Q was fired as an NHL head coach. Ask any knowledgable Blues or Avs fan, for that matter, why they think Q was let go, and you'll find them stating the same issues then, that we have now..... especially with the inept PP, mishandling of players and lack of detail in his decisions during a game. Not many coaches last coaching one team (ask Lindy Ruff). It's the nature of the beast. It's not all on Q. He must utilize the hand he is dealt but if he can't motivate this team at this stage, and we don't get past Wings, it is time to resign and save the org the difficult task of firing him (despite a SC year in 2010).

 

[ColdSteel2]

Add up the times Q's teams have been in the top 4 (home ice) and the times they were in the bottom 4. It's significantly tilted toward the bottom 4.

 

[Illinihockey]

Add up the times Q's teams have been in the top 4 (home ice) and the times they were in the bottom 4. It's significantly tilted toward the bottom 4.

Thats the other thing, you have to weight it by seed.

 

[Hawkaholic]

Guess we should hire the almighty Mike Keenen, guess hes a better coach than every other coach out there. I mean, thats probably why he has a job in the NHL still.

These stats mean nothing, just shows its harder for teams to have great records in the playoffs.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

Guess we should hire the almighty Mike Keenen, guess hes a better coach than every other coach out there. I mean, thats probably why he has a job in the NHL still.

These stats mean nothing, just shows its harder for teams to have great records in the playoffs.

Well Keenan does have as many Jack Adams and Cups as Q with 2 more conference titles.

What the stats show is who gets more out of their teams. Loaded teams can have great regular season winning % but when it's time to raise the bar...

 

[Hawkaholic]

The stats show that the play in the playoffs gets a lot tougher and the competition is tighter. No weak divisional opponents to beat up on.

It takes everything out of context when you post trivial crap like this. It doesn't take into account goalies play, the type of players they have..the type that elevate their game in the playoffs. It just assumes its all the coaches fault that the players cant elevate their games on their own as well.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

The stats show that the play in the playoffs gets a lot tougher and the competition is tighter. No weak divisional opponents to beat up on.

It takes everything out of context when you post trivial crap like this. It doesn't take into account goalies play, the type of players they have..the type that elevate their game in the playoffs. It just assumes its all the coaches fault that the players cant elevate their games on their own as well.

That's where the buck stops.