Fire Colliton

[JaegerDice]

i dont buy this. they werent as great as the previous 4 outa 5 years but they were still very good. they had a tough week of hockey and an opponent that was wayyyy better then an 8 seed. hell tampa did the same thing last year. they were still a contender.

They really weren't that good.

They were 12th in CF%, 19th in SF%, and 20th in xGF%. They were, very importantly, 3rd in SV%.

They were a mediocre team carried up the standings by exceptional goaltending.

I can think of another team that fits this description.

The 2014 Colorado Avalanche.

They didn't have a 'tough week of hockey' so much as they met a team that was better than them top-to-bottom. Nashville was faster and deeper, and exposed the Blackhawks as a one-line team with shoddy, slow defense that were over-reliant on their goalie. If Nashville had been healthy all year, they're probably not the 8th seed... so maybe Chicago gets another round before they're curb-stomped by a legit contender? Yay?

The Tampa upset was a much bigger deal, which will be remembered for much longer, because Tampa actually was a great team. Not as great through the 2nd half of the season as they were the first half, but still a legitimate contender.

The truth is, generally speaking, there are 3-5 teams with a hope in hell of winning the cup. The rest are basically just battling over who gets to lose last. The 'anything can happen in the playoffs' idea is true to a point, in that upsets can happen, good teams can lose earlier than they should... but mediocre teams rarely win the whole deal based on goaltending or puckluck. Using 'the anything can happen' logic is a common tactic of organizations to keep fans of bad teams hopeful. The team raising the cup is usually one of the best 5 teams in the league.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

 

[Drumman44]

I’m pretty underwhelmed with Colliton but I think he’s back next year.

I mean he's doing an end of the year presser. If they were going to fire him, it would have been today right? Friday afternoon is a good time to flush a bad news story.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

I’m pretty underwhelmed with Colliton but I think he’s back next year.

Definitely think he’s back next year unless a new hockey ops guy comes in and cleans house. Sounds unlikely given the Wirtz’ comments, so sounds like Bowman is the hockey ops guy

 

[JaegerDice]

With all due respect, I think it's about time this organization stopped listening to what it's stars would like.

They're job is to play hockey. Build the best roster you can, and put the best players on the ice. Stop letting personal preference from the rank and file dictate decisions above their pay-grade.

 

[Styles]

Coaching record

Season	GP	W	L	OL	PTS	Finish
18-19	67	28		9	69	6th
19-20	70	30		8	72	7th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In his time here
-5th worst goals against
-3rd worst PK
-Dead last in SA/GP

No coach should survive that. Especially one that was given an ultimatum to change his full camp system because it sucked.

 

[JaegerDice]

Coaching record

Season	GP	W	L	OL	PTS	Finish
18-19	67	28		9	69	6th
19-20	70	30		8	72	7th

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

In his time here
-5th worst goals against
-3rd worst PK
-Dead last in SA/GP

No coach should survive that. Especially one that was given an ultimatum to change his full camp system because it sucked.

I'm fine with firing him, I just don't think any coach gets any more out of this group.

It's an aging core, supported by a bunch of kids that haven't entered their prime, and a bunch of kids in the pipeline we HOPE might help in the future.

Scotty Bowman in his prime couldn't win with this group.

 

[Styles]

I'm fine with firing him, I just don't think any coach gets any more out of this group.

It's an aging core, supported by a bunch of kids that haven't entered their prime, and a bunch of kids in the pipeline we HOPE might help in the future.

Scotty Bowman in his prime couldn't win with this group.

I mean Trotz turned the Islanders from one the worst defensive teams to one of the best in one season. Anything can happen if you get the correct fit for your roster or the players actually buy in to the coach. This is a failure on the GM's part because I don't think Collitons coaching style fits this roster at all. I don't get why Stan would want to keep this guy around. He hasn't impressed in any area of the game to keep him and I think the sample size is more than enough to know what we are getting. The last thing I want to happen is give him another shot then fire him 20 games in with all the good replacements already hired.

 

[SnakePlissken]

The truth is, generally speaking, there are 3-5 teams with a hope in hell of winning the cup. The rest are basically just battling over who gets to lose last. The 'anything can happen in the playoffs' idea is true to a point, in that upsets can happen, good teams can lose earlier than they should... but mediocre teams rarely win the whole deal based on goaltending or puckluck. Using 'the anything can happen' logic is a common tactic of organizations to keep fans of bad teams hopeful. The team raising the cup is usually one of the best 5 teams in the league.

The 3-5 strong favorites concept makes sense to me. Is there a set of analytics that produces a composite ranking you think identifies these teams, and does back-testing against past winners at least mostly validate the metrics? Maybe it's that simple, but I would think it's still an inexact science.

 

[JaegerDice]

The 3-5 strong favorites concept makes sense to me. Is there a set of analytics that produces a composite ranking you think identifies these teams, and does back-testing against past winners at least mostly validate the metrics? Maybe it's that simple, but I would think it's still an inexact science.

It's definitely an inexact science.

The thing is, while there are some examples of teams that the analytics community and the traditional media disagree on as far as team quality, for the most part both camps agree on who the very best teams and the very worst teams are. Likewise, for the very best players and the very worst players. At that point, eye-test and numbers tend to lineup. There are outliers, like the 2014 Avalanche, or 2017 Blackhawks, or 2012 Kings that have the analytics community screaming 'NO! You're not looking hard enough!' but for the most part there's alignment.

There's no perfect formula. For example, most analytics people had the SCF pegged as STL vs TBL last season. Well we all know what happened to Tampa, meanwhile the media were still pegging STL as some outside underdog despite the fact they were actually far and away the best team in the league from February onwards.

As far as numbers, depends on how much weight you put on different facets.

I'm of the opinion that any team relying too much on their goalie will not win the cup. So any team that allows a ton of shots against but has a low GAA because of a high SV%, I don't consider a legit contender.

I think puck possession teams are more likely to win. So I weigh CF% higher than xGF%, the latter of which is more about scoring chances.

I weigh 5v5 muuuuuuuuuuuch higher than special teams.

And then ultimately, I look at depth. How much better do the top lines fair than the bottom lines. If the top lines are carrying the load while the bottom lines are getting caved in on shots and getting played lower than average minutes, that's a red flag for me, because the deeper you go in the playoffs you not only have a higher chance of injury, but the best guys on the other team are likely to be able to shut down the best guys on your team... so if they guys below your best are just filling jerseys, you're screwed.

And even with all that, there are outliers. The Washington Capitals AND Vegas Golden Knights in 2018 were probably top 10 teams in the league. Top 5? Not so sure.

 

[SnakePlissken]

It's definitely an inexact science.

The thing is, while there are some examples of teams that the analytics community and the traditional media disagree on as far as team quality, for the most part both camps agree on who the very best teams and the very worst teams are. Likewise, for the very best players and the very worst players. At that point, eye-test and numbers tend to lineup. There are outliers, like the 2014 Avalanche, or 2017 Blackhawks, or 2012 Kings that have the analytics community screaming 'NO! You're not looking hard enough!' but for the most part there's alignment.

There's no perfect formula. For example, most analytics people had the SCF pegged as STL vs TBL last season. Well we all know what happened to Tampa, meanwhile the media were still pegging STL as some outside underdog despite the fact they were actually far and away the best team in the league from February onwards.

As far as numbers, depends on how much weight you put on different facets.

I'm of the opinion that any team relying too much on their goalie will not win the cup. So any team that allows a ton of shots against but has a low GAA because of a high SV%, I don't consider a legit contender.

I think puck possession teams are more likely to win. So I weigh CF% higher than xGF%, the latter of which is more about scoring chances.

I weigh 5v5 muuuuuuuuuuuch higher than special teams.

And then ultimately, I look at depth. How much better do the top lines fair than the bottom lines. If the top lines are carrying the load while the bottom lines are getting caved in on shots and getting played lower than average minutes, that's a red flag for me, because the deeper you go in the playoffs you not only have a higher chance of injury, but the best guys on the other team are likely to be able to shut down the best guys on your team... so if they guys below your best are just filling jerseys, you're screwed.

And even with all that, there are outliers. The Washington Capitals AND Vegas Golden Knights in 2018 were probably top 10 teams in the league. Top 5? Not so sure.

Thanks for the detail. As I said in an earlier post, I do think there are 3-5 favorites each year, and you described a combination of metrics and analysis to identify them, but then the reality of who can actually win the Cup is a little wider than that group.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

 

[Kaners Bald Spot]

It's definitely an inexact science.

The thing is, while there are some examples of teams that the analytics community and the traditional media disagree on as far as team quality, for the most part both camps agree on who the very best teams and the very worst teams are. Likewise, for the very best players and the very worst players. At that point, eye-test and numbers tend to lineup. There are outliers, like the 2014 Avalanche, or 2017 Blackhawks, or 2012 Kings that have the analytics community screaming 'NO! You're not looking hard enough!' but for the most part there's alignment.

There's no perfect formula. For example, most analytics people had the SCF pegged as STL vs TBL last season. Well we all know what happened to Tampa, meanwhile the media were still pegging STL as some outside underdog despite the fact they were actually far and away the best team in the league from February onwards.

As far as numbers, depends on how much weight you put on different facets.

I'm of the opinion that any team relying too much on their goalie will not win the cup. So any team that allows a ton of shots against but has a low GAA because of a high SV%, I don't consider a legit contender.

I think puck possession teams are more likely to win. So I weigh CF% higher than xGF%, the latter of which is more about scoring chances.

I weigh 5v5 muuuuuuuuuuuch higher than special teams.

And then ultimately, I look at depth. How much better do the top lines fair than the bottom lines. If the top lines are carrying the load while the bottom lines are getting caved in on shots and getting played lower than average minutes, that's a red flag for me, because the deeper you go in the playoffs you not only have a higher chance of injury, but the best guys on the other team are likely to be able to shut down the best guys on your team... so if they guys below your best are just filling jerseys, you're screwed.

And even with all that, there are outliers. The Washington Capitals AND Vegas Golden Knights in 2018 were probably top 10 teams in the league. Top 5? Not so sure.

There are 3 stats that I weigh highest:
1. CF%
2. PK %
3. HDSV%

I think if you go back through the last decade, those 3 have the highest correlation with playoff success.

The years the Hawks won the Cup they were top 10 in all 3 categories and top 5 in at least 2.

 

[BobbyJet]

I must agree with Colliton about his comments below. Q was hustling and did have a good game. The problem is Nylander should have been pulled long before this:
"But I thought Quenneville was really good in Game 5. He had four or five solid hits on the forecheck, adding an element that we probably didn’t have enough of in the series. A couple really good defensive plays, a willingness as we talked about earlier, he skated the puck out of D-zone two, three, four times and took a hit to make a play to get it deep so we could get a change. And those little things, we need more of in our group. I thought for a guy coming in, he hadn’t played much, can’t really ask for too much more from him."

 

[RayP]

He's an idiot.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

None of this is surprising

Stanley won the power struggle which meant JC future was already answered no matter how awful his performance was these playoffs

I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Mcd being fired was directly tied to JC coaching. Mcd probably wanted to hire a real NHL coach like Gallant while Stanley wants JC

Its sad to see Rocky become more and more like his father making such piss poor decisions

 

[Brightwing]

None of this is surprising

Stanley won the power struggle which meant JC future was already answered no matter how awful his performance was these playoffs

I wouldn't be shocked to find out that Mcd being fired was directly tied to JC coaching. Mcd probably wanted to hire a real NHL coach like Gallant while Stanley wants JC

Its sad to see Rocky become more and more like his father making such piss poor decisions

I know we all think everything in the organization is related to the actual hockey but by all accounts so far the main reason for firing McDonough was business related.

Makes sense given Danny Wirtz's ad background. I think he saw an organization that got comfortable appealing to its rich, older white fan base and said hold on we have to change something. The Wirtz family always talks about the importance of the Hawks' success for decades to come.

They are not losing their minds about a win or loss in a given year like some owners. You can tell. They want organizational success.

That's why they said the next president won't necessarily come from a hockey background.

 

[Toews2Bickell]

Not sure how I would feel about the team president not coming from a hockey background unless they're going to reorganize hockey ops so Stan answers to the person that has actually been around the game

 

[hawksrule]

I must agree with Colliton about his comments below. Q was hustling and did have a good game. The problem is Nylander should have been pulled long before this:
"But I thought Quenneville was really good in Game 5. He had four or five solid hits on the forecheck, adding an element that we probably didn’t have enough of in the series. A couple really good defensive plays, a willingness as we talked about earlier, he skated the puck out of D-zone two, three, four times and took a hit to make a play to get it deep so we could get a change. And those little things, we need more of in our group. I thought for a guy coming in, he hadn’t played much, can’t really ask for too much more from him."

Quenneville lost his man leading to a Vegas goal. That was his most noticeable moment of the night.

 

[wahsnairb]

I’ll be genuinely upset if JC isn’t fired before next year, unless we blow it up.

It sounds like neither of these will be the case.

I’m ready to be upset.

 

[Brightwing]

I’ll be genuinely upset if JC isn’t fired before next year, unless we blow it up.

It sounds like neither or these will be the case.

I’m ready to be upset.

Be upset. If tbey were going to fire him they would have done it this week.

 

[x Tame Impala]

I still don’t know what Colliton’s system is supposed to be

 

[Salvaged Ship]

Like it or not he is going nowhere. He is Bowman’s guy, Bowman is going nowhere. They likely wouldn’t pay one of the more experienced coaches, it’s Colliton next year.

 

[Bubba88]

Why Gallant over Laviolette? Just curious.

Gallant only made the playoffs 1 out of 6 years before being gifted (as we see now) an incredible roster after the expansion draft with VGK.

He has been fired the 3rd year with all 3 teams he has been on.

I think he is better than JC, but give me the coach that has won a cup, made the playoffs 10x, and lasted in his position before Gallant.

Not interested in Lavy. Think he is done, he was fired too. Didn't like what he has done with the Preds after that finals appearance.

Gallant is the coach I'd like, I like what he has done. I like his work more and think he has more to offer.

 

[Flahawkfan]

Coaching Changes, Cap Crunch, New President, Old VP of Hockey Ops - Need some new ideas here to improve and improve quickly:

1) Fire JC
2) Bowman Hires Lavi on condition that seabrook retires and becomes asst coach. This will keep core settled.
3) Dan (who calls a grown man Danny anyway?) puts Stan on notice this is a make or break year - and allows him additional cap for seabrook to wheel and deal. 1 or 2 year deals ONLY.

20-21 will be a shortened season most likely due to state rules about gatherings so even if we suck, it will only be short term. This will set up a reset at the end of next season if nothing more is done to improve.
If we only go halfway on the purge now, you are setting the next coach (in my example Lavi) to fail.

So many issues - and I don't have 40+ more years to see another cup run.