Torts ended up leaving to go coach elsewhere, and didn't go into management anywhere. It kind of looks like he just reeeeallly didn't want to coach this team anymore and wanted to find a role where he could keep his paycheck.
Interesting Info: Part XXII (Jackets-related "tidbits" here)
- Thread starter Double-Shift Lasse
- Start date
Torts ended up leaving to go coach elsewhere, and didn't go into management anywhere. It kind of looks like he just reeeeallly didn't want to coach this team anymore and wanted to find a role where he could keep his paycheck.
FINALLY some sort of explanation that makes sense.
To think, we were this close to having Tortorella in management and Babcock coaching.
Unfortunately winning hockey games isn’t what’s important apparently.
We already had reporting that implied that Torts was trying to find a way to quit while keeping his paycheck, so this doesn't supply a new explanation, just more evidence for the report we had.
I take it you also know the conversations Torts has had with the upper management in PHI regarding his “future” with the organization, along with having in depth knowledge about how much his opinion is valued there and how much “control” or “pull” he has in making roster decisions that sometimes coaches don’t always have, and he seemingly either lost these privileges at some time or never had them with Jarmo/JD/the CBJ. He seemed/seems to have much more input on things than many coaches and (like Babcock) it seems to be part of the package with them.
These things were all hinted at and talked about in the past. There was a noticeable SHIFT from Jarmo and the type of build of the team, quite literally AWAY from the “Torts style” that was noticed by the fans. The question still is, WHY??
I still say fan pressure had a HUGE impact on it. Just as logical as many other things passed off as truth or reality.
The “reporting” we get from the (team employed?) journalists is often times nothing more than posters here trying to express and voice their personal opinions while using “facts” and “statistics” to justify it all as “truth”.
Sounds to me like Torts was simply looking to either KEEP or ADD to the “control” or “power” he had in regards to makings decisions regarding the roster/team personnel and/or just more important general decisions regarding the organization.
CBJ said no, PHI said yes….
The "Torts style" players were acquired by Howson, and naturally moved on in their final UFA years when we started a rebuild. That part is to be expected. They're not easy to replace.
Where Jarmo is at fault is that he focused the rebuild around the soft skill elements and left everything else until a later date, which I think was wrong, but pretty much the way 90% of HFers think rebuilds should be handled.
Whether Howson initiated bringing in a certain type of player and some of the “core” players in the change, I thinks it’s ridiculous you are ignoring or dismissing the fact that the Jarmo/JD led management team 100% continued to build on that idea/foundation by even bringing in Tortorella, and on top of that seemed to completely embrace anything Torts wanted to do or say for a certain period of time. A period that both of us agree the CBJ team was playing “special” hockey that could have legitimately led to a Stanley Cup, or at the very least much more “on paper” playoff success.
Jarmo and JD had plenty of interviews and comments backing up Torts in essentially any possible way. It was to a point where it WASN’T “Tort’s style”, but, the “CBJ style” was how it was looked at. It wasn’t just the “style” of the players, but, the “mindset” they could bring to the ice.
Iron Balls McGinty
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2005
- 9,173
- 7,266
Jarmo is guilty of changing his mind like he probably changed underwear.
That was a period of time where they had the hard to play against mentailty but lacked the elite skill of many other teams outside of Panarin. Once Panarin bolted for his CT garage, he flipped a 180 and started building a small fast team desperate to replace him that was the antithesis of Torts' style. We went small and soft with a crap ton of offensive d men who can't defend and the wheels fell off.
I wish Aaron the best of luck, may he recover as soon as possible! 
---
When I am reading people's illnesses on the forum, I feel like I'm the only healthy person.
---
When I am reading people's illnesses on the forum, I feel like I'm the only healthy person.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
I know we hate Jarmo now, but I had the opportunity to speak candidly on a number of occasions with both he and Torts. Both said repeatedly that they were on the same page and they met daily to discuss personnel and team philosophy.
Jarmo often said he wasn't acquiring Torts-type players or the opposite. That he was acquiring players with beneficial skillsets and tasking Torts with teaching them how to be complete players - pros, if you will. Torts understood this, both organizationally and as far as his individual relationships with players were concerned. Indeed, I would say he relished it.
The idea of Torts wanting to collect a paycheck but not "work," or the idea of Jarmo giving Torts the wrong players - both of those miss the boat, IMO. I do believe there were some individual circumstances - PLD most painfully - that left a sour taste in Torts' mouth about the state of young players in general. I believe he started to form an opinion that young players were just not as amenable to learning the kinds of things Torts knew were important, and some of the spark for teaching and guiding young players into becoming good pros was lost. (I believe his much-publicized recent rant supports this idea.)
Has he regained it in Philly? Did both he and the CBJ just need a fresh start? I don't know. But I think blaming Torts leaving directly and solely at Jarmo and his "being influenced by fans to bring in soft young players" is an oversimplification.
Jarmo often said he wasn't acquiring Torts-type players or the opposite. That he was acquiring players with beneficial skillsets and tasking Torts with teaching them how to be complete players - pros, if you will. Torts understood this, both organizationally and as far as his individual relationships with players were concerned. Indeed, I would say he relished it.
The idea of Torts wanting to collect a paycheck but not "work," or the idea of Jarmo giving Torts the wrong players - both of those miss the boat, IMO. I do believe there were some individual circumstances - PLD most painfully - that left a sour taste in Torts' mouth about the state of young players in general. I believe he started to form an opinion that young players were just not as amenable to learning the kinds of things Torts knew were important, and some of the spark for teaching and guiding young players into becoming good pros was lost. (I believe his much-publicized recent rant supports this idea.)
Has he regained it in Philly? Did both he and the CBJ just need a fresh start? I don't know. But I think blaming Torts leaving directly and solely at Jarmo and his "being influenced by fans to bring in soft young players" is an oversimplification.
Last edited:
Iron Balls McGinty
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2005
- 9,173
- 7,266
How does all of this jive with the narrative that Torts wanted to quit but Foligno talked him into staying?
Blue Jackets Sunday Gathering: Gerard Gallant's redemption, John Tortorella wanted to quit a year earlier
Gallant was with the Blue Jackets in their incredibly turbulent first seven seasons in Columbus, including three as head coach.
theathletic.com
The Athletic confirmed this week, however, that Tortorella tried to step down last offseason after the Blue Jackets were bounced from the bubble in Toronto following a qualifying-round win over Toronto and a first-round playoff loss to Tampa Bay. The veteran coach was reading the room and reading the tea leaves, realizing the direction of the club was heading was nothing close to what he thought they were building just two years earlier.
Two issues brought Tortorella back behind the bench for the final year of his contract, however.
- The Blue Jackets wouldn’t fire him, which is to say they weren’t going to pay him the $2.5 million (per his contract) if he wasn’t coaching. They’d find other work for him to do within the organization for the final year, but at a lesser rate than $2.5 million. Well, the coach is a coach; that’s what he does. The coach is also human, so the money was important.
- Blue Jackets captain Nick Foligno had lunch with Tortorella, during which he urged the coach to return for one last season to “finish what we started” after four straight playoff berths with the same cluster of veteran players. Tortorella may have a flammable temper, but he’s an old softy for personal appeals, and Foligno’s pitch worked.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
I don't know. My notion is that Torts' will was eroding, so maybe it fits? But maybe not.
i've long said that public analytics miss the mark because they don't adequately account for usage/teammates. dom has been a big culprit of that, but he wrote a really good piece today on that topic.
he did charts for all the teams, and the cbj one is really informative. remember – this is only a measure of usage/teammates, not individual impact/ability.
some superstar-level players are far into the bottom left quadrant. but when you have multiple star forwards who can crush those minutes, it makes life easier for the supporting guys, pushing them to the right side of this chart (i.e. draisaitl/mcdavid pushing hyman/rnh/kane way over to the right).
with that in mind, some things on the CBJ chart that jump out to me:
first, about the top line:
second, the top left quadrant, where fun goes to die:
finally, some observations based on the above to re-frame player card impacts:
he did charts for all the teams, and the cbj one is really informative. remember – this is only a measure of usage/teammates, not individual impact/ability.
some superstar-level players are far into the bottom left quadrant. but when you have multiple star forwards who can crush those minutes, it makes life easier for the supporting guys, pushing them to the right side of this chart (i.e. draisaitl/mcdavid pushing hyman/rnh/kane way over to the right).
with that in mind, some things on the CBJ chart that jump out to me:
first, about the top line:
- gaudreau appears to be having the same type of impact on jenner that a lot of other stars have on the passengers on their line
- jenner isn't a lifting force on his teammates the way folks tend to think – he's in the same area as guys like bryan rust, alexis lafreniere and ondrej palat
- this team sorely needs a second star forward to have a gaudreau-like impact on another line, because the rest of the lineup is not having a fun time based on this chart
second, the top left quadrant, where fun goes to die:
- ideally, this is where you want to hide fringe NHL guys who aren't going to produce offense anyway (hence olivier and bean)
- fantilli, johnson and jiricek are all in this quadrant, presumably because pascal is so afraid of them getting pantsed defensively, but now their usage isn't aligned to their talents (skill/scoring) – a sign of cowardly coaching imo
- proper usage would put those young guys in the top right quadrant – sheltered defensively but with good offensive matchups/usage. plenty of other teams understand that – hence guys lke leo carlsson, matthew poitras, lukas reichel and shane pinto being in that quadrant
finally, some observations based on the above to re-frame player card impacts:
- kent johnson (-2 off, +1 def)'s impact pretty closely mirrors his usage.
- jiricek's performance (-6 off, +4 def) also follows his usage, but more extreme in both directions. dom's model has him with the best defensive impact on the team (+4), which is likely influenced by his usage.
- gudbranson also has a positive defensive impact (+1) despite playing harder minutes, which is good! but he's at a -6 offensively (same as jiricek) despite favorable offensive circumstances. feels like they would have both done better with swapped usage lol
- all of the other CBJ defensemen are getting crushed defensively, which tracks with their usage. werenski is the only one making up for it offensively (+15!)
- yegor chinakhov is a positive offensive (+1) and defensive (+2!) player despite being in the low left quadrant. sneakily on a star track imo
That’s all great, but, the focus should be why we have zero players in the “easy offense/easy defense” category……how do we get the players there?
What does “usage chart” even mean in this situation?? Faceoff location??
The CBJ team both sucks at “driving play”, as individuals and as a team. They also suck at faceoffs. Both things they were good at before they started “sucking” again.
Maybe we should be looking for players with “heart” instead of “skill” again.
What does “usage chart” even mean in this situation?? Faceoff location??
The CBJ team both sucks at “driving play”, as individuals and as a team. They also suck at faceoffs. Both things they were good at before they started “sucking” again.
Maybe we should be looking for players with “heart” instead of “skill” again.
you don't necessarily want to have players there, and not every team can have players there. you basically need to have:
- stars at the top (usually)
- depth players who (usually) bring offensive value
- a smart staff that makes a concerted effort to deploy those players in a manner that maximizes their strengths while hiding their weaknesses
- boston:
- can be VERY selective with poitras + lohrei's minutes while also putting them with good players.
- recognizes that kevin shattenkirk can move the needle offensively while being a defensive liability.
- has the star power and depth to manufacture that situation
- as a result, all three of those guys are in the top right
- dallas
- has nils lundkvist in the top right, but everyone else is below the center line.
- in other words, they probably skip him when there are key defensive matchups, but put him out there to feast on defensively weak lines/pairs, and with good teammates to support him
- carolina:
- tony deangelo is more top middle than top right on the chart, but he's almost off the chart for the 'easy defense' part
- this is because carolina HEAVILY shelters him defensively, but knows he can feast on easy matchups if supported with good teammates
you can think of this chart as sort of a grading curve for the value model that dom uses.
in his model (which i've had gripes with in the past), each player has a net offensive and defensive value. this chart is his way to 'normalize' the data based on quality of teammates + quality of competition + usage.
as an example, jenner plays big minutes with gaudreau, which means he is in an 'easy offense' environment. but he's also playing against other team's top lines – which tend to primarily focus on chance creation instead of chance prevention – so he's in a harder defensive environment.
so you can use this chart to create a sort of grading curve for his ratings in the model. so if he's a +4 offensive player, this chart says +1 of that is due to how they're using him.
i've long said that public analytics miss the mark because they don't adequately account for usage/teammates. dom has been a big culprit of that, but he wrote a really good piece today on that topic.
he did charts for all the teams, and the cbj one is really informative. remember – this is only a measure of usage/teammates, not individual impact/ability.
some superstar-level players are far into the bottom left quadrant. but when you have multiple star forwards who can crush those minutes, it makes life easier for the supporting guys, pushing them to the right side of this chart (i.e. draisaitl/mcdavid pushing hyman/rnh/kane way over to the right).
with that in mind, some things on the CBJ chart that jump out to me:
first, about the top line:
- gaudreau appears to be having the same type of impact on jenner that a lot of other stars have on the passengers on their line
- jenner isn't a lifting force on his teammates the way folks tend to think – he's in the same area as guys like bryan rust, alexis lafreniere and ondrej palat
- this team sorely needs a second star forward to have a gaudreau-like impact on another line, because the rest of the lineup is not having a fun time based on this chart
second, the top left quadrant, where fun goes to die:
- ideally, this is where you want to hide fringe NHL guys who aren't going to produce offense anyway (hence olivier and bean)
- fantilli, johnson and jiricek are all in this quadrant, presumably because pascal is so afraid of them getting pantsed defensively, but now their usage isn't aligned to their talents (skill/scoring) – a sign of cowardly coaching imo
- proper usage would put those young guys in the top right quadrant – sheltered defensively but with good offensive matchups/usage. plenty of other teams understand that – hence guys lke leo carlsson, matthew poitras, lukas reichel and shane pinto being in that quadrant
finally, some observations based on the above to re-frame player card impacts:
- kent johnson (-2 off, +1 def)'s impact pretty closely mirrors his usage.
- jiricek's performance (-6 off, +4 def) also follows his usage, but more extreme in both directions. dom's model has him with the best defensive impact on the team (+4), which is likely influenced by his usage.
- gudbranson also has a positive defensive impact (+1) despite playing harder minutes, which is good! but he's at a -6 offensively (same as jiricek) despite favorable offensive circumstances. feels like they would have both done better with swapped usage lol
- all of the other CBJ defensemen are getting crushed defensively, which tracks with their usage. werenski is the only one making up for it offensively (+15!)
- yegor chinakhov is a positive offensive (+1) and defensive (+2!) player despite being in the low left quadrant. sneakily on a star track imo
Very insightful.
I'm a little confused on the math here. Dom's player's ratings have obviously been extremely team biased. So when he is calculating the difficulty given certain linemates, is that using his non-normalized ratings for those linemates? That might explain why we have no one in the top right quadrants.
Regardless it would be difficult on this team for Vincent to put any player in the top right quadrant.
One thing I've seen from other analyses is that the variance in defensive difficulty isn't as high as offensive difficulty, for almost all players. Players often have the same linemates that they get a given level of offensive opportunity from, but their opponents change shift to shift. Everyone plays everyone. But here the Blue Jackets have much more defensive variance. Do the other clubs look like that in Dom's charts, or is that peculiar to our team?
Looks like the Jackets are going to get Buffalo's 7th round pick this year. The trade with Buffalo was contingent on ERob playing at least 45 games so with tonights scratch, he won't meet that threshold.
TaketheCannoli
RIP
Considering the source MacLean is questionable and Tortorella is coaching not in management somewhere, I'm inclined to agree with you.
Friedman has been saying things on this Torts to management thing in some of the later podcasts, and in the most recent one (free quote day from Maurice or whatever) said that Philly management denied any "Torts to management" talks whatsoever, like it hasn't even been a discussion with Torts. It's quite interesting how this topic seems to live on despite denials - I guess we'll see eventually.
Ice9
Registered User
Guy would bring a fire to an organization for sure.
It's sometimes dangerous to play with fire...
It's sometimes dangerous to play with fire...
koteka
Registered User
I saw something recently about Werenski now being 2nd all time for the Jackets in assists. Congrats to Zach! So I looked into team records.
And the question I come away with is why are Boone Jenner’s numbers more like Cam Atkinson’s numbers than Nick Foligno’s numbers.
Boone gets 53% of his points from goals. Cam got 53% of his CBJ points from goals. Foligno got 43% of his CBJ points from goals. Interestingly, Nash also got 53% of his CBJ points from goals.
Cam had the speed and breakaways so I understand his numbers. Nash played with inferior guys, so I understand why he had more goals than assists. But I would have thought Boone’s career numbers would be more like Foligno’s - two guys who were sometimes center and sometimes wings who score the greasy goals.
Any thoughts?
And the question I come away with is why are Boone Jenner’s numbers more like Cam Atkinson’s numbers than Nick Foligno’s numbers.
Boone gets 53% of his points from goals. Cam got 53% of his CBJ points from goals. Foligno got 43% of his CBJ points from goals. Interestingly, Nash also got 53% of his CBJ points from goals.
Cam had the speed and breakaways so I understand his numbers. Nash played with inferior guys, so I understand why he had more goals than assists. But I would have thought Boone’s career numbers would be more like Foligno’s - two guys who were sometimes center and sometimes wings who score the greasy goals.
Any thoughts?
Had wennberg finished his contract here, he might've been the all time leader in assists! He definitely would've had he stayed for his whole career.
Just got an email to RSVP for paint the ice. Which is great, love it. But it’s for April 14th. And we still have a game on April 16th.
WannabeFinn
Beloved One
Alex Nylander has more career points with the CBJ than Nikita Filatov
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XIII (Nanaki edition)
- Latest: Greschner4
