Richards Firing Timing

[Mayor Bee]

Looks like my vote is on an island.

Oh well, last time I was one of a handful opposing a strong tide of "fire this guy", I ended up being both right and vindicated.

This is pretty false, it's actually well documented that teams get a "bump" from a coaching change that is usually good for 4 wins or so.

That's not documented anywhere. And believe me, I've looked, and the results are in a spreadsheet on my computer.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Oh well, last time I was one of a handful opposing a strong tide of "fire this guy", I ended up being both right and vindicated.

This is much better comedy than your all-caps old-time-hockey-guy impersonation.

In other news, I get smarter every time I post. I am almost 20,000 smart.

 

[major major]

Looks like my vote is on an island.

Oh well, last time I was one of a handful opposing a strong tide of "fire this guy", I ended up being both right and vindicated.

Last time we were both right. This time I'll keep being right and you will be wrong.

Fire Richards. Fire Jarmo.

 

[CBJ goalie]

I voted to continue to give him a chance still.
Not a fan of knee jerk reactions....ok, starting 0-6 is horrible, but let's see what this team is made of, if they can bounce back.
Statistically, they're kinda f'ed to make the playoffs, but who doesn't love a challenge?

 

[DJA]

Additional reading on statistical results from coaching changes:

http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/09/22/nhl-coach-changes-positive-negative-nhl-history/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ally-improve-puck-possession/article22409961/

 

[major major]

Firing a coach after 0-3 is knee-jerk. Firing a coach after 0-6, where you have 13 goals for and 30 against, is prudent.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Additional reading on statistical results from coaching changes:

http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/09/22/nhl-coach-changes-positive-negative-nhl-history/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ally-improve-puck-possession/article22409961/

And right in the negative changes column is an example we all remember, and one that demonstrates what's been called "statistical idiocy". That's the 2011-12 season, when Arniel was fired and replaced by Richards.

The Arniel-coached team, on average, outshot the opposition by 2.8 shots per game. The Richards-coached team, on average, was outshot by the opposition by 5.3 shots per game. That's a swing of -8.1 shots per game, and a drop of 6.62 possession percentage points.

Arniel was 11-25-5 in his half of the season, Richards 18-21-2.

Or look below that, to the 1970-71 Montreal Canadiens. Their shots for dropped by 5.5 per game, and shots against rose by 4.8 per game. That's a swing of 10.3 per game, and a possession percentage drop of 7.88. They were 11-8-4 with the first coach (Claude Ruel), and 31-15-9 and Stanley Cup champions with the second one (Al MacNeil).

Or look above that, to the 2000-01 Montreal Canadiens. Their shots for dropped, their shots against rose, and the second coach still had a better record than the first one (5-13-2-0 for Alain Vigneault, 23-27-6-6 for Michel Therrien).

The nature of pro sports is that there are no real constants, just a lot of ebbs and flows to various degrees. I'd compare some of this stuff to the so-called "Sports Illustrated curse", which suggests that a team or player that ends up on the cover of Sports Illustrated is going to begin to fall off. For the SI curse, it's because it normally takes a couple of weeks of doing something at an extremely high level to get noticed, plus a few more days to actually get a player or team on the cover. In addition, a newcomer is more likely to end up on the cover for a lengthy hot streak instead of an established player. But since maintaining a blistering pace over a long period of time within a season is damn near impossible, it stands to reason that a player's hot streak is coming to an end anyway. The timing of everything makes it appear like more than a coincidence.

In the case of Ruel and Vigneault, was the team really that bad, or did a GM pull the trigger for other reasons? And did their successors have more success because they were better coaches, or because the team was destined to rebound to a higher norm than what they'd been doing earlier in the season? In the case of Arniel, it was more obviously a case of coaching philosophy (shoot from anywhere and everywhere at all times, no matter what) that changed when Richards took over. Without summoning Montreal fans to this thread, I'd be curious to know what (if anything) changed in those two cases.

 

[blahblah]

Oh well, last time I was one of a handful opposing a strong tide of "fire this guy", I ended up being both right and vindicated.

You're going to have to remind me of this one. The only time I remember you opposing the termination of someone it was Howson, which really doesn't fit your narrative.

I'm not going to read your history lesson in the above post (I read part of it); while I think you can learn from the past you tend to take too much stock in it.

As far as the timing, I won't begin to guess with the infinitely patient FO.

 

[NotWendell]

Wait until a coach that has won a Stanley Cup gets fired then drop the hammer.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Wait until a coach that has won a Stanley Cup gets fired then drop the hammer.

It's happened. Al MacNeil (mayor bee referenced him in the post before yours) was fired after winning the 1971 Stanley Cup. He allegedly "stepped down". LOL

The worst coaching change found Montreal and its faithful cannibalizing its coaching talent. Claude Ruel, by late 1970, was physically ill from the rigors of the Habs coaching experience. The replacement for legend Toe Blake, Ruel’s biggest sins were not winning the Stanley Cup every year and, for some reporters and his players, his struggles with the English language. Not a strong disciplinarian on a team of players with typical hockey-player maturity (recall Dryden’s The Game, plus what you already know about 20-something men), Ruel was the butt of jokes and scrutiny over much of his tenure (and beyond). When he resigned in December 1970 to a team advising role (one he would hold over the entire Bowman Montreal dynasty), the Canadiens’ possession went into freefall, dropping from 56.4% to 48.5% under replacement Al MacNeil. A PDO that bounced to 1039 (up from Ruel’s league-average 1003, likely due in some part to the post-Ruel acquisition of Frank Mahovlich) helped offset some of the issues, though, and somehow the Canadiens were able to scrape out a Stanley Cup despite a heap of criticism piled on MacNeil. MacNeil stepped down after the season and was replaced by Scotty Bowman…and you know the rest.

http://hockey-graphs.com/2014/09/22/nhl-coach-changes-positive-negative-nhl-history/

The Jackets have the worst PDO in the league and that number will improve no matter who the coach is. Bob's save percentage can't possibly stay put at 83%. The worm will turn soon enough no matter what is done. The worst PDO in the league was 97.1 last year and the Jackets are currently at 90.5.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/teamstats.php?disp=1&db=201415&sit=5v5&sort=PDO&sortdir=DESC

 

[Viqsi]

Looks like my vote is on an island.

Oh well, last time I was one of a handful opposing a strong tide of "fire this guy", I ended up being both right and vindicated.

When I was putting the poll together, I had that one mentally noted as "Mayor Bee's selection".


The issue I've got going here is that I've seen plenty of arguments from you for not firing the coach, but not necessarily for retaining Richards beyond "wins track record". Excellent argument against option #1, but not necessarily options #2 or #3.

With Howson, it was easy for me to see - the guy had a coherent plan, was sticking to it, had made major progress towards same, and given what he had to start with was getting unexpectedly good results. I'm not seeing that with Richards, and we should have had some improvement just from our kids getting better. Instead, with the obvious exception of the Injury Year, the team's been fairly consistent in starting slow, making a mad dash for the playoffs towards the end, and just barely making (or not making) it. That doesn't feel like coherent team management to me, and that's why I have my doubts, and so seeing an even worse start to the season has me wanting to seek alternatives.

I suppose if you take the position that Kekalainen has horrifically torn the roster apart or something, that'd make more sense. But I'm not buying that either. I'm not happy with everything he's done by a long shot, but I don't think we've been disastered by the guy.

So... why Richards, in particular? If I didn't know you any better, I'd say it was because he's a Howson hire, but I try to give you more credit than that.

 

[Viqsi]

This is much better comedy than your all-caps old-time-hockey-guy impersonation.

In other news, I get smarter every time I post. I am almost 20,000 smart.

I think that would make me the smartest Jackets fan. Either me or Robert.

 

[Mayor Bee]

You're going to have to remind me of this one. The only time I remember you opposing the termination of someone it was Howson, which really doesn't fit your narrative.

I'm not going to read your history lesson in the above post (I read part of it); while I think you can learn from the past you tend to take too much stock in it.

Tell you what, I'll pare it down to three sentences.

1) The first rule of analytics is "does it state the obvious?" If not, then one would question the effectiveness of the method being used to analyze something.

2) If the two "worst all-time" examples using this analytic method were both teams that actually improved their on-ice record significantly (and when one of them involved this very team in the recent past so we can remember it), then it would be prudent to question the effectiveness of the methodology.

As far as the timing, I won't begin to guess with the infinitely patient FO.

At times, I feel like I live in a parallel universe where six games without moving on Richards is "infinite patience" but moving after 3 wins out of 23 games with Hitchcock was "premature".

 

[Viqsi]

At times, I feel like I live in a parallel universe where six games without moving on Richards is "infinite patience" but moving after 3 wins out of 23 games with Hitchcock was "premature".

That's part of the disconnect. It's not "six games", it's that plus the slow-start history that has had folks frustrated pretty much ever since he took over full time. And, in some cases, personnel decisions and in-game adjustments and other such nuanced details.

 

[Mayor Bee]

When I was putting the poll together, I had that one mentally noted as "Mayor Bee's selection".


The issue I've got going here is that I've seen plenty of arguments from you for not firing the coach, but not necessarily for retaining Richards beyond "wins track record". Excellent argument against option #1, but not necessarily options #2 or #3.
...
So... why Richards, in particular? If I didn't know you any better, I'd say it was because he's a Howson hire, but I try to give you more credit than that.

I think I deserve a bit more credit than that.

Generally speaking, I don't advocate firing a coach anyway unless it's clear that someone is completely clueless. And those are pretty few and far between.

My own expectations for a coach vary pretty widely depending on what the job is and what the situation is. For a young team in the NHL, I place a bigger premium on player development than on things like in-game management; if it were a veteran team, in-game management and tactical things would rise to the top. If it's a rebuilding team with aging players, it would be more on putting players in situations to boost their trade value.

This, as a young team, means that I personally place a bigger value on player development. And time and time again, Richards has shown that he can get more out of these players (as individuals) than expected, and he has a track record going back to Minnesota and into the AHL of doing the same. Everyone swore that putting a highly-skilled Ryan Johansen in the bottom six on the wing was an idiotic idea, and there were plenty of quotes around the time about how Columbus was ruining him. Look at him now. Nick Foligno came in as a third-line wing, and he just finished in the top-10 in scoring a year ago. Boone Jenner was a fourth-line wing; look at him now. There are a handful of later-round picks for whom expectations were low; they're vital players today. I could keep going, but I won't. The only one who didn't come along was Tim Erixon, who hasn't come along for anyone else either despite plenty of chances.

Absolutely credit the GM who acquired them and the scouts who found them, but the coach deserves a ton of credit for actually getting them to the point of the payoff. The only reason that this team was talked about as a contender this year at all is because of the terrific development of prospects and potential players. And it's not like we have to look back very far to remember top prospect after top prospect who flamed out spectacularly, and later picks who amounted to absolutely nothing for this team or in the trade market.

 

[Kev22]

My feeling is that because after tonight the next 4 games and 7 of the next 8 games are on the road, if he doesn't win tonight, it happens tomorrow. I have a feeling that Jarmo and JD have made the decision and it's based on what happens tonight. They win, maybe there's a chance they turn it around and maybe they give it another week. He loses, he's out and a new coach will be in place tomorrow in time to get on the plane and head to Minnesota.

BTW, has anyone put out an APB on Jackets One?

 

[seeitsaveit13]

And it's not like we have to look back very far to remember top prospect after top prospect who flamed out spectacularly, and later picks who amounted to absolutely nothing for this team or in the trade market.

Ugh. Buddy of mine was going through the "trade tracker" for the Jackets the other day and just the names he listed of guys who flamed out, underachieved, or sucked for us and then excelled elsewhere made me want to vomit.

 

[Viqsi]

I think I deserve a bit more credit than that.

Generally speaking, I don't advocate firing a coach anyway unless it's clear that someone is completely clueless. And those are pretty few and far between.

My own expectations for a coach vary pretty widely depending on what the job is and what the situation is. For a young team in the NHL, I place a bigger premium on player development than on things like in-game management; if it were a veteran team, in-game management and tactical things would rise to the top. If it's a rebuilding team with aging players, it would be more on putting players in situations to boost their trade value.

This, as a young team, means that I personally place a bigger value on player development. And time and time again, Richards has shown that he can get more out of these players (as individuals) than expected, and he has a track record going back to Minnesota and into the AHL of doing the same. Everyone swore that putting a highly-skilled Ryan Johansen in the bottom six on the wing was an idiotic idea, and there were plenty of quotes around the time about how Columbus was ruining him. Look at him now. Nick Foligno came in as a third-line wing, and he just finished in the top-10 in scoring a year ago. Boone Jenner was a fourth-line wing; look at him now. There are a handful of later-round picks for whom expectations were low; they're vital players today. I could keep going, but I won't. The only one who didn't come along was Tim Erixon, who hasn't come along for anyone else either despite plenty of chances.

Absolutely credit the GM who acquired them and the scouts who found them, but the coach deserves a ton of credit for actually getting them to the point of the payoff. The only reason that this team was talked about as a contender this year at all is because of the terrific development of prospects and potential players. And it's not like we have to look back very far to remember top prospect after top prospect who flamed out spectacularly, and later picks who amounted to absolutely nothing for this team or in the trade market.

The followup, of course, then becomes "what about the blueline"? Because it's not just Tim Erixon. Dalton Prout has regressed, Cody Goloubef has yet to step up like he ought to (altho he looked good just now, and if he keeps that up I'll be more forgiving), and John Moore also didn't progress (while he was here under Richards, anyways). Bit early to tell on Connauton, but the first look was amazing and followups have been worrisome at best. Savard's doing better, but he's also overworked and his place in the lineup is controversial given his not-so-great advanced stats. (And Murray's been perpetually injured, but that's not HCTR's fault.)

It's fair to say that a lot of the progress in forward development has been overlooked or forgotten in the interim, I suppose. I still think it's possible to do significantly better with the vets as well, tho. This "slack off at the start and turn it on later" pattern isn't going to be a good one for our kids to learn.

(That and I suspect some folks would also take this as good reason to endorse Larsen as interim. )

 

[major major]

The followup, of course, then becomes "what about the blueline"? Because it's not just Tim Erixon. Dalton Prout has regressed, Cody Goloubef has yet to step up like he ought to (altho he looked good just now, and if he keeps that up I'll be more forgiving), and John Moore also didn't progress (while he was here under Richards, anyways). Bit early to tell on Connauton, but the first look was amazing and followups have been worrisome at best.

Erixon, Prout, Connauton, and Moore are all easy enough. Those aren't good d-men.

But Cody? He's looked good everytime I've seen him play for years now. Richards hasn't failed to develop him. He's failed to notice him. He's failed to notice that Cody is a much much better d-man than Connauton and Prout. And that's mind boggling to me and suggests that Richards is really not competent enough to keep the job.

 

[Viqsi]

Erixon, Prout, Connauton, and Moore are all easy enough. Those aren't good d-men.

But Cody? He's looked good everytime I've seen him play for years now. Richards hasn't failed to develop him. He's failed to notice him. He's failed to notice that Cody is a much much better d-man than Connauton and Prout. And that's mind boggling to me and suggests that Richards is really not competent enough to keep the job.

That's the obvious anti-Richards conclusion to draw. I'm looking for alternatives.

 

[kfan22]

Maybe they are waiting until after Thursday night so he can coach one more time in his home state

 

[Nanabijou]

 

[Mayor Bee]

The followup, of course, then becomes "what about the blueline"? Because it's not just Tim Erixon. Dalton Prout has regressed, Cody Goloubef has yet to step up like he ought to (altho he looked good just now, and if he keeps that up I'll be more forgiving), and John Moore also didn't progress (while he was here under Richards, anyways). Bit early to tell on Connauton, but the first look was amazing and followups have been worrisome at best. Savard's doing better, but he's also overworked and his place in the lineup is controversial given his not-so-great advanced stats. (And Murray's been perpetually injured, but that's not HCTR's fault.)

It's fair to say that a lot of the progress in forward development has been overlooked or forgotten in the interim, I suppose. I still think it's possible to do significantly better with the vets as well, tho. This "slack off at the start and turn it on later" pattern isn't going to be a good one for our kids to learn.

(That and I suspect some folks would also take this as good reason to endorse Larsen as interim. )

Erixon, Prout, Connauton, and Moore are all easy enough. Those aren't good d-men.

But Cody? He's looked good everytime I've seen him play for years now. Richards hasn't failed to develop him. He's failed to notice him. He's failed to notice that Cody is a much much better d-man than Connauton and Prout. And that's mind boggling to me and suggests that Richards is really not competent enough to keep the job.

Agreed on several of the prospects; I think the only conclusion is that they simply weren't good prospects to begin with, and the fact that they haven't exactly been a hot commodity with the various teams they've ended up with bears that out.

I don't know what's going on with Goloubef. Given the track record with the forwards that everyone swore were being developed wrong, which mirrors this in some ways, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the coaching staff.

 

[blahblah]

Tell you what, I'll pare it down to three sentences.

1) The first rule of analytics is "does it state the obvious?" If not, then one would question the effectiveness of the method being used to analyze something.

2) If the two "worst all-time" examples using this analytic method were both teams that actually improved their on-ice record significantly (and when one of them involved this very team in the recent past so we can remember it), then it would be prudent to question the effectiveness of the methodology.

Honestly, I have no idea where you are going with this. It certainly doesn't answer the question I asked. I certainly did not ask for any rules on analytics. To be honest, I don't think I care where you were going with this. The Richards situation stands on it's own. Comparing it to other regimes is meaningless. Even his uptick in performance isn't close to being good enough.

At times, I feel like I live in a parallel universe where six games without moving on Richards is "infinite patience" but moving after 3 wins out of 23 games with Hitchcock was "premature".

Not sure who you were talking to. I remember at the time saying I wouldn't terminate him but I wasn't surprised it happened. I was actually a bit surprised it didn't happen sooner.

Having said that, the off season moves were meant to improve the team. Howson set Hitch up to fail with his off season moves. There was no surprise on my part when the team struggled. The said can't be said with this start.

On a side note, to me I'm looking at Richards entire body of work. I'm not impressed. Haven't been. The reasons are on these boards and I've been discussing it for years now. I'm not going to pollute this thread further with ancient history.

Honestly I haven't seen much from the defenders of Richards beyond record and he's a players coach. I've given many reasons I don't like him as a coach. I haven't seen much on why people like him as one.

I've said for a couple of years now that I think Richards is keeping the seat warm for the guy that will actually take our team to the next level. We'll see if he survives this.

 

[Viqsi]

Agreed on several of the prospects; I think the only conclusion is that they simply weren't good prospects to begin with, and the fact that they haven't exactly been a hot commodity with the various teams they've ended up with bears that out.

I don't know what's going on with Goloubef. Given the track record with the forwards that everyone swore were being developed wrong, which mirrors this in some ways, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the coaching staff.

And that's the obvious pro-Richards conclusion. Sigh!

Looks like the only way we can settle this is pistols at dawn. MB, MM, whichever of you ends up not making it, it was nice posting with you.