I'm guessing I'm one of the posters with the dum dum beliefs.
You used logical inference on that response...
I think that is it.
Is Bylsma getting the most out of this roster? Probably not, but its hard to know because they haven't won anything. This also may be protecting Bylsma. We have heard Murray say multiple times they have to learn to win.
So take a team like Pittsburgh that knows how to win, when they lose it falls on the coach.
I found a good quote from the Pens GM on why Sullivan is winning. The last part is what caught my attention.
He has good system yes, but Rutherford adds "that's worked."
By the way I dont think Murray could say any of this about Bylsma.
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/...livan-contract-extension/stories/201612260100
First bolded: It's not "hard to know because they haven't won anything". An internally consistent comparison and therefore valid conclusion can be made by watching the difference in their effectiveness in the games where they played a strong puck support breakout moving out of the D-zone as a unit as against the default of trying to receive stretch passes while static / flatfooted in a clogged neutral zone with defenders camped on the center ice redline. Look at how more dangerous their scoring attempts are when Bogosian swoops down low from the boards vs. a dump and chase trying to win 50/50 pucks.
Second bolded: That's a false dichotomy. Pittsburgh or any other team can look bad and it 100% be the players fault if they fail to mark their man back-checking on odd-man rushes, or failing to reverse the puck D to D on an agressive opponents forecheck, etc.
I don't know if any research has ever been done for NHL, but there are probably several causal buckets for wins.
1. Simple on-ice talent difference (this includes injuries).
2. Luck / bad officiating. (Statistically, NHL goals are essentially random events, when sample sizes are small - i.e., in particular for single-games.)
3. Travel / tiredness / schedule.
4. Coaching (base system selection and willingness / ability to adjust to available talent which includes injuries, linemates and willingness to hold steady or juggle (or resist the urge to juggle), line matching in-game (given limited opportunities to do so).
Third bolded: As Struck noted, Bylsma's fetish for stretch pass breakouts is fine, IF
a) Sabres had better personnel to do it, or personnel who could do it more universally / consistently.
b) Sabres lacked personnel suited for a better breakout system.
c) Sabres had a "plan B" to use when the opponent camps the center-ice line looking to poach the passing lanes.
Bylsma has shown you can have any color model T Ford you want as long as it is black.
So what is the difference in performance that a team can expect to get out of a top tier coach versus a poor coach? Talking in general terms and also if you want Bylsma as well.
If you took a coach in the top five coaches and put them on a team to replace a bottom five coach and could re-run the season what would the difference be in terms of wins? Is a 5 game spread reasonable?
I think it's probably at least that difference. I'm thinking >/= 10% of points between top 5 and bottom 5 coaches, which is about 5 wins (10 points) assuming the league median in points is about 90pts (10% = 9). That 10% of points normalizes for level of talent (& injuries) on a team, whether you're talking Avalanche vs. Capitals/Pens.
