Management Travis Green [Head Coach]

[Micklebot]

yeah again. Can say that about anything. Stats are stats for a reason. Super successful coaches are usually deemed so because of their success which is a direct translation of their stats.

I hav choice but to give green a chance. But he’s not seen as an elite coach for a reason. And those reasons are in the numbers.

No, there is no direct connection of team stats to coaching actions. This isn't like a goal scorer where his goal total can be directly linked to him shooting the puck past the goalie, all coach actions have at best an indirect influence on the stats. If you put DJ Smith as the coach of the 84-85 oilers, he'd have great stats too, wouldn't make him a great coach though. Bylsma had fantastic stats but can't find a job after coaching a really bad Buffalo team. Was he an elite coach then suddenly forgot how to coach in Buffalo?

You can use team stats as a proxy for coaching success, but that's about as shallow an evaluation as it gets. At best, a coach influences the record in relation to a baseline of expected results from a roster. When you just look at records, you ignore what that baseline is, and the evaluation becomes useless. You start looking at Bylsma's .566 w% and comparing it to Trotz at .504 or Maurice at .470 and thinking the former is the man for the job.

Ideally, you evaluate what the coach does to achieve success. That's hard for fans to do, so instead we get the shallow evaluations.

 

[Tuna99]

yeah again. Can say that about anything. Stats are stats for a reason. Super successful coaches are usually deemed so because of their success which is a direct translation of their stats.

I hav choice but to give green a chance. But he’s not seen as an elite coach for a reason. And those reasons are in the numbers.

He’s an elite coach for getting wins but he completely ruined the culture and legacy of those Blackhawk’s teams and ruined the reputation of HOF players and completely sunk a proud fanbase - that’s not elite at all

Is Bev Preistman elite or a disgrace. She’s a disgrace, nobody will remember what she did before

 

[Burrowsaurus]

No, there is no direct connection of team stats to coaching actions. This isn't like a goal scorer where his goal total can be directly linked to him shooting the puck past the goalie, all coach actions have at best an indirect influence on the stats. If you put DJ Smith as the coach of the 84-85 oilers, he'd have great stats too, wouldn't make him a great coach though. Bylsma had fantastic stats but can't find a job after coaching a really bad Buffalo team. Was he an elite coach then suddenly forgot how to coach in Buffalo?

You can use team stats as a proxy for coaching success, but that's about as shallow an evaluation as it gets. At best, a coach influences the record in relation to a baseline of expected results from a roster. When you just look at records, you ignore what that baseline is, and the evaluation becomes useless. You start looking at Bylsma's .566 w% and comparing it to Trotz at .504 or Maurice at .470 and thinking the former is the man for the job.

Ideally, you evaluate what the coach does to achieve success. That's hard for fans to do, so instead we get the shallow evaluations.

I would be comfortable with bylsma lol.

There’s some variation in the tiers.

Like yeah there are likely some coach’s with a .530 win percentage that I like more than another coach with a .532 win percentage (for example). Point is. Both got solid win percentages.

Maurice has had a very long career. Some bad some good.

Again there’s experience there. Experienced coach is also a control to mitigating the risk of having poor coaching. Is it the strongest control? No.

We hired inexperienced and poor track record.

He’s an elite coach for getting wins but he completely ruined the culture and legacy of those Blackhawk’s teams and ruined the reputation of HOF players and completely sunk a proud fanbase - that’s not elite at all

Is Bev Preistman elite or a disgrace. She’s a disgrace, nobody will remember what she did before

I assume you’re talking about quenneville. Ethically no I would not hire quenneville. But that’s outside of the point here.

As for priestman. Whatever. Most teams cheat or try to cheat.

She’s gone because she got caught. And she was the sacrifice.

 

[Icelevel]

It’s interesting in Staois’ interview today he brought up Sean Tierney (analytics guy) when discussing the decision to hire Green. Wonder what data they have to make them high on him.

He also added that they’re data informed not data driven just to avoid any misinterpretation.

 

[Micklebot]

I would be comfortable with bylsma lol.

There’s some variation in the tiers.

Like yeah there are likely some coach’s with a .530 win percentage that I like more than another coach with a .532 win percentage (for example). Point is. Both got solid win percentages.

Maurice has had a very long career. Some bad some good.

Again there’s experience there. Experienced coach is also a control to mitigating the risk of having poor coaching. Is it the strongest control? No.

We hired inexperienced and poor track record.

I'm not particularly concerned with fans comfort with a coach, because frankly, it's based on indirect evidence. What does Bylsma do better than Green? Compare and contrast their skillsets, their strengths and weaknesses as coaches. You can't do that with Hockey DB. A long track record and a win% doesn't get you there. You're essentially proving my point.

Do I know that Green will be great? No, I don't have access to the information required to make an informed decision. That's what the interview and hiring process is for, to give the team hiring a coach access to vital information needed to evaluate a coach. We aren't mitigating anything by making decisions based on win% and games coached.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I'm not particularly concerned with fans comfort with a coach, because frankly, it's based on indirect evidence. What does Bylsma do better than Green? Compare and contrast their skillsets, their strengths and weaknesses as coaches. You can't do that with Hockey DB. A long track record and a win% doesn't get you there. You're essentially proving my point.

Do I know that Green will be great? No, I don't have access to the information required to make an informed decision. That's what the interview and hiring process is for, to give the team hiring a coach access to vital information needed to evaluate a coach. We aren't mitigating anything by making decisions based on win% and games coached.

You don’t think going out and hiring the most successful coach in terms of wins and losses mitigates the risk of having poor coaching? At least to some degree? To act like it’s something meaningless is ridiculous.

This is greens opportunity to extend his coaching career. Opportunities that previous names mentioned got early in their careers as well.

Just don’t know if our team and our situation was the right place for that opportunity

 

[Micklebot]

You don’t think going out and hiring the most successful coach in terms of wins and losses mitigates the risk of having poor coaching? At least to some degree? To act like it’s something meaningless is ridiculous.

This is greens opportunity to extend his coaching career. Opportunities that previous names mentioned got early in their careers as well.

Just don’t know if our team and our situation was the right place for that opportunity

The most successful coach that was available was likely Boudreau, but he wasn't the one most saw as the best available coach,

If the only data you have is record and experience, then ya, sure you hire the guy with the most. But if you're doing your job, you look beyond that and for the actual ability of the candidate. If I am looking to hire a programmer, and there's a guy with 15 years working at Microsoft, and another guy with 6 years at a failed start up, it would be foolish to stop there and hire the guy from Microsoft. I'm going to test his knowledge, and his abilities, and go beyond just where he worked and how long.

Record and experience should get your foot in the door, after that you have to show what you bring to the table, and it's what you bring that mitigates risk. There's a reason Maurice continued to get opportunities despite a mediocre record prior to Winnipeg. It's why DeBoer continued to get coaching jobs after his disappointing tenures in Florida and NJ. It's Why Paul MacLean is without a job despite a relatively solid .550 pts% (as compared to Deboer and and Maurice earlier in their careers. Because teams need to look deeper than win/loss.

 

[Silencio]

He also added that they’re data informed not data driven just to avoid any misinterpretation.

Data informed is good. Data driven leads to stuff like (non hockey example) pulling Jose Berrios in the 4th inning of a scoreless playoff game.

 

[bicboi64]

You don’t think going out and hiring the most successful coach in terms of wins and losses mitigates the risk of having poor coaching? At least to some degree? To act like it’s something meaningless is ridiculous.

This is greens opportunity to extend his coaching career. Opportunities that previous names mentioned got early in their careers as well.

Just don’t know if our team and our situation was the right place for that opportunity

I agree that this is Green's opportunity to extend his coaching career. It feels like the wrong place and time for Staios to give out that type of contract given how much we need someone established.

 

[Micklebot]

I agree that this is Green's opportunity to extend his coaching career. It feels like the wrong place and time for Staios to give out that type of contract given how much we need someone established.

The best coach this team has ever had wasn't established when he first arrived, and the team was in a very similar state.

I think the right fit is far more important than how established someone is, Colorado didn't hire someone established when Bednar came in and won the cup, Tbay didn't hire someone established when Cooper brought them back to back cups, when the Blues won the cup, it wasn't with someone established, Mike Sullivan wasn't established when he took over the penguins and won back to back cups, nor was Bylsma when he came in an won the cup, Babcock wasn't established when Detroit hired him and he took them to the cup, Carlyle wasn't established when he was hired and lead the ducks to the cup, Laviolette wasn't established when the Canes hired him and he lead them to the cup, Tortorella wasn't established when Tbay hired him and he took them to the cup.

 

[thinkwild]

Im not sure i would agree that we need an established coach. We need a good coach that can get the job done. As fans we feel we need an established coach because as fans that is really the only means we have for measuring who will be the right coach.

 

[inthewings]

The best coach this team has ever had wasn't established when he first arrived, and the team was in a very similar state.

I think the right fit is far more important than how established someone is, Colorado didn't hire someone established when Bednar came in and won the cup, Tbay didn't hire someone established when Cooper brought them back to back cups, when the Blues won the cup, it wasn't with someone established, Mike Sullivan wasn't established when he took over the penguins and won back to back cups, nor was Bylsma when he came in an won the cup, Babcock wasn't established when Detroit hired him and he took them to the cup, Carlyle wasn't established when he was hired and lead the ducks to the cup, Laviolette wasn't established when the Canes hired him and he lead them to the cup, Tortorella wasn't established when Tbay hired him and he took them to the cup.

To add to this: I believe the only coach since the days of the original 6 to win a cup as head coach with multiple teams is Scotty Bowman. Hiring a a coach because he won somewhere else has not been roadmap for success.

 

[bicboi64]

The best coach this team has ever had wasn't established when he first arrived, and the team was in a very similar state.

I think the right fit is far more important than how established someone is, Colorado didn't hire someone established when Bednar came in and won the cup, Tbay didn't hire someone established when Cooper brought them back to back cups, when the Blues won the cup, it wasn't with someone established, Mike Sullivan wasn't established when he took over the penguins and won back to back cups, nor was Bylsma when he came in an won the cup, Babcock wasn't established when Detroit hired him and he took them to the cup, Carlyle wasn't established when he was hired and lead the ducks to the cup, Laviolette wasn't established when the Canes hired him and he lead them to the cup, Tortorella wasn't established when Tbay hired him and he took them to the cup.

There's a greater number of non-established coaches not working than working, just like there is a long list of guys that have at least had regular season success not working out because only 1 team can win the cup per year. All I'd have liked is a coach that at least has an established record of regular season success, because we can't even manage that.

All the cases you mentioned involved teams that had almost ever hole filled, except needing a coach who didn't suck.

Bednar came into a team with Makar, MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog.
Cooper came into a team that had Hedman, Kucherov, Stammkos
Bylsma took over for a team that had Malkin, Crosby, and Letang
Babcock was established when he came to Detroit (who had HoF players on the roster) and had already been to a finals.
Laviolette was 2/2 for making the playoffs with the Isles before he came to Carolina

Each of those teams had more established pieces on their roster than our current one does and doesn't have the choke experience our roster does.

Torts is the only guy you mentioned that didn't have a serviceable track record before his stint in TBL.

Green had 5 seasons in Vancouver with 1 season of success out of 5. He's the kinda guy it would make sense to bring in during the start of a rebuild, not when you're trying to break a culture of losing and just have 82 games of meaningful hockey.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

There's a greater number of non-established coaches not working than working, just like there is a long list of guys that have at least had regular season success not working out because only 1 team can win the cup per year. All I'd have liked is a coach that at least has an established record of regular season success, because we can't even manage that.

All the cases you mentioned involved teams that had almost ever hole filled, except needing a coach who didn't suck.

Bednar came into a team with Makar, MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog.
Cooper came into a team that had Hedman, Kucherov, Stammkos
Bylsma took over for a team that had Malkin, Crosby, and Letang
Babcock was established when he came to Detroit (who had HoF players on the roster) and had already been to a finals.
Laviolette was 2/2 for making the playoffs with the Isles before he came to Carolina

Each of those teams had more established pieces on their roster than our current one does and doesn't have the choke experience our roster does.

Torts is the only guy you mentioned that didn't have a serviceable track record before his stint in TBL.

Green had 5 seasons in Vancouver with 1 season of success out of 5. He's the kinda guy it would make sense to bring in during the start of a rebuild, not when you're trying to break a culture of losing and just have 82 games of meaningful hockey.

Bednar's first season was 2016-2017 where the Avs had a historically awful record. That was the year they picked Makar in the draft. If anything I'm shocked at how much the Avs improved instantly after that historically terrible rookie year for Bednar.

 

[bicboi64]

Bednar's first season was 2016-2017 where the Avs had a historically awful record. That was the year they picked Makar in the draft. If anything I'm shocked at how much the Avs improved instantly after that historically terrible rookie year for Bednar.

Absolutely valid point. MacKinnon and Rantanen didn't break out as elite, and Makar was unproven af.

Having said that, Bednar was hired a month before training camp, couldn't bring in his assistants, and had a winning pedigree since his AHL team had just won the Calder Cup. Plus that Avs team had one of the worst points totals in NHL history. After he had his own staff involved and time to properly instill some change, look how many Avs players broke out, but I don't know if our stars have that kind of pedigree. Brady might become a Rantanen, but Stu and Sandy aren't a Mack or Makar.

Thankfully Green has time to work with the Assistant Coaches and build a system, but he hasn't shown much playoff success aside from a couple seasons in Utica. Again, he'd be fine for the start of a rebuild, but not the most confidence pick for a team that needs a regular season winning coach at the bare minimum.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

Absolutely valid point. MacKinnon and Rantanen didn't break out as elite, and Makar was unproven af.

Having said that, Bednar was hired a month before training camp, couldn't bring in his assistants, and had a winning pedigree since his AHL team had just won the Calder Cup. Plus that Avs team had one of the worst points totals in NHL history. After he had his own staff involved and time to properly instill some change, look how many Avs players broke out, but I don't know if our stars have that kind of pedigree. Brady might become a Rantanen, but Stu and Sandy aren't a Mack or Makar.

Thankfully Green has time to work with the Assistant Coaches and build a system, but he hasn't shown much playoff success aside from a couple seasons in Utica. Again, he'd be fine for the start of a rebuild, but not the most confidence pick for a team that needs a regular season winning coach at the bare minimum.

Brady is more comparable to Landeskog than anything. We don't need to be like the Avs, if we are carbon copies of them, we'd be one of the deadliest teams in the league. It's okay to not be that.

 

[bicboi64]

Brady is more comparable to Landeskog than anything. We don't need to be like the Avs, if we are carbon copies of them, we'd be one of the deadliest teams in the league. It's okay to not be that.

Gimme both.

Landy's leadership but a 50g season or a couple of 100pt seasons plz

 

[Cosmix]

Im not sure i would agree that we need an established coach. We need a good coach that can get the job done. As fans we feel we need an established coach because as fans that is really the only means we have for measuring who will be the right coach.

Define "good coach" and "get the job done".

I think the definition of "get the job done" should include achieving team objectives including short term objectives such as improvement in GF, GA, wins & points over a specified quantity of games (such as 20 games & half a season). Improvement in the short term could start from being last in the league standings and getting the team to move upward into the 3rd quartile of the league (e.g., bubble team) but not making the playoffs. That would mean progress.

Long term objectives would include doing some of the above over a season & multiple seasons including getting the team into the playoffs, winning a playoff round or two, & potentially winning the SC.

I think a "good coach" achieves his objectives over time. A "bad coach" does not.

As fans we do not get to participate in the interviews, management reviews of the coaching staff on a continuing basis, at year end, after multiple seasons, etc. However, we do get to see the results over time which is definitely a major factor in evaluating coaching.

 

[HSF]

Lot of coaches do better after their 1st run at coaching. Hopefully Green works out and has learned from previous mistakes

 

[Micklebot]

There's a greater number of non-established coaches not working than working, just like there is a long list of guys that have at least had regular season success not working out because only 1 team can win the cup per year. All I'd have liked is a coach that at least has an established record of regular season success, because we can't even manage that.

All the cases you mentioned involved teams that had almost ever hole filled, except needing a coach who didn't suck.

This is a revisionist argument, you only see many of these teams as having all their holes filled because they went on to have success. If we go on to have success with our current roster, suddenly we'll also have all our holes filled except the coach. Either way, it's just a misdirection, the point is teams that went on to win did so with coaches that were not established

Bednar came into a team with Makar, MacKinnon, Rantanen, Landeskog.

Colorado didn't draft Makar until after they hired Bednar. We have Brady, Stützle, Sanderson.

Cooper came into a team that had Hedman, Kucherov, Stammkos

Kucherov was an unknown when Cooper was hired, he didn't break out until 5 seasons after Cooper was hired

Bylsma took over for a team that had Malkin, Crosby, and Letang
Babcock was established when he came to Detroit (who had HoF players on the roster) and had already been to a finals.

Babcock had two seasons as a head coach, one year where he rode a hot goalie to the finals and another where he missed the playoff.

Laviolette was 2/2 for making the playoffs with the Isles before he came to Carolina

Two years is established now? I don't think you're being logically consistent here. Green took over a terrible team and brought them on a playoff run nobody expected, beating the defending cup champs stl blues and then took the VGK to 7 games, he has more than double the experience Laviolette had.

Each of those teams had more established pieces on their roster than our current one does and doesn't have the choke experience our roster does.

Bednar came to a team where MacKinnon had 3 seasons under his belt, Rantanan had 9 games, Makar wasn't drafted and their captain had 5 years experience with only 7 playoff games, they were not some established team.,

The team Cooper took over and the team he was coaching three years later were completely different, Stamkos and Hedman were still there sure, but gone was Lecavalier, StLouis, Salo, Purcell, ect.

Torts is the only guy you mentioned that didn't have a serviceable track record before his stint in TBL.

What? Bednar had zero track record Colorado, Cooper had zero track record before tbl, Bylsma had zero track record before Pittsburgh.

Green had 5 seasons in Vancouver with 1 season of success out of 5. He's the kinda guy it would make sense to bring in during the start of a rebuild, not when you're trying to break a culture of losing and just have 82 games of meaningful hockey.

Green took over a bad roster, with some of the league's worst management of course he isn't going to have immediate success. It wouldn't matter if Scotty Bowman took over, you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. That's why a highly experienced and established Bruce Boudreau had no sustained success when he took over.

 

[bert]

Well WVERYTHING has risk. It’s about mitigating the risk.

I don’t think hiring an inexperienced coach with a poor track record was mitigating the risk to the best of our abilities, of having poor coaching this year.

The risk is having poor coaching.

The control on that risk shouldn’t be “hiring an inexperienced coach with a poor track record”.

Who are you talking about?

 

[bert]

I'm not particularly concerned with fans comfort with a coach, because frankly, it's based on indirect evidence. What does Bylsma do better than Green? Compare and contrast their skillsets, their strengths and weaknesses as coaches. You can't do that with Hockey DB. A long track record and a win% doesn't get you there. You're essentially proving my point.

Do I know that Green will be great? No, I don't have access to the information required to make an informed decision. That's what the interview and hiring process is for, to give the team hiring a coach access to vital information needed to evaluate a coach. We aren't mitigating anything by making decisions based on win% and games coached.

There's been plenty of opportunity to do real research with Green. Former players have come out and talked about him. These posters you are discussing with refuse to do it. Then stick their head in the sand and revert back to the same lazy argument. I commend you for continuing the discussion but it appears it doesn't matter what you say or what opportunity you give them to actually look into Green as a coach. They won't do it.

FYI if anyone here thinks they have a more educated hockey IQ than Frankie Corrado you may need to check your ego. He's an amazing source to get information on Green and the type of coach and person he is. He was saying positive thing way before he was even on the sens radar. His content is amazing if you want to be educated on the sport and league.

 

[thinkwild]

Define "good coach" and "get the job done".

I think the definition of "get the job done" should include achieving team objectives including short term objectives such as improvement in GF, GA, wins & points over a specified quantity of games (such as 20 games & half a season). Improvement in the short term could start from being last in the league standings and getting the team to move upward into the 3rd quartile of the league (e.g., bubble team) but not making the playoffs. That would mean progress.

Long term objectives would include doing some of the above over a season & multiple seasons including getting the team into the playoffs, winning a playoff round or two, & potentially winning the SC.

I think a "good coach" achieves his objectives over time. A "bad coach" does not.

As fans we do not get to participate in the interviews, management reviews of the coaching staff on a continuing basis, at year end, after multiple seasons, etc. However, we do get to see the results over time which is definitely a major factor in evaluating coaching.

Sure, that’s all fair. But I would also hold the players and GM responsible for the same things. How do i distinguish the effect of the coach. How do I know another coach could have done better with these players? How can I be sure we're not scapegoating the coaches if the players fail to succeed?

I remember watching the old Jacques Martin Sens vs. Quinn leafs. Jacques’ teams looked so well coached. Clearly structured and disciplined. The leafs looked haphazard, collapsing and blocking and hoping for counter attacks against a goalie not one of the top 5 as they had. Jacques’ teams looked better coached.

Still I wonder the effect of a coach. Could the best coach be on the team with the worst record? If we took the worst team in the league and put what was perceived to be the best coach in the league there, how many more wins would they get?

And we’ve seen Jack Adams winners here. Voted on by the reporters I think? And often it is the coach of the team with the biggest difference in pts from the previous year. And often again that coach is out of the league the next year. Seems no one is really good at figuring out how to create an advanced stat for evaluating coaches.

 

[Cosmix]

Sure, that’s all fair. But I would also hold the players and GM responsible for the same things. How do i distinguish the effect of the coach. How do I know another coach could have done better with these players? How can I be sure we're not scapegoating the coaches if the players fail to succeed?

I remember watching the old Jacques Martin Sens vs. Quinn leafs. Jacques’ teams looked so well coached. Clearly structured and disciplined. The leafs looked haphazard, collapsing and blocking and hoping for counter attacks against a goalie not one of the top 5 as they had. Jacques’ teams looked better coached.

Still I wonder the effect of a coach. Could the best coach be on the team with the worst record? If we took the worst team in the league and put what was perceived to be the best coach in the league there, how many more wins would they get?

And we’ve seen Jack Adams winners here. Voted on by the reporters I think? And often it is the coach of the team with the biggest difference in pts from the previous year. And often again that coach is out of the league the next year. Seems no one is really good at figuring out how to create an advanced stat for evaluating coaches.

Reporters are not students of the game; they are ink-stained wretcheds! They should not be the ones to vote for Jack Adams winners.

How do we know if a coach has done well if he has a "poor" team or a "great" team? We would need to define "poor" and "great" teams as a start. I think measurable results are the answer to the question. If a team previously had "poor" results (i..e., bottom quartile of the league last season) prior to the new coach coming in, and then shows progress at improving GA/GP, GF/GP, fewer penalties, more PPs, more points, rising to the third quartile from the basement, & making the playoffs, then some of that improved performance could be attributed to the coach.

It appears you define a "better coach" as one whose team plays a "structured" and "disciplined" game. It sounds like a team that "plays the game the right way" which requires definition too. When I see those terms, I think of a team that plays a solid defense-first type of game with players marking their man, not letting them get away for 3 on 2s, 2 on 1s, breakaways, a team that pays solid defense, back-checking, solid play in their own D-zone, taking few risks to make offensive plays, and having results that statistically show low GA/GP, low scoring games, fewer penalties per game, etc.

 

[thinkwild]

Reporters are not students of the game; they are ink-stained wretcheds! They should not be the ones to vote for Jack Adams winners.

How do we know if a coach has done well if he has a "poor" team or a "great" team? We would need to define "poor" and "great" teams as a start. I think measurable results are the answer to the question. If a team previously had "poor" results (i..e., bottom quartile of the league last season) prior to the new coach coming in, and then shows progress at improving GA/GP, GF/GP, fewer penalties, more PPs, more points, rising to the third quartile from the basement, & making the playoffs, then some of that improved performance could be attributed to the coach.

It appears you define a "better coach" as one whose team plays a "structured" and "disciplined" game. It sounds like a team that "plays the game the right way" which requires definition too. When I see those terms, I think of a team that plays a solid defense-first type of game with players marking their man, not letting them get away for 3 on 2s, 2 on 1s, breakaways, a team that pays solid defense, back-checking, solid play in their own D-zone, taking few risks to make offensive plays, and having results that statistically show low GA/GP, low scoring games, fewer penalties per game, etc.

It often seems that when a coach wants to make an imprint on a team, they want to focus on getting the goals against down. That seems something the coaches can have more of an effect on. Offense can be helped too, but that is more on the players it often feels to me.

But there's no one way to win. The coach i think has to figure what will work best for the particular players being dealt with. And then find a way to motivate them and best allow them to reach those goals. Easy to say, hard to measure.