Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Circling the wagons?
In today's Calgary Sun, Eric Francis takes a crack at defending Jim Playfair: Record speaks for itself / Playfair did enough to stay. I think he does a decent job of it; problem is, it's just not very compelling. The lede:
Fair enough. There's 7 Western Conference teams that wish their seasons were as disappointing as Calgary's was.
This might be true as well; I don't cruise CalgaryPuck or hold court in sports bars, so I really don't know what the general fan sentiment is. Speaking only for myself, and the handful of other Flames blogs who (pretty much unanimously) think Playfair failed, I am under no illusions that Sutter would be the "replacement" if Nervous Jimmy was fired, nor do I think that would be the best course of action at any rate.
This is just plain disingenuous. If Greg Gilbert or Don Hay had been the coach last season, and led the Flames to a NW title, then Playfair would most certainly not be the toast of the town. He didn't lead the Flames to a 20-point improvement and their first playoff spot in 7 years; he led them to a record that was 7 points and 5 places in the standings worse than last season. No new coach would ever be lauded for such a result, regardless of whether his predecessor was iconic or not.
I'm glad someone is at least pointing out that he doesn't look the part behind the bench, and that if we're noticing it, surely the players are too. I'm not sure which other coaches Francis is referring to (edited out for space limitations, shurely); I don't know them. Also, that 2nd paragraph is pretty damning; it's not like it's obvious that it should be followed with a corresponding "but..."
The one real gripe I have with this bit is the implication that the masses who think Playfair should be fired are basing it on their failure to beat Detroit in the 1v8. I'll allow that he could have and would have saved his job by winning that series, but the problem isn't the playoff loss per se: it's that they were in 8th place; they looked overmatched going into the series; and sure enough, they were.
Since I've never seen data or a good argument proving otherwise, I agree that it's fair to balance whatever scorn you want to heap on Playfair for the road record with praise for the home record. But great special teams? They were 22nd in the NHL on the PK, that's not even good. The PP finished 11th, at 18.2% (up from 15.1% at the halfway mark); in other words, it probably was great in the 2nd half after being atrocious in the 1st half. Overall, PP success was identical to last season, and the PK went from 7th to 22nd. This is a thumbs up?
I almost don't know what to make of this. Sure, I guess Sutter wasn't anticipating (or advertising) a 100% seamless transition, but darn near -- that was half the point of hiring Playfair instead of someone from outside the organization. That's one of the reasons I object to the use of the phrase "growing pains" (twice!).
The other reason is that if there's one thing that growing pains are guaranteed to produce, it's growth. Where is it? Notwithstanding a brutal 1st 10 games, the team was not any better at the end of the season than at the beginning. Lombardi had an OK season overall, but essentially got worse as it went along. Phaneuf was given more responsibility, but I don't think you could say he's a better player now than he was a year ago. What is it that you can point to -- even something small -- as evidence that Playfair really does know what he's doing, it'll just take some more time?
Up to the task? It's possible, but not at all evident. Here's one last Francis paragraph from earlier in the story:
This is probably where Francis makes the least sense, because you really can't have it both ways. If the question is, "Why were the Flames worse this season than last, despite the fact that Jim Playfair is a good coach?", then the answer is that the roster was worse, isn't it? And of course that falls on Sutter, and his skills at talent assessment, team-building, etc.
Bruce Dowbiggin is taking that tack. I give him points for intellectual honesty in that respect, though I disagree with just about every observation and conclusion he makes (you lost me at "skilled forward Jeff Friesen", Bruce).
If there's one other theme running through these "Don't Blame it all on Playfair" pieces that aggravates me, it's the revisionism about the (I paraphase) "crazy-high expectations of a hockey-mad city", as if they were terribly unfair in retrospect. Nuts to that. There was, legitimately, ample reason to believe the team would be better than last season, and very little reason to believe it would be worse. They had no serious long-term injuries, and were not burdened with any disappointing individual performances.
They should have been better, from 3-7-2 beginning to 55-21 end. Can this just be explained away with, "seasons are like snowflakes"? If Playfair is returning (and right now it's about 70/30 that he is), I sure hope so.
Fourteen games above .500.
With his club playing in the toughest division in hockey, Jim Playfair managed to guide the Calgary Flames to a 43-29-10 record as a rookie.
Few coaches in NHL history have opened their careers with such a lofty record. Yet, the masses want Jim Playfair fired.
Fair enough. There's 7 Western Conference teams that wish their seasons were as disappointing as Calgary's was.
...the truth is, there's a much bigger reason they want the former assistant to get the axe. His name is Darryl Sutter. They want him back.
Thing is, it's just not going to happen. Sutter has made it clear he has no desire to climb back behind the bench where he managed to transform the 2004 Flames into a Stanley Cup finalist.
This might be true as well; I don't cruise CalgaryPuck or hold court in sports bars, so I really don't know what the general fan sentiment is. Speaking only for myself, and the handful of other Flames blogs who (pretty much unanimously) think Playfair failed, I am under no illusions that Sutter would be the "replacement" if Nervous Jimmy was fired, nor do I think that would be the best course of action at any rate.
It's not easy replacing a local icon -- had Playfair followed Greg Gilbert or Don Hay he'd be the toast of the town.
This is just plain disingenuous. If Greg Gilbert or Don Hay had been the coach last season, and led the Flames to a NW title, then Playfair would most certainly not be the toast of the town. He didn't lead the Flames to a 20-point improvement and their first playoff spot in 7 years; he led them to a record that was 7 points and 5 places in the standings worse than last season. No new coach would ever be lauded for such a result, regardless of whether his predecessor was iconic or not.
Indeed Playfair looked tense behind the bench, a vibe the players surely picked up on. It could have played on their confidence. A handful of other coaches look far more wound up and manage to win regularly.
Yes, the Flames backed into the playoffs, were stunningly inept once they left the comforts of Calgary and were outplayed and outcoached by the Wings. Playfair deserves his fair share of heat for that.
I'm glad someone is at least pointing out that he doesn't look the part behind the bench, and that if we're noticing it, surely the players are too. I'm not sure which other coaches Francis is referring to (edited out for space limitations, shurely); I don't know them. Also, that 2nd paragraph is pretty damning; it's not like it's obvious that it should be followed with a corresponding "but..."
The one real gripe I have with this bit is the implication that the masses who think Playfair should be fired are basing it on their failure to beat Detroit in the 1v8. I'll allow that he could have and would have saved his job by winning that series, but the problem isn't the playoff loss per se: it's that they were in 8th place; they looked overmatched going into the series; and sure enough, they were.
However, surely he also deserves credit for helping the club to the most dominant home record in hockey, shaping great special teams units and finishing 13th overall in his first year as the big boss.
Since I've never seen data or a good argument proving otherwise, I agree that it's fair to balance whatever scorn you want to heap on Playfair for the road record with praise for the home record. But great special teams? They were 22nd in the NHL on the PK, that's not even good. The PP finished 11th, at 18.2% (up from 15.1% at the halfway mark); in other words, it probably was great in the 2nd half after being atrocious in the 1st half. Overall, PP success was identical to last season, and the PK went from 7th to 22nd. This is a thumbs up?
Sutter knew there would be growing pains with his young protege behind the bench.
It appeared he did well to give Playfair space to work through them and will undoubtedly sit down soon to go over how he could have handled certain things better. He'll improve.
Next year will be the last season this franchise will have the luxury of keeping both Miikka Kiprusoff and Jarome Iginla. Surely you don't want to introduce a stranger to the mix who will go through the same growing pains Playfair did this year.
I almost don't know what to make of this. Sure, I guess Sutter wasn't anticipating (or advertising) a 100% seamless transition, but darn near -- that was half the point of hiring Playfair instead of someone from outside the organization. That's one of the reasons I object to the use of the phrase "growing pains" (twice!).
The other reason is that if there's one thing that growing pains are guaranteed to produce, it's growth. Where is it? Notwithstanding a brutal 1st 10 games, the team was not any better at the end of the season than at the beginning. Lombardi had an OK season overall, but essentially got worse as it went along. Phaneuf was given more responsibility, but I don't think you could say he's a better player now than he was a year ago. What is it that you can point to -- even something small -- as evidence that Playfair really does know what he's doing, it'll just take some more time?
Next year Playfair will have a younger, faster team. Knowing the personnel as well as he does, Playfair is up to the task of finding and establishing the identity of a club that went from gritty and defensive-oriented to talented yet uncommitted to the cause.
Jim Playfair should remain coach of the Flames. And Sutter needs to give him that vote of confidence now.
Up to the task? It's possible, but not at all evident. Here's one last Francis paragraph from earlier in the story:
Sutter -- a man who has proven to have an impeccable ability to assess talent -- saw many things in Playfair that led him to believe he can win at this level as he has in the minors.
This is probably where Francis makes the least sense, because you really can't have it both ways. If the question is, "Why were the Flames worse this season than last, despite the fact that Jim Playfair is a good coach?", then the answer is that the roster was worse, isn't it? And of course that falls on Sutter, and his skills at talent assessment, team-building, etc.
Bruce Dowbiggin is taking that tack. I give him points for intellectual honesty in that respect, though I disagree with just about every observation and conclusion he makes (you lost me at "skilled forward Jeff Friesen", Bruce).
If there's one other theme running through these "Don't Blame it all on Playfair" pieces that aggravates me, it's the revisionism about the (I paraphase) "crazy-high expectations of a hockey-mad city", as if they were terribly unfair in retrospect. Nuts to that. There was, legitimately, ample reason to believe the team would be better than last season, and very little reason to believe it would be worse. They had no serious long-term injuries, and were not burdened with any disappointing individual performances.
They should have been better, from 3-7-2 beginning to 55-21 end. Can this just be explained away with, "seasons are like snowflakes"? If Playfair is returning (and right now it's about 70/30 that he is), I sure hope so.
# posted by Matt @ 11:59 am 
Comments:
Thanks, Matt. I was going to take a run at both Francis and Dowbiggen today (I'm surprised you didn't say more on his baffling condemnation of Tanguay), but you've done the job here. I pretty much agree on all counts.
When the Flames lost to bruising Anaheim in Game 7 of the opening round of the 2006 playoffs, the lesson seemed to be that the Flames needed to get bigger. So Sutter signed skilled forwards Alex Tanguay and Jeff Friesen.
I can actually remember Sutter's press conference after game 7 against Anaheim. He commented on how Anaheim was successful because they possessed big, speedy wingers who were able to break down the wings and beat their defensemen to the puck. When Sutter signed Friesen I just assumed it was because he wanted a big speedy winger, not because he wanted a "skilled forward". I suppose the point is moot considering how Friesen turned out, but Dowbiggen comes off looking like a freaking idiot. Of course he makes up ground when he suggests that Tanguay was a detriment to the club.
I'm glad someone is at least pointing out that he doesn't look the part behind the bench, and that if we're noticing it, surely the players are too.
Someone in the MSM, you mean? I think we (collective Flames'sphere) have noticed it for quite a while now.
Phaneuf was given more responsibility, but I don't think you could say he's a better player now than he was a year ago.
If I was a defender of the Dion (as I'm sure most think I would be based on the blog name and whatnot), I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Since I am not one, let me put my voice forward in saying that I was disappointed with his performance and lack of improvement this year. I think since he didn't become better this year points a bit to the job that Playfair started with his last season and was not able to continue grooming him this season.
I think the whole problem with canning Jim and bringing back Mr. Potato Head, which I think would be the best move for the Flames considering they're down to just the one season with all their bullets, is that it's quite clear Sutter doesn't want both jobs so if he comes back for one last hurrah he's really going against what's in his heart and/or gut. And maybe this was just a blip for Jim and he'll improve and if you supplant him already, then you're back to another hunt for the new head guy as soon as Sutter gets sick of doing both jobs. Of course that's not a problem for you because you don't believe in Playfair. I don't know where I stand on this. If you think that Sutter can get it done, then it's worth the gamble that in letting Playfair go you're actually releasing a fellow who could become a real leader. Of course it all depends on Iginla's status really and are any of you guys prepared to discuss when he'll be traded and who it will be for? I think that will be the true indicator of what Sutter decides to do. If he doesn't deal Jarome this summer then he's either gone at the deadline or he's gone next summer and if he brings him back then that's a sign that Cgy's going for it and that might mean Sutter's going back behind the bench. Then again maybe he's so bloody sick of both jobs that he just won't go back.
I don't know 5% of what you guys do about the Flames and if they underacheived or not but obviously the big question was their road play. In the reg season at least, it just seemed that things were against them and they weren't just playing terrible. But then comes the playoffs and it was just a total gongshow. Missing Reghr didn't help matters but it shouldn't have mattered that much.
Keeping in mind that I really don't give a fuck, but I don't quite understand your position on Playfair, Matt.
It seems you've turned the burden of proof on the Playfair apologists without any real justification.
What are your tangible reasons for declaring that Playfair isn't good enough? I'm talking about salient points, not "he doesn't look like a good coach" or "the team didn't win enough."
Re: (you lost me at "skilled forward Jeff Friesen", Bruce)
Bruce lost me shortly after I spotted his byline! But that's partly because I've been hitting the gin pretty hard lately...
- WIlson Schaumberg
This whole 'one more season with all their bullets' concept is, frankly, BS. Sure we have some important decisions on free agents to deal with at the end of next season, but why on earth couldn't this team sign all of those players, at market rates, if that is what they chose to do?
It would be easy to restructure Kipper's deal to give him a raise this year and then lock him up going forward, with a cap hit below market. Jarome won't get a better contract anywhere else than he will in Calgary. Other expensive players are going to move on, the David Mosses (who are cheaper) will move up, the cap will rise, blah blah blah. There is no reason to think 2008 is the last chance the Flames have (the way 2006 seems to be the last shot the Oilers will ever have).
If you want a coach who looks the part, why not hire Ken Macha?
What if Playfair actually coached the Flames to a better result than they deserved? Then that means that the team is truly quite dreadful, and we can't have that, can we?
When Playfair's team gets the last change, it wins. But, please, fire him and put Macha behind the bench and lets have some laughs next year.
RQ, I was going to try to answer your question directly (with bullet points), but I don't think I will. This isn't a criminal proceeding, he doesn't have the "right" to keep his job barring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he stinks. Also, while I'm (obviously) interested in advanced metrics, "the team didn't win enough" seems like a pretty perfectly salient point.
The one-sentence version is, "Team should have been better than last season, but was actually worse, and there's nothing showing me that this was despite his wise efforts."
In fact, there was a near-complete disconnect between the things Coach said were important and the things this team was actually good at.
Matt said...
RQ, I was going to try to answer your question directly (with bullet points), but I don't think I will.
No bullets?
This isn't a criminal proceeding, he doesn't have the "right" to keep his job barring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he stinks.
True, nor does anyone have to prove he's a genius. I just figured you must have some rational points to divulge.
You know, some reasoning.
The one-sentence version is, "Team should have been better than last season, but was actually worse, and there's nothing showing me that this was despite his wise efforts."
Hold on now. This year's edition of the Flames was actually worse? This is news to me. You spent all year telling us that they were much better than last year. I recall (and I paraphrase):
"Their ES goal differential is much better than last year."
"The NHL's point system has screwed Calgary."
"Getting outshot every night doesn't matter."
"ENGs are the most exciting play in hockey."
"It doesn't matter that they're beefing up their goal differential with EN goals and SH goals."
Yadda, yadda, yadda... Now all of a sudden they're worse? Where does this come from?
If we're totally throwing out the metrics, then last time I checked, the Flames went out in the first round last year as well. Only difference being last year they went out to a far worse team than the Wings that the Oilers later drubbed while high on flu medication.
In fact, there was a near-complete disconnect between the things Coach said were important and the things this team was actually good at.
OK, now that could be something. What were those things Playfair said and what were they actually good at?
Links to the archives are at the left, that should be good for all your questions, and to beef up some of those recollections.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Thanks, Matt. I was going to take a run at both Francis and Dowbiggen today (I'm surprised you didn't say more on his baffling condemnation of Tanguay), but you've done the job here. I pretty much agree on all counts.
When the Flames lost to bruising Anaheim in Game 7 of the opening round of the 2006 playoffs, the lesson seemed to be that the Flames needed to get bigger. So Sutter signed skilled forwards Alex Tanguay and Jeff Friesen.
I can actually remember Sutter's press conference after game 7 against Anaheim. He commented on how Anaheim was successful because they possessed big, speedy wingers who were able to break down the wings and beat their defensemen to the puck. When Sutter signed Friesen I just assumed it was because he wanted a big speedy winger, not because he wanted a "skilled forward". I suppose the point is moot considering how Friesen turned out, but Dowbiggen comes off looking like a freaking idiot. Of course he makes up ground when he suggests that Tanguay was a detriment to the club.
I'm glad someone is at least pointing out that he doesn't look the part behind the bench, and that if we're noticing it, surely the players are too.
Someone in the MSM, you mean? I think we (collective Flames'sphere) have noticed it for quite a while now.
Phaneuf was given more responsibility, but I don't think you could say he's a better player now than he was a year ago.
If I was a defender of the Dion (as I'm sure most think I would be based on the blog name and whatnot), I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Since I am not one, let me put my voice forward in saying that I was disappointed with his performance and lack of improvement this year. I think since he didn't become better this year points a bit to the job that Playfair started with his last season and was not able to continue grooming him this season.
I think the whole problem with canning Jim and bringing back Mr. Potato Head, which I think would be the best move for the Flames considering they're down to just the one season with all their bullets, is that it's quite clear Sutter doesn't want both jobs so if he comes back for one last hurrah he's really going against what's in his heart and/or gut. And maybe this was just a blip for Jim and he'll improve and if you supplant him already, then you're back to another hunt for the new head guy as soon as Sutter gets sick of doing both jobs. Of course that's not a problem for you because you don't believe in Playfair. I don't know where I stand on this. If you think that Sutter can get it done, then it's worth the gamble that in letting Playfair go you're actually releasing a fellow who could become a real leader. Of course it all depends on Iginla's status really and are any of you guys prepared to discuss when he'll be traded and who it will be for? I think that will be the true indicator of what Sutter decides to do. If he doesn't deal Jarome this summer then he's either gone at the deadline or he's gone next summer and if he brings him back then that's a sign that Cgy's going for it and that might mean Sutter's going back behind the bench. Then again maybe he's so bloody sick of both jobs that he just won't go back.
I don't know 5% of what you guys do about the Flames and if they underacheived or not but obviously the big question was their road play. In the reg season at least, it just seemed that things were against them and they weren't just playing terrible. But then comes the playoffs and it was just a total gongshow. Missing Reghr didn't help matters but it shouldn't have mattered that much.
Keeping in mind that I really don't give a fuck, but I don't quite understand your position on Playfair, Matt.
It seems you've turned the burden of proof on the Playfair apologists without any real justification.
What are your tangible reasons for declaring that Playfair isn't good enough? I'm talking about salient points, not "he doesn't look like a good coach" or "the team didn't win enough."
Re: (you lost me at "skilled forward Jeff Friesen", Bruce)
Bruce lost me shortly after I spotted his byline! But that's partly because I've been hitting the gin pretty hard lately...
- WIlson Schaumberg
# posted by 
: April 24, 2007 2:28 pm
: April 24, 2007 2:28 pm This whole 'one more season with all their bullets' concept is, frankly, BS. Sure we have some important decisions on free agents to deal with at the end of next season, but why on earth couldn't this team sign all of those players, at market rates, if that is what they chose to do?
It would be easy to restructure Kipper's deal to give him a raise this year and then lock him up going forward, with a cap hit below market. Jarome won't get a better contract anywhere else than he will in Calgary. Other expensive players are going to move on, the David Mosses (who are cheaper) will move up, the cap will rise, blah blah blah. There is no reason to think 2008 is the last chance the Flames have (the way 2006 seems to be the last shot the Oilers will ever have).
# posted by : April 24, 2007 2:55 pm
: April 24, 2007 2:55 pm If you want a coach who looks the part, why not hire Ken Macha?
What if Playfair actually coached the Flames to a better result than they deserved? Then that means that the team is truly quite dreadful, and we can't have that, can we?
When Playfair's team gets the last change, it wins. But, please, fire him and put Macha behind the bench and lets have some laughs next year.
# posted by : April 24, 2007 2:58 pm
: April 24, 2007 2:58 pm RQ, I was going to try to answer your question directly (with bullet points), but I don't think I will. This isn't a criminal proceeding, he doesn't have the "right" to keep his job barring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he stinks. Also, while I'm (obviously) interested in advanced metrics, "the team didn't win enough" seems like a pretty perfectly salient point.
The one-sentence version is, "Team should have been better than last season, but was actually worse, and there's nothing showing me that this was despite his wise efforts."
In fact, there was a near-complete disconnect between the things Coach said were important and the things this team was actually good at.
Matt said...
RQ, I was going to try to answer your question directly (with bullet points), but I don't think I will.
No bullets?
This isn't a criminal proceeding, he doesn't have the "right" to keep his job barring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he stinks.
True, nor does anyone have to prove he's a genius. I just figured you must have some rational points to divulge.
You know, some reasoning.
The one-sentence version is, "Team should have been better than last season, but was actually worse, and there's nothing showing me that this was despite his wise efforts."
Hold on now. This year's edition of the Flames was actually worse? This is news to me. You spent all year telling us that they were much better than last year. I recall (and I paraphrase):
"Their ES goal differential is much better than last year."
"The NHL's point system has screwed Calgary."
"Getting outshot every night doesn't matter."
"ENGs are the most exciting play in hockey."
"It doesn't matter that they're beefing up their goal differential with EN goals and SH goals."
Yadda, yadda, yadda... Now all of a sudden they're worse? Where does this come from?
If we're totally throwing out the metrics, then last time I checked, the Flames went out in the first round last year as well. Only difference being last year they went out to a far worse team than the Wings that the Oilers later drubbed while high on flu medication.
In fact, there was a near-complete disconnect between the things Coach said were important and the things this team was actually good at.
OK, now that could be something. What were those things Playfair said and what were they actually good at?
Links to the archives are at the left, that should be good for all your questions, and to beef up some of those recollections.
Post a Comment
<< Home
