I just want to know what input Fitzy had. I mean if ownership pushed for this and you want that interim tag removed from your GM job then weak but understandable. But if Fitzy was down with this as a good move we have a GM problem also.

This organization is turning into such an embarrassment. First thing Lou Lams did on the Island is hire a quality coach in Trotz. And it looks like a great move.

RIDICULOUS.
- Queenie_5_hole

Oh and here I read it wasn’t Trotz, but it was luck and great goaltending.

I’m so confused....

Hate to break it to you, but the Leafs new coach and GM both have extremely long leashes. This is the last team that is going to make results based decisions.

Also, when the Leafs played .500 hockey for the last 23 games, nine of those featured them playing without their 2 best defenseman.

22 of them without their best.
- James_Tanner

So let's agree that it's too early to make a definitive decision either way if Keefe was the right hire.

Who's the young cutting edge coach that's been immediately successful that the other teams should be learning from?

So let's agree that it's too early to make a definitive decision either way if Keefe was the right hire.

Who's the young cutting edge coach that's been immediately successful that the other teams should be learning from?
- Hunkulese

Quinn got the Rangers into the playoffs in his 1st season.

...kind of.

Ruff was a king in the Dead Puck Era.
- James_Tanner

Never since the 1980s to early 1990s was the NHL more wide-open than it was in 2005-06.
Ruff's Sabres had 110 points, were near the top in goals, and got to the conference finals.

Ruff's 2015-16 Stars were the NHL's ultimate run-and-gun attack team. Led the league in goals scored but were near the bottom in GAA. If anything, they were a little too wide open to be well suited for the playoffs.

In between, Ruff's 2010-11 Sabres (who had lost most of their weapons from the early post-lockout years but had Ryan Miller at the height of his prime) were a 100-point division winner who only scored 235 goals but also only gave up 207 (3rd best in NHL).

Ruff has proven that he can work a system around the roster he has. He isn't a "dead puck" coach, except when his team lacks firepower.

Pretty much every NHL coach makes at least some use of analytics, although some make broader use than others. Earlier this season, I was part of a survey project asking various current/former NHL coaches how they make use of analytics, and what they do/don't find helpful. All made at least some use of what their team's analytics staff presented to them, at minimum to check it against what they saw from the bench and on video to see if there were big discrepancies.

Ruff is likely in that latter minimalist category, and that's OK. He DOES know how to coach. His interpersonal communication style is rather old-school and that'd be my main question as to whether he'd get buy-in or lose the room very quickly. But in terms of a coherent breakout, forecheck, etc. he can certainly coach a team that plays with good pace.

The Leafs season was not a complete disaster but neither should it be called a success at this point.. They were bad under Babcock and marginally better under Keefe..They have a bunch of high end talent that seems to not like to be coached...Yes they had injuries but so did alot of other teams so it should not be an excuse.

I agree that both Dubas and Keefe have a long leash but an exit to Columbus with shorten that.

Never since the 1980s to early 1990s was the NHL more wide-open than it was in 2005-06.
Ruff's Sabres had 110 points, were near the top in goals, and got to the conference finals.

Ruff's 2015-16 Stars were the NHL's ultimate run-and-gun attack team. Led the league in goals scored but were near the bottom in GAA. If anything, they were a little too wide open to be well suited for the playoffs.

In between, Ruff's 2010-11 Sabres (who had lost most of their weapons from the early post-lockout years but had Ryan Miller at the height of his prime) were a 100-point division winner who only scored 235 goals but also only gave up 207 (3rd best in NHL).

Ruff has proven that he can work a system around the roster he has. He isn't a "dead puck" coach, except when his team lacks firepower.

Pretty much every NHL coach makes at least some use of analytics, although some make broader use than others. Earlier this season, I was part of a survey project asking various current/former NHL coaches how they make use of analytics, and what they do/don't find helpful. All made at least some use of what their team's analytics staff presented to them, at minimum to check it against what they saw from the bench and on video to see if there were big discrepancies.

Ruff is likely in that latter minimalist category, and that's OK. He DOES know how to coach. His interpersonal communication style is rather old-school and that'd be my main question as to whether he'd get buy-in or lose the room very quickly. But in terms of a coherent breakout, forecheck, etc. he can certainly coach a team that plays with good pace.
- bmeltzer

Never since the 1980s to early 1990s was the NHL more wide-open than it was in 2005-06.
Ruff's Sabres had 110 points, were near the top in goals, and got to the conference finals.

Ruff's 2015-16 Stars were the NHL's ultimate run-and-gun attack team. Led the league in goals scored but were near the bottom in GAA. If anything, they were a little too wide open to be well suited for the playoffs.

In between, Ruff's 2010-11 Sabres (who had lost most of their weapons from the early post-lockout years but had Ryan Miller at the height of his prime) were a 100-point division winner who only scored 235 goals but also only gave up 207 (3rd best in NHL).

Ruff has proven that he can work a system around the roster he has. He isn't a "dead puck" coach, except when his team lacks firepower.

Pretty much every NHL coach makes at least some use of analytics, although some make broader use than others. Earlier this season, I was part of a survey project asking various current/former NHL coaches how they make use of analytics, and what they do/don't find helpful. All made at least some use of what their team's analytics staff presented to them, at minimum to check it against what they saw from the bench and on video to see if there were big discrepancies.

Ruff is likely in that latter minimalist category, and that's OK. He DOES know how to coach. His interpersonal communication style is rather old-school and that'd be my main question as to whether he'd get buy-in or lose the room very quickly. But in terms of a coherent breakout, forecheck, etc. he can certainly coach a team that plays with good pace.
- bmeltzer

Bill,

I greatly respect your hockey knowledge and insight. I hope you are right.

I'm fine with being a minimalist on analytics. I'm even optimistic that an old school communication style might be good for these kids in the short term. I just don't see how a wide open offense but defensively weak style is going to work well with a team that's has a huge lack of defensive talent.

Never since the 1980s to early 1990s was the NHL more wide-open than it was in 2005-06.
Ruff's Sabres had 110 points, were near the top in goals, and got to the conference finals.

Ruff's 2015-16 Stars were the NHL's ultimate run-and-gun attack team. Led the league in goals scored but were near the bottom in GAA. If anything, they were a little too wide open to be well suited for the playoffs.

In between, Ruff's 2010-11 Sabres (who had lost most of their weapons from the early post-lockout years but had Ryan Miller at the height of his prime) were a 100-point division winner who only scored 235 goals but also only gave up 207 (3rd best in NHL).

Ruff has proven that he can work a system around the roster he has. He isn't a "dead puck" coach, except when his team lacks firepower.

Pretty much every NHL coach makes at least some use of analytics, although some make broader use than others. Earlier this season, I was part of a survey project asking various current/former NHL coaches how they make use of analytics, and what they do/don't find helpful. All made at least some use of what their team's analytics staff presented to them, at minimum to check it against what they saw from the bench and on video to see if there were big discrepancies.

Ruff is likely in that latter minimalist category, and that's OK. He DOES know how to coach. His interpersonal communication style is rather old-school and that'd be my main question as to whether he'd get buy-in or lose the room very quickly. But in terms of a coherent breakout, forecheck, etc. he can certainly coach a team that plays with good pace.
- bmeltzer

Thanks Bill, awesome post as always. I most closely associate Ruff with the late 90s early 2000 Sabres. I honestly didn't know about him also coaching the high scoring teams, but I don't think it really changes my opinion here.

Maybe Ruff is a Trotz or a Budreau - 2 of the older guys I'd have no problem a team hiring - but he's 60 something and hasn't coached in three or four seasons. The optics here are terrible, and I just don't see why teams aren't chasing younger, more innovative coaches. Well, I know why, I just don't like it.

We hired him so we could fire him. Seems to work for the Blues/Caps/Pens cup winning years. Gotta keep the boys on edge! honestly tho, I was hoping for Gallant or Lav.....

Bill Meltzer owning James yet again. When will it end?!?!?!

Bill Meltzer owning James yet again. When will it end?!?!?!
- Gertner

You’re reaching.

Never since the 1980s to early 1990s was the NHL more wide-open than it was in 2005-06.
- bmeltzer

With respect, I strongly disagree here. The 2005-06 season was the highest scoring season the NHL has had between now and 1996, but not because the NHL was super wide open. It was because the refs were calling everything.

There were 5.85 power players per team per game in 2005-06. That is the highest mark in league history (or at least since 1964, which is how far back the data I'm using goes). It's never been above 4.85 since. It's been under 3 in three out of the last four seasons.

Compare it against the previous season, 2003-04, which remains the lowest scoring season since the mid-50s, and you can see precisely where all that extra offense came from:

PP goals per game:
2004: 1.40
2006: 2.07
Difference: (+0.67)

ES goals per game:
2004: 3.54
2006: 3.72
Difference: (+0.18)

Or in other words, less than a tenth of a goal per game per team at even strength between 2004 (the lowest scoring season since 1956) and 2006 (the highest scoring season since 1996).

I would argue that the game is far more wide open today than it was in 2006. Goal scoring has almost caught back up to 2006 levels despite barely half as many powerplays.

Case in point: In 2006 Detroit led the league in even strength goals with 192. In 2019 there were 14 teams with at least that many.

Thanks Bill, awesome post as always. I most closely associate Ruff with the late 90s early 2000 Sabres. I honestly didn't know about him also coaching the high scoring teams, but I don't think it really changes my opinion here.

Maybe Ruff is a Trotz or a Budreau - 2 of the older guys I'd have no problem a team hiring - but he's 60 something and hasn't coached in three or four seasons. The optics here are terrible, and I just don't see why teams aren't chasing younger, more innovative coaches. Well, I know why, I just don't like it.
- James_Tanner

Its Hockey not a communications company. There isn't much innovation that can be done to this game. What do you want? The Flying "V"?

It’s great when someone with real knowledge on hockey jumps in.

How can this blogger live by analytics then dump on Ruff without doing any research and analysis on Ruff.

Cutting-edge writing I guess. Maybe the innovation is the eye test of a coach in one season in 1999!

Its Hockey not a communications company. There isn't much innovation that can be done to this game. What do you want? The Flying "V"?
- GPHawksfan

there are games with in the games; often with an end goal in mind.

j.gardiner gets hit on average 1.6x during the regular season.

in the playoffs, that average goes up to 2.2x.

teams don't exploit the weakness when it counts less; then watch the shock and denial as he turns into a turnover machine in the playoffs when the heat gets turned up.

sometimes it's nice just to appreciate the nuances of the game.

Bill Meltzer owning James yet again. When will it end?!?!?!
- Gertner

Gonna have to update it to "Remember those times ______"

With respect, I strongly disagree here. The 2005-06 season was the highest scoring season the NHL has had between now and 1996, but not because the NHL was super wide open. It was because the refs were calling everything.

There were 5.85 power players per team per game in 2005-06. That is the highest mark in league history (or at least since 1964, which is how far back the data I'm using goes). It's never been above 4.85 since. It's been under 3 in three out of the last four seasons.

Compare it against the previous season, 2003-04, which remains the lowest scoring season since the mid-50s, and you can see precisely where all that extra offense came from:

PP goals per game:
2004: 1.40
2006: 2.07
Difference: (+0.67)

ES goals per game:
2004: 3.54
2006: 3.72
Difference: (+0.18)

Or in other words, less than a tenth of a goal per game per team at even strength between 2004 (the lowest scoring season since 1956) and 2006 (the highest scoring season since 1996).

I would argue that the game is far more wide open today than it was in 2006. Goal scoring has almost caught back up to 2006 levels despite barely half as many powerplays.

Case in point: In 2006 Detroit led the league in even strength goals with 192. In 2019 there were 14 teams with at least that many.
- Sven22

This is a really good post too. I would strongly agree that today's hockey is not only more wide open, but that there is a wider range of teams playing different styles.

The Leafs for example don't just shovel shots on net, they will regroup and maintain possession, trying for high percentage plays. They also have their D jumping into the rush and, and they rotate players around the ice.......its not (as I understand the concept) a complete use of the "total hockey" approach advocated by many younger coaches, but I am given to understand its pretty close.


I would be interested to know if these high scoring Lindy Ruff teams were just racking up the PP or if he really changed and stopped being a dump and chase guys.

If anyone is interested in having their mind blow, buy Ryan Stimson's book called Skate to Tape. In it he lays out a series of strategies that would completely revolutionize hockey.

It’s great when someone with real knowledge on hockey jumps in.

How can this blogger live by analytics then dump on Ruff without doing any research and analysis on Ruff.

Cutting-edge writing I guess. Maybe the innovation is the eye test of a coach in one season in 1999!
- Merkmayhem

Dude, Lindy Ruff sucks and was a terrible choice. Just because I didn't realize he coached some high scoring teams doesn't change my mind about anything. He's an old school coach whose going to dump and chase and play grinders over skilled players, and he's going to be awful and NJ will fire him three years from now wondering what they were ever thinking.

So let's agree that it's too early to make a definitive decision either way if Keefe was the right hire.

Who's the young cutting edge coach that's been immediately successful that the other teams should be learning from?
- Hunkulese

Well you thi k he's so bad he's about to be fired after 3 months of coaching LOL

Well you thi k he's so bad he's about to be fired after 3 months of coaching LOL
- RogerRoeper

I never said he was about to be fired. If they lose to Columbus, his leash is gone. If they're mediocre next year and don't make it to the second round of the playoffs again, he's probably gone. That's a quick exit.

Thanks Bill, awesome post as always. I most closely associate Ruff with the late 90s early 2000 Sabres. I honestly didn't know about him also coaching the high scoring teams, but I don't think it really changes my opinion here.

Maybe Ruff is a Trotz or a Budreau - 2 of the older guys I'd have no problem a team hiring - but he's 60 something and hasn't coached in three or four seasons. The optics here are terrible, and I just don't see why teams aren't chasing younger, more innovative coaches. Well, I know why, I just don't like it.
- James_Tanner

Hahahhaha..
Wow, Tanner is so respectful

It's laughable

So let's agree that it's too early to make a definitive decision either way if Keefe was the right hire.

Who's the young cutting edge coach that's been immediately successful that the other teams should be learning from?
- Hunkulese

Gordon Bombay.

Dude, Lindy Ruff sucks and was a terrible choice. Just because I didn't realize he coached some high scoring teams doesn't change my mind about anything. He's an old school coach whose going to dump and chase and play grinders over skilled players, and he's going to be awful and NJ will fire him three years from now wondering what they were ever thinking.
- James_Tanner

You've offered 0 evidence of that though, and when given evidence of the opposite you just move the goalposts so that he still fits your view of what a 60 year old coach is.

You've offered 0 evidence of that though, and when given evidence of the opposite you just move the goalposts so that he still fits your view of what a 60 year old coach is.
- rmdevil313

Ugggh. Tanner's a Lib...... moving goalposts is what Libs do besT!

Ruff was a king in the Dead Puck Era ....its just honestly crazy that with the resources an NHL team has they make still make reputation based hires.

The game has changed a ton in just the last 5 years. I would personally want someone on the cutting edge.
- James_Tanner

No the game hasn't changed a ton in the last 5 years. Nor is there a trend towards "analytic" coaches. Whatever that means.