A little Mo/Kirk Comparison

by PackPride17 on Feb 14, 2012 5:27 PM EST

We're now 32 games into the Captain Kirk Era of Hurricanes hockey, so I thought I'd take a look back on how this season's team compares under the 2 coaches. Obviously there are a few personnel changes, but nothing really major (except for getting rid of Kaberle). It also appears that there will not be many personnel changes heading into next season, so lets see what we might expect based on Kirk's current tenure.

What I will do is a basic statisical analysis of the team's primary stats between the 2 coaches, then a player breakdown when Mo was coach, then a player breakdown with Muller (so far), and I will finish it up with a side-by-side player breakdown based on a full 82 games under each coach. I believe all of my numbers are fairly accurate, but don't kill me if something is slightly off. Also, some of the "full 82 game" numbers might be a little skewed due to some players having a very limited number of games under a particular coach. No stats are perfect, but they may give us some insight on the performance of the team or certain players.

Here are the basic team numbers under Maurice and Muller.

Maurice: 25 games - 8 wins, 13 losses, 4 OT losses; that's a 32% win percentage. The Canes scored 60 goals under Maurice for a 2.4 goals per game average. The Canes allowed 81 goals for a 3.24 goals against average. We were 14 of 115 on the PP for 12.2% and we were 73 of 91 on the PK for 80.2%. If you project those numbers out; we would have ended up 26-43-13 for 65 points.

Muller: 32 games - 13 wins, 12 losses, 7 OT losses; that's a 41% win percentage. The Canes have scored 87 goals for a 2.72 goals per game average. The Canes have allowed 90 goals for a 2.81 goals against average. We are 19 of 98 on the PP for 19.4% and we are 60 of 80 on the PK for 75%. If you project these numbers out over 82 games; we would end up 33-31-18 for 84 points.

If the numbers are correct, neither coach would have gotten us in the playoffs this season. But we have shown some improvement recently under Muller, so 5-1-4 over our past 10 games. Our more up-tempo games has resulted in us scoring 0.41 more goals per game and has also led to a 0.43 decrease in our goals against. We are still being outscored by the opposition, but the margin is a lot closer. Another "big" positive difference is our PP %, we have increase our PP by 7.2%. A 19.4% PP would be ranked 7th in the league as compared to where we currently are at 23rd. A negative is that we have 17 less PP's under Muller in 7 more games. Another negative is our PK; which has decreased by 5.2%. We are not going on the PK as much under Muller, but our 75% under Muller would rank dead last in the league. Overall, we are in a lot better position now than we were under Maurice, but there is still a lot of improvement that needs to be made if we are looking to make the playoffs next season.

Here are the basic player numbers under Maurice and Muller:

Maurice/Muller

Allen - 25gp, 0g, 4a, 4p, 0.16ppg, +3 rating / 32gp, 0g, 4a, 4p, 0.13ppg, -3 rating

Bowman - 2gp, 0g, 0a, 0p, 0.00ppg, E rating / 14gp, 2g, 4a, 6p, 0.43ppg, -3 rating

Boychuk - 13gp, 0g, 2a, 2p, 0.15ppg, -1 rating / has not played under Muller

Brent - 25gp, 2g, 3a, 5p, 0.20ppg, -1 rating / 29gp, 6g, 6a, 12p, 0.41ppg, -2 rating

Dalpe - 9gp, 0g, 0a, 0p, 0.00ppg, -1 rating / 7gp, 1g, 2a, 3p, 0.43ppg, -2 rating

Dwyer - 25gp, 3g, 3a, 6p, 0.24ppg, -1 rating / 27gp, 2g, 1a, 3p, 0.11ppg, +1 rating

Faulk - 9gp, 0g, 2a, 2p, 0.22ppg, -9 rating / 32gp, 4g, 7a, 11p, 0.34ppg, E rating

Gleason - 25gp, 0g, 6a, 6p, 0.24ppg, +1 rating / 32gp, 1g, 8a, 9p, 0.28ppg, +4 rating

Harrison - 23gp, 2g, 7a, 9p, 0.39ppg, -5 rating / 23gp, 5g, 6a, 11p, 0.48ppg, +3 rating

Jokinen - 22gp, 4g, 11a, 15p, 0.68ppg, -1 rating / 32gp, 3g, 11a, 14p, 0.44ppg, -2 rating

Joslin - 6gp, 0g, 1a, 1p, 0.17ppg, -1 rating / 15gp, 1g, 0a, 1p, 0.07ppg, -7 rating

Kaberle - 24gp, 0g, 5a, 5p, 0.21ppg, -10 rating / 5gp, 0g, 4a, 4p, 0.80ppg, -2 rating

LaRose - 25gp, 6g, 9a, 15p, 0.60ppg, -11 rating / 23gp, 5g, 2a, 7p, 0.30ppg, -7 rating

McBain - 21gp, 0g, 6a, 6p, 0.29ppg, -4 rating / 25gp, 5g, 9a, 14p, 0.56ppg, -2 rating

Nash - did not play under Maurice / 5gp, 0g, 1a, 1p, 0.20ppg, +1 rating

Nodl - did not play under Maurice / 31gp, 2g, 3a, 5p, 0.16ppg, -1 rating

Pitkanen - 17gp, 3g, 6a, 9p, 0.53ppg, -11 rating / 4gp, 0g, 3a, 3p, 0.75ppg, -1 rating

Ponikarovsky - 25gp, 6g, 3a, 9p, 0.36ppg, -4 rating / 24gp, 1g, 5a, 6p, 0.25ppg, -7 rating

Ruutu - 25gp, 7g, 4a, 11p, 0.44ppg, E rating / 32gp, 10g, 8a, 18p, 0.56ppg, +3 rating

Samson - did not play under Maurice / 3gp, 1g, 0a, 1p, 0.33ppg, -2 rating

Skinner - 25gp, 9g, 12a, 21p, 0.84ppg, -5 rating / 15gp, 6g, 3a, 9p, 0.60ppg, -5 rating

Spacek - did not play under Maurice / 20gp, 2g, 4a, 6p, 0.30ppg, E rating

Staal - 25gp, 5g, 6a, 11p, 0.44ppg, -17 rating / 32gp, 11g, 22a, 33p, 1.03ppg, -1 rating

Stewart - 21gp, 4g, 0a, 4p, 0.19ppg, -2 rating / 32gp, 2g, 8a, 10p, 0.31ppg, +6 rating

Sutter16 - 25gp, 5g, 4a, 9p, 0.36ppg, -2 rating / 32gp, 7g, 6a, 13p, 0.41ppg, E rating

Sutter42 - 8gp, 0g, 3a, 3p, 0.38ppg, -1 rating / 7gp, 0g, 0a, 0p, 0.00ppg, E rating

Tlusty - 25gp, 4g, 5a, 9p, 0.36ppg, -7 rating / 32gp, 9g, 5a, 14p, 0.44ppg, +11 rating

All-in-all, 14 players improved their PPG average under Muller, 8 decreased their PPG production, and 5 players only played under either Maurice or Muller. 14 players also improved their +/- rating under Muller, 7 decreased, 1 stayed the same, and 5 again only played under either Maurice or Muller. Now some players numbers like Pitkanen & Kaberle are skewed because of the very limited games they saw under Muller. Pitkanen & Kaberle had a couple of good games under Muller before being injured or traded. Staal probably saw the biggest increase; going from a 0.44ppg player to a 1.03ppg player and having a +/- rating of -17 under Maurice, while only having a -1 under Muller. Tlusty, McBain, Brent, and Faulk have also seen a significant improvement to their PPG average or +/- rating. Others like Ruutu, Sutter, and "the kids" have generally seen slight improvement under Muller. LaRose and Joslin has probably seen the biggest drop-off under Muller. But Skinner, Jokinen, Dwyer, and Ponikarovsky (now gone) have seen their production slip some. I guess what works for some doesn't necessarily work for others, but that's how it goes when a coaching change happens.

Here are the 82 game projected numbers under Maurice and Muller:

Maurice/Muller

Allen - 0g, 13a, 13p, +10 rating / 0g, 10a, 10p, -8 rating

Bowman - 0g, 0a, 0p, E rating / 12g, 23a, 35p, -18 rating

Boychuk - 0g, 13a, 13p, -6 rating / has not played under Maurice

Brent - 7g, 10a, 17p, -3 rating / 17g, 17a, 34p, -6 rating

Dalpe - 0g, 0a, 0p, -9 rating / 12g, 23a, 35p, -23 rating

Dwyer - 10g, 10a, 20p, -3 rating / 6g, 3a, 9p, +3 rating

Faulk - 0g, 18a, 18p, -82 rating / 10g, 18a, 28p, E rating

Gleason - 0g, 20a, 20p, +3 rating / 3g, 21a, 24p, +10 rating

Harrison - 7g, 25a, 32p, -18 rating / 18g, 21a, 39p, +11 rating

Jokinen - 15g, 41a, 56p, -4 rating / 8g, 28a, 36p, -5 rating

Joslin - 0g, 14a, 14p, -14 rating / 5g, 0a, 5p, -38 rating

Kaberle - 0g, 17a, 17p, -34 rating / numbers skewed

LaRose - 20g, 30a, 50p, -36 rating / 18g, 7a, 25p, -25 rating

McBain - 0g, 23a, 23p, -16 rating / 16g, 30a, 46p, -7 rating

Nash - did not play under Maurice / 0g, 16a, 16p, +16 rating

Nodl - did not play under Maurice / 5g, 8a, 13p, -3 rating

Pitkanen - 14g, 29a, 43p, -53 rating / numbers skewed

Ponikarovsky - 20g, 10a, 30p, -13 rating / 3g, 17a, 20p, -24 rating

Ruutu - 23g, 13a, 36p, E rating / 26g, 21a, 47p, +8 rating

Samson - did not play under Maurice / numbers skewed

Skinner - 30g, 39a, 69p, -16 rating / 33g, 16a, 49p, -27 rating

Spacek - did not play under Maurice / 8g, 16a, 24p, E rating

Staal - 16g, 20a, 36p, -56 rating / 28g, 56a, 84p, -3 rating

Stewart - 16g, 0a, 16p, -8 rating / 5g, 21a, 26p, +15 rating

Sutter16 - 16g, 13a, 29p, -7 rating / 18g, 15a, 33p, E rating

Sutter42 - 0g, 31a, 31p, -10 rating / 0g, 0a, 0p, E rating

Tlusty - 13g, 16a, 29p, -23 rating / 23g, 13a, 36p, +28 rating

Take these "projected numbers" whoever you want. It seems like some of these numbers are what we would expect from certain players and some of these numbers seem really off. I just did this so you guys could see the differences between Maurice and Muller. I hope you enjoyed reading through this long, boring FanPost. It is a lot of numbers to digest :)

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Good writeup. I would just like to add that I would not count the first 4 games under Muller (all losses) as he took over a team that could not even play 60 minutes of hockey and needed a couple of weeks to get the team in shape. I did the following analysis through the first 29 games after Muller took over.

Maurice’s record was 8-13-4 when he was relieved on 11/28/2011. Total 25 games.
Muller’s record since is 12-12-5 through 2/04/2012. Total 29 games

In the first week and half after taking over from Mo the team lost 4 in a row. Subtracting those games Muller is 12-8-5. Not bad.

The breakdown of their performance against playoff teams (teams that would qualify now):

Maurice Muller
Philadelphia 1 – 2 – 0 2 pts 0 – 1 – 0
Pittsburgh 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts 0 – 2 – 1 1 pt
Boston 2 – 0 – 0 4 pts 2 – 0 – 0 4 pts
New Jersey 0 – 2 – 0 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts
New York Rangers 0 – 1 – 0 0 – 1 – 0
Washington 0 – 1 – 1 1 pt 1 – 1 – 0 2 pts
Vancouver 0 – 0 – 0 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts
Chicago 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts 0 – 0 – 0
Florida 0 – 0 – 0 0 – 1 – 0
Nashville 0 – 0 – 0 0 – 1 – 0
Los Angeles 0 – 0 – 0 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts
Ottawa 0 – 1 – 1 1 pt 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts
Toronto 1 – 0 – 0 2 pts 1 – 0 – 1 3 pts

Totals 6 – 7 – 2 14 pts 8 – 7 – 2 18 pts

Games 5 goals given up 7 games 3 games
Games 4 goals given up 4 games 3 games
Games 3 goals given up 6 games 5 games
Games 2 goals given up 5 games 8 games
Games 1 goal given up 2 games 4 games
Games 0 goals given up 1 game 2 games

Totals 25 games 25 games

Goals given up indicates we improved our defense substantially after Muller took over.

Total goals given up 83 goals in 25 games = 3.32 gpg 64 goals in 25 games = 2.56/gpg

Goals scored 60 goals in 25 games = 2.40 gpg 71 goals in 25 games = 2.82 gpg

These stats show excellent improvement under Muller.

by FoxtrotSierra on Feb 14, 2012 11:20 PM EST reply actions

In the previous post the first set of numbers are Mo’s and the second set are Mullers.

Thus points against playoff teams would be 14 in 25 games for Mo and 18 for Muller in 25 games.

Games 5 goals given up would be 7 games for Mo and 3 games for Muller, etc.

Total goals given up would be 83 under Mo and 64 under Muller for 25 games each.

Goals scored would be 60 under Mo and 71 under Muller for 25 games each.

Sorry for the lousy formatting in my previous post.

by FoxtrotSierra on Feb 14, 2012 11:28 PM EST up reply actions

What's the real telling stat?

In Mullers last 25 games, we averaged 2.82 Goals per game while only giving up 2.56 per game. That’s the difference between a winner and a loser—score more than your opponent. Mo was never quite on the right side of those numbers.

by Squeaky83 on Feb 15, 2012 9:21 AM EST up reply actions

If you take out the best or worst samples from any data set, it's going to change the set markedly.

Hi, my name is Michael Procton, and I will mindf*** you with logical yet (often) pessimistic retorts until the cows come home. Good Day.
--by Aisander D on Feb 4, 2012 7:59 PM EST
I gotta stop takin' my baths durin' Peter's shenanigans.

by MichaelProcton on Feb 15, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

But i nthis case it wasn’ta pick or choose. It was elimination of four games—the first four for Kirk, which is stistically fair and sinificant. Obviously Kirk had No time or ability to initiate changes in the first few games—especially coming in on a game day skate. Therefore those first few games reflected more on Maurice than Muller. after watching and conferring wiht the other coaches Kirk began to make changes—to the system, to the special teams, and in working with the players individually. That input takes time, and to be honest took a heck of a lot more than four games. So only taking out the first four games still leaves at least a modicum of Mo influence but is a fair enough comparison.

So if you’re commenting trying to discredit the staistics on a “pick and choose” basis, you’re off base. If you’re just throwing out stistical tripe we all know and understand, why waste your effort… If you disagree with the analysis, why not argue your point??

by Squeaky83 on Feb 15, 2012 2:58 PM EST up reply actions

stats aside, watching the product on the ice under muller you can see MARKED improvement. this guy can coach.

"Look into my eyes and repeat after me: I will vacation in Ontario. I will vacation in Ontario. I will vacation in Ontario..."

by Capt. Stinky on Feb 15, 2012 6:44 AM EST reply actions

You are right. Win or lose we play with high intensity and are entertaining to watch. We are never out of it.

by FoxtrotSierra on Feb 15, 2012 8:38 AM EST up reply actions

...except in the standings.

by MichaelProcton on Feb 15, 2012 2:47 PM EST up reply actions

Standings

OK you win….however if you look at points earned over the last 10 games we are catching TB, Montreal, Win, Buff, etc. So on this pace they will be looking at our tail lights soon.

In Kirk we Trust

by Mullett on Feb 15, 2012 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

Agree

My key performance indicators are different than the average fan. Since Muller I have not turned the channel mid-game to watch mindless re-runs of Pawn Stars or World at War on the Military Channel. Nor have I fallen asleep as much watching the games. Both good signs that the team is playing a better brand of hockey. Plus it is nice to see a little enthusiasm behind the bench as compared to Mo who at times resembled a Funeral Director.

In Kirk we Trust

by Mullett on Feb 15, 2012 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Those are some of the best performance indicators I have read! I like the fact that it keeps the notion of “fan entertainment” in perspective. Good thought!

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
Sun Tzu circa 4th Century BC

by hurricanefever on Feb 16, 2012 8:04 AM EST up reply actions

Amen

Much more competitive games now

by wolfpack caniac on Feb 16, 2012 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

The more I look at the stats, the more I examine how individuals play, the more I think about this; the more firm I believe that some combination of LaRose, Dwyer, and Stewart need to be gone. I truely believe that we have prospects that can fill these roles as well as these current players do. Now obviously, each of these guys bring a particular thing to the table that might be hard to be replaced; like LaRose’s personality, like Dwyer’s PK abilities, like Stewart’s size. But I do believe that players like Samson, Bowman, and Nash can for the most part fill the roles of these players.

It would obviously be nice to get an upgrade in talent (particularly in our top 6 & top 4) and at least one move will have to be made, but here is a potential lineup for next season only including players on our current roster.

Tlusty / Staal / Dalpe

This is obviously hoping that Dalpe is ready for “big time” duty next season, but all three of these players have scoring ability and all are of decent size. If Staal continues playing the way he has under Muller (and hopefully gets more confident in his shooting), should return to be one of the elite players in the league. Tlusty appears to be rounding into the form that made him a 1st round selection and he plays a solid two-way game. Dalpe has a good shot and speed, but he needs to work on positioning and his strength.

Skinner / Jussi / Ruutu

Jussi has not had a very good season and I would hope that he can get things turned around. If Ruutu is resigned, pairing these guys up might be the best way to get the most out of each. IMO, Skinner is a very interesting player to play with. It appears to me that he likes to handle the puck and needs linemates that will be in the right spot at the right time. Jussi & Ruutu seem to compliment him very well, but I think he is best with both of them.

Bowman / Sutter / Samson

This grouping would be interesting in my eyes. I see all of these players as ones that play pretty responsible and do well playing a grinding sort of game. But at the same time, they all have a little speed and appear to be able to provide some offense. Samson has really impressed me and I think he is great along the boards. Bowman simply plays pretty steady, has a little size, and has that offensive spark inside just looking for a way out. Sutter is so intelligent, plays well as both ends, and is a rocket just wanting to explode.

Nodl / Brent / LaRose

This line can do more than a typical 4th line, but they really shouldn’t be counted on to do more for a long period of time. LaRose provides heart, can play on the PK, and can score some goals; but he really doesn’t have very good vision and you need to have some to play in the top 9. Nodl is a good example of a “utility man;” he can do everything, but doesn’t do anything great. I like him on the 4th line, but he can move up as needed. And Brent has really stepped up his game under Muller. If he can continue near the pace he is on, he should produce around 15 goals, 30 points. This would make a 4th line that is difficult to play against.

Pitkanen / McBain

I have been very hard on McBain, because I have to admit that he is producing points. He also seems to do his best when paired with Pitkanen. This pairing would give us a classic left shot / right shot, but neither player is physical or considered especially strong defensively. Offense is where this pairing would have to earn their paychecks. (Just a note: None of these pairings would be 1st, 2nd, 3rd; but more of a matchup pairings)

Harrison / Faulk

This duo has probably been our best this season and seems to play well together. They can go against almost anybody and hold their own. They also contribute on the offense end. This really seems to me as the best two-way defensive pairing we could put together.

Gleason / Dumoulin

While many would probably expect to see Murphy’s name in one of these groups, I don’t feel he would work best with our other defensemen. Dumoulin would really have to be up to speed to start playing right away, but I think he can play a very steady game. Gleason would provide his normal, physical play and hopefully help pick up some slack from the rookie. I personally believe that Faulk & Dumoulin have a chance at being our future top defensive pairing, but it will probably not be as soon as next season.

JR; please dump some players and bring the kids up to stay!

by PackPride17 on Feb 16, 2012 5:20 PM EST reply actions