Who are the Calgary Flames?

[Street Pharmacist]

What are the Flames, exactly? How are they unique? What do they do well and what do they do poorly? We have a lot of answers, but how much evidence is there to support it? As with many things, the answer is complex. There isn’t a single sentence answer that explains everything that the Flames are. I will attempt to come up with several traits of this year’s Calgary Flames.

The Flames Play Possum
Shots for/game: 27.0 (28th in the NHL)
Shots against/game: 28.0 (8th in the NHL)
Shot attempts for/game: 51.8 (26th in the NHL)
Shot attempts against/game: 58.8 (27th in the NHL)

This has been beaten to death early in the season, but I’d like to get it out of the way first as well as add a fresh perspective. There’s more interesting stuff to come, so bear with me, and I’m not going to use any fancy lingo here. Shot attempts are just a measurement of how many times a player aimed and released towards the net regardless of where the puck went. Simple. If you look at the numbers I posted above, you can see that there’s two separate issues here and perhaps we can see why the flames have success despite poor “possession” numbers. The first issue is that the Flames really limit how many shot attempts reach the net. The second issue here is that the Flames do not take enough shots.

The most astonishing thing to me here is that the flames allow the fourth most shot attempts in the league, yet allow the 8th fewest to hit the net. Just looking at blocked shots misses the point in my opinion. The Flames play a passive blocking system of defense; they keep their sticks in the right place and clog up the shooting/passing lanes. This leads to a lot of pointless shots taken as they often are either blocked, or miss the net. The Flames make the opponent miss the net more than almost any other team and lead the league in blocked shots. This is much, much different from the Toronto and Colorado models that the flames are often compared to as they allowed way more than a league average of shots to hit the net. Their defensive scheme is/was more “let the goalie see it” vs the Flames are much more “get in the way and force them to shoot wide or try to make a play”. You need quick feet to get in the lanes all the time, so this also explains why Ladi Smid and Engelland don`t fare so well. The argument that the Flames limit shots to the outside just isn`t true either. The shots mostly come from the slot, but the save percentage from everywhere except the crease is higher than league average. In fact, the flames biggest Achilles for goals against is from the crease and the goal line.

The problem of taking shots is a big one. They don`t do a particular good job of picking their shots, but they do have a higher than average number of shots from the high slot and league average from the point. The rest of the zone is below league average with regards to number of shots, with the right side being way below league average. This to me speaks to the fact we have a decent left side, good defensemen and a poor right side, which is what we kind of already knew. What becomes interesting is that the Flames have a much better than league average shooting percentage from the middle of the ice and the point. That speaks to the talent in those positions if you ask me. To me, our goal scoring is dependent on too few and will be prone to dry spells as they don`t generate enough shots, and only score from a few choice areas. The right side is a virtual dead zone. The answer is probably to improve the talent up front. Backlund coming back may help, but I think we`ll just have to wait for the young talent to improve.


Tale of Two Teams: Brodano and The Rest
5v5 Team Goals for per 60 minutes played/Goals against per 60 minutes played:
Mark Giordano: 2.7/2.0
TJ Brodie: 2.7/1.9
Kris Russell: 2.5/1.9
Dennis Wideman: 2.1/2.3
Deryk Engelland: 1.4/2.8
Raphael Diaz: 1.2/2.6
Ladislav Smid: 1.2/3.1
Team Average: 2.2/2.2

The Flames really are a different team at 5v5 when Giordano and Brodie are on the ice. When Giordano and Brodie are on the ice the Flames score way more than when they’re off. The focus is often on goals against when looking at the +/- stat, but goals scored is important too. As you can see, the duo are only slightly better than team average for goals against, but much better in goals for. The big difference here is that the Flames score a lot and limit a bit when these two are on the ice because they can move the play in the right direction. The second pairing is a bit middling, though Russell is clearly the better player. The bottom pairing is where we are absolutely getting eaten alive. Oh, and Ladi Smid is awful.

Start Playing With the Lead Dammit!
Team record when leading after 2 periods: 11-0-0 (tied for first in winning %)
Team record when tied after 2: 5-5-2 (Middle of the road)
Team record when trailing after 2: 8-13-1 (3rd best winning%, most wins)

When I first started looking at this I expected the flames to be a team that maybe couldn’t hold a lead. That seems to both be true and completely false. Let me explain. The flames keep the lead extremely well when leading after the first or the second. Top three in the league for both, and are top three for coming from behind. So why aren’t they an elite team? The answer lies in the fact that they come from behind waaaaaaaaaaayyy too often. They’ve had to come from behind after the second in 22 of their 45 games so far, which is only ahead of Carolina, Edmonton and Buffalo. They’ve had the lead 11 times and been tied 12 times. That is not a good recipe for future success, yet somehow they’ve pulled together a decent record. Here’s where it gets into bizarre world: the flames have scored first in 23 of the 45 games they’ve played. If they’re that good at holding the lead after the first, then why don’t they have it more often? That leads me to the next calling card of the Flames this year…

Don’t Worry; We Play Better as the Game Goes On
Goals for/against per period
First: 28/36 (-8)
Second: 40/50 (-10)
Third: 54/29 (+25)
Overtime: 6/2 (+4)

Of all the ways to describe the Flames, this one is the most apt. The Flames seem to bring it in the third. If they were as good in the first as the third, the flames would be miles ahead of even the predators. There is no team with a better period differential in any period. It’s just nuts. A large part of that is certainly score effect. The flames are trailing so often that they have to turn it up. There has to be more though. If that were simply it, why aren’t Buffalo, Edmonton and Carolina in the same boat? The Flames are clearly a better team, but why can’t they bring that in every period? Is it that the they are overachieving in period 3, or underachieving in periods 1 and 2? My guess is it’s a mixed bag. Certainly conditioning plays into it, but I think you have to include the confidence they have knowing how many times they’ve pulled it off and conversely the opposing team must know about it too. There still must be more to it, but I don’t have that answer.

[AcGold]

Fast, hard working, great offense from the d, bad at face offs don't take many penalties and a fairly weak forward core.

[codynw]

I think they're a hockey team.

[locsofblu]

A professional hockey team that plays in the city of Calgary.

[heep223]

I wonder if the third period strength is the result of elite conditioning?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by heep223

I wonder if the third period strength is the result of elite conditioning?

Partly. The team is also pretty young (so youthful stamina), the team trains at altitude (which hurts visitors) and Hartley is pretty good at ice-time management.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by heep223

I wonder if the third period strength is the result of elite conditioning?

Conditioning and youth are probably a big part, but I think coaching is big too. They always believe that they can win it and don't roll over. Hartley seems to be a great motivator, but he also seems to have a few tactical tricks up his sleeve in the last few minutes. They are resilient.

I think the shots for and against stats are based on the fact that this team is inexperienced and lacking in top end developed talent (not devoid, but lacking next to the big contenders). The stats about come backs speaks to the resilience and character of the team.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by heep223

I wonder if the third period strength is the result of elite conditioning?

Maybe, but is the Flames conditioning really "elite"? How do we decide that?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Maybe, but is the Flames conditioning really "elite"? How do we decide that?

I'm not sure. Just that I've heard in numerous places that there's a huge emphasis on conditioning and there has been since day 1. So it's an assumption.

[jemjey]

Thanks for the intelligent, well-written post.

I think the flames are a hockey team that has pride.

The "hardworking", "overachieving" "never give up" labels, in my opinion, stem from the fact the team has pride in each other and the organisation. A great starting point for a rebuilding club.

[Bourque's Twin]

As of today, the Calgary Flames are a playoff team.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by heep223

I'm not sure. Just that I've heard in numerous places that there's a huge emphasis on conditioning and there has been since day 1. So it's an assumption.

I had that assumption too, but to be fair, that was what Eakins said in Edmonton too, so if be careful to assume too much. I think there's more to it. The flames are just a much more confident bunch when playing in the third

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I had that assumption too, but to be fair, that was what Eakins said in Edmonton too, so if be careful to assume too much. I think there's more to it. The flames are just a much more confident bunch when playing in the third

I think the assessment is more from media who've seen Hartley's pre-season and practices.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think the assessment is more from media who've seen Hartley's pre-season and practices.

The up tempo practices will certainly help keep players at game speed, but I'm not sure how even media could determine which teams have better conditioning

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by jemjey

Thanks for the intelligent, well-written post.

I think the flames are a hockey team that has pride.

The "hardworking", "overachieving" "never give up" labels, in my opinion, stem from the fact the team has pride in each other and the organisation. A great starting point for a rebuilding club.

I was going to write about that too, but wanted to stick to analysis that was verifiable. You can tell they play for each other and I think Gio is ultimately responsible for that

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The up tempo practices will certainly help keep players at game speed, but I'm not sure how even media could determine which teams have better conditioning

At the beginning of the season lots of the players themselves were talking about it, in regards to training camp and the messages they're receiving from coaches etc. I see your point though, it's hard to really know, but I'd say based on the information we have it's fair to say that our team is at least trying to use conditioning as an edge. Which would likely lead to better 3rd period results.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by heep223

At the beginning of the season lots of the players themselves were talking about it, in regards to training camp and the messages they're receiving from coaches etc. I see your point though, it's hard to really know, but I'd say based on the information we have it's fair to say that our team is at least trying to use conditioning as an edge. Which would likely lead to better 3rd period results.

I read those too, but training camp W quotes from other teams will also tall about conditioning too. If I recall I even read about Kessel having one of the best fitness results in camp. I'm not disputing that it may play a role, but even if the Flames fitness is "elite", I don't think the other team is that much more tired. Most teams are fit enough to go all out in the third. On a back to back maybe there's a difference, but not much from period 1 to 3 by my guess

[Enoch Root]

Great write-up SP, thanks.

Lots of great points to discuss but that goal differential in 3rd periods and OT of 60 to 31 is insane!

And it's not just a matter of being behind a lot as other teams that are behind a lot as well mostly have negative or flat 3rd period differentials. Certainly it plays into it, but it isn't the whole story.

And it doesn't explain the 6-2 OT score differential.

When this team is confident and skating, they are a joy to watch. When they stand still and pass into each others' skates... not so much.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Great write-up SP, thanks.

Lots of great points to discuss but that goal differential in 3rd periods and OT of 60 to 31 is insane!

And it's not just a matter of being behind a lot as other teams that are behind a lot as well mostly have negative or flat 3rd period differentials. Certainly it plays into it, but it isn't the whole story.

And it doesn't explain the 6-2 OT score differential.

When this team is confident and skating, they are a joy to watch. When they stand still and pass into each others' skates... not so much.

I really would love to know stylistically what is different. My guess is, when we're down we see Gio, Brodie, Hudler and Gaudreau more and Smid/Engelland less. That means more carrying the puck and less hot potato. Outside of that, I haven't a clue

Edit: They're shot attempts +/- doesn't change in the third. It's almost the same regardless of circumstantial

[Finger Cookin]

I'm glad...not glad, that's not the right word...comforted that the discrepancy between the first and second period in terms of GF/GA has calmed down a bit. It seemed that for much of the early season the Flames were good to great in the first, third, and OT, but awful in the second. And I couldn't figure out or even come up with a rationalization why it was happening so consistently. Maybe someone smarter than me, or with better understanding of the game, or with better access to game film, could explain it. All I could come up with is that there is something fundamental about the style of game and system we play that just does not work with the line changes to the far bench. But that doesn't seem to fly when the OT record is examined. Anyone?