Spector - Flames working to shake "unsustainable" label

[saillias]

I for one am tired of threads about things that aren't hockey. Kane, Voynov, Richards, homophobia, CalgaryNEXT and so on.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/flames-working-to-shake-unsustainable-label/


Even Flames general manager Brad Treliving shared an analogy that has been running through the Flames’ front office over the summer:
“Our season last year was like winning the Masters,” he quipped, “while sinking eighteen 40-foot putts.”



“Any type of predictability (analysis) will tell you that you can’t continue to trail and expect to have successful outcomes,” Treliving admitted. “We’ve looked at it seven ways to Sunday. We can’t continue to dig holes, and consider a victory when we work … fill the hole back in. That just doesn’t win.”

[CroFlames]

Nothing new with that Spec article. Flames are certainly trending in the right direction; so hopefully it translates to more Ws on the ice.

Although I do admit Spec has come a long way from about 2-3 years ago when what he was writing was absolute trash.

[GranteedEV]

Don't want to dig holes early?

Don't play units like Smid-Engelland-Bollig together in the D-zone expecting good results because "plumbers in the bottom 6".

[Benched]

unsustainable!

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Nothing new with that Spec article. Flames are certainly trending in the right direction; so hopefully it translates to more Ws on the ice.

Although I do admit Spec has come a long way from about 2-3 years ago when what he was writing was absolute trash.
Has Spec come a long way in 2-3 years ago, or have the Flames outlook simply improved since that time that it just becomes harder to be really hard on the team.

I find it's pretty correlated, as our team improves, it is often reflected in a opinion by many Flames fans that commentators or columnists or analysts that we used to feel were total crap are all of a sudden improving. I think it likely has less to do with improved reporting or analysis, versus the message towards the Flames is simply less negative.

[Finger Cookin]

This will be a very interesting and thought provoking debate to listen to all season.

[saillias]

Don't want to dig holes early?

Don't play units like Smid-Engelland-Bollig together in the D-zone expecting good results because "plumbers in the bottom 6".

This is why I wanted to keep Diaz. He struggled early because he wasn't playing much but he found his game later in the year and I liked him over Engelland.

[CroFlames]

Has Spec come a long way in 2-3 years ago, or have the Flames outlook simply improved since that time that it just becomes harder to be really hard on the team.

I find it's pretty correlated, as our team improves, it is often reflected in a opinion by many Flames fans that commentators or columnists or analysts that we used to feel were total crap are all of a sudden improving. I think it likely has less to do with improved reporting or analysis, versus the message towards the Flames is simply less negative.

I should have added to the original post that it's not just the Flames articles I'm talking about.

Some of the articles praising the Canucks (or even bashing them) and the Oiler stuff were especially bad. I can't think of specific examples now, but I remember reading his stuff in the past on any number of topics/teams and just thinking how amateurish.

Nowadays, he's a lot better, the quality of Flames teams notwithstanding.

[Locke]

Ah 'unsustainable!' Its been a while old friend.

[FlamesAddiction]

Figuring out how to mount comebacks is a trademark of any good team. I can't believe how often this is spun as a negative.

It's true that good teams also have to learn how to prevent digging holes more often than not and the Flames still need to figure that part out, but no one ever thought that last season's team was a finished product or that the game plan was to sit back then make comebacks game after game. Saying that it is unsustainable to rely on that model is pointless since it was never the plan to maintain that model to begin with.

[saillias]

Spector became really fed up with the Oilers OBC last year and it got to the point where I was wondering if he was going keep his job. Anytime he would come on the Fan 960 he would just hammer the Oilers and Lowe and McTavish and Eakins.

He had a couple incidents with the Oilers last year like the Eakins press conference where he called him out on Justin Schultz' ice time. Another incident in the Oilers locker room where he had an exchange with Ben Scrivens.

[GranteedEV]

Figuring out how to mount comebacks is a trademark of any good team. I can't believe how often this is spun as a negative.

No kidding. The Bruins, Kings and Red Wings were the comeback kings when they were contenders, and don't forget that the Ducks had more comeback wins than we did last year.

[Street Pharmacist]

At least Treliving gets it. Without significant additions, the Flames were in tough to make the playoffs.

Even with the additions, it's going to tough. The Flames could finish anywhere from 6th to 10th this year.

Things to watch for me this season:

-5v5 shot differential. It's been harped on, but it'll be interesting to see if Bennett, Hamilton and Frolik can move the needle. If the focus continues to be on blocking shots, they'll be in tough I think. I like to separate shot generation and suppression as it's been shown they're separate skills that are actually relatively independent of each other and I don't believe they should be lumped together. More on this in a bit

-Goals against. To be an elite team with a shot at the cup, you need to be elite in goals against. Goal scoring has only limited effect on winning compared to goals against. The defensive core is built on attack, and plenty of analysis shows offense and defense are actually independent. The old adage of "the best defense is a good offense" simply isn't true. Having said that "defensive defensemen" don't contribute to defense much if they can't move the puck out of their zone with possession. This is where having Hamilton and the potential of dropping Russell to the third pair could really help. If the goalies can play like they should, and the Forward core back check effectively (not just block shots) it may turn things around. Calgary was 17th last year and needs to improve significantly to be a lock for a spot.

-Shot generation. While goals against is essential to win the big one, scoring goals is still important. It's extremely unlikely they can score as many goals if they continue to throw so few pucks at the net. Only the Devils and Sabres took less shots than the Flames last year. The top team (Chicago) took seven more shots per game. That's over 25% more shots per game!! There's a lot of work to be done here.

-Penalty differential. This was, in my mind, probably the Flames biggest secret weapon. They were historically good at taking less penalties than they drew. From a repeatability perspective, taking fewer penalties is a repeatable skill and drawing penalties likely isn't. At 5v5, the flames had a negative goal differential and don't make the playoffs if they go to the box more. It's hard as a fan to see the Flames shy away from the physical "after the whistle" stuff, but it works for them.


Overall, will the improvement in the youth, the additions of Hamilton, Bennett and Frolik and a year of healthy Gio make the Flames better than last year?

I think so, but are a year or two from becoming elite

[Fighting Banana Slug]

BT with the right answers again. Recognizing that some of the numbers weren't great, accepting that they need to improve and charting a course to see that improvement. That is all you can expect from the GM.

[GranteedEV]

At 5v5, the flames had a negative goal differential

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of that negative goal differential had to do with the tire-fires that were out there throughout Engelland's time on the ice. The Gio-Brodie(+8), Russell-Wideman(+11), and Schlemko-Diaz(+4) pairings all had positive G.D.s at 5 on 5. The Brodie-Engelland(-7), Diaz-Engelland (-7), and Smid-Engelland (-10) pairings simultaneously tanked the goal differential by more than the three good pairings.

Great post, though.

[underGRADFlame]

Every time I see someone write or talk about the flames and being unsustainable... this guys pops in my head and I giggle a little bit.

http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/inconceivable.jpg

[MrMastodonFarm]

Every time I see someone write or talk about the flames and being unsustainable... this guys pops in my head and I giggle a little bit.

http://barfblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/inconceivable.jpg
Yeah, Ryan Lambert pops into my head too.

[DJones]

Just wondering how was our Corsi in January and February before Gio went down?

Before Christmas the team was just a mess with injuries and Rookies then when Gio went down that obviously hurt us too.

January and February are probably more reflective on what to expect next year. And then add in Frolik, Hamilton and player improvement.

[Ryan Coke]

To Street Pharma, and any other who want to jump in of course, I am curious about Russell from a statistical perspective.

He's a guy who was kind of a Brodie light to me....great stick and puck movement, and rarely did I find his size to be much of an issue. In general looking at his year with Wideman, I tend to think Wideman would be in more trouble without Russell then the other way around.

I get the sense some of the statistical analysis might not agree, and was curious about that.

Your comment about dropping Russell to the bottom pairing as opposed to Wideman got me thinking about that.

[DJones]

To Street Pharma, and any other who want to jump in of course, I am curious about Russell from a statistical perspective.

He's a guy who was kind of a Brodie light to me....great stick and puck movement, and rarely did I find his size to be much of an issue. In general looking at his year with Wideman, I tend to think Wideman would be in more trouble without Russell then the other way around.

I get the sense some of the statistical analysis might not agree, and was curious about that.

Your comment about dropping Russell to the bottom pairing as opposed to Wideman got me thinking about that.

Russell is our worst player(maybe Engellend) according to Corsi but our best according to actual goals.

Actually highlights a big problem with analytics. That's the problem when shot quality and actual shots aren't taken into account.

[HartAttack]

At least Treliving gets it. Without significant additions, the Flames were in tough to make the playoffs.

Even with the additions, it's going to tough. The Flames could finish anywhere from 6th to 10th this year.

Things to watch for me this season:

-5v5 shot differential. It's been harped on, but it'll be interesting to see if Bennett, Hamilton and Frolik can move the needle. If the focus continues to be on blocking shots, they'll be in tough I think. I like to separate shot generation and suppression as it's been shown they're separate skills that are actually relatively independent of each other and I don't believe they should be lumped together. More on this in a bit

-Goals against. To be an elite team with a shot at the cup, you need to be elite in goals against. Goal scoring has only limited effect on winning compared to goals against. The defensive core is built on attack, and plenty of analysis shows offense and defense are actually independent. The old adage of "the best defense is a good offense" simply isn't true. Having said that "defensive defensemen" don't contribute to defense much if they can't move the puck out of their zone with possession. This is where having Hamilton and the potential of dropping Russell to the third pair could really help. If the goalies can play like they should, and the Forward core back check effectively (not just block shots) it may turn things around. Calgary was 17th last year and needs to improve significantly to be a lock for a spot.

-Shot generation. While goals against is essential to win the big one, scoring goals is still important. It's extremely unlikely they can score as many goals if they continue to throw so few pucks at the net. Only the Devils and Sabres took less shots than the Flames last year. The top team (Chicago) took seven more shots per game. That's over 25% more shots per game!! There's a lot of work to be done here.

-Penalty differential. This was, in my mind, probably the Flames biggest secret weapon. They were historically good at taking less penalties than they drew. From a repeatability perspective, taking fewer penalties is a repeatable skill and drawing penalties likely isn't. At 5v5, the flames had a negative goal differential and don't make the playoffs if they go to the box more. It's hard as a fan to see the Flames shy away from the physical "after the whistle" stuff, but it works for them.


Overall, will the improvement in the youth, the additions of Hamilton, Bennett and Frolik and a year of healthy Gio make the Flames better than last year?

I think so, but are a year or two from becoming elite


Outstanding post. Fully agree.

[Street Pharmacist]

To Street Pharma, and any other who want to jump in of course, I am curious about Russell from a statistical perspective.

He's a guy who was kind of a Brodie light to me....great stick and puck movement, and rarely did I find his size to be much of an issue. In general looking at his year with Wideman, I tend to think Wideman would be in more trouble without Russell then the other way around.

I get the sense some of the statistical analysis might not agree, and was curious about that.

Your comment about dropping Russell to the bottom pairing as opposed to Wideman got me thinking about that.
To the eye test for me Russell was good at (and he admitted was his strategy) making it look like a shot was available only to get in the way at the last minute. Great strategy at preventing that player from scoring on that shot, but the problem is the Flames don't often get the puck back and now you're blocking another shot. It looked to me by my eyes that he had trouble along the boards with pinning anyone down. Wideman wasn't better, but at least provided a good amount of offense.

From a statistical perspective, yes he was eaten alive 5v5. It was really apparent even to the eye against Perry/Getzlaf, though that's a little unfair as most defensemen are. He's suited to the bottom pair in my mind.

[Street Pharmacist]

Russell is our worst player(maybe Engellend) according to Corsi but our best according to actual goals.

Actually highlights a big problem with analytics. That's the problem when shot quality and actual shots aren't taken into account.

That's just not true at all. Corsi is better than goals at predicting what the future will bring. So far, no one has proven shot quality is very important despite people actually looking into it.

If goals were more important and weren't b more random, how come he was so much worse last year? Did he suddenly get better? Or was there maybe more luck involved?

Buffalo scored more goals than Calgary in their two meetings last year. Were they the better team?

[saillias]

That's just not true at all. Corsi is better than goals at predicting what the future will bring. So far, no one has proven shot quality is very important despite people actually looking into it.

If goals were more important and weren't b more random, how come he was so much worse last year? Did he suddenly get better? Or was there maybe more luck involved?

Buffalo scored more goals than Calgary in their two meetings last year. Were they the better team?

I am now having flashbacks of Ennis outmuscling Brodie in the corner to set up a goal. :bag:

Like you mentioned about Russell having trouble pinning guys down, I think Brodie has the same problem.

[GioforPM]

I personally hate the "shot quality" argument, even though it may have validity at times. It's just that it is the argument I heard from the Leaf fans time and time again, when they were being outshot badly.

That said, it's funny that Russell, who everyone loves because of his effort, is terrible according to Corsi and Backlund, who often seems underwhelming, has been a Corsi stud over the years.

[DJones]

That's just not true at all. Corsi is better than goals at predicting what the future will bring. So far, no one has proven shot quality is very important despite people actually looking into it.

If goals were more important and weren't b more random, how come he was so much worse last year? Did he suddenly get better? Or was there maybe more luck involved?

Buffalo scored more goals than Calgary in their two meetings last year. Were they the better team?

Our 8 game losing streak was our best 8 game streak last year in terms of corsi. I hope to god Hartley wasn't saying to just keep doing what they were doing it's all bad luck.

Can say anything when looking at a small sample size.

[Street Pharmacist]

Our 8 game losing streak was our best 8 game streak last year in terms of corsi. I hope to god Hartley wasn't saying to just keep doing what they were doing it's all bad luck.

Can say anything when looking at a small sample size.
That's exactly the point. Goals are random and sometimes the best players/teams don't score the most goals.

Your username is a good example
David Jones scored 30 goals one year. Is he as good as Monahan? No. Shot rates are much less prone to random effects because they're a much bigger sample than goals. If we're going to look at a player over 3+ seasons I'll trust goals over Corsi. One season of a great goal differential is less predictive than one season of shot attempt differential. By a fair margin, and it has little to nothing to do with shot quality

[CliffFletcher]

“Any type of predictability (analysis) will tell you that you can’t continue to trail and expect to have successful outcomes,” Treliving admitted. “We’ve looked at it seven ways to Sunday. We can’t continue to dig holes, and consider a victory when we work … fill the hole back in. That just doesn’t win.”

Hater!!!

[GranteedEV]

Just wondering how was our Corsi in January and February before Gio went down?

44.5% or 26th best over the 22 games between Jan 7 (Backlund's return) and Feb 27th (Giordano's injury).

To Street Pharma, and any other who want to jump in of course, I am curious about Russell from a statistical perspective.

He's a guy who was kind of a Brodie light to me....great stick and puck movement, and rarely did I find his size to be much of an issue. In general looking at his year with Wideman, I tend to think Wideman would be in more trouble without Russell then the other way around.

I get the sense some of the statistical analysis might not agree, and was curious about that.

Your comment about dropping Russell to the bottom pairing as opposed to Wideman got me thinking about that.

In terms of shot attempt suppression over the last two seasons, both have been problematic, and neither has been all that great at shot attempt generation either, with Wideman getting more offensive opportunity.

Ideally, they're probably both bottom pairing defensemen. If you have to live with one in your middle pairing, my eye test says Russell and the statistics slightly favor Wideman offensively (which makes sense as he's the better offensive player) but really don't favor either defensively.

Smid is probably our 4th best defensive defenseman analytically but he's been damaged goods since before he got here. Also, since Smid can't handle the puck, he needs to be carried by a strong middle pairing partner like Petry, Brodie, or Hamilton. Luckily we have two of those three and they're actually top pairing partners. The other issue is that since Smid isn't all that great offensively, being the 4th best defensive defenseman still means he's your 6th or 7th best offensive defenseman.

The best option for #4D analytically, is Mr. Damaged Goods II: Model: PTO

[mikephoen]

That's just not true at all. Corsi is better than goals at predicting what the future will bring. So far, no one has proven shot quality is very important despite people actually looking into it.

If goals were more important and weren't b more random, how come he was so much worse last year? Did he suddenly get better? Or was there maybe more luck involved?

Buffalo scored more goals than Calgary in their two meetings last year. Were they the better team?

I'm going to vehemently disagree with the bolded above. The truth is shot quality is very hard to measure, so it's mostly been ignored. And then the axiom that is doesn't matter has been repeated over and over until people take it as truth.

Check out some of the work done on the Royal Road. This analysis indicates that shot quality is incredibly important. And common sense also says shot quality is incredibly important. How can anyone argue that a Chris Butler muffin shot from the point has the same statistical value a shot by Alex Ovechkin on a cross crease pass? But that's what Corsi would have us believe.

Here is a good intro to the Royal Road for those interested: http://www.msg.com/shows/hockey-night-live/chris-boyle/green--red-and-yellow-shots.html

[Street Pharmacist]

I'm going to vehemently disagree with the bolded above. The truth is shot quality is very hard to measure, so it's mostly been ignored. And then the axiom that is doesn't matter has been repeated over and over until people take it as truth.

Check out some of the work done on the Royal Road. This analysis indicates that shot quality is incredibly important. And common sense also says shot quality is incredibly important. How can anyone argue that a Chris Butler muffin shot from the point has the same statistical value a shot by Alex Ovechkin on a cross crease pass? But that's what Corsi would have us believe.

Here is a good intro to the Royal Road for those interested: http://www.msg.com/shows/hockey-night-live/chris-boyle/green--red-and-yellow-shots.html

I have read that and understand your point, but I'm still right.

All the article states is that some shots go in more than others. Nobody disagrees with that. The contention is: how much variation is there from team to team, and how much control does the team have on it. Some teams can have high shooting percentages and sustain it, some can't. Some teams sustain high save percentages and some can't. Yet, despite all of that, it doesn't change the predictive power of shot attempt differential.

Shot quality is important like scoring goals is important. They're both highly skill dependent and individual players can have reproducible numbers. On the whole as a team, it's less reproducible.The likely answer is, the difference between an elite team's ability to generate more high quality shots than the average isn't enough to overcome large quantity differences

[DJones]

I have read that and understand your point, but I'm still right.

All the article states is that some shots go in more than others. Nobody disagrees with that. The contention is: how much variation is there from team to team, and how much control does the team have on it. Some teams can have high shooting percentages and sustain it, some can't. Some teams sustain high save percentages and some can't. Yet, despite all of that, it doesn't change the predictive power of shot attempt differential.

Shot quality is important like scoring goals is important. They're both highly skill dependent and individual players can have reproducible numbers. On the whole as a team, it's less reproducible.The likely answer is, the difference between an elite team's ability to generate more high quality shots than the average isn't enough to overcome large quantity differences

I don't agree with that. For years Detroit has been firing every shot they can from anywhere. They're ridiculously skilled so it has worked great for them but you can't say that if Babcock would have said to his team to always make the extra pass and look for prime scoring opportunities that they wouldn't have been as effective. It's logically insane to think that coaching strategies can't influence statistics away from the statistical average. If they didn't have Franzen tipping in pucks in front of the net like a mad man for years they probably wouldn't have taken as many shots. I for one think they could have been just as an effective team but their corsi would drop.

Some teams have a shoot first mentality some have a pass first. Saying over a long enough time span all shooting distributions will equal out is an easy way out to avoid overly complicated systems.

[Finger Cookin]

Goals are random and sometimes the best players/teams don't score the most goals.
Are they random, or unpredictable?

[Street Pharmacist]

Are they random, or unpredictable?
Due to the fact we're trying to determine who the better players are in the hopes of building a better team or trying to predict which team will be better, any point your likely trying to make is moot

[Enoch Root]

That's just not true at all. Corsi is better than goals at predicting what the future will bring. So far, no one has proven shot quality is very important despite people actually looking into it.

If goals were more important and weren't b more random, how come he was so much worse last year? Did he suddenly get better? Or was there maybe more luck involved?

Buffalo scored more goals than Calgary in their two meetings last year. Were they the better team?

Corsi may be a better predictor than goals, but that doesn't make it a good predictor.

No one has proven shot quality is important? I think everyone agrees that shot quality is important, it's measuring it in a useful way that has been the problem to date. And by the same token, no one has proven that Corsi is important either.

As for the Buffalo example, come on, you're better than that.

[Finger Cookin]

Due to the fact we're trying to determine who the better players are in the hopes of building a better team or trying to predict which team will be better, any point your likely trying to make is moot

I'm on an internet message board, of course any point anyone is trying to make is moot.

[Enoch Root]

Due to the fact we're trying to determine who the better players are in the hopes of building a better team or trying to predict which team will be better, any point your likely trying to make is moot

Not at all.

If they were random, there would be no point in analysing them.

Everyone should agree that goals are substantially more important than shots. The challenge is having enough useful data to do meaningful analysis.

Current failure does not mean we should simply give up.

The biggest failure of the Corsi crowd, IMO, is the belief that since there is nothing yet better, that we should run with it.

[Street Pharmacist]

I'm on an internet message board, of course any point anyone is trying to make is moot.
To the arguments regarding the issue at hand: the predicted future of the flames this year, what's your point?

If it's random, it's not predictable. Either way it's inconsequential to the argument we're having

[Finger Cookin]

I'm just suggesting that random and unpredictable aren't the same thing.

[Street Pharmacist]

I'm just suggesting that random and unpredictable aren't the same thing.
Fair enough

[DJones]

Imagine how ridiculously complex judging shot quality is.

How far away, how hard was the shot, did he connect solidly, was he off balance, did the defense man commit to stopping the pass or the shot, was it screened, was the player using misdirection, forehand or backhand, how long has the shift been going on?

Even in terms of the Royal road each category could be then split into twenty sub categories depending on it's unique situation. I can't imagine trying to quantify something so complex and apparently no one else can either so it gets lumped into a "it's not relevant" category along with blocks and hits.

Depending on the shot I think the expected amount of goals should range from 0.01 to 0.99 depending on the situation. Anything else isn't telling the story. Someone would actually have to subjectively rate each individual shot and quantify it to get an accurate assessment but lets be serious. They can't even count hits and shots properly.

[Street Pharmacist]

Not at all.

If they were random, there would be no point in analysing them.

Your truly splitting hairs here.




Everyone should agree that goals are substantially more important than shots. The challenge is having enough useful data to do meaningful analysis.


Goals certainly are more important than shots. The challenge is trying to find the best way to influence them. So far shot generation is the best way. Therefore, until better analysis comes out, I'll rely on my best tools. Seems reasonable



Current failure does not mean we should simply give up.

The biggest failure of the Corsi crowd, IMO, is the belief that since there is nothing yet better, that we should run with it.

The biggest failure in anti stats cried is the belief that until there's a perfect predictor we should ignore everything. I'll agree on the smug Corsi twitter crowd though. Annoying as hell. Watch the games for enjoyment ffs, not to prove your smart.

Look, were all trying to predict the future here and have to rely on the tools we have. Why they're or the best one?

[Weitz]

Don't know where else to put this but since Spector is in this title..

He mentioned on Oilers Now today that Peter Chiarelli will be the GM of the under-23 team for the world cup next year.

Off topic I know..

[DJones]

Your truly splitting hairs here.




Goals certainly are more important than shots. The challenge is trying to find the best way to influence them. So far shot generation is the best way. Therefore, until better analysis comes out, I'll rely on my best tools. Seems reasonable



The biggest failure in anti stats cried is the belief that until there's a perfect predictor we should ignore everything. I'll agree on the smug Corsi twitter crowd though. Annoying as hell. Watch the games for enjoyment ffs, not to prove your smart.

Look, were all trying to predict the future here and have to rely on the tools we have. Why they're or the best one?

Is Corsi any better of a predictor than anyone with hockey knowledge going by eye test.

I think Anaheim is the favorite to win the cup next year but their 17th place Corsi numbers don't reflect that at all.

[dammage79]

Advanced stats are the ones that are "Unsustainable". The results speak for themselves when you look at the flames. They defied the "Unsustainable" argument all freaking year while the hard core corsi nerds took a beating every single time they brought the Flames up.

Even when you break down individual advanced stats on oh......lets say... Kris Russell.
"His possession numbers were terrible, he was turn over machine."
When in reality he blocked more shots than anyone else in one season ever. And statistically was a positive on he team.
Sure, if he was better at possession he would have not had to block so many shots, sure, but the success rate of those turn overs were so negligible it's not even worth bringing up unless you have an axe to grind on Russell or the Flames.

[Buck Murdock]

These articles about unsustainability are unsustainable.

[ricardodw]

BT with the right answers again. Recognizing that some of the numbers weren't great, accepting that they need to improve and charting a course to see that improvement. That is all you can expect from the GM.

Do you think that there might be a more obvious statistic than possession and SOG and COSI that would drive home that the Flames need to improve.

They had the worst win loss record of all the teams making the playoffs and were playing in the weakest division by far, with the easiest schedule in the league.... playing Edmonton and Arizona a lot of times. There was no other division that The Flames or Canucks get moved to that they would make the playoffs in 2014-15.

Is Jim Benning a hockey genius in that he fully understands that the Canucks as they were in 2014-15 are not a solid playoff team despite Finishing 2nd in their division and getting Home Ice in the playoffs. No need to look at the possession statistics to see that the Canucks need to improve if they are going to make the playoffs.

[MrMastodonFarm]

do you think that there might be a more obvious statistic than possession and sog and cosi that would drive home that the flames need to improve.

rgi?

[DJones]

Why do you need a stat. Our 2nd and 3rd D pairings got hemmed into our zone to much. We needed more size in front of the net and need to win more puck battles.

We were a way better team when we carried the puck into the offensive zone rather than dumping it and we need more presence in front of the opponents net.

Improve those things and our Corsi will improve massively but the focus shouldn't be on stopping shot attempts or creating more of them, it should be improving what we aren't good at. The shot differential will come naturally after that.

[BigFlameDog]

Don't know where else to put this but since Spector is in this title..

He mentioned on Oilers Now today that Peter Chiarelli will be the GM of the under-23 team for the world cup next year.

Off topic I know..

Interesting...just how much actual work is involved in being the "G.M" of a team like that? And not asking just because its Chiarelli....pick team...watch?

It's not like he's making trades or arranging ice times for practice.

[codynw]

Do you think that there might be a more obvious statistic than possession and SOG and COSI that would drive home that the Flames need to improve.

I would think "eliminated in conference semi final" would be enough.

[Ryan Coke]

44.5% or 26th best over the 22 games between Jan 7 (Backlund's return) and Feb 27th (Giordano's injury).



Ideally, they're probably both bottom pairing defensemen. If you have to live with one in your middle pairing, my eye test says Russell and the statistics slightly favor Wideman offensively (which makes sense as he's the better offensive player) but really don't favor either defensively.

Smid is probably our 4th best defensive defenseman analytically but he's been damaged goods since before he got here. Also, since Smid can't handle the puck, he needs to be carried by a strong middle pairing partner like Petry, Brodie, or Hamilton. Luckily we have two of those three and they're actually top pairing partners. The other issue is that since Smid isn't all that great offensively, being the 4th best defensive defenseman still means he's your 6th or 7th best offensive defenseman.

The best option for #4D analytically, is Mr. Damaged Goods II: Model: PTO

This is odd to me....to say that Russell-Wideman should be a bottom defence pair. There aren't many teams where that pairing would be your bottom 2, they were generally quite effective.

And if some stats indicate that, then I would be reluctant to rely on those. My initial curiosity was about which one of the two would be the more appropriate one to drop down to the bottom pair due to the depth of the Flames D group with the addition of Hamilton, not whether either one was a legitimate middle pair D.

Not sure if you were merely stating what some stats say, or if you actually agree with the idea that the Russell-Wideman pair are really only a bottom pairing on most teams. Either way, that I would disagree with.

[FlatLandFlamesFan]

First post ...Hey hockey related talk again :) all good
shortly thereafter Corsi and it's value talk develops
https://media.giphy.com/media/hMth3N9PEco4E/giphy.gif
oh GOD don't drag us into that again ! #IsItOctoberYet?

[Vinny01]

Spec does seem to have a little man crush on Treliving. A lot more positive comments about the flames since e came on board often referring to Treliving as one of the best young GM's in the game

[GranteedEV]

This is odd to me....to say that Russell-Wideman should be a bottom defence pair. There aren't many teams where that pairing would be your bottom 2, they were generally quite effective.

They were hemmed in often, which is not a recipe for a Stanley Cup.

My initial curiosity was about which one of the two would be the more appropriate one to drop down to the bottom pair due to the depth of the Flames D group with the addition of Hamilton, not whether either one was a legitimate middle pair D.

Russell would be more appropriate to drop down because he's less offensive-producing, even if he might be slightly better than Wideman defensively (which stats somewhat imply might not be true at all and might just be our eyes playing tricks on us due to his mobility). That said, I'd go with my gut and drop down Wideman and see if Russell can produce with Hamilton, that way Gio-Brodie stays together.

Not sure if you were merely stating what some stats say, or if you actually agree with the idea that the Russell-Wideman pair are really only a bottom pairing on most teams.

Russell-Wideman really are only a bottom pairing on most Cup-contending playoff teams, though they're a very good bottom pairing.

The only teams where they'd potentially suffice as a middle pairing on a Cup contender would be the ones with forwards cores stacked up the wazoo and a good top pairing. The only teams I can think of that fit that would be Pittsburgh (Crosby/Malkin/Kessel/Hornqvist/Letang/Maatta), Dallas (Seguin/Benn/Nichushkin/Spezza/Sharp/Klingberg/Goligoski), and Tampa (Palat/Johnson/Kucherov/Stamkos/Drouin/Hedman/Stralman).

And even then, Tampa's current second pairing (Garrison/Coburn) is much better than Russell-Wideman.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Do you think that there might be a more obvious statistic than possession and SOG and COSI that would drive home that the Flames need to improve.

They had the worst win loss record of all the teams making the playoffs and were playing in the weakest division by far, with the easiest schedule in the league.... playing Edmonton and Arizona a lot of times. There was no other division that The Flames or Canucks get moved to that they would make the playoffs in 2014-15.

Is Jim Benning a hockey genius in that he fully understands that the Canucks as they were in 2014-15 are not a solid playoff team despite Finishing 2nd in their division and getting Home Ice in the playoffs. No need to look at the possession statistics to see that the Canucks need to improve if they are going to make the playoffs.

That's a weird response to my post that basically states, "I think BT is doing a good job". I am not an advanced stats advocate, but when our GM talks about looking at things "seven ways to Sunday", by that I understand that he is looking at all aspects of his team, including corsi.

[Rick M.]

At least Treliving gets it. Without significant additions, the Flames were in tough to make the playoffs.

Even with the additions, it's going to tough. The Flames could finish anywhere from 6th to 10th this year.

Things to watch for me this season:

-5v5 shot differential. It's been harped on, but it'll be interesting to see if Bennett, Hamilton and Frolik can move the needle. If the focus continues to be on blocking shots, they'll be in tough I think. I like to separate shot generation and suppression as it's been shown they're separate skills that are actually relatively independent of each other and I don't believe they should be lumped together. More on this in a bit

-Goals against. To be an elite team with a shot at the cup, you need to be elite in goals against. Goal scoring has only limited effect on winning compared to goals against. The defensive core is built on attack, and plenty of analysis shows offense and defense are actually independent. The old adage of "the best defense is a good offense" simply isn't true. Having said that "defensive defensemen" don't contribute to defense much if they can't move the puck out of their zone with possession. This is where having Hamilton and the potential of dropping Russell to the third pair could really help. If the goalies can play like they should, and the Forward core back check effectively (not just block shots) it may turn things around. Calgary was 17th last year and needs to improve significantly to be a lock for a spot.

-Shot generation. While goals against is essential to win the big one, scoring goals is still important. It's extremely unlikely they can score as many goals if they continue to throw so few pucks at the net. Only the Devils and Sabres took less shots than the Flames last year. The top team (Chicago) took seven more shots per game. That's over 25% more shots per game!! There's a lot of work to be done here.

-Penalty differential. This was, in my mind, probably the Flames biggest secret weapon. They were historically good at taking less penalties than they drew. From a repeatability perspective, taking fewer penalties is a repeatable skill and drawing penalties likely isn't. At 5v5, the flames had a negative goal differential and don't make the playoffs if they go to the box more. It's hard as a fan to see the Flames shy away from the physical "after the whistle" stuff, but it works for them.


Overall, will the improvement in the youth, the additions of Hamilton, Bennett and Frolik and a year of healthy Gio make the Flames better than last year?

I think so, but are a year or two from becoming elite

A very thoughtful post! One other area to look at improving is faceoff success. Improvement here will make a big difference to our overall game.

[Strange Brew]

Agree that Street Pharmacist had a very intelligent post. I am thrilled to hear that BT knows there are things that must improve and that some of what happened last year is not likely to be repeatable.

I suspect the shooting percentages and comebacks will decrease this year. I am hopeful the Flames will have more leads and more shots to make up the difference.

[mikephoen]

Your truly splitting hairs here.




Goals certainly are more important than shots. The challenge is trying to find the best way to influence them. So far shot generation is the best way. Therefore, until better analysis comes out, I'll rely on my best tools. Seems reasonable



The biggest failure in anti stats cried is the belief that until there's a perfect predictor we should ignore everything. I'll agree on the smug Corsi twitter crowd though. Annoying as hell. Watch the games for enjoyment ffs, not to prove your smart.

Look, were all trying to predict the future here and have to rely on the tools we have. Why they're or the best one?


If your best tool is no more reliable than Maggy the Monkey at predicting things, then there is no point on relying on it either.

[Street Pharmacist]

Is Corsi any better of a predictor than anyone with hockey knowledge going by eye test.

I think Anaheim is the favorite to win the cup next year but their 17th place Corsi numbers don't reflect that at all.
I'm not in agreement on Anaheim, though I'd say they're not that far off.

At the end of the day, Corsi is just one measure. It just happens to be the most accurate. Montreal overcame bad shot metrics with goaltending and others can beat the odds too, it's just difficult.

I don't think the flames without any changes from last season repeat what they did and apparently Treliving agrees

[GranteedEV]

If your best tool is no more reliable than Maggy the Monkey at predicting things, then there is no point on relying on it either.

For the record, 5-on-5 uSAT% is reasonably reliable for predicting deep playoff runs - it's not Maggie the Monkey. It can't predict actual playoff births because it can't predict things like shootouts and 4-on-4 sudden death overtime - things that don't resemble playoff hockey.

[dissentowner]

I'm not in agreement on Anaheim, though I'd say they're not that far off.

At the end of the day, Corsi is just one measure. It just happens to be the most accurate. Montreal overcame bad shot metrics with goaltending and others can beat the odds too, it's just difficult.

I don't think the flames without any changes from last season repeat what they did and apparently Treliving agrees

Please, there is nothing accurate about Corsi. It is like the snake oil of hockey stats. It is about as accurate as simming games on NHL16 and saying because EA had this team's players rated better, then their predictions will be fairly accurate. Corsi has been proven inaccurate time and time again.

[Red]

Team CORSI is a stat of 30 or so guys that were on our team last year. The team and opposing teams are all slightly different this year.
How relevant is last season's CORSI to predict the future then when every summer all teams change to some degree?
Colorado is an example of a team that went through it, but many fail to mention that during the summer they lost their top centre and then started the year with massive injuries.

Is it fair to compare those teams then? Stastny + McKinnon make the team much better than Iginla ever would. Don't need CORSI to see a talent gap there.

[Street Pharmacist]

Team CORSI is a stat of 30 or so guys that were on our team last year. The team and opposing teams are all slightly different this year.
How relevant is last season's CORSI to predict the future then when every summer all teams change to some degree?
Colorado is an example of a team that went through it, but many fail to mention that during the summer they lost their top centre and then started the year with massive injuries.

Is it fair to compare those teams then? Stastny + McKinnon make the team much better than Iginla ever would. Don't need CORSI to see a talent gap there.

True, but most teams best players play the most and they don't change.

And they had MacKinnon this year too...

[MrMastodonFarm]

Did Treliving need Corsi, Fenwick, PDO, RGI to realize that coming from behind to know he needed to upgrade his team with guys like Hamilton and Frolik, to realize come from behind victories weren't the continued way to success?

[GranteedEV]

Is it fair to compare those teams then? Stastny + McKinnon make the team much better than Iginla ever would. Don't need CORSI to see a talent gap there.

Don't forget an injury to their #1D.

Imagine if our top 4 was something like:
2012 Smid / 2015 Brodie
2014 Smid / 2013 Brodie

And then 2015 Brodie got injured.

[Red]

True, but most teams best players play the most and they don't change.

And they had MacKinnon this year too...
MacKinnon was injured for a quarter of the season. And didn't they miss Varlamov? and Erick Johnson for some time too? 3 top players gone for extended time.

I just really think that these stats become irrelevant after each offseason, too many changes.

[SebC]

"Calgary’s top eight scorers last season all had career seasons in points, a group that includes rookie Johnny Gaudreau."

... which is often the case for rookies.

[FireGilbert]

I agree with the OP that I am getting bored of non-hockey related topics in the off season although I can't get too excited over another "unsustainable" discussion.

My view is that the Flames' success from last season is sustainable because their style of play generates high quality scoring chances while forcing the opposition to take low quality chances. Also, any dips in shooting percentage from some players should be made up by having a healthy Gio and Monahan, Gaudreau, and Bennett being a year older.

Of course after the additions of Hamilton and Frolik I now expect the Flames to not only sustain their success from last year but to be even better.

[Quincy Egg]

TSN posted a good article on why the Flames WILL regress this season. I am not sure how anyone can disagree with it

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/how-analytics-forecast-future-success-and-failure-1.355108

[MrMastodonFarm]

lol, piece of crap troll.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Did Treliving need Corsi, Fenwick, PDO, RGI to realize that coming from behind to know he needed to upgrade his team with guys like Hamilton and Frolik, to realize come from behind victories weren't the continued way to success?

No kidding. This exact article would have been written 10 years ago, except the headline would have said 'flames out to prove last season was no fluke'. It would have talked about timely goals, getting outshot, late comebacks, and spending too much time in their own zone.

I'm not saying it's all wrong, just that a cliche is still a cliche.

[getbak]

For the record, 5-on-5 uSAT% is reasonably reliable for predicting deep playoff runs - it's not Maggie the Monkey. It can't predict actual playoff births because it can't predict things like shootouts and 4-on-4 sudden death overtime - things that don't resemble playoff hockey.
Is it really?

Last season's Regular Season 5-on-5 USAT% ranking of the playoff teams (from war-on-ice.com)...

SC Champ: Chicago - 7th overall
SC Finalist: Tampa - 3rd overall (lost to 7)
Conf Finalist: Anaheim - 13th overall (lost to 7)
Conf Finalist: NY Rangers - 19th overall (lost to 3)
Div Finalist: Minnesota - 10th overall (lost to 7)
Div Finalist: Washington - 14th overall (lost to 19)
Div Finalist: Montreal - 21st overall (lost to 3)
Div Finalist: Calgary - 28th overall (lost to 13)
1st Round: NY Islanders - 2nd overall (lost to 14)
1st Round: Nashville - 4th overall (lost to 7)
1st Round: St Louis - 5th overall (lost to 10)
1st Round: Pittsburgh - 6th overall (lost to 19)
1st Round: Detroit -11th overall (lost to 3)
1st Round: Winnipeg - 12th overall (lost to 13)
1st Round: Vancouver - 18th overall (lost to 28)
1st Round: Ottawa - 22nd overall (lost to 21)



7 of the top 10 teams in 5-on-5 USAT% made the playoffs; 6 of the middle 10 teams made the playoffs; and 3 of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs.

Of the 15 rounds in the playoffs, 8 were won by the lower-ranked 5-on-5 USAT% regular season team.

[Enoch Root]

lol

Quincy Egg doesn't know what WILL means.

[EldrickOnIce]

^ those numbers make it look like a coin flip

[Jbo]

TSN posted a good article on why the Flames WILL regress this season. I am not sure how anyone can disagree with it

http://www.tsn.ca/talent/how-analytics-forecast-future-success-and-failure-1.355108

http://i.giphy.com/srTYyZ1BjBtGU.gif

[MrMastodonFarm]

Dammit, Jbo wins.

[Beatle17]

Correct me if I am wrong, but at the start of last season didn't all of the "experts" just say the Flames were ####ty and we didn't hear any of this unsustainable stuff until the "experts" found out they weren't ####ty and had to come up with another angle?

[ScorchyScorch]

It's very difficult to see how the Flames - with a backend that includes Gio, Brodie, Hamilton, Russell and Wideman - won't be able to sustain some success this season against a division that includes Arizona, Vancouver, San Jose, and Edmonton. None are much of a threat. And the two that were once are declining and didn't add enough to help their situations. And we've seen first hand the Flames are able to keep up with the Kings, and Bennett, Hamilton and Frolik improve the Flames more than Lucic improves LA. But they'll still be dangerous, nonetheless.

[heep223]

True, but most teams best players play the most and they don't change.

And they had MacKinnon this year too...


I appreciate and understand your arguments on this subject. However a team doesn't miss the playoffs with the best D in the league (and the best coach in the league). Unless the Flames get into injury trouble, to me that point alone will ensure they don't regress and certainly aren't comparable to the Avs.

[T@T]

"Calgary’s top eight scorers last season all had career seasons in points, a group that includes rookie Johnny Gaudreau."

... which is often the case for rookies.
And basically 2 more players were 2nd year players as well. (Monahan,Bouma)

Another case that's fairly normal.

Spector's a dork who's anal plug is blue & gold, can't believe he makes a living writing about hockey.

[To Be Quite Honest]

EF_xdvn52As

[Street Pharmacist]

I appreciate and understand your arguments on this subject. However a team doesn't miss the playoffs with the best D in the league (and the best coach in the league). Unless the Flames get into injury trouble, to me that point alone will ensure they don't regress and certainly aren't comparable to the Avs.
I think I can find an identical post from after we acquired Bouwmeester

[heep223]

I think I can find an identical post from after we acquired Bouwmeester


True, but completely irrelevant to the situation now. Sutter had no idea what to do with talent.

IMO not many teams will miss the playoffs with the best D in the league, the best coach in the league, depth at C, and a young group of up and coming forwards. My money is on the Flames making the playoffs again and not in a wild card. Regardless of shot differential statistics.

I can't wait to see what happens this year!

[Robbob]

The thing that annoys me a little of the unsustainable argument is pretty much what has been discussed in this thread already. It is a different team so making last years team the baseline is not really comparing apples to apples. It is very similar to Daryl Sutter and his 20 goal scorers mentality. If a player scored 20 goals sometime in their career, doesn't mean you can trump your team as having eleven 20 goal scorers. A lot of different variables went into how they got to 20 (ice time, team mates, etc.), if you change those variables then of course you will come up with a different outcome.

I think the fact that the flames made the playoffs meant it was sustainable because it got them to the playoffs. It is a new season now, hit reset and let's start from zero.

[saillias]

I appreciate and understand your arguments on this subject. However a team doesn't miss the playoffs with the best D in the league (and the best coach in the league). Unless the Flames get into injury trouble, to me that point alone will ensure they don't regress and certainly aren't comparable to the Avs.

Roy won the Jack Adams in 2014, just saying. I don't think the Jack Adams necessarily makes a guy the best coach in the league, but yeah the similarities between their season and our season are there.

The Avs were generally considered to have one of the best up and coming forward groups in the league. Mackinnon, Duchene, O'Reilly and Landeskog. Landeskog is the only guy in that group who doesn't play centre. So they had the centre depth checked off as well. They had also just won the division with 112 points.

Also Varlamov was a Vezina nominee. There was a strong argument that he deserved to win.

So really the big differences between the two teams: Their goaltending is elite, while ours is average. Their defense was below average, while ours is elite. Their forward group looked great, while ours looks good. We both play the rope-a-dope block shots and score on the rush style. Both teams make a high PDO. It's not as incomparable as you think IMO.

[Jay Random]

So really the big differences between the two teams: Their goaltending is elite, while ours is average. Their defense was below average, while ours is elite. Their forward group looked great, while ours looks good. We both play the rope-a-dope block shots and score on the rush style. Both teams make a high PDO. It's not as incomparable as you think IMO.

The Avs' precise trouble is that they didn't have elite goaltending, they had a goaltender who played to an elite level for one season and his performance was unsustainable – as is very often the case with goalies. That alone spoils any comparison between the two teams.

[dash_pinched]

Not that I want it to happen, but how will the Corsi gurus spin it if the Flames improve their possession stats from last season and fail to make the playoffs?

[DJones]

Not that I want it to happen, but how will the Corsi gurus spin it if the Flames improve their possession stats from last season and fail to make the playoffs?

Blame 3 on 3 and low SH%

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Not that I want it to happen, but how will the Corsi gurus spin it if the Flames improve their possession stats from last season and fail to make the playoffs?

They'll say it is unsustainable (the other way).

My guess is that they will improve on corsi, because they are a better team. Not that they are a better team because they improved on their corsi.

[Bingo]

an offering from everyone's favorite Lambert


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/will-calgary-flames-blaze-forward-or-tumble-back-this-season---trending-topics-111833365.html

Stat heavy, and honestly not as negative as usual.

[mikephoen]

an offering from everyone's favorite Lambert


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/will-calgary-flames-blaze-forward-or-tumble-back-this-season---trending-topics-111833365.html

Stat heavy, and honestly not as negative as usual.

Summary? I won't give Lambert my click.

[GranteedEV]

Is it really?

Last season's Regular Season 5-on-5 USAT% ranking of the playoff teams (from war-on-ice.com)...
[LIST]
SC Champ: Chicago - 7th overall
SC Finalist: Tampa - 3rd overall (lost to 7)
Conf Finalist: Anaheim - 13th overall (lost to 7)
Conf Finalist: NY Rangers - 19th overall (lost to 3)

First of all, ranking them 1-by-1 is a bit pointless - the difference between 53.4% and 52.3% is not going to significantly influence any results.

Second, two of those teams you listed had tales of two-seasons.

uSAT%:
Chicago - Pre-Kane Injury - 53.2
Chicago - Post-Kane Injury - 50.9
Anaheim - Pre-Depres/Lovejoy Trade - 50.9
Anaheim - Post-Depres/Lovejoy Trade - 54.6

Basically, Chicago and Anaheim were both top tier teams and probably the two best in the NHL. The slight stat difference can't really be judged because the sample sizes are not the same, but it's safe to say both teams were very high in uSAT% as far as the rosters that were competing in the actual playoffs. Even then, just watching that series, most of us thought Anaheim was the better team and laid some eggs, probably Andersen's fault to an extent.

Tampa would also be in that category, but you can't predict a winner between Tampa/Chicago based on just that as again the actual difference in uSAT% is negligible (53.2% for Chicago vs 53.1% for Tampa). That series basically came down to coin flips, and I'd say the most significant tilting factor were Kucherov and Bishops' injuries.

Div Finalist: Minnesota - 10th overall (lost to 7)
Div Finalist: Washington - 14th overall (lost to 19)
Div Finalist: Montreal - 21st overall (lost to 3)
Div Finalist: Calgary - 28th overall (lost to 13)


3/4 would be considered as predicted as-it-is.

The last one is Washington-New York, which was a series where Washington led 3-1 at one point. Every game in the series was decided by a single goal at that, including two of the final three games going to close sudden-death overtime. Finally, Washington wasn't a "dominant" uSAT% team anyways - that's indicated by their 14th place finish. But I'll say this series was a true upset.

1st Round: NY Islanders - 2nd overall (lost to 14)
1st Round: Nashville - 4th overall (lost to 7)


Nashville's uSAT% of 53.0 is pretty much equal to Chicago's uSAT% posted above. The series was mostly a coin flip, with Chicago getting better goaltending. Rinne after returning from his injury was not the same as Rinne before his injury and it showed in that series.

Yes, I do think the Islanders were a better team than the Capitals, and even goaltending wasn't the difference. So this was a true upset.

1st Round: St Louis - 5th overall (lost to 10)

Another series that came down to goaltending. Give Dubnyk credit, he outplayed Jake Allen by a huge margin. I predicted the Wild would win that series anyways though.

1st Round: Pittsburgh - 6th overall (lost to 19)


Interestingly, the actual Rangers/Pittsburgh series was dead even in uSAT%. The injuries to Letang and Maata and Ehrhoff are really what buried the Penguins, otherwise I don't think I'm crazy to say they were the favorites.

1st Round: Winnipeg - 12th overall (lost to 13\)

Again, Winnipeg lost to a team that could have been as high as 2nd with the way they played after the deadline. But what really buried Winnipeg was not 5 vs 5 play. It was their tendancy to pick up really dumb penalties and let the Ducks have their way on special teams. A holistic model would account for penalty differential just as it would for Calgary.

1st Round: Vancouver - 18th overall (lost to 28)

:D

We dodged a lot of bullets in that series thanks to Dejardins being a pretty dumb coach, including his lack of protecting the Sbisa/Bieksa pairing, his line matching, and his replacing of Lack with Miller, plus on our end Hiller making a ton of great saves. I will take it, but let's get real, a competent coach with that Canucks roster would have beat our group, especially with Diaz and Giordano out.

There's a place for coaching that isn't going to be predicted by these things, but I guess you have to make the basic assumption of a competent coach.

7 of the top 10 teams in 5-on-5 USAT% made the playoffs; 6 of the middle 10 teams made the playoffs; and 3 of the bottom 10 teams made the playoffs.

Making the playoffs is not going to be predicted by this for the reasons mentioned earlier - 4 vs 4 OT and Shootout Records.

In my eyes pretty much every playoff "upset" came down to goaltending with two exceptions:

Washington > New York Islanders
New York Rangers > Washington

These were both close series that went to game 7s. I would have bet my money on the teams that lost the series personally (the Islanders, and then the Capitals), and I would do so again but eh. The stats were wrong - but that doesn't mean they're not good predictors. It's like weather predictions - sometimes they're wrong, but if you've got a good model you're not gonna be wrong often.

uSAT% is a good predictor of playoff performance. It's not the only factor - I named some more above like goaltending, penalty differential, and yes, even luck plays a part. But those first three things are things where, if all three are strong, you are a championship contender.

[Bingo]

Summary? I won't give Lambert my click.

Flames were lucky
No really really lucky
Corsi proves it
Third periods prove it
empty net pulled goals prove it

but ...

they've improved
their ability to stay out of the box is their secret weapon
that has proven sustainable from season to season

[JohnnyTitan]

The Flames play REALLY hard every night. Right to the bitter end.

Therefore: They have a chance to win every night.

Stats be damned!!!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Does Lambert still think Monahan plays the wing?

[Street Pharmacist]

Does Lambert still think Monahan plays the wing?
He wrote about how incredibly boring they were with dump and chase last year, so I doubt he watched enough to find out

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

So really the big differences between the two teams: Their goaltending is elite, while ours is average. Their defense was below average, while ours is elite. Their forward group looked great, while ours looks good. We both play the rope-a-dope block shots and score on the rush style. Both teams make a high PDO. It's not as incomparable as you think IMO.

Dont forget they also lost arguably their best centre, and got older and slower in the off-season. Dumb moves for their style of play. Plus their best defenceman (already a weakness) missed almost half the year in year 2.

Year over year comparisons of teams in transition are useless, especially based solely on backward looking stats. But if people want to make them I think they should look at what changed in years 1 and 2, and see if those changes are similar, not just look at what happened in year 1.

[driveway]

SAT% is highly repeatable from year-to-year. More so than any other stat. It's not perfect, I think the R-value for its repeatability is like 0.48 or something like that (1 is perfect).

I think possession stats are a good, blunt tool for evaluating hockey. I think we will develop much better tools as the technology to track players is implemented league wide. For right now, from a Flames' perspective there are a lot of troubling signs from last season: low shots for, high shots against, lots of comebacks, high shooting percentages, many career-years.

There are also lots of reasons for positivity: young improving team, new top-end players, last year's playoff experience, the ability to improve the possession metrics, very low penalty numbers.

I hope the Flames improve their SAT%, I think it's a decent indicator of long-term success. I think most people here would feel the same way were it not for being Flames fans and having grown tired of the 'unsustainable' thing last season.

[Jay Random]

I hope the Flames improve their SAT%, I think it's a decent indicator of long-term success. I think most people here would feel the same way were it not for being Flames fans and having grown tired of the 'unsustainable' thing last season.

No, I wouldn't feel that way no matter what team I was a fan of. Any metric that specifically excludes shot quality, and is championed by people who claim that shot quality doesn't make any difference, fails to pass the smell test with me.

[Bingo]

USA Today chimes in (Allen) with why the Flames are different .. and will sustain

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/flames/2015/09/13/calgary-flames-mark-giordano-hamilton-brodie-monahan-advanced-stats/72214984/

[Bandwagon In Flames]

USA Today chimes in (Allen) with why the Flames are different .. and will sustain

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/flames/2015/09/13/calgary-flames-mark-giordano-hamilton-brodie-monahan-advanced-stats/72214984/

Not a bad article, but it seems half complete.

Nevertheless it's refreshing to see an article that references more than just advanced stats.

[underGRADFlame]

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/o738/Gavin_Sather/EDE6B692-453C-4EC7-9A75-EEC5C44E1793_zpsmm4rexzl.jpg