Quote:
Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!
@Henry Fool
Colorado was good because Varlamov was amazing, and because their defence scored a prodigious (and completely uncharacteristic) amount of points.
Personally, I think Varlamov is one of the most talented goalies in the NHL, and so while he had his best year to date, I don't think that was particularly unsustainable. He hasn't been as good this year, but I don't think that was inevitable, and I think we'll see Vezina-contending seasons from him in the future.
However, the production from their defence was unsustainable, as IIRC it relied on career years from basically everyone, including those who had never been NHL producers before.
Regarding the Flames, if I were to pick a stat that showed the Flames actually were doing well despite poor Corsi/possession numbers, I'd want to see a strong Fenwick Close%. However, Calgary is 23rd in the NHL in Fenwick Close.
Realistically, all of the useful stats that i trust are predicting that Calgary should be a 20th-25th place team.
Sometimes teams buck the trend, sometimes their style of play means that (for example) their Corsi doesn't reflect their possession time, or their possession time doesn't reflect their ability to control play. Sometimes you can pick this out with other stats, sometimes not.
But pretty much the entire advanced stats picture says the Flames are winning more games than they deserve to win.
You can take what you want from that. I am a very big advanced stats proponent, and I honestly don't know what to make of the whole situation. By eyeball, the team looks good to me. The numbers suggest they are going to fall off hard.
If I had to lay money, I'd side with Myrtle, and bet they finish in the bottom 10. But I'm fine with just about any outcome.
|
This! ^^
If I was going to make a case for sustainability, the only 2 things I could say are a) the shooting % and save percentage while well above average is due to high talent levels, or b) stats show they're improving (albeit only slightly). Neither of those really hold water. Can't say Hiller is better than his career average suddenly with such a small sample size and with so many rookies a high shooting % because of talent is dubious at best. As for the improvement, it's there but it's still not suggestive of a playoff team.
Since 2005/06, teams have only finished a season with the same or worse corsi% than the current flames 14 times:
13/14 Buffalo 43.39% 30th overall
07/08 Atlanta 43.40% 28th overall
13/14 Toronto 43.63% 23rd overall
12/13 Edmonton 44.32% 24th overall
13/14 Edmonton 44.65% 28th overall
11/12 Minnesota 44.67% 24th overall
10/11 Anaheim 44.79% 9th overall
09/10 Florida 44.85% 28th overall
05/06 Pittsburgh 44.87% 29th overall
09/10 Edmonton 44.93% 30th overall
12/13 Buffalo 45.01% 23rd overall
12/13 Toronto 45.03% 9th overall
09/10 Colorado 45.18% 12th overall
10/11 Minnesota 45.70% 21st overall
That's 3 playoff teams in the bottom 14 of all the last 270 team-seasons played. More than I thought