I think the article reads like it was written by someone who is trying to evaluate the Flames' season entirely through statistics.
In fairness, everything he says is very accurate.
What it is missing, IMO, is an awareness that the Flames were a team that was pretty well built, and pretty laden with talent, going into the season.
But for multiple reasons, got off to a terrible start. 5-10-1 and we all know all the reasons why.
Then, they slowly started to get things in order. The special teams got better. The goaltending improved from putrid to decent (or at least ok). Giordano and Hamilton got better, even if Gaudreau, Monahan and Brodie weren't yet firing on all cylinders.
But they still had consistency problems, and still had a few issues.
Then the coach had a little chat with the leadership group.
Since then, the team has really started to 'get' the system. Goaltending has moved from okay to good, if not very good. Brodie has a partner that works and he is now playing like Brodie. Gaudreau and Monahan have a winger and are now playing like Gaudreau and Monahan.
In other words, the team is now looking like the team that many people thought would finish 2nd in the Pacific this year before the season started.
To me, it isn't a case of an okay team that has had an okay season. It is a very good team that had some very serious issues for part the season.
I see three parts to the year:
- at the start, they were horrible
- for the next 30 or 40 games, they started to fix some things and were okay, though inconsistent
- then they put it all together and have been great for the last while
If you look at all three parts in total, you get an average team, which, over the year, is exactly what they've been and is exactly what the author has described.
But if you look a little deeper, you see a tale of three teams. And this third team is a very solid hockey club. And it is the club that people thought it was, or should be.
I don't think the author sees that.