[GranteedEV]

One thing I have felt is that under the current regime, games tend to be over if the Flames don't have a lead entering the 3rd period. Even entering the 3rd tied makes me hope we can just extend a game to overtime rather than expect them to be the more successful team for the next twenty. When we trail entering the third, it usually feels as if games are over full stop for a variety of reasons.

In the Gaudreau era (since the start of the 2014-15 season) here are the goal differentials we've seen inder the two coaches:

-16 3rd period goal differential in 100 games under Gulutzan. One playoff make.

+18 3rd period goal differential in the previous 175 games under Hartley (Gaudreau era). This sample includes one playoff make and one lottery team with leagueworst goaltending.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Gulutzan thread, there are plenty of those. It is a thread wondering how this team should play if they want better results. What I AM attempting to discuss in this thread are the following open questions:

1) Is this a significant difference in 3rd period production, or it such a random difference that I am overthinking it? Do score effects factor in too strongly?

2) Are the obvious differences in structural philosophy relevant to this difference? Are 3rd periods better suited to a rush scoring team due to the way teams pack the middle?

3) As an extension of (2) - how active does the defense need to be late in games? Is this defense core better off playing it safe or taking more chances when the opponent has a lead?

4) What are the differences in 3rd period player usage philosophy, and do they contribute? I seem to recall guys like Gaudreau being money with empty net points when this team had a lead. On the flip side I personally find guys like Bartkowski aggravating late in games.

5) Are there any upward reversals of trends in 3rd period production,

6) Is "sticking to the process no matter the score" working more often than not? Is the process itself worth sticking to?