Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Both kind of what I'm talking about.
If I'm Treliving though I get my analytics staff to dig into this heavily and then and only then can you decide what went wrong this year.
Simple measures say they should have been better than they were. If the system doesn't allow a scoring chance to actually be a scoring chance then it's flawed and potentially the coach has to go.
But they have to look deeper than one off comments, or subjective views of what people are seeing.
|
I have noticed it in the last week's or two's worth of games (I can't say it has been going on all season - wish I had thought of it earlier and kept looking for it).
What I noticed is the Flames shooting while the goalie was positioned and had eyes on the puck, even from home plate. I started noticing how the opposing goalies didn't have to move much, but then Gillies had to scramble back and forth a few times.
I do think that there is some truth to the Flames being too slow to set-up, and this seems to also allow the other team to set-up. That is what it seemed to me when I started noticing it and actively looking for it. Was it every shot? No, but it seemed to be the majority of them, while the opposing team seemed to have a field day making the Flames' goaltenders move (both Smith and Gillies).
I have been critical of the Flames not playing sound defensively and allowing too many good opportunities (especially breakaways and cross-crease passes where the goalie has to make an outstanding save).
A bit of confirmation for me on this would be the Flames missing the net, coupled with the higher end players having good seasons while the lower skilled players having awful seasons. Maybe Gulutzan's system works really well for getting opportunities, but those opportunities are coming at a price where the opposing team is set. More importantly, the goaltender is set and square, forcing the Flames to pick corners on their shots, missing the net a great deal of times. It is fine if you are Monahan, Gaudreau and Ferland, but if not then you are likely to shoot it directly at the goalie or miss the net.
I guess one would have to go back to the start of the year and count how many times the goalies had to move laterally to make a save, and when they didn't, how many times the goalie either saved it or the Flames shooter missed the net. Would make for an interesting stat, though arbitrary in 'how far of a movement is needed to create the discrepancy between moving and not moving'. You would also have to exclude events like 2nd and 3rd opportunities where the Flames are 'jamming the net' (which is a good stat to use too I would think).
Versteeg was the most articulate about this in his post-season presser. He even stated that the Flames were shooting too much from the outside hoping to get a rebound and get those 2nd and 3rd opportunities, but it was 'one and done' too often.
I really think that there needs to be a whole lot less focus on CORSI, and more specific stats to describe the game, and be more relevant at predicting the game. CORSI is too general a stat where systems (like Hartley's) can collapse down low and block a lot of shots, while allowing a lot of shots from the perimeter, but win the game with an overall lower volume of shots. I think it is sustainable. Conversely, it seems that Gulutzan's system, while being very high on CORSI and on High Danger Chances, seemed pretty sustainable at not actually scoring well.
When watching Toronto, they seem to both move more in the offensive zone, and also pass the puck around more quickly. I marveled at Boston this year for doing this too.
I don't think the biggest and most important differences between Gulutzan's system and Hartley's system was CORSI. I think it was speed - creating high quality chances by using speed by both skating and by passing.
Hartley's forwards were less capable than the current forwards in my opinion of putting the puck in the net, but they attacked the net better even though they were smaller, and they passed the puck quicker and more often it seemed (how do you track that statistically? - maybe passes per game? Passes per game in each zone? Maybe there is no point of tracking it?).
In short, I think Gulutzan's system - while conducive to getting shots on net (both low quality shot volume and home plate high danger chances), it seemed like a system that wasn't conducive to lower skilled guys who either can't get a shot off quicker (fooling a goalie) or who don't have as much accuracy. Toronto and Boston play a much more up-tempo quicker transitioning system, and even while in the offensive zone, seem to pass the puck around faster to force the opposing team to lose positioning, including the goaltender.
I don't think CORSI and High Danger Chances for and against are really telling a complete story here. I think you need more specific stats. It isn't that they are useless stats, but I think they are trying to paint a picture rather than just providing a couple of colors of paint and a paintbrush.