[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I could be wrong, but I don't think Bingo meant to suggest that "luck" accounts for everything that went wrong with the Flames last season.

Really? His own words from this very page. "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."

By and large, I think it is also shortsighted to dismiss how much the randomness of luck factors into a team's success for failure over the course of a full season.

Again, really? The Flames were just unlucky last season? It had nothing to do with a faulty system that was both predictable and flawed in its design? Bad luck played a larger role in the Flames messing the bed last year than a garbage system that saw pretty much the whole team have a horrible shooting percentage? That is where the ridiculousness of the suggestion comes in. What's the old adage? Teams make their luck. The Flames under Gulutzan played a very suspect game all season long, and had the bad stats indicative of a bad system, That wasn't luck, that was expected.

So, you have now changed the tack of your argument, which was originally:

While I think you are now more on-point with your "predictability" narrative, you would also do well to acknowledge that there were certainly elements of the coach's system last season that did work: namely, the team was able to control the puck in the offensive zone, and to generate high-quality scoring chances with a high level of consistency.

This is in large part what Bingo is getting at, and which various models help to identify: The Flames need to improve in areas beyond their ability to possess and control the puck, which appear to be just fine.

No change. The system was faulty and relied on trying to get a lot of shots on the net, a majority of them poor scoring opportunities. The Flames don't need more time with the puck, they need to get better shots on goal and from better scoring areas. Shooting from the slot right into a defenseman or the goaltender's chest counts as a danger zone opportunity on net, but if the shot is into major traffic because the opposition has collapsed into a defensive shell the shot quality is still garbage. They Flames generated a lot of shots, but they weren't good shots, even from home plate. The eye test proved that.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man you haven’t changed since the old days; can’t make a point without salacious insults.

Where's the salacious insult in what I said? That saying the whole season can be distilled down to bad luck is a ridiculous belief? Come on, where's the Bingo that used to mock Oiler fans for saying the same thing, and then trotting out Corsi stats to support their belief? That wasn't an insult then, and its not an insult now. It's a statement of the obvious. A team is not unlucky for a whole season. They just have a bad system or suck at the game of hockey.

I’ve never said anything is all luck or just because of luck. Heck I’ve never said mostly luck.

You stated it was luck. If you would like to apply a qualifier now that is fine by me. But you did state, "What can be argued is the conclusion ... Flames were unlucky and I'm fine with that."

Teams that have high shot attempt splits, high shots on goal splits, high scoring chance splits and a number of players that have had their career shooting percentages halved have experienced some strange bounces

That isn’t ridiculous at all.

That is different than suggesting the Flames were just unlucky. I would agree with what you said above, especially if you applied the blame where it obviously belonged - on the system that caused the abysmal shot stats. Those stats, and every stat in creation, were indicative of a horrible system and the players struggling to try and find success in that system. It definitely wasn't luck.