Hmm.. it is not letting me quote:
Bax: I argue it was sustained success since that success started in the previous season to the one you reference. The Flames were really good since that 'Vancouver Fiaso'. So good in fact, that you will have to remember Aaron Ward predicting that the Flames would make the playoffs. I think there was more to it than 'lucky bounces'. The Flames had a system that was dangerous. Was it figured out? Arguable. Was the last season with Hartley 'bad luck', or was it 'finally caught up with him'? Arguable either way. The goalie issue masked any hope of definitively taking one side or the other. However, for 1.5 seasons, the Flames did more than just 'get lucky'. They made their own luck and had moxy.
Bingo:
I think that stat you provided is rather telling -
led the league in missing the net. I think it was actually a symptom of a team trying to shoot at a goalie that is in position. Players are forced to pick corners, and if you are not a confident shooter with a lot of skill, your shooting percentage is going to suffer while missing the net. Do these numbers exist somewhere from previous generations? Would be interesting to see how this number varied in terms of total missed shots and overall ranking in the NHL through the various contrasting styles of play under Keenan, Brent Sutter, Hartley and Gulutzan. I would find that really interesting.
I think it also helps to explain why Gaudreau, Monahan and Ferland - all players with really fantastic shots - were able to find success.
I don't think that Gulutzan necessarily coached against it, but perhaps the system was too focused on quantity vs quality? That's what I mean by coaching for stats. I do think that systems can be implemented and can sustainably conflict with the expectations derived from the common advanced metrics in wide use. For instance, a counter-attack style vs a shoot everything at the net style will yield completely different results analytically, but in 4 seasons of being a Flames' fan, seem incongruent to their respective actual outcomes.
This is not me saying that stats suck - I actually take quite an interest there and believe they add value, but still are falling a bit short in accounting for what actually happens. I do think that it is getting there, and it will just be a matter of time before more metrics are fine-tuned as the sample sizes grow every year, and the confidence intervals increase. Right now they are valuable and are providing further insight into games, which we can all appreciate.
I have absolutely loved what Peters and Ward have been saying with regards to the system and play-style that we can expect from the Flames this season, and I would bet that this is the year that a number of Flames fans won't SEEMINGLY hate the advanced metrics. I think that the Flames will take a huge step forward in terms of success, and I am betting it will align much, MUCH better with the analytics side of the game as well.
Don't worry Bingo. This coming season will be a lot more positive towards the metrics that you put your time and effort into (and thanks for it - I don't have to go searching somewhere else to get that information) instead of making you almost feel attacked with annoying posters like myself seemingly continually questioning them
