The Flames give a whole new meaning to scoring by committee

[gvitaly]

We hear the term scoring by committee a lot these days. I decided to look at it in terms of numbers. Apparently, the Flames currently have 13 players scoring at a pace of 0.5pts/Game or higher. Not surprisingly, 4 of those players are defenseman. How does it compare to the rest of the league?

The Flames lead the league in that category, followed by TBL, CHI, and DET with 10 players each. Meanwhile, the league average is 6.55* players, only 1.25 of whom are defenseman. What does it mean? essentially we have twice as many players(when healthy) that could step up offensively on a nightly basis. In my opinion that is exactly what the advanced stats are missing, when trying to explain the Flames. It is a team game, and on this team players don't go on the ice in order to survive a shift, but to make a difference.

The Flames top scorers(Pts/Game)
Gaudreau(0.77)-Monahan(0.70)-Hudler(0.96)
Raymond(0.70)-Jooris(0.60)-Colborne(0.73)
Glencross(0.67)-Granlund(0.56)-Jones(0.50)

Giordano(1.00)-Brodie(0.78)
Russell(0.50)-Wideman(0.65)

Rookie Currently Injured
*It is actually 6.2 if you exclude players with less than 10 games played

Now we can once again discuss how awesome the Flames are!

HM: The Flames are 1st in the league in blocked shots, comeback wins, scoring in the 3rd period, scoring by defensemen, and 4on4 scoring. They are also 4th in the league in takeaways.

[Mister Yamoto]

My favourite Flames stat right now is that they are 8-0-1 after a loss.

So many things to love about this team right now.

[Daradon]

I was commenting the other day that 'scoring by committee' is a phrase most teams say, (and all teams say from time to time when they don't have a big first line) but almost never happens. It's cool that we get to see it this year.

Generally a team will say 'well we don't have a lot of stars so we'll have to score by committee', and they'll just end up being low in scoring. For example, I can NEVER remember it happening with the Flames before this year, but I remember it being said lots.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I can NEVER remember it happening with the Flames before this year, but I remember it being said lots.

I can remember it happening, but only because I am old and crusty. The Flames had scoring by committee a few times in the 1980s.

For instance, the ’85-’86 team had seven 20-goal scorers, but no one with more than 30. (Not counting Joe Mullen, who scored 44 that year, but most of them for St. Louis before being traded.) That team finished the year with 354 GF, good for 2nd place in the NHL, even though it did not have a player in the top 10 for goals, assists, or points.

This year’s team reminds me of that one in many ways. People in the media were raving about the Flames’ depth back then – said they had 30 players who were legitimately good enough to be in the NHL. Hartley as a coach reminds me a lot of Bob Johnson – a well-crafted system that encourages creativity, a positive attitude that infects everybody on the team.

For that matter, that was the first time that the Flames had two stud offensive defencemen – Gary Suter’s rookie year. Giordano and Brodie are a lot better defensively than MacInnis and Suter were then. But then, the whole NHL is better defensively nowadays. On the downside, the third pairing was weak then – Baxter and Sheehy – and it is weak now – Engelland and Smid. When the Flames had to call Robin Bartel up from the minors to play D, you knew they were in trouble.

I just hope this team doesn’t follow the ’85-86 Flames in having an 11-game losing streak during the season. The old Smythe Division was so weak, the Flames could drop 11 straight without falling out of second place. If they do that in today’s league, they’ll be toast.

[Daradon]

Heh yeah, 85-86 is pretty much when I started watching the Flames when I could. I was 6-7.

That year is a good example. I ignored the later 80's as we were considered a strong team with several stars even though we did have many different players scoring. For example 89. Lots of scoring, and lots of players scoring. But we were elite. The elitest of the elite. But you are right, 86 was definitely a committee year. The players who would become our stars hadn't had their big years yet I don't think.

As for the losing streak stat, that's something that just couldn't happen now. If a team now lost as much as we did back then, they simply wouldn't make the playoffs. As you mentioned the Smythe was weak, but overall it was far easier to make the playoffs in a 21 team league. Even if you look at the league before the loser points, the 30 team league had a much higher point cutoff than the 21 team league. I think it was a common thing for some of the bottom teams to sneak in even under .500 wasn't it?

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Heh yeah, 85-86 is pretty much when I started watching the Flames when I could. I was 6-7.

That year is a good example. I ignored the later 80's as we were considered a strong team with several stars even though we did have many different players scoring. For example 89. Lots of scoring, and lots of players scoring. But we were elite. The elitest of the elite. But you are right, 86 was definitely a committee year. The players who would become our stars hadn't had their big years yet I don't think.

As for the losing streak stat, that's something that just couldn't happen now. If a team now lost as much as we did back then, they simply wouldn't make the playoffs. As you mentioned the Smythe was weak, but overall it was far easier to make the playoffs in a 21 team league. Even if you look at the league before the loser points, the 30 team league had a much higher point cutoff than the 21 team league. I think it was a common thing for some of the bottom teams to sneak in even under .500 wasn't it?

In 90-91 the North Stars were the 2nd worst team to make the playoffs, yet made it to the finals with a sterling record of 27-39-14 for a whopping total of 68 points (The nucks had 65). That's almost like the Flames last year going to the Finals. Just insanity.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I think it was a common thing for some of the bottom teams to sneak in even under .500 wasn't it?

It certainly was.

Speaking of ’85-86, the Oilers finished 30 points ahead of the Flames that year. The Flames finished 30 points ahead of the third-place Canucks and fourth-place Jets.

And those weren’t the worst teams to make the playoffs. The Maple Laughs held that dubious honour, making the postseason with a pathetic 57 points – which was a lot more than they actually needed. All they had to do was finish ahead of the Detroit Dead Things, who finished the year with 40 points.

(The Adams Division, on the other hand, was really tough. Buffalo got royally screwed, missing the playoffs with 80 points when five worse teams were in.)

This is part of the reason why a number of media people (and some fans) still assume that a #1 seed should always win the first round of the playoffs, and a #8 seed (or nowadays, a wild-card team) has no chance of going anywhere. They are still thinking in terms of the 21-team league, when some truly putrid teams made the top 16.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Scoring by committee is unsustainable.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It certainly was.

Speaking of ’85-86, the Oilers finished 30 points ahead of the Flames that year. The Flames finished 30 points ahead of the third-place Canucks and fourth-place Jets.

And those weren’t the worst teams to make the playoffs. The Maple Laughs held that dubious honour, making the postseason with a pathetic 57 points – which was a lot more than they actually needed. All they had to do was finish ahead of the Detroit Dead Things, who finished the year with 40 points.

(The Adams Division, on the other hand, was really tough. Buffalo got royally screwed, missing the playoffs with 80 points when five worse teams were in.)

This is part of the reason why a number of media people (and some fans) still assume that a #1 seed should always win the first round of the playoffs, and a #8 seed (or nowadays, a wild-card team) has no chance of going anywhere. They are still thinking in terms of the 21-team league, when some truly putrid teams made the top 16.

Yeah I remember the 30 pt spread. In fact, I thought it was a tad higher. Either way, yeah, big difference in making the playoffs then and now. And of course that made game seven v the Oilers that year so much sweeter. Thanks Steve Smith!

But yeah, back to my original point. If the last time we can remember the Flames scoring by committee is 29 years ago, it is something that is talked about often, but achieved so very rarely.

I'd guess you get about 10 teams that say that every year, but you're lucky if you see 1 accomplish it. Great philosophy, but nearly impossible to accomplish.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah I remember the 30 pt spread. In fact, I thought it was a tad higher,

I cheated. I looked it up to make sure.

But yeah, back to my original point. If the last time we can remember the Flames scoring by committee is 29 years ago, it is something that is talked about often, but achieved so very rarely.

I'd guess you get about 10 teams that say that every year, but you're lucky if you see 1 accomplish it. Great philosophy, but nearly impossible to accomplish.

Very true.

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I can remember it happening, but only because I am old and crusty. The Flames had scoring by committee a few times in the 1980s.

For instance, the ’85-’86 team had seven 20-goal scorers, but no one with more than 30. (Not counting Joe Mullen, who scored 44 that year, but most of them for St. Louis before being traded.) That team finished the year with 354 GF, good for 2nd place in the NHL, even though it did not have a player in the top 10 for goals, assists, or points.

This year’s team reminds me of that one in many ways. People in the media were raving about the Flames’ depth back then – said they had 30 players who were legitimately good enough to be in the NHL. Hartley as a coach reminds me a lot of Bob Johnson – a well-crafted system that encourages creativity, a positive attitude that infects everybody on the team.

For that matter, that was the first time that the Flames had two stud offensive defencemen – Gary Suter’s rookie year. Giordano and Brodie are a lot better defensively than MacInnis and Suter were then. But then, the whole NHL is better defensively nowadays. On the downside, the third pairing was weak then – Baxter and Sheehy – and it is weak now – Engelland and Smid. When the Flames had to call Robin Bartel up from the minors to play D, you knew they were in trouble.

I just hope this team doesn’t follow the ’85-86 Flames in having an 11-game losing streak during the season. The old Smythe Division was so weak, the Flames could drop 11 straight without falling out of second place. If they do that in today’s league, they’ll be toast.

That's how I remember it too fantastic post, I just posted something similar before I read this post. I can't get over all the similarities. Hakan Loob/ Johnny are the same height and both shifty play-makers. Wouldn't mind having Sheehy on this team the guy was a pest!

[Hugh Jahrmes]

I love the fact that the Flames and Oilers are both teams who have followed consistent individual trajectories this season. Other teams stumble and go through various spurts, but both of our Alberta teams have just kept the throttle wide open. Exciting times.

I also love giordano