Spector - Flames working to shake "unsustainable" label

[saillias]

I for one am tired of threads about things that aren't hockey. Kane, Voynov, Richards, homophobia, CalgaryNEXT and so on.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/f...ainable-label/

Even Flames general manager Brad Treliving shared an analogy that has been running through the Flames’ front office over the summer:
“Our season last year was like winning the Masters,” he quipped, “while sinking eighteen 40-foot putts.”

“Any type of predictability (analysis) will tell you that you can’t continue to trail and expect to have successful outcomes,” Treliving admitted. “We’ve looked at it seven ways to Sunday. We can’t continue to dig holes, and consider a victory when we work … fill the hole back in. That just doesn’t win.”

[CroFlames]

Nothing new with that Spec article. Flames are certainly trending in the right direction; so hopefully it translates to more Ws on the ice.

Although I do admit Spec has come a long way from about 2-3 years ago when what he was writing was absolute trash.

[GranteedEV]

Don't want to dig holes early?

Don't play units like Smid-Engelland-Bollig together in the D-zone expecting good results because "plumbers in the bottom 6".

[Benched]

unsustainable!

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Nothing new with that Spec article. Flames are certainly trending in the right direction; so hopefully it translates to more Ws on the ice.

Although I do admit Spec has come a long way from about 2-3 years ago when what he was writing was absolute trash.

Has Spec come a long way in 2-3 years ago, or have the Flames outlook simply improved since that time that it just becomes harder to be really hard on the team.

I find it's pretty correlated, as our team improves, it is often reflected in a opinion by many Flames fans that commentators or columnists or analysts that we used to feel were total crap are all of a sudden improving. I think it likely has less to do with improved reporting or analysis, versus the message towards the Flames is simply less negative.

[Finger Cookin]

This will be a very interesting and thought provoking debate to listen to all season.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Don't want to dig holes early?

Don't play units like Smid-Engelland-Bollig together in the D-zone expecting good results because "plumbers in the bottom 6".

This is why I wanted to keep Diaz. He struggled early because he wasn't playing much but he found his game later in the year and I liked him over Engelland.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

Has Spec come a long way in 2-3 years ago, or have the Flames outlook simply improved since that time that it just becomes harder to be really hard on the team.

I find it's pretty correlated, as our team improves, it is often reflected in a opinion by many Flames fans that commentators or columnists or analysts that we used to feel were total crap are all of a sudden improving. I think it likely has less to do with improved reporting or analysis, versus the message towards the Flames is simply less negative.

I should have added to the original post that it's not just the Flames articles I'm talking about.

Some of the articles praising the Canucks (or even bashing them) and the Oiler stuff were especially bad. I can't think of specific examples now, but I remember reading his stuff in the past on any number of topics/teams and just thinking how amateurish.

Nowadays, he's a lot better, the quality of Flames teams notwithstanding.

[Locke]

Ah 'unsustainable!' Its been a while old friend.

[FlamesAddiction]

Figuring out how to mount comebacks is a trademark of any good team. I can't believe how often this is spun as a negative.

It's true that good teams also have to learn how to prevent digging holes more often than not and the Flames still need to figure that part out, but no one ever thought that last season's team was a finished product or that the game plan was to sit back then make comebacks game after game. Saying that it is unsustainable to rely on that model is pointless since it was never the plan to maintain that model to begin with.

[saillias]

Spector became really fed up with the Oilers OBC last year and it got to the point where I was wondering if he was going keep his job. Anytime he would come on the Fan 960 he would just hammer the Oilers and Lowe and McTavish and Eakins.

He had a couple incidents with the Oilers last year like the Eakins press conference where he called him out on Justin Schultz' ice time. Another incident in the Oilers locker room where he had an exchange with Ben Scrivens.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Figuring out how to mount comebacks is a trademark of any good team. I can't believe how often this is spun as a negative.

No kidding. The Bruins, Kings and Red Wings were the comeback kings when they were contenders, and don't forget that the Ducks had more comeback wins than we did last year.

[Street Pharmacist]

At least Treliving gets it. Without significant additions, the Flames were in tough to make the playoffs.

Even with the additions, it's going to tough. The Flames could finish anywhere from 6th to 10th this year.

Things to watch for me this season:

-5v5 shot differential. It's been harped on, but it'll be interesting to see if Bennett, Hamilton and Frolik can move the needle. If the focus continues to be on blocking shots, they'll be in tough I think. I like to separate shot generation and suppression as it's been shown they're separate skills that are actually relatively independent of each other and I don't believe they should be lumped together. More on this in a bit

-Goals against. To be an elite team with a shot at the cup, you need to be elite in goals against. Goal scoring has only limited effect on winning compared to goals against. The defensive core is built on attack, and plenty of analysis shows offense and defense are actually independent. The old adage of "the best defense is a good offense" simply isn't true. Having said that "defensive defensemen" don't contribute to defense much if they can't move the puck out of their zone with possession. This is where having Hamilton and the potential of dropping Russell to the third pair could really help. If the goalies can play like they should, and the Forward core back check effectively (not just block shots) it may turn things around. Calgary was 17th last year and needs to improve significantly to be a lock for a spot.

-Shot generation. While goals against is essential to win the big one, scoring goals is still important. It's extremely unlikely they can score as many goals if they continue to throw so few pucks at the net. Only the Devils and Sabres took less shots than the Flames last year. The top team (Chicago) took seven more shots per game. That's over 25% more shots per game!! There's a lot of work to be done here.

-Penalty differential. This was, in my mind, probably the Flames biggest secret weapon. They were historically good at taking less penalties than they drew. From a repeatability perspective, taking fewer penalties is a repeatable skill and drawing penalties likely isn't. At 5v5, the flames had a negative goal differential and don't make the playoffs if they go to the box more. It's hard as a fan to see the Flames shy away from the physical "after the whistle" stuff, but it works for them.


Overall, will the improvement in the youth, the additions of Hamilton, Bennett and Frolik and a year of healthy Gio make the Flames better than last year?

I think so, but are a year or two from becoming elite

[Fighting Banana Slug]

BT with the right answers again. Recognizing that some of the numbers weren't great, accepting that they need to improve and charting a course to see that improvement. That is all you can expect from the GM.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

At 5v5, the flames had a negative goal differential

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of that negative goal differential had to do with the tire-fires that were out there throughout Engelland's time on the ice. The Gio-Brodie(+8), Russell-Wideman(+11), and Schlemko-Diaz(+4) pairings all had positive G.D.s at 5 on 5. The Brodie-Engelland(-7), Diaz-Engelland (-7), and Smid-Engelland (-10) pairings simultaneously tanked the goal differential by more than the three good pairings.

Great post, though.

[underGRADFlame]

Every time I see someone write or talk about the flames and being unsustainable... this guys pops in my head and I giggle a little bit.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Every time I see someone write or talk about the flames and being unsustainable... this guys pops in my head and I giggle a little bit.

Yeah, Ryan Lambert pops into my head too.

[DJones]

Just wondering how was our Corsi in January and February before Gio went down?

Before Christmas the team was just a mess with injuries and Rookies then when Gio went down that obviously hurt us too.

January and February are probably more reflective on what to expect next year. And then add in Frolik, Hamilton and player improvement.

[Ryan Coke]

To Street Pharma, and any other who want to jump in of course, I am curious about Russell from a statistical perspective.

He's a guy who was kind of a Brodie light to me....great stick and puck movement, and rarely did I find his size to be much of an issue. In general looking at his year with Wideman, I tend to think Wideman would be in more trouble without Russell then the other way around.

I get the sense some of the statistical analysis might not agree, and was curious about that.

Your comment about dropping Russell to the bottom pairing as opposed to Wideman got me thinking about that.

[DJones]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

To Street Pharma, and any other who want to jump in of course, I am curious about Russell from a statistical perspective.

He's a guy who was kind of a Brodie light to me....great stick and puck movement, and rarely did I find his size to be much of an issue. In general looking at his year with Wideman, I tend to think Wideman would be in more trouble without Russell then the other way around.

I get the sense some of the statistical analysis might not agree, and was curious about that.

Your comment about dropping Russell to the bottom pairing as opposed to Wideman got me thinking about that.

Russell is our worst player(maybe Engellend) according to Corsi but our best according to actual goals.

Actually highlights a big problem with analytics. That's the problem when shot quality and actual shots aren't taken into account.