Not to worry; this won't last says Myrtle

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Graphic representation of what fancy stats show for Canadian teams, to Nov 12

(from our friend Travis Yost)

Simply shows why many are predicting a fall.

The thing that separates the Flames from the other teams is blocked shots. As I said in another post, I think they are as much (or more) a defensive play as an offensive one as far as the Flames are concerned.

The cumulative difference from the ongoing large number of blocked shots accounts for much of the separation between the Flames and other teams.

Edit: also, Edmonton is at the top of the chart - what does that tell you?

[Calgary4LIfe]

I am sure this has already been mentioned, but the sample size is still small.

It was a very good predictive tool for the Leafs and the Avs for one reason - their bad numbers lasted the entire season (yet both teams made the dance, after all). The following respective seasons, they seemed to come back down to earth.

The numbers for the Flames aren't great. There is no denying that. However, those numbers are better I bet if you break it down into 5 game segments and use those numbers to see if there was a trend. Calgary got very lucky against Chicago. Calgary got unlucky against Montreal the 1st game. Stuff happens, and in a small sample-size, this does skew results. If you are going to use a small sample size, I think it is often helpful to break it down further into smaller segments to at least spot trends as they are happening, which I find few (if any) advanced stats media gurus are doing for the Flames.

I think advanced stats are extremely useful and help to describe what is happening. They are SUPPOSED to help remove bias, but they are often used in order to support a bias as well. They are also not perfect. Sure, they accurately predicted the collapse of two teams, but those same two teams made the playoffs (and one made it as a divisional champ in a very difficult division).

I am not an advanced stats guru by any means, but I do enjoy examining them. I don't understand them all - just haven't really bothered all that much to be honest - but I find them more and more adding bias to a discussion these days than removing them. What I would love to see is what the teams are really using. What is the predictive stats that they employ, how are they removing biases, and what do those numbers say about the Flames?

There is always going to be a fair measure inaccuracy with these stats. What constitutes a take-away? What is a scoring chance? What is a hit? Was it really a shot on net, or was that a deliberate play off the boards in the hopes of creating a scoring chance since the lane wasn't open or there wasn't enough traffic in front? What about the stats when a team is up by a goal, down by a goal, or even? What about when they are down by 2? Down by 3? What about when they are missing guys who are injured? Obviously not all injuries are the same, so is there a way to 'rank' the games lost to injury so that the stats don't get skewed? Do we care if it gets skewed?

There are simply too many variables that are too difficult to track within reason I think. I think it is very difficult to be consistent and unbiased. Can you trust advanced stats? Yes, and no. I honestly believe advanced stats helps to paint the picture. Maybe just helps to keep things in focus. I do not think they are the whole picture.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The thing that separates the Flames from the other teams is blocked shots. As I said in another post, I think they are as much (or more) a defensive play as an offensive one as far as the Flames are concerned.

The cumulative difference from the ongoing large number of blocked shots accounts for much of the separation between the Flames and other teams.

Edit: also, Edmonton is at the top of the chart - what does that tell you?

Fenwick excludes blocked shots if that is what you are looking for.

[formulate]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Interesting! Where can you get that data?

war-on-ice.com

Lots of options for teams/players, different stats, comparisons, etc. One problem is that is always reverts to 'All' situations, rather than 5 v 5, so be careful.

For fun, here is the exact same chart for the Leafs, the same first 19 games of last season. This is the comparison Myrtle is trying to make.....

Spoiler!

(Flames this season again for reference)

Spoiler!

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Edit: also, Edmonton is at the top of the chart - what does that tell you?

7 of the Oilers 10 loses have been by 2 goals or more. I wonder how much that drives the higher possession stats.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Robbob

7 of the Oilers 10 loses have been by 2 goals or more. I wonder how much that drives the higher possession stats.

Absolutely. Those are all 5 on 5 stats (not in close situations only)
Those might be deliberately cherry picked stats, with the intention to pick on the Flames.
That is the biggest problem with any stats. You can make them say pretty much what you intentionally want them to

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Fenwick excludes blocked shots if that is what you are looking for.

Not looking for anything - simply commenting on the chart.

[Blixa]

We have Corsi% 5vs5 Close situation in this season 45.32% (fenwick 45,46%)
Last thirteen games 51,07% (Fenwick 53,43%)

We have been better lately but we have played against teams from east and not so good teams in west. Thats why I wan´t to see what will happen against in next five games. 2xDucks, Hawks and Sharks.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're right and wrong here. Yes a successful team will likely have a good PDO. After all, individually, sitting percentage and save percentage are measured of skill. However, if you use team shooting percentage, the variation between skillful team and poor team isn't much. Calgary is in uncharted territory here (outside of one lone exception: Toronto in a 48 game season). There's no reason to believe Calgary's shooters ate that Mich more talented than every other teams' in the last ten years (excluding one team in a shortened season).

Also, with the exception of last year, there are never ANY trans above 102 for PDO by seasons end. Without regression, this team would have the highest save%+shooting% in the last ten years except for Boston last year.

This site http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/team...O&sortdir=DESC

has 10 over 102 in the last 7 years and a number of that are relatively close 101.9, 101.8.

[CSharp]

Pfff - comparing any team to the Leafs is a laugh. TO can suck me sideways.

[cannon7]

If you ask me, our puck possession is largely thanks to four guys: Giordano, Brodie, Russel and Wideman. The passing game that these four have brought to the table thus far this year is the biggest single factor for the Flames' success, IMO. Sure Hiller has stolen a few games this season and the Hiller/Ramo tandem has kept the Flames in most games -- but the Flames still have to outscore the opposition. I think the puck possession numbers fall off a cliff if you look at the Smid-Engelland pairing. The modern NHL lives and dies on how effective your outlet passing game is...

[GioforPM]

The "Calgary is dependant on goaltending" argument should have died after the Caps game, and probably much before then.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

If you ask me, our puck possession is largely thanks to four guys: Giordano, Brodie, Russel and Wideman. The passing game that these four have brought to the table thus far this year is the biggest single factor for the Flames' success, IMO. Sure Hiller has stolen a few games this season and the Hiller/Ramo tandem has kept the Flames in most games -- but the Flames still have to outscore the opposition. I think the puck possession numbers fall off a cliff if you look at the Smid-Engelland pairing. The modern NHL lives and dies on how effective your outlet passing game is...

There are a couple fwds now doing a lot moer carry in zone entries as well, which increases the possession game. Gaudreau's % of carry-in entries is really good and Monahan's is quite good as well. I think Byron has a good number but I can't ercall.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by _Q_

But see the thing is, Calgary is built differently than those teams. I think what happens most of the time, is people attribute individual stats to the entire team which doesn't paint an accurate picture.

Take Pittsburgh for example. You have Malkin, Crosby and possibly Letang that are highly skilled offensively. You would expect them to have higher shooting percentages than the likes of Hudler, Monahan or Glencross. Then you have the next level guys like Sutter and Kunitz who are probably on the same level as most of our forwards and then you have a whole bunch of players that would have a tough time cracking the Flames fourth line. What I'm saying is that the Flames skill is more evenly spread out, while you can argue that Pittsburgh's high shooting percentage is being propped up by a handful of guys. We also forget that Giordano and Brodie have emerged as elite or at least star defencemen that can produce the type of offence that most teams can't match.

So really, there's nothing "unsustainable" when it comes to our high shooting percentage.

Yeah, but the Flames are converting at a rate that'd be similar to having a Getzlaf on each line and that's not sustainable. His on-ice s% over the last 4 seasons is 10.17%; Calgary's is currently 10.16%.

Maintaining those kind of numbers just isn't really possible unless you've got a line or two with superstar players, and even then over 10% for a whole team is almost unheard of in an 82 game season.

[cannon7]

I don't actually think this level of play is sustainable. If the Flames' play the rest of the season at .500 I will be thrilled. If they are sub-.500 then I won't be too surprised. Reason being...

1. Injuries keep piling up. We're missing more than half our top-six.
2. Call-ups are likely playing above their heads (Jooris, Granlund).
3. If IRs return to the roster, they likely won't be able to keep up the momentum.
4. Our top-four on defense needs to stay healthy. Wideman and Russel have injury histories. Giordano just took a stick to the eye last game.

Considering we went into this season as McDavid favorites, this has been a nice surprise.

[GioforPM]

Over 10% is pretty rare. Last year only 2 teams did it. That said, I'm not sure how well shooting % even relates to team success. Last year the rankings were pretty scattered over good and bad teams. Toronto was high, LA was really low. Calgary was in the top half.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Over 10% is pretty rare. Last year only 2 teams did it. That said, I'm not sure how well shooting % even relates to team success. Last year the rankings were pretty scattered over good and bad teams. Toronto was high, LA was really low. Calgary was in the top half.

Shooting % is difficult go do much with.
Bashers said Monahan production was set to fall off, as his shooting % from last season was not sustainable.
And while his shooting % has dropped (though is still very high) he projects to score 30 goals - so he obviously shooting more.

[James Mirtle]

Hi everyone. I didn't read the whole thread so forgive me if I repeat anything.

The thing is it's very early so rolling average charts are easy to manipulate to say what you'd like them to. Here's an example:

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/534971791903834113

There's really little argument the Flames are a great possession team. Giordano is a great possession player, so that helps, but it's not enough. Only five of their first 19 games were +50% Fenwick percentage wise.

I think a lot of fans have misinterpreted the article as disparaging the rebuild or something along those lines. All it is is trying to explain sustainability and which aspects of the Flames record are expected to regress.

I'd agree with a lot of people here that their success is a huge positive given expectations. Heck this team finishing with anything close to 85-90 points would be a big step forward. But it's unrealistic to think they can keep scoring 3+ goals a game like this.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I award James Mirtle eleventeen Dellows.

[JetsFlamesFan]

63 goals in 20 games makes us the highest scoring team in the Western Conference, on pace for 255 goals for the season. A lofty stat? Sure, but to say there is no way they can maintain this pace is a bit silly. It may not be likely, but the Flames scored 250+ under Keenan not that long ago. Of course Iginla probably had 50 goals that season, but if you subtract Iginla and add a couple 20's and a 10, why not? Maybe we got lucky and all our players will have career seasons in the same year. Stats be dammed, they don't tell the whole story. I'm tired of people thinking they can predict everything that will happen using a few fancy stats. There are in fact many different stats, but they are so intertwined you can't derive a formula from them that will predict everything that happens. Maybe in game 7 OT of the Stanley Cup final the winning goal bounces in off the back of the goalie's head. I dunno, people worship these stats, and most of them probably haven't watched a single Flames game all season. There are way too many variables for this Yost character to take one stat and generalize that Calgary is the luckiest team in the league. It's stoopid