3rd period

[GranteedEV]

One thing I have felt is that under the current regime, games tend to be over if the Flames don't have a lead entering the 3rd period. Even entering the 3rd tied makes me hope we can just extend a game to overtime rather than expect them to be the more successful team for the next twenty. When we trail entering the third, it usually feels as if games are over full stop for a variety of reasons.

In the Gaudreau era (since the start of the 2014-15 season) here are the goal differentials we've seen inder the two coaches:

-16 3rd period goal differential in 100 games under Gulutzan. One playoff make.

+18 3rd period goal differential in the previous 175 games under Hartley (Gaudreau era). This sample includes one playoff make and one lottery team with leagueworst goaltending.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Gulutzan thread, there are plenty of those. It is a thread wondering how this team should play if they want better results. What I AM attempting to discuss in this thread are the following open questions:

1) Is this a significant difference in 3rd period production, or it such a random difference that I am overthinking it? Do score effects factor in too strongly?

2) Are the obvious differences in structural philosophy relevant to this difference? Are 3rd periods better suited to a rush scoring team due to the way teams pack the middle?

3) As an extension of (2) - how active does the defense need to be late in games? Is this defense core better off playing it safe or taking more chances when the opponent has a lead?

4) What are the differences in 3rd period player usage philosophy, and do they contribute? I seem to recall guys like Gaudreau being money with empty net points when this team had a lead. On the flip side I personally find guys like Bartkowski aggravating late in games.

5) Are there any upward reversals of trends in 3rd period production,

6) Is "sticking to the process no matter the score" working more often than not? Is the process itself worth sticking to?

[JFK]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'm not trying to turn this into a Gulutzan thread,

How could it be anything but?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by JFK

How could it be anything but?

Thank you for your contribution.

[Geeoff]

I think the idea of "the process" is that these things will even themselves out over time with a larger sample size.

[Kovaz]

It's a Gulutzan thread but it's not a "Fire Gulutzan" thread, necessarily.


The biggest difference I see is under Gulutzan we play a much more low-event style at 5 on 5. We've been excellent at holding leads in the third period, but terrible at coming from behind, and we struggle to generate offense at 5 on 5. We've had a ton of 0-0 third periods that won't show up in the goal differential, but are still a credit to our team.

I'd also say you shouldn't underestimate score effects. Under Hartley we went into the third trailing a ton. Going into the third with a lead more often would likely hurt that differential by replacing some "frantic comeback" time with "sitting on a lead". Admittedly, Hartley's teams were massively better at frantic comebacks, while Gulutzan's have struggled.

That said, I do think there are flaws that have an impact. Hartley rode whoever was playing well that night, so you didn't end up with the 4th line-3rd pair vs top line matchups that Gulutzan seems to get himself into. And our struggle to generate 5v5 offense means we're often better off just waiting for OT.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

1) Is this a significant difference in 3rd period production, or it such a random difference that I am overthinking it? Do score effects factor in too strongly?

2) Are the obvious differences in structural philosophy relevant to this difference? Are 3rd periods better suited to a rush scoring team due to the way teams pack the middle?

3) As an extension of (2) - how active does the defense need to be late in games? Is this defense core better off playing it safe or taking more chances when the opponent has a lead?

4) What are the differences in 3rd period player usage philosophy, and do they contribute? I seem to recall guys like Gaudreau being money with empty net points when this team had a lead. On the flip side I personally find guys like Bartkowski aggravating late in games.

5) Are there any upward reversals of trends in 3rd period production,

6) Is "sticking to the process no matter the score" working more often than not? Is the process itself worth sticking to?

Not sure I've ever thought of period by period results ... I think a team can start poorly as a trend that needs to be looked at, but you'd think ending poorly would either be random (like the Hartley miracle kids) or fitness (the team seemed to have good results in camp in testing).

Overall the Flames are really trending in the right way when you look at at the metrics, they're playing much better hockey and have been since game 6-7 and have seen some results (three game win streak).

Sometime you don't get the bounces though.

I like what Gulutzan is doing in tactics and how the team is playing, but I'm not a fan of his utilization of players, though I wasn't a fan of Hartley's either. I guess it comes down to arrogance of thinking I'd know better how to roll his team out, but I do think he errs to the roll the four lines thinking when he should ...

a) rely on his best players more often
b) alter his rolling the lines by the circumstances of the game
c) avoid putting the worst of the forwards with the worst of the defensemen whenever possible

To me adding Jankowski, Jagr and Hamonic should give him less need to roll out the fourth line in the last ten minutes of a third period when down a goal. Why risk it?

[Pointman]

Hartley was running heavy fitness-based practices. Could this difference in the third period performances be at least partially attributed to better conditioning/fitness level under Hartley?

[Strange Brew]

I don't know about trends, but I do wish they had stepped on the Canuck's throats in the 3rd last night.

The Canucks were the team on the back end of a back to back, yet started the 3rd stronger and then Flames couldn't recover.

[belsarius]

I'd have to do some more in depth research to be sure but my eye test tells me a big part is player utilization.

Under Hartley I remember him running his horses in the third. Fourth line would see more bench time and the team's top players saw an increase in ice-time over the previous periods. I think a lot of that was based on the Flames tended to be trailing a lot and he would want them to push hard to get back in it. It is a dangerous game and with a goalie that can bail you out you can get those goals back, but with a weak goalie that extra push can put it in the back of your net.

I think it is a GG issue. His line management doesn't seem to take this into account and he is very structured. Playing the 3rd and fourth line as much in the third (sometimes more since he relys a lot on Stajan/Brouwer in dieing minutes) really restricts offensive output. Instead of pushing your top players to the 20 min played mark to make that comeback, they stay at 17-18 mins regardless of score.

When other teams pushback with their best players getting extra ice-time is will expose the weaker lines. I also think you are right that they seem to give up more EN goals and not score as many with the net empty as they did under Hartley. Again, I would blame player utilization.

I am a GG supporter, and understand that over 82 games this will probably keep his top players fresh, but I think the system is costing points early, but may be saving them late.

And again I would want to actually break down the numbers, Johnny's total ice-time under Hartley vs GG, his ice-time per period on average under both, and fourth line utilization under both because I am only commenting on memory and eye test.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don't know about trends, but I do wish they had stepped on the Canuck's throats in the 3rd last night.

The Canucks were the team on the back end of a back to back, yet started the 3rd stronger and then Flames couldn't recover.

Did they though?

Pretty innocent 3.5 minutes of hockey followed by a Stone call and a bounce PP go ahead goal. Then they get caught with a Sedins on Bartkowski goal and suddenly the game has changed.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Did they though?

Pretty innocent 3.5 minutes of hockey followed by a Stone call and a bounce PP go ahead goal. Then they get caught with a Sedins on Bartkowski goal and suddenly the game has changed.

Maybe the innocent 3.5 minutes was the problem. The Flames played well, so it's unfair to be overly critical of a one game sample. But the tired team found a way to win in the 3rd, and ideally the home team would have choked them out. It's only a big deal if it's a trend.

I guess I'm not of the mindset to give the Flames the benefit of the doubt until their record speaks for itself.

[Johnny Makarov]

I hate blaming the refs but that guy was incompetent at the beginning of the 3rd. Slash breaks Versteeg stick is an automatic call. Like flipping the puck into the crowd.

It would have gave us a 5 on 3 for 1:38. Other than the braindead play by Brodie this missed call was a major reason why we lost.

[Lumby Lager]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Thank you for your contribution.

What is wrong with JFK's contribution? It is more likely to be right then wrong.

I think the biggest factor in the opposite numbers would be under Hartley we usually would be trailing after 2 periods and under Gulutzan we have the lead more or are tied after 2 periods.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

One thing I have felt is that under the current regime, games tend to be over if the Flames don't have a lead entering the 3rd period. Even entering the 3rd tied makes me hope we can just extend a game to overtime rather than expect them to be the more successful team for the next twenty. When we trail entering the third, it usually feels as if games are over full stop for a variety of reasons.

In the Gaudreau era (since the start of the 2014-15 season) here are the goal differentials we've seen inder the two coaches:

-16 3rd period goal differential in 100 games under Gulutzan. One playoff make.

+18 3rd period goal differential in the previous 175 games under Hartley (Gaudreau era). This sample includes one playoff make and one lottery team with leagueworst goaltending.

I'm not trying to turn this into a Gulutzan thread, there are plenty of those. It is a thread wondering how this team should play if they want better results. What I AM attempting to discuss in this thread are the following open questions:

1) Is this a significant difference in 3rd period production, or it such a random difference that I am overthinking it? Do score effects factor in too strongly?

2) Are the obvious differences in structural philosophy relevant to this difference? Are 3rd periods better suited to a rush scoring team due to the way teams pack the middle?

3) As an extension of (2) - how active does the defense need to be late in games? Is this defense core better off playing it safe or taking more chances when the opponent has a lead?

4) What are the differences in 3rd period player usage philosophy, and do they contribute? I seem to recall guys like Gaudreau being money with empty net points when this team had a lead. On the flip side I personally find guys like Bartkowski aggravating late in games.

5) Are there any upward reversals of trends in 3rd period production,

6) Is "sticking to the process no matter the score" working more often than not? Is the process itself worth sticking to?

Think you need to look at the whole picture - more likely to have less GF in the 3rd if you are leading in more games.

Gulutzan:

1st Period: GF: 73 GA: 80 D: -7
2nd Period: GF:93 GA: 85 D: + 8
3rd Period: GF: 81 GA: 95 D: -14

Hartley (last two seasons):

1st Period: GF: 124 GA: 138 D:-14
2nd Period: GF: 157 GA:165 D: -8
3rd Period: GF: 167 GA: 159 D: +8

So some score effects with the GG Flames being better in the first two periods vs. Hartley.

Really the biggest different is just the crazy 14/15 season where the Flames had all the crazy comebacks - they were +31 in the third period that season, then were -23 in the third period the following year, still under Hartley.

So you could argue the team that Gully took over after 15/16 was even worse in the 3rd under Hartley in that last season then they are under him.

[corporatejay]

IF they aren't going to get any help from their 3rd and 4th lines then it doesn't matter. The flames get bounced in the first round. He has to trust guys to do their jobs. Right now the bottom of the roster (other than Janko and Jagr) are complete garbage. He can't help that.

[Oil Stain]

I think you have to consider the possibility that most of the third period comebacks under Hartley in 14/15 were due to luck.

If you go back and watch the comeback video that AC made for that season you will see a few bad angle goals and some seeing eye shots from the point in the last minute of play.

The fact is that many teams over the last few years have records like 30-0-1 when leading after 2 over the course of a season.

It's highly unlikely for any team to comeback in the third and the fact that the Flames did it like 8 or 9 times in 14/15 is mpre or an oddity of chance than any strategic play IMO.

If it was based on strategy or ability then the best teams would have the best chance of coming back in the third, but the win % of teams trailing going into the third appears to be pretty random from one season to the next.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Did they though?

Pretty innocent 3.5 minutes of hockey followed by a Stone call and a bounce PP go ahead goal. Then they get caught with a Sedins on Bartkowski goal and suddenly the game has changed.

"Pretty innocent" is actually a fair way to put it. Absolutely nothing happened. Then the Flames turned to crap, gave up two goals in 30 seconds, and spent the next several minutes feeling sorry for themselves. The last half of the period - aside from Gaudreau's lone rush inside the defence - was padding Corsi stats with low probabilty shots from distance.

The question is, why was there no real serious push at any point of a third period in which we caught the Canucks on the back-end of back-to-backs with travel?

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I think you have to consider the possibility that most of the third period comebacks under Hartley in 14/15 were due to luck.

Agreed, but you make your own luck. We got some great bounces, no doubt about it. But we also had a team that had both the confidence to believe they could come back, and a desire to attack the opposition to make it happen. Both of those factors are lacking at present. The Ottawa game and last night both standing out as big examples.

[calgaryblood]

Ask yourself why the Flames were needing to come back so often in the third under Hartley.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Easy solution. 2 head coaches.

Periods 1&2: Gulutzan
Period 3: Hartley

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Easy solution. 2 head coaches.

Periods 1&2: Gulutzan
Period 3: Hartley

I like this idea. Do you think they'd agree to being paid 1/3 and 2/3's of the head coach salary, respectively?