Francis: Treliving filled with disappointment, anger after team's collapse

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Just FYI, the Flames had a +5 Goal Differential last year. This year they stand at -36. I would say that's a pretty big difference.

Makes sense, The System didn't fully kick in until this year.

[Roof-Daddy]

The Flames collapsed when it mattered most because they lost two of their top 4 forwards and one of their top 3 Dmen.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Was there ever a time where the Flames had a positive differential? Regardless of the late-season collapse, this team was almost always in the red, or barely hovering above zero, throughout the year. Even if you ignore the last couple of weeks, for a team that was supposed to take a step forward into semi-contender status, -5 is just not good enough.

The fact that they collapsed when it mattered to me is a further indictment of the team and coaches, not a reason to give them a pass.

This is where I keep shaking my head.

Where did I give anyone a pass? You made a pretty salacious comparison for effect, which is fine but not really the best indicator of the year over year product.

But no they didn't make a step forward at all, I think we can all agree on that.

All I've ever suggested is looking into why instead of assuming it's one thing only.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Make a bunch of insults and assumptions without actually saying anything of substance. This just reeks of "i don't understand advanced stats and therefore they are scary and stupid and the people who talk about them are stupid too".

Read my post again and explain how your response has anything to do with mine. You didn't address a single point I made. It's not even clear to me why you quoted me.

Your post was patronizing at best.

Can you actually do a R2 analysis? Because there's a post with some r2 analysis that contradicts everything you claim.

Like, aren't you the dude with the sig about coin tosses that also directly contradicts your assertions? (I have sigs turned off)

I understand advanced stats just fine. Hell, I actually understand calculus and other fun things like linear algebra and statistical analysis, because I do machine learning, and I can see that fancy stats are mostly a joke, proposed by posers with barely an understanding of statistical analysis.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

The Flames collapsed when it mattered most because they lost two of their top 4 forwards and one of their top 3 Dmen.

No, that happened afterwards.

When it mattered the most was the Vegas game. Then they imploded and their forwards and Dmen got shut down because all was lost.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Your post was patronizing at best.

Can you actually do a R2 analysis? Because there's a post with some r2 analysis that contradicts everything you claim.

Like, aren't you the dude with the sig about coin tosses that also directly contradicts your assertions? (I have sigs turned off)

I understand advanced stats just fine. Hell, I actually understand calculus and other fun things like linear algebra and statistical analysis, because I do machine learning, and I can see that fancy stats are mostly a joke, proposed by posers with barely an understanding of statistical analysis.

Nothing patronizing there!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

No, that happened afterwards.

When it mattered the most was the Vegas game. Then they imploded and their forwards and Dmen got shut down because all was lost.

Yes and no.

Sounds like Monahan has been in trouble for months and Tkachuk went down three games before the Vegas game

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Your post was patronizing at best.

Can you actually do a R2 analysis? Because there's a post with some r2 analysis that contradicts everything you claim.

Like, aren't you the dude with the sig about coin tosses that also directly contradicts your assertions? (I have sigs turned off)

What claims do you think I made?

I claimed that our problems are complex, far more complex than some people are making them out to be, that people are delirious to suggest our coaching staff only cares about playing to get good advanced stats, specifically corsi, and goal diff has very limited use for teams in doing analysis of where/how/why they're failing. It only confirms that they are failing. It may also show that a team is a pretender (much higher in standings than their goal diff indicates) however this can be skewed by a few close wins and big losses.

I would think those would be some of the least controversial opinions around.

[MRCboicgy]

I think the big trouble with the secondary stats is that they are tried to be used as leading indicators, when really, they are more lagging indicators of success (or lack thereof). Still valuable, just need to be used at the right time. Trying to apply professional concepts from my work to hockey here...hah.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

41?

That's somewhat disingenuous to what's been said. The Flames were something like -5 on March 1st before everything hit the fan.

How is it disingenuous? It's a stat that is representative of the entire season. It's also one that usually correlates to making the playoffs.

2017-18 -36 Missed
2016-17 +5 Made
2015-16 -29 Missed
2014-15 +25 Made
2013-14 -32 Missed
2012-13 -32 Missed
2011-12 -24 Missed
2010-11 +13 Missed
2009-10 -6 Missed
2008-09 +6 Made
2007-08 +2 Made
2006-07 + 32 Made
2005-06 +18 Made
2003-04 +24 Made
2002-03 -42 Missed
2001-02 -19 Missed
2000-01 -39 Missed
1999-00 -45 Missed
1998-99 -23 Missed
1997-98 -35 Missed
1996-97 -25 Missed
1995-96 +1 Made
1994-95 +28 Made
1993-94 +46 Made
1992-93 +40 Made
1991-92 -9 Missed
1990-91 +81 Made
1989-90 +83 Made
1988-89 +128 Made - Won Stanley Cup

The above are the results of the last 30 seasons, of which 29 were played. The Flames had a minus goal differential in 14 of those seasons. They missed the playoffs all 14. They had 15 seasons where they had a positive goal differential. They made the playoffs in 14/15 of these seasons. The only one they missed was in 2010-11, when they finished 10th in the conference with 94 points. The season with the best goal differential (1988-89) saw them win a Stanley Cup.

Here's my conclusion. In a game where wins are decided by which team scores more goals, it's better to score more goals than the opposition. If you consistently score more goals than the teams you are playing you will have a positive goal differential. The bigger your positive goal differential, the more games you are likely to win. The more games you win, the more points you'll get, which leads to the odds you are more likely to make the playoffs and compete for the Stanley Cup. Once in the playoffs, the same frame of mind stays, where you should try and score more goals than the opposition.

They don't award teams entry into the playoffs based on their underlying stats, but it seems to me that if you earn points by scoring more goals than the opposition, you should try and do that. If you look at the league, the top 16 teams in goal differential contains 15 of the playoff teams. The only one in a playoff spot that is not in the top 16 is New Jersey, which is 17th. Dallas is 15th in goal differential, but is not in a playoff spot.

If you look at CF% 3 of the top 4 teams aren't anywhere near the playoffs. 3 of the 4 teams with the worst CF% are in the playoffs. This leads me to believe that CF% isn't the greatest predictor of who will score goals, win games, and/or make the playoffs. The Flames are out Corsiing a lot of teams. That's not what is winning games. There isn't a direct correlation to having a high CF% and winning games. There is a direct correlation to having a positive goal differential and winning games. It doesn't matter how much analysis you do into understanding and tracking these advanced (secondary?) stats, when the whole point of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. Spending a lot of time reviewing something that isn't related to winning, doesn't help.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This is where I keep shaking my head.

Where did I give anyone a pass? You made a pretty salacious comparison for effect, which is fine but not really the best indicator of the year over year product.

But no they didn't make a step forward at all, I think we can all agree on that.

All I've ever suggested is looking into why instead of assuming it's one thing only.

Why are you shaking your head exactly? You pointed out that the Flames were -5 before their collapse, and I said that still points to a very mediocre team when all is said and done.

No statistic occurs in a vacuum, but Goal Differential is still the best bellwether of a good or bad team. It was a giant red flag with the Flames all season long, even prior to the collapse.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Can everyone agree that a team can lead in some individual stats and still not be a playoff team?

All of these stats can be used to gauge how you compare to the rest of the league in different aspects of the game. No one should be hanging their hat on any individual stat, and I don’t think anyone is, so what are we arguing about?

You could even win the Stanley Cup and not have led in any stat category except for playoff wins. They are not an exact science, and aren’t meant to be.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yes and no.

Sounds like Monahan has been in trouble for months and Tkachuk went down three games before the Vegas game

Whenever it happened, I will compare to the Keenan Flames

They had real injury problems, still managed to take a playoff series to 6, and he got turfed

If they find a way to give Gul a pass citing injuries, Tre should be turfed.

A good team needs to find a way (ex. score by committee) when a top player goes down, not implode

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

How is it disingenuous? It's a stat that is representative of the entire season. It's also one that usually correlates to making the playoffs.

There were just under zero the whole season until injuries and heart attacks wiped out a good deal of their roster.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Why are you shaking your head exactly? You pointed out that the Flames were -5 before their collapse, and I said that still points to a very mediocre team when all is said and done.

No statistic occurs in a vacuum, but Goal Differential is still the best bellwether of a good or bad team. It was a giant red flag with the Flames all season long, even prior to the collapse.

I was pretty clear.

I'm shaking my head at the jump you made.

Where was I giving the team a pass? That was your suggestion.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Goal differential naturally is a marker of success as wins and losses are defined by your ability to score more goals than you give up. But I don't take the goal differential stat as gospel because it can be swayed by blowout games and rough stretches.

Go here and sort by goal differential, notice the playoff teams versus not and said goal differential.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yes and no.

Sounds like Monahan has been in trouble for months and Tkachuk went down three games before the Vegas game

Fair enough, but they could have played through, Monahan was and Tkachuk maybe could have.

At the end of the day though it isnt about injuries. They quit.

They didnt accrue enough points over the course of the season and had to make them up at the end and they couldnt and when that became painfully clear.....they quit.

I cant say I've ever seen anything like it. I understand it. But I cant say that I like or respect it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

Go here and sort by goal differential, notice the playoff teams versus not and said goal differential.

I think that's his point.

Is it an indicator or a natural result of success?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Locke

Fair enough, but they could have played through, Monahan was and Tkachuk maybe could have.

At the end of the day though it isnt about injuries. They quit.

They didnt accrue enough points over the course of the season and had to make them up at the end and they couldnt and when that became painfully clear.....they quit.

I cant say I've ever seen anything like it. I understand it. But I cant say that I like or respect it.

Did they quit or panic?

I think that's the question.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

There were just under zero the whole season until injuries and heart attacks wiped out a good deal of their roster.

Didn't they have a pretty large negative differential in the first few months where they came out crapping the bed? And the differential gradually improved when they started to win games? I seem to remember it took until sometime in January for it to get over even and it was a long grind for that. But I don't pay a lot of attention to stats, so I could be wrong.