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

[Textcritic]

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...

It's disingenuous in that a -36 goal differential can be construed on its own to indicate a terrible team, but there are a number of significant mitigating factors which strongly suggest that the Flames are better than their current goal differential. My point is not to ignore the fact that there are issues—clearly, there are problems with the team that need to be resolved. My concern is that the goal differential on its own exacerbates the problems, and I am not remotely convinced that the Flames are as bad as this number suggests.

I agree with Treliving, here: "Things are never as bad as they seem ... The first instinct is we have to blow the whole thing up. I don’t think we’re in that mode."

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think that's his point.

Is it an indicator or a natural result of success?

It is an indicator. If you look at the top 10 teams in goal differential in any season, I'm going to guess they'll all be playoff teams. By doing a scan of the last 10 years, I think that might even be top 12-13 teams in goal differential. Why is this? Because the point of hockey is to score more goals than the other team each game. In my mind, it's the #1 indicator of success. It's not a result of success. Success is a result of having a positive goal differential.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Did they quit or panic?

I think that's the question.

Why panic? After Vegas they basically had to run the table. It wasnt going to happen. So they quit.

I dont see panic. It was too late for that.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's disingenuous in that a -36 goal differential can be construed on its own to indicate a terrible team, but there are a number of significant mitigating factors which strongly suggest that the Flames are better than their current goal differential. My point is not to ignore the fact that there are issues—clearly, there are problems with the team that need to be resolved. My concern is that the goal differential on its own exacerbates the problems, and I am not remotely convinced that the Flames are as bad as this number suggests.

I agree with Treliving, here: "Things are never as bad as they seem ... The first instinct is we have to blow the whole thing up. I don’t think we’re in that mode."

Potentially trading away core pieces due to perceived "compete" levels is a hell of a lot closer to blowing it up than putting a new coaching staff in place.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why panic? After Vegas they basically had to run the table. It wasnt going to happen. So they quit.

I dont see panic. It was too late for that.

I would have actually preferred panic over what we got. At least panic has some emotion.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It's disingenuous in that a -36 goal differential can be construed on its own to indicate a terrible team, but there are a number of significant mitigating factors which strongly suggest that the Flames are better than their current goal differential.

Are they? Are they really? I love the Flames. I've been a season ticket holder for over a decade, but that -36 goal differential really tells where this team is as a hockey team, and in the standings. They are a team that gets outscored more often than they outscore another team. They are a team that doesn't score on the power play. They are a team that fades when things go wrong. They are a team that wants to go score a goal right away, but is told to stay in a system. They are a team that is not allowed to bank a puck off the boards against Vegas to ice the win, and instead has to trust the system which leads to two quick goals and a loss. This team is exactly what a minus 36 differential looks like. It disappoints me.

I don't want the whole team blown up, but I would like significant changes starting with GG. I think the Flames have a lot of great pieces in Gaudreau, Monahan, Hamilton, Tkachuk, Giordano, Smith, etc., but if the one in charge isn't using these great pieces properly, then you are going to see a team that gives up 36 more goals than it scores, and one that won't win enough games to make the playoffs.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bingo

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.

I'm not really sure why there's all this need for dismissive head shaking. I replied to another poster, you jumped in saying that my comment was disingenuous, and I gave further context to my position.

Nobody's saying that you think everything is hunky-dory, but I do think there has been a tendency on some people's part to dismiss the obvious....this team has been mediocre long before injuries. Goal Differential just reinforces that.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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.

October: -6
November: -2
December: -1
January: +8
February: -5
March: -25
April: -4

They middled for most of the season, but that number from March is clearly an outlier.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Are they? Are they really? I love the Flames. I've been a season ticket holder for over a decade, but that -36 goal differential really tells where this team is as a hockey team, and in the standings. They are a team that gets outscored more often than they outscore another team. They are a team that doesn't score on the power play. They are a team that fades when things go wrong. They are a team that wants to go score a goal right away, but is told to stay in a system. They are a team that is not allowed to bank a puck off the boards against Vegas to ice the win, and instead has to trust the system which leads to two quick goals and a loss. This team is exactly what a minus 36 differential looks like. It disappoints me.

I don't want the whole team blown up, but I would like significant changes starting with GG. I think the Flames have a lot of great pieces in Gaudreau, Monahan, Hamilton, Tkachuk, Giordano, Smith, etc., but if the one in charge isn't using these great pieces properly, then you are going to see a team that gives up 36 more goals than it scores, and one that won't win enough games to make the playoffs.

My sentiments exactly.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

October: -6
November: -2
December: -1
January: +8
February: -5
March: -25
April: -4

They middled for most of the season, but that number from March is clearly an outlier.

I don't think a -10 is middling (the number you get if you ignore March). It's still pretty bad. The lowest playoff team in the West right now is at +14. The Flames DIFF wasn't going to be good enough regardless of March.

[Galakanokis]

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.

I haven't really encountered a lot of people solely blaming this on coaching. They may feel coaching is the biggest factor in player performance and I would tend to agree. The team was on life support before Christmas and playing some pretty crappy hockey that we still see today. What people were calling for is a coaching change to try and save the season. You will not change enough players during the season to make a difference so you change the coach. The team as constructed was not responding to the coach so many called for a change.

Now that the results are in many still feel the same way. Team is still not responding to the coach and playing some crappy boring hockey. One side feels this issue mostly resides on the coaches side but still understands that player changes are needed to take the next step. The other side feels the players are more to blame and feel this current coach can get them to take the next step if the right players are moved in and out.

I have some question that come up around this. Who is responsible for sucking the life out of the never say die team in a 2/3 year span when you largely have the same players? Who's responsible for the slow and very predictable play on the ice? Players don't understand and overthink? Coach calls for control above all else? Way too many questions...

When the deep analysis is done are the games rewatched to go over the specific scoring chances? Just curious as I contend that the Flames high danger chances are really not all that high danger given the positioning of the opposition and I am not sure how that is reflected in spreadsheets.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

October: -6
November: -2
December: -1
January: +8
February: -5
March: -25
April: -4

They middled for most of the season, but that number from March is clearly an outlier.

Unfortunately the so called outlier month still counts. Looking at those numbers if March was really good maybe the team could be even in GF/GA which would make them about like Florida, might make the playoffs in their final 2 games. BTW the actual outlier is January.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Are they? Are they really?...

Yes. They really are. When Matthew Tkachuk left the NYI game with an injury the Flames had a -3 goal differential, which is close to what they maintained over the course of 70 games. Since then it has plummeted to -28.

I don't want the whole team blown up, but I would like significant changes starting with GG. I think the Flames have a lot of great pieces in Gaudreau, Monahan, Hamilton, Tkachuk, Giordano, Smith, etc., but if the one in charge isn't using these great pieces properly, then you are going to see a team that gives up 36 more goals than it scores, and one that won't win enough games to make the playoffs.

That is not what happened. In the space of two weeks the Flames lost their three top-scoring forwards and their #3 and #4 defensemen. That is why they are finishing the season having scored 36-fewer goals than they allowed.

I get why people are emotional about this, but it doesn't help when trying to gauge where this team is and what needs to be done. All I am saying is that the Flames are not one of the worst teams in the NHL, and I expect the changes made over the summer to reflect that.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

October: -6
November: -2
December: -1
January: +8
February: -5
March: -25
April: -4

They middled for most of the season, but that number from March is clearly an outlier.

Well if you look at it per month it doesn't look so bad. But at it's lowest point the cumulative difference was up to a -10 (as near as I can tell) and it took until Jan 11th to turn around so they were a negative team for over half the season.

Is March an outlier? Sure. But then so is January, it being the only positive month. Remove March and it still looks like crap.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I don't think a -10 is middling (the number you get if you ignore March). It's still pretty bad. The lowest playoff team in the West right now is at +14. The Flames DIFF wasn't going to be good enough regardless of March.

Of course it's bad. But it is nowhere near as bad as -36. The latter number is being passed around in this thread as an indication that the Flames are flat-out a terrible hockey team, and that is disingenuous.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by zamler

Unfortunately the so called outlier month still counts. Looking at those numbers if March was really good maybe the team could be even in GF/GA which would make them about like Florida, might make the playoffs in their final 2 games. BTW the actual outlier is January.

I am not saying it doesn't count, and both months are outliers. I am saying that -25 is not a good indicator of how good or bad the Flames are heading into the summer. I am saying they are not one of the worst teams in the NHL.

[Otto-matic]

For a team that barely cracked 200 goals on the season with the offensive talent they have is pretty poor. They dropped significantly since GG was hired. Only the 13-14 Flames had less goals but the talent pool was quite poor that season.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well if you look at it per month it doesn't look so bad. But at it's lowest point the cumulative difference was up to a -10 (as near as I can tell) and it took until Jan 11th to turn around so they were a negative team for over half the season.

Is March an outlier? Sure. But then so is January, it being the only positive month. Remove March and it still looks like crap.

Good lord. I never suggested anything otherwise except to point out that A MINUS-36 GOAL-DIFFERENTIAL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OVERALL SKILL AND STRENGTH OF THIS HOCKEY TEAM.

I did not say that the Flames are a good team, nor did I suggest they are without problems that need to be addressed. My ONLY POINT is to show that the very poor goal-differential can be manipulated to greatly exacerbate the problems.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Good lord. I never suggested anything otherwise except to point out that A MINUS-36 GOAL-DIFFERENTIAL IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OVERALL SKILL AND STRENGTH OF THIS HOCKEY TEAM.

Would you consider it a fair statement that this is a bubble team under Gulutzan assuming everything goes as perfectly as his system allows? Or was January the norm the rest was not representative of what this team is all about.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Of course it's bad. But it is nowhere near as bad as -36. The latter number is being passed around in this thread as an indication that the Flames are flat-out a terrible hockey team, and that is disingenuous.

You're right, this team in context isn't -36 bad, but considering the level of collapse, it still points to something really rotten within those walls. Whether it's coaching or systems or individual players, you can't ignore it. You also have to consider the gap between where things stand today and the expectations set out by everyone (including their coach and GM) at the start of the season. I would suggest that this "middling" team was a disappointment regardless of what happened over the last month.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of blowing it up. While I do think some player changes may be in order, I personally wouldn't do anything drastic until I see what happens with a new coaching staff.