[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't know ...

If I lost my car keys in the garage it would certainly look better if I turned the whole house upside down first before looking in the garage just to make sure everyone knows I'm working hard.

Isn't this what a large number of us were saying when it was time to fire Gulutzan? And didn't you tell us that your deep dives and analysis were better than ours because you worked harder to come up with the same conclusion many of us did 6 months to a year earlier simply by watching how bad the Flames were under GG? We didn't need a ton of advanced stats to show we were working hard or that we understood the game. We didn't need to go turn the house upside down. We needed to go into the garage, get the keys, and drive GG up to Edmonton.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

The Devils have not had a harder schedule. Since coming back they’ve had one road game, and it was in Philly, and Bern was only 5 hours off NJ’s home time zone.

Oilers have not been on the road since they returned until this weekend.

I don’t think China is an excuse, but it might be a reason. In any event, comparisons should be actually made before simply suggesting NJ and Edm had harder schedules.

tkflames posted a chart showing the devils have faced tougher opposition as have the oilers. so it depends on how you define harder schedules.

maybe if someone could post the km traveled so far this season by teams in the pacific division, there might be something to the argument about travel.

I was just trying to refute the china trip being a valid excuse when the other teams that have traveled overseas seem to be doing fine.

Instead of trying to say China is a factor in the flames record, it would be more valid to look at goaltending. everything else being what it is, if the flames received even average goaltending the standings would be way different.

going back to carolina and the flames, the carolina goalies have a way better goals against average than smith but also have crappy sub .900 save percentages, correct?

so why are the flames bleeding goals and carolina isn't?

[icecube]

I badly need the jersey in squiggs96's avatar.

[Nelson]

Adam Fox had 5 points in his first game of the season.

Its not worth worrying about Fox since he didn't want to sign with the Flames, but I wish he would've wanted to sign with the Flames. I think he is going to be really, really good and I can't help hoping he doesn't sign with the Canes because I don't want that trade to appear too lopsided. It's stupid, but that's how I feel.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Isn't this what a large number of us were saying when it was time to fire Gulutzan? And didn't you tell us that your deep dives and analysis were better than ours because you worked harder to come up with the same conclusion many of us did 6 months to a year earlier simply by watching how bad the Flames were under GG? We didn't need a ton of advanced stats to show we were working hard or that we understood the game. We didn't need to go turn the house upside down. We needed to go into the garage, get the keys, and drive GG up to Edmonton.

Yeah that's my posting style. I constantly tell people that my analysis is better than theirs and that I work harder than them.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah that's my posting style. I constantly tell people that my analysis is better than theirs and that I work harder than them.

I mean not directly, but yeah you kind of implied it all last year.

I know you don't see it, but it's been pointed out before.

[SportsJunky]

There goes Nik-, pointing to perceived implications. Well done nik. Well done.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mean not directly, but yeah you kind of implied it all last year.

I know you don't see it, but it's been pointed out before.

I think it's fairly normal to get exasperated by people literally getting angry at a single lone voice in an argument.

I think I have a pretty good track record of treating people with respect, not name calling, and certainly not suggesting I'm smarter or working harder than others. I'm human though so yeah there has to be that 5% margin of error out there.

You've been poking at me for months though, so I get it ... don't like the Bingo. At least you don't make it hard to discern, being accused of being on the team payroll leaves little to the imagination. Maybe you don't see that?

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by nik-

I mean not directly, but yeah you kind of implied it all last year.

I know you don't see it, but it's been pointed out before.

I don't recall that tone from his posts at all.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by squiggs96

Isn't this what a large number of us were saying when it was time to fire Gulutzan? And didn't you tell us that your deep dives and analysis were better than ours because you worked harder to come up with the same conclusion many of us did 6 months to a year earlier simply by watching how bad the Flames were under GG? We didn't need a ton of advanced stats to show we were working hard or that we understood the game. We didn't need to go turn the house upside down. We needed to go into the garage, get the keys, and drive GG up to Edmonton.

This is pretty unfair. The numbers were saying the Flames system was good but the players were bad. I don't think Gulutzan is a bad coach.

Take the following with the acknowledgement that we are just 10 games in.

I think we can all agree that the actual roster is significantly improved this year as compared to last, right?

Here are some team statistics from the first 11 games last year vs. this year:

GG Flames:

• Wins: 5
  Points: 10
  GF: 25
  GA: 32
  PP%: 15
  PK%: 76.6
  Faceoff%: 47.8

Peters Flames:

• Wins: 5
  Points: 11
  GF: 36
  GA: 39
  PP%: 15.6
  PK%: 71.8
  Faceoff%: 52.5

The Flames have definitely improved, but we already knew that because we answered in the affirmative that the quality of players on the roster were much better this year.

In my estimation it would be hard to get that roster to be any better than it was.

The difference between this year and last year will be that the Flames will score more goals in more situations that get them back into earning a point or forcing an OT for a 3-3 win. If they can get a loser point in 1 of every 10 games more than last years roster could, this will be a playoff team.

Interesting to note as well that this roster has taken 8 less minor penalties as compared to this time last year, while the Power Play has scored just 1 more goal this year as compared to last. The difference so far has been a whopping 10 more even strength goals this year as compared to last.

There are quite simply more goals in the lineup to work with for Peters.

[nik-]

edit: actually, it doesn't matter

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

I actually don't dislike you at all. I do dislike your implications that people who come to conclusions without doing a ridiculous amount of stat diving as having inferior positions as a result. Again, I don't think you're doing it with explicit intent, but you are doing it.

Like squiggs96 posted before, a lot of people came to the same Gulutzan conclusion as you eventually did way earlier. How many times did the "level headed approach" and "even keeled" type dismissals get levied at those people last year?

Overall you do treat people with respect, but in the last while (a season or so?) you've become tunneled in some advanced stat burrow and have pretty dismissive of posters who don't "deep dive" to your satisfaction. It was a pretty abrupt advanced stat switch for you, and I just don't get where it came from.

You can have an opinion on what my intentions are, but that's it. So no ... "you are doing it" is an over step that you simply don't get.

We could go back and read the whole Gulutzan debate, both would find examples. My summary of it was a team with great possession stats not scoring and with that it's more than just a coach sucks and fire him. People got pretty heated that I wasn't onside and there were numerous "Deep dive" drive bys leveled.

And for the record I have never "arrived" at that mass opinion that Gulutzan just sucked.

And for the rest ... advanced stats have a come a long way. I'm a trader and I'm always adding information to help me make informed decisions on my positions. It's worked out well. Adding advanced stats to the eye test just brings more depth to what's going on. Why would I ignore that? If someone says the Flames were outplayed every game and an objective counter says the opposite how is that not good information to bring to the table?

If you level "on the take" assertions at people you don't dislike I'd sure hate to be on your hate list.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah that's my posting style. I constantly tell people that my analysis is better than theirs and that I work harder than them.

I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Actually no ...

"Many of us" have been jumping to the conclusion without doing the analysis at all.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Show my your analysis then.

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.

Originally Posted by Bingo

Maybe you're the smartest guy in the room!

Standings are the bottom line, but they're not the be all and end all of analysis when it comes to rosters and coaches in any organisation worth it's salt.

Originally Posted by Bingo

You're wrong to number defenseman like that, and I think you know it.

Originally Posted by Bingo

I came into this in January when I was looking at the Flames and their scoring chance totals.

Another example of bad assumptions (no sweeter to take Smith), coupled with superficial analysis (all players are goals and assists and +-), to get crippling inadequate results.

We should create an annual "I'm glad you're not the GM" award

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK.

I'd hope that a hockey ops group would go a little deeper than your 1,2,3 analysis, but what ever floats your boat.

Sorry to get in the way of your "I have everything figured out" parade.

Originally Posted by Bingo

What is subjective about counting every shot attempt in a specific zone on the ice?

Its the very definition of objective.

You don't have to like the measure, but call it what it is.

Originally Posted by Bingo

But the second you step out of the objective and into the subjective, for me the analysis dies.

Other do too:

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

In short, I trust Bingo's conclusion far more than yours because he did the work to understand the problem objectively. Just because you were too lazy to support your conclusion doesn't mean we should give it the same validity.

Originally Posted by 4X4

Because according to what I read in this thread, unless you've actually punched the corsi numbers, you aren't taking everything into account, which nullifies my opinion. According to Bingo.

[Hockeyguy15]

Man if I had a dollar for everytime this "on the take" thing came up, I could probably donate $20 to CP.

[Bingo]

^^

You're not big into context huh?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

Man if I had a dollar for everytime this "on the take" thing came up, I could probably donate $20 to CP.

You'd certainly have $4 from me bringing it up!

It's a pretty serious allegation to make, so I think I have another 4-5 coming so hold your horses.

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is pretty unfair. The numbers were saying the Flames system was good but the players were bad. I don't think Gulutzan is a bad coach.

I think GG is a terrible coach. I'm glad he's in Edmonton. I hope McLellan gets fired and they promote GG to head coach. I also wasn't high on Peters. He wasn't one of my top choices. I hope he works out, and I'm cheering for him, but whether he works out or not does not mean GG was a good coach. If Peters fails with this roster that doesn't mean GG was good.



One thing to point out is Peters first 11 games is that it's his first 11 games with the Flames, while GG already had 86 games the previous year.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You'd certainly have $4 from me bringing it up!

It's a pretty serious allegation to make, so I think I have another 4-5 coming so hold your horses.

I dunno about a serious allegation. It's just a sports team forum, and he made a passing comment about you being in bed with the team because of the hard stance you were taking.

It's not like he accused you of making millions off insider trading or something serious like that.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's not even close to what anyone is saying ... pretty sure you know it.

There are times when an executive comes available downtown and an oil company just brings him in. He has a relationship with existing management and a resume that the CEO is comfortable with.

There are times when a guy retires and you have no replacement person in mind so you do an extensive search.

If the former is the case, holding an extensive search isn't required.

This shouldn't be such a debate.

And to the skepticism and doubt? Many have said it's all on Treliving for making the hire, but so full on skepticism and doubt. But the process questioning is needless if he knew who he was going to hire.

Eh? Questioning the process would extend to whatever led to Treliving’s belief that no additional interviews were required, and to land on Peters as the answer long before asking of other coaches what their answers would be to the question of “What would you do with this group?”

I really don’t get what you’re saying here... there should be no debate about not following a typical head coach hiring process?

[squiggs96]

Originally Posted by Bingo

^^

You're not big into context huh?

If this is directed towards me, it's another example.