[PGT] Flames score 4 unanswered and beat Sens 6-3

[looooob]

it is tricky business. obviously with few exceptions (maybe Boston) , if you really want to revamp and set yourself up , you need to bottom out, collect some high (very high) picks as well as pick volume, but there is also little doubt some teams (they have been listed) get stuck in that mode forever, and other teams (I guess lets throw out NYR) have other built in advantages to move things along


but many of the successful rebuild seems to either require luck (bottom out in the Fleury-Crosby-Malkin years and lottery smile on you), or happen by luck


I mean Tampa- they were 3 years removed from a cup (so good will still abounding) and go into a season with Lecavalier, Richards, Boyle, St Louis , Prospal, Torts as coach- they weren't expecting to tank, but some combination of bad luck, injuries, whatnot they are all of a sudden the worst team in the league- ok fine embrace it then (easy to do) grab Stamkos and Hedman the following year- really since then you could argue they haven't nailed a single first round pick (they have picked some nhl regulars but no-one franchise altering), but they did draft 3 greats and a bunch of solids in the later rounds for about 3 or 4 years and they are still rolling off that


sign me up for that one!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

The Rangers finished 24th & 26th in the league 2 straight years and drafted 1st & 2nd overall.
That's bottoming out.

You can call it a "retool" because they didn't stay bad long, but it's just a successful rebuild.
If the Flames can draft 1st & 2nd overall and only suck for 2 years, I'd take it.
Call it whatever you want.

When the Rangers drafted Lafrenierre at #1OA, they still had Panarin, Zibanejad, Fox, Kreider, Strome, Buchnevich, Trouba and others on the team that year. Does that sound like a full rebuild to you?

They managed to acquire a couple high picks, but they never did a full rebuild

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I find these type of stats rarely match what I'm watching.

And it isn't because of some bias - I find that for basically all players. I think these stats stink.

I mean, pretty much all of us agree that Sharangovich has been one of the Flames' best forwards this year - some think THE best.

I find these stats almost always support what I am seeing, and as SuperMatt stated context is king.

Sharangovich is a finisher who excels in scoring off the rush, and or quick bang/bang type plays off broken plays in the offensive zone. He's not a guy that's particularly good in board battles or cycling the puck which hurts his lines ability to establish consistent puck possession. We also have to factor in that his most consistent linemate has been Lindholm who quite frankly has struggled immensely at five on five, and that's he's received by far the worst goaltending of any regular skater on the roster (85.37%).

To me it checks out, and doesn't really indicate that Sharangovich is struggling from an individual standpoint (although he was earlier in the season when trying to establish a role here)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by looooob

it is tricky business. obviously with few exceptions (maybe Boston) , if you really want to revamp and set yourself up , you need to bottom out, collect some high (very high) picks as well as pick volume, but there is also little doubt some teams (they have been listed) get stuck in that mode forever, and other teams (I guess lets throw out NYR) have other built in advantages to move things along


but many of the successful rebuild seems to either require luck (bottom out in the Fleury-Crosby-Malkin years and lottery smile on you), or happen by luck


I mean Tampa- they were 3 years removed from a cup (so good will still abounding) and go into a season with Lecavalier, Richards, Boyle, St Louis , Prospal, Torts as coach- they weren't expecting to tank, but some combination of bad luck, injuries, whatnot they are all of a sudden the worst team in the league- ok fine embrace it then (easy to do) grab Stamkos and Hedman the following year- really since then you could argue they haven't nailed a single first round pick (they have picked some nhl regulars but no-one franchise altering), but they did draft 3 greats and a bunch of solids in the later rounds for about 3 or 4 years and they are still rolling off that


sign me up for that one!

I agree with your point but note that Vasilevksy was a great first round pick (but not their only one thast year, and they actually picked a dud ahead of him).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by HighLifeMan

I find these stats almost always support what I am seeing, and as SuperMatt stated context is king.

Sharangovich is a finisher who excels in scoring off the rush, and or quick bang/bang type plays off broken plays in the offensive zone. He's not a guy that's particularly good in board battles or cycling the puck which hurts his lines ability to establish consistent puck possession. We also have to factor in that his most consistent linemate has been Lindholm who quite frankly has struggled immensely at five on five, and that's he's received by far the worst goaltending of any regular skater on the roster (85.37%).

To me it checks out, and doesn't really indicate that Sharangovich is struggling from an individual standpoint (although he was earlier in the season when trying to establish a role here)

Do you think Sharangovich is the worst Flames forward, defensively? And the worst 200-ft forward overall? Because that is what those stats are saying.

Conversely, if you agree that it is more about Lindholm and bad goaltending, then you are agreeing that the stats are basically garbage they are telling us nothing (or nothing accurate, at least)

[looooob]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I agree with your point but note that Vasilevksy was a great first round pick (but not their only one thast year, and they actually picked a dud ahead of him).

oops duh I was looking at him as their second pick (and was including him in the 3 great later picks), so my point still semi-stands with that one very pertinent correction

[getbak]

Luck plays a huge factor as well.

In 2016, the Flames finished 5th-last and Winnipeg won one of the lotteries, so the Flames picked 6th. In 2019, the Rangers finished 6th-last and won one of the lotteries to pick 2nd.

In 2020, the Flames and Rangers had identical points percentage when the season was stopped. When things resumed, the Rangers lost their play-in round then won the lottery and picked 1st overall. The Flames won their play-in round and ended up with the 19th overall pick.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by getbak

Luck plays a huge factor as well.

In 2016, the Flames finished 5th-last and Winnipeg won one of the lotteries, so the Flames picked 6th. In 2019, the Rangers finished 6th-last and won one of the lotteries to pick 2nd.

In 2020, the Flames and Rangers had identical points percentage when the season was stopped. When things resumed, the Rangers lost their play-in round then won the lottery and picked 1st overall. The Flames won their play-in round and ended up with the 19th overall pick.

and in the end the guy the Rangers took at 1, and the Flames at 24 have almost identical stats (this season )

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Do you think Sharangovich is the worst Flames forward, defensively? And the worst 200-ft forward overall? Because that is what those stats are saying.

Conversely, if you agree that it is more about Lindholm and bad goaltending, then you are agreeing that the stats are basically garbage they are telling us nothing (or nothing accurate, at least)

The numbers don't say that though.

The Flames forwards are in a few groups ...

xGA60 around 2.30
Zary
Pospisil
Ruzicka

xGA60 around 2.45
Kadri
Greer
Backlund
Coleman
Mangiapane

xGA60 around 2.75
Sharangovich
Lindholm
Coronato
Dube
Duehr
Huberdeau

He's the best of group three and by the eye test I think that's about right compared to players ahead of him with the possible exception of Adam Ruzicka (I may have a bias against the player!)

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by looooob

oops duh I was looking at him as their second pick (and was including him in the 3 great later picks), so my point still semi-stands with that one very pertinent correction

Yeah he was in that fun group of first rounders that Calgary passed on to move down and take Jankowski. No worries - I'm sure he (or Teravainen or Wilson or Hertl) would have made no difference to the Flames.

[jlh2640]

The crowd seemed unreal flat last night. At least on the broadcast it sounded that way. Our lack of success against the Blackhawks and Sens maybe part of the reason. Glad we won, Hanifin is sure raising his value.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by looooob

and in the end the guy the Rangers took at 1, and the Flames at 24 have almost identical stats (this season )

Yeah, and dropping from 5th to 6th in 2016 didn't really hurt the Flames either.

The Rangers may have been better off staying at 6th in 2019 because the players chosen 6th, 7th, and 9th all have more points in fewer games than the guy they got 2nd overall.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

The crowd seemed unreal flat last night. At least on the broadcast it sounded that way. Our lack of success against the Blackhawks and Sens maybe part of the reason. Glad we won, Hanifin is sure raising his value.

There was a shot of two guys in Flames jerseys having a beer in the lower bowl. It looked sporadically empty behind them. Seemed like two dudes who may have been on company tickets or something. I seem to hear that from a few people, that it seems like a good chunk of the lower bowl (which is on TV) are corporate or season tickets gifted to other people. I haven't been to the Dome in years so I don't know.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The numbers don't say that though.

The Flames forwards are in a few groups ...

xGA60 around 2.30
Zary
Pospisil
Ruzicka

xGA60 around 2.45
Kadri
Greer
Backlund
Coleman
Mangiapane

xGA60 around 2.75
Sharangovich
Lindholm
Coronato
Dube
Duehr
Huberdeau

He's the best of group three and by the eye test I think that's about right compared to players ahead of him with the possible exception of Adam Ruzicka (I may have a bias against the player!)

I think this is just another case of seeing what you want to see. It's easy to look at that list and say 'sure'. But if the stats had Sharangovich in the top group, pretty much everyone would say 'sure, makes sense'.

In what world are Pospisil and Ruzicka the best defensive forwards? And in what world are Lindholm and Sharangovich among the worst defensive forwards on the team?

These stats produce garbage. How can anyone look at that list and think it is enlightening you with respect to defensive play?

[zukes]

Originally Posted by The Hendog

How are the Sens still so bad?!?

As somebody said in the game thread (and probably here, I haven't read the rest yet). It should be a cautionary tale for the scorched earth rebuild types.

Nothing is guaranteed, look north as well. Better to play to get in the dance, until you can't anymore, then make smart moves to improve. Blowing things up for picks works as often as it doesn't. Cheer for wins. Even if all else is equal, a team will only win a Cup once every 32 years, so play for the chance while you can!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think this is just another case of seeing what you want to see. It's easy to look at that list and say 'sure'. But if the stats had Sharangovich in the top group, pretty much everyone would say 'sure, makes sense'.

In what world are Pospisil and Ruzicka the best defensive forwards? And in what world are Lindholm and Sharangovich among the worst defensive forwards on the team?

These stats produce garbage. How can anyone look at that list and think it is enlightening you with respect to defensive play?

I'm not looking to see anything.

They are counts. That's it. Not sure why a simple count of events in certain areas of the ice creates such an emotional reaction.

They're not garbage. They're an indicator.

Backlund and Coleman's counts went up when they played with Huberdeau. That makes total sense to me.

Sharangovich is closer to the middle of the team defensively this year. He's also spent some time with Huberdeau and that has likely hurt him as well.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not looking to see anything.

They are counts. That's it. Not sure why a simple count of events in certain areas of the ice creates such an emotional reaction.

They're not garbage. They're an indicator.

Backlund and Coleman's counts went up when they played with Huberdeau. That makes total sense to me.

Sharangovich is closer to the middle of the team defensively this year. He's also spent some time with Huberdeau and that has likely hurt him as well.

Just because I disagree with you, does not mean I am having an emotional reaction.

They are counts, sure - but that doesn't mean they are good indicators. And the list you chose to post, is actually a pretty terrible indicator of what it is supposed to be measuring.

Pospisil and Ruzicka are not good defensive forwards. And Sharangovich and Lindholm ARE good defensive forwards. These is pretty common and universally-agreed opinions, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the opposite. If this counting stat tries to tell us the former are good and the latter are weak, we have two choices: we can conclude they are accurate, and we are all wrong (what we should do if the stats were useful), or we can conclude that the stats aren't very good at measuring what they are trying to measure. (I am not afraid of the former, but I'm sticking with the latter on this one.)

You and I both work in finance, and I assume you use stats in your work as much as I do. We are both significant, professional users of statistical information. In finance, stats are analyzed to death, to determine if they are actually doing a good job of measuring what they are trying to measure (as it should be). And the vast majority of them are discarded (as biased, poorly constructed, or what have you). But in hockey, every new stat is welcomed with open arms. "They're ADVANCED stats, so they're better than the old stats!" Well, no they're not, if they aren't doing what they're supposed to do.

And these stats don't.

I mean you talk all the time about people seeing what they want to see (as do I), well I think you're seeing what you want to see here, because those stats have no relationship with actual play at all, in measuring defensive abilities of the forwards. None.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

The crowd seemed unreal flat last night. At least on the broadcast it sounded that way. Our lack of success against the Blackhawks and Sens maybe part of the reason. Glad we won, Hanifin is sure raising his value.

At the end of the second period, I had the feeling that the Flames were going to be booed off the ice; instead...nothing. Maybe the fans were too disinterested.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Just because I disagree with you, does not mean I am having an emotional reaction.

They are counts, sure - but that doesn't mean they are good indicators. And the list you chose to post, is actually a pretty terrible indicator of what it is supposed to be measuring.

Pospisil and Ruzicka are not good defensive forwards. And Sharangovich and Lindholm ARE good defensive forwards. These is pretty common and universally-agreed opinions, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the opposite. If this counting stat tries to tell us the former are good and the latter are weak, we have two choices: we can conclude they are accurate, and we are all wrong (what we should do if the stats were useful), or we can conclude that the stats aren't very good at measuring what they are trying to measure. (I am not afraid of the former, but I'm sticking with the latter on this one.)

You and I both work in finance, and I assume you use stats in your work as much as I do. We are both significant, professional users of statistical information. In finance, stats are analyzed to death, to determine if they are actually doing a good job of measuring what they are trying to measure (as it should be). And the vast majority of them are discarded (as biased, poorly constructed, or what have you). But in hockey, every new stat is welcomed with open arms. "They're ADVANCED stats, so they're better than the old stats!" Well, no they're not, if they aren't doing what they're supposed to do.

And these stats don't.

I mean you talk all the time about people seeing what they want to see (as do I), well I think you're seeing what you want to see here, because those stats have no relationship with actual play at all, in measuring defensive abilities of the forwards. None.

Those numbers don't take into account the quality of the opposition or deployment, do they? If not, that could go a long way to explaining some of the disparity between the stats and the eye test.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Just because I disagree with you, does not mean I am having an emotional reaction.

They are counts, sure - but that doesn't mean they are good indicators. And the list you chose to post, is actually a pretty terrible indicator of what it is supposed to be measuring.

Pospisil and Ruzicka are not good defensive forwards. And Sharangovich and Lindholm ARE good defensive forwards. These is pretty common and universally-agreed opinions, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the opposite. If this counting stat tries to tell us the former are good and the latter are weak, we have two choices: we can conclude they are accurate, and we are all wrong (what we should do if the stats were useful), or we can conclude that the stats aren't very good at measuring what they are trying to measure. (I am not afraid of the former, but I'm sticking with the latter on this one.)

You and I both work in finance, and I assume you use stats in your work as much as I do. We are both significant, professional users of statistical information. In finance, stats are analyzed to death, to determine if they are actually doing a good job of measuring what they are trying to measure (as it should be). And the vast majority of them are discarded (as biased, poorly constructed, or what have you). But in hockey, every new stat is welcomed with open arms. "They're ADVANCED stats, so they're better than the old stats!" Well, no they're not, if they aren't doing what they're supposed to do.

And these stats don't.

I mean you talk all the time about people seeing what they want to see (as do I), well I think you're seeing what you want to see here, because those stats have no relationship with actual play at all, in measuring defensive abilities of the forwards. None.

The counts are accurate and they are decent indicators. They could be better.

Many other factors come into it including deployment (who are you playing against, zone starts).

When he plays with Lindholm he gets harder deployment for sure, and of course that's a factor. When he played with Greer or Kadri he likely got easier situations.

I'm certainly not suggesting there aren't other factors, I just don't call stats junk because on there own, they're just not.

I don't think he's a defensive whizz, nor do I think he's the worst defensive forward on the team.

He appears to be in the middle.

And you're giving me too much credit with the finance talk, I'm a marketing/trader guy, not a finance person! But for sure I use stats, and no things that correlate don't actually have to be connected, etc.

But giving up more than others when you're on the ice is a pretty easy line to draw for me as a bad thing.