[PGT] Flames fall 3-2 in shootout to Chicago.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Igottago

The team right now is still an unknown quanitity.

Actually it's not. We know what Bouwmeester is as in 6 games we have already seen the good, bad, and the ugly. We know that Giordano is still sruggling since signing his deal. We know what Iginla is and he's off to another slow start on the scoresheet. We know Kipper has alternated good and bad seasons annually going back to Playfair and so far he sure looks like he could be on bad year. We know Cammalleri was struggling mightily in Montreal before being sent back to Calgary where he is struggling again. We know that the Flames team boasts a lot of middle of the road players that can have some great nights and some not so great nights. We also know that the team lacks difference makers much like they have for the past three or four years now. We also know that there's a very good chance these guys do what they do every year which is pick it up in the middle of the season only to fall apart down the stretch. Been going on annually since Darryl stepped down from the bench. I think it's a bit much to expect Hudler, Cervenka, Sven, and Wideman to change what's been going on here for years now.

Now I cannot say with 100% certainty that this will not buck the trends of recent history but the 2013 Calgary Flames are far from an unknown quantity.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by JD

The difference is that the naysayers are extrapolating a small sample size into "predicting the future". Textcritic is saying you can't do that and there's a chance this can turn around and that there are signs that it may have already started.

I never said there was no chance they can't turn it around. All I'm saying is there is plenty of evidence that points to them doing what they have done every season for the past few years which simply hasn't been good enough.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Sorry I'm not going to get into a long winded argument about this with you as long winded arguments are your specialy but record is all that counts at this point. Nobody said that this poor start guarantees a last place finish but it surely makes the probabilities higher with every loss.

The record tells the story at the end of the season, but wins and losses are absolutely not the only thing that counts at this point. If they were, I'd have been booking my flight to the Super Bowl a quarter of the way into the NFL season when my Eagles were 3-1 and in 1st place, but anyone who watched the games could tell that that team stunk and was going nowhere. And anyone who has watched the Flames' games so far can tell that this team is greatly improved from last season, despite what the standings show.

Yes, we're digging a hole for ourselves, but we are not playing like a bad team.

[opendoor]

A team's record actually is often a poor indicator of their overall strength and level of play because winning or losing close games often comes down to luck. While W/L are probably the most important metric, shot and goal differential are probably better at predicting future performance. One needs to look no further than a team like Minnesota last year. Everyone was marveling at their hot start but their underlying numbers made it pretty clear that they were in for a correction and many correctly predicted their fall in the standings. Conversely, LA finished 13th in the league last year but in terms of team Fenwick (basically 5 on 5 shot differential including missed shots) in close games they were 4th in the league and 1st in the league over the last couple of months.

Right now Calgary is top 10 in the league in Fenwick so that would suggest that their play is much better than their place in the standings. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually see a big jump in their position, but given their play so far they should easily be in 8th-10th place right now.

That said, 3 years of playoff misses with essentially the same team should give pause to any analysis of their start. I'd say it's just as likely that the Flames play dips to match their record as it is their record jumps up to match their play, especially given that 5 of the first 6 were at home. And that last point is key even when talking about shot differential. Virtually every team in the league maintained a positive shot differential at home whereas only a few were able to do that on the road so the positive numbers we're seeing right now could be largely due to the effect of the Flames' favorable schedule to start the year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The record tells the story at the end of the season, but wins and losses are absolutely not the only thing that counts at this point. If they were, I'd have been booking my flight to the Super Bowl a quarter of the way into the NFL season when my Eagles were 3-1 and in 1st place, but anyone who watched the games could tell that that team stunk and was going nowhere. And anyone who has watched the Flames' games so far can tell that this team is greatly improved from last season, despite what the standings show.

Yes, we're digging a hole for ourselves, but we are not playing like a bad team.

Exactly.

It is very similar (in the opposite) to Sutter's first year when the Flames had a fantastic record for the 1st couple months, but were playing poorly. All signs pointed to them not maintaining that record, and sure enough...

Also, Minnesota last year. Or the Oilers being 8-2-2 because Khabby was playing out of his mind.

To suggest that the Flames record of 1-3-2 is all-defining as to who they are as a team is pretty silly.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by opendoor

A team's record actually is often a poor indicator of their overall strength and level of play because winning or losing close games often comes down to luck. While W/L are probably the most important metric, shot and goal differential are probably better at predicting future performance. One needs to look no further than a team like Minnesota last year. Everyone was marveling at their hot start but their underlying numbers made it pretty clear that they were in for a correction and many correctly predicted their fall in the standings. Conversely, LA finished 13th in the league last year but in terms of team Fenwick (basically 5 on 5 shot differential including missed shots) in close games they were 4th in the league and 1st in the league over the last couple of months.

Right now Calgary is top 10 in the league in Fenwick so that would suggest that their play is much better than their place in the standings. That doesn't necessarily mean they'll actually see a big jump in their position, but given their play so far they should easily be in 8th-10th place right now.

That said, 3 years of playoff misses with essentially the same team should give pause to any analysis of their start. I'd say it's just as likely that the Flames play dips to match their record as it is their record jumps up to match their play, especially given that 5 of the first 6 were at home. And that last point is key even when talking about shot differential. Virtually every team in the league maintained a positive shot differential at home whereas only a few were able to do that on the road so the positive numbers we're seeing right now could be largely due to the effect of the Flames' favorable schedule to start the year.

Great post.

Further to your point about home and road shot differential, I think that's a key statistic to watch for the flames as I feel it is primarily affected by centre depth. Matchups are key in all this, because presumably, Calgary has been getting their desired matchups for 5 out of 6 games. I expect things will decline as Calgary plays more road games and sees less favourable matchups.

[Erick Estrada]

Hey maybe some of you are right about the Flames trending up. ESPN power rankings have the Flames moving up from 29th last week to 28th this week.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I never said there was no chance they can't turn it around. All I'm saying is there is plenty of evidence that points to them doing what they have done every season for the past few years which simply hasn't been good enough.

A few years ago, I was chatting with a GM about a team that started the NHL season very nicely.

"I believe in the 10-game rule," he snorted. "You don't get a true sense of a team in the first 10 games. I don't put too much into a hot or cold start."

Well, he's modified that stance -- slightly.

"With the three-point games, teams can't win the Stanley Cup in the first 10 games of the season," he said. "But they sure can lose it that quickly."

Spent a few hours on Sunday looking up the post-lockout standings, picking the date of Nov. 1 for each year. During those six seasons, the difference between eighth place and last place in each conference ranged from four to eight points. That early, it's difficult to create an incredible amount of separation.

Twenty teams who were not in the top eight on Nov. 1 recovered to make the playoffs. That's an average of almost 3.5 per season. (Just to clarify, the "Top 8" includes any team with the same point total as the eighth-place team. I wasn't going into tiebreakers so early in the season.)

Doesn't seem so bad, right? Depends. The safety net shreds for anyone falling too far behind. Of those 20 teams, guess how many of them were more than three points out?

Two. That's it.

The Buffalo Sabres were four points in arrears on Nov. 1, 2011. But that's absolutely cozy compared to the Calgary Flames, who were seven back on Nov. 1, 2007. Those recoveries are impressive, considering 27 other clubs failed to make the playoffs in the past six seasons when falling four points behind by that date.

So, that's something to keep an eye on. If your team is two wins out of the playoffs at the beginning of November, the three-point games give it a seven per cent chance of recovery.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...dmanoct17.html

[Erick Estrada]

Regardless of what happens the remainder of this season it's has to be a priority for coaches and management to try and get to the bottom of the annual slow starts. It's really hampered this teams ability to make the playoffs as the odds don't favour teams getting out of the gates slow.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Regardless of what happens the remainder of this season it's has to be a priority for coaches and management to try and get to the bottom of the annual slow starts. It's really hampered this teams ability to make the playoffs as the odds don't favour teams getting out of the gates slow.

Kipper and Iginla...that is pretty much the answer. Those two usually start slow and it leads to slow starts for the team.

[CsInMyBlood]

I didn't read all of the posts in this thread but how can people be down on the Flames efforts on Saturday? We never see the Flames dominate like that. I understand we lost but when the Hawks scored with 13 mins left in the game to make it 1-0, if Flames fans we asked if they would have been happy with a point on that game most would have taken it and ran.

I know they blew it with 2 seconds left, but 47 freaking shots? 24 in the final period? They deserved a much better fate. If this team continues to play like they did on Saturday, there is no doubt in my mind that they would make the playoffs.

That to me was an exciting game, the team worked extremely hard for their chances. I liked what I saw, how a Flames fan could cut the team apart for that performance is beyond me.

I believe the record this team sports and what has happened on the ice are two different stories. Some puck luck and we would certainly have more than one win. To me, this team has a completely different feel to it this year. I think the wins are coming, only time will tell.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by fotze

In an odd twist, the posters who think this is a worse team than last year, to me, are the more optimistic ones regarding this teams future.

I, being extremely pessimistic, KNOW that they are soon going to go on a winning streak.

I think the team is ultimately heading in the right direction. The drafting looks considerbly better even if some of the players don't pan out as skill has taken precedent over measurables like size. The team has adapted to new technologies in regards to scouting and video. There seems to be a strong support group for the GM. Lots to like off the ice.

They are just going at it in a manner where they are trying to do it and remain competitive which is much more difficult to do compared to taking a step back to take two steps forward. My problem is that they are simply prolonging that inevitable step back and not accomplishing anything in their current direction but watching two cornerstone players age past their prime while rotating support players without bringing in new players to carry the torch for Iginla and Kipper. Owners need to realize that Jarome Iginla didn't fall into their hands. It took trading another Flame great in Joe Nieuwendyk to set the team up for the last decade. You simply have to be shrewd and not scared to make the difficult decisions. Flames owners are frightened that fans may bail on a Flames team without Jarome Iginla and that's hurt the long term future of the franchise.

[VANFLAMESFAN]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Regardless of what happens the remainder of this season it's has to be a priority for coaches and management to try and get to the bottom of the annual slow starts. It's really hampered this teams ability to make the playoffs as the odds don't favour teams getting out of the gates slow.

Remember the 4-0 start a couple seasons ago? The team looked way worse in those games than they have so far this year and they missed the playoffs.

Starts are obviously important, but they're not the be all, end all. I'll take good performances and a couple lost points if it means they figure things out as opposed to crap play that masks team issues that gets a couple more points.

Not to go all Alain Vigneault here, but it's about the process.

[SuperMatt18]

Team has looked way better this season in my opinion, especially outside of the first two games. They have been in every game, and really are better then a 1-3-2 team.

Game by Game:

Sharks: Adrenaline wore off after a strong first where they didn't bury their chances, in the final two periods the Sharks took the game to the Flames.

Ducks: Terrible start, fought back to tie the game but then the Butler-Bouwmeester pairing reared it's ugly head.

Canucks: Both teams started slow, Canucks dominated the second but the Flames somehow escaped the period 2-2. Flames dominated the 3rd and OT but once again couldn't find a goal.

Oilers: Dominated all 60 minutes, Kipper had some misses that allowed the score to be close.

Avalanche: Flames dominated even though they lost 6-3. Loss in 100% on Kipper letting in bad goals at inopportune times.

Chicago: Best game the Flames played in 3 years, dominated from start to finish. Unlucky not to have a better fate.

Two things concern me: 1)Flames are having a hard time burying their scoring chances, they should be scoring many more goals. 2) Bad teams find ways to lose games they deserve to win...this was the goal with 2 seconds left Saturday and the Collapse against the Avs Thursday.

One thing that makes me optimistic: 1) Iginla, Cammy, & Kipper need to break out of their haze at some point and if the rest of the players continue to play well this team could be decent.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Remember the 4-0 start a couple seasons ago? The team looked way worse in those games than they have so far this year and they missed the playoffs.

Starts are obviously important, but they're not the be all, end all. I'll take good performances and a couple lost points if it means they figure things out as opposed to crap play that masks team issues that gets a couple more points.

Not to go all Alain Vigneault here, but it's about the process.

Well regardless the real test will be on the road, starting with these 3 upcoming games. The Flames are a team that has had the follow road records over the past 5 years:

11/12 - 3 games under .500
10/11 - 2 games above .500
09/10 - 5 games above .500
08/09 - 1 game under .500
07/08 - 2 games over .500

They have averaged 1 game over .500 over those 5 season, or roughly a 20-19-2 record good enough for a .512 winning percentage.

If they get a .512 winning percentage this year (hit their average over the past 5 years) that will be good enough for 25 points. They probably will need somewhere around 55-56 points to make the playoffs, so that would leave them having to get 27-28 points in their remaining 19 games at home (13-5-1 record at home or a 14-5 record).

If they match their best road winning percentage from the past 5 years this year (.561 on the road) they would get 27 points road points and would only have to go 12-6-1 or 13-6 at home the rest of the way.

If the Flames match their road record from last year hypothetically, they would get 22 road points and would have to go either 15-4 (.790) or 15-3-1 (.816) at home to make the playoffs.

Unless something incredibly odd happens (both based on Flames history and league wide history as it relates to road records) the Flames will have to play a minimum of .658 home hockey the rest of the way, possibly as high as .816 home hockey to make the playoffs.

It is definitely possible that the Flames could make the playoffs, it just seems unlikely based on team history, NHL statistical averages and math. Sadly for the most part stats and math ignore the process at the end of the day.

[AltaGuy]

Wait, just so I understand: are all of you saying - statistically speaking, of course - that if the Flames had done better in the opening 6 games, they would've had a better shot of making the playoffs?

Crazy!

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Wait, just so I understand: are all of you saying - statistically speaking, of course - that if the Flames had done better in the opening 6 games, they would've had a better shot of making the playoffs?

Crazy!

I am just trying to add some numbers to a conversation that seems to be centered around "Geez, it looks better to me and it is only 6 games". To me the Flames look like a team that played 2 good games (Chicago, Edmonton) two average games (Vancouver and Colorado) and two bad games (Anaheim and San Jose). I find such a subjective analysis to be more than a little lacking as such I personally find the numbers to be of more value than how one feels when watching the games. I feel the subjective viewpoint does not take into account a number of objective and hybrid objective/subjective facts such as:

1) The Flames had the easiest schedule of any team in the NHL to start the season, 5 out of 6 at home, 3 games against teams who are playing the second half of back to backs, only 1 game where they were playing the second half of back to backs;

2) The Flames now are playing on the road where the median team went .500 last year, where the 6th best road team in the league played.585 hockey. The Flames will pretty much have to throw up a top 10 in the league road record and a top 5 home record the rest of the way to make the playoffs.

3) The Flames historically have not had a record that would compete for a top 10 road record, so they will have to do something they historically have not been able to accomplish;

4) They will also have to punch above their weight at home vis-a-vis their historical records in order to make the playoffs

This is all required to get 7th or 8th place.

[Enoch Root]

I don't think there is any question that the Flames have played better than their record.

However, they have also been unable to capitalize, and it is true that bad teams find ways to lose.

So there is evidence to suggest that they may be a better team and they may not. Obvious I know, but my point is that I believe they are at a bit of a crossroads, so to speak.

Either they keep playing well, in which case their confidence will come, and so will the goals, and then so will the wins.

Or, they really are still a bad team and the good efforts so far will prove to be nothing more.

I believe it is the former, but time will tell of course.

As for the winning percentages required to make the playoffs, I think it's too early to bother. A 3 or 4 game winning streak would basically normalize everything. If they keep playing below 500 though, then the math starts to become more and more relevant and the hole gets deeper and deeper.

[dino7c]

if you need everything to go right in order to win a game you are in trouble...the fact that they have to dominate an entire game to even have shot at winning is a problem

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by dino7c

if you need everything to go right in order to win a game you are in trouble...the fact that they have to dominate an entire game to even have shot at winning is a problem

if that's true every night, yes

or maybe it was just one of those nights