[CP Story] Sustained Winning

[Bingo]

http://www.calgarypuck.com/2015/04/sustained-winning/

Flames "luck" just hasn't run out.

[Imported_Aussie]

Until someone develops a good metric for shot quality, the Flames will look like an outlier. They deny their opponents prime scoring areas, forcing shots from lower percentage areas and when they attack, they drive towards the high percentage areas and eschew shots with little chance of success - it is collapse, absorb, counter attack with efficiency: rope-a-dope hockey
Compare this to Basketball - they deny their opponents scoring "in the paint" and aim to take more shots closer to the rim. That is a sport where they assess scoring areas differently, as well as situations - playing off a dribble vs pass, shooting from corner vs low post, etc. This is what hockey needs

[Traditional_Ale]

"The Flames should lose to the Ducks in the second round."

Article says "first."

/typo Nazi.


GOOD READ! Thanks for these. I enjoy the CP house articles more than any news rag.

[Bingo]

^fixed!

Love the timing of that article with the Lambert stuff in the game day thread. Classic!

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

GOOD READ! Thanks for these. I enjoy the CP house articles more than any news rag.

I second this. Always look forward to your views, the quality of your pieces equals those that are paid to do it for a living.

This article puts into words what I couldn't in regards to defying the stats, and makes me wonder if it is because the Flames have found a stat of their own, or is it purely Bob the wizard maximizing the potential of what he has been given to work with.

[Hemi-Cuda]

They exchange 40 seconds of what looks like domination for 5 seconds of an actual chance to score.

So true, but damn if it's not hard on the fans to watch that night after night. I wish the Flames were better able to get their own cycle game working in the offensive zone because as exciting as it is watching them score so many goals on the rush, it's really hard to watch them get penned in their own zone for so much of the game

[CroFlames]

Hopefully Bingo isn't bought out by the bigshots at TSN or Snet looking to add at least 1 quality writer to their sites, and we're forced to start hating him too.

[Bingo]

Thanks for the kind words guys, really appreciate it

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Hopefully Bingo isn't bought out by the bigshots at TSN or Snet looking to add at least 1 quality writer to their sites, and we're forced to start hating him too.

Would he then be a Big Media Paste Eating Troll?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So true, but damn if it's not hard on the fans to watch that night after night. I wish the Flames were better able to get their own cycle game working in the offensive zone because as exciting as it is watching them score so many goals on the rush, it's really hard to watch them get penned in their own zone for so much of the game

It will come with experience and as more size is brought into the lineup. That's why I find this regression talk so amusing. It's all predicated on assuming the young players won't improve, Bennett won't matter and no new players will be added to the lineup. I'm sure Treliving wants this to be a possession team but that's just not realistic with where we are at right now, this year. Luckily our GM isn't brain dead and will continue to tinker with the team to improve the team's weaknesses, something that doesn't seem to be accounted for when people like Lambert 'analyze' the Calgary Flames.

[Jiggy_12]

Bingo,

You've really taken the content on this site to a whole new level this year and this is a shining example of that. Great read, many thanks.

[DownhillGoat]

Nice writeup.

So sick of the luck/unsustainable angle being constantly played up by major media outlets.

At this point I truly believe we could win the Stanley Cup, and pundits would just sit back, yawn, and say "Yeah, but can you do it again next year?"

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Nice writeup.

So sick of the luck/unsustainable angle being constantly played up by major media outlets.

At this point I truly believe we could win the Stanley Cup, and pundits would just sit back, yawn, and say "Yeah, but can you do it again next year?"

No doubt, and if we won next year all we'd hear is "This is an unsustainable dynasty"

[Vulcan]

Instead they add to this by expertly corralling loose pucks and then instead of icing it to get fresh reinforcements they storm back up the ice with advantaged numbers and cram an actual blue chip chance right down the opposition’s throats.
They exchange 40 seconds of what looks like domination for 5 seconds of an actual chance to score.

I put it down to conditioning first that gives them the ability to have enough left in the tank to make that rush. It's been a long time and my memory may not be exact but I kind of compare them to the old USSR teams which were top in conditioning, didn't do much cycling and didn't take many shots but could score pretty well.

[Enoch Root]

There was a great article a month or two ago from an old goalie coach whose name escapes me. He demonstrated that save percentage from perimeter shots was something like .960 or .970, while SP from shots within the triangle were much lower, and shots that crossed the 'golden line' were lower still.

It doesn't take watching too many Flames games to realize that they do a great job of keeping shots against to the perimeter.

They also do a great job of creating chances with cross-crease passes across the golden line.

The former supports their goals against. The latter enhances their shooting percentage.

Let's look at game 6 as an example:

1) cross-crease pass from Stajan to Ferland
2) Monahan with a rebound in front
3) cross-crease pass from Hudler to Gaudreau
4) cross-crease pass from Monahan to Hudler
5) Stajan on a rebound
6&7) were empty netters

On every goal, Miller didn't really have a chance. Every one was from within the triangle, and 3 of the 5 included a pass across the golden line. The other two were rebounds.

On chances like those, you don't need 70 shot attempts to score 4 or 5 goals.

This isn't that hard to understand. The information is out there. And the evidence is right in front of everyone.

But cognitive dissonance is a bitch. And once an idea is conceived and believed, it is human nature to modify the facts to suit the argument, rather than modifying the argument to suit new evidence.

[Daradon]

Thumbs up! Great read.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There was a great article a month or two ago from an old goalie coach whose name escapes me. He demonstrated that save percentage from perimeter shots was something like .960 or .970, while SP from shots within the triangle were much lower, and shots that crossed the 'golden line' were lower still.

It doesn't take watching too many Flames games to realize that they do a great job of keeping shots against to the perimeter.

They also do a great job of creating chances with cross-crease passes across the golden line.

The former supports their goals against. The latter enhances their shooting percentage.

Let's look at game 6 as an example:

1) cross-crease pass from Stajan to Ferland
2) Monahan with a rebound in front
3) cross-crease pass from Hudler to Gaudreau
4) cross-crease pass from Monahan to Hudler
5) Stajan on a rebound
6&7) were empty netters

On every goal, Miller didn't really have a chance. Every one was from within the triangle, and 3 of the 5 included a pass across the golden line. The other two were rebounds.

On chances like those, you don't need 70 shot attempts to score 4 or 5 goals.

This isn't that hard to understand. The information is out there. And the evidence is right in front of everyone.

But cognitive dissonance is a bitch. And once an idea is conceived and believed, it is human nature to modify the facts to suit the argument, rather than modifying the argument to suit new evidence.

Shhhh you're giving away our secrets to the cult of advanced stats nerds.

[bomber317]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There was a great article a month or two ago from an old goalie coach whose name escapes me. He demonstrated that save percentage from perimeter shots was something like .960 or .970, while SP from shots within the triangle were much lower, and shots that crossed the 'golden line' were lower still.

I believe there were some shot charts that showed we were out shot in "quality shots", ie the triangle, but it did not take into account the 'golden line' cross.

There could be some tweaks made to the current advanced stats model that would explain Calgary's outlier numbers.

If we are counting shot attempts, why are we not considering shots blocked as a factor? Most people say high shot blocks are a bad thing because we don't have the puck.

Given the same amount of shot attempts by Team A say 60 shot attemps, if Calgary blocks 25% of the shot attempts, and Vancouver blocks 10% of the shot attempts, shouldn't that matter? Calgary would be making 15 blocks, while Vancouver would be making 6 blocks. That is 9 less shots making it closer to the net.

Is this "golden cross" line taken into account in advanced stats? Should a cross crease pass or a cross slot pass count as a "shot attempt" if it didn't make it through? How about a breakaway pass attempt?

Maybe this already explained/analyzed in advanced stats and I just sound like an uneducated rambler

[username]

Great read, thanks.

Am I the only one getting sick and tired of everyone touting these stupid stats as if they can even predict the weather now? Why do we even bother playing the games?

Honestly, it's got to the point for me where I don't even want to read articles on any sports website becasue all you're going to read about is possession stats. At one point, I actually enjoyed Scott Cullen about 10 years ago - now he just spews all stats in his write ups. It's sad that these "stataticians" who aren't event stataticians talk as if they can predict the outcome of a game before it's played.

Anyway, Flames in 7 and hopefully the have the lowest Corsi ever (whatever that means).

[Inglewood Jack]

the eyeball test seems to confirm that the Flames try to increase shot quality by using the golden line pass, as opposed to the raw volume shooting that high possession teams rack up. it's this same tactic though that becomes frustrating to watch when the players don't execute well. best example was game 5 when Johnny and everyone else appeared to be just throwing pucks away when they had a chance to shoot.

I'm glad that even after the times it fails, they have the confidence to stick with it...just like how you can't listen to the crowd when they get impatient during a PP and start yelling SHOOOOOOOT. if the player obliges and rushes the shot, 9 times out of 10 the puck just ends up bouncing off the defender's shins.