[CP Story] Sustained Winning

[Huntingwhale]

Good article. The Flames simply don't have the personnel to play a possession style game like the heavier teams like St. Louis or Anaheim do. What makes Hartley even more of a lock for the coach of the year is that he has built this style of play based on the type of players he has at his disposal. Another testament to the coaching staff is how everyone has bought in.

On paper we look like nothing special. But Hartley has identified that if we want to win, we can only win a certain way. We're not able to play like the Rangers or the Blues. We just don't have those types of players. Want to win games with our lineup? This is how.

[howard_the_duck]

To me it seems logical that to account for the Flames' shot blocking, as a coach you'd instruct your players to shoot as high and hard as possible to deter the shot blockers...early and often.

Has any team tried to do this to the Flames? For me it just seems so obvious but maybe it comes down to a player code of not doing this to one another.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

To me it seems logical that to account for the Flames' shot blocking, as a coach you'd instruct your players to shoot as high and hard as possible to deter the shot blockers...early and often.

Has any team tried to do this to the Flames? For me it just seems so obvious but maybe it comes down to a player code of not doing this to one another.

Shooting into the shot blockers on purpose is a great way to forego scoring chances and give up breakaways.

[EldrickOnIce]

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.

I think this is what you were referring to:

“It’s not that my first thought was Corsi is bogus, it’s just there needs to be a stage 2,” said Valiquette, now an analyst with the New York Rangers and a goalie coach. “The old train of thought was, ‘Pucks to the net, pucks to the net. Good things happen when you get pucks to the net.’ Actually (most of the time) it’s, ‘Pucks to the net, nothing happens.’ ”

The Royal Road

Valiquette doesn’t think about shots. He thinks about shot sequences, and said red shots are highly overvalued while green shots are hugely undervalued.
A red shot is one where a goalie has more than a half-second of clear sight on either side of the Royal Road. These shots require minimal movement. Valiquette claims NHL goaltenders, on average, stop 97 percent of red shots. Green shots are those where the puck crosses the Royal Road, either by the puck carrier or a passer, then are shot on goal. According to Valiquette’s research, 76 percent of goals so far this season have been on green shots.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/wh...iquette-knows/

[Enoch Root]

yes it was, thanks

[Dion]

I look forward to every post game write up by Bingo and all the other articles. It's one of the reasons I love this site so much. We also have a great collection of posters with different points of view that always gives me pause for thought.

Keep up the great work everyone!

[transplant99]

McGrath...you are one of the best writers about the Flames going, and this is merely another example.

You have the teams pulse.

Bravo.

Lambert should print this out and shove it up his analytical derriere. What would result is much more comprehensible than the absolute drivel he is trying to sell as factual journalism.

[FireGilbert]

The chance of scoring on a shooting attempt is so small that differences in corsi only have a minor effect on the game. One team might average 10 more shot attempts per game but those extra shots do not necessarily translate to goals if they come from a bad angle, miss the net, or the goalie makes a great save.

Advanced stats are interesting and a great addition to the game, unfortunately there are too many idiots who believe this is some new miracle stat that predicts winning. Possession can be a trait of a successful team however other factors such as goaltending, special teams, and the ability to generate high quality scoring chances are more important.

[SebC]

"Rambo" <- not sure if intended

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bomber317

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.

I think this is key, and it is one of my biggest complaints with the current method for measuring puck possession, and its implications.

The problem with including blocks as shot attempts which indicate positive possession is their actual results. With regularity, blocked shots will become turnovers, which—in the Flames case—are the often converted into scoring chances of their own. Moreover, how much does shot blocking also contribute to opposing players getting shots off too early, or rushing the pass, or attempting higher risk plays in an effort to find a lane?

[Philly06Cup]

You know there's a fancy stay for that. Look up fenwick.

Corsi supposedly correlates to possession
Fenwick supposedly correlates to scoring chances

Neither claims to correlate to winning, despite what hack writers claim.

Next, tango tries to correlate to goal scoring.
It's a work in progress.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Shooting into the shot blockers on purpose is a great way to forego scoring chances and give up breakaways.

Yes, thank you.

I was meaning more along the wall in the offensive zone, bad angle shots, etc. And it's not something you'd need to repeat more than a few times for the defender to think twice before blocking again, and wouldn't need to forgo scoring chances in order to do it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

You know there's a fancy stay for that. Look up fenwick.

Corsi supposedly correlates to possession
Fenwick supposedly correlates to scoring chances

It's a work in progress.

Not sure I agree with that.

Corsi is all shot attempts, Fenwick is all shot attempts less blocked shots.

So I could shoot 40 pucks from center ice towards the opposing net. If I hit the net 31 times you'd have Fenwick of 31, 40 for Corsi including the 9 shots that hit something on the way to the net dressed in opposing colours.

Meanwhile the opposition has 33 shots all from the slot and scores 11 times with 3 shots blocked.

I lose 11-0.
Scoring chances are 33-0 for the opposition
Corsi is .547 in my favour
Fenwick is .508 in my favour

and I've been radically outplayed all night.

Fenwick takes out blocked shots which favours a team like the Flames as they essentially get credit for a skill. It doesn't measure the quality of the unblocked shots though, so it doesn't do a thing for scoring chances.

[Pointman]

It's sidenote, but Varlamov never won Vezina. Rask won it, Varlamov was only finalist.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Pointman

It's sidenote, but Varlamov never won Vezina. Rask won it, Varlamov was only finalist.

Dammit the whole article is shot!

[DeluxeMoustache]

Nice article Bingo.

Thanks Eldrick for posting this.

The use of the word 'advanced' to describe Corsi and Fenwick is very generous.
There has been the same fundamental problem with the really irritating overemphasis on sv%.

There have been articles where people have tried to assume shot location as a proxy for shot quality, and after that took it to where they had ridiculous implications. Because they couldn't make a significant correlation, they discard it and essentially argue that shot quality balances out over the course of a year and doesn't impact shooting percentage or save percentage. Then they go on to compare goalies on the basis of save percentage. (And don't get me started on looking at individual game sv%, what a waste of time)

I like Valiquette's approach to this, it is actually potentially useful. I look forward to the new NHL tracking capabilities giving the ability to qualify data by situation. Defining the groups of situations which lead to statistically significant results will be a part of the fun and I like where Valiquette is coming from

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

I think this is what you were referring to:



The Royal Road



http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/wh...iquette-knows/