VICE Sports - How the Red Hot Calgary Flames Turned Their Season Around

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by AC

Pretty terrible article overall.

I commented with:

You realize though that to anyone who doesn't the follow the flames, going 24-24-3, and then going 12-2-1, is the definition of being mediocre for 5 months and then getting hot right?

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You realize though that to anyone who doesn't the follow the flames, going 24-24-3, and then going 12-2-1, is the definition of being mediocre for 5 months and then getting hot right?

but why would you even look at 24-24-3 when you know they started with 5-10-1? That's still 19-14-2 and an almost 94 point pace in the following 35 games. The 51 game cut-off seems a pretty arbitrary mark made by someone who wanted to find a number to go with a certain narrative and it just doesn't work when you know their record in the first 16.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Weitz

You realize though that to anyone who doesn't the follow the flames, going 24-24-3, and then going 12-2-1, is the definition of being mediocre for 5 months and then getting hot right?

Well anyone not following the Flames close enough to realize its not as simple as that should probably refrain from writing articles about them then.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by devo22

but why would you even look at 24-24-3 when you know they started with 5-10-1? That's still 19-14-2 and an almost 94 point pace in the following 35 games. The 51 game cut-off seems a pretty arbitrary mark made by someone who wanted to find a number to go with a certain narrative and it just doesn't work when you know their record in the first 16.

Any cut off you use is arbitrary.

Since January 1 the Flames have 1 more loser point than the Oilers.

Since Nov. 15 they are a top 5 team in the NHL? (I Think, trying to remember from posts here)

Since the season started they are the 12th best team

They were a .500 team after 51 games and are now on a hot streak.


All these statements are true and can tell a different story.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Any cut off you use is arbitrary.

yes. But if you're going to write an article called "How the Flames turned their season around", why wouldn't you take the 5-10-1 thing which would actually, you know, go in line with the name of the article?!

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by devo22

yes. But if you're going to write an article called "How the Flames turned their season around", why wouldn't you take the 5-10-1 thing which would actually, you know, go in line with the name of the article?!

It reads as an eastern hockey writer writing for eastern hockey fans. I wouldn't try and read any more into it than that.

Not to mention Lozo is generally more of comedic type hockey reporter, at least on his podcasts, so I wouldn't read deeply into an article on the Flames by him.

[AC]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Any cut off you use is arbitrary.

Since January 1 the Flames have 1 more loser point than the Oilers.

Since Nov. 15 they are a top 5 team in the NHL? (I Think, trying to remember from posts here)

Since the season started they are the 12th best team

They were a .500 team after 51 games and are now on a hot streak.


All these statements are true and can tell a different story.

Sure, but "how the Flames turned their season around" implies you would analyze how the Flames fixed things after their well documented poor start.

Splitting the season into the bad start and the turn around since seems obvious.

[Mister Yamoto]

It's not like this is a clear cut case of two different Flames seasons where the team was awful and on Nov 15 everybody bought in and have played lights out since.

It wasn't that long ago that the Flames were being blown out every game and destined to be sellers.

Hopefully this is a team that is peaking at the right time but the truth is that nobody knows for sure what this team really is.

[driveway]

Well, as the Flames have played 66 games, and 66 happens to have a large number of factors, there are some easy-to-math segments of the Flames' season.

Breaking the season into six 11-game segments, with points-percentages, the Flames' year looks like this:

1: 5 - 5 - 1 (.500)
2: 5 - 6 - 0 (.454)
3: 7 - 3 - 1 (.681)
4: 7 - 4 - 0 (.636)
5: 4 - 6 - 1 (.409)
6: 9 - 1 - 1 (.863)

If you choose to divide the season into thirds of 22 games, this is what those segments look like:

1: 10 - 11 - 1 (.477)
2: 14 - 7 - 1 (.659)
3: 13 - 7 - 2 (.636)

And, if you choose to look at it in halves of 33, these are the splits:

1: 17 - 14 - 2 (.545)
2: 20 - 11 - 2 (.636)

Are all of those points in the season completely arbitrary? Yes, totally. Do they provide useful information? Mayyyybbeeee? Probably not? Is it interesting that the points percentage for our second half, and third third of the season are identical, and that we had that same .636 points percentage during the 4th 6th? Yes, a little. Is it meaningful? probably not.

Anyway. Those are the numbers, do with them as you will.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not that one period "matters" more than others. The point is twofold: first, there is an abundantly reasonable explanation for why the Flames are a better team than their record indicates. The dramatic changes at the beginning of the season were meaningful. Second, how a team is playing in March is a better indicator of how they might fare in the playoffs than their performance in October and November.

I agree, flames are a much better team than they were in the beginning of the season.

That's not my issue, the issue is when people start throwing out "if we would have 5 more wins we'd be an elite team". Well...so would the Oilers. 5 more wins and the Canucks are comfortably in the playoffs.

We are a much better team because we learned how to play the right way. As bad as Wideman is and was and how bad Grossman was, TJ Brodie, Monahan, Gaudreau, Hamilton, Gio, Bennett all decided they'd take the first 10-15 games off. Those are our top guys and they weren't ready.

We didn't deserve to have more wins in the beginning of the season.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by AC

Pretty terrible article overall.

I commented with:

I read this comment on the site. It's spot on. I'm also pretty sure most of it would be brand new information to the writer of the article.

[JerryUnderscore]

While I don't want to necessarily pile on to the writer of the article (it seems most here have already accomplished that quite well), I thought this last line was interesting:

So the Flames can be mediocre for five months, dynamite for one month, and that's enough to get to the playoffs?

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's the story of most teams. You play at or slightly above .500 hockey for most of the season with a handful of hot streaks. I bet if we looked at Washington this year they haven't consistently played .684 hockey. They've had stretches of going .500 and then a couple good streaks as well.

[Mr.Coffee]

they should consider hiring an editor.

[Itse]

I really don't see what's there to complain about. IMO "Flames have been mediocre most of the season and are now on a hot streak" is 100% accurate. It's also completely fair to point out the obvious about our division being on the weak side this season.

They're not saying we're going to be easy pickings in the playoffs, or that we somehow don't deserve to make it. This team isn't likely to be a consistent powerhouse at this point, so the recent record is obviously a hot streak. For once we've been a bit lucky, no shame in that.

We're a good team going hot at the right time. With luck we can ride that far into the playoffs. Here's hoping.

[Huntingwhale]

I like Vice better when they make videos in North Korea.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I like Vice better when they make videos in North Korea.

Or imbedded with ISIL. That was actually quite incredible.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

I agree, flames are a much better team than they were in the beginning of the season.

That's not my issue, the issue is when people start throwing out "if we would have 5 more wins we'd be an elite team". Well...so would the Oilers. 5 more wins and the Canucks are comfortably in the playoffs.

We are a much better team because we learned how to play the right way. As bad as Wideman is and was and how bad Grossman was, TJ Brodie, Monahan, Gaudreau, Hamilton, Gio, Bennett all decided they'd take the first 10-15 games off. Those are our top guys and they weren't ready.

We didn't deserve to have more wins in the beginning of the season.

I do usually agree with fans throwing out the 'a few more wins' scenarios and making everything seem much more positive than it really is.

However, one thing I do look at is definitive periods of a season, and digging to see if in fact there are underlying reasons to give credence to such notions. In the case of the Flames this season, having a new coach come in and implement a totally different system which was hard on the Flames is a good rationale. This rationale is also further buoyed by historical data on other teams as well.

If it was a handful of games here, another handful there - then yeah, it is nothing but fans blowing smoke up their own butts. I don't feel this is the case at all. If someone wants to argue that the poor streak contained between two good periods has merit to be disregarded, I would disagree vehemently. Start of the season with a new coach? I think it is fair.

[Jason14h]

I hate the 1 goal records . We have been scored on like 8-10 times with the goalie pulled to make it a 2 goal game , and. It sure how many times we scored an empty net goal to turn a 1 goal game into a 2 goal game ..