[PGT] Jackets 5 Flames 1

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not many for sure.

But that doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of the initial chance.

Gillies was beat four times on initial shots that didn't require rebounds because the light was already flashing.

When Bobvrovsky slides across and takes down a Sam Bennett slap shot with his glove the play is over. It doesn't mean the chance was any less because there wasn't a rebound ... the goal tending took away the secondary chance completely.

But those quality shots were set up properly and positionally sound. This is where the advanced stats IMO are flawed. They count the same as the Flames high danger chances but yet don't quantify or cannot quantify how those develop. That's where they eye test says the Flames fail.

Look at all three of PLDs goals last night. Already set up in front of the puck handler giving him option to develop attacking plays. In front of the puck handler. And in a great spot to clean up reounds if the puck handler was to shoot instead of pass cross crease for a one timer. I mean the Flames "quality" chances are done by the puck handler with no in front forward support.

And somehow these are quantified in the same breath as pretty much all 5 of columbuses goals? I mean you have to see the difference.

[Galakanokis]

When's the last time the Flames made a goalie move cross crease like the way the Blue Jackets did? Flames generate little to none actual high danger chances. Goalie is always square to the shot.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not many for sure.

But that doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of the initial chance.

Gillies was beat four times on initial shots that didn't require rebounds because the light was already flashing.

When Bobvrovsky slides across and takes down a Sam Bennett slap shot with his glove the play is over. It doesn't mean the chance was any less because there wasn't a rebound ... the goal tending took away the secondary chance completely.

How many shots was Gillies beat on where the shooter was positioned for a one timer on his backdoor? How many such saves did he make?

How many saves did Bobrovsky make where the shooter was positioned for a one timer on his backdoor?

Simple question, could probably be quantified with ease by looking back at the tape. No subjectivity needed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by zamler

I think you are trying to say the Flames are a better team than the results show. I doubt many would agree with this, and even if they did it doesn't matter the results are terrible. So the coaching staff can continue down the same path and fail, or recognize that the style of play doesn't win many hockey games.

Nope ...

Hrdina said high on try and low on talent and was responded to with this ...

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't think last night was a good example of that. All we did was skate into the zone, take a shot from distance, rinse, repeat. It was pretty obvious the Flames weren't interested in anything but just getting this season over with.

Columbus simply boxed us out without effort, counter punched when they needed to, and otherwise just played not to suffer any injuries. It's actually a little unfair that they lost the shutout in the last minute on what might have been only our second decent offensive shift of the game.

Which I took exception to.

That's it.

Now it's three different guys telling me how irrelevant the statistics are.

[dammage79]

End of the day I think it's more the system failing the advanced stats more than the advanced stats failing the system, but really thats again on the coaches. It's a broken system thats picked apart game by game by the opposition. it's not like the suckage began with all the key players out of the lineup. this was happening well in advance.

[dammage79]

And I may be getting in crazy guy territory here but I think it all begins with when the Flames do line changes. can't really go into great detail about it as it's just a thing thats been bugging me for a couple of seasons now but their line changes seem to kill offensinve momentum.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by dammage79

End of the day I think it's more the system failing the advanced stats more than the advanced stats failing the system, but really thats again on the coaches. It's a broken system thats picked apart game by game by the opposition. it's not like the suckage began with all the key players out of the lineup. this was happening well in advance.

This is actually an interesting point. I think if anything its showing that the talent on the roster was succeeding in spite of 'The System' rather than because of it, and now that the top-end talent isnt around 'The System' is having its flaws exposed.

At the end of the day though, stats or whatever else, there arent a lot of conclusions that can be drawn right now as this is a team thats thoroughly given up.

I cant remember ever seeing a team just phone-in the end of their season like this.

Its embarrassing.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I don't think last night was a good example of that. All we did was skate into the zone, take a shot from distance, rinse, repeat. It was pretty obvious the Flames weren't interested in anything but just getting this season over with.

Columbus simply boxed us out without effort, counter punched when they needed to, and otherwise just played not to suffer any injuries. It's actually a little unfair that they lost the shutout in the last minute on what might have been only our second decent offensive shift of the game.

I counted quite a few in close chances. It wasn't up with so e of the other losses where the Flames outchanced the other team, but there were both some close in chances, some screened shots that got blocked in the crease and two missed open nets.

On the one timer issue, IMO the Flames get one timers but they are too slow to set them up, the pass I say too slow and telegraphed. It's not so much the shooters as the passers at fault.

[Resolute 14]

Yes, we got a few in close. But almost none were actually dangerous attempts, which was my point. The Jackets pretty much kept things to a point where we just weren't challenging Bobrovsky, and nobody had a great deal of interest in pushing through that.

And agreed on the one timer issue. That's just another symptom of the overall problem - our system is deliberate by design. It's not only an issue of being telegraphed, but that the defence is always in position to counter us.

And Bingo, I never said statistics are irrelevant. But I do find the conclusion of "they just didn't finish" to be a little too convenient of an excuse. It's basically a form of "was just bad luck" as an argument, and I find advanced stat true believers fall to that argument far too easily. Luck certainly plays a non-trivial role in the outcome of a game, but for many hardcore advanced stat people, luck becomes their god - the easy answer designed to explain away what they don't understand or don't wish to face.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, we got a few in close. But almost none were actually dangerous attempts, which was my point. The Jackets pretty much kept things to a point where we just weren't challenging Bobrovsky, and nobody had a great deal of interest in pushing through that.

And agreed on the one timer issue. That's just another symptom of the overall problem - our system is deliberate by design. It's not only an issue of being telegraphed, but that the defence is always in position to counter us.

And Bingo, I never said statistics are irrelevant. But I do find the conclusion of "they just didn't finish" to be a little too convenient of an excuse. It's basically a form of "was just bad luck" as an argument, and I find advanced stat true believers fall to that argument far too easily. Luck certainly plays a non-trivial role in the outcome of a game, but for many hardcore advanced stat people, luck becomes their god - the easy answer designed to explain away what they don't understand or don't wish to face.

Every season there's a list of players that finish at a rate that is too high compared to their career stats, they almost always come back to the average.

Similarly there's a list of players that go belly up for one season but are sure to return to their norms seen in their overall career.

TJ Oshie was in the first camp, and Jordan Eberle was in the second. They both returned to their career averages but only after Oshie was signed to a very lucrative and somewhat unlikely to pay off contract, and Eberle was dealt for cap space and rebounded leaving the Oilers thin on the wing.

The Flames have a number of players in the latter case. Could be a system, and in fact I think it's quite likely that system plays a role, but to discount "one of those years" completely would be foolish too in my mind.

Gaudreau 10.4 vs 12.2
Backlund 6.6 vs 8.9 career and average of 12.2 previous two seasons
Giordano 6.3 vs 7.9 last year and 9.9 the previous year
Brodie 3.4 vs 7.7 previous year and 5.8 career
Bennett 7.3 vs 10.3
Frolik 6.3 vs 8.1 career and 9.0 Calgary average
Brouwer 8.0 vs 13.2 career average

The list goes on, only Monahan, Tkachuk, Ferland and Hamilton were in and around their averages, Tkachuk clearly hasn't had a long career line to establish.

These guys would be classic off season acquisitions depending on age (Brouwer) for other teams.

Just saying you have take all into account and this wasn't a season full of bounces.

[DeluxeMoustache]

To ignore the obvious but less countable “time and space” is equally foolish in my mind.

What would an alternative proxy worth counting be? 2 on 1s? Cross ice one timers?

Generally they should not be a metric for all NHL teams but the Flames do seem to give up enough to become a metric for them

I’m kind of joking, but am not sure if I am entirely

[Ryan Coke]

Still stuns me that GG doesn’t set up the power play to even have a one time option.

An example of puck retrieval and control being more important than defensive chaos and goalie movement.

I get the premise of his system, but I think it’s cool that he’s proven it to be ineffective.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Every season there's a list of players that finish at a rate that is too high compared to their career stats, they almost always come back to the average.

Similarly there's a list of players that go belly up for one season but are sure to return to their norms seen in their overall career.

TJ Oshie was in the first camp, and Jordan Eberle was in the second. They both returned to their career averages but only after Oshie was signed to a very lucrative and somewhat unlikely to pay off contract, and Eberle was dealt for cap space and rebounded leaving the Oilers thin on the wing.

The Flames have a number of players in the latter case. Could be a system, and in fact I think it's quite likely that system plays a role, but to discount "one of those years" completely would be foolish too in my mind.

Gaudreau 10.4 vs 12.2
Backlund 6.6 vs 8.9 career and average of 12.2 previous two seasons
Giordano 6.3 vs 7.9 last year and 9.9 the previous year
Brodie 3.4 vs 7.7 previous year and 5.8 career
Bennett 7.3 vs 10.3
Frolik 6.3 vs 8.1 career and 9.0 Calgary average
Brouwer 8.0 vs 13.2 career average

The list goes on, only Monahan, Tkachuk, Ferland and Hamilton were in and around their averages, Tkachuk clearly hasn't had a long career line to establish.

These guys would be classic off season acquisitions depending on age (Brouwer) for other teams.

Just saying you have take all into account and this wasn't a season full of bounces.

Yes, every year there is a list of players that had a career year with respect to good or bad fortune. No question, that is true. And from that, we can assume regression, and we usually see it.

The problem lies in extending that fact outward too far.

It's one thing to take an individual player, with essentially the same team and same linemates, and therefore essentially the same set of chances, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and conclude that the difference in results is luck (for lack of a better word, and to simplify the argument).

It is another thing altogether to take an entire team, and an entire season of results for that team, and argue luck, or assume we're due for regression. We are seeing the same thing on a nightly basis: slow setup and methodical play resulting in lots of chances, but no results. That 'can' be luck, but there is all kinds of evidence suggesting that it isn't. The consistency of the outcomes alone, argues against randomness, to a greater and greater extent with each game of evidence.

But far more compelling, is the argument that, for the vast majority of those watching the games, the eye test is telling us that it isn't luck, that there is a clear difference in the speed with which those chances are being created. It is clearly evident that when they do get chances in close, that they don't have time and space. It is clearly evident that goalies are always square to the shooters. It is clearly evident that the opposing team is easily countering what the Flames are doing offensively. It is clearly evident that the defensemen are not being utilized in the offense enough. It is clearly evident that the player utilization is terrible. And it is clearly evident that when bad things happen, they don't handle it well.

All of those things contribute to the underperformance.

So when someone argues that the stats say they aren't bad, they just aren't finishing their chances, for the vast majority of us, that conclusion looks completely off the mark.

And frankly, I am astounded that you are continuing to defend that narrative.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Flames have a number of players in the latter case. Could be a system, and in fact I think it's quite likely that system plays a role, but to discount "one of those years" completely would be foolish too in my mind.

Not to put words in your mouth, but the bolded really surprises me as it seems to be contrary to what you've been defending all season? This is the first time I've seen you condemn the system at all, let alone claim that it "quite likely" plays a role.

You've appeared to be adamant that the system works and was producing chances that had us "outplaying" the opposition more often than not, in fact that's why you've been battling so many posters night in and night out, is it not?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Not to put words in your mouth, but the bolded really surprises me as it seems to be contrary to what you've been defending all season? This is the first time I've seen you condemn the system at all, let alone claim that it "quite likely" plays a role.

You've appeared to be adamant that the system works and was producing chances that had us "outplaying" the opposition more often than not, in fact that's why you've been battling so many posters night in and night out, is it not?

Well I said "quite likely" and "plays a role" and you took that condemn the system?

That's a bit of a leap.

My point is that it's not going to be just one thing ... the Gulutzan camp wants to hang it all the coach. It isn't just coaching. I think bad luck plays a role, but it's not all bad luck.

it's a bunch of issues from deployment and systems, to bad bounces and squeezing sticks tight.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I said "quite likely" and "plays a role" and you took that condemn the system?

That's a bit of a leap.

My point is that it's not going to be just one thing ... the Gulutzan camp wants to hang it all the coach. It isn't just coaching. I think bad luck plays a role, but it's not all bad luck.

it's a bunch of issues from deployment and systems, to bad bounces and squeezing sticks tight.

The "it's only Gulatzan" camp is a small camp. The majority of this board knows that he's not the only problem, just that he's clearly a problem.

Don't tailor your responses to a minority.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by nik-

The "it's only Gulatzan" camp is a small camp. The majority of this board knows that he's not the only problem, just that he's clearly a problem.

Don't tailor your responses to a minority.

The whole thing is rotten from root to stem. GG is just a particularly pungent decomposing fruit, and thus draws a lot of attention...

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I said "quite likely" and "plays a role" and you took that condemn the system?

That's a bit of a leap.

My point is that it's not going to be just one thing ... the Gulutzan camp wants to hang it all the coach. It isn't just coaching. I think bad luck plays a role, but it's not all bad luck.

it's a bunch of issues from deployment and systems, to bad bounces and squeezing sticks tight.

Coaching is the biggest slice of the pie. If you change the coach you end up influencing all of those other issues.