Francis: Treliving filled with disappointment, anger after team's collapse

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So wait, you're telling me that out-Corsiing the other team isn't exciting enough for your grandson? WEIRD.

Shame on him for not marveling at the abundance of perimeter shots.

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

I have 1 question to everyone who's blaming Brouwer or poor player usage for our terrible PP this season: How do you explain the 10 finish last season with Brouwer on the PP?

If Brouwer or the coaching staff was so absolutely terrible on the PP strategies, how is it possible that they somehow managed to create a system in place that actually was able to beat out 20 other teams?

Fact: Flames were a top 10 PP in 16-17 with Gulutzan, Cameron and Gerard
Fact: Before Versteeg went down with an injury, the PP was ranked 11th in the entire league

Why did we sink so much? The answer is Kris Versteeg. The real problem was not Brouwer, blaming him is a complete cop out as he helped propel this team to a top 10 PP the season before. But when Versteeg went down with an injury, no one else on this roster could replicate his skill set and we sunk.

Just look at the stats and it tells you everything you need to know:


Before Versteeg injury:
Ranked 11th: 22.1%

After Versteeg injury:
Ranked 30th: 13.5%


No one on this team, not even Dougie could permanently fix this PP. The Toronto Maple Leafs deployed a similar strategy as we did but they somehow finished #2 in the NHL. The difference? They have Nylander and Matthews on the flanks and that's just something that we can't replicate. We don't have a 2 rockets on the flanks like they do. The problem this season wasn't Brouwer and it wasn't the system, the problem was the personnel and I'll go up against anyone on that all day, any day.

I completely agree the problem is the personnel or lack thereof. It is still up to the coaches to acknowledge this earlier than game 50 of the season and try a new strategy that may better suit the team. A fail on so many levels.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

It is still up to the coaches to acknowledge this earlier than game 50 of the season and try a new strategy that may better suit the team.

‘Our team is awful. Fortunately, I am such a brilliant coach that I have a strategy for winning with an awful team.’ —Every coach in the world but that idiot Gulutzan, amirite?

[cannon7]

Gulutzan is still the coach? Damn it, Tre.

[Angelino]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Gulutzan is still the coach? Damn it, Tre.

Boston Pizza will be out at the end of next year if he doesn’t fire Gulutzan and hire a competent coach.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Shame on him for not marveling at the abundance of perimeter shots.

We need to look deeper into this.

Its not perimeter shots, the Flames were fourth in the league in scoring chances defined as "Scoring Chance For" with 2618, behind only Toronto, Chicago and Pittsburgh.

They were 3rd in the league in splits of said scoring chances with 55%.

They were 2nd in the league behind only Toronto in High Danger Corsi For (home plate unblocked) with 1077 (Toronto had 1078), and 4th in the league in high danger splits with 54.23% behind only Minnesota, Dallas and Caroline, just ahead of Tampa.

It's too simplistic to just rail against corsi stats with jockular comments about out corsiing the opposition or shooting from everywhere because the numbers say they got in the "kitchen" more than most clubs.

So why didn't they score?

Talent?

Are their "events" less dangerous than the rest of the league's due to how they set up?

I'm open to any and all of it, but deeming them a perimeter team isn't supported.

[Toonage]

We're looking deeper into why his grandson didn't enjoy the game?

[nik-]

Someone dig up the GGEM% for that game.

Grandson Game Enjoyment Methodology percentage.

[Table 5]

All this digging deeper is reminding me of a certain Simpsons clip.

[Toonage]

Was hoping for a Werthers acronym.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Was hoping for a Werthers acronym.

WCPP

Werthers Consumed Per Period? The higher number probably means the more bored.

If the Flames partnered with Werthers based on sales, they could pay for a new arena in no time.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Toonage

Was hoping for a Werthers acronym.

Oh. How original.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Are their "events" less dangerous than the rest of the league's due to how they set up?

a shot from the high danger area isn't enough information to actually deem it a high danger chance. it's been repeated by a bunch of people during the collapse when they were massively outshooting opposition without results, but they almost never catch the defense or goalies scrambling/out of position. instead, everyone on D is set to clear and the goalie is all squared up to make the save and pump up his sv%.

if there was a way to measure the setup to each shot to see how much the defensive formation was getting pulled apart, that would expose the Flames' weakness in converting on their high volumes. I honestly think you would get better results measuring crowd noise. spectators intuitively can tell when a play nearly results in a goal; the decibel level of "ooohs" probably correlates well to true high danger chances.

in short...start passing faster and using one-timer threats to catch defense/goalies out of position, and transition/attack faster to put them on their heels more often. then you'll actually see high danger counts that have meaningful results.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We need to look deeper into this.

Its not perimeter shots, the Flames were fourth in the league in scoring chances defined as "Scoring Chance For" with 2618, behind only Toronto, Chicago and Pittsburgh.

They were 3rd in the league in splits of said scoring chances with 55%.

They were 2nd in the league behind only Toronto in High Danger Corsi For (home plate unblocked) with 1077 (Toronto had 1078), and 4th in the league in high danger splits with 54.23% behind only Minnesota, Dallas and Caroline, just ahead of Tampa.

It's too simplistic to just rail against corsi stats with jockular comments about out corsiing the opposition or shooting from everywhere because the numbers say they got in the "kitchen" more than most clubs.

So why didn't they score?

Talent?

Are their "events" less dangerous than the rest of the league's due to how they set up?

I'm open to any and all of it, but deeming them a perimeter team isn't supported.

They get the chance and then admire their handiwork. As opposed to pushing the puck, goalie and entire opposing team if necessary, into the net.

19 does that, and it's why he stand out so much.

Go to the net.

[Bingo]

Both kind of what I'm talking about.

If I'm Treliving though I get my analytics staff to dig into this heavily and then and only then can you decide what went wrong this year.

Simple measures say they should have been better than they were. If the system doesn't allow a scoring chance to actually be a scoring chance then it's flawed and potentially the coach has to go.

But they have to look deeper than one off comments, or subjective views of what people are seeing.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

We need to look deeper into this.

Its not perimeter shots, the Flames were fourth in the league in scoring chances defined as "Scoring Chance For" with 2618, behind only Toronto, Chicago and Pittsburgh.

They were 3rd in the league in splits of said scoring chances with 55%.

They were 2nd in the league behind only Toronto in High Danger Corsi For (home plate unblocked) with 1077 (Toronto had 1078), and 4th in the league in high danger splits with 54.23% behind only Minnesota, Dallas and Caroline, just ahead of Tampa.

It's too simplistic to just rail against corsi stats with jockular comments about out corsiing the opposition or shooting from everywhere because the numbers say they got in the "kitchen" more than most clubs.

So why didn't they score?

Talent?

Are their "events" less dangerous than the rest of the league's due to how they set up?

I'm open to any and all of it, but deeming them a perimeter team isn't supported.

I understand what you are saying and I also understand that this team wasted an awful lot of scoring chances with missed shots. There's no doubt this was a bit of a hard luck team but at the same time there was a lot of nights where you could look up on the scoreboard and see the Flames outshooting their opponents without the recollection of many legit scoring chances for. The problems aren't all Gulutzan of course as if there was a stat for shots directly into goaltenders bread basket the Flames would dominate the that stat. I respect that you put in the work to dig in and provide us these advanced stats but I keep going back to the eye test as this team simply never looked great all season for the most part despite what recorded stats may indicate. The Flames were 6th overall in shots per game and 27th in goals for per game and I simply don't accept that such a large disparity is due simply to bad luck or bad players as in my mind there's no doubt their shot totals were inflated. They were not a very good team this season by every measure except advanced stats so much like 2014/15 the Flames defied the stats which goes to show the only thing that really matters is the results.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Both kind of what I'm talking about.

If I'm Treliving though I get my analytics staff to dig into this heavily and then and only then can you decide what went wrong this year.

Simple measures say they should have been better than they were. If the system doesn't allow a scoring chance to actually be a scoring chance then it's flawed and potentially the coach has to go.

But they have to look deeper than one off comments, or subjective views of what people are seeing.

Do you ever get the feeling stats and analytics don't tell you the full story, and may never offer up the answers you are looking for? Or do you think if you stare at them long enough, and answer will appear?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bingo

If I'm Treliving though I get my analytics staff to dig into this heavily and then and only then can you decide what went wrong this year.

Simple measures say they should have been better than they were. If the system doesn't allow a scoring chance to actually be a scoring chance then it's flawed and potentially the coach has to go.

But they have to look deeper than one off comments, or subjective views of what people are seeing.

So when do things like natural leadership skills, motivational ability, chemistry, flexibility, play into this evaluation of this system and coach?

One of the biggest reported issues all year with this team has been a lack of heart and resilience. Poor starts, poor adjustments, and tragic collapses when the heat is on. That to me speaks of poor leadership at some level...whether on the ice or behind the bench. But the reality is, that you could have Alan Turing running the numbers and still get it wrong because it's a bad fit.

Yeah, you may have to look deeper to find the answers. But instead of looking with your brain, at some point you have to look with your gut too. Because this team is giving everyone indigestion.

[taxbuster]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I understand what you are saying and I also understand that this team wasted an awful lot of scoring chances with missed shots. There's no doubt this was a bit of a hard luck team but at the same time there was a lot of nights where you could look up on the scoreboard and see the Flames outshooting their opponents without the recollection of many legit scoring chances for. The problems aren't all Gulutzan of course as if there was a stat for shots directly into goaltenders bread basket the Flames would dominate the that stat. I respect that you put in the work to dig in and provide us these advanced stats but I keep going back to the eye test as this team simply never looked great all season for the most part despite what recorded stats may indicate. The Flames were 6th overall in shots per game and 27th in goals for per game and I simply don't accept that such a large disparity is due simply to bad luck or bad players as in my mind there's no doubt their shot totals were inflated. They were not a very good team this season by every measure except advanced stats so much like 2014/15 the Flames defied the stats which goes to show the only thing that really matters is the results.

Don't disagree with the first part at all - "luck", like "chance" eventually evens out over a long enough period.

Bad players? Don't think they're bad, but do think they were not put in a position to succeed by the "system" they were told to play.

But how do you see the shot totals as inflated? Isn't that done/counted by more-or-less neutral parties? (Yes, there is some subjectivity on whether a shot was toward the net or not, but it can't be that huge.)

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

Don't disagree with the first part at all - "luck", like "chance" eventually evens out over a long enough period.

Bad players? Don't think they're bad, but do think they were not put in a position to succeed by the "system" they were told to play.

But how do you see the shot totals as inflated? Isn't that done/counted by more-or-less neutral parties? (Yes, there is some subjectivity on whether a shot was toward the net or not, but it can't be that huge.)

Maybe "inflated" was not a good word to use but I used it in the sense that a lot of Flames shots taken were not difficult saves for goaltenders. Do high danger scoring stats take into account for traffic in front of the net distracting the goaltender or providing screens?