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

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Toonage

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

As I said, outside of the flurry of goals scored in that one Toronto game, there was not much excitement on the ice at all, intensity was lacking, we were behind the 8 ball from the start, most shots were not dangerous, it was boring hockey, it was not winning hockey.

I don't need the Flames to win every game. That would be a ridiculous expectation but I also don't want to be at the game asking myself "why am I here?" or "is it over yet?"

And I will tell you something else that I did, twice, that I never did before. I left after the second period. I had always stayed not only until the end of the game but also fir the 3 star selection.

The best part of most games I went to this year with my grandson was nachos for me and icecream and a visit from Harvey for my grandson.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by redforever

And I will tell you something else that I did, twice, that I never did before. I left after the second period. I had always stayed not only until the end of the game but also fir the 3 star selection.

I was the same. I've slogged through the Young Guns years, the post-2004 lazy Flames years, and never had I left a game early. I've done it twice now in two years...and I've only seen about 6-7 games live in that time frame. Winning would change things, but they are downright torturous to watch at times.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

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?

Was that meant to sound pissy? Or do you want me literally answer those questions?

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?

Have never said stats tell the full story.
Suggesting there are answers I'm looking for basically paints that I want stats to prove me right and others wrong. Not the case at all.

Or do you think if you stare at them long enough, and answer will appear?

No I don't see anything mystical happening. However I do think looking at something deeply is probably better than not looking at all because one's mind is made up.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

Agree completely.

And I've said that repeatedly.

If they have a leadership issue the coach will likely have to go because it's too expensive and/or ineffective to either acquire leaders with skill or leaders that have lost it and have to play on the fourth line.

[woob]

We've left half way through the third to go drown our sorrows in beer at the Ship this season. Haven't done that before.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

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.

But they tried several different players on the right flank but there was never any sustained success. They tried Backlund, Brouwer, Ferland, Jankowski and even Johnny was tried there. The coaches obviously felt the 1-3-1 was the way to go as it had brought them success from the season prior, the playoffs and the first quarter of the season.

They then moved to a 3-2 set up with Dougie and that worked for a period of time, but then it struggled mightily again once the opposition started to adjust. Then we ended up going 1/50 or something around 2% by the end of it which is why our power play ranking ended up as bad as it did.

But based on the actual results when this team was healthy, the players and the system found success. Once the injuries started to mount, you could see just how shallow this team was. Our RW depth is not playoff caliber and with every injury that occurred, you could see that this roster couldn't cope and that's a sign of a shallow roster.

*When Troy Brouwer is your best right shooting forward, you know you're going to have problems.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by taxbuster

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.

Which players?
Best young players have career years
So the system or position they are put in that enables the talent to succeed restricts the less talented?

If I'm Tre, I'm baffled too.
Career scoring years from Monahan, Tkachuk, Gaudreau. Regularly out chancing opponents. Mostly good enough goaltending.
I expect this was exactly what he wanted pre season, and yet utter failure.
The 'system' seemed to work. So either the depth talent sucks, the coach sucks. Or both suck.

I guess both.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Was that meant to sound pissy? Or do you want me literally answer those questions?

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?

Have never said stats tell the full story.
Suggesting there are answers I'm looking for basically paints that I want stats to prove me right and others wrong. Not the case at all.

Or do you think if you stare at them long enough, and answer will appear?

No I don't see anything mystical happening. However I do think looking at something deeply is probably better than not looking at all because one's mind is made up.

It wasn't meant to be pissy, it's just that you keep going back to the stats, and I think it should be fairly clear this year they aren't a reliable predictor for success. So why would the analytics guys see any benefit on pouring over the season? Will they pinpoint the one thing(or things) that went wrong based on high danger shots, or whatever?

Because chances are they will see what you have been seeing, and that is that all the numbers say the team should have been better. And if that is the case they won't see what needs changing and we end up with another year of GG hockey, which clearly hasn't worked out to well for us.

[Resolute 14]

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.

Every single time someone challenges Gulutzan (and by extension, you), you run straight to these stats. But, what's interesting about all the teams you named in this post is that about half of them missed the playoffs.

It's almost as if the correlation between these stats and success are far, far weaker than you are willing to admit.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It wasn't meant to be pissy, it's just that you keep going back to the stats, and I think it should be fairly clear this year they aren't a reliable predictor for success. So why would the analytics guys see any benefit on pouring over the season? Will they pinpoint the one thing(or things) that went wrong based on high danger shots, or whatever?

Because chances are they will see what you have been seeing, and that is that all the numbers say the team should have been better. And if that is the case they won't see what needs changing and we end up with another year of GG hockey, which clearly hasn't worked out to well for us.

First off I've talked eye test all season. I outline the marriage or complete diversion of stats to the eye test when I see a correlation or a break down. I'm not a one trick pony at all.

However getting the analytics department to dig deeper isn't to stare at numbers all day. The numbers are in.

The next level is to pick out a few games with high scoring chance counts and go back and watch the video, categorize them into times they were stoned by a goaltender, or had a recording of a high danger chance that wasn't all that dangerous.

Do that for enough games and get a percentage of actually dangerous dangerous.

Then look at Tampa Bay, Boston, Toronto ... get their percentages as well.

Then you may have a systemic issue that allows them to have a pop gun offence despite good counting stats.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It wasn't meant to be pissy, it's just that you keep going back to the stats, and I think it should be fairly clear this year they aren't a reliable predictor for success. So why would the analytics guys see any benefit on pouring over the season? Will they pinpoint the one thing(or things) that went wrong based on high danger shots, or whatever?

Because chances are they will see what you have been seeing, and that is that all the numbers say the team should have been better. And if that is the case they won't see what needs changing and we end up with another year of GG hockey, which clearly hasn't worked out to well for us.

To outscore its better to outchance.
It's better to out shoot your opponent 35-25.
You should win way more than you lose if you do this regularly.

Do you disagree?

[Pointman]

Gotta support Bingo here in that they need to look long and hard at the numbers. At worst, they will come to the well-reasoned conclusion, that the numbers are useless at all. More likely, though, they will find where the problem is. Going with the gut feeling is an outdated approach. Gotta go with big data and the insights that you get from your analytics. Something is seriously off with stats and results and it would be well worth to dig into it.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It wasn't meant to be pissy, it's just that you keep going back to the stats, and I think it should be fairly clear this year they aren't a reliable predictor for success. So why would the analytics guys see any benefit on pouring over the season? Will they pinpoint the one thing(or things) that went wrong based on high danger shots, or whatever?

Because chances are they will see what you have been seeing, and that is that all the numbers say the team should have been better. And if that is the case they won't see what needs changing and we end up with another year of GG hockey, which clearly hasn't worked out to well for us.

That’s the difference between good and bad executives. Good ones know when they have seen enough data to inform their decisions and act. Bad ones spend too much time listening to the data nerds, who get lost in the data, and can’t make a decision because they think more data will tell them something they don’t already know. I think we know what plagues this team.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Agree completely.

And I've said that repeatedly.

If they have a leadership issue the coach will likely have to go because it's too expensive and/or ineffective to either acquire leaders with skill or leaders that have lost it and have to play on the fourth line.

Leadership is so overrated. It's just another one of those buzzwords that mask actual problems. Look at the Colorado Avalanche as an example, they're one of the youngest teams in the NHL with virtually no leadership to speak of and had of the worst seasons in league history just 1 calendar year ago.

Yet here they are with roughly the same roster, same coach and etc and they beat us out of a playoff spot. How is that possible? Look up and down the roster, we clearly have more experience, more leaders and more character. But they beat us out of a spot because they're younger, faster and more skilled than us. Simple as that.

This franchise has not adapted to the "winning hockey" for decades now and it's the reason why we're always spinning our wheels and why our teams always seem to stink it up whenever there's any type of expectations going into a season.

[Calgary4LIfe]

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.

I have noticed it in the last week's or two's worth of games (I can't say it has been going on all season - wish I had thought of it earlier and kept looking for it).

What I noticed is the Flames shooting while the goalie was positioned and had eyes on the puck, even from home plate. I started noticing how the opposing goalies didn't have to move much, but then Gillies had to scramble back and forth a few times.

I do think that there is some truth to the Flames being too slow to set-up, and this seems to also allow the other team to set-up. That is what it seemed to me when I started noticing it and actively looking for it. Was it every shot? No, but it seemed to be the majority of them, while the opposing team seemed to have a field day making the Flames' goaltenders move (both Smith and Gillies).

I have been critical of the Flames not playing sound defensively and allowing too many good opportunities (especially breakaways and cross-crease passes where the goalie has to make an outstanding save).

A bit of confirmation for me on this would be the Flames missing the net, coupled with the higher end players having good seasons while the lower skilled players having awful seasons. Maybe Gulutzan's system works really well for getting opportunities, but those opportunities are coming at a price where the opposing team is set. More importantly, the goaltender is set and square, forcing the Flames to pick corners on their shots, missing the net a great deal of times. It is fine if you are Monahan, Gaudreau and Ferland, but if not then you are likely to shoot it directly at the goalie or miss the net.

I guess one would have to go back to the start of the year and count how many times the goalies had to move laterally to make a save, and when they didn't, how many times the goalie either saved it or the Flames shooter missed the net. Would make for an interesting stat, though arbitrary in 'how far of a movement is needed to create the discrepancy between moving and not moving'. You would also have to exclude events like 2nd and 3rd opportunities where the Flames are 'jamming the net' (which is a good stat to use too I would think).

Versteeg was the most articulate about this in his post-season presser. He even stated that the Flames were shooting too much from the outside hoping to get a rebound and get those 2nd and 3rd opportunities, but it was 'one and done' too often.

I really think that there needs to be a whole lot less focus on CORSI, and more specific stats to describe the game, and be more relevant at predicting the game. CORSI is too general a stat where systems (like Hartley's) can collapse down low and block a lot of shots, while allowing a lot of shots from the perimeter, but win the game with an overall lower volume of shots. I think it is sustainable. Conversely, it seems that Gulutzan's system, while being very high on CORSI and on High Danger Chances, seemed pretty sustainable at not actually scoring well.

When watching Toronto, they seem to both move more in the offensive zone, and also pass the puck around more quickly. I marveled at Boston this year for doing this too.

I don't think the biggest and most important differences between Gulutzan's system and Hartley's system was CORSI. I think it was speed - creating high quality chances by using speed by both skating and by passing.

Hartley's forwards were less capable than the current forwards in my opinion of putting the puck in the net, but they attacked the net better even though they were smaller, and they passed the puck quicker and more often it seemed (how do you track that statistically? - maybe passes per game? Passes per game in each zone? Maybe there is no point of tracking it?).

In short, I think Gulutzan's system - while conducive to getting shots on net (both low quality shot volume and home plate high danger chances), it seemed like a system that wasn't conducive to lower skilled guys who either can't get a shot off quicker (fooling a goalie) or who don't have as much accuracy. Toronto and Boston play a much more up-tempo quicker transitioning system, and even while in the offensive zone, seem to pass the puck around faster to force the opposing team to lose positioning, including the goaltender.

I don't think CORSI and High Danger Chances for and against are really telling a complete story here. I think you need more specific stats. It isn't that they are useless stats, but I think they are trying to paint a picture rather than just providing a couple of colors of paint and a paintbrush.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

To outscore its better to outchance.
It's better to out shoot your opponent 35-25.
You should win way more than you lose if you do this regularly.

Do you disagree?

Technically, yes that sounds right. The reality is(as the Flames have demonstrated) there is more going on. Otherwise they would have done better this season. And I think it has a lot more to do with uncountable things than the countable ones. Some would argue their is a stat that is going to show why the Flames did bad. My whole point is there isn't one, and wasting time looknig for that number isn't really productive.

Now, if they want to pour over the tapes and find all the times the team collapsed due to the wrong players on the ice, or not calling a time out when it could have helped the players regroup, or players looking unmotivated, or a system that breaks down or has been figured out by the opposing team, then ya. Do that. Because that's where I think the team failed, and you won't find Corsi stats that explain it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Every single time someone challenges Gulutzan (and by extension, you), you run straight to these stats. But, what's interesting about all the teams you named in this post is that about half of them missed the playoffs.

It's almost as if the correlation between these stats and success are far, far weaker than you are willing to admit.

You just can't post without inflammatory language can you?

"willing to admit"?

What in my posting style or history has you thinking I wouldn't be willing to admit something? That's terribly weak.

I do see a group of posters that get angry any time someone suggests a deeper dive into anything that changes the course of the conversation of "fire the coach" as a knee jerk response.

The correlation as it looks though?

Four teams in the top 16 clubs have poor underlying numbers, so that's 25%, the other 75% seem to line up reasonably well. These exceptions are Nashville, Washington, Anaheim and Los Angeles.

On the other end most of the worst teams have terrible underlying stats. Notable exceptions are Carolina, Calgary, Montreal and Chicago.

Carolina had terrible goalending. They're an easy solve.
The Blackhawks lost their goaltender for most of the season.
The Habs had a down year from Carey Price.

The Flames stand alone as the hardest club to figure out.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

That’s the difference between good and bad executives. Good ones know when they have seen enough data to inform their decisions and act. Bad ones spend too much time listening to the data nerds, who get lost in the data, and can’t make a decision because they think more data will tell them something they don’t already know. I think we know what plagues this team.

Just for the record ...

does my suggested deep dive make me a good or bad executive?

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Just for the record ...

does my suggested deep dive make me a good or bad executive?

Terrible, but we will keep you around for another season.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

To outscore its better to outchance.
It's better to out shoot your opponent 35-25.
You should win way more than you lose if you do this regularly.

Do you disagree?

Well now that you asked...

http://thesportjournal.org/article/g...ockey-success/

On a game-by-game basis there was no difference in the mean winning percentage of teams outshooting their opponents (0.504 ± 0.007%) compared to those teams that were outshot (0.495 ± 0.007%; t538 = 0.948, P = 0.34.)