[PGT] Chicago beats Calgary in OT

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

The negativity after a bad loss is expected and I don't take issue with. What I appreciate more is those that offer constructive thoughts instead of doomsday negativity. Which isn't to say that you can't post doomsday stuff, but expect it to be challenged.

I don't see a lot of blind homerism. Within the more positive group I don't see a lot of people predicting this team will win a cup. But there is recognition that a single loss is still just a single loss and a more balanced view taken.

I don't think this team is going to win a cup this year. I think the chances of that are probably around 4%.

But I also don't see the value in letting a single Flames loss define what is going to happen or not happen going forward.

I don't know who predicted doom and gloom but losing to Chicago when this is supposed to be a soft spot in the schedule and we have a chance to go on a streak should be unacceptable.

But moving on I think the point highmanlife brought up is really interesting.

Why do Darryl Sutter coached teams have bad shooting %? Everything else they are doing seems to be right in terms of putting on shots creating high danger shots. He has had some talented players but a sample size that big is pretty interesting.

Looks like the LA teams overcame the poor shooting % because they had a goalie who shut the door most nights, and that's why save % matters when you are a team that allows a low volume of shots.

Some people have said save % is irrelevant, but I think on a team coached to play the way we are it might be one of the most important stats.

[sonq]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

For what it's worth Seattle and LA who are both head of us in the standings have lost to the Blackhawks

Yup, that is my point. I would also consider Buffalo a good team and they lost to Philly last night 4-0. I don't see their fans losing their minds like Flames fans

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by sonq

Yup, that is my point. I would also consider Buffalo a good team and they lost to Philly last night 4-0. I don't see their fans losing their minds like Flames fans

Oh, your post had implied green text. my bad.

[Mr.Coffee]

The negativity has most to do with results falling short of expectations. I think after the huge amount of change in the off-season (which was a rebuild IMO), left fans with hopes this team would be even better than last season.

Perspective is useful, those posts have been coming through in spades, with the “strength of schedule” “record in last X games” and “relative to last season we are close if not same results essentially”.

However that cannot negate or change the hopes / expectations set.

So for the negative people, maybe it’s not that the team is “bad” it’s that your expectations were way too wildly high to begin with. This is a parity league, and my bet is on the Flames to make the playoffs. If they can, Sutter and in particular this lineup looks like a strong playoff team that can do some damage. Anguish over every loss is a bit odd when we are in a playoff position. I know you thought we’d run away with the division and never lose a game but that was likely unrealistic to begin with.

Look at the bright side, at least we aren’t like Vancouver, which is 110% too good to get Bedard but not good enough to qualify, have the GM criticize the coach, horrendous start and star players plan their exit strategies. Things could be worse for sure.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

The negativity has most to do with results falling short of expectations. I think after the huge amount of change in the off-season (which was a rebuild IMO), left fans with hopes this team would be even better than last season.

Perspective is useful, those posts have been coming through in spades, with the “strength of schedule” “record in last X games” and “relative to last season we are close if not same results essentially”.

However that cannot negate or change the hopes / expectations set.

So for the negative people, maybe it’s not that the team is “bad” it’s that your expectations were way too wildly high to begin with. This is a parity league, and my bet is on the Flames to make the playoffs. If they can, Sutter and in particular this lineup looks like a strong playoff team that can do some damage. Anguish over every loss is a bit odd when we are in a playoff position. I know you thought we’d run away with the division and never lose a game but that was likely unrealistic to begin with.

Look at the bright side, at least we aren’t like Vancouver, which is 110% too good to get Bedard but not good enough to qualify, have the GM criticize the coach, horrendous start and star players plan their exit strategies. Things could be worse for sure.

I agree with a lot of that. There are very few REALLY good teams in the league and even within that group, ones that many people would have identified at the start of the season as being (sure things) aren't doing great (e.g. Avs, Panthers).

Chemistry matters so much and there can be a lot of variability from year to year. And almost every team has flaws.

[HighLifeMan]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The point you brought up about his teams from LA and now Calgary control shot shares to a large extent but the finishing lacks with poor shooting %. Its's not like those LA teams and Calgary now is built of a team of grinders so what gives?

If we are in the bottom of the league in high danger chances that is one thing but neither of those are so why such a low shooting %?

It's tough to pinpoint and I am sure you will get different answers depending on who you ask. Not all high danger chances are created equal - and I think that's the differentiating factor. Sutter loves to mitigate risk, and as a result I think the creativity of his players becomes significantly diminished, and the mindset to make the high risk/high reward play becomes all but an afterthought. Look no further than the off-season acquisitions and their inability to create like they did previously.

Mackenzie Weegar led the entire NHL in on ice HDCF last season. He sits 93rd this year. Jonathan Huberdeau was a top 30 forward in that metric, and sits 225th this year. These two were driving forces behind the most potent offense to exist in the modern day era. They absolutely have the skillset and talent to create offense in a very significant way, and we have failed to see that here under Darryl. Kadri has as well taken a hit, but not to the same degree. With the exception of a uniquely stacked and productive top line last year - Sutter has never shown the ability to get the most out of his stars from an offensive standpoint. You can argue if he makes them better players as a whole - but a drop off in production and lack of overall finish is not a unique result under Sutter led teams.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

I don't know who predicted doom and gloom but losing to Chicago when this is supposed to be a soft spot in the schedule and we have a chance to go on a streak should be unacceptable.

But moving on I think the point highmanlife brought up is really interesting.

Why do Darryl Sutter coached teams have bad shooting %? Everything else they are doing seems to be right in terms of putting on shots creating high danger shots. He has had some talented players but a sample size that big is pretty interesting.

Looks like the LA teams overcame the poor shooting % because they had a goalie who shut the door most nights, and that's why save % matters when you are a team that allows a low volume of shots.

Some people have said save % is irrelevant, but I think on a team coached to play the way we are it might be one of the most important stats.

Well first off they don't ... the Flames were 14th in shooting percentage last year.

But the talent has changed and with that less high danger and with that a worse shooting percentage I suppose.

But any team with high shot volume won't be top 5-10 in shooting percentage.

I think the better stat is xGF vs GF.

Last year the Flames had the 5th highest xGF60 at 2.79 and finished with an actual GF60 of 2.96 or +0.17

This year the Flames have the 8th highest xGF60 at 2.80 (scoring is up), so they're creating pretty much exactly the same amount, but not finishing as well with 2.66 (-0.14).

Up to the reader to pick from poorer finishers vs bad luck.

When you look at the league, they're right in the middle for disparity at -0.14.

Teams with no luck ... Ottawa, Colorado, Carolina.

Teams with all luck ... Seattle, Vancouver, Buffalo

(focus on offence and 5 on 5 only)

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well first off they don't ... the Flames were 14th in shooting percentage last year.

But the talent has changed and with that less high danger and with that a worse shooting percentage I suppose.

But any team with high shot volume won't be top 5-10 in shooting percentage.

I think the better stat is xGF vs GF.

Last year the Flames had the 5th highest xGF60 at 2.79 and finished with an actual GF60 of 2.96 or +0.17

This year the Flames have the 8th highest xGF60 at 2.80 (scoring is up), so they're creating pretty much exactly the same amount, but not finishing as well with 2.66 (-0.14).

Up to the reader to pick from poorer finishers vs bad luck.

When you look at the league, they're right in the middle for disparity at -0.14.

Teams with no luck ... Ottawa, Colorado, Carolina.

Teams with all luck ... Seattle, Vancouver, Buffalo

(focus on offence and 5 on 5 only)

Those are some interesting stats. If our shooting % was in the 8% range we would be rolling.

Here are the shooting % for this LA coaches teams at 5v5. It does seem to have a concerning trend that it was usually at the bottom of the league. They had some talented players so I don't think that is the issue.

7.58% 2013
6.6% 2013/2014(Won the cup)
7.56% 2014/15
6.78 % 2015/2016
6.26% 2016/2017

Two season after Sutter
7.89% 2017/2018
7.47% 2018/2019

Funny enough we are 7.81% which put us smack at the bottom 3 in the league. The league as a whole is shooting better and scoring more.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

Those are some interesting stats. If our shooting % was in the 8% range we would be rolling.

Here are the shooting % for this LA coaches teams at 5v5. It does seem to have a concerning trend that it was usually at the bottom of the league. They had some talented players so I don't think that is the issue.

7.58% 2013
6.6% 2013/2014(Won the cup)
7.56% 2014/15
6.78 % 2015/2016
6.26% 2016/2017

Two season after Sutter
7.89% 2017/2018
7.47% 2018/2019

Funny enough we are 7.81% which put us smack at the bottom 3 in the league. The league as a whole is shooting better and scoring more.

As I said above, that's the wrong stat to look at for a high volume team.

It's expected goals per 60 minutes.

If you're creating with your mix of scoring chances, low percentage and high danger to a level that puts you in the top ten the shooting percentage is somewhat irrelevant.

As you said earlier the bigger issue is save percentage, they're chances against is down, the save percentage should be going up.

[DeluxeMoustache]

In my opinion, Save percentage have been skewed by numerous egregious defensive gaffes in the first ~20 games leading to glorious scoring opportunities upon which the opposition capitalized

I would anticipate that they have higher GA than xGA

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Bingo

As I said above, that's the wrong stat to look at for a high volume team.

It's expected goals per 60 minutes.

If you're creating with your mix of scoring chances, low percentage and high danger to a level that puts you in the top ten the shooting percentage is somewhat irrelevant.

As you said earlier the bigger issue is save percentage, they're chances against is down, the save percentage should be going up.

A lot of people have been saying save % is irrelevant but I think for a team that isn't giving up as much and allowing a low volume of shots it is a huge deal.

The shooting % thing does make sense when you shoot a lot more because not everything is going to be a real HDCF.

Maybe that pops up a bit and we finish more chances by making the goalies move side to side a lot more instead of trying to pick corners from the high danger areas? Make that one extra play to make it more dangerous if that is even a thing.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by MillerTime GFG

This is a forum. People express their opinions. Some of them are negative. Typically happens when the team isn’t playing well. Not sure why that’s hard to understand. You may think they’re being over the top, but you can’t say they’re being irrational when their opinions are actually the opposite.

I challenge you to find any fan forum for any team in any sport that doesn’t have negative posts. Perhaps forums aren’t for you.

Yes, there will be negative posts, obviously. And yes, that is a forum thing, not a CP thing.

But do you know what is a CP thing? And it's really kind of bizarre: as noted earlier in this thread, there are usually more than twice as many posts after a loss as there are after wins, which, in and of itself is no big deal I guess. But what's interesting, is there appear to be a handful of posters that ONLY post after a loss.

You for instance.

Your last 20 posts in PGTs are all after losses. And the only winning PGT you have posted to was because it was your birthday.

You probably defend the negative posting on here as much as anyone, which again, would be no big deal. Except coming to be negative is all you do. Not only does that become tiring, and increasingly difficult to take seriously, but also warrants being called out for it, IMO.

[Enoch Root]

Shooting percentage is only half of the equation: volume (number of shots) must also be considered.

Which team is better (or, as Flame fans view things, worse)?

Team A: 30 shots per game, shooting percentage of 10%
Team B: 40 shots per game, shooting percentage of 7.5%

the answer, of course, is that both teams score 3.0 goals per game

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, there will be negative posts, obviously. And yes, that is a forum thing, not a CP thing.

But do you know what is a CP thing? And it's really kind of bizarre: as noted earlier in this thread, there are usually more than twice as many posts after a loss as there are after wins, which, in and of itself is no big deal I guess. But what's interesting, is there appear to be a handful of posters that ONLY post after a loss.

You for instance.

Your last 20 posts in PGTs are all after losses. And the only winning PGT you have posted to was because it was your birthday.

You probably defend the negative posting on here as much as anyone, which again, would be no big deal. Except coming to be negative is all you do. Not only does that become tiring, and increasingly difficult to take seriously, but also warrants being called out for it, IMO.

While I agree with some of what you are saying, we do have certain posters who jump into a loss thread and don't actually discuss the game or what happened but start of posts with attacking people baiting them. Turns it into longer threads with people going back and forth. If people actually stick to posting about the game like we do after wins you probably don't get as long of thread.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Shooting percentage is only half of the equation: volume (number of shots) must also be considered.

Which team is better (or, as Flame fans view things, worse)?

Team A: 30 shots per game, shooting percentage of 10%
Team B: 40 shots per game, shooting percentage of 7.5%

the answer, of course, is that both teams score 3.0 goals per game

The issue is we are Team B right now carrying the play, and we are Team A on team defence with a poor save %.

I think that's kind of the conclusion we to above is yes we need to score more, but we don't give up many shots so save % matters a lot more for our team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

In my opinion, Save percentage have been skewed by numerous egregious defensive gaffes in the first ~20 games leading to glorious scoring opportunities upon which the opposition capitalized

I would anticipate that they have higher GA than xGA

Nope.

Flames have a lower expected goals against than goals against.

expected - 2.39 / 60
actual - 2.47 / 60

The disparity at .08 is the 9th worst in hockey five on five

Top three teams with a higher actual / expected

Islanders
Jets
Predators

Top three teams with a higher expected / actual

Sharks
Jackets
Canucks

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The issue is we are Team B right now carrying the play, and we are Team A on team defence with a poor save %.

I think that's kind of the conclusion we to above is yes we need to score more, but we don't give up many shots so save % matters a lot more for our team.

No, it doesn't. As I said, it is half the equation. Shooting percentage AND shot volume COMBINE to determine goal output.

The Flames get enough shots to make up for their shooting percentage. Or - far more likely - their shooting percentage is lower BECAUSE they take a lot of shots.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Paulie Walnuts

The issue is we are Team B right now carrying the play, and we are Team A on team defence with a poor save %.

I think that's kind of the conclusion we to above is yes we need to score more, but we don't give up many shots so save % matters a lot more for our team.

If one believes the team has the talent to finish and stop pucks, then the trend is very much going your way.

If it's a talent issue it may not correct.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, it doesn't. As I said, it is half the equation. Shooting percentage AND shot volume COMBINE to determine goal output.

The Flames get enough shots to make up for their shooting percentage. Or - far more likely - their shooting percentage is lower BECAUSE they take a lot of shots.

Thats pretty much what I am saying, our shooting % is low because of the volume of shots we put up.

In doing so we give up very little in terms of shots against so the save % does matter because we cant have 8% of shots going by our goalie if we are in the 20-22 shots against range.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

I listened to the Flames Talk Post Game Call in when I was doing chores yesterday and it was even worse lmao.

I wonder which CP user is Robert.