[News] Flames are done for the day

[All In Good Time]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s harder to move guys with term at the deadline and literally everyone with value has term. The 1sts that moved weren’t great and I don’t recall much in the way of good prospects moving.

If y’all wanted a 28-32 pick in the 1st round for a guy like Lindholm then I don’t see how you can sit there and think you know what is or isn’t good asset management.

This!!!!!
Some of the “sell” crowd is baffling.
“I wanted the team to sell!!!!! This is a failure!!!! I am outraged” without regard to what was offered.
Guaranteed, if the offer made sense, the transaction takes place.

To those of you that are bitching, please let me know when you want to sell your house/car

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Coach

Are they not doing the same thing in the opposite direction saying that he will return to elite form based on dubious reasons of adjustments to new life etc.. and everyone that made concrete declarations of badness will feel stupid?

Not to say those can't be factors. Just seems odd to harp on people for making declarations or predictions of the future while also doing the same.

I don't think it's dubious to assume that a player that has been elite for years, and has one bad year, would revert back to being the player he always was (not 115 pts, but 70-90).

To me, that is the more likely scenario than 'suddenly forgot how to hockey'.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

A prominent study from ten years ago showed most forwards stay within peak range from something like 24-32. As fitness has advanced and play style has changed over the last 20 years, I imagine it’s at least stayed the same if it hasn’t expanded.

More guys are playing better, longer, as far as I can tell.

Yes, from what I’ve read, the better a player is, the more the peak range expands. The average decline after 26 is for all players and includes players who peaked at 22 because they never played more than a year or so.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I assume you are referring to point production. Yes, most offensive players see their point production peak more in the 26-29 range. However, most players also become better, and more complete players in their late 20s and as they move into their 30s.

Actual decline, and becoming a worse player, typically doesn't start until the 32-35 range.

Well, no, that's not true either.

You are correct that defensive impacts, on average, peak later than offensive impacts, the peak is still well within most players' 20s.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1597223586892500992

[flambers]

Flames, had the wrong winger with Huberdeau for most of the season.

He needs a skilled forward, not a checker etc.

They need to find a speedy, skilled winger and that could fix the issue....

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by flambers

Key statement, Flames continue to say this is a really good team that has under performed.

Is this really a good team or are they more of an average bubble like team

Some years they get a wild card others they will just miss

Flames in my view, are over evaluating their talent and missed the mark,

Will they rebound next year, with a similar like team (i.e. some of the depth players will switch around, 1 or 2 dman will switch)

I don’t think there’s even an argument to be had that this team is anything but a good team that has under performed.

Their two most important players have severely underperformed against even their career average and the power play is awful.

I honestly don’t think you could find a single person educated in the game that would look at this team on paper and say they were just as likely to miss the playoffs as they were to sneak in. It’s been a huge disappointment.

[Bingo]

Next season sure becomes interesting as hell.

Unlucky season with a rebound fueled by bounce back players and expiring contracts vs Similar season and and six impact UFAs to sell at the deadline.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Backlund is 33
Kadri is 32
Coleman is 31
Toffoli is 30

None of these players have started to decline. Kadri has had some issue this year, but I put that on deployment, I don't see any decline in his abilities, and he certainly skates as well as he ever has.

This is an unbelievably specious way of viewing anything. Anecdotes don't prove an overall trend incorrect. "We've had a fairly cold winter in Calgary, I guess global warming must be a hoax?"

And even within this sample, one-off seasons of improvement over the year prior doesn't indicate the overall trend of the player.

[flambers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t think there’s even an argument to be had that this team is anything but a good team that has under performed.

Their two most important players have severely underperformed against even their career average and the power play is awful.

I honestly don’t think you could find a single person educated in the game that would look at this team on paper and say they were just as likely to miss the playoffs as they were to sneak in. It’s been a huge disappointment.

That's the key, or maybe the mix of players don't have chemistry.

Not 100% sure,

Agreed, Flames had lots of players have off seasons..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Well, no, that's not true either.

You are correct that defensive impacts, on average, peak later than offensive impacts, the peak is still well within most players' 20s.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1597223586892500992

This is an example of how people employ stats without understanding the underlying implications (not saying you are, I am saying this one-variable graph is.

Players are utilized differently as they age and gain experience. Older players are typically used in more defensive roles, and their value isn't captured in xG/60

Also, as GioPM stated, this includes ALL players, including those whose careers were shorter. Many players' careers are only 1-3 years, because they just don't have the tools for the NHL, or because injuries wore them down. Those players bring the averages down, and change the shape of the graph.

You have posted this graph before, as singular proof that players decline in their 20s, and no matter how many times and ways it gets refuted (with respect to being an end-argument), you refuse to accept any of those arguments.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

This is an unbelievably specious way of viewing anything. Anecdotes don't prove an overall trend incorrect. "We've had a fairly cold winter in Calgary, I guess global warming must be a hoax?"

And even within this sample, one-off seasons of improvement over the year prior doesn't indicate the overall trend of the player.

Yes, it's anecdotal, but it is also every forward on the team - no cherry picking. I could have added Tanev, who, at 32-33, has been playing the best hockey of his career over the last season and a half.

The point is, there is no one on the team, in that age group, that is declining. But my other post is a more direct response to your chart.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by flambers

That's the key, or maybe the mix of players don't have chemistry.

Not 100% sure,

Agreed, Flames had lots of players have off seasons..

Really, only 4 players. A lot of players have had good years: Lindholm has done fine, Kadri has his usual points, Dube broke out IMO, Zadorov as well. Andersson, Weegar, Tanev and Hanifin were all fine. Coleman and Backlund were good.

The problem was the 4 players were the two goalies, the guy who was hopefully going to be the best offensive player and Mangiapane. And really, if only one of those goalies had the off year, it would have worked out into POs.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is an example of how people employ stats without understanding the underlying implications (not saying you are, I am saying this one-variable graph is.

Players are utilized differently as they age and gain experience. Older players are typically used in more defensive roles, and their value isn't captured in xG/60

Also, as GioPM stated, this includes ALL players, including those whose careers were shorter. Many players' careers are only 1-3 years, because they just don't have the tools for the NHL, or because injuries wore them down. Those players bring the averages down, and change the shape of the graph.

You have posted this graph before, as singular proof that players decline in their 20s, and no matter how many times and ways it gets refuted (with respect to being an end-argument), you refuse to accept any of those arguments.

I didn't post that graph before, but I have posted similar in the past. You responded similarly by stating that this includes all players, not just regular everyday NHLers.

Tell me, how much further to the right so you think these curves move if you eliminate the players you say?

Also, Micah Blake McCurdy is a mathematician and statistician. I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't understand this.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I didn't post that graph before, but I have posted similar in the past. You responded similarly by stating that this includes all players, not just regular everyday NHLers.

Tell me, how much further to the right so you think these curves move if you eliminate the players you say?

Also, Micah Blake McCurdy is a mathematician and statistician. I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't understand this.

The x axis is 'impact on xG/60'

That is not a definitive variable in determining value of a player. What goes into it? Do you even know?

I have been studying statistical analysis of the securities markets for decades, and have been directly involved in creating analyses to determine certain impacts. And I can tell you that the best-designed analyses rarely determine what they are designed to determine. There is too much noise in the data to draw meaningful conclusions, most of the time (almost ALL the time).

So when we come to hockey - a game with lots of bounces and luck, very little in actual statistical data to work with, and few people doing the work, and almost no one to challenge that work and improve it - drawing conclusions from individual studies like this is, frankly, a fool's game.

I am not saying ignore it. I am saying take them all with a HUGE grain of salt. And if you want to use them to SUPPORT an argument, that's great. But when you use them AS your argument, then yes, there is a total lack of understanding of stats in play.

[Flame On]

In the sober thought of the morning after, I think Treliving made the least bad moves of anything he could have done. Didn't cost the team anything and subtly improved personnel in a swap.
Next year could go either way. The return of Kylington and a fresh start, maybe goalie back to normal, could have the team doing very well. Or it could be another lackluster disaster.
Either way I think we get those questions answered which is gratifying.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I didn't post that graph before, but I have posted similar in the past. You responded similarly by stating that this includes all players, not just regular everyday NHLers.

Tell me, how much further to the right so you think these curves move if you eliminate the players you say?

Also, Micah Blake McCurdy is a mathematician and statistician. I don't think it's fair to say he doesn't understand this.

He never answered this:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1597262683983982594

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't think it's dubious to assume that a player that has been elite for years, and has one bad year, would revert back to being the player he always was (not 115 pts, but 70-90).

To me, that is the more likely scenario than 'suddenly forgot how to hockey'.

More likely, sure. I personally am just waiting and seeing either way. I'm not that invested anymore to actually be worried about any of this, to be honest.

I just find it strange to call people out for unabashed concrete future predictions while doing the same thing in opposite direction.

[PepsiFree]

Found the study, the first result when I searched NHL player peak lol:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...er_performance

Our best estimate of the scoring peak age is between 27 and 28 for forwards and between 28 and 29 for defencemen. Both forwards and defencemen exhibit near-peak performance over a wide range, going from about 24 to 32 and 24 to 34, respectively.

I don’t know if it counts because it’s not a tweet from a mathematician but it seems to make sense to me.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

He never answered this:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1597262683983982594

I would love to see a similar distribution for regular or even long-term (maybe 1000+ games) NHLers but I haven't been able to find anything, but I don't think that eliminates the validity of what Micah has compiled, and I don't think the curve moves significantly to the right.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I would love to see a si.ilar distribution for regular or even long-term (maybe 1000+ games) NHLers but I haven't been able to find anything, but I don't thi k that eliminates the validity of what Micah has compiled, and I don't think the curve moves significantly to the right.

I’d bet the curve moves a lot. By definition you don’t play 1000 games without having 3X as long a career as most players. Who by definition peaked at 24 or so.