[Game Takes] Canucks 4 Flames 3

[cannon7]

We act like Markstrom was pelted last night. He faced 21 shots and saved 18.


Something that hasn't changed from last season:

Lets in first goal against the Canucks, 2:03 of first.
Lets in first goal against Stars, 4:51 of first.
Lets in first goal against the Avalanche, 6:31 of first.
Lets in first goal against Stars, 1:13 of first.
Lets in first goal against Predators, 2:33 of first.

Markstrom is the single biggest reason the Flames are perpetually playing from behind. He absolutely sucks when it comes to giving up weak goals early in the game. This trend started last season and just continues.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Confidence is a fickle thing, but it's a thing.

But the numbers are what they are. You put a lot of weight on expected goals for, and expected goals against. I put a lot of weight on results (wins and losses).

I like to dig a little deeper.

I don't cheer for expected goals and ignore the final score.

But this isn't just expected goals ...

It's high danger chances.
High danger save percentage.
expected goals against.
Team shooting percentage.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Vladar's opponents this year:

BUF, DET, SEA, TOR, SEA, COL, VGS

Probably higher quality, on average, than Markstrom's. (I am not doing last year, as it's too much work)

Pretty close between the two ...

Markstrom slightly more difficult .585 win % over .574

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

We act like Markstrom was pelted last night. He faced 21 shots and saved 18.


Something that hasn't changed from last season:

Lets in first goal against the Canucks, 2:03 of first.
Lets in first goal against Stars, 4:51 of first.
Lets in first goal against the Avalanche, 6:31 of first.
Lets in first goal against Stars, 1:13 of first.
Lets in first goal against Predators, 2:33 of first.

Markstrom is the single biggest reason the Flames are perpetually playing from behind. He absolutely sucks when it comes to giving up weak goals early in the game. This trend started last season and just continues.

The Flames gave up almost 4 expected goals last night which speaks to the quality of shots he faced.

He gave up three.

He wasn't the problem.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Believe I saw you using a single game as proof Zadorov wasn't needed.

I think you're fooling yourself if you don't see the gaping hole on the blueline with Zadorov gone.

He wasn't a top pairing defenseman, he wasn't a middle pair defenseman but he was always knocking on that door.

The Flames defense has gone from

2 2 3 3 5 7

to

2 2 3 3 7 8

The last two games were FAR from their worst defensive performances of the season. Both against divisional playoff teams.

two of the lowest shots against games of the season.

Edmonton, Detroit, Ottawa, ect. were FAR worse games defensively

I don't think there will be a huge difference...if you like we can compare stats after 20 games without Zadorov to the first 20 games, bigger sample size. I don't see the goals against changing much, actually I predict it goes down.

Vancouver's goals were mostly bounces and the first one was one the goalie should have had

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by cannon7

We act like Markstrom was pelted last night. He faced 21 shots and saved 18.


Something that hasn't changed from last season:

Lets in first goal against the Canucks, 2:03 of first.
Lets in first goal against Stars, 4:51 of first.
Lets in first goal against the Avalanche, 6:31 of first.
Lets in first goal against Stars, 1:13 of first.
Lets in first goal against Predators, 2:33 of first.

Markstrom is the single biggest reason the Flames are perpetually playing from behind. He absolutely sucks when it comes to giving up weak goals early in the game. This trend started last season and just continues.

That was Vladar's game.

You're also suggesting because a goal is early it's a bad goal which isn't always the case.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The last two games were FAR from their worst defensive performances of the season. Both against divisional playoff teams.

two of the lowest shots against games of the season.

Edmonton, Detroit, Ottawa, ect. were FAR worse games defensively

Dude ... the third pairing was completely sheltered last night. They didn't trust them enough to even give them 10 minutes together.

And even sheltered they got completely filled in. Oesterle had an expected goals of 0%. Gilbert 7%. Gilbert was on the ice for 2/3 of the Canucks 5 on 5 goals.

That says missing NHL players in the final pairing, or more specifically missing a very good 5th dmen in Zadorov.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Dude ... the third pairing was completely sheltered last night. They didn't trust them enough to even give them 10 minutes together.

And even sheltered they got completely filled in. Oesterle had an expected goals of 0%. Gilbert 7%. Gilbert was on the ice for 2/3 of the Canucks 5 on 5 goals.

That says missing NHL players in the final pairing, or more specifically missing a very good 5th dmen in Zadorov.

you are acting like the 3rd pairing wasn't getting "filled in" before lol

I would rather the top 4 play more anyway. Like I said it won't change the results much.

I bet the Flames are better over the next 20 than the previous 20 with Zadorov. Lets see.

Team is .500 with the "gaping hole" from losing Zadorov...against Dallas and Vancouver

below .500 with him in the lineup

dude

Now if they trade Tanev or Hanifin in that time we have a different conversation

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

you are acting like the 3rd pairing wasn't getting "filled in" before lol

I would rather the top 4 play more anyway. Like I said it won't change the results much.

I bet the Flames are better over the next 20 than the previous 20 with Zadorov. Lets see.

Team is .500 with the "gaping hole" from losing Zadorov...against Dallas and Vancouver

below .500 with him in the lineup

Luckily don't need to "act"

Zadorov and DeSimone were 57% in expected goals with almost 100 minutes of ice time together.

Still sheltered for sure, but not to the same extent and not getting filled in.

Zadorov and Gilbert not as good at 45% expected goals.

The Gilbert Oesterle pairing is at 28%.

So yeah filled in. Miss Zadorov. And we will see!

[Teroy]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Flames gave up almost 4 expected goals last night which speaks to the quality of shots he faced.

He gave up three.

He wasn't the problem.

No, but he wasn't the savior either. He was just average.

[dino7c]

Flames were one of the best teams in the league in fancy stats last year...lets see the actual results in terms of wins and losses

if they truly miss him the results will be worse...so far they are better but the sample size is small that part I agree

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The Flames gave up almost 4 expected goals last night which speaks to the quality of shots he faced.

He gave up three.

He wasn't the problem.

Does that expected goals of 4 not count the empty net goal, which counts for ane entire goal since 1 shot = 1 goal?

[dino7c]

In a night of Canuck bounces the EN goal might have been the luckiest of them all

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Flames were one of the best teams in the league in fancy stats last year...lets see the actual results in terms of wins and losses

if they truly miss him the results will be worse...so far they are better but the sample size is small that part I agree

The third pairing isn't better.

That's the focus when you trade someone out of your third pairing. The play of the top four getting leaned on with unsustainable ice time doesn't make the team better.

The "fancy" stats are backed up by the coach's complete lack of confidence in playing them!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Does that expected goals of 4 not count the empty net goal, which counts for ane entire goal since 1 shot = 1 goal?

That's a good question!

You would think it would still come from probability, but do they have probabilities with an empty net? Do you take into account that the shot was going wide?

If they don't take into account probabilities for empty netters than a shot from there would be worth basically zero for expected goals.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The third pairing isn't better.

That's the focus when you trade someone out of your third pairing. The play of the top four getting leaned on with unsustainable ice time doesn't make the team better.

The "fancy" stats are backed up by the coach's complete lack of confidence in playing them!

Still if Zadorov is some massive hole like you are saying the team should do much worse results wise.

I don't see it, like I said I bet their 20 without him are better than their previous 20.

The pairing from last night also won't be the 3rd pairing until the end of the season...Osterle is a place holster.

Zadorov is a fine 5th defenseman, it just doesn't move the needle much. He had as many egregious errors as great plays this season.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I like to dig a little deeper.

I don't cheer for expected goals and ignore the final score.

But this isn't just expected goals ...

It's high danger chances.
High danger save percentage.
expected goals against.
Team shooting percentage.

No need to take a shot.

I like to dig deeper too. But you put more value in those numbers than I do, because I think they are deeply flawed, and far too often don't resemble what I'm watching.

And when they run contrary to results, for two seasons in a row, it's hard to put much faith in them.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Still if Zadorov is some massive hole like you are saying the team should do much worse results wise.

I don't see it, like I said I bet their 20 without him are better than their previous 20.

The pairing from last night also won't be the 3rd pairing until the end of the season.

I think you could make an argument that by over playing their top four defensive to a dangerous level they may have some success for a short period of time.

But that won't change the fact that they are doing so in an unsustainable way that will eventually bite them in the ass.

It's like we make fun of the Oilers for wearing out their two best players.

Won't end well.

Zadorov was a good 5th defenseman. Nobody is calling him Larry Robinson or Nick Lidstrom. Why is that so hard to accept?

He's the best defenseman they had not in the top four, and now that he's gone that third pairing is dangerously poor.

I do hope Solovyov can up that duo a bit.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No need to take a shot.

I like to dig deeper too. But you put more value in those numbers than I do, because I think they are deeply flawed, and far too often don't resemble what I'm watching.

And when they run contrary to results, for two seasons in a row, it's hard to put much faith in them.

It wasn't meant as a shot.

You are just using win / loss records and stopping there. Not saying you haven't or won't go deeper, but in this case you're not.

And how is a simple win / loss record in a team game not flawed in evaluating goaltending?

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think you could make an argument that by over playing their top four defensive to a dangerous level they may have some success for a short period of time.

But that won't change the fact that they are doing so in an unsustainable way that will eventually bite them in the ass.

It's like we make fun of the Oilers for wearing out their two best players.

Won't end well.

Zadorov was a good 5th defenseman. Nobody is calling him Larry Robinson or Nick Lidstrom. Why is that so hard to accept?

He's the best defenseman they had not in the top four, and now that he's gone that third pairing is dangerously poor.

I do hope Solovyov can up that duo a bit.

I never argued he wasn't their 5th best dman, accept what? I don't think he moved the needle much.

"won't end well"

lol they were under .500 with Zadorov in the lineup, it already wasn't ending well.

you are dancing around it...I think they are better in the 20 without Zadorov than they were in the 20 with him and you don't. That's fine.

they are .500 right now lets see