[PGT] Flames lose to Vancouver

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

To people asking why Wolf played back to back... have you watched even one Cooley game since his injury last year?

The result would not have changed.

There must be a lot of kids on the site here who don’t remember Kipper

In the 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons, Kipper played both nights of 8 and 6 back to backs, respectively

And was pretty darn good

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Lewis_D

Yeah and I also remember him being burnt out every playoffs and never making it past the first round.

Your memory must be playing tricks on you.

2.49 lifetime GAA, .912 sv.% in regular season.

2.32 GAA, .921 sv % in playoffs.

[traptor]

Originally Posted by Rhett44

To people asking why Wolf played back to back... have you watched even one Cooley game since his injury last year?

The result would not have changed.

I think its the impact next game though.


Yes they would of lost either way but Wolf would of been rested for tomorrow and they would have gotten a look at what they had in Cooley.


Now they get Wolf going into his 3rd game in 4 days or they get completely unproven Cooley after loss.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

There must be a lot of kids on the site here who don’t remember Kipper

In the 2009-10 and 2010-11 seasons, Kipper played both nights of 8 and 6 back to backs, respectively

And was pretty darn good

TBH to me it was less about Wolf playing a back to back in general - which I think is fine every once in a while.

I do question the timing of it.

To put him in a back to back, on the road, in the first two games of the season, and in a stretch of 3 games in 66 hours with travel between all three games seemed panicky to me.

If you have that little faith in Cooley then it was a failure of management to not address the backup position when lots of more proven backups were floating around waivers.

And in the end he didn't seem as sharp last night, and that contributed to the loss, so I think it's fair to question the decision.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Your memory must be playing tricks on you.

2.49 lifetime GAA, .912 sv.% in regular season.

2.32 GAA, .921 sv % in playoffs.

Now check those numbers excluding 2004, when he didn't play a full season and wasn't overworked.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by traptor

I think its the impact next game though.


Yes they would of lost either way but Wolf would of been rested for tomorrow and they would have gotten a look at what they had in Cooley.


Now they get Wolf going into his 3rd game in 4 days or they get completely unproven Cooley after loss.

Kipper played 3 in 4 nights lots of times. It’s not that big of a deal

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

TBH to me it was less about Wolf playing a back to back in general - which I think is fine every once in a while.

I do question the timing of it.

To put him in a back to back, on the road, in the first two games of the season, and in a stretch of 3 games in 66 hours with travel between all three games seemed panicky to me.

If you have that little faith in Cooley then it was a failure of management to not address the backup position when lots of more proven backups were floating around waivers.

And in the end he didn't seem as sharp last night, and that contributed to the loss, so I think it's fair to question the decision.

I get where you are coming from

I don’t think it was panicky. I’m sure they weighed the options. Fact is, Wolf is elite in terms of skill and he is better than Cooley. I don’t think that is indisputable.

Although not your major concern, I was curious and put the data together

Here are some stats on back to backs, based on Calgary’s last elite goalie
I looked back from the 2009-10 through 2011-12 seasons to see how often Kipper played back to back nights

Between 2009 and 2012 Kipper started in 15 back to back games. Most were on the road

His overall stats were just fine
38 GA on 467 shots .919
12 out of 15 games he put up a sv % > .900

Overall W-L record I will separate in to 2 buckets because the difference between winning and losing was run support


His record in second night of back to backs was 5-8-2 overall

When the Flames scored 1 goal or less, Kipper was 0-5-1 (there were actually 5 games lost by a 2-1 score)

When the Flames scored 2 goals or more, 5-3-1


So in my opinion, you should be just fine playing an elite goalie back to back nights. I think the data is clear

I also don’t mind sitting Cooley against a divisional rival because he is really pretty unproven

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now check those numbers excluding 2004, when he didn't play a full season and wasn't overworked.

Still .915, above his season average.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Here’s the game log data to support for the back to backs Kipper played in


2011 /12-
Nov 11/12
L 3-1 @Chi 3 GA on 30 shots .900
W 4-3 @Col 3 /39 .923


2010/2011 -
Mar 1/2
W 6-0 @StL 0/25 1.000
L 6-4 @ Chi 4/19 .789

Feb 11/12
OTL 5-4 @Ana 5/30 .833
L 4-2 @Van 3/32 .906

Dec 31/Jan 1
W 3-2 @Col 2/21 .905
W 2-1 @Edm 1/17 .941

Nov 26/27
SOW 3-2 @ Phi 2/36 .944
L 2-1 @ Pit 3/42 .929

Nov 21/22
O 5-4 @Det 5/38 .868
L 2-1 @NYR 2/24 .917

Nov 12/13 -
L 5-4 @ Phx 4/25 .850
L 4-3 @ SJ 4/35 .886


2009-2010

Oct 12/13
OTL 6-5 @ Chi 6/39 .846
L 2-1 @CBJ 2/33 .939

Nov 13/14
SOL 2-1 @Buf 1/33 .970
W 5-3 @ Tor 2/40 .950

Dec 27/28
L 5-1 @Van 4/13 .692
W 4-1 @Edm 1/35 .971

Jan 5/6
W 3-1 @Nas 1/28 .964
L 4-1 @ Min 4/35 .886

Jan 27/28
SOL 4-3 @Dal 3/36 .917
SOL 3-2 @Phx 2/31 .935

Feb 5/6
W 2-1 @Fla 1/13 .923
OTL 2-1 @TBL 2/23 .913

Mar 14/15
L 3-1 @Van 3/20 .850
L 2-1 vs Det 2/28 .929

Mar 27/28
L 5-0 @Bos 5/29, .828
W 5-3 @WSH 3/34 .912

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by dino7c

They had a huge schedule advantage last night and really weren't that great.

Yeah, I wasn't really all that impressed with them.

They had their moments but so did the Flames. The difference was Wolf letting in a bad goal in the first and then they score a lucky one in the third to make it 2-0 when Wolf and the team stopped playing after Bahl got hurt.

I stopped watching after that but I think they would have been deflated after that and playing the night before in a game that went to a long shootout.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

TBH to me it was less about Wolf playing a back to back in general - which I think is fine every once in a while.

I do question the timing of it.

To put him in a back to back, on the road, in the first two games of the season, and in a stretch of 3 games in 66 hours with travel between all three games seemed panicky to me.

If you have that little faith in Cooley then it was a failure of management to not address the backup position when lots of more proven backups were floating around waivers.

And in the end he didn't seem as sharp last night, and that contributed to the loss, so I think it's fair to question the decision.

The waiver thing is a more complicated decision.
You would have to believe that the waiver pick up is a significant upgrade. If it's marginal - then what's the point. Give your guy a chance or go for a bigger upgrade.

There were some familiar names but did any of them represent a real upgrade? I'm not sure they did.

I also wouldn't look at the back to back starts as a sign they don't trust Cooley (though they may not) and rather just the team taking a shot at getting a season off to a 2-0 start.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Still .915, above his season average.

Now compare those playoff numbers to his regular-season numbers for the same years – excluding the years when he was in decline and the team did not make the playoffs at all.

At that point, you'll be comparing apples to apples. Not before.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Kipper played 3 in 4 nights lots of times. It’s not that big of a deal

Completely different era of hockey. Last year Vasilevsky led the league with 63 games.

Kipper's workload is prehistoric. He also retired at 36, which may have been a result of him running ragged all those years.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Pettersson bouncing back is key to their success. Hughes is a franchise player, Demko/Lankinen is one of the top tandems in the league. If Pettersson can be the 100pt center they paid him to be the Canucks will be in the battle with Vegas/Edmonton at the top of the division.

The Flames just do not have the fire power or depth on the back end to be a serious team in my opinion. I also think the org is doing the right thing focusing on the youth and not spending cap and assets to try and win now.

It really all comes down to the start. I think if the Flames play well in the first 15 they will be in the race all year (barring injury) but I have a feeling this team might be out early and names like Coleman and Kadri will pop up along Andersson in the rumor mill.

Honestly, I don't see them needing Pettersson to be a 100 pt center to compete with Vegas (I see Edmonton as much worse this year). If he's back to 70 or 80 points, then they will be up there. I think that having Hughes and Demko healthy this year will help Vancouver a lot. There is enough goals from Debrusk, Boeser, and other forwards for offence to be decent enough. If Pettersson is a 100 pt players, then they are the best team in the division.

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by Lewis_D

Yeah and I also remember him being burnt out every playoffs and never making it past the first round.

2005–06 Calgary Flames NHL 74 42 20 — 11 4,379 151 10 2.07 .923 7 3 4 428 16 0 2.24 .921

2006–07 Calgary Flames NHL 74 40 24 — 9 4,419 181 7 2.46 .917 6 2 4 383 18 0 2.81 .929

Yes, it was him being burnt out with a .921 SP and .929 SP for the reason he never made it out the first round... geez...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Completely different era of hockey. Last year Vasilevsky led the league with 63 games.

Kipper's workload is prehistoric. He also retired at 36, which may have been a result of him running ragged all those years.

Yip it was the work load

[redmile04]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Kipper played 3 in 4 nights lots of times. It’s not that big of a deal

What's next? NFL QBs not playing back to back week's LOL

The increased backup goalie action is giving me NBA load management vibes. Goalies have and can still play b2b an 3 in 4. NBA players can play 82 games.

[GreenLantern2814]

On the one hand, they look offensively inert and the third pair is not NHL caliber.

On the other, there’s a solution to both sitting in the press box.

On to St Louis.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Now compare those playoff numbers to his regular-season numbers for the same years – excluding the years when he was in decline and the team did not make the playoffs at all.

At that point, you'll be comparing apples to apples. Not before.

Well, no, comparing playoff numbers to regular season numbers isn’t apples to apples at all

Regular season numbers include a lot of games against non playoff teams

I have pointed it out before - Wolf ran the tables against the bottom 3 teams in each conference and wasn’t far off .500 otherwise

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by howard_the_duck

Completely different era of hockey. Last year Vasilevsky led the league with 63 games.

Kipper's workload is prehistoric. He also retired at 36, which may have been a result of him running ragged all those years.

He retired when some buffoon GM blew up the team and asked if he wanted to be traded

He broke out the big red ‘#### it’ stamp he had on his desk