Francis: It's time for the Flames to get serious about bottoming out

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

We have one of the worst offences in the league over the last couple years, our top six is full of reclamation projects, we blame the system, travel, etc..
Maybe these guys aren't the best shooters in the league.
How many games before it isn't a small sample size?

The question is not whether the team lacks scoring talent. That is obvious. The question is why the shooting percentage in 10 games this year is so much lower than it was with almost exactly the same roster last year. That's got to be down to random variation.

Bear in mind, it isn't the old guys, whom you would expect to be slowing down, that aren't scoring. It's players like Zary and Coronato. I can guarantee you that they are not losing their abilities because of age.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The question is not whether the team lacks scoring talent. That is obvious. The question is why the shooting percentage in 10 games this year is so much lower than it was with almost exactly the same roster last year. That's got to be down to random variation.

Bear in mind, it isn't the old guys, whom you would expect to be slowing down, that aren't scoring. It's players like Zary and Coronato. I can guarantee you that they are not losing their abilities because of age.

Or... we are peppering goalies with even lower percentage chance shots than last year. And my original point was the shooting percentage is high from what we've see on the ice, half the goals have been flukes that took a strange bounce. Take those away and the our shooting percentage is even worse.
From a pure # of goals perspective, Coleman and Backlund have been good, nobody else is even meeting expectations.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Or... we are peppering goalies with even lower percentage chance shots than last year. And my original point was the shooting percentage is high from what we've see on the ice, half the goals have been flukes that took a strange bounce. Take those away and the our shooting percentage is even worse.
From a pure # of goals perspective, Coleman and Backlund have been good, nobody else is even meeting expectations.

That is the hard part of anecdotal evidence of fluky goals over a small sample size. I recall a lot of fluky goals last year too. However, the course of 82 games demonstrates that bounces happen sometimes and they even out later. Some players go on shooting % hot streaks for a year and come back to earth. It's odd for a whole team to go completely cold at the same time and stay that way for 82 games.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Or... we are peppering goalies with even lower percentage chance shots than last year.

You assume that this, too, is certain to last all season and is not subject to variation from game to game.

If you assume your conclusion and work backwards from there, you can always find something to support it. That doesn't mean you will be right; in fact, it's a very reliable way to be wrong.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

You assume that this, too, is certain to last all season and is not subject to variation from game to game.

If you assume your conclusion and work backwards from there, you can always find something to support it. That doesn't mean you will be right; in fact, it's a very reliable way to be wrong.

Well I look forward to our luck changing

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Well I look forward to our luck changing

He says, right after the team scored 5 goals in a game…

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Or... we are peppering goalies with even lower percentage chance shots than last year. And my original point was the shooting percentage is high from what we've see on the ice, half the goals have been flukes that took a strange bounce. Take those away and the our shooting percentage is even worse.
From a pure # of goals perspective, Coleman and Backlund have been good, nobody else is even meeting expectations.

What is more plausible?

That the same team, and the same coach, have suddenly decided to implement a far less effective, and less talented, form of offense?

Or that the team is having a dry spell (bad luck / cooler) and are due to revert to the mean (their more typical shooting percentage)?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

What is more plausible?

That the same team, and the same coach, have suddenly decided to implement a far less effective, and less talented, form of offense?

Or that the team is having a dry spell (bad luck / cooler) and are due to revert to the mean (their more typical shooting percentage)?

If you're already invested in the belief that the team will go on scoring at this miserable pace all season, and it's all the coach's fault, of course only the first alternative will seem plausible to you.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The teams true colors are what the standings say they are. The reason you keep repeating this is because nobody is buying it. The difficult opening schedule has nothing to do with the fact that this team has difficulty scoring goals. Even with a five goal outburst on Sunday they are still last in GF with only 21 goals scored in 10 games. Yes there are ebbs and flows over an 82 game season but this team needs to play air tight defense to win games and to date they have not been able to pull that off on a consistent basis and it's pretty far fetched to think they will pull off another 90+ point season with a negative goal differential. Last season was never going to be repeatable for this group without an upsurge of offense.

Or maybe people know I'm right and just don't want to admit it? People who were on team tank coming into the year and saw 1-7-1 and saw it as total vindication of their viewpoint, but refuse to look at anything that might contradict their views. That's called confirmation bias.

Of the 8 losses, all of them were either on short rest or vs a top contending team, and all but 2 of them were by a single goal.

Yes this team has trouble scoring goals, but it's partially explained by the brutal circumstances they were placed in for the first 9 games. Is this team offensively challenged even at the best of times? Yes. But when you're constantly playing back to backs or against top teams, it's going to make the problem a lot worse. Pretending it doesn't have an effect is pure folly.

Look for this team's goals per game to be significantly higher from here on out than it was in the first 9 games.

[Roof-Daddy]

If the Flames are going to bottom out, they should trade Ras, Kadri and Coleman before they get things turned around cruise to a 17th to 22nd place finish.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

If the Flames are going to bottom out, they should trade Ras, Kadri and Coleman before they get things turned around cruise to a 17th to 22nd place finish.

When your team is on a big losing streak, other GMs always come calling to offer you a glass of milk in exchange for your best cow. That's the second-worst time to be making a major trade.

The worst time to make a major trade is very early on in the season, when teams are figuring out what they've got and what they're going to need. You pretty much have to force the market to move by accepting lowball offers.

The Flames' situation right now is a double whammy. It wouldn't hurt you to develop a little patience, because you're going to need it.

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

He says, right after the team scored 5 goals in a game…

small sample size

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

When your team is on a big losing streak, other GMs always come calling to offer you a glass of milk in exchange for your best cow. That's the second-worst time to be making a major trade.

The worst time to make a major trade is very early on in the season, when teams are figuring out what they've got and what they're going to need. You pretty much have to force the market to move by accepting lowball offers.

The Flames' situation right now is a double whammy. It wouldn't hurt you to develop a little patience, because you're going to need it.

Yeah, they certainly shouldn't trade these players just for the sake of bottoming out, I agree. I don't think this team is bad enough to remain in a high percentage lottery position unless they weaken it by dealing these vets though. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

small sample size

‘They can't score! That means they're never going to score! Oh, wait, they scored. That doesn't count!’

[Icantwhisper]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

‘They can't score! That means they're never going to score! Oh, wait, they scored. That doesn't count!’

Complains about using small sample sizes, uses one that is 10x smaller

[peter12]

Just occurred to me that bottoming out sounds super gay.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Icantwhisper

Complains about using small sample sizes, uses one that is 10x smaller

I'm pointing out that over time, things will self-correct. Scoring five goals after a scoring drought is evidence of self-correction, and shows that the team isn't simply incapable of scoring.

You seem to be mistaking an existence proof for a statistical argument.