[Trade] Elias Lindholm + Noah Hanifin to Flames for D. Hamilton, Micheal Ferland, & Adam Fox

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is not a personal attack to note when you reinforce the perceptions you cultivate.

Already spoke of it:

I think that's more a list of things that piss you off than an analysis isn't it? I even agree with a few. Not sure why that means you had to ridicule stats that suggest the team had more going on in the danger areas that you'd think.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think that's more a list of things that piss you off than an analysis isn't it? I even agree with a few. Not sure why that means you had to ridicule stats that suggest the team had more going on in the danger areas that you'd think.

You keep glossing over a point that people are making over and over. Not all danger area chances are the same. When you're pushing a plodding, possession focused style and the other team has plenty of time to prepare and defend, a resulting chance from a danger area doesn't explicitly equal a high danger chance. It's just in a typically dangerous area.

This has been revisited so many times. This is where the stat is failing while still being accurate.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

There are certainly fans that are overly sympathetic to underlying numbers, who are in the minority compared to what I would call the majority of fans that now respect the advanced stats as a whole, but still realize they need to be viewed as an additive tool to analysis.

Beating the drum on the former is totally fine with me, but acting shocked whenever someone disagrees with that notion is a bit over the top. The bottom line is the Flames have been failing in the standings more than they've been winning for a long time now and this is all that matters in the success department for any fan. Full stop.

I personally can't bare anymore talk centered around how the team is dominating possession but was just unlucky like last season. At some point you have to call a spade a spade and own it as a franchise. If Peter's can't get the team into the playoffs as a start, this group simply isn't anywhere near good enough and should probably be torn down.

Summed up my feelings on the subject.

It is funny. The greatest success the flames have had in recent years was in a "unsustainable" system. But it doesn't fit with the advanced stats community to accept that success in this sport is not driven by numbers. It's driven by will and heart. You can have the perfect system but if your players play like robots like they did in gullys system, they won't go far.


I get it. So many people watch the sport, and everyone needs a way to stay interacted with it by many means. If advanced stats keeps people around, so be it. I don't need them to watch the game or tell what's working and what is not. Because most time my perception is that if your team is winning the Corsi game, they're losing where it matters most.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, we obviously disagree on the system as well, because Gulutzan's system was slow, boring, and allowed the opposition enough time to take a nap before we gained the zone.

And yes, IMNSHO, he tried to play for Corsi. And much of what you and Bingo would attempt to pass off as LOFT or bad luck in terms of why our shots missed the net so much, regardless of where on the ice they were taken from, it was because we were usually playing against a set defence that gave us nothing but low visibility shots.



You're moving the goalposts. The argument, then and now, was that Gulutzan was an awful coach and needed to be fired. The "deep dive", then and now, is an attempt to reframe the argument away from things that everybody could see on the ice but is not visible on a spreadsheet.



Bingo was attempting to argue that Gulutzan was a good coach. Despite the fact that we were floundering week after week under him and his plodding, rigid style.

I don't think Bingo was arguing that GG was a good coach. I think he was looking at the numbers to see what was going on. Especially I don't think there was use of numbers to support a conclusion already reached - it was the reverse.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think that's more a list of things that piss you off than an analysis isn't it? I even agree with a few. Not sure why that means you had to ridicule stats that suggest the team had more going on in the danger areas that you'd think.

Well, yes. As a paying customer who drops thousands of dollars a year on this team, a clearly incompetent coach who is unable to actually manage a roster and coach a game does piss me off. And while I'm not sold on Peters as of yet, he certainly is a considerable upgrade in this regard.

And here's the dumb thing, Bingo. I don't hate those stats. I'm even prone to using them myself from time to time. But when I look at the issues Gulutzan had, and yes, I look at the results it generated, and I say this coach is a problem who needs to go, and then I am basically told "no, none of that matters, because home plate scoring chances", well, yeah. Ridicule is going to happen.

Because when I'm told over and over again about how great his HDSC% was when I actually suffer through those games and can see, right in front of me, how few actual high danger scoring chances we created under his system, it grates.

I know you watch the games too Bingo, so this is the difference between you and I: When your eyes tell you one thing and your spreadsheet tells you another, you'll default to the latter. I'm the reverse. When the spreadsheet tells me this team was an exciting line-up creating chance after chance, and yet I was bored out of my mind every time I went to a Flames game, I'm going to trust my eyes.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by nik-

You keep glossing over a point that people are making over and over. Not all danger area chances are the same...

He literally just said:

Originally Posted by Bingo

...When some suggested that the shots in the high danger areas were too set I admitted that there was no way to prove that pro or against and there could be something to that...

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

He literally just said:

And then just reverted back to the high danger area stat.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

You keep glossing over a point that people are making over and over. Not all danger area chances are the same. When you're pushing a plodding, possession focused style and the other team has plenty of time to prepare and defend, a resulting chance from a danger area doesn't explicitly equal a high danger chance. It's just in a typically dangerous area.

This has been revisited so many times. This is where the stat is failing while still being accurate.

Actually I said pretty much that the on the previous page.

When people suggested goaltenders were getting set there wasn't really any data to refute that theory.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by nik-

And then just reverted back to the high danger area stat.

Not at all.

I basically said that it was a finishing point. Couldn't prove it either way.

To suggest I was ignoring that simply isn't true then and it isn't now. And I didn't revert back to anything after saying that.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Summed up my feelings on the subject.

It is funny. The greatest success the flames have had in recent years was in a "unsustainable" system. But it doesn't fit with the advanced stats community to accept that success in this sport is not driven by numbers. It's driven by will and heart. You can have the perfect system but if your players play like robots like they did in gullys system, they won't go far.


I get it. So many people watch the sport, and everyone needs a way to stay interacted with it by many means. If advanced stats keeps people around, so be it. I don't need them to watch the game or tell what's working and what is not. Because most time my perception is that if your team is winning the Corsi game, they're losing where it matters most.

But it was unsustainable, no? The Flames aren't the only examples of that. And while there are all kinds of excuses for Hartley's failure the next year, they mostly have to do with the start of the the year. yet the Flames were at their worst in February/March that year.

It's funny, though, the huge Hartley success in one year is based in large part on him winning one additional round against a much inferior team to the one who beat Calgary in the first round the next year (all but one in one-goal games).

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Summed up my feelings on the subject.

It is funny. The greatest success the flames have had in recent years was in a "unsustainable" system. But it doesn't fit with the advanced stats community to accept that success in this sport is not driven by numbers. It's driven by will and heart. You can have the perfect system but if your players play like robots like they did in gullys system, they won't go far.


I get it. So many people watch the sport, and everyone needs a way to stay interacted with it by many means. If advanced stats keeps people around, so be it. I don't need them to watch the game or tell what's working and what is not. Because most time my perception is that if your team is winning the Corsi game, they're losing where it matters most.

Thing is will and heart are fickle, unreliable, unpredictable things. We had our "unsustainable" year that we all loved, brought back the same coach but with a better roster, and completely collapsed. You can't just cross your fingers and hope to catch lightning in a bottle every year. Or if you can, there's 31 NHL coaches that would love to hear your secret.

It's also not an either-or choice. Coaches don't just automatically fall in one bucket or the other; they're mostly independent attributes. Gulutzan was a terrible motivator and leader, but he did coach a solid system. His failure doesn't mean solid systems have to go too. And it's short-sighted to throw out everything he touched because it didn't add up to a great team. That's the hope with Peters: he's got the same tactical strengths as Gulutzan while being a better leader behind the bench.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Summed up my feelings on the subject.

It is funny. The greatest success the flames have had in recent years was in a "unsustainable" system. But it doesn't fit with the advanced stats community to accept that success in this sport is not driven by numbers. It's driven by will and heart. You can have the perfect system but if your players play like robots like they did in gullys system, they won't go far...

Gulutzan was clearly not a capable coach, but again, Hartley's Flames were not all "heart n' soul" either. The same team that experienced the Flames's greatest recent success is also the same team that drafted #4 overall the following year.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, yes. As a paying customer who drops thousands of dollars a year on this team, a clearly incompetent coach who is unable to actually manage a roster and coach a game does piss me off. And while I'm not sold on Peters as of yet, he certainly is a considerable upgrade in this regard.

And here's the dumb thing, Bingo. I don't hate those stats. I'm even prone to using them myself from time to time. But when I look at the issues Gulutzan had, and yes, I look at the results it generated, and I say this coach is a problem who needs to go, and then I am basically told "no, none of that matters, because home plate scoring chances", well, yeah. Ridicule is going to happen.

Because when I'm told over and over again about how great his HDSC% was when I actually suffer through those games and can see, right in front of me, how few actual high danger scoring chances we created under his system, it grates.

I know you watch the games too Bingo, so this is the difference between you and I: When your eyes tell you one thing and your spreadsheet tells you another, you'll default to the latter. I'm the reverse. When the spreadsheet tells me this team was an exciting line-up creating chance after chance, and yet I was bored out of my mind every time I went to a Flames game, I'm going to trust my eyes.

So what's the point of even looking at the spreadsheets then? What's the difference between "data is only valid if it agrees with the eye test" and "ignore data, only use the eye test"?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Gulutzan was clearly not a capable coach, but again, Hartley's Flames were not all "heart n' soul" either. The same team that experienced the Flames's greatest recent success is also the same team that drafted #4 overall the following year.

Luckily they drafted will and heart. In spades.

[Bingo]

I will say this gang, I'll take a look at my posting style for sure. I certainly don't want to come across as elitist or looking down on others, as that's certainly not my aim.

Only seems to have pissed off a handful, but if you give any one the feeling you think you're better than they are, then you had better look at yourself.

Do appreciate those that came to my defense that I'd assume know me well.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

But it was unsustainable, no? The Flames aren't the only examples of that. And while there are all kinds of excuses for Hartley's failure the next year, they mostly have to do with the start of the the year. yet the Flames were at their worst in February/March that year.

It's funny, though, the huge Hartley success in one year is based in large part on him winning one additional round against a much inferior team to the one who beat Calgary in the first round the next year (all but one in one-goal games).

I don't know if it was u sustainable. We were step two I the rebuild and Hiller and Berra and God whoever else there was in net fell off a cliff into an abyss.

While it is true I think that specific team caught a lot of people off guard that year, the tinkering tree was doing could have helped Hartley more than bringing in gully and starting over in that system.

But at the end of the day. I know which was more fun and entertaining, which is where my money wants to go. Not the dread of last season that ultimately led to a big trade and a shift in coaching.

[Buff]

Sorry for derailing this thread with discussion related to the trade.

With Lindholm scoring this weekend I thought I'd take a look at the stats on each of theplayers involved. So far the trade is a wash, it seems to be working out for both teams. The part that I find interesting is Adam Fox's first game of the season. 5 points!!!! He somehow managed to still be -1 though.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Gulutzan was clearly not a capable coach, but again, Hartley's Flames were not all "heart n' soul" either. The same team that experienced the Flames's greatest recent success is also the same team that drafted #4 overall the following year.

More team comebacks in that one season than the last 5 combined. Will and heart. Desperation if you want to call it that. I call it will. And Hartley was a mad man when it came to getting his team going. The Vancouver incident is point #1.

And again. The defense wasn't stellar the next year but the goaltending faded into oblivion.

Either way. I posted a rebuttal earlier. That was fun hockey. Gullys wasnt. Plain and simple. Hopefully Peters is the goldilocks of the 3 coaches. Seems to be on the right track 11 games in.

[dammage79]

On point to the thread title. Elias Lindholm is what this teams needed. Can do his own think and be effective with other players . His toolbox has been a versatile and positive addition. Where he may not be scoring at almost a ppg pace right now, he's still a positive contributor and every other aspect of the game. Still only 23.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Yeah. If you look at the coaches in terms of how you feel as the game approaches the end of the second and the team is down by a goal or so

- Darryl - likely it’s a close game and I think they have a good chance of keeping the opponent off the scoresheet and scoring the next goal
- Keenan - the team is offensive and may well be able to outscore the opponents
- Brent - down going in to the third? It’s over. I’d hate to be the garbage canin the hallway
- Hartley - (14/15) conditioning and heart will take over. The boys have some goals in them
- Hartley - 15/16 - players look like they are thinking ‘what does it matter if we score, Hiller will just let in another. And the coach is done anyway’
- Gulutzan - maybe we will some zone time and 15 shots but come up short
- Peters - ? TBD

They didn’t fold their tent against Washington when down 2 early, so there is that, which is nice.