Brad "Frickin" Treliving

[Flash Walken]

The adversity the flames couldn't handle last year was of the 'not being a good enough team' variety.

With ~30 extra goals on the roster this year, I bet 'responding to adversity' is low on the list of concerns.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I agree, which is why I said that my opinion of Treliving is overall positive. I was addressing your claim that Treliving hasn't been able to fix the goalie situation because he thought the price was too high for Bishop, Raanta, etc. I'm just suggesting that he didn't have the assets to make those deals because he spent them elsewhere - a whole raft of picks for a #4 d-man and a bunch of cap space for a #5 d-man. Everything is a trade-off.

Absolutely.

Every team has cap space and a suite of assets and you can't fix everything to the fullest extent you'd like.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The adversity the flames couldn't handle last year was of the 'not being a good enough team' variety.

With ~30 extra goals on the roster this year, I bet 'responding to adversity' is low on the list of concerns.

Not the way I see it.

Far too often the Flames would come out and out play the opposition, especially on home ice. It would feel like an inevitable win if they just kept doing what they were doing.

But then the opposition would score and you could see the team abandon everything they were doing in a panic to try and get that goal back on the very next shift.

That's mental toughness and if you're team doesn't have it, you had better hope your coaching staff does.

By Treliving's comments and then actions, it appears the coaching staff didn't

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

He wanted a team that plays with the puck.

He hired a guy that was passionate about a possession style and he was correct, the Flames shot up the charts and out played the opposition for the most part.

What they didn't do is handle adversity very well, and with a young roster he needed a stronger voice behind the bench.

Peters has the possession and more bark.

When you lay it out that way it's not really that odd in my mind.

Maybe in the fancy stats world, but in the real world the Flames got worked on most nights. The strategic weaknesses of their system were obvious and easy to defend against, then counter and take advantage of a poor defensive scheme. Early on those weaknesses were shielded by Smith's play. At the end, the weaknesses were obvious. Spending a lot of time in the offensive zone, generating low quality shots, is not outplaying the opposition, not when they can transition and put little pressure on the defense and generate great scoring opportunities and goals.

[Flash Walken]

Almost as if the team understood their skill deficit better than some of the fans watching.

Character is what separates good teams from great ones, it's talent that separates bad teams from good ones.

Last year, it was a complete lack of talent in the forward ranks that sewered the season, and the players played like they knew of that talent deficiency. Things fell apart because they knew they couldn't get back in the game with their skill deficit.

It's why the GM added a ####load of offensive players as his #1 priority this year.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not the way I see it.

Far too often the Flames would come out and out play the opposition, especially on home ice. It would feel like an inevitable win if they just kept doing what they were doing.

But then the opposition would score and you could see the team abandon everything they were doing in a panic to try and get that goal back on the very next shift.

That's mental toughness and if you're team doesn't have it, you had better hope your coaching staff does.

By Treliving's comments and then actions, it appears the coaching staff didn't

There's no doubt that the Flames bottom-6 exhibited a severe lack of offensive talent, and that is one of the bigger things that sunk their season.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Maybe in the fancy stats world, but in the real world the Flames got worked on most nights. The strategic weaknesses of their system were obvious and easy to defend against, then counter and take advantage of a poor defensive scheme. Early on those weaknesses were shielded by Smith's play. At the end, the weaknesses were obvious. Spending a lot of time in the offensive zone, generating low quality shots, is not outplaying the opposition, not when they can transition and put little pressure on the defense and generate great scoring opportunities and goals.

Man this gets old

What is fancy about it? Honestly. It's a world where you put more pucks towards the net than the opposition and run up more scoring chances.

If that's fancy to you I can't help you.

But yeah the team had a terrible bottom six, the top six had the talent and were pretty dominant but they just didn't finish to their career averages and that lack of production made the fact they were out playing the opposition almost useless because it rarely resulted on the scoreboard.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man this gets old

What is fancy about it? Honestly. It's a world where you put more pucks towards the net than the opposition and run up more scoring chances.

If that's fancy to you I can't help you.

But yeah the team had a terrible bottom six, the top six had the talent and were pretty dominant but they just didn't finish to their career averages and that lack of production made the fact they were out playing the opposition almost useless because it rarely resulted on the scoreboard.

I don't think it's actually an overstatement to suggest 80% of the lack of finish last year was our PP not cashing in. Special teams are key in the NHL now, and the Flames inability to take advantage of the man advantages they created with their play was certainly their down fall.

Score more on the PP, and this team makes the playoffs likely. I also think the issue on the PP looked like poor strategy to me, which makes me hopeful for the coaching change.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Man this gets old

I agree. Fancy stats just need to go away. They've been a crutch for fans of bad teams for years. They don't explain anything nor predict anything. They are a statistical excuses for bad systems and bad teams.

What is fancy about it? Honestly. It's a world where you put more pucks towards the net than the opposition and run up more scoring chances.

Throwing a ton of pucks at the net from low percentage areas does not trump a few pucks from high percentage areas. The Flames can skate around the perimeter and throw pucks from outside all night and all they do is generate a lot of shots with no goals. It ups the Corsi number and gives the fancy stats fans a crutch that the Flames are just experiencing bad luck. Nope. No bad luck involved. It was a failed system that had no hope of success, especially when your defensive scheme gives up tons of great scoring opportunities from high percentage scoring areas. More shots does not equate to outplaying the opposition. Especially if the opposition is allowing you to maintain position around the perimeter and just clog up the shooting lanes.


The Flames were like a college basketball team taking on the LA Lakers in the midst of their fast break glory days. The Lakers would let the college team grind out the clock and take low percentage shots from the outside, then kill them with a quick fast break transition.



This was the Flames problem the past two years. The opposition was well positioned and kept the Flames to the outside and made them take low percentage shots. When opportunity was there for a quick transition it resulted in the Flames being on their heals, giving up great scoring opportunities, and in the end a bunch of goals. Sure, the Flames spent a lot of time in the offensive zone, but they generated nothing of significance during most of that time. Conversely, the opposition got great opportunities and they capitalized on them with a greater level of efficiency.

But yeah the team had a terrible bottom six, the top six had the talent and were pretty dominant but they just didn't finish to their career averages and that lack of production made the fact they were out playing the opposition almost useless because it rarely resulted on the scoreboard.

It was system more than it was players. I really hope that Peters brings in a different system. If he doesn't, all of the retooling in the world won't make a bit of difference. The problems are systemic more than personnel. Yes, the additions should help, but if they play the same perimeter game and take the same useless shots from low percentage areas, we'll be reading more articles about Flames having bad luck or they are on the verge of breaking out, because fancy stats says so.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

I agree. Fancy stats just need to go away. They've been a crutch for fans of bad teams for years. They don't explain anything nor predict anything. They are a statistical excuses for bad systems and bad teams.


Throwing a ton of pucks at the net from low percentage areas does not trump a few pucks from high percentage areas. The Flames can skate around the perimeter and throw pucks from outside all night and all they do is generate a lot of shots with no goals. It ups the Corsi number and gives the fancy stats fans a crutch that the Flames are just experiencing bad luck. Nope. No bad luck involved. It was a failed system that had no hope of success, especially when your defensive scheme gives up tons of great scoring opportunities from high percentage scoring areas. More shots does not equate to outplaying the opposition. Especially if the opposition is allowing you to maintain position around the perimeter and just clog up the shooting lanes.


The Flames were like a college basketball team taking on the LA Lakers in the midst of their fast break glory days. The Lakers would let the college team grind out the clock and take low percentage shots from the outside, then kill them with a quick fast break transition.



This was the Flames problem the past two years. The opposition was well positioned and kept the Flames to the outside and made them take low percentage shots. When opportunity was there for a quick transition it resulted in the Flames being on their heals, giving up great scoring opportunities, and in the end a bunch of goals. Sure, the Flames spent a lot of time in the offensive zone, but they generated nothing of significance during most of that time. Conversely, the opposition got great opportunities and they capitalized on them with a greater level of efficiency.

It was system more than it was players. I really hope that Peters brings in a different system. If he doesn't, all of the retooling in the world won't make a bit of difference. The problems are systemic more than personnel. Yes, the additions should help, but if they play the same perimeter game and take the same useless shots from low percentage areas, we'll be reading more articles about Flames having bad luck or they are on the verge of breaking out, because fancy stats says so.

Dude you're simply wrong. It wasn't a team playing on the perimeter, they were 2nd in high danger chance splits, and fourth in out right high danger chances.

Their top six forwards had chance creation rates and dangerous pass rates that compare to the NHL's top offences.

I can see why you want "fancy" stats to go away, you don't seem to know how to use or find them.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Dude, you're simply wrong. Game outcomes and standings trump every stupid made up stat you want to dream up.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Dude, you're simply wrong. Game outcomes and standings trump every stupid made up stat you want to dream up.

Not dreaming up anything.

If you want to walk out cliches fill your boots, its September and I have time. But that doesn't change the fact that you made assertions that are easy to debunk.

The Flames had an uncharacteristically brutal shooting percentage year from players that generally get it done to league averages or better. They generated a lot of shot attempts which would include perimeter attempts, but also huge totals from inside the home plate area.

So no they didn't just play on the perimeter.
And no they didn't get kept to the outside taking low percentage shots.

Both are just untrue.

You can ignore the addition of deeper ways of looking at hockey all you want, but your ability to understand things won't be very deep if it only goes as far as game outcomes and standings.

You may as well shake your fist at me and tell me to get off your lawn.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

I agree. Fancy stats just need to go away. They've been a crutch for fans of bad teams for years. They don't explain anything nor predict anything. They are a statistical excuses for bad systems and bad teams.

Yes! Let's toss out data because it is not precisely accurately effective. We are much better off with LESS information and no attempted innovations.

Throwing a ton of pucks at the net from low percentage areas does not trump a few pucks from high percentage areas. The Flames can skate around the perimeter and throw pucks from outside all night and all they do is generate a lot of shots with no goals...

This does not at all describe how the Flames played last season. It shows rather clearly that you do not understand how all the numbers and analyses that Bingo uses actually work,.

This was the Flames problem the past two years. The opposition was well positioned and kept the Flames to the outside and made them take low percentage shots. When opportunity was there for a quick transition it resulted in the Flames being on their heals, giving up great scoring opportunities, and in the end a bunch of goals. Sure, the Flames spent a lot of time in the offensive zone, but they generated nothing of significance during most of that time. Conversely, the opposition got great opportunities and they capitalized on them with a greater level of efficiency.

No. This is all wrong. As has been discussed numerous times over the summer the Flames were leaders in the Hague at generating chances and shots from high-danger areas on the ice, well inside of the perimeter. The Flames's problems were not so simply reduced to shooting from the outside, but I suspect had primarily to do with timing and comfort. That is, players held the puck too long and made too many passes without shooting.

It was system more than it was players. I really hope that Peters brings in a different system. If he doesn't, all of the retooling in the world won't make a bit of difference. The problems are systemic more than personnel. Yes, the additions should help, but if they play the same perimeter game and take the same useless shots from low percentage areas, we'll be reading more articles about Flames having bad luck or they are on the verge of breaking out, because fancy stats says so.

Descriptions of Peters's system sound subtly different, but I suspect the biggest and most necessary change will come from having a stronger voice and persona behind the bench.

[ForeverFlameFan]

You both are right. We didn’t shoot enough times in the danger areas, or at least that’s how I saw it. But, i also saw a ton of bad puck luck and many posts/low shooting %’s by quite a few of our players.

We’re going to score more goals with this forward group has assembled. We’re perfectly capable to win games when JG and Monahan can’t bury the puck. We’ve got lots of options.

[Erick Estrada]

I'm so over last season. It was some of the worst Flames hockey I have seen since the pre-Darryl Sutter Flames. Another season like last year and there won't be much of a season ticket base left as customers were not entertained at all by Gulutzan's version of possession hockey. First time I can remember since the 90's the amount of company tickets that nobody wanted as you couldn't give them away.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

You may as well shake your fist at me and tell me to get off your lawn.

I would just like some acknowledgement that the stats are not consistent nor have been proven to show causality in any way what so ever. Those who ascribe to advanced stats are hardcore believers, even when the stats don't prove to be accurate in any shape or form.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Yes! Let's toss out data because it is not precisely accurately effective. We are much better off with LESS information and no attempted innovations.

Yes, let's toss out data that is not precisely accurate and effective. That's what you're supposed to do with bad data sets. That's my problem with advanced stats. Many of these stats don't make sense as the relations are not causal of anything. The attempt to model a very complex game with a greater degree of chaos in the mix, which cannot be done with very simplistic measures being used. This isn't baseball where any event is binary in nature. Many of the stats don't prove anything, and if anything have been proven to be bogus in what they do prove. That is why I would rather rely on the eyeballs than erroneous information.

Descriptions of Peters's system sound subtly different, but I suspect the biggest and most necessary change will come from having a stronger voice and persona behind the bench.

I hope this is accurate, because I'm not certain there is much difference between the two other than one being a swell guy and the other be crusty.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

I would just like some acknowledgement that the stats are not consistent nor have been proven to show causality in any way what so ever. Those who ascribe to advanced stats are hardcore believers, even when the stats don't prove to be accurate in any shape or form.


Yes, let's toss out data that is not precisely accurate and effective. That's what you're supposed to do with bad data sets. That's my problem with advanced stats. Many of these stats don't make sense as the relations are not causal of anything. The attempt to model a very complex game with a greater degree of chaos in the mix, which cannot be done with very simplistic measures being used. This isn't baseball where any event is binary in nature. Many of the stats don't prove anything, and if anything have been proven to be bogus in what they do prove. That is why I would rather rely on the eyeballs than erroneous information.

I hope this is accurate, because I'm not certain there is much difference between the two other than one being a swell guy and the other be crusty.

No stat is infallible, but no stat should be ignored because it can't be proven 100% linked to results either.

+/- has always been flawed because of circumstances that could build pluses or minuses despite not being the cause of good or bad.

Shots on goal used to mean you out played someone when really it only indicated that most of the time with no actual look to quality of shots

An independent source counting the number of times each team shoots the puck from within a predescribed area on the ice is an accurate and helpful tool. Not all shots from within that home plate are created equal but that doesn't change the fairly tight relationship that teams with more shot attempts in those dangerous areas generally win.

I've done nothing but challenge fancy stats. I just wrote an article that dug deeply into the types of passes each team makes to try and add some clarity as to whether or not the Flames were getting goalies moving enough to actually create a dangerous chance.

I challenge everything.

I don't throw out any information out of some archaic view that the scoreboard is the only thing that matters.

[bubbsy]

Too lazy to go back and try to figure this out but what are you 2 debating the value of advanced stat for exactly?

What does it have to do with brad 'fricken' treliving?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

What does it have to do with brad 'fricken' treliving?

Coaching choice and the quality of performance. Brad Treliving has done a damn good job with putting together the majority of the team, but I think he has wiffed on goaltending and coaching. These two continue to be his blind spot IMO. If he could find a fricken coach and a goaltender he could be considered as one of the best GMs in the game. Unfortunately these two key areas keep eluding him. Hopefully this year's coaching attempt improves the team in enough areas that shield the goaltending enough to where it also becomes a "strength."

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by New Era

Coaching choice and the quality of performance. Brad Treliving has done a damn good job with putting together the majority of the team, but I think he has wiffed on goaltending and coaching. These two continue to be his blind spot IMO. If he could find a fricken coach and a goaltender he could be considered as one of the best GMs in the game. Unfortunately these two key areas keep eluding him. Hopefully this year's coaching attempt improves the team in enough areas that shield the goaltending enough to where it also becomes a "strength."

What's bingo's position/rebuttal exactly?? Advanced stats show coaching was ok?