Flames Nation - Random thoughts - Prepping For The Second Half

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Gaskal

Didn't Engelland find some decent chemistry with Russell in the preseason? Should give that combo a try again.

I think so. And I think Hartley also even had that combo together for a few games during the early part of this regular season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Karl

I think so. And I think Hartley also even had that combo together for a few games during the early part of this regular season.

And Wideman Diaz/Smid? Ouch.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

And Wideman Diaz/Smid? Ouch.

Yeah, Wideman with Smid/Diaz doesn't look exactly ideal either. To be fair though, I think that was also the time when Wideman was playing like serious crap and then got scratched for a game.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Well written article for the most part, but it seems the writer looked more at the stats and didn't watch enough games.

I disagree with re-signing GlenX if we could get a pick or young roster player for him at the deadline.

I also disagree with the Colborne hate. He's becoming an effective RWer and his poor possession results are due to being a passing machine at the start of the year (8 assists in 9 games I believe). It's also a result of him being ineffective in his time at centre and coming back from injury when everyone else is in peak condition.

As for the second half, the Flames couldn't be in a better position. Finally healthy, have already faced adversity and are hungry as ever. Not to mention this team is full of young developing players who are getting more confident as the year progresses.

I agree - pretty good article.

But his absolute faith in possession stats is what turns me off. He believes completely in making roster decisions, based solely on possession stats. That is the kind of thing that gives these stats a bad name.

[Wastedyouth]

Kent is hard on Colborne, because frankly, he just isn't all that good. He has flashes of decent games but more often than not he just doesn't do a whole lot that is useful on the ice. And it shows. In both his counting stats, his underlying possession numbers and even by the eye test.

[GioforPM]

Counting stats? Colborne is over a .5 PPG. He had a low production period right after his return, but his last 4-6 games were very good, and he's started to shoot and score. He's been good on FOs when he takes them, well over 50% most games.

My eye test says different from yours. So, apparently are some other posters. I'm not sure what you are looking for, because I see his play as quite useful.

[JayP]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I agree - pretty good article.

But his absolute faith in possession stats is what turns me off. He believes completely in making roster decisions, based solely on possession stats. That is the kind of thing that gives these stats a bad name.

Well, when those stats are that ugly for a guy like Colbourne it's hard not to. If you have any faith in Corsi, it's impossible not to think there's an issue with a player when he's getting 39% of the shot attempts - McGrattan and other enforcers can put up those kind of numbers.

Colbourne looks okay out there, but I wouldn't say he passes the eye test easily by any means. His advantage is that he's got some pretty good hands so he's capable of making the odd impressive play here and there which people end up remembering (more so than most other bottom 6 players - who are the players that tend to have terrible Corsi).

[Bingo]

I've tried really hard to become an advanced stats guy this year because I've always been a eye test hockey fan and I thought the marriage of the two would give balance.

However there always seems to be times when the two are so different they don't add up.

Glencross drives me crazy and Colborne seems to be coming along. That's a statement. Why so different than the possession stats?

1) Are straight shot attempts for and against as a measure flawed?
2) Why does Colborne get no credit for the save percentage on the ice if he's going to be hammered for the other stats? That seems inconsistent to me. Maybe he's a factor in forcing less quality shots when he's on the ice.
3) Bias? Maybe I don't like Glencross and it's clouding my judgement

Either way I put it with the Flames in November and early December. Bad possession stats but they looked good. They weren't getting out played.

Now? I see the team from last year that chips away pucks all the time and seems to press. I buy their bad possession now.

Any way ... always interesting.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've tried really hard to become an advanced stats guy this year because I've always been a eye test hockey fan and I thought the marriage of the two would give balance.

However there always seems to be times when the two are so different they don't add up.

Glencross drives me crazy and Colborne seems to be coming along. That's a statement. Why so different than the possession stats?

1) Are straight shot attempts for and against as a measure flawed?
2) Why does Colborne get no credit for the save percentage on the ice if he's going to be hammered for the other stats? That seems inconsistent to me. Maybe he's a factor in forcing less quality shots when he's on the ice.
3) Bias? Maybe I don't like Glencross and it's clouding my judgement

Either way I put it with the Flames in November and early December. Bad possession stats but they looked good. They weren't getting out played.

Now? I see the team from last year that chips away pucks all the time and seems to press. I buy their bad possession now.

Any way ... always interesting.

I think you're doing it wrong.

First off, everyone should drop "advanced" from advanced stats. They really aren't advanced and are all based on the same metric - shot attempts. The term "advanced" makes it sound like it should provide something it can't. Shot attempts are a very useful stat in determining who was in possession of the puck in an area to shoot more often, but that's where it ends. Shot attempts do not measure possession, they are an assumed surrogate. Elite teams ALWAYS have good corsi, but terrible teams don't always have bad corsi. Some middling teams can have terrible corsi and some bad teams will have great corsi. That is why they're so many bad conclusions drawn from it. If elite teams have high corsi, then the higher the corsi, the better the team right? No. However, if you want to be elite, you have to be good at controlling the play. In fact, of the 11 worst corsi rated teams since blocked/missed shots stayed being tracked (05/06), for of them made the playoffs. Conversely, almost every team in the top 20 or so made it.

If you watch the elite teams (Chicago, etc) they regularly outshoot their opponents by a considerable margin. That's because they're good at almost all areas of controlling the puck. Lots of other stats back that up too. The elite teams have to be good defensively. The stat for goals against is useful here, as is corsi or many others.

Corsi needs to be renamed "shots taken" and then it might be used in the correct context. It also is more useful game by game, rather than in aggregate. For example, that Chicago game early really skewed things for a while. However, if you watch a single game, shot attempts regularly agree with what happened (as long as you're not emotionally invested in one team or the other).

The eye test will always always be different between an impartial viewer vs a viewer of one's favourite team. Just go compare this forum game thread vs that of the opposing teams'. It's quite remarkable how different the eye test can be. That's why looking at numbers for some can give you insight into what actually happened.
Want an overrated relatively useless stat? Faceoff winning percentage. There are relatively few situations where it matters. Don't get me wrong, a good faceoff center had used within the game, but face off winning percentage has little correlation with winning.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlameZilla

Byron on the top line? Is there an advanced-stats reason for that?

Yes, because it's not a "top line" in the traditional sense it's the "tough minutes line"... the line that takes the defensive zone draws against other teams scoring lines in order to push the puck to the other end so that the other lines start out in more favorable circumstances.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Corsi needs to be renamed "shots taken" and then it might be used in the correct context.

To be even more accurate it should be Shots Taken Differential. I like advanced stats but I dislike the naming convention they've taken on.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Counting stats? Colborne is over a .5 PPG. He had a low production period right after his return, but his last 4-6 games were very good, and he's started to shoot and score. He's been good on FOs when he takes them, well over 50% most games.

My eye test says different from yours. So, apparently are some other posters. I'm not sure what you are looking for, because I see his play as quite useful.

He's had 5 shots in his last 5 games. Scored on 3 of them. I don't see much from him except on the pp or those few chances we get pressure in the offensive end and he stands in front of the net.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

He's had 5 shots in his last 5 games. Scored on 3 of them. I don't see much from him except on the pp or those few chances we get pressure in the offensive end and he stands in front of the net.

I think he's been carrying the puck in effectively, going deep and protecting the puck.

3 goals in 5 games is pretty good. 12 points in 22 games isn't bad. He's way ahead of last year's pace and I thought the concensus was that it was a good year.

The kid's essentially a second year NHLer, so IMO he's doing well. Comparing him to a Glencross isn't very fair. He's an asset that's rare on this team, with his size.

[FBI]

Judging players solely by their corsi is very Edmonton-esque.. Let's not go down that road.

[jemjey]

Originally Posted by FBI

Judging players solely by their corsi is very Edmonton-esque.. Let's not go down that road.

exactly my thoughts after reading this article. Such an oilers-esque approach to making hockey decisions. I'm a believer that stats ('advanced" or otherwise) should be used to support your claims/decisions/ideas, not to formulate them - in hockey and in other areas.

I hope management continues to judge our players based on what they see on the ice and by the only stat that matters: wins.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by JayP

Well, when those stats are that ugly for a guy like Colbourne it's hard not to. If you have any faith in Corsi, it's impossible not to think there's an issue with a player when he's getting 39% of the shot attempts - McGrattan and other enforcers can put up those kind of numbers.

Colbourne looks okay out there, but I wouldn't say he passes the eye test easily by any means. His advantage is that he's got some pretty good hands so he's capable of making the odd impressive play here and there which people end up remembering (more so than most other bottom 6 players - who are the players that tend to have terrible Corsi).

Yeah, but Colborne is a perfect example of how stats - by averaging the games - don't catch trends.

First of all, this is a really small sample size, which makes it pretty much useless for analysis. Because...

When he came back, he was a step behind and the team was mired in a terrible slump. Ergo, terrible possession numbers.

However, he has been steadily improving since then. But these numbers are an aggregate over the whole period - they don't see bad for a while but getting better, they just see the total. And the total, small sample size, has been bad.

Colborne has been pretty good for the past few games IMO, after being pretty shaky for a while.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by FBI

Judging players solely by their corsi is very Edmonton-esque.. Let's not go down that road.

No one is doing that. They do provide some objective context.

The fact still remains the flames get wildly outshot while he's on the ice. That's not an opinion. He certainly has some positives, but you can't simply ignore it because the stat has "advanced" in front of it

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, but Colborne is a perfect example of how stats - by averaging the games - don't catch trends.

First of all, this is a really small sample size, which makes it pretty much useless for analysis. Because...

When he came back, he was a step behind and the team was mired in a terrible slump. Ergo, terrible possession numbers.

However, he has been steadily improving since then. But these numbers are an aggregate over the whole period - they don't see bad for a while but getting better, they just see the total. And the total, small sample size, has been bad.

Colborne has been pretty good for the past few games IMO, after being pretty shaky for a while.

If you take out the 5 game period when he came back and the whole team was sucking at the same time, he looks pretty darn good. Hartley recognized it - look at his ice time in the last few games versus the few beforehand.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Parallex

To be even more accurate it should be Shots Taken Differential. I like advanced stats but I dislike the naming convention they've taken on.

STD?

Sounds about as enjoyable as reading that author's writing. He really uses stats to shape the narrative rather than observing the game and trying to support his hypotheses

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If you take out the 5 game period when he came back and the whole team was sucking at the same time, he looks pretty darn good. Hartley recognized it - look at his ice time in the last few games versus the few beforehand.

I find it interesting how you go to lengths to explain away anything negative about Colborne because he's a good player in your mind but you criticize those who say Baertschi has not had the same opportunities as other Flames prospects as making excuses for him.

Three goals in five games in small sample size? That's what Baertshi did in his first five games in the NHL. PPG? Baertshi's ahead there. Time to develop, choice assignments and PP time? Colborne has the advantage there too.

I'm on the fence about Colborne but I think he has benefitted from more patience and latitude than any other developing player on the Flames and I'm still not convinced he's going to be a long-term fulltime NHL player.