[Game Takes] Stars 2 Flames 0

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

Ya it's so weird how we have
- better Goaltending
- a better Gaudreau
- have added Hamonic
- Tkachuk no sophomore slump
- a coach that has had a year to deploy and teach his system
- basically zero injuries on defense.

.....and we are literally no better then we were last season.

Can anyone else explain that for me? Because it is mind boggling.

You are at the point I came to about a month ago.

Add to your list that Jankowski has exceeded expectations
and Hamilton is the top goal scoring D-man in the league

How is this team not fine tuning for a playoff run?


I think that Management has come to the same conclusion between the time they signed Backlund saying they believed in the team they had assembled was good enough to contend and the trade deadline where they did nothing.

What worries me is that I don't see the way they improve. Basically they need to get lucky.

Right now it is as though they are setting up the blame the goalie excuse as it would be totally unexpected if Riitch/Gillies don't cost them a game or 2 down the stretch or even a back from injury Smith.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by nemanja2306

Glen Gulutzan.

Maybe but usually it is enough to get your key players to play to their potential.

Outside of Brodie who is not playing to their potential?

Bring in a new coach that ticks off one of Gaudreau, Monahan, Gio, Hamilton, Tkachuk, Backlund and this team drops rather than improves.

All of these guys are playing great for GG. A sutter-type coach might break Hamilton.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Score effects certainly play a role, but they don't change what I said ... the eye test matched the stats. The Flames controlled the last 35 minutes of the game.

And the Stars had 7 scoring chances the whole night in all situations, four of them five on five. So "nearly trickling through only to be foiled by posts" are included in the 7 and 4.

If you give up four five on five scoring chances on a night you win a huge majority of the time.

Score adjusted the Flames were 58.5% of shot attempts and 67% of the scoring chances.

The Flames played well.

Score adjustments are imperfect. Reality is this: when the game was tied,or within one, the Stars were the better team:



After taking a 2-0 lead they could afford to stop taking risks and focus on playing a clean game without any awful turnovers that would put Bishop in a bad situation. They did what they had to to get a shutout. The Flames lacked a second wave of offense even with time winding down, and while they did get more agregate shots, they never established much cross-ice / backdoor / turnover / pinch based action. It was forwards cycling and shooting on Bishop. He didn't have an easy night but didn't have a difficult one. The best saves Bishop made were on Matt Stajan and TJ Brodie and those two may not have ten goals combined at the end of the year.

The eye test tells me the Flames were not awful but they were not particularily good while the Stars played well and got great goaltending as a bonus.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Score adjustments are imperfect. Reality is this: when the game was tied,or within one, the Stars were the better team:

Well those two lines are practically humping in the range that you are calling Dallas better.

I said they were the better team and admitted that score effects play a role. Looked it up and posted the score adjusted values.

Not sure what else I can say.

Opening of the Flamesnation game story ...

I mean, sometimes you just run into a talented goalie having a great night and, no matter how many pucks you throw at him or how many high quality chances you generate on the powerplay, it’s just not going to go your way. It happens.

I guess they were fooled by made up stats too.

Oh and looks like the Dallas beat reporter and some of the Stars saw it the same way as well ...

Bishop was spectacular, stopping 38 shots to earn his 24th career shutout. He helped foil the Flames' power play and also stopped several shorthanded chances while the Stars' power play was fumbling the puck.

All in all, it was the kind of performance the team was seeking when it signed Bishop to a six-year contract in the summer.

"It was awesome. He was our best player tonight, by far," said Shore. "He was steady, he was in position all the time, he made every save and kind of made the saves look easy when they weren't. He was on his game, and it was great to see."

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Score adjustments are imperfect. Reality is this: when the game was tied,or within one, the Stars were the better team:



After taking a 2-0 lead they could afford to stop taking risks and focus on playing a clean game without any awful turnovers that would put Bishop in a bad situation. They did what they had to to get a shutout. The Flames lacked a second wave of offense even with time winding down, and while they did get more agregate shots, they never established much cross-ice / backdoor / turnover / pinch based action. It was forwards cycling and shooting on Bishop. He didn't have an easy night but didn't have a difficult one. The best saves Bishop made were on Matt Stajan and TJ Brodie and those two may not have ten goals combined at the end of the year.

The eye test tells me the Flames were not awful but they were not particularily good while the Stars played well and got great goaltending as a bonus.

Great chart... Would it be hard to generate as a reply for Game Takes on a regular basis?

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well those two lines are practically humping in the range that you are calling Dallas better.

I said they were the better team and admitted that score effects play a role. Looked it up and posted the score adjusted values.

Not sure what else I can say.

Opening of the Flamesnation game story ...



I guess they were fooled by made up stats too.

Oh and looks like the Dallas beat reporter and some of the Stars saw it the same way as well ...

How are these stats generated ? Who decides what a chance is? Are these guys actually watching these games anf make notes or are they looking at heat maps etc to see where the shorts came from?

I am first to admit that I never paid attention to these stats, but this has peaked my interest now.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Red

How are these stats generated ? Who decides what a chance is? Are these guys actually watching these games anf make notes or are they looking at heat maps etc to see where the shorts came from?

I am first to admit that I never paid attention to these stats, but this has peaked my interest now.

The NHL has counters in every building, and then a data scrape made available to web sites.

High Danger scoring chances are the count of shot attempts within the home plate shaped area in front of the net.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The NHL has counters in every building, and then a data scrape made available to web sites.

High Danger scoring chances are the count of shot attempts within the home plate shaped area in front of the net.

So the one thing I noticed about the Flames is that they are in between the dots a lot, but usually in traffic or in less than ready positions to shoot. Monahan is the one guy that stands out with his point blank chances, but everybody else seems to be in an awkward position to shoot or in scrambles. Is it skill or positioning? We all have our own ideas there.

But I believe that this is where the eye test is still the best way to judge a game. The 17-7 scoring chances result last night looks like a domination by the Flames, but it really wasn't. It was a lot closer than that IMO.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Red

So the one thing I noticed about the Flames is that they are in between the dots a lot, but usually in traffic or in less than ready positions to shoot. Monahan is the one guy that stands out with his point blank chances, but everybody else seems to be in an awkward position to shoot or in scrambles. Is it skill or positioning? We all have our own ideas there.

But I believe that this is where the eye test is still the best way to judge a game. The 17-7 scoring chances result last night looks like a domination by the Flames, but it really wasn't. It was a lot closer than that IMO.

And your opinion is valid.

I was just pointing out my eye test matched the stats, and also matched the view of Flamesnation as well as the Dallas media and their players.

That's not a guy seeing only what he wants to see.

I'm a hockey coach, so I'm very much about the process, probably to an extreme over the results. If my kids play well I'm happy. I'm actually more uncomfortable when the Flames win and don't deserve to than I am when they play well but don't get the puck luck or finish they need.

However it seems like there is a huge element on this site these days that want to believe everything is wrong after a loss, and get almost angry with anyone who isn't as negative.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And your opinion is valid.

I was just pointing out my eye test matched the stats, and also matched the view of Flamesnation as well as the Dallas media and their players.

That's not a guy seeing only what he wants to see.

I'm a hockey coach, so I'm very much about the process, probably to an extreme over the results. If my kids play well I'm happy. I'm actually more uncomfortable when the Flames win and don't deserve to than I am when they play well but don't get the puck luck or finish they need.

However it seems like there is a huge element on this site these days that want to believe everything is wrong after a loss, and get almost angry with anyone who isn't as negative.

There is an element on the rosy side that gets quite fired up as well. GG is a very polarizing figure, pretty sure we can all agree

Either way. Bishop made 38 saves for a shut out win. Would be pretty hard to not give him rave reviews by his own teammates or media guys. And it was a close game, the Flames had zone time so it wasn't an easy win for Dallas. But Flames domination to the tune of 7-17 was not what I saw. More or less a decent game with not enough desperation.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

?


I think that Management has come to the same conclusion between the time they signed Backlund saying they believed in the team they had assembled was good enough to contend and the trade deadline where they did nothing.

This just doesn't jive.
- This management group hasn't done a lot historically at the deadline. They get their work done in the summer. So it isn't unusual or a shift in behavior not to see a big change at the TDL
- We don't know that they didn't TRY to do something.
- The prices paid at the deadline were steep for adding quality players.

I don't think they shifted their strategy. The fan base reacts (or over-reacts) to the day to day, but it seems clear to me that the GM and management are taking a longer view. I don't see the lack of a deadline deal, that probably would have been a poor one in the long-term, signals a shift in how they look at this team since they re-signed Backlund.

[mikephoen]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I am seeing a trend which is the opposite of the 14-15 Hartley campaign. Then it was winning, with a bunch of explanation how it was lucky and not sustainable. This year it is too many shoddy results with a bunch of excuses letting us know that advanced stats indicate domination of play and bad luck.

Then they were under dogs playing fast and with heart. The find a way Flames. Now they often play slow when they have possession and particularly when they are not on the rush.

Maybe we need to look at the assumptions behind the stats more so than drawing conclusions. There are far, far too many games where the stats are defied to warrant giving said stats such merit.

Another possibility is that all the results are just dumb luck. With all the parity in the league, giant goaltenders and rock solid defensive coaching systems, any goal that goes in is down to dumb luck. A huge percentage of goals are scored on deflections or rebounds (lucky bounces). Even when a team gets a two on one or a breakaway, the play that led to that is likely a lucky bounce.

Add in injuries, which is another mostly luck related element, and is this whole game much different than a game of chance?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

This just doesn't jive.
- This management group hasn't done a lot historically at the deadline. They get their work done in the summer. So it isn't unusual or a shift in behavior not to see a big change at the TDL
- We don't know that they didn't TRY to do something.
- The prices paid at the deadline were steep for adding quality players.

I don't think they shifted their strategy. The fan base reacts (or over-reacts) to the day to day, but it seems clear to me that the GM and management are taking a longer view. I don't see the lack of a deadline deal, that probably would have been a poor one in the long-term, signals a shift in how they look at this team since they re-signed Backlund.

Signing Backlund signaled that they thought that this was winning team and locked all the core in for the next 3 years.

And then they decided to go with 2 rookie goalies down the stretch?

Take a step away and say it was San Jose or LA or Colorado were going to go with a couple of rookie goalies with a total of 26 NHL games between them with their #1 on IR.

Pretty sure that the consensus would be that the non-Flames team's management looked and said this was not a team that was ready for the playoffs..... basically writing off the season.

Riitch was not good enough to cover for the weak zone coverage last night but would be shocking he and Gillies don't actually lose a couple of games.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

and yet they decided to go with 2 rookie goalies down the stretch?

Take a step away and say it was San Jose or LA or Colorado were going to go with a couple of rookie goalies with a total of 26 NHL games between them with their #1 on IR.

Pretty sure that the consensus would be that the non-Flames team's management looked and said this was not a team that was ready for the playoffs..... basically writing off the season.

Riitch was not good enough to cover for the weak zone coverage last night but would be shocking he and Gillies don't actually lose a couple of games.

They didn't decide to do that. An injury forced it.
I think they likely looked around at veteran options and decided that any of the options weren't better than the rookies.
Which is probably true.

But no I don't think management looked at the team and wrote off the season.

[Bingo]

Jesus ... I'm about to agree with Ricardo

I don't think they wrote off the season, but I do think they decided not spend assets to "save" the season because too many things haven't been right this season.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Jesus ... I'm about to agree with Ricardo

I don't think they wrote off the season, but I do think they decided not spend assets to "save" the season because too many things haven't been right this season.

I feel... unclean

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

This just doesn't jive.
- This management group hasn't done a lot historically at the deadline. They get their work done in the summer. So it isn't unusual or a shift in behavior not to see a big change at the TDL
- We don't know that they didn't TRY to do something.
- The prices paid at the deadline were steep for adding quality players.

I don't think they shifted their strategy. The fan base reacts (or over-reacts) to the day to day, but it seems clear to me that the GM and management are taking a longer view. I don't see the lack of a deadline deal, that probably would have been a poor one in the long-term, signals a shift in how they look at this team since they re-signed Backlund.

I agree with you that management is generally taking a longer view and wasn’t looking to try and fix everything, or anything, at the deadline. But you have to admit that this longer view has involved a lot of trading picks for players to help immediately. Look at the moves over the last 12 months.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by mikephoen

Another possibility is that all the results are just dumb luck. With all the parity in the league, giant goaltenders and rock solid defensive coaching systems, any goal that goes in is down to dumb luck. A huge percentage of goals are scored on deflections or rebounds (lucky bounces). Even when a team gets a two on one or a breakaway, the play that led to that is likely a lucky bounce.

Add in injuries, which is another mostly luck related element, and is this whole game much different than a game of chance?

A glance at the individual scoring leaders tells me the game is not about dumb luck.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well those two lines are practically humping in the range that you are calling Dallas better.

I said they were the better team and admitted that score effects play a role. Looked it up and posted the score adjusted values.

Not sure what else I can say.

Opening of the Flamesnation game story ...



I guess they were fooled by made up stats too.

Oh and looks like the Dallas beat reporter and some of the Stars saw it the same way as well ...

My interpretation of GEV’s chart is that teams were even for first 18 minutes, Stars were the better team from there until they take a 2 to zero lead in the second, after which time they changed their approach. Which could have backfired for them if Bishop hadn’t played so well or if Flames could finish.

It doesn’t really make me feel Flames were better when it mattered.