[PGT] Flames lay an egg

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It seems like you do. Which is why I said "you SEEMS convinced ..."

So, do you believe the Flames were bleeding high quality chances last night? Or do you think that most of the Canucks offensive zone pressure was pretty routine?

And I am convinced that they are flawed but still highly informative and useful.

Oh noes. We have drawn different conclusions.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

IMO the quality of Canuck chances in the first was pretty poor and the shots were really misleading. Unfortunately I think their chances got better as the game went on. At the end of the day, the Flames got outplayed and out chanced, albeit not by the margin that basic stats suggest.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Does this not remind of the DAL series? Talbot had an incredible game that series too.

Why is it that opponents hem CGY in and CGY is unable to make any plays (like can't connect simple passes) and just have to hold on - only able to dump pucks into nz.

The players have had numerous terrible periods where they barely generate shots.

What is the root cause of all this? What does Treliving think (I realize only he knows this but I'm wondering if they answers beyond "for whatever reason we couldn't execute ").

I have no idea why this group is so mercurial, but it is something I have regarded as a serious problem for some time now.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

IMO the quality of Canuck chances in the first was pretty poor and the shots were really misleading. Unfortunately I think their chances got better as the game went on. At the end of the day, the Flames got outplayed and out chanced, albeit not by the margin that basic stats suggest.

I totally agree. The game was awful and the Flames were awful. Even still, people are prone to exaggerate how bad it was and I find that irritating. No, the Flames are not as bad as the Ottawa Senators. No, Jacob Markstrom was not the difference between 2 and 9 goals allowed. And no, he is not the only reason they had won three straight before last night.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Red]

[QUOTE=Textcritic;7739078]It seems like you do. Which is why I said "it SEEMS like ..."

So, do you believe the Flanes were bleeding high quality chances last night? Or do you think that most of the Canucks offensive zone pressure was pretty routine?

I'm convinced that HDSC stats are very misleading. Because of the criteria they use./QUOTE]
And I am convinced that they are flawed but still highly informative and useful.

Oh noes. We have drawn different conclusions.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Woukd have to define what bleeding chances means.

I think the Canucks had many great chances while the Flames did not.
Was it in the near 3 to 1 ratio like the shots? No. But enough to win by 5 if not for Markstrom. He made a few incredible saves. Demko had an easy night.

Stats that are derived from flawed formulas are the furthest thing from useful or informative. They are completely useless. I can't beleive that had to be said lol.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I have no idea why this group is so mercurial, but it is something I have regarded as a serious problem for some time now.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Honest question. Are other teams that are deemed to be “average to above average” as inconsistent as the Flames? I have no idea because I only follow the flames closely. My guess is that most teams in this category are pretty inconsistent and that’s the main differentiator to get to that next “Elite” class of teams. I don’t think the Flames are unique in that regard within their category.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by heep223

Honest question. Are other teams that are deemed to be “average to above average” as inconsistent as the Flames? I have no idea because I only follow the flames closely. My guess is that most teams in this category are pretty inconsistent and that’s the main differentiator to get to that next “Elite” class of teams. I don’t think the Flames are unique in that regard within their category.

I think if you went on other fan sites you’d see very similar complaints: slow starts, playing down to opposition, fragile when something bad happens, general inconsistency, a whipping boy or two that we as Flames fans might be surprised at.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I think if you went on other fan sites you’d see very similar complaints: slow starts, playing down to opposition, fragile when something bad happens, general inconsistency, a whipping boy or two that we as Flames fans might be surprised at.

Agreed. Winnipeg comes to mind as a team in much the same performance category and market as the Flames. They just lost to Ottawa...I’m sure their PGT from that game is much the same as ours.

I don’t know what the conclusion is but I guess it would be that there’s nothing exclusively “wrong” with the Flames. They’re not elite. They’re trying to become elite. In the meantime, not every bad game needs to be met with the vitriol that we see around here towards the players and the coaches.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

Woukd have to define what bleeding chances means.



I think the Canucks had many great chances while the Flames did not.

Was it in the near 3 to 1 ratio like the shots? No. But enough to win by 5 if not for Markstrom. He made a few incredible saves. Demko had an easy night.

I completely disagree. I thought Markstrom was very busy, made some big saves, but there were a high number of mostly routine chances. On the other side I thought Demko's night was mostly quiet, but he also still had to make several big saves.

Stats that are derived from flawed formulas are the furthest thing from useful or informative. They are completely useless. I can't beleive that had to be said lol.

I also disagree with this. The statistics are not perfect, but that also most definitely does not render them useless. I think it is a work in progress.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I completely disagree. I thought Markstrom was very busy, made some big saves, but there were a high number of mostly routine chances. On the other side I thought Demko's night was mostly quiet, but he also still had to make several big saves.




I also disagree with this. The statistics are not perfect, but that also most definitely does not render them useless. I think it is a work in progress.


Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Statistics are a collection of data. If you collect correct data, you get correct statistics.

If you get incomplete or wrong data, these statistics are by default incorrect.

We already established that HDSC data is incorrect, yet you find these incorrect statistics useful and use them to support your takes on hockey games. And you of all people here get irritated when people see the games different that you? That is a whole new jar of pickles.

Anyways, agree to disagree. Or somewhat disagree. Not really sure what your point really is anymore. Sounds like you also think the Canucks were the better team after all.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by heep223

Agreed. Winnipeg comes to mind as a team in much the same performance category and market as the Flames. They just lost to Ottawa...I’m sure their PGT from that game is much the same as ours.

I don’t know what the conclusion is but I guess it would be that there’s nothing exclusively “wrong” with the Flames. They’re not elite. They’re trying to become elite. In the meantime, not every bad game needs to be met with the vitriol that we see around here towards the players and the coaches.

Just look on a Winnipeg site at what they think of Wheeler, and I’ve seen them complain about Conner as well.

[FlamesAddiction]

It wasn't just a loss. It was one of the worst performances this team has mustered in years. Anyone can check my posting history after a loss, and I rarely get too low after. Last night was a complete debacle from the moment the puck dropped. Everything from effort, lack of execution and poor tactical decisions.

Was anyone watching when the game was tied 1-1 with 5 minutes left and thinking it was actually a close game? Even if the Flames miraculously pulled off a win, it would have been embarrassing.

I hope the close score doesn't allow the players or coaches downplay what we saw last night. If it does, I would have rather them lose 10-0 to drive the point home. Something isn't right behind the scenes. I won't speculate specifics, but I would bet that there is something going on behind the scenes that is driving a wedge into the team. There is no way this roster should put up an effort like that if there wasn't more to the story.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

Statistics are a collection of data. If you collect correct data, you get correct statistics.

If you get incomplete or wrong data, these statistics are by default incorrect.

You are wrong.

Incomplete data produces an incomplete picture. It's not "incorrect" so much as it is partial and not precise. I think it is much like any science: opinions about the age of the earth have changed numerous times over the past two centuries in the development of the study of geology. We understand previous attempts as "wrong" in the sense that they were not as precise, but these earlier calculations proved at the same time to be very useful.

We already established that HDSC data is incorrect,..

No one has "established" this. I see a bunch of varying opinions about the accuracy of certain aspects in measuring HDSC, and an awareness that there are degrees of accuracy on the basis of other criteria.

, agree to disagree. Or somewhat disagree. Not really sure what your point really is anymore. Sounds like you also think the Canucks were the better team after all.

Yes. The Canucks were the better team and absolutely deserved to win. My irritation and my point is that several people exaggerate a bad performance into something much worse than it actually was. It's unnecessary, and unhelpful.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

Imo you have to try a new proven coach before you blow it all up. It would seem silly not to. On paper this team is better than the team that was 1st in the West under Peters.

I made this point on overtime last night, I like our ownership but it baffles me how they could invest so much time and money into the core and not just spend some more incremental dollars for a PROVEN head coach. I don’t get the ward signing at all.

I also argued that on balance, if you were to separate out broadly “players coaches” (GG and Ward) and “hardass coaches” (peters Hartley) it’s pretty clear to me that the hardasses get the most out of this group. Pat tried to argue with me by citing the Colorado playoff collapse, which yeah wasn’t great, but on balance the two biggest achievements of the last ten years were a playoff series win and finishing first in the west which happened under peters and Hartley. We should have ponied up for a coach with some edge and pedigree. Pat mentioned that the players really like ward and I’m sure they do, but for reasons that are incongruent with actually winning hockey games like he lets them off the hook and plays music at practice.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I made this point on overtime last night, I like our ownership but it baffles me how they could invest so much time and money into the core and not just spend some more incremental dollars for a PROVEN head coach. I don’t get the ward signing at all.

I also argued that on balance, if you were to separate out broadly “players coaches” (GG and Ward) and “hardass coaches” (peters Hartley) it’s pretty clear to me that the hardasses get the most out of this group. Pat tried to argue with me by citing the Colorado playoff collapse, which yeah wasn’t great, but on balance the two biggest achievements of the last ten years were a playoff series win and finishing first in the west which happened under peters and Hartley. We should have ponied up for a coach with some edge and pedigree. Pat mentioned that the players really like ward and I’m sure they do, but for reasons that are incongruent with actually winning hockey games like he lets them off the hook and plays music at practice.

I totally agree with you. I think player coaches only work when you have a very professional and disciplined group. I suspect that there are certain key players on this team that do not fall into that group.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I think that’s the reason why people are upset and complaining now.

It’s not getting better. For like, literally, years.

When do we get permission to critique?

Sorry if it’s too negative for sensitivities but maybe people wouldn’t complain if the players put forth an effort. Here’s the thing and I mean this so sincerely and genuinely. If this team went 0-56 this year but looked like they were trying and gave a ####, I would be happier than I am watching disinterested spoiled entitlement float around and randomly decide when to plug in.

Personally I want to cheer for a team that cares and that puts effort in on a consistent basis.

Which NHL teams do this?

Tampa, Boston, maybe a couple others are a handful just about every night. Everyone else has their lapses in play and output.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Which NHL teams do this?

Tampa, Boston, maybe a couple others are a handful just about every night. Everyone else has their lapses in play and output.

I’ve seen my fair share of Boston this year and they have their off moments - not usually whole games mind you. Last game they allowed 42 shots and lost 4-2 to the Isles.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are wrong.

Incomplete data produces an incomplete picture. It's not "incorrect" so much as it is partial and not precise. I think it is much like any science: opinions about the age of the earth have changed numerous times over the past two centuries in the development of the study of geology. We understand previous attempts as "wrong" in the sense that they were not as precise, but these earlier calculations proved at the same time to be very useful.


No one has "established" this. I see a bunch of varying opinions about the accuracy of certain aspects in measuring HDSC, and an awareness that there are degrees of accuracy on the basis of other criteria.


Yes. The Canucks were the better team and absolutely deserved to win. My irritation and my point is that several people exaggerate a bad performance into something much worse than it actually was. It's unnecessary, and unhelpful.

Just stop. It's nonsense.

HDSC is a collection of very specific events. It's clearly defined.

A breakaway or an Ovechkin shot from the slot is not one for instance. Nothing else to say here. It's a junk stat. Do yourself a favour and stop relying on in. Better yet, do CP a favour and don't use it to correct others. It's just silly.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

Just stop. It's nonsense.



HDSC is a collection of very specific events. It's clearly defined.



A breakaway or an Ovechkin shot from the slot is not one for instance. Nothing else to say here. It's a junk stat. Do yourself a favour and stop relying on in. Better yet, do CP a favour and don't use it to correct others. It's just silly.

Who the hell do you think you are speaking for the entire community? Bingo's game write-ups are regularly informed by all sorts of hockey metrics that you have rather impetuously dismissed.

Feel free to ignore the HDSC criteria, and to dismiss it as "nonsense." But don't pass your narrow-minded certitude off as group think. I have been here long enough to know that it is idiotic to pretend that "CP" thinks one thing or the other.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[DeluxeMoustache]

Flames last 3 games: 3-1
Flames record vs Van this season: 3-1

CP:

[Psytic]

Do they still track time on attack? High danger or not if the other team is skating around with possession Harlem Globe Trotter style and your team is constantly hemmed in that's going to wear on your defense and goalie eventually, and it did in the end. Keep doing that with better teams like the Leafs and Habs or in the PO and its not a recipe for success how ever you slice it IMO. You cant score from your own end of the ice unless your Tanev.