[PGT] Flames lay an egg

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think that is just it, though: one of the problems with this group is that they often play down to their competition. In games against good teams the Flames have not suffered these sustained periods of defensive zone ineptitude like they did last night. In fact, the Flames played some of their best hockey this season without better results in their two games v. Toronto.

[Bar-Down]

That was one of the worst Flames games I have watched in a long time. Just pathetic from start to finish. I feel bad for Markstrom.

I just don’t understand how a team can put forth such an awful performance. Bad period? Sure. But an entire game of pure garbage is blasphemy. The opposition is coming at you hard every shift and the Flames can’t adjust whatsoever. Zero pushback, no competitiveness at all.

On my beer league team we will get outplayed for a period and can chat on the bench for the 2 mins between periods and can play much better the next.

This team has massive underlying issues that I’m not sure are fixable unless it’s all blown up.

[djsFlames]

It's actually pretty hysterical.

When they got bad/unreliable goaltending for years: play scared

Get some of the best goaltending on the planet each night: play scared anyways.


You would think knowing what they have in Markstrom and a second goalie on defence in Tanev that they would go balls to the wall out there and try things.

There's literally no reason to not take risks offensively and go out there with some swagger and make plays right now.

PARTICULARLY against the Canucks who are getting brick walled by Markstrom.

Like..... There's the ball kid, play with it.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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

Have you been here long enough to know that statements like mine posted on a message board don't have to be taken so literally? Yikes, get a grip.

Bingo's stats aren't much better. In many cases they won't tell you everything, or anything really.
We discussed it at length already and he knows how I feel about them.
But Bingo doesn't go around telling people they are narrow minded because they don't value them. He posts his writeups and answers questions if anyone asks. Food for thought.

[Bingo]

I think advanced stats are going to evolve and get better.

But they're not useless as they stand right now.

They are counts of events. The formulas are based on history of results for these events.

It isn't perfect, but it's not flawed or useless as long as the conclusions and projections that come with them aren't stretched too far.

Teams that give up more shots from the slot will probably lose more often than not, but it's not a formula as players have different finishing skills, fortune, and are facing different goaltenders.

But that doesn't change the fact that a summary of events is interesting if team X out shot team Y by a big margin, but didn't get the same margin of events in the slot from passes, shots and deflections.

The Flames played a sit back game and were awful. The shot counts support that. The scoring chances (slot shots without a pass, deflection or rebound) were heavy in Vancouver's favour as well so they had their slot time. The margin was tighter in the high danger category which could mean Calgary was focusing on blocking those pass entry points to the slot, but as a result gave up the slot to the guy carrying the puck.

Those chances aren't as dangerous to a goaltender that stops what he sees from a set position, but they finally beat Markstrom when Myers shot hit a Flame in front of the net.

[1_Flames_Fan]

I haven't seen any post game comments from the Flames players on that dumpster fire of an effort. Did anyone say anything of note or just the usual platitudes?

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think advanced stats are going to evolve and get better.

But they're not useless as they stand right now.

They are counts of events. The formulas are based on history of results for these events.

It isn't perfect, but it's not flawed or useless as long as the conclusions and projections that come with them aren't stretched too far.

Teams that give up more shots from the slot will probably lose more often than not, but it's not a formula as players have different finishing skills, fortune, and are facing different goaltenders.

But that doesn't change the fact that a summary of events is interesting if team X out shot team Y by a big margin, but didn't get the same margin of events in the slot from passes, shots and deflections.

The Flames played a sit back game and were awful. The shot counts support that. The scoring chances (slot shots without a pass, deflection or rebound) were heavy in Vancouver's favour as well so they had their slot time. The margin was tighter in the high danger category which could mean Calgary was focusing on blocking those pass entry points to the slot, but as a result gave up the slot to the guy carrying the puck.

Those chances aren't as dangerous to a goaltender that stops what he sees from a set position, but they finally beat Markstrom when Myers shot hit a Flame in front of the net.

Do you think there could ever be an advanced stat to measure effort output? I’m thinking like when you measure say the speed a player skates, for example, and you have a team average metric. You could measure a game against that average and see that if you have a team that typically outputs this average of speed in skating or distance covered, but in this game they are not type of thing.

Seemed like against the Canucks there was a lot of standing around, and no way to measure that other than the eyeball test. Which then gets disputed by people lazily arm waving away “well everyone does it”. Sure, I get that, but to what degree? It’d be interesting if we could measure that.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

I haven't seen any post game comments from the Flames players on that dumpster fire of an effort. Did anyone say anything of note or just the usual platitudes?

A lot of "we have to learn from this"

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by 1_Flames_Fan

I haven't seen any post game comments from the Flames players on that dumpster fire of an effort. Did anyone say anything of note or just the usual platitudes?

Monahan said they need to “learn from it” which is hilarious and laughable if not borderline insulting to the intelligence of fans and human beings everywhere. There’s nothing an average person needs to learn from that. Working hard is something people start to grasp with as a concept around grade maybe 3-4.

He would have been far better to just say we were super lazy, and “we’ll try harder next time”.

[1_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Monahan said they need to “learn from it” which is hilarious and laughable if not borderline insulting to the intelligence of fans and human beings everywhere. There’s nothing an average person needs to learn from that. Working hard is something people start to grasp with as a concept around grade maybe 3-4.

He would have been far better to just say we were super lazy, and “we’ll try harder next time”.

Yeah if you haven't learned that you need to plays as hard as you can and give a complete effort by your 8th season in the league there is nothing you can learn from that game. Very disappointing.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Yeah the media answer I’m looking for from my team when they lose is “huh, I don’t know. I guess we just suck and there is nothing to take away from it. No point wasting time thinking about what we did wrong, we just suck. Sell your tix”

[GioforPM]

Well, at least if Backlund isn’t ready to go they will be ready for that change. I think that really messed them up. Lindholm missing a few shifts didn’t help either.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think advanced stats are going to evolve and get better.

But they're not useless as they stand right now.

They are counts of events. The formulas are based on history of results for these events.

It isn't perfect, but it's not flawed or useless as long as the conclusions and projections that come with them aren't stretched too far.

Teams that give up more shots from the slot will probably lose more often than not, but it's not a formula as players have different finishing skills, fortune, and are facing different goaltenders.

But that doesn't change the fact that a summary of events is interesting if team X out shot team Y by a big margin, but didn't get the same margin of events in the slot from passes, shots and deflections.

The Flames played a sit back game and were awful. The shot counts support that. The scoring chances (slot shots without a pass, deflection or rebound) were heavy in Vancouver's favour as well so they had their slot time. The margin was tighter in the high danger category which could mean Calgary was focusing on blocking those pass entry points to the slot, but as a result gave up the slot to the guy carrying the puck.

Those chances aren't as dangerous to a goaltender that stops what he sees from a set position, but they finally beat Markstrom when Myers shot hit a Flame in front of the net.

Or there was no need for plays that qualify as HDSC because they were given other avenues to create scoring chances. It's a variable that is not easily measured. A simple "why pass back and forth when I can skate right in and shoot". In a weird scenario you could have a team score 5 breakaway goals but register no HDSCs. Same for 2 on 1s that didn't have passing plays. To me those are major flaws. Two of the most dangerous plays in hockey, no?

Another poster made a great and detailed post in another thread where he said that there are too many possibilities and variables in each play to properly measure them and frame in any kind of a stat. I agree with that.
Every goal scored is a result of 11 guys (in general) doing or not doing something. How can we measure such endless stream of randomness? I dont think we can.
We can do a lot of other things. Some may be much better indicators that HDSC. But these are events that require eyeballs.
We can sort of define what a "clean" shot is.
We can count clean shots from the slot.
We can count clean shots with goalie screened.
We can count breakaways, odd man rushes etc.
We can count clean shots taken by certain players. Because that matters too.
Forehand/backhand etc.
Deflections in front of the net. And on and on. All of these can be dangerous chances. But I don't believe there is a stat that show all of these scenarios. They on their own tell a much better tale than corsi, fenwick, hdsc etc.

Question. If you listen to the game coverage they often mention scoring chance numbers. Are these commentators looking them up somewhere or do they mark them on a notepad as they happen?

A great exercise would be to mark them as you see them and then compare with what the websites collect. If you do it for your own sake you can remove the bias factor. Better yet, have someone else do the same and compare notes after.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Do you think there could ever be an advanced stat to measure effort output? I’m thinking like when you measure say the speed a player skates, for example, and you have a team average metric. You could measure a game against that average and see that if you have a team that typically outputs this average of speed in skating or distance covered, but in this game they are not type of thing.

Seemed like against the Canucks there was a lot of standing around, and no way to measure that other than the eyeball test. Which then gets disputed by people lazily arm waving away “well everyone does it”. Sure, I get that, but to what degree? It’d be interesting if we could measure that.

The problem with the eye test for effort is that players can look like they’re trying hard because they aren’t great skaters, or are often behind the play, or are taking themselves out of position to make a hit. Little guys always seem to look like they work harder too, compared to tall rangy guys. Or there are guys who skate around a lot and look like they are working but avoid contact and tough areas, like, say Czarnik.

Whereas a smooth player like Hamilton, or a guy who is stoic and tries to play positionally like Monahan - they are accused of being lazy. Often for making the correct decision.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yeah the media answer I’m looking for from my team when they lose is “huh, I don’t know. I guess we just suck and there is nothing to take away from it. No point wasting time thinking about what we did wrong, we just suck. Sell your tix”

I am not sure why it is useful to put any stock into a player's post-game comments. They are not likely to be transparent about what they think or feel in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am not sure why it is useful to put any stock into a player's post-game comments. They are not likely to be transparent about what they think or feel in the first place.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Thing is - even if you get mad at Monahan for saying they need to learn from it because you figure they should have done it by now, it doesn’t make it less true. In fact, it makes it more true.

[browna]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

The problem with the eye test for effort is that players can look like they’re trying hard because they aren’t great skaters, or are often behind the play, or are taking themselves out of position to make a hit. Little guys always seem to look like they work harder too, compared to tall rangy guys. Or there are guys who skate around a lot and look like they are working but avoid contact and tough areas, like, say Czarnik.

Whereas a smooth player like Hamilton, or a guy who is stoic and tries to play positionally like Monahan - they are accused of being lazy. Often for making the correct decision.

Yup, skating style and efficiency plays a big factor in an eye test. And the fans look also to the camera shot on the bench to see if the guy is gasping or wheezing, directly linking that to working hard enough or not.

The kid on Vancouver Hoglander, while he's shifty, and a decent player, looks like he's all over the ice because his short strides and spins and and turns and stimbling look like he expending a lot of effort...while he is, and a fair bit is unnecessary effort.

Going back over a decade, but Bertuzzi here was chastised (though I suspect it was thinly veiled Vancouver hate seeping in) for being lazy and thus unmotivated based on his perceived effort. But 3 of his smooth strides equalled in speed and distance to 5 strides of most players.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Red

Or there was no need for plays that qualify as HDSC because they were given other avenues to create scoring chances. It's a variable that is not easily measured. A simple "why pass back and forth when I can skate right in and shoot". In a weird scenario you could have a team score 5 breakaway goals but register no HDSCs. Same for 2 on 1s that didn't have passing plays. To me those are major flaws. Two of the most dangerous plays in hockey, no?

Another poster made a great and detailed post in another thread where he said that there are too many possibilities and variables in each play to properly measure them and frame in any kind of a stat. I agree with that.
Every goal scored is a result of 11 guys (in general) doing or not doing something. How can we measure such endless stream of randomness? I dont think we can.
We can do a lot of other things. Some may be much better indicators that HDSC. But these are events that require eyeballs.
We can sort of define what a "clean" shot is.
We can count clean shots from the slot.
We can count clean shots with goalie screened.
We can count breakaways, odd man rushes etc.
We can count clean shots taken by certain players. Because that matters too.
Forehand/backhand etc.
Deflections in front of the net. And on and on. All of these can be dangerous chances. But I don't believe there is a stat that show all of these scenarios. They on their own tell a much better tale than corsi, fenwick, hdsc etc.

Question. If you listen to the game coverage they often mention scoring chance numbers. Are these commentators looking them up somewhere or do they mark them on a notepad as they happen?

A great exercise would be to mark them as you see them and then compare with what the websites collect. If you do it for your own sake you can remove the bias factor. Better yet, have someone else do the same and compare notes after.

The problem if you get into those issues ... subjectivity.

Then the whole data set gets thrown aside as someone's opinion.

As it stands it's an easy tick in a box when something happens. Sure a guy can say he was outside the home plate when he was in, and mistakes will happen.

But you don't have a guy like David Staples (check it out if you haven't seen it) counting scoring chances for and against and almost always ending up thinking Edmonton played better than they did.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, at least if Backlund isn’t ready to go they will be ready for that change. I think that really messed them up. Lindholm missing a few shifts didn’t help either.

Cannot be that fragile at this level.

A a guy goes down? The players eating their minutes should be salivating at the opportunity.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by djsFlames

Cannot be that fragile at this level.

A a guy goes down? The players eating their minutes should be salivating at the opportunity.

It’s not about opportunity. It’s about the line drills they practice as a unit, the anticipation of where the guys you play with all the time are going to be, and your role on the the line, and the line’s role. Backlund goes down and it messes up at least two other lines. Bennett had been playing as a RW for two games, and practicing with Monahan and Gaudreau, now he has a centre responsibility. And another winger has to move to the Monahan line. That didn’t work and they shifted to Froese on the 3rd line which is not optimal at all (Ryan would have been able to handle it). And now Lindholm has to be be given the Petterson line to check, which limits its effectiveness.