LeBrun: Flames are looking at every single scenario to try and keep Giordano

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Best top d-men pairing for Corsi is still only good for a 15-16-1 record. Or a 54 point pace last season, a point less than what the Flames actually got. Corsi numbers certainly don't tell the whole story and shouldn't be the basis for hockey decisions.

Why try and fit a team record completely on to a single pairing?

The Gio/Tanev pairing was also first in actual goal splits ... nothing fancy about that! They had 13 for and 4 against ... or 77%.

That's lights out hockey.

The team record doesn't in any way take away from the fact that those two together in the second half of a shortened season were elite.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Did Bingo or anyone say Corsi told the whole story, or that it should be the basis for decisions? It was only one of a number of stats he quoted, which all pointed clearly in the same direction.

Don't believe I accused anyone in particular of saying that. But being top 2/3 in the league for Corsi down the stretch is still good for sub .500 hockey (.484 to be exact). Corsi may correlate, clearly doesn't causate.

If others are going to cherry pick stats, I'll happily join in on the fun.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Why try and fit a team record completely on to a single pairing?

The whole team was top 2/3 in Corsi. Didn't seem to matter much. May have been the only difference between a slightly below .500 record and complete freefall.

Originally Posted by Bingo

The team record doesn't in any way take away from the fact that those two together in the second half of a shortened season were elite.

True. But it is clear an elite D pairing does not a winning team make. Even for the stretch they were elite. Do we just blame goaltending?

Sutter may be able to get an underachieving team to play fundamentally sound hockey down the stretch. Didn't translate into a winning record.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah no ... that's not my theory.

I mentioned some injuries sure, but the point of the post was that Sutter turned the team around and they were actually outplaying the opposition from that point on in numbers.

Vancouver and Chicago were terrible in underlying numbers ... there's not team played well but didn't get the bounces theory at all.

Vancouver
CF% 30th
xGF% 31st
HDCF% 31st

Chicago
CF% 29th
xGF% 30th
HDCF% 31st

Dallas though is a good example, they played better than their record for sure.

Chicago 24-25-7 55 pts playing Carolina (80), Florida (79) and Tampa (75)
Calgary 26-27-3 55 pts playing Toronto (77)

Chicago had a better year than the Flames considering they actually were missing 1C and 2C for all but 19 game who were a better 1/2C than any that Calgary has had since 1990-91 when the Flames had Gilmour/Nieuwendyk.

Toews/Dach playing next year anywhere close to their expected level would be a bigger bump than Monahan coming back from his injury much improved.

Also the Hawks getting an actual NHL goalie would be the equivalent to Markstrom playing 10% better and getting back to top-5 level.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

The Flames were 2nd overall with David Rittich in goal and Bill Peters behind the bench the last full NHL season

they are not rebuilding this summer, save your breath

Once you come to terms with that you might as well go out swinging...honestly what is the worst that will happen? More players to trade at the deadline if it falls flat on its face

2nd overall and have steadily gotten worse since the All Star break of that season.

The worst thing that could happen is you lose all the value you have left in your best assets, and you potentially sign some horrible contracts because you want to "go out swinging." This organization could see the writing on the wall and be proactive in a rebuild, or they could become the San Jose Sharks. All I hope is that they stay away from handing out big contracts to players that are not worth it, and hopefully don't go spending future assets for the present. At least then when they are forced to rebuild they might be in a half decent position to do so.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Rebuild doesn't guarantee anything either...32 team league and all

There are far more examples of teams that have prolonged success because they have high draft picks than teams that do not. What's the alternative strategy? Try and overpay for free agents? Hope and pray we find a Kucherov and Point in later rounds? I like those odds.

Eating healthy and exercising doesn't guarantee a long life so let's not encourage that.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Hackey

There are far more examples of teams that have prolonged success because they have high draft picks than teams that do not.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. An elementary fallacy. You have not shown, but merely asserted, that those teams have had success because they had high draft picks. The fact that many other teams have had the high picks but not the success argues against you.

Over 90% of the teams in the league have had top-3 draft picks. Of course most of the successful teams will be found in that group. So will most of the unsuccessful teams. It means jack squat.

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. An elementary fallacy.

Over 90% of the teams in the league have had top-3 draft picks. Of course most of the successful teams will be found in that group. So will most of the unsuccessful teams. It means jack squat.

Well the Flames haven’t had a top 3 pick and they’ve won 1 playoff series since 2005/2006, and 4 total since 1990…so I suppose what they are doing is clearly working, so I suppose they shouldn’t change.

The last time a team won the cup without at least a top-4 pick on their roster? The Red Wings in 2008, and they had a generational defencemen that was found in the 3rd round in 1989, and possibly the greatest goalie ever, and he was drafted in 1983. That 2008 team is the ONLY team in the modern era (2005-current) to accomplish that feat.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Over 90% of the teams in the league have had top-3 draft picks. Of course most of the successful teams will be found in that group. So will most of the unsuccessful teams. It means jack squat.

yeah all of them except for the Calgary Flames* and Vegas Golden Knights
*yes Atlanta drafted 2nd as recently as 1973


I was a bit surprised , but in retrospect I suppose not, to find that Minnesota and Nashville haven't drafted top 3 since their first drafts

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

Well the Flames haven’t had a top 3 pick and they’ve won 1 playoff series since 2005/2006, and 4 total since 1990…so I suppose what they are doing is clearly working, so I suppose they shouldn’t change.

For Pete's sake, that is the most incredibly stupid argument. The Flames haven't had a top-3 pick because YOU HAVE TO WIN A BLOODY LOTTERY TO GET ONE. There is NOTHING that any team can do to cause a top-3 pick to drop into their lap. NOTHING. You are blaming them for something that is COMPLETELY BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.

And then you are cherrypicking a handful of champions, with over 90% of the league to choose from, and pretending that the existence of those few champions makes tanking a sound strategy. Whereas you completely ignore the longer list of teams that have NOT built consistent winners by following your supposedly foolproof method.

Give me ANY list of 29 out of the 31 teams, and I will find something that they have in common, and I will find among them teams that have won the Stanley Cup. That doesn't mean that the thing they have in common is what made them winners.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. An elementary fallacy. You have not shown, but merely asserted, that those teams have had success because they had high draft picks. The fact that many other teams have had the high picks but not the success argues against you.

Over 90% of the teams in the league have had top-3 draft picks. Of course most of the successful teams will be found in that group. So will most of the unsuccessful teams. It means jack squat.

All that really shows is that there are no guarantees that a team will win, not that it isn't necessary most of the time. How many teams become perennial Cup challengers without them?

[ComixZone]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

For Pete's sake, that is the most incredibly stupid argument. The Flames haven't had a top-3 pick because YOU HAVE TO WIN A BLOODY LOTTERY TO GET ONE. There is NOTHING that any team can do to cause a top-3 pick to drop into their lap. NOTHING. You are blaming them for something that is COMPLETELY BEYOND THEIR CONTROL.

And then you are cherrypicking a handful of champions, with over 90% of the league to choose from, and pretending that the existence of those few champions makes tanking a sound strategy. Whereas you completely ignore the longer list of teams that have NOT built consistent winners by following your supposedly foolproof method.

Give me ANY list of 29 out of the 31 teams, and I will find something that they have in common, and I will find among them teams that have won the Stanley Cup. That doesn't mean that the thing they have in common is what made them winners.

15 of the last 16 Champions have top-4 picks, and the one exception is a team that had some of the greatest players ever to play the game who were drafted in an era where professional hockey players were still smoking cigarettes and drinking beer in between period.

…and that means nothing to you?

Teams tank to rebuild through the drafts. It’s a very real thing that we see all the time.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by ComixZone

15 of the last 16 Champions have top-4 picks, and the one exception is a team that had some of the greatest players ever to play the game who were drafted in an era where professional hockey players were still smoking cigarettes and drinking beer in between period.

…and that means nothing to you?

Right, it means nothing to me. Because in those last 16 seasons, only 10 teams have won championships and 21 have not. Most of those 21 teams also had top-4 picks – including the Flames, by the way. Again, you are picking a small number of champions from a much larger pool and pretending that the champions are typical of the whole population. Your entire argument is the fallacy of survivorship bias.

Teams tank to rebuild through the drafts. It’s a very real thing that we see all the time.

And it usually fails. This is why teams usually rebuild when they have no other choice. It's only fans, who don't have to worry about losing millions of dollars of their own money, who ever get this stupid idea that every non-championship team should sell off all its assets and tank.

[Reggie Dunlop]

How late does the league office stay open tonight... y'know, for trades...

[flambers]

deadline for submitting protected list is Saturday at 1pm MST

I assume more trades could occur tomorrow morning

[Reign of Fire]

With no trade today, I would not be surprised if Gio is protected tomorrow at the expense of another player

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Manhattanboy]

Haha my cynical bro on the Flames protected list: “They’re bothering to submit a list?”

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

With no trade today, I would not be surprised if Gio is protected tomorrow at the expense of another player

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

I just can’t see it. Calgary will leave him exposed and probably hope Seattle lowers their price by draft day to pick somebody else. Granted I don’t want them to give them anything.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Reign of Fire

With no trade today, I would not be surprised if Gio is protected tomorrow at the expense of another player

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

All indications are that he will be exposed. I can't see why he wouldn't be, barring a trade of course.

[shutout]

Originally Posted by Hackey

Eating healthy and exercising doesn't guarantee a long life so let's not encourage that.

Amen to that.
Now pass the cigars and that large glass of whiskey!