[Trade] Flames acquire G Brian Elliott for 35th OA & conditional 2018 3rd

[Vulcan]

I really like the acquisitions of Elliott and Johnson. One thing for me is that Johnson was also a starting goalie with fine stats last season while playing for a bottom feeder, so I could see a bit of competition between them. I'd say let it play out to see who we re-sign if not both, depending on our prospects development.

[bax]

Originally Posted by t0rrent98

Just say yes to the all red gear Brian

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I strongly disagree. For one I think we need to see Elliot play for a while outside of Hitch's system that is heavily focused on defense. Most importantly however I think the Flames should keep maximum flexibility going into expansion. The Pens could become desperate at the deadline and want to flip Fleury here and toss in a 2nd or prospect to make it happen. 2 goalie teams will need to make moves and the Flames should be prepared to take advantage

Not sure I strongly disagree but you bring up a good point. Expansion could bring a lot of options.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I strongly disagree. For one I think we need to see Elliot play for a while outside of Hitch's system that is heavily focused on defense. Most importantly however I think the Flames should keep maximum flexibility going into expansion. The Pens could become desperate at the deadline and want to flip Fleury here and toss in a 2nd or prospect to make it happen. 2 goalie teams will need to make moves and the Flames should be prepared to take advantage

Pekka Rinne faced 23 shots per game last year, in 64 GP.

Corey Schneider: 25.4 SPG in 58 GP

Devan Dubnyk: 25.0 SPG in 67 GP

Martin Jones: 24.4 SPG in 65 GP

Marc Andre Fleury: 26.4 SPG in 58 GP

Ben Bishop: 25.4 SPG in 61 GP

Jake Allen: 24.6 SPG in 47 GP

Elliott faced 25.2 shots per in 41 GP.

I know Ken Hitchcock's teams are good defensively, but I don't see where 'the system' is turning Elliott into something he's not. Not if these other guys are all considered bonafide.

Is there something more advantageous to playing behind Weber, Josi and Ellis compared to Petro, Bouwmeester and Shattenkirk? Hedman/Stralman/Coburn? Suter/Spurgeon/Brodin? They all seem to allow a similar amount of shots, and given where they all usually finish, I'd bet they're all reasonably consistent defensive teams that aren't giving out 10-bell scoring chances like candy.

Facing roughly the same shots per game as a plethora of very dependable starting options, all of whom we'd be lucky to have, Brian Elliott's numbers are better. Even compared to Jake Allen, who faced fewer shots, in more games, does not put up stats as good as Brian Elliott.

In the last three years, Allen has gone .905, .913, .920. Over that same time, Elliott is .922, .917, .930. They both play in the same system. Jake Allen's best NHL GAA in the last three years is 2.28. Brian Elliott's worst GAA over the last three years is 2.26.

We got a very good goalie for very little - it would save money to extend him now, but I don't see him getting more than 3/$18 if he really has a great year.

3/$15 - make it happen, Brad.

[Split98]

The quality of shots is pretty important to consider too though. That could be the difference between Hitch's system and the other goalies mentioned.

Is quality shots a stat that is available? That's be interesting to see. Not that I disagree with you, GreenLantern. Just that it could skew what were looking at

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Split98

Is quality shots a stat that is available? That's be interesting to see.

The closest thing is probably xGA (expected goals against)

Elliott had an xGA = 106.97 for the 2266.91 minutes he played
Elliott had an actual GA = 78

That's an
xGA60 = 2.83
and a
GA60 = 2.06

Suffice it to say, he's not a "system goalie". Who was?

Rinne had an xGA = 141.12 for the 3905.23 minutes he played
Rinne had an actual GA = 161

That's an
xGA60 = 2.17
and a
GA60 = 2.47

Flames goalies 2015-16?

Hiller xGA60 = 2.84
Hiller GA60 = 3.50

Ramo xGA60 = 2.62
Ramo GA60 = 2.62

Ortio xGA60 = 2.71
Ortio GA60 = 2.75

What about..?

Chad Johnson xGA60 = 2.61
Chad Johnson GA60 = 2.36

[Enoch Root]

Can you provide those numbers for Allen, since he would be the most direct comparison?

Thanks,

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Can you provide those numbers for Allen, since he would be the most direct comparison?

Thanks,

For whatever reason, the Blues played poorly in front of Elliott, better in front of Allen. I'm going to assume this is just because of how their season of injuries shook out, but Allen's puck handling qualities may have directly affected shot quality too. I'm not aware of any stats that track the effects of puck handling goalies vs "leave-it" goalies.

Jake Allen xGA60 = 2.53
Jake Allen GA60 = 2.34

[cowtown75]

Late to the conversation, but, love the Elliott and Johnson signings. Good goalies and cap flexibility. Good on ya BT !

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Flames won't be trading for Bishop any longer - that AAV with term was a definite show-stopper for the Flames (and I would imagine, for most teams in the NHL).

However, if Tampa needs to shed some cap, we will help them out with Kucherov

Plus, not to mention, Bishop might of said he doesn't want to play for the Flames which could of been the game changer too.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by TheMagicMan

When trades happen, I always wonder what the other team's fans feel. It' safe to say, we won this deal....

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=2095603

It's amusing to read page 7 on there... when the Blues fans start kicking around candidates for their next back-up.

"what about Chad Johnson?" Uh oh...... ouch.

"what about Joni Ortio?".... yeah.

Hard to not like these moves. They're not guaranteed to work, but they're probably the best the Flames could do from a cap management, value and skill perspective. Pretty happy with the two new goalies.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by cowtown75

Plus, not to mention, Bishop might of said he doesn't want to play for the Flames which could of been the game changer too.

No. Had Bishop rejected a trade to Calgary, then there would not have been any discussion between them about an extension.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The closest thing is probably xGA (expected goals against)

Elliott had an xGA = 106.97 for the 2266.91 minutes he played
Elliott had an actual GA = 78

That's an
xGA60 = 2.83
and a
GA60 = 2.06

Suffice it to say, he's not a "system goalie". Who was?

Rinne had an xGA = 141.12 for the 3905.23 minutes he played
Rinne had an actual GA = 161

That's an
xGA60 = 2.17
and a
GA60 = 2.47

Flames goalies 2015-16?

Hiller xGA60 = 2.84
Hiller GA60 = 3.50

Ramo xGA60 = 2.62
Ramo GA60 = 2.62

Ortio xGA60 = 2.71
Ortio GA60 = 2.75

What about..?

Chad Johnson xGA60 = 2.61
Chad Johnson GA60 = 2.36

Can you explain what xGA is and how to interpret these results? Much appreciated!

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Can you explain what xGA is and how to interpret these results? Much appreciated!

Interpret the results?
If GA > xGA the goaltender underperformed relative to an average goaltender
If GA = xGA the goaltender was exactly average
If GA < xGA the goaltender saved his team additional goals beyond an average goaltender

What is xGA?

http://www.corsica.hockey/blog/2016/...-goals-part-i/

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Can you explain what xGA is and how to interpret these results? Much appreciated!

Elliot is a great goalie, not driven by system.
Hiller is hot garbage.
Ramo is exactly average.
Ortio is slightly below average.
Johnson is an above average goalie.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Interpret the results?
If GA > xGA the goaltender underperformed relative to an average goaltender
If GA = xGA the goaltender was exactly average
If GA < xGA the goaltender saved his team additional goals beyond an average goaltender

What is xGA?

http://www.corsica.hockey/blog/2016/...-goals-part-i/

Can you (or anyone) quickly explain why Elliott was expected to allow 2.83 GA60, while Allen was only expected to allow 2.53?

I know you linked to a web page explaining all this, but I'm just looking for a short answer if possible. Like, is there some sort of Skill Quotient involved, where Allen has a higher-rated skillset and thus was expected to allow less goals? (They both play for the same team using the same system.)

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

It's amusing to read page 7 on there... when the Blues fans start kicking around candidates for their next back-up.

"what about Chad Johnson?" Uh oh...... ouch.

"what about Joni Ortio?".... yeah.

Hard to not like these moves. They're not guaranteed to work, but they're probably the best the Flames could do from a cap management, value and skill perspective. Pretty happy with the two new goalies.

I love this in response to the extra pick if we sign him

Oooooh, the almighty third round pick in 2018. Woooooo.

The value is fine. The decision is utterly mind boggling. **** you Armstrong.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Can you (or anyone) quickly explain why Elliott was expected to allow 2.83 GA60, while Allen was only expected to allow 2.53?

I know you linked to a web page explaining all this, but I'm just looking for a short answer if possible. Like, is there some sort of Skill Quotient involved, where Allen has a higher-rated skillset and thus was expected to allow less goals? (They both play for the same team using the same system.)

From my reading of that linked web page, it depends on shot quality, which is based on things like angle, distance, and whether the shot came shorthanded, 5-on-5, or on the powerplay. The metric doesn't include any provision for shooter skill.

So the Blues allowed higher quality shots when Elliott was in net than when Allen was in net. Read into that what you will.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Can you (or anyone) quickly explain why Elliott was expected to allow 2.83 GA60, while Allen was only expected to allow 2.53?

First of all though a single season isn't a huge sample size in terms of shot volume. If you really want to get a feel for a goalie, use a larger sample. Rob Vollman suggests three seasons I believe.

Reasons might include
-Because they played the bulk of their games in different stretches of the season (Allen injured later in the year)
-with different opponents
-with different healthy teammates
-different "penalty-taking" stretches (we see it all the time, one month a team is going mentally wild, next month they're disciplined)
-shot blocking luck
-the two goalies do play vastly different individual styles both in terms of puck handling - choices such as whether to freeze pucks for faceoffs VS direct them to a teammate in the corner, to clear a dump-in quickly before the forechecker arrives or to stay in net.
-Elliott had a better save percentage, so he may have had a lead more often in games, and score effects can influence what a goalie is facing.
-Goalie weaknesses can affect what quality or quantity of shots teams are launching at them. Though I don't see that meaning much against Elliott who had an elite SV%

One thing I did examine was RBA (Rebounds Against).

Elliott allowed 2.12 per 60 minutes.
Allen allowed 1.83 per 60 minutes.


Hockey is too fluid a sport to capture exactly why, but as Elliott's actual GA shows, that's okay, because he exceeded statistical expectations anyways.

If you look at the actual Fenwick data (unblocked shot attempts faced), Elliott saw 41 while Allen saw 39.2 - so even there you see Allen saw about two less pucks his way per game on the same team though it doesn't quite include shot quality the way xGA would.

[FanIn80]

Awesome, thanks! So in a way, it's kinda like they played a touch more conservatively with Allen in net than with Elliott. That's seem pretty natural.