[News] Sens, Flames trying to 'outrun probability': Stinson

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I will say though that if you want to win in the playoffs, you likely need to improve the advanced stats to at least be on par with other playoff teams. It becomes increasingly difficult to score in the playoffs, and the more shot attempts you generate and prevent, the more of a chance you have when it comes to the 2nd season. So if you want to build a cup winning team you need to address these areas of analytics.

[Resolute 14]

Personally, I have never agreed with the "well, we have a high shooting percentage because we only shoot in high chance areas" argument.

That statement implies that Hartley has discovered something no other coach has thought of before. And I don't believe that for one second. We are bucking expectations, plain and simple.

[CaptainCrunch]

Fracking moron

End of Post

___________________

[theoforever]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Personally, I have never agreed with the "well, we have a high shooting percentage because we only shoot in high chance areas" argument.

That statement implies that Hartley has discovered something no other coach has thought of before. And I don't believe that for one second. We are bucking expectations, plain and simple.

Dallas Eakins told his little superstars to take shots from anywhere in order to increase the corsi, in a believe that high corsi equals winning.

His replacement, doesn't care about it, and Oil win some games.

Coincidence perhaps, but could be something there.

[flylock shox]

I used to be impartial to advanced stats.

Now I find them highly annoying and wish people would just stop talking about them. I can't fathom that any team has as its strategy for winning "must improve advanced stats." Stats are and should be nothing more than a byproduct of a team having a gameplan, obtaining the best pieces to execute it, trying hard, and ultimately outscoring the opposition one way or another. In any given game it may come down to will, luck, or just one player stepping up on one play to make a difference.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its an article by a guy who looks at the advanced stats and doesn't watch the games and is generally clueless about the game of hockey that's played on the ice.

Advanced Stats are a decent measuring stick if every team plays RedWing possession hockey.

do the Flames play that type of game? No, Its tough not to argue that Calgary is a counter punch team. They'll let teams have possession on the outside and take shots from the outside, and they'll plus up the middle and take away the tough areas. So right away Possession measurements go out the window.

Calgary doesn't shoot from everywhere. They score a lot of the rush passing into the middle and the high scoring areas. Their defensemen are involved more then most other teams right now and they come down into the key scoring areas. so you can throw away the general shot analysis which is I believe Corsi, because the Flames allow teams to take a lot of shots from outside of key scoring areas.

Compare the Leafs and the Avs to the Flames. The Avs got to where they got because they had good to great forwards, a terrible blueline and vezina caliber goaltending. The Leafs played run and gun and left their starter out to dry and he had a career year.

Calgary had a fairly deep blueline this year a very good bottom 6 forward group and decent speed offense in the top 6. They received league average goaltending. So the teams aren't comparable at all. Plus Colorado didn't improve their blueline this year and got rid of a great top 6 player in the off season. Of course they slid.

I am all for analyzing teams and using stats. But unless you actually watch the games and know the players and the coaches and the team style and philosophy, just spouting stats makes you a bloody hopping moron.

[mrkajz44]

Quick frankly, I think Calgary bucks the Corsi trend because they are a team that scores on the rush. Pretty much every rush up the ice, I find myself peeking back to the edge of the screen, waiting for the trailer to receive a pass in open ice and unload a high percentage shot.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by theoforever

Dallas Eakins told his little superstars to take shots from anywhere in order to increase the corsi, in a believe that high corsi equals winning.

His replacement, doesn't care about it, and Oil win some games.

Coincidence perhaps, but could be something there.

Chicago, Nashville and the Islanders lead the league in shot attempts. And they win lots.

When you get down to it, the Flames and Oilers are extremes on the same scale. Edmonton took lots of shots, but a lack of talent hampers them. Calgary doesn't take many, but we have ridiculous things happening like Lance Bouma scoring 16 and Josh Jooris 12, on top of our skill guys easily exceeding previous career highs.

So why does it work this year where it didn't last year?

Our shooting success is almost certain to regress next year. Hopefully another year of experience and growth will allow it to be smoothed out by possessing the puck more often.

[dino7c]

They have done unusually well in overtime and shootouts

4-3 in shootouts

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Personally, I have never agreed with the "well, we have a high shooting percentage because we only shoot in high chance areas" argument.

That statement implies that Hartley has discovered something no other coach has thought of before. And I don't believe that for one second. We are bucking expectations, plain and simple.

Well, it IS possible for a new paradigm to be discovered.

We have small, shifty, quick skilled forwards, with mobile, defensively responsible, but extreme puck moving defenceman. Corsi is notoriously awful at predicting a non-standard team like this.

In theory, we struggle along the boards with physical teams. But the strengths of the team would be that on breakouts, the extreme skill of the forwards (and the accuracy of the passing from the defenceman) will draw penalties and create scoring chances.

It's clear that Corsi would say that this team is awful. Special teams are a small portion of the game, and shot differential at even strength is abysmal. PDO is also going to be out of whack, because your shooting% on the power play is much higher than that of even strength, but PDO just lumps it all together. If you're also on the PK less, your team sv% is also higher. It's no longer luck.

The problem is the assumptions that people make. For example, I remember seeing a post on HFboards that says "The refs don't favor LA because Calgary is the least penalized team in the league." This statement implies that every team should be penalized equally. Corsi, implicitly, also assumes that this is the case. The refs, through "managing the game", unfortunately make this close to a reality.

This Flames team has small, skilled forwards with quick defenceman that draw penalties - we succeed when the refs call the game like it's supposed to be. From watching our games, we SHOULD be getting 5-6 PP's a game, and probably 2-3 against. However, the reality is that it's much closer than it should be (especially now during crunch time, and even more so in the playoffs). Leading to Corsi becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, and throwing out its usefulness as a predictive statistic.

Time will tell whether the Flames can overcome these things and still succeed.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Chicago, Nashville and the Islanders lead the league in shot attempts. And they win lots.

When you get down to it, the Flames and Oilers are extremes on the same scale. Edmonton took lots of shots, but a lack of talent hampers them. Calgary doesn't take many, but we have ridiculous things happening like Lance Bouma scoring 16 and Josh Jooris 12, on top of our skill guys easily exceeding previous career highs.

So why does it work this year where it didn't last year?

Our shooting success is almost certain to regress next year. Hopefully another year of experience and growth will allow it to be smoothed out by possessing the puck more often.

How do you know those are ridiculous things? Those could be the norm for these players. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that either of them are flukes.

[Buck Murdock]

I think these articles are more a result of a reporter having to come up with 1000 words of something hockey playoff related within a 2 hour window.

[IntenseFan]

I heavily believe it is the unstructured attack of the Flames that has them posting a higher goals/shots %.

The Flames system allows for a d-man to jump in to the play at any time. You see them sneaking in from the line an awful lot. They also lead rushes and go into the corners in the attacking end (sort of a "nuclear pinch"). I've even seen them check the points during play occasionally.

Late-modern NHL players (read last 9 years, since the 2005 lockout) are pretty much gods when it comes to defence based on positional play. Almost all of them can do it very well. Where they get into trouble is when the other team abandons what everyone else has been doing to date and embraces a highly unstructured offence and attack. Since few teams have been crazy enough to try this in the late-modern league, it can throw the defending team for a loop. The Flames are often doing so. It's certainly high-risk, high-reward and the Flames have given up more than a few odd-man chances because of the attack they favour.

So when I see comments above asking whether Hartley truly has tapped into something, I think that he probably has. At least until someone figures out how to effectively defend against it, or the rules change to make it harder.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The national media have been gushing about the Flames for most of the year. The narrative that the media hate the Flames is dumb.

Perhaps, but no one is talking that narrative.
The narrative that some in the media write articles without actually observing their subject matter has merit.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

How do you know those are ridiculous things? Those could be the norm for these players. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that either of them are flukes.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Human nature.

[Locke]

I just find advanced stats are a bit lazy. Its like trying to determine who played better or the outcome of a game based on the boxscore. You have to take everything into the context of the game itself.

They can be useful in conjunction but not in isolation.

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by Locke

They can be useful in conjunction but not in isolation.

That is the best wording I have seen yet. Thank you.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Personally, I have never agreed with the "well, we have a high shooting percentage because we only shoot in high chance areas" argument.

That statement implies that Hartley has discovered something no other coach has thought of before. And I don't believe that for one second. We are bucking expectations, plain and simple.

It's been a while since I took a stats course (or even used it in depth), but doesn't the whole idea of "regression" imply that there is a randomness to the data point? Data points on either side of the mean are more likely to include some type or error and after consecutive measurements, there will be a regression towards a mean which represents a true measurement. Because in this case, I don't think randomness plays a large roll. A lot of things in the game are controlled and not random at all.

With every team being unique in terms of combining talent, fitness, motivation and tactics; I don't think each team's statistical measurements in terms of any given stat category can be looked at as an independent and random event.

Edit: Wikipedia's page describes pretty well what I am trying to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress...understandings

If you wanted to assume that some regression toward the mean is unavoidable, then you would have to apply to every team and every stat. Next year, while not winning as much when being outshot would apply, but then you could say that the stat of being outshot in the first place would likely regress to the mean.

[CaptainCrunch]

You know where advanced Stats would be awesome. In your Ronko slot hockey league, where wingers and centers and defensemen go up and down their slots

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Personally, I have never agreed with the "well, we have a high shooting percentage because we only shoot in high chance areas" argument.

That statement implies that Hartley has discovered something no other coach has thought of before. And I don't believe that for one second. We are bucking expectations, plain and simple.

No it does not imply that at all. Very odd conclusion to draw. A team can employ more of a particular style, or excel at a particular style, without having to 'discover something no other coach has thought of before'.