[GDT] Flames @ Toronto, 5:00 PM MST. Sportsnet, 960 The Fan

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

But those shots weren’t all that dangerous. Lots in the bread basket, from all locations including many ‘high danger’

Stats don’t reflect what happened with the eye test

But that’s in the rear view

Go Flames! Johnny is going to put one over the goalie’s shoulder

Some of the stats above speak directly to where and how the shot is taken.

But if the player isn't as dangerous as the average NHL player than what does it matter right?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Some of the stats above speak directly to where and how the shot is taken.

But if the player isn't as dangerous as the average NHL player than what does it matter right?

Exactly. Or if the player is an ordinarily dangerous player that places a shot into the glove or crest, it doesn’t matter.

There are no stats yet that capture quality of the actual shot taken, which I hope to see one day. It’ll probably require at least planar 2 D reconstruction of goalie position from puck POV, or something funky like that, if not full 3D reconstruction of the event. (Which probably would be easier)

It’ll probably be sooner than we think though

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by btimbit

It definitely makes it fun having people to talk to when the game is going.

Even though we all hate each other

I only hate one of you!

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Exactly. Or if the player is an ordinarily dangerous player that places a shot into the glove or crest, it doesn’t matter.

There are no stats yet that capture quality of the actual shot taken, which I hope to see one day. It’ll probably require at least planar 2 D reconstruction of goalie position from puck POV, or something funky like that, if not full 3D reconstruction of the event. (Which probably would be easier)

It’ll probably be sooner than we think though

At least it doesn't take away from evaluating teams in what they give up.

But yeah if you're a below average finishing team (think the Flames are) you don't necessarily do as well as your underlying stats suggest.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

If Mark Stone isn't an elite talent I don't know what is.

Really? There’s a difference between a great player and an elite player. Elite would be top 10 IMO, especially in the context of the original post that the majority of teams don’t have a truly elite player.

[agulati]

What’s up with with Domingue? It looks like he was sent down, but he hasn’t started yet in the minors either

[Muffins]

Originally Posted by agulati

What’s up with with Domingue? It looks like he was sent down, but he hasn’t started yet in the minors either

I believe they mentioned he was at a funeral out east and has to quarantine.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Bingo

At least it doesn't take away from evaluating teams in what they give up.

But yeah if you're a below average finishing team (think the Flames are) you don't necessarily do as well as your underlying stats suggest.

-Disagree with below average finishing team. It's about the chance created - if you are in hdsc area but the goalie had his feet set and had to move very little it's not a great chance (low shooting %)

-If that chance is again in the hdsc area but it's a seam pass with the goalie having to extend side to side and the top half of the net is open (different shooting %)

That was the difference between Gulutzan and Peters IMO - in terms of quality of chance not location on ice.

18-19 Flames had this kind of offensive attack: creativity and movement. All that starts with a breakout that is fluid that starts you with puck on the tape and the receiver of pass in dangerous posture: head up, puck on stick, moving forward and attacking the middle. Opponent collapses on you and it opens the seams.

TOR and Keefe seem to be using that now: https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...-sheldon-keefe

It's obviously not the only (forecheck works if the opponent is clogging the nz) but if you can take the ice and take the blueline then take it.

18-19 was not a fluke. It was playing a style suited to the players: high iq, creativity, chemistry, anticipation etc.

You don't want to give up odd man chances against but you have to trust the players and trust their abilities. Have structure, sure - I want to see them limit chances: take away time and space but I want a team that is playing to their strengths, their best assets : skill and hockey iq.

[Enoch Root]

I don't buy the elite player argument.

For every PIT, WAS, CHI, or TBL, there is a BUF, EDM and TOR.

And there are plenty of teams that are having significant success that don't have those elite players: VGS, STL, DAL, CAR and until recently, SJS, LAK and NAS. I would also include BOS - some might call Bergeron and his wingers elite, but I would say that is a line that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I would argue that well constructed teams are still more dominant than teams with elite players.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You have to get the goalie in a non ideal position. Having them move laterally is a way but second chances are too.

TOR in one of the games in CGY had, I think Holl and Simmonds on a 2 on 1. Instead of forcing a pass through the shot was taken so the rebound kicked out to Simmonds. Markstrom down after making save.

In that 7-1 loss to EDM how many shots on Koskinen where his feet are set and he's just square? That's not dangerous.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't buy the elite player argument.

For every PIT, WAS, CHI, or TBL, there is a BUF, EDM and TOR.

And there are plenty of teams that are having significant success that don't have those elite players: VGS, STL, DAL, CAR and until recently, SJS, LAK and NAS. I would also include BOS - some might call Bergeron and his wingers elite, but I would say that is a line that is greater than the sum of its parts.

I would argue that well constructed teams are still more dominant than teams with elite players.

I would only add that play a style the caters to the strengths of the team.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I would only add that play a style the caters to the strengths of the team.

always

[Enoch Root]

PIT built a team around the skills of Crosby and Malkin. Same for CHI with Kane and Toews.

EDM and BUF have been unable to do that, and they seem to work on the assumption that the elite talent will win out. I disagree.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I only hate one of you!

You honor me.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

-Disagree with below average finishing team. It's about the chance created - if you are in hdsc area but the goalie had his feet set and had to move very little it's not a great chance (low shooting %)

-If that chance is again in the hdsc area but it's a seam pass with the goalie having to extend side to side and the top half of the net is open (different shooting %)

That was the difference between Gulutzan and Peters IMO - in terms of quality of chance not location on ice.

18-19 Flames had this kind of offensive attack: creativity and movement. All that starts with a breakout that is fluid that starts you with puck on the tape and the receiver of pass in dangerous posture: head up, puck on stick, moving forward and attacking the middle. Opponent collapses on you and it opens the seams.

TOR and Keefe seem to be using that now: https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...-sheldon-keefe

It's obviously not the only (forecheck works if the opponent is clogging the nz) but if you can take the ice and take the blueline then take it.

18-19 was not a fluke. It was playing a style suited to the players: high iq, creativity, chemistry, anticipation etc.

You don't want to give up odd man chances against but you have to trust the players and trust their abilities. Have structure, sure - I want to see them limit chances: take away time and space but I want a team that is playing to their strengths, their best assets : skill and hockey iq.

I'm sure there are better metrics in the pipeline to really separate these things out, but as it stands you're not quite correct above.

If the goalie is set, and there isn't a pass, deflection or tip it's not a high danger chance, it's merely a "scoring chance"

The Flames (5 on 5) are ranked 5th in the league in "scoring chances" (any shot of any kind from the home plate area), and they're ranked 4th in terms of high danger chances (home plate on a tip, rebound or pass).

Their high danger shooting percentage however is 23rd.

I don't think they have the horses.

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm sure there are better metrics in the pipeline to really separate these things out, but as it stands you're not quite correct above.

If the goalie is set, and there isn't a pass, deflection or tip it's not a high danger chance, it's merely a "scoring chance"

The Flames (5 on 5) are ranked 5th in the league in "scoring chances" (any shot of any kind from the home plate area), and they're ranked 4th in terms of high danger chances (home plate on a tip, rebound or pass).

Their high danger shooting percentage however is 23rd.

I don't think they have the horses.

Or also likely it's PDO blip and they are bound for a massive breakout.

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm sure there are better metrics in the pipeline to really separate these things out, but as it stands you're not quite correct above.

If the goalie is set, and there isn't a pass, deflection or tip it's not a high danger chance, it's merely a "scoring chance"

The Flames (5 on 5) are ranked 5th in the league in "scoring chances" (any shot of any kind from the home plate area), and they're ranked 4th in terms of high danger chances (home plate on a tip, rebound or pass).

Their high danger shooting percentage however is 23rd.

I don't think they have the horses.

Half the time it seems like they can't hit the dang net. I'm not a stats guy, but I do wonder how many times they completely miss the net per game.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Burning Beard

Half the time it seems like they can't hit the dang net. I'm not a stats guy, but I do wonder how many times they completely miss the net per game.

Originally Posted by Wastedyouth

Or also likely it's PDO blip and they are bound for a massive breakout.

Both very true.

Remember that one year (three years ago?) where they led the league in goal posts and cross bars?

But then isn't missing the net a skill thing too?

[Wastedyouth]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Both very true.

Remember that one year (three years ago?) where they led the league in goal posts and cross bars?

But then isn't missing the net a skill thing too?

It's my best hockey skill.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm sure there are better metrics in the pipeline to really separate these things out, but as it stands you're not quite correct above.

If the goalie is set, and there isn't a pass, deflection or tip it's not a high danger chance, it's merely a "scoring chance"

The Flames (5 on 5) are ranked 5th in the league in "scoring chances" (any shot of any kind from the home plate area), and they're ranked 4th in terms of high danger chances (home plate on a tip, rebound or pass).

Their high danger shooting percentage however is 23rd.

I don't think they have the horses.

If you're 4th in HD chances, and 23rd in goals, there are 3 potential issues:

1) bad luck
2) bad shooters
3) your HD chances aren't as high quality

No doubt #1 is a factor, but I doubt it explains the whole thing (or we'll see the floodgates open at some point). I don't buy #2, because that would have shown up before this year.

That leaves #3, which is what I believe the problem is. The Flames are working the offensive zone from the outside - forecheck, move it around the outside, and then try and get a pass into the middle. They are creating a lot of those plays, but they aren't dangerous because the forward is covered (the D is set).

5on5 chances, when the D is set, are usually not dangerous. High danger chances off the rush are way more dangerous