[PGT] Flames 4 : Kings 2 - Losing Streak’s Over

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by looooob

I suppose even if true- is it that teams are unable to compete- or in some cases are actively tanking if not competitive (I realize this may be a subtle distinction). for example the Hawks will be fine soon enough. One hopes in Calgary too there is for now some honesty about their situation- they could have cobbled together a different result if they didn't sell off like they did (thank god) etc

Yeah that's fair for sure. And WPG being one of the 50+ teams skews my theory a bit as well I suppose.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I think it’s because of the parody in the league. Anyone can beat anyone these days.

You see some of the calls the Oilers get and it certainly seems like a parody of a league.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I think it’s because of the parody in the league. Anyone can beat anyone these days.

30 years ago in 1993-94, the standard deviation in winning percentage was .100. Today it is .109.

So, the parody is that parity is an artifact created by the advent of 3-point games, and anyone could beat anyone in those days too.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Scott Oake also had another son who died of a drug overdose about 10 years or so ago at age 25 iirc.

There is a rehab center in Winnipeg named after him.

Scotts wife also passed a few years ago from some kidney (?) disease.

I know a lot of people do not care for him, but that is the case for 99% of all TV personalities.....meaning you cant please everyone.

I think he is great at his job though, and second to none when he does the sit down/in depth interviews.

As for the team, nice to see a solid game from them. I hate seeing this club lose, it just goes against every fiber of my being to do otherwise, regardless of "draft position".

IMO only, only losers can cheer for losing.

They actually announced a second Bruce Oake centre in September as well.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Something interesting I just realized today... Only 14 of the 32 teams have a positive goal differential, while 17 are in the negative (there's one team at exactly zero).

Is this the beginning of the next era of only the top third of the league being competitive again? I wonder if the rising trend in goals and points has less to do with rule changes and skill creep, and more to do with the ten or so teams who have who have been able to stack their rosters.

Does Reinhart get 50 playing in CGY, STL, OTT, etc? Does Hyman even get 20 playing on any other line in the league? McKinnon, as awesome as he is, isn't putting up 100 pts on a team by himself like he'd have to here or in SJ etc. I doubt even McDavid gets 100 points somewhere like ARI or CBJ for example.

As someone who lived through an era of teams like CGY being unable to compete, this is a bit of a worrying trend. 7 teams at 50+ goal differential, 3 in the 40s and then there's one at 33, 3 at 22, 20, 19, 1 at 0 and the rest of the league is negative. Of the top 20 in points, only Kucherov, Forsberg, Kaprisov, Point and Crosby aren't on one of the 7 50+ teams.


Mind you, it might not be as bad as I initially thought, when you consider what we might have looked like today if we traded Huberdeau and didn't sign Kadri (but still signed Weegar and kept Monny and the first). In other words, there's a definite argument that most if not all of our situation is of our own doing. I mean the jury's out on whether we'd be able to use the cap space on anyone worth signing vs them signing in more attractive locales, but the argument is at least a very good one.

Anyway, still a bit of a worrying trend that we're back to 7-10 teams being competitive again.


Edit: just want to quickly add that I really like Kadri and have no problem with his salary. I only mentioned not signing him, because then we'd still have Monny and the first we gave up.

14 out of 32 is closer to half the league (16) than it is to a third of the league ~11). At that level, the #'s aren't telling us much.

[CSharp]

Schedule for final 9 games aren't gonna work in favor of the Flames. They'll likely end up with 83 points and one game above .500. It'll be tough to their current place in top 10 draft position when 5 of those teams are position hard for the lottery. This is a bad win] Might as well flip that pen!

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by D as in David

14 out of 32 is closer to half the league (16) than it is to a third of the league ~11). At that level, the #'s aren't telling us much.

Among the 14 teams that have a positive differential, 7 are above 50, 3 are in the 40s, 1 in the low 30s and 3 in the low 20s / high 10s.

In other words, while there might be 14 teams above 0, they are not all cut from the same cloth. When I mentioned a third of the league is competitive, I was referring to the 10 teams above 40 differential.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I think it’s because of the parody in the league. Anyone can beat anyone these days.

Parity.

Edit...beaten to it.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Among the 14 teams that have a positive differential, 7 are above 50, 3 are in the 40s, 1 in the low 30s and 3 in the low 20s / high 10s.

In other words, while there might be 14 teams above 0, they are not all cut from the same cloth. When I mentioned a third of the league is competitive, I was referring to the 10 teams above 40 differential.

Goals for and against differential seems to be one of the best metrics for differentiating teams.

[Tsawwassen]

Post game links
https://www.espn.com/nhl/game/_/game...5/kings-flames
https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/los-an...boxscore-41187
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/games/41973275/
https://fieldlevelmedia.com/news/fla...to-down-kings/

[dirk diggler]

The Kings are frauds, the PLD trade certainly didn't help them, what was Blake thinking. its trades like this that make me think i could step in and be a GM.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by dirk diggler

The Kings are frauds, the PLD trade certainly didn't help them, what was Blake thinking. its trades like this that make me think i could step in and be a GM.

Not just that trade, but overall their re-build didn't net them enough elite talent, and therefore is likely to fail.

Fiala has been good for them, but the other guy that would look great as the cornerstone to their blueline is Brock Faber. I think they made the mistake that so many teams do - trying to kick their contention window open.

I look at that team now, and I just don't see enough of the necessary pieces.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Not just that trade, but overall their re-build didn't net them enough elite talent, and therefore is likely to fail.

Fiala has been good for them, but the other guy that would look great as the cornerstone to their blueline is Brock Faber. I think they made the mistake that so many teams do - trying to kick their contention window open.

I look at that team now, and I just don't see enough of the necessary pieces.

I'd say its more similar to the recent Calgary rebuild in that they got good quicker than expected so the rebuild kind of ended itself when they could have used one more year of good picks rather then anything management did to end it.

I don't think Dubois is a #1 centre but I also doubt he's as bad as he has been this year. If Byfield keeps getting better, Dubois slots behind him as #2 centre and Clarke becomes a point producer on the back end, they'll be fine.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I agree that LA probably shot themselves in the foot during this rebuild. They look like a mediocre team. Pete is right with Byfield and Clarke, but then Kopitar is turning 37 and Doughty is 34, so when they are gone will Byfield and Clarke in their prime be better than what they have right now between the 4 of them? Probably not, as Kopitar and Doughty are still playing at a very high level.


Danault being out certainly has hurt them too, but this is still a mediocre team that they built. Unless Dubois suddenly starts to play like he cares, this will end up being a bubble-team more years than not. They will have to out-work and out-play teams to win. Definitely a lot of similarities with the Flames in thinking that they should be making 'win now' moves when staying the course was probably the right call instead.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Among the 14 teams that have a positive differential, 7 are above 50, 3 are in the 40s, 1 in the low 30s and 3 in the low 20s / high 10s.

In other words, while there might be 14 teams above 0, they are not all cut from the same cloth. When I mentioned a third of the league is competitive, I was referring to the 10 teams above 40 differential.

Yes, but you were suggesting a new era of less parity. I would suggest that 10 teams or less are +40 EVERY year.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes, but you were suggesting a new era of less parity. I would suggest that 10 teams or less are +40 EVERY year.

Going back a few years, here's the number of teams that were +40 or more:

2014-15: 4
2015-16: 2
2016-17: 4
2017-18: 6
2018-19: 3
2019-20: 4 (prorated for GP)
2020-21: 11 (prorated)
2021-22: 10
2022-23: 9
2023-24: 10 (prorated)

Low numbers up to 2020, then a sharp spike, and high numbers ever since. The change happened precisely when the flat cap was introduced on account of COVID.

It seems like a reasonable guess that the flat cap, and the ability of some teams to finagle it by spending big on LTIR, has introduced a new class of ‘haves’ to the league. At the other end, we are seeing teams at –100 or worse almost every year, which also used to be quite rare.

Something, beginning about 2020, definitely messed with the competitive balance in the league.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Going back a few years, here's the number of teams that were +40 or more:

2014-15: 4
2015-16: 2
2016-17: 4
2017-18: 6
2018-19: 3
2019-20: 4 (prorated for GP)
2020-21: 11 (prorated)
2021-22: 10
2022-23: 9
2023-24: 10 (prorated)

Low numbers up to 2020, then a sharp spike, and high numbers ever since. The change happened precisely when the flat cap was introduced on account of COVID.

It seems like a reasonable guess that the flat cap, and the ability of some teams to finagle it by spending big on LTIR, has introduced a new class of ‘haves’ to the league. At the other end, we are seeing teams at –100 or worse almost every year, which also used to be quite rare.

Something, beginning about 2020, definitely messed with the competitive balance in the league.

You are measuring competitive balance based on goal differential, not winning or losing.

Isn't that around the time when teams showed the proclivity to not care so much about allowing ENGs when losing?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

You are measuring competitive balance based on goal differential, not winning or losing.

I am measuring competitive balance based on distribution of goal differential, which in any case is closely correlated with winning and losing.

The league appears to have moved quite suddenly away from a bell curve, and towards a bimodal distribution of haves and have-nots.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I am measuring competitive balance based on distribution of goal differential, which in any case is closely correlated with winning and losing.

The league appears to have moved quite suddenly away from a bell curve, and towards a bimodal distribution of haves and have-nots.

If that was a good approach with respect to commenting on competitive balance, wouldn't you expect to see a notable increase in the σ of league winning percentage as you've observed in the σ of league goal differential?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by butterfly

If that was a good approach with respect to commenting on competitive balance, wouldn't you expect to see a notable increase in the σ of league winning percentage as you've observed in the σ of league goal differential?

Standard deviation is not the be-all and end-all. It doesn't work well when you get away from bell curves and into bimodal distributions, for which the central tendency actually goes negative. That's what we're seeing here.