Darren Haynes News Articles Thread

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Fan in Exile

It's positive that the Flames have good possession numbers and create a good number of scoring chances but...

Anyone think it's a coincidence that they're 27th in shooting percentage and 26th in goals scored? It seems to be a fairly obvious correlation. Why do people think shooting percentage is due to rise? Why do people equate shooting percentage with puck-luck?

The numbers show that shooting percentages tend to regress to the mean as the sample grows. Teams with low shooting percentages tend to go up and teams with high shooting percentages will go down.

There is no guarantee it will happen but in most situations it will.

[bubbsy]

What % of goals scored are from the defined 'high danger' scoring area?

Isn't that a better metric in determining luck VS bad offense? A team that is generating shots but not of a high danger variety, is likely to have a crap shooting % that is a function of poor offensive play, nothing to do with luck.

My biggest issue with a lot of advanced stats is that all shot attempts are treated equally. To me, good players generate/restrict high danger chances. Hence, the quality of a shot attempt has to be considered as part of the metric...

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the flames, just a comment on shooting % as a stat.

[theinfinitejar]

Originally Posted by Jore

haynes quantifies what many have realized for a while: stajan and brouwer (especially) are awful on the pk (and everywhere else too) but keep getting used for no discernible reason:


source: https://twitter.com/DarrenWHaynes/st...98862607986693

How can you be paid to analyze and coach a team and allow this player usage, how does no one in the organization ring the bell on this?

Your job is to put the right guys on the ice and you do this. It's completely unacceptable.

[Fan in Exile]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

The numbers show that shooting percentages tend to regress to the mean as the sample grows. Teams with low shooting percentages tend to go up and teams with high shooting percentages will go down.

There is no guarantee it will happen but in most situations it will.

I don't want to get pedantic about it but the top team usually has a team shooting percentage of about 3% higher than the lowest team at the end of the year. I wouldn't hold my breath about Calgary correcting to the mean and finishing in the 15/16 spot for team shooting percentage. I know that's not what you mean but that's the assumption Haynes is making in counting all those points the Flames would have if only...

Maybe because it's more focussed on one or two goalies but we don't have the same flawed analysis on save percentage. They regress to a mean range but a .10 difference in save percentage makes a big difference and we generally acknowledge it's foolhardy to reduce the differences in save percentage to "puck luck".

At the end of the day, the Flames need to score more. When they were scoring more, they were letting in too many. Nice to be optimistic but I'm not convinced based on the last month that everything is fine now and we're due for more puck luck. It could happen but still more likely than not at this point that the Flames miss the playoffs.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by theinfinitejar

How can you be paid to analyze and coach a team and allow this player usage, how does no one in the organization ring the bell on this?

Your job is to put the right guys on the ice and you do this. It's completely unacceptable.

The organization has some really unintelligent people in powerful positions right now (Cameron, Jerrard).

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Brick

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/

OK, let's accept that this is true: Gulutzan called one practice which turned around their defensive play, and they're on the verge of breaking out. I still have 3 questions. . . .

1. Why wait until game 27 of the season to make the adjustment, if it was that easy?
2. Why is it that, for the second season in a row, the Flames needed to have a mid-season alteration to drag them out of a malaise and get them playing like a good team; and
3. As they did need a mid-season correction for the second in a row, hopefully allowing them to drag themselves back into a playoff spot, can we expect it to actually stick long term this time?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

For sure, but that's not my argument.

I'm just doubtful that the Flames are able to get into the high scoring areas deemed by the NHL statisticians to be high danger, but on average not be as high danger as other team's high danger. That gets a little suspect in my opinion.

The Flames high danger corsi % on the powerplay is ranked 11th in the league, which I don't find all that useful as all teams out play the opposition up a man, the Flames at a clip that ranks 11th.

So instead I looked at total number of powerplays by dividing total PP minutes by two. Then looking at the scoring chance rate per powerplay for every NHL team.

The Leafs are dominant at 1.2 high danger chances per powerplay.

The average NHL team averages 0.73 chances per man advantage.

The Flames are 5th at 0.88 chances per opportunity, behind Toronto, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.

That says to me there's a lot more bad luck and bad execution than bad coaching statistically.

To say otherwise is to assume things that can't be proven.

With that said however I haven't liked the deployment at all, for many reasons.

1. Get wingers on their off wings to create inside lane shots with better angles
2. Get players moving, stationary 1-3-1 powerplays are too easy to defend
3. Get a shooter on the powerplay as I see Hamilton as the perfect catch and receive option on the top of the umbrella with Gaudreau feeding him from the right side.

Why?

Assuming that high-danger = high-danger, from team to team, implies that all teams are equal (or roughly equal) defensively, and all teams are roughly equal with respect to creating offensive chances.

To me, those assumptions are far more suspect.

And based on your last paragraph, you would appear to agree with me. Look at your 3 points:

1) Off-wing set ups create better angles. The Flames rarely do this. Off-wing shots are generally superior to on-wing shots, all else equal. Flames are shooting from their 'proper' wing more often, creating a worse shooting angle from the same spot on the ice.

2) The Flames' PP is far too stationary. So when players are shooting, they tend to be more tightly marked, and more rushed, than players would be if they were more open.

3) Having a shooter to tee up. The vast majority of shots on the Flames' PP are wrist shots, from the side, with hopes of a rebound. But they aren't scoring on the rebounds either, because guys are tightly covered because they are stationary, and because the D can collapse down low because of the lack of a threat from the point.

All 3 of these points clearly illustrate examples of how not all home plate chances are created equal. A cross-crease pass to an open winger on his off-wing is extremely likely to result in a goal. A wrist shot from a stationary player in crowded space is substantially less effective. Both are equivalent high-danger shots, in the eyes of the stats.

[blender]

Lots of good discussion in here. I would add that this is where the eye test comes into play. Some teams are just plain dangerous more often than others, but it is game-to-game even for the best teams.

There are games when the Flames are very dangerous, but finishing has been a problem lately and it's obvious to see. I'm optimistic not because of a belief in statistical regression, but because of a belief that actual good hockey players will start burying the chances they are generating through their good play.

The stats about Brouwer (particularly) and Stajan on the PK are very damning. A correction needed there.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Why?

Assuming that high-danger = high-danger, from team to team, implies that all teams are equal (or roughly equal) defensively, and all teams are roughly equal with respect to creating offensive chances.

To me, those assumptions are far more suspect.

And based on your last paragraph, you would appear to agree with me. Look at your 3 points:

1) Off-wing set ups create better angles. The Flames rarely do this. Off-wing shots are generally superior to on-wing shots, all else equal. Flames are shooting from their 'proper' wing more often, creating a worse shooting angle from the same spot on the ice.

2) The Flames' PP is far too stationary. So when players are shooting, they tend to be more tightly marked, and more rushed, than players would be if they were more open.

3) Having a shooter to tee up. The vast majority of shots on the Flames' PP are wrist shots, from the side, with hopes of a rebound. But they aren't scoring on the rebounds either, because guys are tightly covered because they are stationary, and because the D can collapse down low because of the lack of a threat from the point.

All 3 of these points clearly illustrate examples of how not all home plate chances are created equal. A cross-crease pass to an open winger on his off-wing is extremely likely to result in a goal. A wrist shot from a stationary player in crowded space is substantially less effective. Both are equivalent high-danger shots, in the eyes of the stats.

I'm not saying all teams are equal at all, so we agree.

What I am saying is that there really isn't any numbers to support that the Flames are a team that gets a lot of shots within the home plate high danger area (proven), but of these shots they have a higher percentage of weaker or feeble or better defended shots than other teams.

There isn't anything to support that, so it seems more like choosing a narrative than actually looking at stats.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm not saying all teams are equal at all, so we agree.

What I am saying is that there really isn't any numbers to support that the Flames are a team that gets a lot of shots within the home plate high danger area (proven), but of these shots they have a higher percentage of weaker or feeble or better defended shots than other teams.

There isn't anything to support that, so it seems more like choosing a narrative than actually looking at stats.

I actually feel quite the same as Enoch on this one. I have been very openly critical of the Flames' D during wins in the first 20 game set of the season.

What my 'eye test' noted is that it sure seems that the high danger chances from other teams seems 'higher' than often what the Flames generate. I see a sprawling Smith trying to extend a lot to make that save. I see guys with what seems like more time and space in those high danger areas. Etc.

This is actually what irritates me about advanced stats. I still think that these stats are in their relative infancy. I do think that there will be much better stats available in the future (and I am sure many teams have some really interesting and valuable metrics available), but I disagree on how the stats are employed.

For instance, as Calgary fans, we have seen both sides of the argument. Under Hartley, it was always 'unsustainable' stats, but if you go back and re-read a lot of those posts, I remember a lot of people making mention of how in so many games teams may have absolutely dominated possession, but they didn't look 'dangerous' or close to winning. Even their high-danger chances were well-defended and teams didn't have the time or the space to make use of the chance.

Now under this 'possession-friendly' and sustainable system that Gulutzan has the team playing, it often seems like the opposite to me. Flames are often getting a lot of shots off, but it feels like the goalie has to practically make a mistake for anything to go in. Their high-danger chances often seem contested and predictive, and the goalie is often out challenging and squared-up.

It almost seems like 'high danger chances' are completely subjective. That just getting a shot off in one of those areas of the ice counts.

I like how the Flames have tightened-up defensively. I have been super-critical of them in this area, particularly as it was one of the main reasons why Gulutzan was hired to coach the team. They just seemed now seem very predictable offensively, are almost too slow in the offensive zone (including on the PP, which I think is the reason why that PP has been terrible for a while) and players seemed to start holding their sticks even tighter because of it.

Now, of course my 'eye test' is completely subjective of course. Heck, maybe I am even wrong. I MOSTLY like how the Flames are playing, but they seem to be a very boring team to watch, and I think the reason for that is that they are taking way too long to set-up for offensive chances, their transition is horribly slow (and predictable at times), their PP is slow and predictable, and it is because of their pace that it sure seems like their high-danger chances are being contested more than the other way around.

Other teams are doing to the Flames what Hartley's team was doing to them a couple of seasons ago, or so it seems. This should be a fast team (considering the skaters) and even faster considering that mobile puck-moving blue-line. They are not using their speed enough and instead use a break-out system that seems to be designed FOR an older and slower team to get around defensive systems like the trap. I really think the transition is stifling the team, I think the team is doing things at a much slower pace overall including the PP, and this is why they are not getting the same quality of high danger chances (according to my own possibly terrible eyes).

I am not advocating for a change back to Hartley's system, but I do think there is merit for taking a look at how Hartley's system employed breakouts. Stop going D to D to (sometimes D again) F. Everyone on the opposing team gets back and has the time to get into their correct position awaiting the zone entry. That's what I think is the primary cause for the team to suffer from such a low shooting percentage at this point.

[Robbob]

I wouldn't get to worked up over those SH numbers. Since November 16th the PK is chugging along at 85.5%. Top 10 in the league in that time frame. I think a lot of those numbers were prior to them firmly removing their heads from their arse.

I tried to see if I could easily see how many SHGA people have been on since, but it looks like you can't query that on NHL.com anymore. Bottom line I don't see a problem with Brouwer on the PK recently.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

I actually feel quite the same as Enoch on this one. I have been very openly critical of the Flames' D during wins in the first 20 game set of the season.

What my 'eye test' noted is that it sure seems that the high danger chances from other teams seems 'higher' than often what the Flames generate. I see a sprawling Smith trying to extend a lot to make that save. I see guys with what seems like more time and space in those high danger areas. Etc.

I can't and won't argue with the eye test provided by yourself or Enoch, you have your view and it's every bit as valid as mine.

But much like the ATL report after a Flames win, fan bases seem to see things completely differently in almost every single game.

They think they've been ripped off by a ref.
They think they've had a game stolen by the other goaltender.

With these biases I tend not to trust or want to trust that my or other Calgary fans' eye tests are a good way to split something as microscopic as a home plate shot attempt.

What's the point?

So I don't necessarily trust myself to assess the Flames chances within that perimeter to be better or worse than the average team without actually sitting down and going through every team's chances and trying to quantify it.

In my experience if you do these things they tend to trend right back to the mean and they all even out.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I can't and won't argue with the eye test provided by yourself or Enoch, you have your view and it's every bit as valid as mine.

But much like the ATL report after a Flames win, fan bases seem to see things completely differently in almost every single game.

They think they've been ripped off by a ref.
They think they've had a game stolen by the other goaltender.

With these biases I tend not to trust or want to trust that my or other Calgary fans' eye tests are a good way to split something as microscopic as a home plate shot attempt.

What's the point?

So I don't necessarily trust myself to assess the Flames chances within that perimeter to be better or worse than the average team without actually sitting down and going through every team's chances and trying to quantify it.

In my experience if you do these things they tend to trend right back to the mean and they all even out.

I agree with your philosophy.
I disagree that the tool being used is of any use WRT PK / PP.

We need better speciality teams analytics.

[Jay Random]

If Steve Valiquette's ‘royal road’ approach is significantly useful (and so far I am inclined to believe it is), one thing we really need to track on scoring chances is the angular velocity of the puck, from the goaltender's point of view, leading up to the shot. A shot that requires the goalie to move laterally is more dangerous than a shot from the same spot that the goalie is already square to, and a shot from a quick pass across the crease is most dangerous of all.

[shadowlord]

Eight From 80 Feet: Eight Subtle Ingredients Found in Flames' Savory 7-Game Win Streak
http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2018/...ht-subtle.html

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by shadowlord

Eight From 80 Feet: Eight Subtle Ingredients Found in Flames' Savory 7-Game Win Streak
http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/2018/...ht-subtle.html

Interesting seeing the stats surrounding Brouwer. He's been filling in nicely on that 2nd line and hopefully he keeps it up.

[shadowlord]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

Interesting seeing the stats surrounding Brouwer. He's been filling in nicely on that 2nd line and hopefully he keeps it up.

Of course, it always seems like anyone who plays on that second line benefits from the 'Backlund boost'. Hopefully this will help Brouwer's game so that when Frolik returns, Brouwer can be put back onto the 4th line with his newfound confidence.

There seems to be a trend this season with a couple of players who seem to perform noticeably better when deployed appropriately. Examples: Bennett with Jankowski (and to a lesser extent Jagr), Brouwer with Backlund, Lazar with Stajan and Mangiapane/Hrivik.

[FBI]

Freddie the 13th lol

[jaikorven]

Originally Posted by FBI

Freddie the 13th lol

Also what's the deal with not even playing him either? If there was something coming trade wise it should have happened, yes? A little weird imo.

[Yrebmi]

Freddie the 13th has yet to play a game for Zona.

What's up with that. Is he not what Coyotes expected, or was he taken just to F with the Flames? Should be a pretty good chance he hits the waiver wire again and is returned to us.

Edit - yeah what Jaikorven said. (I was double checking that he hadn't played before I posted - didn't see your post)