[CP Story] Are the Flames Poised to Break Out?

[Kovaz]

To those pointing out that scoring chances are a flawed stat, I'd agree, but the results are essentially the same if you use expected goals.

How many shots are we generating and conceding? (shot attempts per 60 minutes)
CF/60: 63.63 (2nd)
CA/60: 56.33 (14th)

We direct a ton of pucks towards the other team's net, while allowing a league-average amount of shots against.

How dangerous are our shots for and against? (expected goals per shot attempt)
xGF/CF: 0.0401 (24th)
xGA/CA: 0.0398 (8th)

On average, the shots we take are slightly more dangerous than the shots we allow, but in both directions they aren't very dangerous.

How often is the puck actually going in? (goals per expected goal)
GF/xGF: 0.890 (27th)
GA/xGA: 0.981 (14th)

On average, our shots aren't going in as often as they "should" be. The other team's shots are going in about as often as they should be.


So overall:

• Offensively: we generate a ton of shot attempts in the other team's zone. However, our shots aren't very dangerous overall, and even accounting for that, we're scoring fewer goals that we should be.
• Defensively: we allow a pretty average amount of zone time, but we do a good job limiting the quality of the shots against, and our goaltending has been overall league-average

Now, that totally ignores our special teams, which are a whole other mess. But 5-on-5, we've already got a positive goal differential (+2) despite struggling to finish the chances we get. If our goals/xgoal ratio normalized to 1 (which would still only rank 18th), we'd have a 5-on-5 differential of +9 which would rank 3rd league-wide.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by kevman

Do you have a link to the original article?

https://hockey-graphs.com/2015/10/01...n-corsi-goals/

[Enoch Root]

A game like last night could be just what the doctor ordered. They really need to have a bit of a run - something like 7-2-1 over a 10 game stretch - to get them back into the playoff picture.

Hopefully that was the confidence booster they needed to do just that.

[djsFlames]

Hey if Bennett and Jankowski want to take the reigns and do most of the scoring for a little run then they can have at it. Was refreshing to see 6 goals with just 1 point to Gaudreau and Ferland.

[Boreal]

Great work Bingo! It will be interesting to see how they play once they get a little more confidence in their offense game to elevate pucks, execute finding seams & picking their spots.

[Loyal and True]

Well the Flames really need to start a run... right now!

After 10-7-0 start they are 7-7-3 since. Underlying stats suggest they are due some extra goals if they keep outshooting and outchancing the opponents.

3rd and 4th lines have established some scoring (tons from Bennett/Janko/Hathaway).

Top line cooled off as expected but now is probably time for the pendulum to swing back to Jonny and Monny's favour.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Loyal and True

Well the Flames really need to start a run... right now!

After 10-7-0 start they are 7-7-3 since. Underlying stats suggest they are due some extra goals if they keep outshooting and outchancing the opponents.

3rd and 4th lines have established some scoring (tons from Bennett/Janko/Hathaway).

Top line cooled off as expected but now is probably time for the pendulum to swing back to Jonny and Monny's favour.

A great run of playing well is either

a) a waste as they didn't have the results to match

or

b) a harbinger of what is to come, and the run is soon to follow

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Couple of factors that fancy stats don't cover.

1) The Flames have exactly 1 injury (Vertsteeg) up to this point in time. There has to be a fancy stat that says that injuries to one of the 10 top players is likely to happen before this season is done. The 6/7 D and 12/13/14 forwards are not going to take up the slack.

I am going ton have to disagree here. Randorf and DeBrusk were attempting to make a similar point the other night during the game by saying that the Flames would be in precisely the same sort of dire straits if they were also missing their entire top line of Gaudreau, Monahan and Ferland. I think that is patently false, and I am actually relatively comfortable with a top six for stretches consisting of Bennett, Jankowski, Hathaway/Jagr, Frolik, Backlund, Tkachuk. The Flames are actually pretty deep up front.

2) The Flames are a soft team. They are #31 in hits. They don't score many dirty goals and have dirty goals scored against.

This probably does not matter nearly as much as you imagine it should.

3) The Flames are slow. They are fast enough compared to other Flames teams but the rest of the league has stepped it up a notch.

You make it sound as if the Flames are the slowest team in the NHL. They are not.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

A great run of playing well is either

a) a waste as they didn't have the results to match

or

b) a harbinger of what is to come, and the run is soon to follow

I think the single greatest contributing factor to the Flames fairly disappointing results the past ten games is the powerplay. We can be certain that it will not be this terrible all year, and will actually have some more stretches where it looks unstoppable—special teams are somewhat cyclical that way.

[Loyal and True]

Originally Posted by Bingo

A great run of playing well is either

a) a waste as they didn't have the results to match

or

b) a harbinger of what is to come, and the run is soon to follow

I'll take "b" please

[bubbsy]

I agree, the PP is definitely one of those major contributors to lack of results the past 10 games.

I'd lump in the top line going cold (5on5) as another major factor.

Can't deny that the defensive side of the game has gotten much much tighter over that period also, which is promising.

[Loyal and True]

Also 2-5-0 at home during this 7-7-3 stretch. You'd think that should turn around as well.

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

To those pointing out that scoring chances are a flawed stat, I'd agree, but the results are essentially the same if you use expected goals.

How many shots are we generating and conceding? (shot attempts per 60 minutes)
CF/60: 63.63 (2nd)
CA/60: 56.33 (14th)

We direct a ton of pucks towards the other team's net, while allowing a league-average amount of shots against.

How dangerous are our shots for and against? (expected goals per shot attempt)
xGF/CF: 0.0401 (24th)
xGA/CA: 0.0398 (8th)

On average, the shots we take are slightly more dangerous than the shots we allow, but in both directions they aren't very dangerous.

How often is the puck actually going in? (goals per expected goal)
GF/xGF: 0.890 (27th)
GA/xGA: 0.981 (14th)

On average, our shots aren't going in as often as they "should" be. The other team's shots are going in about as often as they should be.


So overall:

• Offensively: we generate a ton of shot attempts in the other team's zone. However, our shots aren't very dangerous overall, and even accounting for that, we're scoring fewer goals that we should be.
• Defensively: we allow a pretty average amount of zone time, but we do a good job limiting the quality of the shots against, and our goaltending has been overall league-average

Now, that totally ignores our special teams, which are a whole other mess. But 5-on-5, we've already got a positive goal differential (+2) despite struggling to finish the chances we get. If our goals/xgoal ratio normalized to 1 (which would still only rank 18th), we'd have a 5-on-5 differential of +9 which would rank 3rd league-wide.

I just hope our coaches really look at stuff like this and try to fix our special teams, it should be all they are focusing on right now. The PP is so hard to watch some nights. Sure 10% of the time it looks dangerous, most of the time it is the same stuff and done slowly. We need hard, crisp, quick passing, I don't really see that.

I would love to see this combo on the 1st unit:

Gaudreau, Monahan, Tkachuk and Ferland, Stone as the D man at the point.

Ferland in front of the net and Monahan and Chucky crashing once shots are direct to the net.

2nd unit:

Gio, Hamilton, Backlund, Janko and Bennett (mixed in with a bit of Jagr and Brodie mixed in).

We have a variety of options here but we don't see changes enough, especially this year. I get our PP was hot last year, but other teams have wised up, so this is a bit on the coaches to change things a bit more to adjust. Players need to execute but the personnel and options just aren't there right now.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

I agree, the PP is definitely one of those major contributors to lack of results the past 10 games.

I'd lump in the top line going cold (5on5) as another major factor.

Can't deny that the defensive side of the game has gotten much much tighter over that period also, which is promising.

This is probably true.

I find it interesting that the coldest member of that group over the past stretch of five games or so is Sean Monahan. I think it is fair to say that this has had a significant effect on Gaudreau and Ferland, which I think is informative in light of how unimportant some fans believe him to be to this team.

Put simply, Sean Monahan is just as vital to making that top line work as is Johnny Gaudreau.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I just hope our coaches really look at stuff like this and try to fix our special teams, it should be all they are focusing on right now. The PP is so hard to watch some nights. Sure 10% of the time it looks dangerous, most of the time it is the same stuff and done slowly. We need hard, crisp, quick passing, I don't really see that...

It is silly to think that the coaches are not actively working to try and improve the power play, but I thought it looked very good especially in the third period in Vancouver on Sunday.

[united]

I didn't realize you were using unadjusted numbers until I tried replicating, and then including the Vancouver game. Why unadjusted when it's been shown many times adjusted are superior? And why scoring chances over expected goals when expected goals have been demonstrated as superior?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I am going ton have to disagree here. Randorf and DeBrusk were attempting to make a similar point the other night during the game by saying that the Flames would be in precisely the same sort of dire straits if they were also missing their entire top line of Gaudreau, Monahan and Ferland. I think that is patently false, and I am actually relatively comfortable with a top six for stretches consisting of Bennett, Jankowski, Hathaway/Jagr, Frolik, Backlund, Tkachuk. The Flames are actually pretty deep up front.





This probably does not matter nearly as much as you imagine it should.





[/I]

You make it sound as if the Flames are the slowest team in the NHL. They are not.

1) Sorry, you’re talking crazy here. Maybe you’re ok with the middle 6 moving up but then your bottom six is Vancouver-like. Losing the top line would be an unmitigated disaster.

[Loyal and True]

First 20 games: 12-8-0
Next 20: 5-6-3 so far

Would love to see 4-2-0 (or better) over the next little stretch to get back on a playoff pace

[foshizzle11]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is silly to think that the coaches are not actively working to try and improve the power play, but I thought it looked very good especially in the third period in Vancouver on Sunday.

I know they are making changes I just don't think they are bold enough and more can be done. I am sure they look at every single possible reason why we aren't at the top of our division and using examples from teams who are successful. If we can figure out how to be top 10 in the league on the PP and PK, we go on another solid run like last year.

I just hope it happens sooner rather than too late.

[colbym72]

Bump