Are the Flames Stanley Cup Contenders?

[Bourque's Twin]

I have to respond to everyone saying “it’s too early”.

Of course it is. We won’t know until we know.

But, isn’t talking about it now much more interesting than in it would be in March if the Flames are sitting in a healthy first place in the Pacific? Especially considering how some of the players are performing, the new coach, the emergence of Rittich, etc.

To me, the on-ice performance, mixed with the standings, makes this discussion warranted and interesting.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The difficulty about averaging stats is that not all stats deserve to be weighted equally. So how do you weight them, and for that matter, how do you get rid of redundant information due to dependent variables?

At that point you're into hocus-pocus modelling, in which sheer opinion is hidden under a veneer of applied math. It's been said that with seven variables, you can make any data set fit any curve you choose if you fiddle enough with the coefficients.

Totally agree ... yet I think the average of the for and against still helps in quieting the noise from one stat without eliminating it all together.

If you only look at CF% for example the Flames are rock stars. If you bring in the high quality stuff their tough start reflects they are far from a perfect team.

Calgary's numbers ...

For
CF 5th
SCF 5th
HDCF 6th

Average 5.33
Rank of this average 5th

Against
CA 2nd
SCA 11th
HDCA 25th

Average 12.6
Rank of this average 14th

Overall ranking 6th

In this example I think this does a good job of placing the Flames. But you're right if I weight high danger more aggressively then they fall.

[Hot_Flatus]

Oh man.....still only 27 games into the season and we are talking cup contenders? I would say this team has pieced together about 17-18 straight games of relatively high-end, consistent hockey but there is still a long way to go.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Oh man.....still only 27 games into the season and we are talking cup contenders? I would say this team has pieced together about 17-18 straight games of relatively high-end, consistent hockey but there is still a long way to go.

It's past Thanksgiving and teams have played 1/3 of the season ... it isn't opening weekend!

Lots of hockey to go, but it's certainly not a bad time to take stock of teams and where they fit.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Oh man.....still only 27 games into the season and we are talking cup contenders? I would say this team has pieced together about 17-18 straight games of relatively high-end, consistent hockey but there is still a long way to go.

We are past the point where, historically, we already know 85-90% of the teams that will make the playoffs.

[TheIronMaiden]

I would say no. It takes most teams two good goalies to contend for the cup, the Flames barely have one.

[Parallex]

I would say that yes... as of right now you could consider the Flames to be Stanley Cup contenders. I mean theoretically any team in a playoff spot is a "Stanley Cup Contender" but really who considers the bubble teams to be legit contenders? In terms of points and goal differentials the Flames are currently in the top 25% of teams (which is where I put my arbitrary cutoff for legit contender) their underlying numbers are largely good and they'd walk into the first round of the playoffs with home ice advantage.

Good enough for me to call them a contender.

[Matty81]

My fear is how the Flames will do against a team that tries to beat them in the alley... they've wilted in those games in the past. Guys like Johnny and Monahan completely disappear. Edmonton game gave me some optimism though even though they got beat up a bit, they came around and played hockey.

I think the D is perfect right now, retrieves and moves the puck well which is what you need in today's NHL. Brodie is vastly improved, Hanifin deserves more credit than he's gotten, Hamonic and Gio are justifiably getting kudos and the rookies look great. In today's NHL you don't have tough guys on the blueline and win anymore.

Goalie, I'm still a bit concerned but resigned that the die is probably cast there.

For me if they were to make an addition for the playoffs and try to really go for it would be Wayne Simmonds. They need toughness that can play. He's a UFA on a bad team. Scores and stands up for teammates.

Problem is fitting him in, as I don't think you can touch the top 2 lines right now, Neal needs to play. So you bump Frolik to the 4th line and go with Neal-Ryan-Simmons on the 3rd? I like that line but seems like a waste of Frolik and Janko considering how little Peters uses the 4th. Also would cost the 1st rounder this year with certainty possibly plus an OK prospect.

Still if they are serious about taking a run this year, for me that's the move unless a goalie option that is a clear upgrade long term shows up.

Too bad they signed Neal or it would make even more sense as you could take a shot at locking Simmonds up long term.

[CroFlames]

I said heading into this season that they need at least one playoff series win to be considered a successful season.



I still stand by that.



They have shown that they can hang with the best, so I think they have a very good chance of meeting WPG or NSH in the West Final. Then anything can happen.



I'm very pleased with a lot of different parts of this team.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Totally agree ... yet I think the average of the for and against still helps in quieting the noise from one stat without eliminating it all together.

If you only look at CF% for example the Flames are rock stars. If you bring in the high quality stuff their tough start reflects they are far from a perfect team.

Calgary's numbers ...

For
CF 5th
SCF 5th
HDCF 6th

Average 5.33
Rank of this average 5th

Against
CA 2nd
SCA 11th
HDCA 25th

Average 12.6
Rank of this average 14th

Overall ranking 6th

In this example I think this does a good job of placing the Flames. But you're right if I weight high danger more aggressively then they fall.

The actual results agree - 5th in goal differential (not adjusted for games played but close enough). They feel like the real deal this year vs just stats darlings like last year

[Strange Brew]

I really like what I see from these Flames and think they can hang with any team in the league.

But the playoffs are just entirely different and it's too early to predict how this team will handle the adversity they are likely to be faced with. That always ends up being a difference maker.

The four game sweep against Anaheim was an example of that. Flames were competitive in every game except when they needed a goal, were unable to generate any offense at all. How will this team handle a tie game in the 3rd in the playoffs? How will they bounce back from a crushing loss?

It's exciting to think we are going to get a chance to find out.

[edslunch]

As far as contending goes, if they continue to play like they are and stabilize in net then:
- 1 round would be a disappointment
- 2 rounds is my expectation
- 3 rounds is 50-50, won’t be surprised if they don’t make it this far
- 4 rounds would be an awesome surprise
- winning the cup...priceless

[Hockey Fan #751]

One problem with finishing first in the Pacific is you're going to get a pretty darn good team in the first round, like Colorado, Minnesota or Winnipeg.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Hockey Fan #751

One problem with finishing first in the Pacific is you're going to get a pretty darn good team in the first round, like Colorado, Minnesota or Winnipeg.

You need to beat some pretty good teams to win the Stanley Cup.

Finish first, get home ice advantage.

Surely you aren't suggesting they should lose on purpose to finish 2nd?

[Kovaz]

The biggest thing that pushes me towards "yes" is the way we've played against a lot of top teams. Against the top 10 teams in the league (excluding us):

• Haven't played Tampa
• 1-0-0 against Toronto
• 1-1-0 against Nashville
• 2-0-0 against Colorado
• 1-0-0 against Buffalo
• 1-0-0 against Winnipeg
• 0-0-1 against Washington
• 0-1-0 against Anaheim
• Haven't played Columbus
• 1-0-0 against Boston

That's a combined record of 7-2-1 against the best teams in the league. And it's not like we've been pulling out miracle wins despite getting outplayed - a lot of those are dominant victories where we were clearly the better team.

[Always Earned Never Given]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Totally agree ... yet I think the average of the for and against still helps in quieting the noise from one stat without eliminating it all together.

If you only look at CF% for example the Flames are rock stars. If you bring in the high quality stuff their tough start reflects they are far from a perfect team.

Calgary's numbers ...

For
CF 5th
SCF 5th
HDCF 6th

Average 5.33
Rank of this average 5th

Against
CA 2nd
SCA 11th
HDCA 25th

Average 12.6
Rank of this average 14th

Overall ranking 6th

In this example I think this does a good job of placing the Flames. But you're right if I weight high danger more aggressively then they fall.

Hi Bingo. I have a question regarding high danger shots. If a shot is taken from the point, I guess it is not considered a high danger shot. But if a player from the same team deflects it in in front of the net, does it then become a high danger shot only if it goes in? If so, what if it is an opposing player that deflects it in?

Thanks for your help

[Hockey Fan #751]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

You need to beat some pretty good teams to win the Stanley Cup.

Finish first, get home ice advantage.

Surely you aren't suggesting they should lose on purpose to finish 2nd?

That would be silly since you'd have to play that team at some point, in round one or round two and certainly if you're a team like the Flames and finishing 2nd potentially means giving home ice advantage to a team like Vegas, Anaheim or San Jose that could prove a difficult test for the second round.

Was just thinking that whoever finishes first in the Pacific is going to get tested really early.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Always Earned Never Given

Hi Bingo. I have a question regarding high danger shots. If a shot is taken from the point, I guess it is not considered a high danger shot. But if a player from the same team deflects it in in front of the net, does it then become a high danger shot only if it goes in? If so, what if it is an opposing player that deflects it in?

Thanks for your help

From what I understand tip in the home plate area would make it a high danger shot. Or for that matter a pass into the home plate area and a shot resulting would also be a high danger shot attempt.

But a shot from the home plate without a tip or a pass gets downgraded to just a scoring chance, and not a high danger shot attempt.

[squiggs96]

Not sure why the quote button isn't working for me, so the formatting may be messy.

Bingo says:
Quote:
Las Vegas was a cup finalist. SJ and Tampa preseason favourites. Penguins have two recent cups. Carolina in everyone’s list for pushing the play. Calgary clearly playing well.

Thats 6 of 10

Is 6 of 10 statistically significant enough to put any link between those stats and if a team is good or not? I, personally, don't think it is. 6 of 10 is 1 better than 50/50, so it may as well be a coin flip. That got me thinking. I ordered all 31 NHL teams alphabetically by location, and flipped 31 virtual coins. I assigned heads to a team being good and tails to a team being bad. Heads came up 18 times. I flipped 18 more virtual coins for those teams and 10 were heads and 8 were tails. The list of 10 top teams was then:


1. Arizona
2. Boston
3. Calgary
4. Nashville
5. New York Islanders
6. Ottawa
7. Philadelphia
8. San Jose
9. St. Louis
10. Vegas

I also ran it for nickname with the same process. Coincidentally 18 heads were flipped in the first round. This must mean my experiment is scientifically correct, as you just can't get 18 twice in a row. However, 11 heads were on the next round.My top 11 teams are:

1. Avalanche
2. Blues
3. Bruins
4. Ducks
5. Flyers
6. Jets
7. Kings
8. Lightning
9. Maple Leafs
10. Sharks
11. Wild

To preserve the integrity of my data, screen shots for all coin flips and data charts are available upon request.

By doing it by location we get Boston, Calgary, Nashville, San Jose, and Vegas. That's 5 out of 10, so only one worse than your method.

By doing it by nickname we get the Avalanche, Bruins, Ducks, Jets, Lightning, Maple Leafs, and Sharks. That's 7 out of 11. That's even better than 6 out of 10.

Bingo says:
Quote:
I’d argue that goal differential generally meet standings as a result so it wouldn’t tell you anything new
The general aim of hockey is to score more goals than the other team. The more times you do it, in theory, the more times you win. If you are trying to predict who is playing well, who will win, or who is a better team, then goal differential is a great statistic to look at. I'm not sure it tells you anything new, but it sure tells you who the best teams are. In the last 10 years an average of 1 team per year makes the playoffs with a negative goal differential. I've stated it before, but I'll repeat it again here: You don't get a positive goal differential from winning hockey games, you win hockey games by having a positive goal differential.



You said that goal differential won't tell you anything new. What did the stats that produced the list in post #72 tell us? It told us that by having some underlying numbers it can predict about half of the top 10 teams. In my opinion, that didn't tell us anything new that we can rely on. It's as if the stats don't correlate at all with telling us who the successful teams are.

[goflamesgo18]

Yes