[News Roundup] Treliving and the trade deadline

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mike F

You often cite "advanced stats" to support the argument that the Flames this year are playing better than their results indicate. However, as I posted earlier, "the strongest correlation to winning is goals for (0.853), goals against (-0.817). . . ."

This is an improper use of statistics. Of course the Flames' goal differential is pretty much in line with their actual results, as you would expect. This says absolutely nothing about whether their actual results are in line with the results that could reasonably be expected on other grounds. You dismiss the question outright by giving an answer to a completely different question.

[Roof-Daddy]

Yeah, the whole point is that underlying stats show the Flames should have more goals and as a result a better goal differential to go along with a better record.

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

This is an improper use of statistics. Of course the Flames' goal differential is pretty much in line with their actual results, as you would expect. This says absolutely nothing about whether their actual results are in line with the results that could reasonably be expected on other grounds. You dismiss the question outright by giving an answer to a completely different question.

"Results that could reasonably be expected on other grounds"? What does that mean? What other grounds?? Again, over small sample sizes, you can expect random fluctuations to often overwhelm underlying fundamentals, which is why you'll see teams go 40% on the PP for a while, but over the long term they'll return to a more average level.

However, with a large enough sample size, you can expect that the overall results will reflect the underlying fundamentals. That's why I looked at total 145 game tenure of Gulutzan. You could expect a team with a good roster in a "solid system" to underperform due to randomness, luck, etc., for periods of a season, with that small sample size failing to refect the underlying fundamentals of a system, but it's ridiculous to suggest that after nearly two full seasons the results still aren't reflecting the system.

The Flames boast (on paper) one of the best defense corps in the league, a legitimate starting goaltender, and in the Gaudreau and 3M lines enough offense that, in a "solid system" should have no problem scoring more goals than they let in. Yet they aren't. And that has been true over a large enough sample size that it's very likely a reflection of the underlying fundamentals of Gulutzan's system; that there's no reasonable basis to think that they can keep doing the same thing and expect to consistently put out different results.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Badgers Nose

That's the part I can't reconcile. The rebuild is over, with this team should the goal be higher than 'scrape into the playoffs?'

BT is all in, and the Flames are a bubble team. Did he build a bad roster or is the coach not maximizing the team he has?

I think Flames look great on paper, and I like the moves BT made - i.e. keeping prospects and what's left of picks the next year.

A lot of people were ready to pull the plug on GG after season one, not me. But two years in I think we know what we have, no? Do we really think year three will be better?

Obviously I take it all back if GG figures it out the team gets consistent over the 20 and he gets this team into the playoffs and playing well. I hope he does, but the cynic in me says we know what we have, it will be tight until the last day and that this team doesn't look ready to win a playoff series against anyone in the West.

I'd say it's put up or shut up time for the Flames. They need to make the playoffs and if they don't, I won't be to interested in hearing about improvement in point totals, or better possession numbers.

15 teams in the west. 8 make it. Just be above average.

[Jay Random]

Question:

Originally Posted by Mike F

"Results that could reasonably be expected on other grounds"? What does that mean? What other grounds??

Answer:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, the whole point is that underlying stats show the Flames should have more goals and as a result a better goal differential to go along with a better record.

You go on:

However, with a large enough sample size, you can expect that the overall results will reflect the underlying fundamentals. That's why I looked at total 145 game tenure of Gulutzan. You could expect a team with a good roster in a "solid system" to underperform due to randomness, luck, etc., for periods of a season, with that small sample size failing to refect the underlying fundamentals of a system, but it's ridiculous to suggest that after nearly two full seasons the results still aren't reflecting the system.

Disingenuous. You are lumping together the team's record last season and this season, when the entire question is why the team has not been better this season to reflect the improvement in personnel over last season.

The Flames boast (on paper) one of the best defense corps in the league,

One of the best collections of puck-moving defencemen in the league. Nobody is mistaking them for the best set of defensive defencemen in the league. Add to that the fact that most of the key forwards are still under 25, an age when NHLers are still learning the defensive game. It would be a fool who expected great team defence on such a basis.

a legitimate starting goaltender,

Who, for reasons nobody has troubled to explain so far, has stunk on home ice.

and in the Gaudreau and 3M lines enough offense that, in a "solid system" should have no problem scoring more goals than they let in.

When the third and fourth lines produce nothing, as they did for a large chunk of the year, it doesn't matter what system you use. It's a huge vulnerability that other teams will inevitably exploit, and so they did.

Yet they aren't.

Quite right. They aren't good enough or experienced enough, and they have had a rotten team shooting percentage – another thing that the Gulutzan haters have yet to bother explaining.

And that has been true over a large enough sample size

You mean this year, when the various offensive metrics – possession, scoring chances, and shooting percentage – indicate a team that has been generating sufficient offence but can't finish. Brad Treliving identified that as a weakness going into the season, but apparently you know better, because according to you, there's plenty of offensive talent.

that it's very likely a reflection of the underlying fundamentals of Gulutzan's system;

Which, again, the Gulutzan haters have failed to analyse. Apparently just by being Gulutzan, he is a fool for doing many of the same things that the most successful coaches in the league do.

that there's no reasonable basis to think that they can keep doing the same thing and expect to consistently put out different results.

Explain, then, how a coach causes his players to be unable to hit the back of the net.

The facts tell us that the team went through a scoring drought early on, thanks to getting zero production from the bottom 6 forwards and only intermittent production from the 3M line. The facts also tell us that the players most affected had abnormally low shooting percentages through that time (and a lot of goalposts and crossbars, which aren't even counted as shots), and while they have since reverted towards the mean, their aggregate numbers are still dragged down by a very bad start. And I don't believe any knowledgeable observer of the game would say the Flames have enough sheer offensive talent to compensate for half of the forwards on the team going stone cold at one time.

The circumstances are frustrating, but blaming the coach won't change them. I have yet to hear how any coach in the world can force NHL players to shoot straight.

[Psytic]

I think there is more offence on this team even without making any moves. We have a great group of offensive D man we just don't play a system that utilizes them properly. I still think the team is better on paper than it plays and its fixable with a system change. The backend has more to give and it has in the past but GG isn't getting the most out of them.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Sometimes numbers just shake out in odd ways.

The Flames had everything go right in 2014-15 and much less so go right this year.

the 3M line is in an epic nosedive for on ice shooting percentage, that wasn't expected.

They actually play better on home ice but the goaltending is better away from home.

I've said this about a dozen times so I know it won't gain any traction, but if a coach has a team out playing their opposition more often than not, then I have a tough time blaming him for results.

Now the PP I get.

As much as the unit was top ten last year, it was very strange to not try Dougie Hamilton and Matthew Tkachuk earlier.

Bingo, does it not worry you that the team seems to struggle with the more important games? Playoffs, Edmonton.

What about the observation that the team is very poor at winning when down after two periods?

[Strange Brew]

Both ends of the spectrum are fun to read. People blaming Stewart for the loss to the Stars. Others writing long posts about how Treliving had a great deadline day.

Team is not much different than they were two days ago.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Bingo, does it not worry you that the team seems to struggle with the more important games? Playoffs, Edmonton.

What about the observation that the team is very poor at winning when down after two periods?

I know this is a narrative but is it true?
We think the boa is important but are those games actually more meaningful? I think the oilers are in their heads but I don’t think games against the oilers are actually any more important than any conference game
The playoffs we have a sample size of 4 games on which their goalie soiled himself
But this is a team that has played well against some of the top teams
It starts with how we define important games
Most teams lose if trailing after 2. Comeback wins are memorable but outliers

[Calgary4LIfe]

Can someone (an advanced metrics guru) enlighten me on something called "high danger chances".

How are these stats compiled exactly? Are they strictly compiled just from a certain area of the ice? For instance, anything from the slot forward towards the net regardless of circumstance, or are they tabulated based on 'open shots' or 'clear shots'?

I would like to know because of Gulutzan's system employing the use of a 5-man unit. I think that against some teams and in some instances, it is 100% the right approach, but it also has (or at least, seems to) have the drawback of slowing the game down and having the opposing team fully set-up in their own zone.

Now, with the above in mind, are the Flames REALLY getting all those high danger chances, or are most of them contested (blocks, tip-aways, etc)?

A system employed by Hartley and Ruff make use of the quick counter-attack/transition to try and out-number the defence and have them out of position, with the defence joining the cycle and trying to create confusion. Perhaps that system - although probably drawing a lot less high danger chances - perhaps (and I mean PERHAPS) have 'better' high danger chances?

Is this a logical leap, or are high danger chances counted regardless if they are contested or not simply by where the shot (or puck control in a certain area - like a breakaway that never got a shot off) occur.

I do like how the Flames have been playing for the last stretch MORE than I have for a while now, but I still think they often play 'too slow'. I think they dominated against the Stars tonight, and did run into a goalie playing well, but at the same time the counter-attack of the Stars seemed way quicker and more dangerous at times. I really do think that it wasn't all Bishop - it was Bishop and that quick transition that won the game for the Stars (though if the Flames capitalized on the PP - which has been really good lately - they would have likely won the game tonight).

[Corral]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

I know this is a narrative but is it true?
We think the boa is important but are those games actually more meaningful? I think the oilers are in their heads but I don’t think games against the oilers are actually any more important than any conference game
The playoffs we have a sample size of 4 games on which their goalie soiled himself
But this is a team that has played well against some of the top teams
It starts with how we define important games
Most teams lose if trailing after 2. Comeback wins are memorable but outliers

Maybe - but most recently we were soundly beaten by the Bruins at home. I was at that game. It wasn't even close. And what i've seen lately suggests we will be left in the dust by conference rivals who are dialing it up. There doesn't seem to be another level for this group. Unlike - for example - the Kings who are on the verge of beating VGK back to back. i really can't envision the Flames doing that. Which i think is the concern that advanced stats don't give you an answer for.

[edslunch]

Not surprised or upset the
Flames didn’t do anything big, but enough with the bottom 6 hand me downs. Virtually every forward Treliving has acquired by trade has been (or ended up being) a marginal bottom sixes. With no strong prospects at F and no high picks the Flames need to sign or trade for a legit top 6 F if they want to compete next year.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Not surprised or upset the
Flames didn’t do anything big, but enough with the bottom 6 hand me downs. Virtually every forward Treliving has acquired by trade has been (or ended up being) a marginal bottom sixes. With no strong prospects at F and no high picks the Flames need to sign or trade for a legit top 6 F if they want to compete next year.

Thank you. And agreed, neither surprised nor upset the deadline went this way.
But zero capital spent under Treliving has gone into the acquisition of scoring forwards.
It shows

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Thank you. And agreed, neither surprised nor upset the deadline went this way.
But zero capital spent under Treliving has gone into the acquisition of scoring forwards.
It shows

He blew his wad with Hamonic. Without those picks, it was always going to be next to impossible to make a significant acquisition at forward. If picks are currency, then Treliving's wallet is empty.

It's clear the Big Four D approach was a failure. One of the Big Four (most likely Brodie) will have to be dealt in the off-season.

[Svartsengi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

He blew his wad with Hamonic. Without those picks, it was always going to be next to impossible to make a significant acquisition at forward. If picks are currency, then Treliving's wallet is empty.

It's clear the Big Four D approach was a failure. One of the Big Four (most likely Brodie) will have to be dealt in the off-season.

It would have been better to have Brodie play with Stone this year like he did to end last season. Hamonic is better than Stone but I don't think it has really made a difference in the standings. Mike Smith has been the MVP and Treliving lacked patience and it has set the team back. After looking at what Vegas gave Detroit for Tatar it's pretty similar to what Treliving gave to NYI for Hamonic. I would rather Tatar be a Flame instead of Hamonic.

[Corral]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

He blew his wad with Hamonic. Without those picks, it was always going to be next to impossible to make a significant acquisition at forward. If picks are currency, then Treliving's wallet is empty.

It's clear the Big Four D approach was a failure. One of the Big Four (most likely Brodie) will have to be dealt in the off-season.

I think Treliving's record at the TDD shows he doesn't use it to acquire long term pieces. So nothing unusual this year.

But i agree the Big Four D approach is his and it isn't working very well yet. Thus he may consider trading one of them at the draft. Likely it will be Brodie since the two Hs are Tre's acquisitions and Gio is not being moved. Personally i would rather he deal Hamilton since i think he gets more in return and a move like this has to make a bigger impact on the team than what dealing Brodie will do.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Corral

I think Treliving's record at the TDD shows he doesn't use it to acquire long term pieces. So nothing unusual this year.

But i agree the Big Four D approach is his and it isn't working very well yet. Thus he may consider trading one of them at the draft. Likely it will be Brodie since the two Hs are Tre's acquisitions and Gio is not being moved. Personally i would rather he deal Hamilton since i think he gets more in return and a move like this has to make a bigger impact on the team than what dealing Brodie will do.

Why would we trade Hamilton though? That makes the top 4 d way worse.

Trade Brodie and replace within or by a signing. Hamonic has looked strong lately.

I thought the lack of depth scoring was apparent again last night and hurt us. We need a better look down the middle, another weapon somewhere in the lineup.

[Gaskal]

I think we have to acknowledge that the Flames top 4, outside of Dougie are not the offensive dynamos that we or the Flames envisioned them being. The sooner Gulutzan realizes this and adjusts, the better.

I'm seeing Gio start to lose his offensive touch a bit. He's as elite defensively as he ever was, and that's why he's undisputedly our #1, but so many of his shots go high/wide/both. Hamonic is a defensive dman through and through - like Gio, but a righty. And Brodie seems hesitant to join the rush and shoot the puck (he did a couple times last night though).

It's easier to understand now why Hartley hated the D-to-D pass so much, all it does is give the other team 3-4 seconds to turn back up ice and get into position. He'd have a couple forwards to give close puck support to, but one way up-ice to make the D back off.

The D-to-D is just too easy to pressure with the speed and tempo of today's game - the forecheckers are fast enough nowadays to shut down the pass receiver and force the clear along the boards. The puck still gets out, but we have no speed exiting the zone.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Why would we trade Hamilton though? That makes the top 4 d way worse.

Trade Brodie and replace within or by a signing. Hamonic has looked strong lately.

I thought the lack of depth scoring was apparent again last night and hurt us. We need a better look down the middle, another weapon somewhere in the lineup.

Don't want to get into a Hamilton argument BUT there is a reason that he doesn't get any PK time and I do not think it is lack of conditioning.

Hamilton is as close to a PP specialist as you can get. If you put him with a non-Gio pairing on defense the other team would take advantage.

Nice to have a high scoring d-man.... better to have a high winning team.

Brodie with Gio was and would be better than Gio/Hamilton

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Don't want to get into a Hamilton argument BUT there is a reason that he doesn't get any PK time and I do not think it is lack of conditioning.

Hamilton is as close to a PP specialist as you can get. If you put him with a non-Gio pairing on defense the other team would take advantage.

Nice to have a high scoring d-man.... better to have a high winning team.

Brodie with Gio was and would be better than Gio/Hamilton

There are no stats that show that this is true, in fact most show the opposite being true.

Hamilton makes the odd mistake but I think his lack of defensive ability is greatly exaggerated around here. The coaches seem to trust brodie even though he gets beat like a rented mule