The trials and tribulations of Glen Gulutzan

[Five-hole]

So Gio's comments following the loss was that it was a "puck management" failure, and that they "should have at least got that game to overtime".

I think this is conclusive proof that the team is coached to sit back on a lead -- or even a tie -- rather than pursue a win.

Maybe that works sometimes, but I think we've all seen enough times this year when sitting back has led to failure. I think it has probably contributed to the psyche of the team and why they're so fragile. They're expected to sit on 1-goal leads to win, or sit on ties to ensure a point, so they know that even one mistake will be catastrophic.

It's also likely got them gripping their sticks because it's so important to get a lead, and as a result they can't score.

I dunno, maybe I'm overestimating the importance of this comment. I've been wondering what could possibly cause this roster to be so mentally fragile, when essentially the same team hasn't been in the past. It wasn't last year, at least not to the same extent.

[Red]

Originally Posted by VilleN

How are shots irrelevant? Yeah, I pretty much said not all shots are equal. A shot by Monahan is likely different than a shot by Stajan in the same location. It may be partially true that our high danger shots aren't as dangerous as other team's high danger shots. I'd also argue that the quality of our shooters might be worse and lead to our low shooting percentage.

Yes they shoot a lot. But they do it while the defending team and their goalies are ready for it. This has been out complaint all along. The Flames attack is so slow and structured that it takes away the element of surprise, panic etc.
The other issue we have brought up is that we should have shooters playing on their off side on PP to allow for better angles and one timers which would make the shots more dangerous.

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

So Gio's comments following the loss was that it was a "puck management" failure, and that they "should have at least got that game to overtime".

Man alive. Game 74. Playing the worst team in the NHL. Playoff hopes dangling by a thread. And they felt they should have at least gotten it to OT?

That's the urgency pushed upon them? Yikes.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

So Gio's comments following the loss was that it was a "puck management" failure, and that they "should have at least got that game to overtime".

I think this is conclusive proof that the team is coached to sit back on a lead -- or even a tie -- rather than pursue a win.

Maybe that works sometimes, but I think we've all seen enough times this year when sitting back has led to failure. I think it has probably contributed to the psyche of the team and why they're so fragile. They're expected to sit on 1-goal leads to win, or sit on ties to ensure a point, so they know that even one mistake will be catastrophic.

It's also likely got them gripping their sticks because it's so important to get a lead, and as a result they can't score.

I dunno, maybe I'm overestimating the importance of this comment. I've been wondering what could possibly cause this roster to be so mentally fragile, when essentially the same team hasn't been in the past. It wasn't last year, at least not to the same extent.

I can certainly see that interpretation, for sure.

But I've also seen a study that had the Flames pressuring the play when up in a game more than any or most other teams which flies in the face of this.

Almost like they don't know how to just let the game come to them sometimes.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

So Gio's comments following the loss was that it was a "puck management" failure, and that they "should have at least got that game to overtime".

I think this is conclusive proof that the team is coached to sit back on a lead -- or even a tie -- rather than pursue a win.

Maybe that works sometimes, but I think we've all seen enough times this year when sitting back has led to failure. I think it has probably contributed to the psyche of the team and why they're so fragile. They're expected to sit on 1-goal leads to win, or sit on ties to ensure a point, so they know that even one mistake will be catastrophic.

It's also likely got them gripping their sticks because it's so important to get a lead, and as a result they can't score.

I dunno, maybe I'm overestimating the importance of this comment. I've been wondering what could possibly cause this roster to be so mentally fragile, when essentially the same team hasn't been in the past. It wasn't last year, at least not to the same extent.

No, I don't think you are overestimating what Gio said. How many times have we won a game by more than 1? Not very many. It seems like when we have a lead, we tend to go turtle and don't try to get more most of the time. It really bothers me, because the wins that we get are the ones where we only won by a goal.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

So Gio's comments following the loss was that it was a "puck management" failure, and that they "should have at least got that game to overtime".

I think this is conclusive proof that the team is coached to sit back on a lead -- or even a tie -- rather than pursue a win.

Maybe that works sometimes, but I think we've all seen enough times this year when sitting back has led to failure. I think it has probably contributed to the psyche of the team and why they're so fragile. They're expected to sit on 1-goal leads to win, or sit on ties to ensure a point, so they know that even one mistake will be catastrophic.

It's also likely got them gripping their sticks because it's so important to get a lead, and as a result they can't score.

I dunno, maybe I'm overestimating the importance of this comment. I've been wondering what could possibly cause this roster to be so mentally fragile, when essentially the same team hasn't been in the past. It wasn't last year, at least not to the same extent.

That pretty much jives with what everyone's been saying. As noted earlier, our break out play is slow and deliberate. By design, it gives the other team time to get into defensive position. Gulutzan basically coaches a prevent defence as the only way to operate. Don't take chances. Don't make the long pass. Don't screw up. Inevitably, that always leads to screw ups. It would be ironic if it wasn't pretty much proven in any sport that if you aren't pushing forward, you're going backward.

And as a consequence, this team doesn't seem to create nearly as many odd man rushes. It doesn't catch the defence off balance. That prevents rebound opportunities, which are often the most dangerous shot attempts in the high danger area. We often don't have a man in front creating a screen because the opposition defence already had time to get set positionally.

Flash Walken isn't wrong that the bottom six still needs upgrades. But the bottom six is not why we're missing the playoffs. We're missing the playoffs because the system actively inhibits the generation of quality scoring opportunities.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The problem is our high danger shots aren't as plentiful as other teams high danger shots.

is this true? I thought they were generating a fair amount of higher danger shots and the main issue is low shooting percentage?

[zamler]

Why isn't Gulutzan fired? Lost to the 2nd worst team in the NHL in a game that was effectively a must win. Why wait? It's really pissing me off, give Gully his walking papers replace with anyone for the rest of the season.

Show us fans the organization recognizes a problem and has started to correct it.

[Badgers Nose]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

That pretty much jives with what everyone's been saying. As noted earlier, our break out play is slow and deliberate. By design, it gives the other team time to get into defensive position. Gulutzan basically coaches a prevent defence as the only way to operate. Don't take chances. Don't make the long pass. Don't screw up. Inevitably, that always leads to screw ups. It would be ironic if it wasn't pretty much proven in any sport that if you aren't pushing forward, you're going backward.

And as a consequence, this team doesn't seem to create nearly as many odd man rushes. It doesn't catch the defence off balance. That prevents rebound opportunities, which are often the most dangerous shot attempts in the high danger area. We often don't have a man in front creating a screen because the opposition defence already had time to get set positionally.

Flash Walken isn't wrong that the bottom six still needs upgrades. But the bottom six is not why we're missing the playoffs. We're missing the playoffs because the system actively inhibits the generation of quality scoring opportunities.

.... b-b-b-b-but we had 600 chances from centre ice!

[monkeyman]

All this talk about moving players before the coach reminds me all too much of the Greg Gilbert, Marc Savard fiasco.
Why is it this organization likes to re-live its past by repeating the same poor mistakes from it?

[Bingo]

https://twitter.com/petbugs13/status/976134808681132032

Link showing the Flames actually pushing the play more than most teams in different score situations.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

All this talk about moving players before the coach reminds me all too much of the Greg Gilbert, Marc Savard fiasco.
Why is it this organization likes to re-live its past by repeating the same poor mistakes from it?

As Leonardo Divinci once said...the definition of madness is repeating the same mistakes instead of making new ones.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

is this true? I thought they were generating a fair amount of higher danger shots and the main issue is low shooting percentage?

Not true at all

The Flames are now 1st in the league in high danger chances per 60 minutes (all situations) at 13.25

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

is this true? I thought they were generating a fair amount of higher danger shots and the main issue is low shooting percentage?

High danger shot stats are a function of location, not of quality.

This is only an anecdote, but I tried tracking this on the San Jose game. I'll try doing the same thing tomorrow vs Anaheim, because Christ, I need something to keep me interested.

What I found, looking at shots in the home plate area, was that most weren't actually dangerous. We either missed the net, were blocked, or shot it right into the goalie's pads or chest. What we did not do was get the goalie moving laterally. We didn't get a lot of rebounds. We didn't get the defence really moving. I counted only five or six shot attempts (at ES) in the first 40 minutes where the goalie would have been challenged to make a save. And we scored on three of them.

Most of this, I contend, is systemic. Because we take so much time to get up the ice that the defence is usually set against us. We actively make it more difficult to score because Gulutzan's transition game is slow and prevents creativity.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not true at all

The Flames are now 1st in the league in high danger chances per 60 minutes (all situations) at 13.25

All the more reason for the NHL to have an advanced stats award.

[Kovaz]

Yeah I don't think anyone's criticizing the quantity of our scoring chances, but rather the quality of the chances that fall within each bucket (high-danger vs. regular scoring chances).

I saw a post here that I'm struggling to find that showed scoring chances on the rush go in about 2.5X as often as the same chances (in terms of distance and angle) otherwise. So if the percentage of our chances that come on the rush is lower than average, it stands to reason our shooting percentage should also be lower than average.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Not true at all

The Flames are now 1st in the league in high danger chances per 60 minutes (all situations) at 13.25

Does that come with a banner?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Shazam

All the more reason for the NHL to have an advanced stats award.

Be as pissy as you want.

As it stands its a stat that looks at shot attempts near the net that aren't blocked or shot wide.

Is what it is.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Be as pissy as you want.

As it stands its a stat that looks at shot attempts near the net that aren't blocked or shot wide.

Is what it is.

Actually, HDCF does include at shot attempts that are blocked or shot wide.

It's actually rather irritating that sites like natural stat trick don't also include straight shots in these situations.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, HDCF does include at shot attempts that are blocked or shot wide.

It's actually rather irritating that sites like natural stat trick don't also include straight shots in these situations.

Not how I understand it ...

Devils Site Article

and SCF% (shots in the “danger” zone — HDCF are a subset of SCF).

and

As you can see, when we remove events (blocked shots, missed shots) we lose both repeatability and predictivity.