[GDT] Game 3: Flames vs Canucks SN1/Fan960 7pm MT

[tvp2003]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Oh....and glad Grats was policing everyone....Malarchuk could have escalated that to a point of no return.

I never really noticed before but it was Corey Osmak (Flames Asst Equipment Mgr) who was the one who grabbed Malarchuk as he stormed out. McGrattan eventually noticed and threw up his arm as well (as well as a stinky glove - lol).

A few years after the incident I did a tour of Rogers Arena and got to walk through the infamous Tortorella hallway...

[FlamesAreOne]

@NHLFlames

#Flames Roster Update: Derek Ryan and Oliver Kylington have been activated from the taxi squad to the roster.

In addition, Brett Ritchie has been assigned to the
@AHLHeat
.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Count me in as thinking that Torts completely overreacted to the entire situation. If I was him, I would have started the first line against the Flames' 4th line. Why not? This is modern hockey, not the 70's and especially the 80's. If 'goons' suddenly start grabbing and pummelling the other team - especially stars - they would be gone for months with suspensions, plus the coaching and maybe even team fines. You don't see that any longer. When Torts threw out that 4th line, then everyone knew it was going to erupt.


Hartley should have never received a fine for that. I think it was a statement to both Vancouver that this game is going to be a tough game, but also a statement to everyone else in the lineup as an example - IIRC, that bottom line worked really hard the game before that and were being rewarded, while the other lines had to take note.


I may be mis-remembering now, but it seemed like every subsequent season under Hartley, the Flames were less and less 'tough' and became one of the league's most disciplined teams. Am I remembering that correctly?

[TheSquatch]

The Hartley teams were absolutely unphysical by the end, no hitting at all. Ever. It was goofy.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by FlamesAreOne

@NHLFlames

#Flames Roster Update: Derek Ryan and Oliver Kylington have been activated from the taxi squad to the roster.

In addition, Brett Ritchie has been assigned to the
@AHLHeat
.

Why do they keep activating Kylington?

Is this in case their is an injury in warmups?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Why do they keep activating Kylington?

Is this in case their is an injury in warmups?

Yes. Activate him on game day as the 7th Dman, just in case. Then back onto the taxi squad for off days.

Flames are trying to squeeze every inch of room they can get on the cap

[jg13]

any idea whos on the broadcast team for this one?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yes. Activate him on game day as the 7th Dman, just in case. Then back onto the taxi squad for off days.

Flames are trying to squeeze every inch of room they can get on the cap

Yeah looks like he will be the only extra player should there be any last second injury or illness. IIRC they didn’t so this for game 1 so wonder if there is someone nursing an injury or they just decided saving the $78 in cap space wasn’t worth potentially playing a man short.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

Why do they keep activating Kylington?

Is this in case their is an injury in warmups?

Do you draw your there/they're/theirs from a hat as you go?

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Ive always taken win percentage to be the most literal sense. How many games you won over how many you didn't. Two different stats which people are mixing into the same thing. Win percentage doesnt care about an OTL or SOL. Points percentage does.

So wins over losses we are .500

Seperately, we have earned 3/4 points. So points percentage wise (the ultimately more important stat) we are .750

I can't really consider 1-0-1 .500 hockey because mathematically it wouldn't really make much sense to me. By that logic, you would consider 1-1-1 below .500

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

I can't really consider 1-0-1 .500 hockey because mathematically it wouldn't really make much sense to me. By that logic, you would consider 1-1-1 below .500

Yes, because they lost twice. So their win percentage is 0.333

However their points percentage, which you and everyone else seem to get mixed up is 0.500 (this is also the most commonly used form of tracking a teams success)

There is no such thing as a half win. Yes you can still be awarded a point in a loss. But this is still a LOSS. When calculating win percentage its win or lose. Points dont matter.

Points percentage which you are confusing with win percentage DOES factor in points for losses.

Theres a difference between the two things. And I'm actually shocked this is going on 3 pages later. Its like the difference between net and gross profits and talking to someone who thinks its all the same.

Edit- Id also like to point out, I put far more value in points percentage. And when discussing the Flames season so far I would use the Flames point percentage in describing their season so far to date. But I would describe it as such. I wouldn't say the Flames have a .750 winning percentage as that is untrue. I would call it their point percentage because thats what it is.

[Zamboniman]

Ward's description of the choice of Andersson on the point on the powerplay: "Pop from the top."


I like it.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Yes, because they lost twice. So their win percentage is 0.333

However their points percentage, which you and everyone else seem to get mixed up is 0.500 (this is also the most commonly used form of tracking a teams success)

There is no such thing as a half win. Yes you can still be awarded a point in a loss. But this is still a LOSS. When calculating win percentage its win or lose. Points dont matter.

Points percentage which you are confusing with win percentage DOES factor in points for losses.

Theres a difference between the two things. And I'm actually shocked this is going on 3 pages later. Its like the difference between net and gross profits and talking to someone who thinks its all the same.

Pretty sure everyone understands that and I don't think anyone is mixing anything up. But you consider the shootout loss a loss, I consider it a tie, but no shootout point. Just different viewpoints.

I guess it all comes down to how people view the shootout.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by CalgaryFan1988

Pretty sure everyone understands that and I don't think anyone is mixing anything up. But you consider the shootout loss a loss, I consider it a tie, but no shootout point. Just different viewpoints.

I guess it all comes down to how people view the shootout.

Yeah its being semantic. But when using math 100% the semantics matter. I understand a OTL or SOL carries a statistical difference from a regular loss. But if we're discussing win percentage the type of loss doesnt matter its still a loss. I dont use win % to describe the teams success ever I would always use the point percentage because it tells the full story better.

But again. You can't call it the win percentage you gotta call it what it is.

For instance, if we were 1-1-2. And I asked you hey, how many games have the Flames won? I doubt you'd say 2. Win % is a specific stat, and gets misattributed as the points % quite often as we see in this thread.

[hwy19man]

it is terrific to have both television commentary feeds available!