[PGT] Flames 5 Ducks 1

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Ugh.

I sure do, by and large

High danger chances are basically a fine tuning of shots on goal for location and situation and have nothing to do with dangerous shots

They basically are more reflective of possession than of how they capitalize on their possession, or the actual challenge to the opposing goaltender

It is not a coincidence that so many rookies, backups, and essentially goaltending randos have looked like geniuses against this team

17th in goals per game. Not good enough but not quite the disaster that some want to make it. Especially when you look at the changes from last year and obvious things like Mangiapane is never going to be a career 19% scorer. I don’t see a ton of goal scorers on this team and I have a hard time blaming the coach for that.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

17th in goals per game. Not good enough but not quite the disaster that some want to make it. Especially when you look at the changes from last year and obvious things like Mangiapane is never going to be a career 19% scorer. I don’t see a ton of goal scorers on this team and I have a hard time blaming the coach for that.

Clearly not. That would put him amongst the league leaders all time in that category.

However, he is a career 14.4% shooter, that's including his 8.8% this year. Something has not quite been right with him this year, but I don't know who exactly is to blame for that. Probably some is him, but he seems to be playing the same way, just not getting pucks in the slot to be able to bury them. But then again, nobody is really doing that much.

I don't want to start buying into this Sutter-driven narrative that there isn't enough offensive talent on this team or enough goal scorers. We lost Gaudreau who is primarily a playmaker and replaced him with a playmaker. We lost Tkachuk who does a little of everything offensively and replaced him with a solid 2-way center who puts up a respectable .75 ppg for his career, and can score goals relatively frequently. No doubt, those players have not produced enough and share some of the blame, but there is plenty of talent there to score goals. Lindholm, Kadri, Huberdeau, Mangiapane, Toffoli make a solid group of 5 top 6 players for any team to build around. Dube is having a really good year and has put himself in that conversation too. Backlund is having a renaissance type season and Coleman has put up his respectable .5 ppg rate from the third line. I think that despite Andersson's strong season, offense from the defensemen has been lacking, despite the crazy amount of point shots they put up.

This team scored a LOT of goals last year, and that's because they got creative once they got in the offensive zone. That seems to be outlawed this year, and Sutter has been harping on the lack of talent as a reason. I think it's total bull#### to be honest, and I think it's just him trying to exert his control over the team the way he could not last year with his superstars playing their game and doing so well. He's always been a guy that favors systematic play over creative play, and he's doubled down on that philosophy this season.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

17th in goals per game. Not good enough but not quite the disaster that some want to make it. Especially when you look at the changes from last year and obvious things like Mangiapane is never going to be a career 19% scorer. I don’t see a ton of goal scorers on this team and I have a hard time blaming the coach for that.

Coming into this season, the roster this team has, if I told you the Flames would be 17th in goals per game is that good or bad? You’re happy with that?

The mental pretzels people twist themselves to convince themselves a bad team is good is interesting.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I think it's fair to say that they generate the bulk of their shots from the perimeter, and that most of their slot chances are rebounds from those perimeter shots. That can be a little dangerous, but the goalie doesn't move much with those if he's controlling his rebounds alright. What they do not seem to do is generate slot passes or "royal road" passes to move the goalie and create a higher danger shot in that area.

The philosophy is about creating enough bulk shots and chaos to score, but they never try any other strategy to score goals, which is why they are too predictable and easy to defend. It's also why the talent that was good elsewhere has not produced at the same level here.

I get that it should work a lot of the time, but the lack of variation in playing style means that the Flames become a team that is easy to scout and prepare for, and as long as you come somewhat close to matching their work ethic, you'll fair pretty well if you counter attack that strategy and create a few high danger chances. It's why the Flames continuously show good effort in terms of skating and battling, but do not have the results to match the effort.

As a coach in the modern NHL you must have a plan B strategy to win games, because it cannot be just about working hard. This is Sutter's major failing as a coach, and it's the only reason we lost to Edmonton in the playoffs last year. No ability to pivot. No ability to adjust. No ability to respond to adversity. His motto is just "work harder...it'll happen". Except it doesn't, and long-term, you lose more than you win.

Just a note on the bolded.

The fact that the Flames have a high scoring chance count, but not a high danger count means they're not getting rebounds in the slot, as that is part of the definition of high danger and not a scoring chance attempt.

A high scoring chance attempt means they're taking the puck to the home plate themselves and shooting it.

Less movement from the goaltender.

I wish they had a higher rebound count. They wouldn't be in this pickle.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Ugh.

I sure do, by and large

High danger chances are basically a fine tuning of shots on goal for location and situation and have nothing to do with dangerous shots

They basically are more reflective of possession than of how they capitalize on their possession, or the actual challenge to the opposing goaltender

It is not a coincidence that so many rookies, backups, and essentially goaltending randos have looked like geniuses against this team

That's simply not true.

Expected goal totals are based on probability of scoring from certain areas on the ice and then the situation that created a shot.

Is there a difference between high danger chances? Of course there is. But to say they have nothing to do with danger shots isn't correct at all.

If you get more shots from the homeplate on rebounds, passes or deflections you'll score more goals on average.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

When two independent web sites count events from right in front of the goal and tally them up it takes more importance than you just saying it isn't so.

Who are these independent sites? Please let me know where you're getting your data so I can do a little research into them (number of employees, revenues, etc.) to determine if they have the capacity to do what you're suggesting or if they are crowd sourcing their data.

Also, have you ever thought of the manpower commitment it takes to collect and validate data from 1,312 games? For example, Stathead - who claims to be the leader in such data collection and analysis, has less than 50 employees to collect, validate, and analyze data for all four major sports (2,430 baseball games, 1,230 basketball games, 1,312 hockey games, 272 football games resulting in ~8,000 hours of content to classify). Or considered what the methodology of data collection is? And save the "it's just event counting" argument, because that is all data collection is, counting of specific events. The difference in data collection and classification is crucial and that is determined by the rigidity in classifying data and making sure the right data ends up in the same bucket. So are these two independent "websites" following the same methodology for data classification? Are they training their people to collect and classify data in the same way? I suspect the answer to these questions is a hard no. Data is subjective and inconsistent.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Who are these independent sites? Please let me know where you're getting your data so I can do a little research into them (number of employees, revenues, etc.) to determine if they have the capacity to do what you're suggesting or if they are crowd sourcing their data.

Also, have you ever thought of the manpower commitment it takes to collect and validate data from 1,312 games? For example, Stathead - who claims to be the leader in such data collection and analysis, has less than 50 employees to collect, validate, and analyze data for all four major sports (2,430 baseball games, 1,230 basketball games, 1,312 hockey games, 272 football games resulting in ~8,000 hours of content to classify). Or considered what the methodology of data collection is? And save the "it's just event counting" argument, because that is all data collection is, counting of specific events. The difference in data collection and classification is crucial and that is determined by the rigidity in classifying data and making sure the right data ends up in the same bucket. So are these two independent "websites" following the same methodology for data classification? Are they training their people to collect and classify data in the same way? I suspect the answer to these questions is a hard no. Data is subjective and inconsistent.

Natural Stat Trick, MoneyPuck, Hockey Reference, Wild on Ice, there are others.

You just don't get it man.

They're flawed for sure. They all have different tweaks in their models, and human error.

But when they all point the same way it's certainly consistent in a summary of how a team or a player performs and is massively less subjective than your narrative based rant.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Coming into this season, the roster this team has, if I told you the Flames would be 17th in goals per game is that good or bad? You’re happy with that?

The mental pretzels people twist themselves to convince themselves a bad team is good is interesting.

I literally said not good enough.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Natural Stat Trick, MoneyPuck, Hockey Reference, Wild on Ice, there are others.

Thank you. You are aware that most of these are run by individuals, so are completely incapable of doing the work you claim they do (watching all games and classifying and counting all events). It is virtually impossible to do without having massive human resources at your disposal (~4,000 hours of video to painstakingly review). So data validation just doesn't happen.

You just don't get it man.

No, I get it. We view stats very differently. Go take a couple stats classes and you'll take a different approach to this issue. You'll quickly find out how important the issues raised are important in the data having any value. You say it yourself in the next quote.

They're flawed for sure. They all have different tweaks in their models, and human error.

So they don't do the same things. They don't maintain a consistent method.
Classification is a guess. That's why a rigid methodology is so important. All data needs to be gathered and measured the same way. If one guy does things one way and another does it differently, the two outcomes will be different and neither provide consistency, meaning the data is unreliable.

But when they all point the same way it's certainly consistent in a summary of how a team or a player performs and is massively less subjective than your narrative based rant.

Hahahaha. Sure thing. Yeah, that Tyler Conklin was clearly a better goaltender than Martin Brodeur. The performance metrics proved it! The Flames are just unlucky! The stats prove it and its unsustainable! Numbers don't lie, amiright? Okay, snark aside remember what Mark Twin said. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." He said that specifically to speak to the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Especially statistics that come from specious sources using poor methodologies.

[Strange Brew]

What I am learning: quote by Mark Twain is relevant but a Steve Shutt quote about hockey is worthless because it’s too old.

And “go take a stats” class? Christ the arrogance by some people who just want to ignore any data because they think they know better.

I do think the criticism about potential lack of quality control by tracking sites is a fair point. Yet also interesting that they all seem to be relatively consistent. It would be cool to have a discussion about the meaning of some of the numbers and the correlation with winning. But the sanctimony by a few blowhards is hard to wade through.

[NegativeSpace]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

What I am learning: quote by Mark Twain is relevant but a Steve Shutt quote about hockey is worthless because it’s too old.

And “go take a stats” class? Christ the arrogance by some people who just want to ignore any data because they think they know better.

I do think the criticism about potential lack of quality control by tracking sites is a fair point. Yet also interesting that they all seem to be relatively consistent. It would be cool to have a discussion about the meaning of some of the numbers and the correlation with winning. But the sanctimony by a few blowhards is hard to wade through.

Agreed. These are not perfect (no stat is) but they add information to the discussion that is more helpful than goals, assists, and plus minus. If nearly all the top teams demonstrate strong advanced stats in certain areas, then that seems like good information for fans to follow and determine how their team is doing. The Flames seem to be doing well in those advanced stats but not having success. The failure is not the stats but something that is not counted or measured there - the stuff happening in between. That is the interesting discussion to me that does not seem to happen.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Thank you. You are aware that most of these are run by individuals, so are completely incapable of doing the work you claim they do (watching all games and classifying and counting all events). It is virtually impossible to do without having massive human resources at your disposal (~4,000 hours of video to painstakingly review). So data validation just doesn't happen.



No, I get it. We view stats very differently. Go take a couple stats classes and you'll take a different approach to this issue. You'll quickly find out how important the issues raised are important in the data having any value. You say it yourself in the next quote.



So they don't do the same things. They don't maintain a consistent method.
Classification is a guess. That's why a rigid methodology is so important. All data needs to be gathered and measured the same way. If one guy does things one way and another does it differently, the two outcomes will be different and neither provide consistency, meaning the data is unreliable.



Hahahaha. Sure thing. Yeah, that Tyler Conklin was clearly a better goaltender than Martin Brodeur. The performance metrics proved it! The Flames are just unlucky! The stats prove it and its unsustainable! Numbers don't lie, amiright? Okay, snark aside remember what Mark Twin said. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." He said that specifically to speak to the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments. Especially statistics that come from specious sources using poor methodologies.

Don't think I've ever said they watch every game. They tabulate every team equally, they are objective in their counts, and multiple sites (groups and individuals) point to the same conclusions.

The bolded part ... when are you ever going to change? The sanctimonious bs is just so tiring. Go take a class so you can have a discussion with me? Is this another round of C Suite narrative? Maybe kill the stats class and look up a workshop on how to play with others.

And this isn't a causation argument. Nobody is taking stat A and making a conclusion B.

They are counts.

Unless you think a team that gives up more chances in front of their goalie has a greater chance of winning this isn't a big leap.

But I get it ... Flames do poorly and you rub your hands together and salivate and making every single aspect of the organization in ruins. Then some simple counts get in the way and you hate it.

[Tsawwassen]

Postgame links
https://stats.cbc.ca/hockey/nhl/recap/146833
https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/games/2466761
https://www.espn.com/nhl/recap/_/gameId/401459709
https://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl...r-21-1.6786271