[Game Takes] Jets 4 Flames 0

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I'm so torn on this stuff.

If I could pick a path I'd choose a player's coach that is supportive etc, but this group hasn't exactly been easy on any coach, let alone the player's coach they tried.

So do they need a kick in the ass?

Is this good for Dube and Valimaki?

I thought he was being hard on Andersson, and then he went out of his way to prop him up and remove him from the disappointing young defenseman discussion. Was that a ploy? Get him nervous and then let him off the hook? He's certainly played better.

Honestly I wish this group had the ability to manage/motivate/maintain themselves so the idea that they need a ball breaker wasn't a thing.

We can talk about the coach for hours on end but the reality is that the group is the bigger problem. They have tuned out players coaches, bully coaches, and don't seem to be taking on to Darryl's taskmaster approach. For whatever reason there's not a good mix of leadership in the locker room and maybe not enough players that are willing to do whatever it takes to win. I assume some changes are coming but I feel it's deeper than just one or two players. I kind of hope Gio gets taken by the Kraken. Not because I think he's been a bad captain but because I want to see someone else in that locker room step up and be a different voice.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

We can talk about the coach for hours on end but the reality is that the group is the bigger problem. They have tuned out players coaches, bully coaches, and don't seem to be taking on to Darryl's taskmaster approach. For whatever reason there's not a good mix of leadership in the locker room and maybe not enough players that are willing to do whatever it takes to win. I assume some changes are coming but I feel it's deeper than just one or two players. I kind of hope Gio gets taken by the Kraken. Not because I think he's been a bad captain but because I want to see someone else in that locker room step up and be a different voice.

Don't know if I agree ...

They've improved pretty much all their defensive metrics by between 10 and 20% since Sutter took over, with a much bigger step in the last ten or so games compared to when he first took over.

It's hard work to play team defense, and they're doing it.

The issue now though is the step back in offensive chance creation, and whether that's the coaching style, the lack of the game breaker individual talent or a bit of both.

[DeluxeMoustache]

The offence is a big problem, and I think it’s a mix of both system and overall team, more so than game breaking talent

Iggy and Kopitar were 70 point guys under Sutter and 90 under other coaches. So I’m not expecting point per game players here

As far as on the team, I think it’s the depth / committee scoring too

The top players of late are Lindholm and Gaudreau with 12 points in their last 12 and 11 games respectively

Then you have
Monahan and Mang with 4 points in 10
Tkachuk with 6 points in 13

So 2 guys are producing

Even down the lineup, dependable Derek Ryan has 3 points in 20

When it’s everybody on the roster, it’s not the ‘game breaking talent’ IMO. The game breaking talent needs to get you the extra goal when you need it, not being the only ones even scoring at all

Hope that makes sense

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

The offence is a big problem, and I think it’s a mix of both system and overall team, more so than game breaking talent

Iggy and Kopitar were 70 point guys under Sutter and 90 under other coaches. So I’m not expecting point per game players here

As far as on the team, I think it’s the depth / committee scoring too

The top players of late are Lindholm and Gaudreau with 12 points in their last 12 and 11 games respectively

Then you have
Monahan and Mang with 4 points in 10
Tkachuk with 6 points in 13

So 2 guys are producing

Even down the lineup, dependable Derek Ryan has 3 points in 20

When it’s everybody on the roster, it’s not the ‘game breaking talent’ IMO. The game breaking talent needs to get you the extra goal when you need it, not being the only ones even scoring at all

Hope that makes sense

It is also tough to account this all on the system, however.



Ok, Sutter didn't change the system too much (and I hope he does next season), but these players were not scoring well before Sutter came into the equation, and they were allowing way more chances against. Whatever is wrong with this team, it isn't really extinguished yet. Too many players having down years.


I do think that, in part, a lack of offence from the defence is hurting this squad, as I do think a lot more used to be generated from the back end. I do think that explains SOME (how much some is, I don't know) of the lack of offence.


I am actually quite optimistic that things will turn around next season under Sutter because I see Gaudreau and Lindholm doing well under him. Might just be too short of a sample size, but I do think there is a reason to be a bit optimistic that two guys who some people felt were relative questions marks at being able to generate offence under Sutter are indeed doing so.


I am ok with this. They really tightened-up defensively, and I do believe they are getting better offensively. They are attacking with more pace, but not regularly enough, and Gaudreau's line is not dumping the puck as much and they are looking more engaged in every zone.


Again, might just be a sample size, but I am optimistic there.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I thought Sutter changed it quite a lot, despite saying he had no time to. Much less aggressive F3 in the o zone. A lot more ringing it around perimeter in zone waiting for opportunities, etc. Point shots and (what was supposed to be) traffic

There was more dumping but that appeared to be guidance if there is nothing else particularly obviously good available

But totally agree about pace and activated D

I’ve found that I understand some of what Sutter is trying to do but it’s not been effective enough and it hasn’t been entertaining

[Savvy27]

Comparing some of the stats from Sutter during his tenure with the Kings (I picked 2013-14 - 2015-16 to go with full seasons) and compared to his time as Flames coach and finally with the Flames prior to the coaching change:

LA/CGY/CGY under Ward
Corsi: 56.17 / 54.49 / 51.18
Shots For %: 54.88 / 53.44 / 49.40
Goals For %: 54.84 / 48.39 / 50.00
Expected Goals For %: 54.81 / 53.90 / 52.20
Scoring Chances For %: 54.22 / 53.89 / 51.68
High Danger Chances for %: 54.51 / 53.16 / 51.40
High Danger Shooting %: 16.82 / 13.24 / 15.66
Save %: .930 / .906 / .923

All numbers 5v5. Flames numbers split on March 11.
LA Kings League Rank
2013-14 9th
2014-15 18th (this was a bizarre season where the Kings and Bruins both missed the playoffs by a hair with 95 and 96 points respectively and LA went 2-8 in the shootout)
2015-16 8th

The Flames 5v5 goals for at 48.39% under Sutter sticks out like a sore thumb as does the save percentage. This suggests to me that the problem is execution by the players and goalie because the overall flow of the game is almost identical to what the Kings were doing but the results are substantially worse.

Ward has some interesting numbers too. His team was on the right side on most of these metrics, but he was getting better goaltending and better scoring execution 5v5 for sure, so I think Sutter has been relatively unfortunate to have had the team win so few games despite controlling a lot of them.

[SeanCharles]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Comparing some of the stats from Sutter during his tenure with the Kings (I picked 2013-14 - 2015-16 to go with full seasons) and compared to his time as Flames coach and finally with the Flames prior to the coaching change:

LA/CGY/CGY under Ward
Corsi: 56.17 / 54.49 / 51.18
Shots For %: 54.88 / 53.44 / 49.40
Goals For %: 54.84 / 48.39 / 50.00
Expected Goals For %: 54.81 / 53.90 / 52.20
Scoring Chances For %: 54.22 / 53.89 / 51.68
High Danger Chances for %: 54.51 / 53.16 / 51.40
High Danger Shooting %: 16.82 / 13.24 / 15.66
Save %: .930 / .906 / .923

All numbers 5v5. Flames numbers split on March 11.
LA Kings League Rank
2013-14 9th
2014-15 18th (this was a bizarre season where the Kings and Bruins both missed the playoffs by a hair with 95 and 96 points respectively and LA went 2-8 in the shootout)
2015-16 8th

The Flames 5v5 goals for at 48.39% under Sutter sticks out like a sore thumb as does the save percentage. This suggests to me that the problem is execution by the players and goalie because the overall flow of the game is almost identical to what the Kings were doing but the results are substantially worse.

Ward has some interesting numbers too. His team was on the right side on most of these metrics, but he was getting better goaltending and better scoring execution 5v5 for sure, so I think Sutter has been relatively unfortunate to have had the team win so few games despite controlling a lot of them.

I think, if anything, these numbers indicate how flawed advanced stats can be.

I don’t see us generating a lot of, what I would call, high danger scoring chances because we spend most of our offensive zone time passing the puck around the perimeter and taking low percentage shots.

The team save percentage is likely down because other teams don’t like taking these same low percentage shots from the point/perimeter that we do.

Sutter has been able to reduce the amount of opposing teams shots and goals against but has also reduced our goals for because of this perimeter dump and chase play coupled with our PP looking atrocious since Sutter took over.

I’m not going to pretend we don’t have scoring depth issues but I don’t think Sutter’s deployment choices have helped anything either (Ritchie on 2nd line, two dmen on PP1, Nesterov on PP2 etc.).

[1_Flames_Fan]

Wrong thread

[Savvy27]

Respectfully, I think you might be allowing the frustration of the season and the poor results to color your impression of what is happening in the games. There is probably a little bit of a difference between the chances the Avalanche are getting when compared with the ones the Flames are getting, but I think that if it were a big difference then we would see more randomness in which teams are succeeding in these categories versus the standings.

Here are the top 5 teams in these categories this season:
Corsi
1. Avalanche (League rank in standings based on win %: 4th)
2. Canadiens (16th)
3. Hurricanes (1st)
4. Bruins (10th)
5. Panthers (5th)
Average: 7.2
(Flames are 5th since Sutter)


Shots for %:
1. Avalanche (4th)
2. Bruins (10th)
3. Canadiens (16th)
4. Panthers (5th)
5. Hurricanes (1st)
Average 7.2
(Flames are 9th)

Goals for %:
1. Avalanche (4th)
2. Leafs (6th)
3. Hurricanes (1st)
4. Golden Knights (2nd)
5. Lightning (3rd)
Average: 3.2
(Flames are 18th)

Expected Goals for %:
1. Avalanche (4th)
2. Leafs (6th)
3. Hurricanes (1st)
4. Panthers (5th)
5. Lightning (3rd)
Average: 3.8
(Flames are 8th)

Scoring Chances for %:
1. Avalanche (4th)
2. Canadiens (16th)
3. Leafs (6th)
4. Panthers (5th)
5. Golden Knights (2nd)
Average: 6.6
(Flames are 7th)

High Danger Chances for %:
1. Avalanche (4th)
2. Islanders (12th)
3. Leafs (6th)
4. Hurricanes (1st)
5. Wild (8th)
Average 6.2
(Flames are 8th)

High Danger Shooting %:
1. Kings (21st)
2. Penguins (6th)
3. Jets (13th)
4. Blues (15th)
5. Wild (9th)
Average: 12.8
(Flames are 31st)

Save %:
1. Hurricanes (1st)
2. Predators (14th)
3. Islanders (12th)
4. Leafs (6th)
5. Lightning (3rd)
Average: 7.2
(Flames are 26th)

The stats are obviously not perfect, but I find it pretty persuasive that the teams that are highly ranked in these categories tend to be near the top of the league in the standings. There are not a lot of outliers here. The Canadiens are one, but they are a playoff team and they have the 2nd worst 5v5 save percentage and the worst shooting percentage in the NHL this season, so I think that similar to the Flames, weaker goaltending and poor finishing can explain the difference between where they rank in these categories vs where they rank in the standings.

Also, looking at this, I think I might have wasted time posting the High Danger Shooting percentage. I thought that might explain something about the Flames, but that one looks more random than the others.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by SeanCharles

I think, if anything, these numbers indicate how flawed advanced stats can be.

I don’t see us generating a lot of, what I would call, high danger scoring chances because we spend most of our offensive zone time passing the puck around the perimeter and taking low percentage shots.

The team save percentage is likely down because other teams don’t like taking these same low percentage shots from the point/perimeter that we do.

Sutter has been able to reduce the amount of opposing teams shots and goals against but has also reduced our goals for because of this perimeter dump and chase play coupled with our PP looking atrocious since Sutter took over.

I’m not going to pretend we don’t have scoring depth issues but I don’t think Sutter’s deployment choices have helped anything either (Ritchie on 2nd line, two dmen on PP1, Nesterov on PP2 etc.).

And they're not generating all that much.

His percentages are correct though because they've reduced what they give up by more than they've reduced what they generate.

Under Sutter the Flames are ranked ...

Defensive numbers:
CA60 3rd
SA60 3rd
xGA60 2nd
SCA60 2nd
HDCA60 2nd

That's elite defensive play for the team.

Offensive numbers?
CF60 9th
SF60 18th
xGF60 20th
SCF60 27th
HDCF60 23rd

He's fixed the defensive side of the puck, but this team is awful offensively. It's not just finish.

[ricardodw]

Using this last Jets game as an example.


Goal 1 18:56 Giveaway by Nesterov 18:51 goal by Lowry -possession 5 sec
Goal 2 14:48 Backlund wins faceoff 14.27 goal by Lowry possession at most 21 seconds
Goal 3 1:26 Stone missed shot 1:14 goal by Wheeler possession 12 seconds
Goal 4 17:01 giveaway by Tanev 16:58 goal by Wheeler possession 3 seconds

4 goals max possession time 42 seconds.

Is possession time as measured by shot attempts valid?

How much more important is turnovers and quick possession changes?

In this game the Flames were credited with 22 giveaways the Jets 10.

The Flames are #3 in the league as a team in giveaways. Might suggest a problem and area for improvement.

Giveaways is not a clear indication of team success as Toronto #1 and Carolina #7 in giveaways are top teams.

Of the 10 worst teams in regards to giveaways 5 will make the playoffs

Of the 10 best teams in terms of fewest giveaways:

top 4 are

Tampa
Vegas
Minnesota
Colorado

6 out of 10 will make the playoffs.


I would venture to opine that giveaways are measured even more dubiously than shots on goal and attempted shots on goal

From watching games the more talented teams (Toronto, Edmonton) make you pay more consistently for giveaways.

[GioforPM]

You are making some flawed observations. For example, 3 seconds in the Tanev example doesn’t count the fact that the Jets had zone time for a fair time before he regained possession and then lost it with a bad pass (and subsequent collision with his own teammate).

The other flaw is that lots of advanced stats aren’t meant to be used for single games because of such anomalies. Do you assume that birth rates for a city are zero if there happen to be no births on the particular day you look at? Or do you maybe look for a larger sample size.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Using this last Jets game as an example.


Goal 1 18:56 Giveaway by Nesterov 18:51 goal by Lowry -possession 5 sec
Goal 2 14:48 Backlund wins faceoff 14.27 goal by Lowry possession at most 21 seconds
Goal 3 1:26 Stone missed shot 1:14 goal by Wheeler possession 12 seconds
Goal 4 17:01 giveaway by Tanev 16:58 goal by Wheeler possession 3 seconds

4 goals max possession time 42 seconds.

Is possession time as measured by shot attempts valid?

How much more important is turnovers and quick possession changes?

In this game the Flames were credited with 22 giveaways the Jets 10.

The Flames are #3 in the league as a team in giveaways. Might suggest a problem and area for improvement.

Giveaways is not a clear indication of team success as Toronto #1 and Carolina #7 in giveaways are top teams.

Of the 10 worst teams in regards to giveaways 5 will make the playoffs

Of the 10 best teams in terms of fewest giveaways:

top 4 are

Tampa
Vegas
Minnesota
Colorado

6 out of 10 will make the playoffs.


I would venture to opine that giveaways are measured even more dubiously than shots on goal and attempted shots on goal

From watching games the more talented teams (Toronto, Edmonton) make you pay more consistently for giveaways.

The "possession" stats suggest two things and two things only.

Calgary had more shot volume.
Winnipeg had the lion's share of dangerous chances.

The right team won.

Not sure why you feel the need to belabor this. Turnovers certainly are a factor and a good reason whey Winnipeg had the chance gap, but it doesn't change the fact that Calgary probably had more zone time according to the shot volume stats.

You're having a completely different argument with yourself.