[CP Story] Are the Flames Poised to Break Out?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Republicans in the US started this on social media a few years ago and it's spread to literally everyone. Attacking an opinion is now attacking a person, countering an opinion is now suppressing an opinion.

All opinions are now equal and all opinions must stand uncontested or that person is being deprived of their right to an opinion, for some reason that escapes anyone capable of critical thought.

I saw Democrats doing this long before Republicans, and Canadians doing it at least as early as Americans.

[Hemi-Cuda]

I don't see any possibility of the Flames breaking out when their special teams are so terrible. They're a mediocre team until something changes there

[crapshoot]

I want a 10 game winning streak. That was really fun last year, so let's do it again!

[Shin Pad]

They need more top 6 players - period. They need more players who can score clutch goals (all due respect to Mony & Johnny). You do that by the draft. The cost of trading for this type of player is too much. Unfortunately, they are caught in the cycle of not being good enough to complete for a cup and not being bad enough to get a first overall draft pick. At the very least, they need more high end draft picks - I don't see how that happens. Maybe someone will give them a high draft pick for one of D men, but it's not going to be a team that is at the bottom of the standings.

[cofias]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Republicans in the US started this on social media a few years ago and it's spread to literally everyone. Attacking an opinion is now attacking a person, countering an opinion is now suppressing an opinion.

All opinions are now equal and all opinions must stand uncontested or that person is being deprived of their right to an opinion, for some reason that escapes anyone capable of critical thought.

Originally Posted by Jay Random

I saw Democrats doing this long before Republicans, and Canadians doing it at least as early as Americans.

I think it's partially one of the negative effects of social media echo chambers where algorithms ensure that you are almost always only exposed to content that reinforces your own beliefs. When someone then makes a comment and receives a rebuttal their first instinct is to go on the defensive rather than potentially revise their opinion based on new information. It probably occurs in every country, though USA might be an extreme outlier.

[GranteedEV]

The Flames are 52.85% xGF and 49.34% GF so yes they are underperforming relative to their chances.

However IMO this is indicative of a more obvious problem - the underuse of set plays and high slot feeds in our cycle and rush offense. This won't change with more luck... it will change with identifying how to use all this possession to better results.

I also don't think we execute enough one-by-one line changes while hemming teams in. That is a tenet of possession teams that simply isn't executed, ever

[Erick Estrada]

Nope.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

The Flames are 52.85% xGF and 49.34% GF so yes they are underperforming relative to their chances.

However IMO this is indicative of a more obvious problem - the underuse of set plays and high slot feeds in our cycle and rush offense. This won't change with more luck... it will change with identifying how to use all this possession to better results.

I also don't think we execute enough one-by-one line changes while hemming teams in. That is a tenet of possession teams that simply isn't executed, ever

But once again their percentage of scoring chances says they are doing what you say they need to do more of more than most teams already.

[442scotty]

Ummmmm nope. Not until the playoffs are out of reach probably

[Lanny_McDonald]

The Flames will not break out until they change the coaching staff. The only way this team breaks out under Gulutzan is if he brings the measles to work with him.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

The Flames will not break out until they change the coaching staff. The only way this team breaks out under Gulutzan is if he brings the measles to work with him.

Thanks for the in depth response.

Makes the effort of the article all that much worthwhile.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

To me the GM is in charge of putting a roster together that looks good on paper.

The coach is charge of putting them on lines and configurations that allow them to out chance and out play the opposition.

The players are in charge of execution and finish.

This is all on the players right now, the numbers say the Flames are a top ten team with two left feet.

The first and third statements are very accurate.

I would change the second statement to: The coach is in charge of systems and utilization that maximizes the teams' likelihood of success.

Your use of the words 'out chance' is the problem with your argument, and the source of much of the debate of the last 50 posts or so. And causes a circular argument.

The idea of outchancing the opposition as the goal, or even a primary goal, is fundamentally flawed. Outchancing does serve as a general proxy for outplaying (or more accurately: winning), but it is far from being the goal.

IMO, the biggest dis-service that advanced stats have brought to the analytics of hockey is the notion that chances = success (or good).

Chances do not equal success. There is no question that better teams are probably going to outchance weaker teams, more often than not. But by stating or assuming that chances result in success, you have the logic backwards. Or to put it another way, correlation does not equal causation.

The three primary reasons that the Flames' record does not reflect their 'chances' IMO, have nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with the way they play (their systems, for lack of a better word).

1) The way they defend: the chances that they give up are too acute - too many players are wide open to have enough time, and enough space, to be able to take advantage of their opportunities. The Flames focus on lanes and positioning of their sticks when playing D , instead of covering the man. And it leaves too many people wide open.

2) Special teams: You can talk 5 on 5 possession all you want, but, much like a football game comes down to 4 or 5 plays and who wins the turnover battle, hockey often comes down to special teams. And too often this year, their special teams have lost them games. (Note: it may very well average out later in the year, but lately this has been a huge issue).

3) Style of play: This can be described in a lot of ways: lack of identity, bad systems, whatever. For me, it comes down to the fact that they are far too easy to play against. Particularly at home. It is so easy to see, every night at the Dome (and was very much on display again last night): the Flames are easy to play against, and teams know that they just have to be patient, collapse down low, and wait for their chances (which will come). And if you shut down the Flames' in the neutral zone... relax and put your feet up, because they are not going to be pushing back.

Five on five possession numbers will never evaluate any of these things. And 5 on 5 possession numbers will never be the reason that a team is successful. It amazes me how often this conversation keeps being had, year after year, about so many teams that have good possession numbers, but suck overall (I do not believe that the Flame suck). And yet so many people continue to believe that the answers are there, and that these teams are just unlucky.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The first and third statements are very accurate.

I would change the second statement to: The coach is in charge of systems and utilization that maximizes the teams' likelihood of success.

Your use of the words 'out chance' is the problem with your argument, and the source of much of the debate of the last 50 posts or so. And causes a circular argument.

The idea of outchancing the opposition as the goal, or even a primary goal, is fundamentally flawed. Outchancing does serve as a general proxy for outplaying (or more accurately: winning), but it is far from being the goal.

IMO, the biggest dis-service that advanced stats have brought to the analytics of hockey is the notion that chances = success (or good).

Chances do not equal success. There is no question that better teams are probably going to outchance weaker teams, more often than not. But by stating or assuming that chances result in success, you have the logic backwards. Or to put it another way, correlation does not equal causation.

The three primary reasons that the Flames' record does not reflect their 'chances' IMO, have nothing to do with luck, and everything to do with the way they play (their systems, for lack of a better word).

1) The way they defend: the chances that they give up are too acute - too many players are wide open to have enough time, and enough space, to be able to take advantage of their opportunities. The Flames focus on lanes and positioning of their sticks when playing D , instead of covering the man. And it leaves too many people wide open.

2) Special teams: You can talk 5 on 5 possession all you want, but, much like a football game comes down to 4 or 5 plays and who wins the turnover battle, hockey often comes down to special teams. And too often this year, their special teams have lost them games. (Note: it may very well average out later in the year, but lately this has been a huge issue).

3) Style of play: This can be described in a lot of ways: lack of identity, bad systems, whatever. For me, it comes down to the fact that they are far too easy to play against. Particularly at home. It is so easy to see, every night at the Dome (and was very much on display again last night): the Flames are easy to play against, and teams know that they just have to be patient, collapse down low, and wait for their chances (which will come). And if you shut down the Flames' in the neutral zone... relax and put your feet up, because they are not going to be pushing back.

Five on five possession numbers will never evaluate any of these things. And 5 on 5 possession numbers will never be the reason that a team is successful. It amazes me how often this conversation keeps being had, year after year, about so many teams that have good possession numbers, but suck overall (I do not believe that the Flame suck). And yet so many people continue to believe that the answers are there, and that these teams are just unlucky.

Well first off I didn't include just five on five possession numbers, I had "all" situations as well, which brings special teams into it, and overall chances. If the Flames PK and PP suck then you have an issue, but when analyzed with the oppositions play you get a balanced result which is the Flames are out chancing their opponents in all situations.

That's just the summary.

They are indicators as I said.

I can't speak to breaking down five alarm high danger chances from just high danger chances, that's getting into splitting an atom. If the Flames are giving up more dangerous dangerous chances then yes they'd be in trouble, but I have no way of quantifying that.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Torture

Well sure, winning is the ultimate metric but don't you think having more shots and chances than the other team should put you in a good position to win most nights?

If you can assume that all else is equal, yes. But can you assume that? Is it at all accurate to assume that the game comes down to that?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Kovaz

If you want to predict future goals and wins, you're better off looking at current shots and chances than current goals.

Yes, your statement is statistically accurate. However, it is only marginally better, and neither is particularly great.

This is one of the biggest problems with counting stats: the disciples over-rate their predictive value. Better does not necessarily mean good.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

But once again their percentage of scoring chances says they are doing what you say they need to do more of more than most teams already.

No, their percentage of scoring chances says that they are getting more scoring chances. That's all it says. Ending the conversation there leaves an awful lot of analysis on the table.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, their percentage of scoring chances says that they are getting more scoring chances. That's all it says. Ending the conversation there leaves an awful lot of analysis on the table.

Yeah. I think we are seeing why advanced stats are only a tool for analyzing results and not a tangible predictor of success going forward. We keep hearing how things will turn around because they are trending in the right direction but they are still on the never ending the same win one, lose one, win two, lose two pattern that's been going on all season. I will give them credit for tightening things up defensively as the losses are at least close now but until they start on a prolonged trend of winning more than they are losing there are still the same below .500 regulation team that kicked off the 2016/17 season last year.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well first off I didn't include just five on five possession numbers, I had "all" situations as well, which brings special teams into it, and overall chances. If the Flames PK and PP suck then you have an issue, but when analyzed with the oppositions play you get a balanced result which is the Flames are out chancing their opponents in all situations.

That's just the summary.

They are indicators as I said.

I can't speak to breaking down five alarm high danger chances from just high danger chances, that's getting into splitting an atom. If the Flames are giving up more dangerous dangerous chances then yes they'd be in trouble, but I have no way of quantifying that.

And that is pretty much my point. There isn't enough information, and there is too much noise, in possession numbers to be able to determine whether a team is in fact 'good' or not. It is just as reasonable to conclude that a team is unlucky as it is to conclude that their style of play is flawed. In other words, it doesn't really tell us much at all (other than they are getting more chances).

Which is why I prefer eye-test analyses. I see problems with the way they play. To me, those problems plausibly explain why they are, IMO, under-performing.

[kevman]

My concern is they've been playing better hockey, have a 2-1-2 record in their last 5, and have lost ground on every team ahead of them. In other words, they're playing better hockey and still moving backwards.

Being an optimist, I do think they're on the verge of a breakout. However, if they go cold again without banking some points, things could get away from them.

[Enoch Root]

Bingo:

Let me please explain something... I thought your article was fantastic. The work that you did brought some great incite and information to the table for discussion. Your articles add a great deal to what is my favourite site.

My comments and objections are directed at the conclusions people draw from counting stats, which, IMO, have far too much noise in them for the vigor with which people draw conclusions to be justified.

But please, do not in any way shape or form, conclude that I am attacking you or your article and what it brings to discussion, which, as I said, I very much appreciate.