Makes the effort of the article all that much worthwhile.
Sorry Bingo, I appreciate your work and efforts, but I'm just not a fancy stats fan. Looks to me to be similar grasping at straws that the fans up the road liked to use to give a false hope of an imminent turnaround of fortunes. Flawed stats that have no real validity or consistency don't show much. The eyeball test is much more accurate and predictive of the shortcomings of this team. Stats don't explain the consistent behavior of pressing the puck back against the grain in the defensive zone. It doesn't explain the defense refusing to head-man the puck before the forwards have crossed the red line, leaving the defensive zone bereft of coverage. It doesn't explain the sill back pass on the PP to enter the zone. It doesn't explain the lack of urgency this team displays. All those stats are counter to the eyeball test. This is a team that plays a deeply flawed system that does not take advantage of the talent on the roster. All the fancy stats in the world does not hide the obvious shortcomings that result in breakdowns and losses. These are systemic problems. Systems need to change, which means the coaching staff needs to be purged.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 12-15-2017 at 10:02 AM.
The Flames might so call "out chance" their opponents and they might now be out chancing their opponents closer in but they are doing so with poor quality chances.
I agree with Root. I like to look at the stats and appreciate the work that posters do collecting them. The fact that I don't agree with them being useful for predicting future success doesn't mean that I think they are useless but at the end of the day the only stat that will ever matter in professional sports and the only stat that defines a team is the win/loss record.
The Following User Says Thank You to Erick Estrada For This Useful Post:
If you want to predict future goals and wins, you're better off looking at current shots and chances than current goals.
Incorrect. Goal differential is the 2nd best indicator of future success. Standings are the best.
Here's the major problem with predicting that the Flames should have more success; it ignores the added context of goal differential and points.
There are currently 9 teams with a goal differential at least 11 goals better than ours in our conference, and all teams in our division currently above the playoff line have at least 19 goals better goal differential. That's a pretty big gap in just 32 games.
Those numbers suggest that really we're already lucky to not be further behind in points.. A team that has let in more goals than it has scored should have more losses than wins. (Those who haven't checked the standings, We're currently tied in wins and losses.)
In other words, we need to score more goals and let in less goals just to keep our current pace, and our current pace is projecting to be about 7 points short of a playoff spot. That's one reason fancy stats suggesting we should score somewhat more and let in somewhat fewer goals don't comfort me that much.
(Plus there's the problem that "chances" and "dangerous chances" are pretty arbitrary stats to begin with.)
Last edited by Itse; 12-15-2017 at 09:54 AM.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The Flames might so call "out chance" their opponents and they might now be out chancing their opponents closer in but they are doing so with poor quality chances.
Sorry to make an example of this, but what?
The NHL has a set explanation of a high danger scoring chance which is the "home plate", or a shape that goes crease to the two face off dots and across.
That's it.
The Flames have more of those than all but 6 NHL teams, and as a percentage vs what they give up they sit 4th in the NHL.
That's an objective analysis.
Do you really think it's possible to get into this tight home plate often and find a way to have a poor quality chance more often than not?
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
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.
All good man, no worries at all.
And I hope you guys don't think that I run numbers and then call it a guarantee of future success. They're not.
a) the team may never become more than a good underlying team, it happens. There are always outliers, the Flames in 14/15 were one of them.
b) the team may stop playing this way tomorrow and never win a game again. Just because you've outchanced teams for 30 games it doesn't mean it will continue.
I do think it's a pretty good indicator that systems are working and the team is playing well though. But it could never be a guarantee
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
1) The Flames have exactly 1 injury (Vertsteeg) up to this point in time. There has to be a fancy stat that says that injuries to one of the 10 top players is likely to happen before this season is done. The 6/7 D and 12/13/14 forwards are not going to take up the slack.
2) The Flames are a soft team. They are #31 in hits. They don't score many dirty goals and have dirty goals scored against.
3) The Flames are slow. They are fast enough compared to other Flames teams but the rest of the league has stepped it up a notch.
The Following User Says Thank You to ricardodw For This Useful Post:
The NHL has a set explanation of a high danger scoring chance which is the "home plate", or a shape that goes crease to the two face off dots and across.
That's it.
The Flames have more of those than all but 6 NHL teams, and as a percentage vs what they give up they sit 4th in the NHL.
That's an objective analysis.
Do you really think it's possible to get into this tight home plate often and find a way to have a poor quality chance more often than not?
One thing that i DO think is possible is that one team can be doing a better or worse job of marking the player that has the opportunity in the home plate area,
There is getting a chance from in front, and then there is getting a wide open chance in front
The NHL has a set explanation of a high danger scoring chance which is the "home plate", or a shape that goes crease to the two face off dots and across.
That's it.
The Flames have more of those than all but 6 NHL teams, and as a percentage vs what they give up they sit 4th in the NHL.
That's an objective analysis.
Do you really think it's possible to get into this tight home plate often and find a way to have a poor quality chance more often than not?
If a team allows a shot from that area, which is blocked by a defenseman it is considered one high quality scoring chance.
Another team allows shot from same area, where it is saved by the goalie, but because the net area wasn’t cleared a forward bangs home the rebound after 2 wacks at it.
Are these both considered one high danger scoring chance?
The NHL has a set explanation of a high danger scoring chance which is the "home plate", or a shape that goes crease to the two face off dots and across.
That's it.
The Flames have more of those than all but 6 NHL teams, and as a percentage vs what they give up they sit 4th in the NHL.
That's an objective analysis.
Do you really think it's possible to get into this tight home plate often and find a way to have a poor quality chance more often than not?
How come the Flames quite consistently out shoot their opponents, from closer in now according to stats, and yet the Flames consistently make the opposing goaltender look good, no matter if that goal tender is the backup or what one would consider a weaker goal tender?
That can't all be bad luck. Quality of shots, outside of from a few Flames, is also poor.
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.
I'm not saying scoring chances are not an important stat. But we have to both agree that all scoring chances are not equal. A scoring chance or rebound that crosses the royal road (center of the ice) is far more dangerous than a scoring chance where a shooter is on the strong side of defensive coverage shooting into the goalie trying to beat that goalie clean. The shot last night Hathaway set Gaudreau up for is not the same scoring chance that we get most nights, that was a scoring chance that crossed the royal road and we don't yet have all the data needed to evaluate that.
It's better to outchance the other team than not. But if you are being discouraged, passively or not, from utilizing dangerous areas of the ice like cross-ice passes in order to maximize the volume over the quality, you've gone too far past the fine line.
And the scoring chances can't identify set plays. They can result in more of them, but only if you're actively utilizing them. On paper, teams that get puck possession put themselves in a better position to execute more set plays. But if you don't make an emphasis on that, then it's not going to happen.
The scoring chances may say we are shooting from the home plate area, sure, but that is different from fully utilizing the high slot. The high slot is an important area because it is the area of the ice with the most options. If it results in a shot, there is more net open. If it results in a pass to the side, it is as close as you can get to a royal road crossing without being a true royal road crossing. And our offense simply discourages the high slot as a weapon.
Shooting anywhere from anywhere in the home plate on a goalie (not just right into them, which happens on plenty of scoring chances because the goalie doesn't have to move side to side) is considered a scoring chance. And it IS a scoring chance. But again, if you're not focusing on maximizing the quality of scoring chance, you can rack up the scoring chances all day.
Finally, I just think there is too much of a divide between forwards and defensemen in the way this team plays. This team has too much talent on the blue line, and too much money on the blue line, to be utilizing them as traditional defensemen. Scoring chance numbers can't identify who is getting a scoring chance (well iSC do, but I digress). But in my opinion it does matter who is getting a scoring chance, because keeping an eye on three forwards is easier for a goalie to do than keeping an eye on five skaters. It's simply a matter of chaos. Our team gets scoring chances, but rarely gets chaos. Look back to this goal, scored by Russell at the 7:35 mark:
And tell me the last time a Flames defenseman snuck into that area and the offense set them up for a shot. It's simply not happening in our offense. We might be getting shots from there, but if they're coming from forwards, then they're coming through tight checking and they're easier for goaltenders to track. They're more rushed, and the shooters probably don't have time to pick a corner.
Players are encouraged to be "direct" and shoot forward instead of utilizing the full offensive zone, and while I'm sure some smartaleck will point out that I don't know what the coaching staff preaches, I think it's obvious to anyone who's been following the team since Gulutzan came on board. And it's resulting in defensemen shooting/recyclling too early in along the side walls, instead of walking the line and surveying the situation and pinching away from the puck. Those are details that are costing us goals and making every goal against a back breaker.
Don't mistake me for someone who thinks these stats aren't important. They are a baseline for success in my opinion. But they are not a driver of success, they are a stepping stone.
Defensive Breakouts sucked under Hartley. No one denied that. But that doesn't mean absolutely everything he did was fundamentally wrong. Over a two year span (since Gaudreau came on board) we were a top offensive team, and while we gave up a lot of chances most of those were due to a passive defensive system rather than the overly aggressive offensive system (we actually backchecked very well). Now we're a team that is happy to achieve two goals in a game because of our passive offensive system.
Is Gulutzan doing some things right? yes.
Is Gulutzan doing the right things right for this team? That's where I'm not convinced, because this team is not built to score by overpowering guys through the hashmarks all game (even with Matthew Tkachuk). And as long as our offense plays the style Gulutzan preaches, we could get all the scoring chances in the world and still be at the mercy of lucky bounces.
Now, could you win playoff series by playing Gulutzan's style to perfection? Maybe a couple years ago, when good teams still couldn't break out that well. These days nearly everyone has six puck movers on their backend who can execute a clean first pass. You can't just suffocate teams, you have to out-execute them, and more possession is only half of that. Royal road crossings, utilizing the high slot, controlled deflections, and layers of traffic are what's been missing for over 100 games.
__________________
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
Last edited by GranteedEV; 12-15-2017 at 05:56 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GranteedEV For This Useful Post:
If a team allows a shot from that area, which is blocked by a defenseman it is considered one high quality scoring chance.
Another team allows shot from same area, where it is saved by the goalie, but because the net area wasn’t cleared a forward bangs home the rebound after 2 wacks at it.
Are these both considered one high danger scoring chance?
Incorrect. Goal differential is the 2nd best indicator of future success. Standings are the best.
At the 30-game mark, Corsi and Expected Goals have around double the correlation with future Goal Differential. Again, key point is future goal differential. As in, goal differential in games 31-82.
Goal differential and standings are only better indicators for the season as a whole. Which should be obvious, considering you're using that as a model to "make predictions" on results that are 40% in the past. At an individual game level, it's like waiting until the end of the first period and betting on the team with the lead - no #### that's gonna outperform any statistical model.
But if you just assume that ranking the teams 1-31 in the standings will perfectly mirror a 1-31 ranking in quality of play, that's just lazy. Any idiot can check the standings and see we're out of the playoffs. Yet, some teams that are out will find a way to get in, and some teams that are in will drop out. Surely you can concede that it's at least possible for a team to play better or worse than their record.
Quote:
Here's the major problem with predicting that the Flames should have more success; it ignores the added context of goal differential and points.
There are currently 9 teams with a goal differential at least 11 goals better than ours in our conference, and all teams in our division currently above the playoff line have at least 19 goals better goal differential. That's a pretty big gap in just 32 games.
Those numbers suggest that really we're already lucky to not be further behind in points.. A team that has let in more goals than it has scored should have more losses than wins. (Those who haven't checked the standings, We're currently tied in wins and losses.)
In other words, we need to score more goals and let in less goals just to keep our current pace, and our current pace is projecting to be about 7 points short of a playoff spot. That's one reason fancy stats suggesting we should score somewhat more and let in somewhat fewer goals don't comfort me that much.
So, what do you propose we change? Should Gulutzan walk into the dressing room and write "Score more goals" on the whiteboard? Why can you say "based on our goals we're lucky not to have fewer points," but we can't say "based on our play, we're unlucky not to have more goals"?
To quote Nate Silver: "I'm not sure that hockey is that much different than random." The better team loses far more often in hockey than in any other professional sport.
Quote:
(Plus there's the problem that "chances" and "dangerous chances" are pretty arbitrary stats to begin with.)
That's why we have xG models - they quantify exactly how dangerous every individual chance is. Ten 2% chances are just as good as one 20% chance, in theory.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kovaz For This Useful Post:
To quote Nate Silver: "I'm not sure that hockey is that much different than random." The better team loses far more often in hockey than in any other professional sport.
I wonder if the importance of goaltending is one of the reasons why this is. I'm pretty sure Montreal was the inferior team in a ton of games they won.
Do you have a link to the original article? I'm curious about this. I played with last years numbers at thanksgiving and found that goal diff and actual standings were in fact the best predictors of the future standings. Ranking in terms of goal diff and standings at thanksgiving showed an average difference of 4.6 and 4.7 at the end of the season. (eg, your position as ranked by goal differential at thanksgiving was likely to be within 4.6 spots of your position in the final standings) Ranking by CF% at thanksgiving and your final standing position was likely to be within 7.3 spots.
But, like you said, of course the goals and wins to date are influencing the sample size so I removed the pre-thanksgiving results and found that pre-thanksgiving goal diff and actual standings were 6 and 6.1 spots away from post-thanksgiving standings where CF% was 7.8 spots. This means that current results are less accurate at predicting future results when you remove the current results from the sample. This makes sense to me. It also means that CF% is less impacted by the removal of these stats. Again, this makes sense to me.
I only did this for one year and one set of stats. I'd be curious to read more. To me it's boring to say that the standings today are in fact the best predictor of the standings at the end of the year.
Fun facts:
Last year the Flames were 26th in the league at Thanksgiving. At this time they were 30th for Goal Differential and 13th for 5v5 CF%. Using goal differential you'd expect them to be the worst team in the league moving forward. Using CF% you'd expect them to improve. After thanksgiving they were the 8th best team and finished the year 17th overall.
The Oilers were 7th in the league at Thanksgiving. They had the 7th best goal diff and 7th best CF%. After Thanksgiving they were the 7th best team and finished the year off in 8th. All predictors were bang on there.
The Islanders were 29th in the league at Thanksgiving. They had the 25th best goal differential and 29th best CF%. Despite both of these saying they should be terrible they were the 9th best team after thanksgiving and finished 18th at the end of the year.
