[News Roundup] All Is Quiet On the Flames Front - Too Quiet?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If I understood the post from earlier
8th in games played
2nd in games played per draft pick

Not quite.

They have the second lowest cost of draft capital per games played.

Each pick in those years valued using the HockeyGraphs pick value scale. That gives each team a total draft capital.

As I said Calgary is near the bottom in draft capital.

But they're also near the top in games played. (8th)

So with that they're 2nd in bang for buck in draft capital.

I think that says two things ... one they traded away too many picks for a team that was never a contender and two they have done very well drafting given how they've hammered their scouts with pick counts and position.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by New Era

Are they? Are the Flames getting NHL players are are they contributing to the Calgary Flames become a better hockey team and generate more wins than losses?



Sounds like a new fancy stat? How about actual results? Edmonton was pretty good at making sure their draft picks got a number of games in, which inflated silly stats like this. Unfortunately, all those players were pretty crap and didn't contribute to a winner. I see the same pattern developing in Calgary. I don't see the team getting any better because of players drafted from within.

Also, I think credit should only be given to players that actually suited up for the Flames, and not other teams. Part of the draft and development process is finding players who will play for YOU, and not someone else. So giving the team credit for a player you didn't have confidence in, and dumped one way or another, isn't right IMO.

For example, the 2011 draft looks like a homerun for the Flames! Five players selected and they all played in the NHL! Success!!! Except that those players played a combined 1,259 games in the NHL, but only 720 of those games were in Flames uniforms. If you remove Gaudreau's 520 games, that means of the other player's 739 games, only 182 were for the Flames, or less than 25%.



I don't see anyone attacking the guy's draft record, just putting it into perspective. The whole idea of drafting and player development is to make the team better. Has THAT happened under Treliving? No, it has not. The team is worse, the minor league system is bereft of talent, and the future is one of the least attractive in the league. The drafting and player development system is failing the team and not getting the job done. I would say the Flames are mediocre at drafting at best. That could change if Treliving would give his scouts the picks to leverage, but he doesn't. We've got huge gaps in the system and that will hurt the team as they try to retool and remain relevant.

I know you hate stats.

It takes away your ability to rant and spew hyperbole over every topic because you can be easily replied to with actual facts.

Draft capital isn't a fancy stat, it's a historical look at draft pick value applied to every team equally. The games played is also applied to every team equally.

It's the most objective way to apply which teams drafted NHL players and how they got them in terms of value of picks.

It's not all that mystifying.

Calgary is 8th in games played ... which of the following players are Tkachuk, Andersson, Mangiapane, Fox, Dube, Kylington and Valimaki.

Hardly a crew of players that have been inserted into lineups to prop up draft records.

And no ... Fox counts. That's silly. This is a drafting analysis. Scouts found a big league talent in the third round. That's drafting success.

Just give it a rest man. It's getting old.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Just jumping in here, but while we may not be happy with the never ending cycle of mediocrity, there sure is a sizeable chunk of the fan base that is quick to excuse it and jump to the defence of its orchestrator.

Not sure that's fair.

Jiri and I specifically point out in this discussion the Treliving has traded away too many picks. But when others that can't stand the guy attack something that he's clearly improved it gets to be more about hatred and less about an actual discussion.

I'm certainly not trying to convince any one that Treliving should be retained. He's made mistakes, and if you think there's a better option than so be it. I think he has more going for him than against, but won't convince you either.

But to say I'm happy with mediocrity because myself and others disagree with you is a stretch.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Thank you. That’s a reasonable way to look at draft success. Not the only way, or even the definitive way of measuring quality but it has to mean something.

I’d imagine the years with Feaster as GM would have a very good ranking too. Look at that 2011 draft just as an example. Although 2013 draft after Monahan was abysmal.

Years ago I had CPers rate each player in terms of impact and then look at an analysis.

It added a team building element to a look at total picks and draft position.

The downside was a subjective add to the analysis. Points don't work because it hurts team that took goaltenders and more defensemen.

But yeah games played is a pretty objective way to start, and as I pointed out above, it's not like Calgary's games played players are stiff.

Overall the numbers say what we've read in the last year ... Calgary's done very well in finding players without a lot of draft capital. Seems to prove that true.

[1qqaaz]

If Fox doesn't count, then his trade's return, Lindholm and Hanafin, probably should.
But that makes less sense because Hamilton and Ferland were traded away as well.

So it makes more sense to just count Fox's games. If he left for no value, then it would make sense not to count his games played.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Years ago I had CPers rate each player in terms of impact and then look at an analysis.

It added a team building element to a look at total picks and draft position.

The downside was a subjective add to the analysis. Points don't work because it hurts team that took goaltenders and more defensemen.

But yeah games played is a pretty objective way to start, and as I pointed out above, it's not like Calgary's games played players are stiff.

Overall the numbers say what we've read in the last year ... Calgary's done very well in finding players without a lot of draft capital. Seems to prove that true.

So now the question is why is the Flames current prospect base ranked so poorly. Are the experts "wrong"? Is it just a function of not having enough picks? Has drafting gotten worse as Treliving's tenure has progressed? Or is it a function of small sample sizes and luck looking at draft pick performance over a small number of years.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So now the question is why is the Flames current prospect base ranked so poorly. Are the experts "wrong"? Is it just a function of not having enough picks? Has drafting gotten worse as Treliving's tenure has progressed? Or is it a function of small sample sizes and luck looking at draft pick performance over a small number of years.

Not enough picks in 2017 and 2018 especially, and no second round in 2019 as well. And graduation of picks from 2015-2017, which means they aren’t prospects any more.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So now the question is why is the Flames current prospect base ranked so poorly. Are the experts "wrong"? Is it just a function of not having enough picks? Has drafting gotten worse as Treliving's tenure has progressed? Or is it a function of small sample sizes and luck looking at draft pick performance over a small number of years.

Lack of elite prospects driven lack of high or even mid 1sts in the last 4 years.
And no picks until the 4th in 2018
Most the lists skew towards prospects with high draft pedigree which the Flames lack

[neo45]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So now the question is why is the Flames current prospect base ranked so poorly. Are the experts "wrong"? Is it just a function of not having enough picks? Has drafting gotten worse as Treliving's tenure has progressed? Or is it a function of small sample sizes and luck looking at draft pick performance over a small number of years.

I don’t think the “experts” are wrong. Most teams have a better prospect base by the definitions they give. I think the reasons are our good picks get graduated early (good thing) and Brad made numerous bad trades with high picks (bad thing) for players that didn’t work out

I’m not sure simply looking at current prospect pools is the best way to grade a drafting team, but I think ranking the flames prospect pool near the bottom of the league is completely fair. 2017 through 2019 I think will go down as a weak stretch for the franchise. 2020 looks good one year out

[TOfan]

Originally Posted by neo45

I don’t think the “experts” are wrong. Most teams have a better prospect base by the definitions they give. I think the reasons are our good picks get graduated early (good thing) and Brad made numerous bad trades with high picks (bad thing) for players that didn’t work out

I’m not sure simply looking at current prospect pools is the best way to grade a drafting team, but I think ranking the flames prospect pool near the bottom of the league is completely fair. 2017 through 2019 I think will go down as a weak stretch for the franchise. 2020 looks good one year out

Wondering where we draw the line on ‘numerous high picks’? First and second rounders? And which trades were ‘bad’? Hamonic and Lazar?

Which trades were good? Hamilton, Anderson, Dube?

[Winsor_Pilates]

So Flames haven't been bad at drafting, they've just been bad at having enough draft picks.
That sounds accurate to me, and a massive mistake by BT.
He was all in with this group and it didn't work.

[neo45]

Originally Posted by TOfan

Wondering where we draw the line on ‘numerous high picks’? First and second rounders? And which trades were ‘bad’? Hamonic and Lazar?

Which trades were good? Hamilton, Anderson, Dube?

Both Hamilton trades were good for the franchise although obviously both were quality in quality out

Hamonic, Lazar, Elliot, Smith, Stone trades all bad and involved picks that would probably be included in the prospect pool so those are the detractors

Here are the names taken FWIW:
Noah Dobson
Samuel Bolduc
Ruslan Iskarov
Niklas Nordgren
Alex Formenton
Stuart Skinner
Jordan Kyrou

Now the actual names don’t mean much (maybe Dobson?) but it gives some context as to why our prospect pool is considered so shallow by neutral pundits. Stone is the only player still on our roster but he was also bought out

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

So Flames haven't been bad at drafting, they've just been bad at having enough draft picks.
That sounds accurate to me, and a massive mistake by BT.
He was all in with this group and it didn't work.

Good thing is that they can keep the amatuer scouting staff and hire a GM that has a better grip on building an NHL roster and hiring NHL head coaches. Brad Treliving is not the worst GM in the league but he's very flawed and 7 years in he hasn't shown enough growth where you can be confident that he's going to to a 180 when it comes to making hard decisions on the roster. I've never seen a GM get so attached to a flawed core of players. Most would have made a roster shakeup two years ago.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Good thing is that they can keep the amatuer scouting staff and hire a GM that has a better grip on building an NHL roster and hiring NHL head coaches. Brad Treliving is not the worst GM in the league but he's very flawed and 7 years in he hasn't shown enough growth where you can be confident that he's going to to a 180 when it comes to making hard decisions on the roster. I've never seen a GM get so attached to a flawed core of players. Most would have made a roster shakeup two years ago.

I don't think he's attached to them. I think:
- After the Avs series, following a really good regular season, perhaps they wanted to see if the roster learned from that experience
- Last off-season the trade market was extremely challenging

I would have liked to have season more changes to the forward group earlier too - but I also don't want those players traded for spare parts.

The off-season is the pivotal one for BT and the franchise.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I don't think he's attached to them. I think:
- After the Avs series, following a really good regular season, perhaps they wanted to see if the roster learned from that experience
- Last off-season the trade market was extremely challenging

I would have liked to have season more changes to the forward group earlier too - but I also don't want those players traded for spare parts.

The off-season is the pivotal one for BT and the franchise.

Even then he tried to deal Brodie for Kadri/Brown for what would have been a very needed shot of toughness up front as well as adding 2 pretty good players.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I know you hate stats.

I actually love stats, when properly applied. I actually understand how they work (and manipulated) being forced to endure five statistics classes up to the 700 level, and then going through the rigor of a methodological review to prove my studies could be validated. Properly used, stats can be very valuable tools. Unfortunately the "advanced stats" in hockey are only used by tools who don't understand how statistics and variation are modeled.

It takes away your ability to rant and spew hyperbole over every topic because you can be easily replied to with actual facts.

Actually, it's very humorous to watch anyone spin these fallacious stats and claim "they are just counting events," derp derp derp. They are garbage because hockey is way too chaotic to use one-to-one measures to model play. I swear you forget your hockey history and where this crap was dreamed up. You seem to forget that these things were developed to pump the tires of some really bad hockey teams and prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the players on that team were some of the best the game had to offer. The win-loss column couldn't provide that support, so a few dedicated fans invented statistics to measure something that the outcomes are not meant to measure. Take Corsi and Fenwick as the best examples, two stats many times used to model possession, which is mind-numbingly stupid
because you're using an event where a loss of possession is used to determine possession (yes, a shot on goal is a loss of possession event). When you can just put a stopwatch on puck possession to determine actual possession statistics, these brainiacs determined that shots on goal could be used to determine a loosely associated event (shots can be taken without ever having maintained puck control, on a giveaway for example, and some possession time generates zero shots on goal, like on a Flames powerplay when they spend two minutes passing it around the perimeter looking for the perfect shot opportunity). What is worse, quality of shot was not applied to these measures, making the data so grossly flawed that relying on them for anything was/is questionable at best. When you're trained to understand data collection and the importance of maintaining rigor in your measuring behaviors you'll maybe get it. There are so many variables which greatly influence these data points, but those variables are mostly ignored. Again, hockey is too chaotic with way too many variable to try and measure with simple "counting events."

Draft capital isn't a fancy stat, it's a historical look at draft pick value applied to every team equally. The games played is also applied to every team equally.

It's not applied equally. There are too many variables that make it impossible to definitively say that X is superior to Y in this regard. One team may have a philosophy of over-cooking their prospects, while others may be more open to playing them early and seeing what they can do. Others may have a team with lots of holes versus a team that is packed with NHL talent, limiting opportunities for draft picks to step up. Salary cap can also come into play, both in the prospect's favor, or working against them getting a chance. So to definitively say that team X is way better at drafting than team Y because of a game played measure is ridiculous.

Take the Flames versus the Lightning. The Lightning have long been one of the best teams in the league in finding talent in every round of the draft, but of late they have come up empty. Is is because they have hit a dry spell in drafting, or is it because they have one of the best teams in the league and have no room at the inn? It's the later. Organizational maturity is a big variable. It's hard for anyone to crack a lineup that is jam packed with talent, so their numbers look bad in recent years. Conversely, the Flames have a team with many holes so opportunities for players are there for the taking. Because of the cap situation the Flames are kind of forced into fitting in what players they can, which also is beneficial to that measure (Tampa just cheats). In that same vein, Tampa has had the bodies in the lineup where they didn't have to rush anyone. Calgary? Look no further than our highest pick and how we rushed him and inflated his games played count. So the counts are very iffy and that measure extremely flawed because the variables are not included in the measure.

And no ... Fox counts. That's silly. This is a drafting analysis. Scouts found a big league talent in the third round. That's drafting success.

I disagree based on the measure you elected to use. A drafted player only matters if he plays for you, especially when you're using games played as a measure to determine efficacy of the process. If you're making a binary decision on if X or Y happened, then yes, count that event. But when you're using a measure of success where another team and their situation is clearly influencing the outcome, then no, you can't count that toward the measure because the variables change greatly. It is highly likely that team philosophy and depth on the roster would have impacted Fox's number of games played in Calgary, which would then greatly change the measure. It would be like using Travis Moen's, Kurtis Foster's, and Jarrett Stoll's games played as part of the measure for the Flames success. It greatly skews the data and makes it unreliable.

Just give it a rest man. It's getting old.

Christ Bingo, this is a discussion board. Debate the points and stop your whining. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't jump into the mix. Definitely don't use such flawed measures to make such definitive statements. And don't whine when someone pulls the curtain back.

[transplant99]

Man Im having flashbacks to 15 years ago...New Era and Bingo going head to head. Just need Johnny Flame to complete the scenario!!!!!

And need Cow to enter the fray as the neutral observer.

Awesome.

[zamler]

What is there to argue? This core is a paper tiger nothing else to say.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Even then he tried to deal Brodie for Kadri/Brown for what would have been a very needed shot of toughness up front as well as adding 2 pretty good players.

Are we giving him credit for this?

He tried to trade for a guy who throat slash gestured the captain, gets suspended annually, and Toronto was trying to unload (despite having a NTC). Good player but maybe just a couple of red flags or so. Oh, also who didn’t want to come to Calgary and invoked his NTC

The guy he is offering to get rid of? A top pairing D. Brodie, with whom Gio played at Norris level

Depending how you view the positional need at C, this looks like a pretty clear win for Toronto on multiple fronts

It gets public so Brodie knows the Leafs have interest, and knows the Flames were open to moving him

Then he made Brodie wait until he was done upgrading Talbot to Karlsson and pre paying Rasmus.

That was a cluster#### across the board that played out with Treliving the loser, standing in the rain

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Are we giving him credit for this?

He tried to trade for a guy who throat slash gestured the captain, gets suspended annually, and Toronto was trying to unload (despite having a NTC). Good player but maybe just a couple of red flags or so. Oh, also who didn’t want to come to Calgary and invoked his NTC

The guy he is offering to get rid of? A top pairing D. Brodie, with whom Gio played at Norris level

Depending how you view the positional need at C, this looks like a pretty clear win for Toronto on multiple fronts

It gets public so Brodie knows the Leafs have interest, and knows the Flames were open to moving him

Then he made Brodie wait until he was done upgrading Talbot to Karlsson and pre paying Rasmus.

That was a cluster#### across the board that played out with Treliving the loser, standing in the rain

Yes.

It would have improved the hockey team. We all saw how soft the club was against the Avs in that series, and this was a very good deal for the Flames to address that weakness.

I just wish it had happened.

Look at the numbers for those two players since.

Losing Brodie was inevitable, at least in this case there would have been a substantial return.