[PGT] The Flames didn't win

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by New Era

Except that the most important metrics used to determine team performance versus their peers - wins/losses, goal differential, the standings - indicate the team is not performing. Try and spin it any way you like, using as many fancy stats as you like, but it doesn’t change the most important measures.

Something like standings is a terrible way to conclude that EVERYONE on the team is underperforming.
You can choose to ignore other metrics. That's your right.
I personally see them having value as part of the overall narrative.
It ain't spin.

[troutman]

If both teams "show up to work", one team is still going to lose. Such a vague and unhelpful measure.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by troutman

If both teams "show up to work", one team is still going to lose. Such a vague and unhelpful measure.

the more nebulous the criticism, the easier it is to apply to a variety of situations.

#UnPrepared

[colbym72]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

the more nebulous the criticism, the easier it is to apply to a variety of situations.

#UnPrepared

The team that wanted it more won

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Oh I know Hiller was an absolute nightmare that season. But he also only played 26 games. Give him statistically average GAA on our team and I still think we would've been a bottom 5 team in goals allowed.

Hiller allowed 79 goals in 654 shots.
With a league average SV% of .915 that drops down to 55 goals. Hiller was worth -24 goals. Flames allowed 257 goals. If Hiller were average that becomes 233 goals, good for 21st in NHL.

Ortio allowed 55 goals on 564 shots.
With a league average SV% of .915 that drops down to 48 goals. Ortio was worth -7 . If Hiller+Ortio were average that becomes 226 goals allowed good for 18th place.

Drops down to 220 if Ramo were league average, or 16th place.


Basically that's -6 EN goals against because we didn't get saves earlier in games. Backstrom was also worth -4 goals -> 210GA would have been good for 11th. Tied with the Sharks who won the west. And not with elite Vezina goaltending but league average SV%.

SV% isn't wholely goalie independant but no one would suggest we got the calibre of goaltending we have gotten from Elliott, Johnson, Smith, and Rittich. Ramo and Ortio were waived that year and Hiller should have been.

[Strange Brew]

So for the sake or argument, let's say BT does the following:

Trade Brodie for Hoffman
Sign a mid tier winger UFA. 3rd line type, $3 m per year
Intend to promote a D prospect like Andersson to main roster
Proverbial open competition for most NHL ready forward prospect

And otherwise keep same roster as this year.

For those that believe underlyings stats show Flames should have better than they are getting, would this be a satisfactory off season? Does changing the coach make or break your view on whether this would be a good off season?

Personally I find GG very likeable and don't hold him fully accountable the way others do, but I just don't see how you risk bringing him back. He has been an NHL coach for 4 years now and barring something dramatic, there just isn't a track record of actual success.

I am more interested in hearing from some of GG's defenders than the vocal majority who have wanted him canned all year.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

Something like standings is a terrible way to conclude that EVERYONE on the team is underperforming.
You can choose to ignore other metrics. That's your right.
I personally see them having value as part of the overall narrative.
It ain't spin.

I didn't say that EVERYONE on the whole team is underperforming. I stated the TEAM is underperforming as a whole, which is indicative of metrics used to measure the efficacy of a team versus their peers. If you choose to ignore those metrics, the ones that ultimately define who makes the playoffs and why, that's your right. But ignoring those metrics and falling back on fancy stats, stats that have zero backing when it comes to determining outcomes or consistency in any fashion, that is spin.

Meeting or exceeding goals and objectives is the most important thing here. I would suspect that making the playoffs was goal number one. Number two was probably being a plus team in goal differential, a statistic that actually does consistently predict the success of teams and earning a playoff berth. I would say there was three or four more, and each of them specific to outcomes measurable in the standings table. The Flames, as a team, have failed to achieve many of those goals, and I don't think the GM who assembled the team is going to lay the blame at the feet of those resources he invested so much in to bring together. If he does, he pretty much has to fall on his own sword, which would be pretty stupid.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by New Era

I didn't say that EVERYONE on the whole team is underperforming. I stated the TEAM is underperforming as a whole, which is indicative of metrics used to measure the efficacy of a team versus their peers. If you choose to ignore those metrics, the ones that ultimately define who makes the playoffs and why, that's your right. But ignoring those metrics and falling back on fancy stats, stats that have zero backing when it comes to determining outcomes or consistency in any fashion, that is spin.

Meeting or exceeding goals and objectives is the most important thing here. I would suspect that making the playoffs was goal number one. Number two was probably being a plus team in goal differential, a statistic that actually does consistently predict the success of teams and earning a playoff berth. I would say there was three or four more, and each of them specific to outcomes measurable in the standings table. The Flames, as a team, have failed to achieve many of those goals, and I don't think the GM who assembled the team is going to lay the blame at the feet of those resources he invested so much in to bring together. If he does, he pretty much has to fall on his own sword, which would be pretty stupid.

You said this:
"This is not one or two players not getting it and not performing well, its the whole damn team"

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So for the sake or argument, let's say BT does the following:

Trade Brodie for Hoffman
Sign a mid tier winger UFA. 3rd line type, $3 m per year
Intend to promote a D prospect like Andersson to main roster
Proverbial open competition for most NHL ready forward prospect

And otherwise keep same roster as this year.

For those that believe underlyings stats show Flames should have better than they are getting, would this be a satisfactory off season? Does changing the coach make or break your view on whether this would be a good off season?

Personally I find GG very likeable and don't hold him fully accountable the way others do, but I just don't see how you risk bringing him back. He has been an NHL coach for 4 years now and barring something dramatic, there just isn't a track record of actual success.

I am more interested in hearing from some of GG's defenders than the vocal majority who have wanted him canned all year.

My stance has been that I probably change the coach in addition to roster improvements. What I primarily dispute is the coach change being the sole big move for next year, as I do think there are deeper roster issues.

So I probably do both. Make changes like outlined above PLUS a coaching change.

And my primary reason for coaching change is player utilization and poor special teams.

And then look deeply at my roster and ask if I've got the right core guys, who are committed enough, to go the distance. that's a tougher question to answer for sure.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

You said this:
"This is not one or two players not getting it and not performing well, its the whole damn team"

Yes, the whole team measured as a unit! It is not just one or two players that are causing losses. The whole team is responsible for losses because of the failures in team play. Those failures in team play do not appear to be individually driven, but instead driven by systemic failures. That is the problem. I am shocked you are having problems understanding this and the difference in measures.

[Shazam]

The worst players on the Flames aren't just the worst players on the Flames. They're some of the worst players in the entire NHL. That's a problem. Other teams know this. They key against those players. Forget line matching. Just wait till Brouwer and/or Stajan are on the ice. Your best players were out 10 seconds ago? Who cares, a gassed Tavares is still far more effective than a fresh Brouwer.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Hiller allowed 79 goals in 654 shots.
With a league average SV% of .915 that drops down to 55 goals. Hiller was worth -24 goals. Flames allowed 257 goals. If Hiller were average that becomes 233 goals, good for 21st in NHL.

Ortio allowed 55 goals on 564 shots.
With a league average SV% of .915 that drops down to 48 goals. Ortio was worth -7 . If Hiller+Ortio were average that becomes 226 goals allowed good for 18th place.

Drops down to 220 if Ramo were league average, or 16th place.


Basically that's -6 EN goals against because we didn't get saves earlier in games. Backstrom was also worth -4 goals -> 210GA would have been good for 11th. Tied with the Sharks who won the west. And not with elite Vezina goaltending but league average SV%.

SV% isn't wholely goalie independant but no one would suggest we got the calibre of goaltending we have gotten from Elliott, Johnson, Smith, and Rittich. Ramo and Ortio were waived that year and Hiller should have been.

Why would you apply league average sv% to Hiller and Ortio though? My main point was that our defensive systems that season didn’t allow for average numbers, thus why were at the bottom for total goals allowed.

Saying that we’d be average in goals allowed if we had league average sv% is just pointing out the obvious. It’s like saying if we had even better than average sv%, we’d allow even less goals allowed. Fact is, we were dead last in goals allowed or at the very least, one of the worst in the league with Hartley at the helm.

Hartley did some good work here, but so too has Gulutzan no matter how little of credit people want to give him. Instead, people just bicker about lack of facial expressions, or lack of talking on the bench or the lack of timeouts. It’s embarrassing reading this kind of garbage criticism. As if everyone here has watched all other 30 coaches in the league this closely to see their nuances.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by New Era

Yes, the whole team measured as a unit! It is not just one or two players that are causing losses. The whole team is responsible for losses because of the failures in team play. Those failures in team play do not appear to be individually driven, but instead driven by systemic failures. That is the problem. I am shocked you are having problems understanding this and the difference in measures.

I don't agree with this statement. When you look at the 1st line who've produced well above expectations, they've figured in offensively on 32 of 34 wins this season. That's a spectacularly lopsided amount. They've done more than their share of helping out the team to win.

It's the bottom 6 and to a lesser extent, the 2nd line that needs to provide more to help this team win those extra few games that are in the balance. We've lost a lot of close games this season and if we had that extra scoring punch from elsewhere, then we'd be comfortably in a playoff spot right now.

But that's obviously not the case right now because based on the stat I just mentioned, if the 1st line doesn't score, we basically don't win. The 1st line can't score every night, they only play at 30% of the game, so they need more help then they've been getting this season.