[Game Takes] Flames 4 Panthers 3

[Bingo]

Game Takes:
Flames 4 Panthers 3

- top line missing the mark
- 3M to the rescue
- spreadsheet lineup
- Rittich solid
- Gio master class again

[the2bears]

A bit ironic, but their most complete game in the last couple weeks is probably the loss to Boston.

Good write up as usual Bingo, these are a big part of the post game reading for me.

[Roof-Daddy]

3M becoming a legit thing again would be huge.

Take some pressure off the top line having to all be 90+ point players for the team to continue winning.

Hopefully Peters can nip the poor play of late in the bud before it starts translating to losses. Not much wiggle room to keep home ice for the playoffs.

[Enoch Root]

Great write-up. I like some of the changes you've made to the structure - lots of interesting little factoids, instead of one long narrative. Very readable, and very enjoyable.

One comment on Mangiapane, and the 'spreadsheet lineup'... if the fancy stats say he should be int he lineup, then the fancy stats are doing it wrong IMO. He has been bad. His stat line for the season now:

8 games: 0 goals, 0 assists, -5. He has played 84 minutes of hockey on the 2nd best team in the NHL and is -5. To put that into perspective, let's compare him to the minus leader on the team, Neal.

Neal..........: -12, TOI 687 minutes, that's a minus for every 57 minutes of ice-time
Mangiapane: -5, TOI 84 minutes, that's a minus for every 17 minutes of ice-time

In other words, if you dress Mangiapane, you are basically starting the game down 1-0.

No possession stats can save or justify that.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

A little surprised by those shot metrics. The Flames gave up numerous 2-1 chances that I would think are high danger. Not to mention the breakaway goal in the second. How is that not high danger?

Edit: I do like these write ups as well. Not trying to crap on those stats, just want to understand better. As an another aside, I think the shot clock guy at the dome is more conservative than most. It seemed to me there were many legit shots that weren't posted.

[Enoch Root]

^ To put that another way...

If you play Neal for 60 minutes, his stats say you should lose by 1 goal.

If you play Mangiapane for 60 minutes, his stats say you should lose by 4 goals.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

A little surprised by those shot metrics. The Flames gave up numerous 2-1 chances that I would think are high danger. Not to mention the breakaway goal in the second. How is that not high danger?

Edit: I do like these write ups as well. Not trying to crap on those stats, just want to understand better. As an another aside, I think the shot clock guy at the dome is more conservative than most. It seemed to me there were many legit shots that weren't posted.

It seems like every single game, I look at the shot metrics - especially the high danger - and think: that is not what I watched.

Like you said, a breakaway goal and zero high danger shots for the period?
Bizarre.

(not trying to shoot the messenger here, just the numbers)

[Ryan Coke]

I’m not a passionate believer of the advanced stats (or more accurately, how they are interpreted at times) , but I do enjoy reading your summary of them. It is interesting to see how they match up or differ with the eye test.

Those numbers for Gio last night are amazing. Here’s hoping he can keep it up and win the Norris, he really deserves it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

A little surprised by those shot metrics. The Flames gave up numerous 2-1 chances that I would think are high danger. Not to mention the breakaway goal in the second. How is that not high danger?

Edit: I do like these write ups as well. Not trying to crap on those stats, just want to understand better. As an another aside, I think the shot clock guy at the dome is more conservative than most. It seemed to me there were many legit shots that weren't posted.

One thing to keep in mind, as I understand it, a 2 in 1 ending in a flubbed pass is not a scoring chance, high danger or otherwise, because there was no shot attempt. I don’t know if that really applies in this game mind you.

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Great write-up. I like some of the changes you've made to the structure - lots of interesting little factoids, instead of one long narrative. Very readable, and very enjoyable.

One comment on Mangiapane, and the 'spreadsheet lineup'... if the fancy stats say he should be int he lineup, then the fancy stats are doing it wrong IMO. He has been bad. His stat line for the season now:

8 games: 0 goals, 0 assists, -5. He has played 84 minutes of hockey on the 2nd best team in the NHL and is -5. To put that into perspective, let's compare him to the minus leader on the team, Neal.

Neal..........: -12, TOI 687 minutes, that's a minus for every 57 minutes of ice-time
Mangiapane: -5, TOI 84 minutes, that's a minus for every 17 minutes of ice-time

In other words, if you dress Mangiapane, you are basically starting the game down 1-0.

No possession stats can save or justify that.

I agree about Mangiapane. I know some are high on him, but i dont see an NHL player. I would send him down and bring up Lazar.

[Yrebmi]

Is there a gif of Rittich pouncing on the puck before slowly retreating back to his crease?
That was hilarious. Reminded me of a trap spider catch and retreat.

[DeluxeMoustache]

To start the game Peters elevated Austin Czarnik to the second line, a move I’m guessing was aimed more at getting away from a super smurf fourth line of Czarnik, Derek Ryan and Andrew Mangiapane than a demotion of Michael Frolik to the fourth line.
...
After a slow start, Bill Peters didn’t waste much time putting Frolik back up with the 3M line, a move that created all three goals wiping out a 2-0 deficit and giving the Flames the win.

Right. Peters says after the game that he thought he could roll four lines entering the game, and after the first he realized he couldn’t, so shortened the bench to get them going.

So on one hand you have Cassie (who has been improving as a commentator) constructing and repeating a narrative about Peters challenging Frolik, and it working. And on the other hand, you have the coach himself admitting he tried something, it wasn’t working, and he made an adjustment.

He also was complimentary of Frolik as a good pro.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It seems like every single game, I look at the shot metrics - especially the high danger - and think: that is not what I watched.

Like you said, a breakaway goal and zero high danger shots for the period?
Bizarre.

(not trying to shoot the messenger here, just the numbers)

Guys that was a powerplay ... not a five on five count.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

^ To put that another way...

If you play Neal for 60 minutes, his stats say you should lose by 1 goal.

If you play Mangiapane for 60 minutes, his stats say you should lose by 4 goals.

Ouch....