Will the Flames put it together?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm interested in what you naysayers think are the good consistent teams in the NHL. Look at the Blues. They have wildly differing nights, bad starts to game, etc. Recently, they are 6-5 with two of those wins in OT (one against the weak Canucks and one against the terrible Sabres). So less regular time wins than they have losses. Two of their wins were against the Oilers. They've lost to the Flames 7-4. They beat the Wild 6-3 and then lost to them a few games later 2-1. Lost to the Kings 4-1. They got off to a seven game streak, and since then have been no more consistent than anyone else.

The Lightning? They're 6-4 in their last 10, but 2 wins in OT, so only .500 in regular time. And they've lost to the East and won against the West, so they lose "important" games.

You're using 10-game stretches from a couple of teams that, for the season, have been the best in the league?

Really?

[Five-hole]

He's saying that people expect the team to be a frontrunner, but fail to recognize that frontrunners themselves also have bad stretches.

Some people want to jump off a bridge every time the Flames lose, or even when the Flames have a bad PP.

Expectations management is in critically short supply around here.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

You're using 10-game stretches from a couple of teams that, for the season, have been the best in the league?

Really?

Yes, for a number of reasons. Because the Blues record is as skewed by an opening streak as the Flames was by a losing streak last year (or its record winning streak). Plus the first games of a season are never as indicative of mid-season form. Plus I wanted to see what they did recently.

besides, if they're so consistent why would the last 10 games be any different than the first 10?

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm interested in what you naysayers think are the good consistent teams in the NHL. Look at the Blues. They have wildly differing nights, bad starts to game, etc. Recently, they are 6-5 with two of those wins in OT (one against the weak Canucks and one against the terrible Sabres). So less regular time wins than they have losses. Two of their wins were against the Oilers. They've lost to the Flames 7-4. They beat the Wild 6-3 and then lost to them a few games later 2-1. Lost to the Kings 4-1. They got off to a seven game streak, and since then have been no more consistent than anyone else.

The Lightning? They're 6-4 in their last 10, but 2 wins in OT, so only .500 in regular time. And they've lost to the East and won against the West, so they lose "important" games.

Goal differential:
Lightning +36 (1st)
Blues +26(3rd)
Flames -7(22nd)

Totally comparable.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Goal differential:
Lightning +36 (1st)
Blues +26(3rd)
Flames -7(22nd)

Totally comparable.

And totally irrelevant when GioforPM was talking about consistency.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by zamler

Uh, overall record? Tampa is the best team in the NHL, Blues are 2nd. Do you honestly think the Flames are on the same level of for example the Lightning? Also look at the standings and goal differential of the best teams.

My point is that, yes they are the best teams and no, they aren't a whole lot more consistent. They have bad games, bad streaks, slow starts, etc. Sometimes they play bad opponents and still lose, or barely win.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

If the Flames were sitting where the Kings, Blues or the Lightning were in the standings, there would be no negativity.

I'd take that bet.

ETA: For example, you think there's no Blues fans complaining about special teams?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

My point is that, yes they are the best teams and no, they aren't a whole lot more consistent. They have bad games, bad streaks, slow starts, etc. Sometimes they play bad opponents and still lose, or barely win.

Objectively wrong. After 29 games the Lightning have 10 more points than the Flames (30 games). This is literally the difference between a top team and Cup contender or even Cup favourite versus an on the bubble team. Sure the picture could look very different at the end of the season but not likely.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by zamler

Objectively wrong. After 29 games the Lightning have 10 more points than the Flames (30 games). This is literally the difference between a top team and Cup contender or even Cup favourite versus an on the bubble team. Sure the picture could look very different at the end of the season but not likely.

Again, not my point. My point is that they aren't a lot more consistent. They have five more wins spread over 29 games. And a lot of that is because they, like the Blues, got off to such a hot start. The fact they were 8-2 to the start and now play closer to .500 is evidence that they aren't that consistent, right? Unless I have the wrong definition.

Are the Cup winners from last year consistent?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Again, not my point. My point is that they aren't a lot more consistent. They have five more wins spread over 29 games. And a lot of that is because they, like the Blues, got off to such a hot start. The fact they were 8-2 to the start and now play closer to .500 is evidence that they aren't that consistent, right? Unless I have the wrong definition.

Are the Cup winners from last year consistent?

Then according to you there is no way to measure consistency, or even judge the best teams in the league. Unless you have some other metrics if so then share.

As for the Pens they look inconsistent and generally bad this year so far. Based on that they are in tough to challenge for the Cup although you never count them out given their history.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

...This team has been a disappointment so far. Their 3 on 3 record is masking huge deficiencies in 5v5 play and the goaltender has also made their record look better than they are.

Originally Posted by Five-hole

I see this narrative picking up steam here and I don't buy it...

You are right to question it.

If the Flames are indeed a team that is propped up by their 3v3 record, then one would expect them to end an inordinate number of games after regulation. The Flames are one of 13 teams to have played eight or more games beyond regulation. Eight teams have been to OT more often this season than the Flames.

If the Flames are indeed constantly being bailed out by their goalie, then their goalies should be leading the league in save percentage. Among all goalies David Rittich ranks 33rd with a SP of .913. Among starters (+21 games) Mike Smith ranks 11th with a .918 SP.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by zamler

Then according to you there is no way to measure consistency, or even judge the best teams in the league. Unless you have some other metrics if so then share.

As for the Pens they look inconsistent and generally bad this year so far. Based on that they are in tough to challenge for the Cup although you never count them out given their history.

There are plenty of metrics to gauge consistency. Consistency in various advanced stats generally indicates if, notwithstanding individual game results, the team is playing a consistent brand of hockey. Not having long losing streaks (the Flames don't).

I just don't see the highs and lows like some here. Are they as good as the Blue, or Lightning? Nope. Are they as talented top to bottom? Nope. Are they as consistent? Maybe not, but I think they are as consistent as most teams and more than a lot.

What's not consistent is some of the arguments here: "Sure the Flames have a decent record and are in a PO spot, but they don't play consistent hockey". "The top teams are obviously consistent because - look at their record".

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by zamler

Then according to you there is no way to measure consistency, or even judge the best teams in the league...

Maybe so. Or at least it is not necessarily a good way to distinguish the best teams from the worst. I tend to think that goal-differential is the best way to distinguish teams from one another, although this is also not without its own detractors. For example, Chicago has a +14 goal differential on the Flames, but the same number of ROW. They also outscored their opponents 15–2 in the first two games of the season. So, while there can be positive outliers in goal-differential, it seems just as feasible at the 30-game mark for there to be negative outliers as well.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Maybe so. Or at least it is not necessarily a good way to distinguish the best teams from the worst. I tend to think that goal-differential is the best way to distinguish teams from one another, although this is also not without its own detractors. For example, Chicago has a +14 goal differential on the Flames, but the same number of ROW. They also outscored their opponents 15–2 in the first two games of the season. So, while there can be positive outliers in goal-differential, it seems just as feasible at the 30-game mark for there to be negative outliers as well.

Just like Calgary's differential is a little skewed because of the Detroit and Ottawa games. That's 12 goals right there, in two games.

[kukkudo]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'd take that bet.

ETA: For example, you think there's no Blues fans complaining about special teams?

There will always be negativity on this forum. But honestly come on if the Flames were 1st in the division/league this place would not have many posters criticizing the team.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by kukkudo

There will always be negativity on this forum. But honestly come on if the Flames were 1st in the division/league this place would not have many posters criticizing the team.

Of course. But there are quite a few posters who have agendas both for and against Treliving and GG (having a fair bit to do with their position on Feaster and Hartley) which result in a guarantee that no amount of winning would be enough to have zero negativity (which was posited before).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

He's saying that people expect the team to be a frontrunner, but fail to recognize that frontrunners themselves also have bad stretches.

Some people want to jump off a bridge every time the Flames lose, or even when the Flames have a bad PP.

Expectations management is in critically short supply around here.

I have seen exactly zero posts that suggest anyone fails to recognize that frontrunners have bad stretches.

Of course, ALL teams have bad stretches. That is sports. Not sure how the discussion got to here, but it is irrelevant. The issue was that the Flames are underperforming relative to where they should be. That does not, in any way shape or form, suggest that anyone thinks they aren't going to have bad stretches.

we have a pretty good sample size of Gulutzan's work at this point. And after a year and a half (almost), the team is under .500 in regulation under his watch, despite having a team that should be better than that. That is the elephant in the room.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have seen exactly zero posts that suggest anyone fails to recognize that frontrunners have bad stretches.

Of course, ALL teams have bad stretches. That is sports. Not sure how the discussion got to here, but it is irrelevant. The issue was that the Flames are underperforming relative to where they should be. That does not, in any way shape or form, suggest that anyone thinks they aren't going to have bad stretches.

we have a pretty good sample size of Gulutzan's work at this point. And after a year and a half (almost), the team is under .500 in regulation under his watch, despite having a team that should be better than that. That is the elephant in the room.

Now this is very interesting. The point I have been making throughout this thread is that people's idea of where this team should be is out of whack. Both in terms of where they are in the standings, and in terms of what they look like when they play.

Where should this team be in the standings? Why?

What should this team look like when it plays? Why do you think they don't look like what they "should" look like?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You are right to question it.

If the Flames are indeed a team that is propped up by their 3v3 record, then one would expect them to end an inordinate number of games after regulation. The Flames are one of 13 teams to have played eight or more games beyond regulation. Eight teams have been to OT more often this season than the Flames.

If the Flames are indeed constantly being bailed out by their goalie, then their goalies should be leading the league in save percentage. Among all goalies David Rittich ranks 33rd with a SP of .913. Among starters (+21 games) Mike Smith ranks 11th with a .918 SP.

I don't follow your point about ending in regulation as the regulation record speaks for itself. It's below .500.

I agree with you on goaltending. On the whole, they have received good goaltending. Not greatest of all time. But comparing Smith to only starters is a little misleading as he is essentially the starter and the backup for the Flames, and on pace to start over 70 games.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Five-hole

Now this is very interesting. The point I have been making throughout this thread is that people's idea of where this team should be is out of whack. Both in terms of where they are in the standings, and in terms of what they look like when they play.

Where should this team be in the standings? Why?

What should this team look like when it plays? Why do you think they don't look like what they "should" look like?

This is such a desperate and weak question. Everyone knows there is no justifiable answer - it is an opinion that a team's record is better or worse than their talent level suggests it should be. There is no way to prove a different point total is more justifiable.

But the opposite is also true.

I would assume that your stance is that their record indicates their talent level. I would rebut with: why do you think this? What do you see that justifies that?

If every teams' record is the best indicator of their talent level, then there is no such thing as under-performing or over-performing (which seems like a pretty ridiculous notion). Also, what then to make of teams that play poorly for a long stretch, and then suddenly put it all together and play great (and vice versa)? Did they suddenly become more (less) talented? Or are there other things at play?

The "if you think they are more talented, tell us why" post is just such an empty argument. We have already told you why: because we think there is more talent on the team than the record indicates. Tell us why there isn't.