Darren Haynes News Articles Thread

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Brick

http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/

If they can keep that up and have the 1st line wake up again, they could go on a serious run. Here's hoping.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Great perspective in that last article by Haynes. He's a fan, but he's not one to sugarcoat things if they're truly bad. I've loved the defensive play of late, and I know that there's enough talent on offense to get the job done. Top line needs to pick it up a little, and the power play needs to get close to the middle of the pack. The rest will fall into place.

[Bingo]

This has certainly been my angle as you know for the past few weeks.

Flames Poised to Break Out

and Steinberg had one as well ... Flames Poised to Go On a Run

[shadowlord]

Giordano scores OT winner, Tkachuk strikes twice to lift Flames past Blackhawks

http://thechronicleherald.ca/sports/...ast-blackhawks

I don't know why Haynes' http://www.flamesfrom80feet.ca/ website always seems to timeout for me with an error.

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This has certainly been my angle as you know for the past few weeks.

Flames Poised to Break Out

and Steinberg had one as well ... Flames Poised to Go On a Run

I wonder if the Flames can obtain a powerplay specialist without compromising the rest of the team. They do have chips they can trade if need be.

[Bingo]

The powerplay is improving when you look at scoring chance generation.

I looked at the season in five game increments of scoring chances were 60 minutes of powerplay time per game and there is a move towards respectability. (per 60 so you don't get skewed by games with many chances, or games with few chances)

The Flames average 5.5 minutes of powerplay time per game, so over the season they've averaged 2.5 scoring chances on the powerplay per night, which is 28.2 scoring chances per game if the entire game was powerplay time.

With that ...
Set 1 - 27.3
Set 2 - 27.5
Set 3 - 17.3
Set 4 - 36.5
Set 5 - 25.5
Set 6 - 12.3
Set 7 - 31.0
Set 8 - 32.6 (4 games)

Sets 5-7 came when the team was playing better hockey but were let down by the powerplay.

So it's turned the corner somewhat.

What's interesting is I picked the Capitals who have the 15th ranked powerplay and they have a lower generation rate of powerplay scoring opportunities, averaging 18.4 per game.

So the Flames can't finish.

[FBI]

Damn Haynes and his optimism!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The powerplay is improving when you look at scoring chance generation.

I looked at the season in five game increments of scoring chances were 60 minutes of powerplay time per game and there is a move towards respectability. (per 60 so you don't get skewed by games with many chances, or games with few chances)

The Flames average 5.5 minutes of powerplay time per game, so over the season they've averaged 2.5 scoring chances on the powerplay per night, which is 28.2 scoring chances per game if the entire game was powerplay time.

With that ...
Set 1 - 27.3
Set 2 - 27.5
Set 3 - 17.3
Set 4 - 36.5
Set 5 - 25.5
Set 6 - 12.3
Set 7 - 31.0
Set 8 - 32.6 (4 games)

Sets 5-7 came when the team was playing better hockey but were let down by the powerplay.

So it's turned the corner somewhat.

What's interesting is I picked the Capitals who have the 15th ranked powerplay and they have a lower generation rate of powerplay scoring opportunities, averaging 18.4 per game.

So the Flames can't finish.

Or their chances aren't as high quality

[Brick]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The powerplay is improving when you look at scoring chance generation.

I looked at the season in five game increments of scoring chances were 60 minutes of powerplay time per game and there is a move towards respectability. (per 60 so you don't get skewed by games with many chances, or games with few chances)

The Flames average 5.5 minutes of powerplay time per game, so over the season they've averaged 2.5 scoring chances on the powerplay per night, which is 28.2 scoring chances per game if the entire game was powerplay time.

With that ...
Set 1 - 27.3
Set 2 - 27.5
Set 3 - 17.3
Set 4 - 36.5
Set 5 - 25.5
Set 6 - 12.3
Set 7 - 31.0
Set 8 - 32.6 (4 games)

Sets 5-7 came when the team was playing better hockey but were let down by the powerplay.

So it's turned the corner somewhat.

What's interesting is I picked the Capitals who have the 15th ranked powerplay and they have a lower generation rate of powerplay scoring opportunities, averaging 18.4 per game.

So the Flames can't finish.

They need a 'finisher' then. Put Gelinas in charge of finding one.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Or their chances aren't as high quality

I don't like that argument at all.

It says that an objective view of scoring chances isn't an accurate way to assess where the Flames are. What better source is there?

In this case it's home plate chances, and if your team finds their way into a home plate chance and gets a shot off it's up to the players to finish from there.

If they moved the puck around the perimeter forever it would be a coaching issues, but home plate means they are in position, so get it done.

[Enoch Root]

There's home plate, and then there's wide-open, unchecked home plate.

In my entirely subjective opinion, the Flames are giving up more wide-open chances than they are getting.

I fully understand that supporters of counting stats believe these things average out. I do not. I think team defense has a big impact on the quality of shots.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't like that argument at all.

It says that an objective view of scoring chances isn't an accurate way to assess where the Flames are. What better source is there?

In this case it's home plate chances, and if your team finds their way into a home plate chance and gets a shot off it's up to the players to finish from there.

If they moved the puck around the perimeter forever it would be a coaching issues, but home plate means they are in position, so get it done.

This is where I am at. The puck is getting to the right areas, the players just are not capitalizing. The PP in itself is the coach throwing the five best players on a line and saying you have the skills figure it out. Eventually skill will win out and the puck will start going into the net.

Even at this level it is amazing what an ounce of confidence can do for players.

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The powerplay is improving when you look at scoring chance generation.

I looked at the season in five game increments of scoring chances were 60 minutes of powerplay time per game and there is a move towards respectability. (per 60 so you don't get skewed by games with many chances, or games with few chances)

The Flames average 5.5 minutes of powerplay time per game, so over the season they've averaged 2.5 scoring chances on the powerplay per night, which is 28.2 scoring chances per game if the entire game was powerplay time.

With that ...
Set 1 - 27.3
Set 2 - 27.5
Set 3 - 17.3
Set 4 - 36.5
Set 5 - 25.5
Set 6 - 12.3
Set 7 - 31.0
Set 8 - 32.6 (4 games)

Sets 5-7 came when the team was playing better hockey but were let down by the powerplay.

So it's turned the corner somewhat.

What's interesting is I picked the Capitals who have the 15th ranked powerplay and they have a lower generation rate of powerplay scoring opportunities, averaging 18.4 per game.

So the Flames can't finish.

The Caps have Ovi. The Flames do not.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I don't like that argument at all.

It says that an objective view of scoring chances isn't an accurate way to assess where the Flames are. What better source is there?

In this case it's home plate chances, and if your team finds their way into a home plate chance and gets a shot off it's up to the players to finish from there.

If they moved the puck around the perimeter forever it would be a coaching issues, but home plate means they are in position, so get it done.

I do think there’s more to it than that. Baseball has moved beyind spray charts and now measure things like launch angles and exit velocity. Totally different set of facts, but fundamentally I don’t believe you can assert that all chances from a certain area are created equal. Some shots are contested, some aren’t. Goalies screened, one timers etc.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant. I’m just having a hard time believing a 2 on 1 is the same quality chance as a wrist shot from the top of the circle. It does seem useful as one piece of data though.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I do think there’s more to it than that. Baseball has moved beyind spray charts and now measure things like launch angles and exit velocity. Totally different set of facts, but fundamentally I don’t believe you can assert that all chances from a certain area are created equal. Some shots are contested, some aren’t. Goalies screened, one timers etc.

I don’t think it’s irrelevant. I’m just having a hard time believing a 2 on 1 is the same quality chance as a wrist shot from the top of the circle. It does seem useful as one piece of data though.

Exactly. People have been errantly trying to use shot location as a proxy for shot quality

It doesn’t work. Cross crease tap in is different than jamming a puck internally a firmly placed pad.

Having sat with Mr. Snow, I have verbal confirmation that Flames are looking at situational perspective, beyond the limitations of conventional corsi style metrics

[Yrebmi]

Hartley's team utilized tactics like the stretch pass that got into the attack zone quickly before the opponents could best prepare. That strategy was not favorable to possession stats. It did seem to work well for late game come backs.

GG has the team taking time getting into set position to execute advancing the puck. This leads to less mistakes but also less mistakes from the opponent as they have time to prepare also. This time also favors puck possession stats.

Seeing lottery Edmonton and bubble Carolina top 3 in possession stats does not exactly inspire confidence in that stat.
I would think offensive zone possession would be more meaningful if such a stat is kept.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I don’t think it’s irrelevant. I’m just having a hard time believing a 2 on 1 is the same quality chance as a wrist shot from the top of the circle. It does seem useful as one piece of data though.

For sure, but that's not my argument.

I'm just doubtful that the Flames are able to get into the high scoring areas deemed by the NHL statisticians to be high danger, but on average not be as high danger as other team's high danger. That gets a little suspect in my opinion.

The Flames high danger corsi % on the powerplay is ranked 11th in the league, which I don't find all that useful as all teams out play the opposition up a man, the Flames at a clip that ranks 11th.

So instead I looked at total number of powerplays by dividing total PP minutes by two. Then looking at the scoring chance rate per powerplay for every NHL team.

The Leafs are dominant at 1.2 high danger chances per powerplay.

The average NHL team averages 0.73 chances per man advantage.

The Flames are 5th at 0.88 chances per opportunity, behind Toronto, Dallas, and Pittsburgh.

That says to me there's a lot more bad luck and bad execution than bad coaching statistically.

To say otherwise is to assume things that can't be proven.

With that said however I haven't liked the deployment at all, for many reasons.

1. Get wingers on their off wings to create inside lane shots with better angles
2. Get players moving, stationary 1-3-1 powerplays are too easy to defend
3. Get a shooter on the powerplay as I see Hamilton as the perfect catch and receive option on the top of the umbrella with Gaudreau feeding him from the right side.

[Jore]

haynes quantifies what many have realized for a while: stajan and brouwer (especially) are awful on the pk (and everywhere else too) but keep getting used for no discernible reason:


source: https://twitter.com/DarrenWHaynes/st...98862607986693

[Fan in Exile]

It's positive that the Flames have good possession numbers and create a good number of scoring chances but...

Anyone think it's a coincidence that they're 27th in shooting percentage and 26th in goals scored? It seems to be a fairly obvious correlation. Why do people think shooting percentage is due to rise? Why do people equate shooting percentage with puck-luck?

[FBI]

Love those Janko and Bennett numbers on the pk.