Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 09-11-2020, 10:05 AM   #1021
Macindoc
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse View Post
While true, I think the more relevant standard is that you should expect your team to make the second round every 4 years, conference finals every 8 years and cup finals every 16 years.

All that is also winning. I would even argue it's the more significant winning, that expected regular stream of smaller successes.

I don't need to recount how far behind we are from those averages.
OK, let's do the numbers. Over 40 years, the Flames should have made the 2nd round 10 times, and actually did so 8 times. They should have made the 3rd round 5 times, and actually did so 4 times. They should have made the finals 2.5 times, and actually did so 3 times. They should have won the SCFs once, and did exactly that.

So, statistically, the Flames have historically been almost exactly average.
Macindoc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Macindoc For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 10:09 AM   #1022
VladtheImpaler
Franchise Player
 
VladtheImpaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc View Post
OK, let's do the numbers. Over 40 years, the Flames should have made the 2nd round 10 times, and actually did so 8 times. They should have made the 3rd round 5 times, and actually did so 4 times. They should have made the finals 2.5 times, and actually did so 3 times. They should have won the SCFs once, and did exactly that.

So, statistically, the Flames have historically been almost exactly average.
The problem, of course, is that, much like our Shelbyville cousins to the north, we peaked in the first decade and there are few of us that truly got to enjoy that...
__________________
Cordially as always,
Vlad the Impaler

Please check out http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...94#post3726494

VladtheImpaler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to VladtheImpaler For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 10:18 AM   #1023
Macindoc
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler View Post
The problem, of course, is that, much like our Shelbyville cousins to the north, we peaked in the first decade and there are few of us that truly got to enjoy that...
True, recently the Flames have been more disappointing, although that likely reflects the cyclic nature of success with sports franchises.

Based on the ages of most of the core players, I suspect that the Flames are at the beginning of an upswing in playoff performance, providing that they can get some help at right D, and maybe a head coach with a history of success in the NHL.
Macindoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2020, 11:03 AM   #1024
genetic_phreek
First Line Centre
 
genetic_phreek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: VanCity
Exp:
icon57

I think player management with our organization is pretty bad. I'm willing to bet in a few years we will be an undesirable team for quality or up-and-coming type UFAs. Only way you get a chance to succeed is if you're past resume is good.

Flames brass have always chosen experience over potential when all other things are almost equal which I don't like.

Player A with potential - Low experience, makes minimum dollars, statistics aren't outstanding "yet" but has shown lots of promise in minors.

Player B with experience - Lots of NHL games, makes a couple million but nothing cap straining, statistics aren't outstanding.

Almost most of the time player B gets to play.

An example is someone like Rieder over Czarnik.
An example is like Fantenberg, Forbort, Gustafsson, Stone, over Kylington
An example is like Jokipakka over Kulak

I can't remember all the situations and I know other organizations do this too, just wished we were more forward thinking and more risk taking. A potential player always needs to be exceptional where the experience player just has to be status quo.
genetic_phreek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2020, 11:48 AM   #1025
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler View Post
The problem, of course, is that, much like our Shelbyville cousins to the north, we peaked in the first decade and there are few of us that truly got to enjoy that...
Yes. And the fact that the NHL was a 21 team league for the first years of the Flames existence in Calgary.

Even more lately the West was only 14 teams.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 02:26 PM   #1026
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc View Post
OK, let's do the numbers. Over 40 years, the Flames should have made the 2nd round 10 times, and actually did so 8 times. They should have made the 3rd round 5 times, and actually did so 4 times. They should have made the finals 2.5 times, and actually did so 3 times. They should have won the SCFs once, and did exactly that.

So, statistically, the Flames have historically been almost exactly average.
Uhh, you can't just look at it like that, since back in the eighties 4 out of 5 teams in the Flames division made the playoffs. Ffffine, I'll do the math...

From 1981 to 1991 four out five teams in Flames division made the playoffs. That means 8.8 expected playoffs. Flames actually made the playoffs all 11 times.
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 4.4 vs 6
2nd: 2.2 vs 3
3rd: 1.1 vs 2
cup: 0.55 vs 1


From 1992 to 1995, four out of six teams in Flames division made the playoffs. They make the playoffs 3 times, when 2.66 is expected.
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 1.33 vs 0
2nd: 0.66 vs 0
3rd: 0.33 vs 0
cup: 0.16 vs 0

From 1996 to 1998 4 out of 7 teams made the playoffs.
Flames make the playoffs once, expected 1.71
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 0.86 vs 0
2nd: 0.43 vs 0
3rd: 0.21 vs 0
cup: 0.11 vs 0

From 1999 to 2000 it was 8 out of 13 teams. Flames don't make the playoffs, expected appearance 1.23.
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 0.62 vs 0
2nd: 0.31 vs 0
3rd: 0.15 vs 0
cup: 0.08 vs 0

From 2001 to 2013, 8 out of 15 teams made the playoffs, but one season was lost to a lockout. Flames make the playoffs 5 times, expected 6.4.
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 3.2 vs 1
2nd: 1.6 vs 1
3rd: 0.8 vs 1
cup: 0.4 vs 0

2014 to 2017 8 out of 14 teams made the playoffs from the Flames conference. Flames made the playoffs twice, expected 2.29.
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 1.14 vs 1
2nd: 0.57 vs 0
3rd: 0.29 vs 0
cup: 0.14 vs 0

2018 to 2020 we're back to 8 out 15 teams. Flames make the playoffs twice, expected 1.6.
Expected round wins vs actual:
1st: 0.8 vs 0
2nd: 0.4 vs 0
3rd: 0.2 vs 0
cup: 0.1 vs 0

To sum up, expectations (rounded numbers) vs reality:
Playoff appearances: 25 vs 24.
1st round wins: 12 vs 8
2nd round wins: 6 vs 4
3rd round wins: 3 vs 3
Cups: 1.5 vs 1.

Well, turns out you're not completely off base, but there is a pretty noticeable shortage in 1st and 2nd round wins. Of course the real issue is that almost all of that success happened over 30 years ago. I bolded the areas where the team actually met or exceeded the expectation for that stretch, and it's almost all pre 1991.

Here's expectations vs reality after 1991, when the San Jose Sharks joined the league.
Playoff appearances: 14.3 vs 13
1st round wins: 7.1 vs 2
2nd round wins: 3.6 vs 1
3rd round wins: 1.8 vs 1
Cups: 0.9 vs 0

So yeah. What we're missing is most of our expected first round wins. Lack of first round wins of course translates into a shortage of later round wins, but really the first round is where the team has fell short. That shortage in 1st round wins is the difference between "at least one round won every 4 years" and "at least one round won every 15 years", and that's what hurts. It's what turns the team from "sort of average" to "winning a playoff once in a hockey player generation".

I guess what I'm saying we should really hate the Sharks more. It's all their fault.

Last edited by Itse; 09-11-2020 at 02:30 PM.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 03:51 PM   #1027
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Addendum, so how much are we "due"?

Here's what 2021-2030 would need to look like for the Flames to get them back to expected longterm results:
7 first round wins
3 Conference finals
1 Stanley Cup, or at least a finals appearance.

So yeah. When people are saying they want to see the Flames be a consistent contender, it's not at all unreasonable at this point. That's exactly what we're due.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 04:43 PM   #1028
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Those are two HOF posts. Thanks for doing the work.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 04:51 PM   #1029
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

I know hte good years were a long time ago, but when you are discussing a team's overall success, it is weak sauce data mining to ignore the good period and start counting when it ends.

Every team will have extended periods of underperformance, if you do that

(not arguing that it hasn't been bad, just don't like cherry-picking stats)
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 05:12 PM   #1030
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
Those are two HOF posts. Thanks for doing the work.
Thanks. Personally I think it's kind of a silly and the amount of time wasted was somewhat excessive, but at least it's done and no one has to do it again

I am kind of intrigued however by how exactly the amount of winning we're "due" correlates to just getting that one really good team people keep hoping for.

I think it also mildly supports the idea that this franchise keeps sacrificing the long-term good of the team for the benefit of just making the playoffs. After all, those last 30 years look exactly what you'd expect if that was the case.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2020, 05:32 PM   #1031
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
I know hte good years were a long time ago, but when you are discussing a team's overall success, it is weak sauce data mining to ignore the good period and start counting when it ends.

Every team will have extended periods of underperformance, if you do that

(not arguing that it hasn't been bad, just don't like cherry-picking stats)
Yeah I don't disagree, although that was an argument about why being a Flames fan has sucked, not about the team as such. The difference between 4 wins and 7 wins is perfectly explainable by randomness, but it still comes down to 1 good year in 15 and people have limited lifespans and it's extremely tiresome to live through these times.

Additionally, I think this is all kind of nonsense. Previous success has nothing to do with current success. The league is not that random. The reason we've only won two rounds in 20 years is not just because of randomness, it's because this team has mostly sucked during that time, and when it doesn't suck they keep hiring terrible coaches.

Last edited by Itse; 09-11-2020 at 05:35 PM.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Old 09-11-2020, 05:38 PM   #1032
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
I know hte good years were a long time ago, but when you are discussing a team's overall success, it is weak sauce data mining to ignore the good period and start counting when it ends.

Every team will have extended periods of underperformance, if you do that

(not arguing that it hasn't been bad, just don't like cherry-picking stats)
It’s much weaker sauce data mining to pretend the Flames have been playing in a 32 team league for 40 years.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2020, 05:45 PM   #1033
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse View Post
Addendum, so how much are we "due"?

Here's what 2021-2030 would need to look like for the Flames to get them back to expected longterm results:
7 first round wins
3 Conference finals
1 Stanley Cup, or at least a finals appearance.

So yeah. When people are saying they want to see the Flames be a consistent contender, it's not at all unreasonable at this point. That's exactly what we're due.
You know what else happened in 1991, aside from the Sharks joining the league?

Hint: I'd say there is a very good reason to split your Flames analysis between pre and post 1991.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2020, 10:28 PM   #1034
Corral
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stampede Grounds
Exp:
Default

Two 1st round series victories since 1989. That is pathetic. No stats can sugar coat this
Corral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2020, 08:40 AM   #1035
Itse
Franchise Player
 
Itse's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
You know what else happened in 1991, aside from the Sharks joining the league?

Hint: I'd say there is a very good reason to split your Flames analysis between pre and post 1991.
Well, obviously it makes sense to split history into pre- and post-soviet eras.
Itse is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Old 09-12-2020, 09:43 AM   #1036
Strange Brew
Franchise Player
 
Strange Brew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse View Post
Well, obviously it makes sense to split history into pre- and post-soviet eras.
LOL, but not what I was thinking.

Cliff Fletcher left the Flames in 1991.
Strange Brew is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:36 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021