Ranks for preventing zone exits last season? Tampa 1st ... Carolina 4th. Flames last. Oilers 2nd last.
So the Flames had a brutal forecheck. The author suggests this skill amounts to 10-12 foiled attempts a game which adds offence but also reduces the workload on your dmen.
How much of this is talent? How much coaching and how much a combination of the two?
I'd like to think Peters has a good system, and then you can add to that Calgary's improved forward group from last season with guys that can wheel.
Could be a big improvement area.
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
I'm hoping the coaching was the problem.
I look at our roster, and I see enough talent to not just dump and chase. Especially adding Hanifin who is supposedly quite good at skating the puck up to gain the zone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by snipetype
k im just not going to respond to your #### anymore because i have better things to do like #### my model girlfriend rather then try to convince people like you of commonly held hockey knowledge.
Reading the article on the app the author lays out that the range of % of time that teams allow an opponent to exit the zone with possession ranges from 35% (Tampa) to 46% (Calgary)
They go on to talk about how with linechanges every minute or so there is a natural amount of zone exits allowed and that the next thing they want to look at would be how well a team controls zone exits after a faceoff and a lost draw.
They are also going to work on a combined metric that has zone entry, zone exit etc. all rolled into one.
The Following User Says Thank You to The Boy Wonder For This Useful Post:
how well a team controls zone exits after a faceoff and a lost draw.
This is one thing the Flames were really bad at the last couple of seasons, especially on the power play (at least according to my eye test -- I don't have any numbers to back it up).
It seemed like almost every PP started with a faceoff loss and killing the first 30 seconds regrouping and trying to gain the zone.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
Yeah, our forecheck was awful and I think that's what felt so off about last season. We retreated too easily and our plays in the o-zone were typically one and done. When you force mistakes near the opposing net you also get more high quality chances and the Flames didn't do a lot of that so needless to say the huge volume of shots we had that the coach raved about were from perimeter locations with the defenders already set up to limit much danger.
We were just a low danger methodical team without pace that didn't make opposing teams uncomfortable enough.
I hope GG implements exactly what he has up north cause it's just not effective at this level of hockey.
And alternately I hope Peters brings the same style here as I believe he will have better goaltending and more scoring to facilitate what in theory could have worked over there without said weaknesses.
This guy is really reaching equating zone exit prevention with fore checking.
He's talking about an aggressive fore check being the key to preventing controlled zone exits by the opposition.
Then he has the Ottawa Senators at 12th in the league at this metric.
Guy Boucher is the coach in Ottawa.
Here's a video of his forecheck in action:
The author has a link to another article about the benefits of aggressive forechecking, and I think he is using this data set to confirm his belief in a strong forechecking system when that isn't necessarily what this data set is actually showing.
Perhaps the data isn't even accurate as the Ottawa Senators play a system that generally is willing to allow another team to gain their own blue line in possession of the puck as a matter of principle.
Yet they are 12th best in the league at forechecking/zone exit prevention?
Generally it appears that preventing controlled zone exits is a good thing, but what are you sacrificing when you seek to prevent controlled zone entries as much as possible?
Maybe your team gives up more controlled zone entries at your own blueline.
The article for me raised more questions than it answered.
This shouldn't be surprising. The thesis that a weak forecheck was one of the primary reasons that Glen Gully hockey is terrible (despite good possession numbers) was a central part of the "fire gully" thesis. Weak forecheck = fewer forced turnovers = fewer goals. Also means less zone time = more goals against
The other primary reasons are slow transitions, which hopefully can be shown using data as well (but should be pretty obvious to anyone who watched a full two seasons of that garbage flames hockey).
It's great to see Carolina is much higher up the list, suggesting that Peter's is more than just another gully with more presence. He might bring a faster, speedier brand of hockey, which is exactly what the doctor ordered (especially for Sam Bennet)
This shouldn't be surprising. The thesis that a weak forecheck was one of the primary reasons that Glen Gully hockey is terrible (despite good possession numbers) was a central part of the "fire gully" thesis. Weak forecheck = fewer forced turnovers = fewer goals. Also means less zone time = more goals against
The other primary reasons are slow transitions, which hopefully can be shown using data as well (but should be pretty obvious to anyone who watched a full two seasons of that garbage flames hockey).
It's great to see Carolina is much higher up the list, suggesting that Peter's is more than just another gully with more presence. He might bring a faster, speedier brand of hockey, which is exactly what the doctor ordered (especially for Sam Bennet)
Gullutzan was very open about wanting to play 50.50 hockey and then look for opportunities. It would certainly fit that narrative to not bust a nut on the forecheck in a 50/50 plan as it would leave you somewhat exposed up the ice if it failed.
Would this zone exit idea have more or less validity and/or correlation with winning than Take aways or give aways?
1) Carolina lead the league in Take aways. Vegas was 2nd. Vegas passes the eye test in that they were a hard working team that competed in more situations than was the NHL norm. Carolina? maybe they had home ice officials who were more generous in awarding a take away? PS Flames as a team were 8th in team take aways.
2) a team with a lead will not forcheck hard to avoid getting trapped deep. A team trailing will fore check 2 and 3 guys deep even having their defense chasing loose pucks past the face-off circle. a team that is trailing more often than protecting a lead should have better forechecking stats.
ALL the fancy stats are extremely dependent on who does the counting.
Shots on goal for instance is done real time ( reported on the scoreboard) . I have not heard that after reviewing the game tapes that the Shots on goal were adjusted up or down.
If the Flames / Bruins / Canes SOG counter gives the team just 1 or 2 benefit of the doubt SOG / Shot Attempts/ Hits a period that throws off all the fancy stats comparisons by 10%.
I suspect that individual teams fancy stats departments has as their highest priority to break down game films and gathering consistent event statistics.
The teams that do their own stats gathering (what events stats collected and how they are collected)would not be interested in sharing them as they would provide the team with a distinct edge over NHL gathered and shared statistics.
IMHO there are people that are looking at the great fancy stats that Peter's Canes team generated and hoping that they will translate to a great hard to play against system for the Flames. How much validity do these stats have?
Were the Canes and Flames (last years great Fancy stats heros and low winning percentage teams) actually hard to play against that opposition teams were really glad to come out with points against?
Would this zone exit idea have more or less validity and/or correlation with winning than Take aways or give aways?
1) Carolina lead the league in Take aways. Vegas was 2nd. Vegas passes the eye test in that they were a hard working team that competed in more situations than was the NHL norm. Carolina? maybe they had home ice officials who were more generous in awarding a take away? PS Flames as a team were 8th in team take aways.
2) a team with a lead will not forcheck hard to avoid getting trapped deep. A team trailing will fore check 2 and 3 guys deep even having their defense chasing loose pucks past the face-off circle. a team that is trailing more often than protecting a lead should have better forechecking stats.
ALL the fancy stats are extremely dependent on who does the counting.
Shots on goal for instance is done real time ( reported on the scoreboard) . I have not heard that after reviewing the game tapes that the Shots on goal were adjusted up or down.
If the Flames / Bruins / Canes SOG counter gives the team just 1 or 2 benefit of the doubt SOG / Shot Attempts/ Hits a period that throws off all the fancy stats comparisons by 10%.
I suspect that individual teams fancy stats departments has as their highest priority to break down game films and gathering consistent event statistics.
The teams that do their own stats gathering (what events stats collected and how they are collected)would not be interested in sharing them as they would provide the team with a distinct edge over NHL gathered and shared statistics.
IMHO there are people that are looking at the great fancy stats that Peter's Canes team generated and hoping that they will translate to a great hard to play against system for the Flames. How much validity do these stats have?
Were the Canes and Flames (last years great Fancy stats heros and low winning percentage teams) actually hard to play against that opposition teams were really glad to come out with points against?
These are counted by an independent person who doesn’t affiliate with Calgary or Carolina.
I think he’s a sabres fan.
Zero bias. And there were plenty of iffy teams at the top of the effective forecheck list.
So.... no
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Gullutzan was very open about wanting to play 50.50 hockey and then look for opportunities. It would certainly fit that narrative to not bust a nut on the forecheck in a 50/50 plan as it would leave you somewhat exposed up the ice if it failed.
Also the flames were one of the slowest teams in the league last year, so it made sense not to stretch things out too much if guys can't get back reliably.
Also the flames were one of the slowest teams in the league last year, so it made sense not to stretch things out too much if guys can't get back reliably.
Do you believe the Flames were slow because individual players are slow skaters?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
I think Carolina passes the eye test for me, albeit a small sample size. That initial game against them back in October 2017 one of my takeaways from the game is how aggressive their forecheck was. They really limited the space and time for the Flames. Wouldn't surprise me if from the PGT or GT from that game there are similar observations.
The Following User Says Thank You to Robbob For This Useful Post:
Thanks. Since the NHL does not count these events they have to be counted from game tapes.
If the independent person is doing this does he validate SOG and shot attempts and compare to NHL published stats?
What events are they counting?
Every time the puck goes over the blue line?
Does it count if it is a pass from an own player that the point man can't keep in?
Or if it is passed out of the offensive zone to keep possession as often happens 3 on 3?
Does icing on a PP count as an exit and and entry?
I don't know.
Any study can be flawed for sure, but then I never presented it as fool proof. It is however done by a reputable hockey analytics guy that doesn't have an axe to grind with either the Flames or the Canes.
So it says Peters and/or the Carolina forwards were better than Gulutzan and/or the Flames forwards last season.
The Flames have gained Peters, added Lindholm and Ryan, and retained the players (save maybe Ferland) who you'd look to on the forecheck.
Not sure you can find a negative in this one.
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
I think Carolina passes the eye test for me, albeit a small sample size. That initial game against them back in October 2017 one of my takeaways from the game is how aggressive their forecheck was. They really limited the space and time for the Flames. Wouldn't surprise me if from the PGT or GT from that game there are similar observations.
The Canes looked like they were imminent to blast up the standings in October, but it didn't happen.
My guess would be their goaltending became so bad players started to cheat defensively which took away some of their flow.
Or months of somehow outplaying teams and losing got stale.
Or ... they were never that good in the first place.
I think Carolina passes the eye test for me, albeit a small sample size. That initial game against them back in October 2017 one of my takeaways from the game is how aggressive their forecheck was. They really limited the space and time for the Flames. Wouldn't surprise me if from the PGT or GT from that game there are similar observations.
That is a good thought. It is worthwhile reviewing the October 19 home game thread. Posts about the Hurricanes tend to follow a similar theme:
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger
We're getting worked over right now. Have been all period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce
Getting dominated here. Canes look real good
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo45
Pretty good hockey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jore
pretty much every line has gotten hemmed in their own zone for extended periods of time. if they don't fix that it's not going to go well
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdubz
Terrible. Flames have had zero possession all game. Sloppy af.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakester
Ugh. It was coming. The Canes dominated play all period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComixZone
Entire team getting pinned in all night, eventually get scored on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsFlames
We should be generating the type of chances the Canes are. This is a bit frustrating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan
Flames once again being reactive.
Letting Carolina dictate the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrykerSteve
Carolina are very quick, and very aggressive. Flames having a tough time against that combo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DropIt
Canes toying with the Flames. This one could get ugly
Quote:
Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan
Canes simply outskating and outworking the Flames. Lucky they're only up by 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azzarish
To their credit the Canes are a much better team than the last time I saw them. And we can’t seem to handle them now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Man... Carolina is a fast team. No wonder they're spending a ton of time in our zone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moneyhands23
Ugh. Out coached and out worked
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoller
Carolina has had substantially more quality scoring chances than Calgary
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgARI
That was a terrible performance by the Flames. They were completely dominated in all aspects of that game. Badly outplayed throughout and lost the massive majority of puck races and battles. Not near good enough and could have been much worse. One team was very prepared to play tonight and the other wasn't. One team played with some edge and effort and the other didn't. One team was disciplined and the other wasn't. Really disappointing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crapshoot
Carolina beat us to every puck. Terrible effort all around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
This game was a perfect example of how winning the possession game wins you the actual game. Carolina had the puck *a lot* Flames were chasing, had probably half as many scoring chances and took six penalties.
If you can't skate with your opponent you're going to lose.
Several complaints from fans in the thread were directed towards the Flames inability to draw any penalties on Carolina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrykerSteve
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsFlames
Why not give the Canes a penalty this century?
Well, they’ve had the puck for the majority of the game, so they’re less likely to take one.
I found this one comment by djsFlames quite interesting as it pertains to this topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsFlames
Need to get out of our zone way more effectively. Can't let them bottle us in for extended periods like that. At least they're clearing the front of the net well...
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Athletic's Stinson Zone Exit Prevention Teams
