[CP Story] Summer of Change & Impact on Style of Play

[mikeecho]

I'm hoping Peters like to move the puck across the Royal Road. Nothing drove me crazier than the lack of lateral puck movement and the resulting shots on goal to a fully prepared and stationary goalie (which seemed to be discarded as bad luck)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by mikeecho

I'm hoping Peters like to move the puck across the Royal Road. Nothing drove me crazier than the lack of lateral puck movement and the resulting shots on goal to a fully prepared and stationary goalie (which seemed to be discarded as bad luck)

That's the thing though ... the Flames actually have an above average dangerous pass index when compared to NHL powerhouses.

They just didn't finish.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bingo

That's the thing though ... the Flames actually have an above average dangerous pass index when compared to NHL powerhouses.

They just didn't finish.

I think I understand what mikeecho is getting at. When I watched the Flames—especially so on the powerplay—I was struck by how much time players took to get the puck off their sticks. So, I think that while they were okay at moving the puck around, it often felt like players would clutch-up when they had it, and were way too often reluctant or slow to shoot.

To me, that is all confidence. Players were playing scared much of the time and this resulted in far too many hesitations on shots, and far too many shots that were directed wide or off posts and crossbars. There were not a lot of problems with zone entries, possession or distribution under Gulutzan. Most of the issues had to do with his seeming inability to promote confidence and instinct.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think I understand what mikeecho is getting at. When I watched the Flames—especially so on the powerplay—I was struck by how much time players took to get the puck off their sticks. So, I think that while they were okay at moving the puck around, it often felt like players would clutch-up when they had it, and were way too often reluctant or slow to shoot.

To me, that is all confidence. Players were playing scared much of the time and this resulted in far too many hesitations on shots, and far too many shots that were directed wide or off posts and crossbars. There were not a lot of problems with zone entries, possession or distribution under Gulutzan. Most of the issues had to do with his seeming inability to promote confidence and instinct.

Confidence or skill? Nobody is going to get the puck off as quick and accurate as Laine. The Flames will have less offensive stats domination and more goals when Neal buries his good chances.


All these stats are situational. Winnipeg was ahead going into the 3rd period in 44 games and Trailing only 22

Nashville winning 43 games losing 25
Tampa winning 39 losing 30
Calgary Winning 30 losing 30
Carolina winning 27 losing 32

Not hard to see that all teams would be far more committed to making good pass and quality shots playing from behind. It is just that Carolina and the Flames had a lot more opportunity

Teams play differently with a lead. As much as hockey folk lore says that you shouldn't change your play protecting your lead all the good teams do it and in 90% of the time win the game. That is what makes them good teams.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Confidence or skill? Nobody is going to get the puck off as quick and accurate as Laine. The Flames will have less offensive stats domination and more goals when Neal buries his good chances.


All these stats are situational. Winnipeg was ahead going into the 3rd period in 44 games and Trailing only 22

Nashville winning 43 games losing 25
Tampa winning 39 losing 30
Calgary Winning 30 losing 30
Carolina winning 27 losing 32

Not hard to see that all teams would be far more committed to making good pass and quality shots playing from behind. It is just that Carolina and the Flames had a lot more opportunity

Teams play differently with a lead. As much as hockey folk lore says that you shouldn't change your play protecting your lead all the good teams do it and in 90% of the time win the game. That is what makes them good teams.

Stats just don't back that up though./

Flames were 3rd in CF% and 4th in HDCF% score adjusted.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Stats just don't back that up though./

Flames were 3rd in CF% and 4th in HDCF% score adjusted.

Exactly .... for CF% .... losing teams go all out and generate more SOG ( CF) than teams sitting on a lead and sending in 1 forechecker. and winning games.


what is HDCF% score adjusted? HDCF% is the percentage of good scoring chances for over the total good scoring chances.

How would the score adjusted work? Is there a place where they keep track of the HDCF % trailing as opposed to HDCF% when leading?

The Flames HDCF% would be weighted to them trailing as they were more often chasing the game.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Confidence or skill? Nobody is going to get the puck off as quick and accurate as Laine. The Flames will have less offensive stats domination and more goals when Neal buries his good chances.


All these stats are situational. Winnipeg was ahead going into the 3rd period in 44 games and Trailing only 22

Nashville winning 43 games losing 25
Tampa winning 39 losing 30
Calgary Winning 30 losing 30
Carolina winning 27 losing 32

Not hard to see that all teams would be far more committed to making good pass and quality shots playing from behind. It is just that Carolina and the Flames had a lot more opportunity

Teams play differently with a lead. As much as hockey folk lore says that you shouldn't change your play protecting your lead all the good teams do it and in 90% of the time win the game. That is what makes them good teams.

This is farcically, patently false. The 2016–17 Flames were far and away the best team in the NHL when leading into the 3rd period, winning 97% of the time. They were much better two years ago in this category than last year where they posted a 20th ranked 0.833 winning percentage. Based on this unassailable logic the team suddenly became demonstrably less skilled over the 2017 summer.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Exactly .... for CF% .... losing teams go all out and generate more SOG ( CF) than teams sitting on a lead and sending in 1 forechecker. and winning games.


what is HDCF% score adjusted? HDCF% is the percentage of good scoring chances for over the total good scoring chances.

How would the score adjusted work? Is there a place where they keep track of the HDCF % trailing as opposed to HDCF% when leading?

The Flames HDCF% would be weighted to them trailing as they were more often chasing the game.

Not exactly at all.

In fact exactly against what you are saying. Score adjusted means it takes into account the differential for teams leading and trailing in the CF% number. If the Flames were well down the list score adjusted then you could scream "exactly!" but they were third and fourth in the two measures so they were essentially just as productive when score is taken into account as they would be in all situations.

And yes ... HDCF% is adjusted for score so teams that trail more often than not would have their numbers come down.

The Flames did trail more often last year so their CF% goes from 53.5% to 53.15% (down) but they're still third.

Their HDCF% goes from 55.07% to 54.86% and they still rank 4th.

The Flames trailing is NOT the reason they have a healthy share in these stats. Move along.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think I understand what mikeecho is getting at. When I watched the Flames—especially so on the powerplay—I was struck by how much time players took to get the puck off their sticks. So, I think that while they were okay at moving the puck around, it often felt like players would clutch-up when they had it, and were way too often reluctant or slow to shoot.

To me, that is all confidence. Players were playing scared much of the time and this resulted in far too many hesitations on shots, and far too many shots that were directed wide or off posts and crossbars. There were not a lot of problems with zone entries, possession or distribution under Gulutzan. Most of the issues had to do with his seeming inability to promote confidence and instinct.

There must be some data on how CGY ranked in controlled zone entries. I don't agree with bolded but my eye test could be wrong.

I saw far too much chip n chase and subsequently a lot of one and done forays by CGY. There was a post about bad forecheck but I can't remember where.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There must be some data on how CGY ranked in controlled zone entries. I don't agree with bolded but my eye test could be wrong.

I saw far too much chip n chase and subsequently a lot of one and done forays by CGY. There was a post about bad forecheck but I can't remember where.

My eye test said they were lousy at zone entries, especially up a man. The bump back pass game was played to death, and with 4 guys standing still at the blue line, there was little to no forward pressure. Plays tended to develop to the perimeter, and the d and goalie we're pretty firmly set positionally. It looked pretty ineffective much of the time, like the play wasn't developing organically. Thats what my personal eye test said.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There must be some data on how CGY ranked in controlled zone entries. I don't agree with bolded but my eye test could be wrong.

I saw far too much chip n chase and subsequently a lot of one and done forays by CGY. There was a post about bad forecheck but I can't remember where.

Yeah a study had them last on the forecheck measured as the number of times the opposition was allowed to skate the puck out without direct pressure.

Carolina under Peters was top 5 I believe.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah a study had them last on the forecheck measured as the number of times the opposition was allowed to skate the puck out without direct pressure.

Carolina under Peters was top 5 I believe.

OK, that's interesting and the Peters hire looks even better through that lens obviously. With the controlled zone entries - and my assumption CGY was not great at that - I think I read that both Hanifin and Lindholm were very good in this regard. Treliving seems to really appreciate this type of analysis and he finds solutions. I'm a fan of his for sure.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is farcically, patently false. The 2016–17 Flames were far and away the best team in the NHL when leading into the 3rd period, winning 97% of the time. They were much better two years ago in this category than last year where they posted a 20th ranked 0.833 winning percentage. Based on this unassailable logic the team suddenly became demonstrably less skilled over the 2017 summer.

Your highly skilled 2016-17 Flames had a HDCF% 48.73 % ranked 23rd /30 and a HDGF% of 48.47% ranked 18th.

In raw HDCF they 593 HDCF and were ranked 25th the league.

This team made the playoffs.

55.07 HDCF % rank 2nd and 50.87 HDGF% ranked 14th

The 2017-18 team generated 788 HDCF scoring chances 4th most in the league.


If these stats reflect skill and offensive prowess then the 2017-18 team was a lot better offensively than the 2016-17 playoff team.


IMHO the main difference between the 2 teams were that Backlund/ Frolik and Versteeg were top-6 players the first year and they were not close the 2nd second year.



These HDCF stats do not reflect this.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Your highly skilled 2016-17 Flames had a HDCF% 48.73 % ranked 23rd /30 and a HDGF% of 48.47% ranked 18th.

In raw HDCF they 593 HDCF and were ranked 25th the league.

This team made the playoffs.

55.07 HDCF % rank 2nd and 50.87 HDGF% ranked 14th

The 2017-18 team generated 788 HDCF scoring chances 4th most in the league.


If these stats reflect skill and offensive prowess then the 2017-18 team was a lot better offensively than the 2016-17 playoff team.


IMHO the main difference between the 2 teams were that Backlund/ Frolik and Versteeg were top-6 players the first year and they were not close the 2nd second year.



These HDCF stats do not reflect this.

I disagree. The biggest difference is that the entire 3M line dropped their on ice shooting percentage below replacement level player ... something that clearly doesn't match to what they are, and certainly doesn't match to each of the three players on ice career averages.

When a player, a line or a team (in this case all three) have their on ice shooting percentage cripple to that extent you clearly have a case of an expected correction.

Backlund is easily a top six forward and his numbers reflect that. Frolik has good possession numbers but has never been a true top six in my mind, but certainly a top six by league averages in production.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I disagree. The biggest difference is that the entire 3M line dropped their on ice shooting percentage below replacement level player ... something that clearly doesn't match to what they are, and certainly doesn't match to each of the three players on ice career averages.

When a player, a line or a team (in this case all three) have their on ice shooting percentage cripple to that extent you clearly have a case of an expected correction.

Backlund is easily a top six forward and his numbers reflect that. Frolik has good possession numbers but has never been a true top six in my mind, but certainly a top six by league averages in production.

Totally agree that Backlund was a top-6 forward from 2012-2017... basically right up to the time he was extended for 6 years.

If he plays at the level he did in the last 33 games (post all star game) he will take over the Stajan role on the 4th line.


After all star game

Backlund 33 games 5 goals 14 pts -15 18:41 / game

Stajan 29 games 3 goals 10 pts +7 10:49 toi

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Totally agree that Backlund was a top-6 forward from 2012-2017... basically right up to the time he was extended for 6 years.

If he plays at the level he did in the last 33 games (post all star game) he will take over the Stajan role on the 4th line.


After all star game

Backlund 33 games 5 goals 14 pts -15 18:41 / game

Stajan 29 games 3 goals 10 pts +7 10:49 toi

Yeah no.

I stated he had uncharacteristically if not impossibly low on ice shooting results and you come back quoting a binned section of games and elementary counting stats?

That won't hold water.

Backlund was 5th in CF% last year on the Flames ahead of the first line, he was 4th in high danger chances.

He didn't give up much, and he created lots.

After the all star break his numbers actually improved 57% CF% and 55% HDCF%

There is literally nothing there.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Totally agree that Backlund was a top-6 forward from 2012-2017... basically right up to the time he was extended for 6 years.



If he plays at the level he did in the last 33 games (post all star game) he will take over the Stajan role on the 4th line.





After all star game



Backlund 33 games 5 goals 14 pts -15 18:41 / game



Stajan 29 games 3 goals 10 pts +7 10:49 toi

His counting stats actually improved through the season iirc.

You do realize that Backlund was facing the likes of Kopitar, Getzlaf, Sedins, McDavid right? And starting lots in his own end.

Stajan got spot 4th line sheltered duty.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by heep223

His counting stats actually improved through the season iirc.

You do realize that Backlund was facing the likes of Kopitar, Getzlaf, Sedins, McDavid right? And starting lots in his own end.

Stajan got spot 4th line sheltered duty.

pre all star game 49 games 9 goals 31 pts -6 .63 ppg on his way to a career season point wise (52) and then after the all star game .41 pp a 33 pt / season pace.

Backlund was a plus player for the last 3 seasons playing Kopitar, Getzlaf, Sedins, McDavid. That was the primary reason for his 32.1 M over 6 year contract extension,

He just wasn't as good, pretty much as soon as he signed the extension.

[Macindoc]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

pre all star game 49 games 9 goals 31 pts -6 .63 ppg on his way to a career season point wise (52) and then after the all star game .41 pp a 33 pt / season pace.

Backlund was a plus player for the last 3 seasons playing Kopitar, Getzlaf, Sedins, McDavid. That was the primary reason for his 32.1 M over 6 year contract extension,

He just wasn't as good, pretty much as soon as he signed the extension.

Small sample size, very uncharacteristically low shooting percentage for the player.

Are you implying that he was less motivated to finish on his high-quality chances after signing the contract, even though he was motivated to create more high-quality chances? Clearly, it was a case of a statistical anomaly.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

pre all star game 49 games 9 goals 31 pts -6 .63 ppg on his way to a career season point wise (52) and then after the all star game .41 pp a 33 pt / season pace.

Backlund was a plus player for the last 3 seasons playing Kopitar, Getzlaf, Sedins, McDavid. That was the primary reason for his 32.1 M over 6 year contract extension,

He just wasn't as good, pretty much as soon as he signed the extension.

That's pretty disingenuous ... I pointed out actual statistics that go well beyond +/- to disprove exactly what you're saying but you chose to just ignore it.

His actual splits suggest he played better after the all star game not worse.

Really glad you don't have Treliving's ear.