Flames 2017-2018 in 10 Game Segments (non-fancy)

[Itse]

Here's something people might find interesting, season so far broken into 10 game segments.

I felt this was a good time to post this since with the recent win streak and loss streak there's a lot of "if you break the season this way it supports my argument" going on in right now Breaking the season into standardized segments helps protect against confirmation bias somewhat (essentially by replacing it with randomness). So here's the season broken into 10 game segments: (SO goals are ignored.)

5-5 for 10 pts, Goals 24-30 (-6), Shots 310-342 (-32), PP 6 for 38, PKGA 9 on 44 PKs, Special teams -3 on -6 chances

7-3 for 14 pts, Goals 37-33 (+4), Shots 337-312 (+25), PP 10 for 35, PKGA 11 on 27 PKs, Special teams -1 on +8 chances

4-6 for 10 pts, Goals 26-30 (-4), Shots 351-310 (+41), PP 4 for 30, PKGA 3 on 27 PKs, Special teams +1 on +3 chances

4-6 for 10 pts, Goals 24-21 (+3), Shots 324-294 (+30), PP 5 for 35, PKGA 5 on 31 PKs, Special teams +0 on +4 chances

5-5 for 14 pts, Goals 27-20 (+7), Shots 308-347 (-39), PP 4 for 33, PKGA 4 on 35 PKs, Special teams +0 on -2 chances

Special teams summary (50 games):
Goal differential -3, Opportunity differential +7

If you're wondering about that last stat, it's differential of special team goals (so PPGF minus PKGA) and differential of special teams opportunities. Tracking that was why I originally started to look into this, as I was wondering how badly the special teams have been sinking us. I would say... not as much as I thought, as we're rarely actually losing the special teams battle in goals. But then again, since we get more PP opportunities than we give, better special teams could easily give us something like 10 goals better goal differential, or maybe 4 or so points. Not a huge difference, but obviously significant considering how tight the standings are.


Other comments;
- If you want to think positively, you'll notice that the team has been quite consistent in scoring goals (24-27 goals per 10 games), but goals against have been down, suggesting clear improvement and a brighter latter half of the season.

- If you want to look at the negative, that good defensive stretch seems to have ended (note that the 7 GA from TB are not counted here), and the latter half of that point streak was probably more about our goaltending being excellent than the team playing a solid defensive game. (If you look at just shots, the last 10 game segment was our worst of the season in both shots for and shots against.)


Note, I'm not a big fan of fancy stats, plus there's been several good posts already on those for those interested.

[FBI]

Can you add the loser point in? Then we can see our actual record.

Showing our record without that seems like a different thread idea.

[Major Major]

Ya, thanks for your efforts, but you haven't shown the records as they are in the standings. It seems like this was meant to be objective, but that slants it right out of the gates.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Ya, thanks for your efforts, but you haven't shown the records as they are in the standings. It seems like this was meant to be objective, but that slants it right out of the gates.

Sheesh

Yeah, I don't think including every bit of information in the standings served a purpose. If you want to see that, go look at the standings.

I really fail to see how it's somehow "slanted", but what ever.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Itse

Sheesh

Yeah, I don't think including every bit of information in the standings served a purpose. If you want to see that, go look at the standings.

I really fail to see how it's somehow "slanted", but what ever.

Sorry, thought that was the whole point of your post. It's an important detail. There's a world of difference between 5-1-4 and 5-5.

[Bingo]

Fancy Stats addition ...

Shot Attempts

50.5%
53.7%
53.5%
52.8%
50.8%

Shots Split

47.8%
53.1%
55.1%
50.6%
47.8%

Scoring Chance Split

49.7%
56.1%
56.6%
56.5%
52.6%

% Goals From Scoring Chances

46.2%
60.0%
44.0%
52.4%
75.0%

That last number is interesting ... in the 41-50 game segment the Flames had 80 scoring chances for and 72 against for 52.6%. But they scored 12 goals off of the 80 chances while giving up only 4 on 72.

Is finishing coming around?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Sorry, thought that was the whole point of your post. It's an important detail. There's a world of difference between 5-1-4 and 5-5.

I feel that's adequately reflected in the difference of 14 pts vs. 10 pts.

Also, that standard for results is badly slanted to make teams look better than they are, as OT/SO wins are recorded as wins but OT/SO losses are not recorded as losses. With that system almost all teams have the biggest number in the win column, which is obviously not reflective of reality.

[crapshoot]

This chart makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks!

[CRXguy]

Originally Posted by Itse

Here's something people might find interesting, season so far broken into 10 game segments.

7-3 for 14 pts, Goals 37-33 (+4), Shots 337-312 (+25), PP 10 for 35, PKGA 11 on 27 PKs, Special teams -1 on +8 chances

Would you look at that. Good PP = More games won.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by Itse

I feel that's adequately reflected in the difference of 14 pts vs. 10 pts.

Also, that standard for results is badly slanted to make teams look better than they are, as OT/SO wins are recorded as wins but OT/SO losses are not recorded as losses. With that system almost all teams have the biggest number in the win column, which is obviously not reflective of reality.

Lol, see. There's your slant. There is only one reality when looking at the standings and that is the standings. And the NHL only counts it one way.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by CRXguy

Would you look at that. Good PP = More games won.

7-3 for 14 pts, Goals 37-33 (+4), Shots 337-312 (+25), PP 10 for 35, PKGA 11 on 27 PKs, Special teams -1 on +8 chances

Except we actually lost the special teams balance in that segment.
Only killed off 16 of 27 penalties. 59% That's brutal

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Major Major

Lol, see. There's your slant. There is only one reality when looking at the standings and that is the standings. And the NHL only counts it one way.

I can't speak for Itse, but I don't see it as a slant either. The whole intent is to see win-loss, and the underlying reasons behind it.

I guess he could have done it as the NHL standings does it, but then why not just go look at the standings? I don't mind it broken down in a basic win-loss record.

Maybe another column that includes 'x amount of points from 20' or something would add some additional insight into the overall picture, but I wouldn't say that Itse is showing some slant or bias in his numbers. It really is a win-loss record, and come playoff time, I would say that the way the information is presented would probably be a bit more predictive? Maybe less predictive?

I say keep it as 'win-loss', and maybe add another column to state 'total points' (I figure we can assume they are 20 point maxes given 10 game segments here). Could be interesting to see the overall points gained or lost and the relationship to the other data to fine-tune the associations.

Thanks for doing this Itse. I like advanced stats, basic stats, and everything in-between.

Also, with the original post, there MAY not be a decline defensively when facing increased shots (well, I think in this case, it is accurate) - depending on how you look at it. I often don't care too much about the shot totals in-game. I find that they often misrepresent what is happening on the ice.

For instance, when Calgary was using Hartley's system, they would get out-shot frequently. However, they won most of those games that season (the playoff season, and also half the season before that - that is a pretty lengthy sample size). Also, if you really go back and remember many of those games, you would see that Calgary wasn't exactly tested - lots of outside shots, lots of contested shots from the high danger areas, etc., and the other team never really did muster much in the way of 'dangerous offence', so I argue that they were mostly contained. Didn't always happen, but I argue it probably happened enough to skew the results and expectations of what CORSI tries to predict, which is why I don't really get all that excited about CORSI.

I just find shot totals (including high danger chances) so subjective. They are not all the same, some teams allow certain shots to go through depending on their goaltending situation and defensive ability. Some teams have no finishing ability but are monsters around the boards. CORSI isn't a garbage stat, but I find it very underwhelming, and I believe the confidence interval is simply too low to make it a reliable predictor. I am talking more than just the 'bad luck' in a few games a season, though I am sure that adds up as well, when the pucks hit posts, when a ref makes a bad goal call, etc.

Sometimes it is nice to just see a more simplified data set and start digging into the underlying reasons as to why they are happening. Whether it is advanced or simple, I can always appreciate someone taking the time to show data in a different way, as it does get you thinking a bit, so thanks Itse.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Maybe another column that includes 'x amount of points from 20'

...if anyone needs a reminder that a 10 game segments is worth maximum of 20 points, I don't think they're doing much stat reading anyway

I prefer to keep the amount of redundant information down. I only wanted to add that special team differential thing, because it's a number I haven't seen anywhere. Which is funny because I now that I've seen it, I'd like to see it regurarly.

Doings this I realized that I really, really prefer seeing PP and PK as actual goals and number of opportunities, instead of a percentage. There's more information, as the number of PKs/PPs is one indicator of generally good play (dominant/disciplined teams tend to get more PPs, although this is obviously not a straight correlation). You can also easily compare the number of special team goals to total goals to get on idea on how much special teams are actually helping or hurting a team.

[Itse]

Update with 6th segment.

Powerplay wasn't half bad, but they've been bleeding goals both on PK and 5-on-5. (And this is without the Vegas game.)

5-5 for 10 pts, Goals 24-30 (-6), Shots 310-342 (-32), PP 6 for 38, PKGA 9 on 44 PKs, Special teams -3 on -6 chances

7-3 for 14 pts, Goals 37-33 (+4), Shots 337-312 (+25), PP 10 for 35, PKGA 11 on 27 PKs, Special teams -1 on +8 chances

4-6 for 10 pts, Goals 26-30 (-4), Shots 351-310 (+41), PP 4 for 30, PKGA 3 on 27 PKs, Special teams +1 on +3 chances

4-6 for 10 pts, Goals 24-21 (+3), Shots 324-294 (+30), PP 5 for 35, PKGA 5 on 31 PKs, Special teams +0 on +4 chances

5-5 for 14 pts, Goals 27-20 (+7), Shots 308-347 (-39), PP 4 for 33, PKGA 4 on 35 PKs, Special teams +0 on -2 chances

5-5 for 11 pts, Goals 30-36 (-6), Shots 336-322 (+14), PP 8 for 35, PKGA 9 on 35 PKs, Special teams -1 on +0 chances