Shot quality, expected goals and the Royal Road

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

The Flames have a veteran team (above the league average age) of highly paid very successful individual players that all have been exposed to various strategies and systems. I can't believe that they are so for the lack of a better word stupid that they wouldn't understand any system and the need to play as a team.

I've never liked average age when labeling hockey teams.

The Flames have 5 of 6 defenseman under 30, an elite defenseman that is 25, their top three producing forwards are in their early 20s and the support staff includes other players in their 20s.

They are not an old team.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I've never liked average age when labeling hockey teams.

The Flames have 5 of 6 defenseman under 30, an elite defenseman that is 25, their top three producing forwards are in their early 20s and the support staff includes other players in their 20s.

They are not an old team.

They are a veteran team. There are not a lot of players that haven't been exposed to numerous and various coaches for a significant number of years.

With the coaching and training regiments in all phases of development hockey being so upgraded over the past decade there is not a lot of player growth after they are 23-24.

Who do you think on the Flames is in the learning phase that needs a teaching coach?

When you have 10+ players on the roster that are making big $$ long term deals it is pretty save to think that it is a veteran team. The Flames have a profile of a peaking team or even one post peak rather than a young team.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

They are a veteran team. There are not a lot of players that haven't been exposed to numerous and various coaches for a significant number of years.

With the coaching and training regiments in all phases of development hockey being so upgraded over the past decade there is not a lot of player growth after they are 23-24.

Who do you think on the Flames is in the learning phase that needs a teaching coach?

When you have 10+ players on the roster that are making big $$ long term deals it is pretty save to think that it is a veteran team. The Flames have a profile of a peaking team or even one post peak rather than a young team.

I'd say their four of their five best players are all young enough to be learning for the next three to five years.

You suggested average was how you came up with your summary, I pointed out that average age means pretty little when it comes to how "veteran" a hockey team is.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Thanks DeluxeMoustache - great write-up.

I am a big believer in the 'get the goalie moving' argument, and especially passes across the Royal Road (bad name though).

I would like to see these stats for the Flames offensively. We can sit here and say they are too static, too set, but we need data to know for sure. But it certainly wouldn't surprise me to hear that they had fewer of these types of chances.

I am actually even more interested about this type of data defensively. IMO, when you play a more passive defensive strategy, being concerned more with positioning and getting sticks in lanes, you are far more vulnerable to the cross-ice pass. Teams have time to set these plays up because they aren't being pressured as much. And again, I don't have the stats for the Flames, but it sure seems to me that they give up a lot of those. In fact, I think that is the source of their problems defensively (one major source, to be more accurate).

I haven't watched Peters' teams enough to know how he coaches, but I have read a couple comments that make me think he employs a similar passive defensive strategy to Gulutzan (and some of the stats from last year seem to back that up). If that is the case, I will be very disappointed. That would probably be the end of Treliving for me (and I am a big supporter of Treliving).

I wonder if there is any way we can get these stats for the Flames.

I get your thought process on the bolded, but maybe it is actually the opposite? I mean, I have always preferred a more aggressive defensive system, but...

If your defence is set and they are only interested in blocking shots and getting in the way of shooting/passing lanes, it becomes fairly difficult for a player on offence to pass the puck across the ice from the hashmarks down. You are more likely than not to have that puck intercepted or blocked before arriving anywhere close to your teammate's stick.

I am looking back at Hartley's year while the Flames were decent defensively even though they certainly lacked defensive talent. Hiller and Ramo were both decent that year. The defence allowed those outside shots (though they would try and block them as well). They never really pressured the opposing team, but rather allowed the team to set-up and pass it around the perimeter. Breakdowns did happen from time to time of course, but all in all they were consistent in their own zone.

The following season both Ramo and Hiller started the year terribly. Those routine saves would sometimes find a hole and sneak in. What changed after that? I thought the Flames started to run around in their own zone too much. Once you start being overly aggressive on defence, you run the risk of 'chasing' and getting out of position. That's when more shooting lanes and passing lanes open up.

It just may be that because the defence started 'worrying' about their goaltenders, they started to second-guess their position. When Ramo came back up and played well, the defence seemed calmer (going off memory here - which may be wrong) and they didn't chase as much, once again allowing perimeter play.

I always thought that Hartley had implemented his passive shot blocking system to compensate for the lack of talent from the defencemen as a whole, but perhaps that was what he was chiefly concerned with - not allowing the high danger chances where the opposition is making those cross-ice passes, and by playing a bit deeper and getting into the lanes, it allowed for a higher chance of a Flames player to reach the rebounds?

I expected an aggressive defence under Gulutzan, but he had a mostly passive defence too. Not so much on shot-blocking, but with an emphasis on 'cross-ice pass' blocking it seemed. Defencemen would generally sprawl on the ice trying to take away the bottom pointed north-south trying to stop the pass, rather than laying east-west trying to stop the shot.

Thanks Gargamel for the info on how they define High danger chances. It is what I thought - there is no regard to if the goalies had to move prior to making the save (or attempting to make the save) laterally.

Under Brent Sutter and under Glen Gulutzan, the Flames were often guilty of making the opposing goalies look like heroes, but although they got the puck on net quite often, the goalies often didn't get much of a workout. Hartley and Keenan had a much more dynamic offensive system, and it isn't surprising that many players achieved career years under them.

I think you saw something similar under Keenan and Brent Sutter - this team played dreadfully in front of backups. Anyone remember?

I wonder if a lot had to do with not trusting the goalie, and then the defencemen over-compensating and getting out of position as a consequence, allowing for these higher chance shots. The narrative makes sense to me - I do remember the team playing almost scatter-brained on D whenever it was a goalie not named Kipper in net. Hartley's last year seemed like almost an entire season of watching those teams play in front of backups.

Interesting.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It doesn't matter if you disagree or not.

It isn't an opinion, it's a fact.

The league average for save percentage drops as shots move from low danger, to medium danger, to high danger.

Like I said, not all low danger shots are equal. Not all medium danger shots are equal. Not all high danger shots are equal.

But on average, the closer to the net the shot happens the better chance it's results in a goal.

2016/17

League average High danger sv% - 81.17%
League average Med danger sv% - 92.50%
League average Low danger sv% - 97.91%

...and it's like that every year.

The whole purpose of this thread is shot quality and a high quality one timer shot that makes it to the net through traffic in the low danger zone is going to have just as good of a chance of going in as a one timer in the high danger zone.

In addition, how many goals come from rebounds that originated outside of the high danger zone but then are clocked as a high danger zone goal when it was tapped in?

I understand what you are saying but I think the whole which zone you are in is completely useless as there are dozens of unaccounted for variables. I feel there were a ton of games where the flames had more high danger scoring chances than the team they lost to and using the save % within a scoring zone is not a true reflection on the entire play.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Realtor 1

The whole purpose of this thread is shot quality and a high quality one timer shot that makes it to the net through traffic in the low danger zone is going to have just as good of a chance of going in as a one timer in the high danger zone.

In addition, how many goals come from rebounds that originated outside of the high danger zone but then are clocked as a high danger zone goal when it was tapped in?

I understand what you are saying but I think the whole which zone you are in is completely useless as there are dozens of unaccounted for variables. I feel there were a ton of games where the flames had more high danger scoring chances than the team they lost to and using the save % within a scoring zone is not a true reflection on the entire play.

It's not completely useless.

It just needs to be realized that every shot within each "zone" is not of equal difficulty.

Even still, the more shots you can get from the high danger area, the better. And the more you can do to make those difficult...even more better.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

It's not completely useless.

It just needs to be realized that every shot within each "zone" is not of equal difficulty.

Even still, the more shots you can get from the high danger area, the better. And the more you can do to make those difficult...even more better.

You are right, it is absolutely not useless. More goals are scored in tight than from far away. And for the purposes I am particularly interested in, they aren’t enough. We need to take a closer look.

So yes, more shots from around the crease go in than from the point. Some shots from near the post are cross crease tap ins, some are pucks jammed in to a set goalie pad. So shot location is the same, but what is different? A couple of ideas include what happened to get the puck there, and whether the goalie has had time to get set.

So the questions we are trying to answer are trying to understand what type of plays result in a shot from the same position being more or less likely to go in.

So the shot location / danger zone data rightly suggests to get pucks to the net.
The next layer is how to move the puck in tight to have the best chance of beating the goalie. (As you rightly note, how to make those shots more dangerous).

When you get to the point of trying to use the stats to be predictive, this is where using just location breaks down. And the stats on Corsica are limited by what is measured, so trying to tweak shot location, but don’t quite get to the point where you can truly identify if the situation makes the goalie move and gives him adequate time to get set.

I am almost tempted to see how we can do some analysis in-house on CP next season

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I am almost tempted to see how we can do some analysis in-house on CP next season

It would be very interesting, but you'd have to track every shot over a significant number of games to get any meaningful data. And then you'd also need to do the same thing with another team so that you'd have something to compare it to (though I guess doing it for the Flames and their opponents could at least tell us if we were getting better chances than we were giving up).

We'd collectively owe many beers to anyone who would take on such a project.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You are right, it is absolutely not useless. More goals are scored in tight than from far away. And for the purposes I am particularly interested in, they aren’t enough. We need to take a closer look.

So yes, more shots from around the crease go in than from the point. Some shots from near the post are cross crease tap ins, some are pucks jammed in to a set goalie pad. So shot location is the same, but what is different? A couple of ideas include what happened to get the puck there, and whether the goalie has had time to get set.

So the questions we are trying to answer are trying to understand what type of plays result in a shot from the same position being more or less likely to go in.

So the shot location / danger zone data rightly suggests to get pucks to the net.
The next layer is how to move the puck in tight to have the best chance of beating the goalie. (As you rightly note, how to make those shots more dangerous).

When you get to the point of trying to use the stats to be predictive, this is where using just location breaks down. And the stats on Corsica are limited by what is measured, so trying to tweak shot location, but don’t quite get to the point where you can truly identify if the situation makes the goalie move and gives him adequate time to get set.

I am almost tempted to see how we can do some analysis in-house on CP next season

Better be careful, sounds like you're suggesting a deep dive!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Excellent post and a good summary.

I see that this board is becoming less and less hostile towards analytics and more interested in deep dives and quantitative analysis. Good... good.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Excellent post and a good summary.

I see that this board is becoming less and less hostile towards analytics and more interested in deep dives and quantitative analysis. Good... good.

Bingo was highlighted how good the Flames were on CORSI and made it obvious how little it correlated to relative success (standings). There is a therefore a lot of CP pushback against CORSI being a valid measurement and results in a search for a better analytics answer.

Team strategies focus on puck movement before taking a shot makes the positive CORSI % to go down dramatically. There would not be any positive possession event on a blocked pass or even a completed pass that does not set up a shot. However intuitively (almost mathematically) the shooting % would go up.

This was the style of play by Hartley's 2014-2015 team. How many times were we told that the shooting % was just lucky and would revert to the norm. The Flames brought in coaches to improve the CORSI which really crushed the shooting %.

The correlation with shooting % to team success is very high.

Of the the 16 playoff teams 15 were in the top team shooting %. Columbus was the only team making the playoffs that was not in the top 16 in Shooting %... NYI were the only team not in the playoffs with a shooting % in the top 16.

The Flames were 29th in 2017-18 shooting %. Them finishing higher in the standing indicates to me that they had enough raw skill and talent to finish 9 spots better than the Flames system should have provided.


The Peters coached team was 28th in shooting %..

If the Flames continue the CORSI domination strategy they will be passed by the teams that focus on shooting %.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Bingo was highlighted how good the Flames were on CORSI and made it obvious how little it correlated to relative success (standings). There is a therefore a lot of CP pushback against CORSI being a valid measurement and results in a search for a better analytics answer.

Team strategies focus on puck movement before taking a shot makes the positive CORSI % to go down dramatically. There would not be any positive possession event on a blocked pass or even a completed pass that does not set up a shot. However intuitively (almost mathematically) the shooting % would go up.

This was the style of play by Hartley's 2014-2015 team. How many times were we told that the shooting % was just lucky and would revert to the norm. The Flames brought in coaches to improve the CORSI which really crushed the shooting %.

The correlation with shooting % to team success is very high.

Of the the 16 playoff teams 15 were in the top team shooting %. Columbus was the only team making the playoffs that was not in the top 16 in Shooting %... NYI were the only team not in the playoffs with a shooting % in the top 16.

The Flames were 29th in 2017-18 shooting %. Them finishing higher in the standing indicates to me that they had enough raw skill and talent to finish 9 spots better than the Flames system should have provided.


The Peters coached team was 28th in shooting %..

If the Flames continue the CORSI domination strategy they will be passed by the teams that focus on shooting %.

OK ... how do you focus on shooting percentage.

Hartley's 14-15 team was off the charts because they played a counter attack style that was unsustainable long term.

Get out played badly, but catch the other team with a Rocky Balboa right hook out of nowhere.

Not a plan for success.

Possession isn't a bad word. It's good to have the puck, generate more shots and scoring chances than the opposition. If these chances aren't as dangerous as other teams than you have to question the system.

[SuperMatt18]

I went and pulled the save percentage for the 3 types of "shots" for Carolina last year, and then compared them to where they rank in the rest of the league for goalies who played over 1000 minutes.

It wasn't pretty in Carolina.

Ward

-HDSV%: .783 (41/58)
-MDSV%: .895 (54/58)
-LDSV%: .973(34/58)

Darling

-HDSV%: .748 (56/58)
-MDSV%: .902 (49/58)
-LDSV%: .964 (54/58)

Pretty much bottom 10 or so across the board. That Scott Darling gamble really did not pay off for them. They were also bottom 10 in what their actual save percentage was vs. their actual save percentage.

Here was Mike Smith in comparison last year:

-HDSV%: .800 (24/58)
-MDSV%: .936 (3/58)
-LDSV%: .963 (55/58)

So great at stopping the stuff in close...but did let in an abnormal amount of "soft" goals at times. (Seems to match the eye test too. Feel like an abnormal amount of "seeing eye" shots from the point went in, especially on home ice.)

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK ... how do you focus on shooting percentage.

Hartley's 14-15 team was off the charts because they played a counter attack style that was unsustainable long term.

Get out played badly, but catch the other team with a Rocky Balboa right hook out of nowhere.

Not a plan for success.

Possession isn't a bad word. It's good to have the puck, generate more shots and scoring chances than the opposition. If these chances aren't as dangerous as other teams than you have to question the system.

Was it unsustainable though?

After experiencing both systems, I am not sure that you can call Hartley's system unsustainable.

For one, that was a team with less talent, and their best players were less experienced. You are bound to have growing pains under those conditions regardless of what system you play.

I think this thread actually addresses (or comes close to addressing) how we feel about the advanced metrics that were being thrown around saying that Hartley's system was unsustainable, while under Gulutzan they were telling us that the Flames are poised to break out.

I would actually love to see someone with a lot of time and inclination actually go through the Hartley teams and then go through the past two Gulutzan years and see if in fact the Flames were being out-played regularly and it was unsustainable, and if Gulutzan's system was any more sustainable and they ACTUALLY out-played the opposing team.

I don't think that a system that relies on shot blocking and clogging up shooting lanes (and passing lanes) is NECESSARILY unsustainable. Why should it be? Why should systems that try and guard against attempts on net that are actual highly probably of creating goals, while allowing teams to have lower percentage opportunities to the outside?

I think this is where CORSI and all the high danger chances kind of fail, and where this thread actually seems to start pulling everything together. I would have been biased against Hartley's system too - get out-shot most nights? That doesn't sound like a legitimate sustainable strategy to winning!

Yet there are international football teams that are much better at the counter-attack. Yet their are boxers that win championships by being masters at the counter (as your were referencing).

I know that you really believe in the present collection of advanced metrics (and honestly not criticizing you for it). I think they help to describe the game, and provides additional information that is always valuable. I just think that what can be derived from them is not what they are being used for, and that there HAS to be another layer of statistical information that seems missing. Confidence intervals are too low still. There are still outliers that fall TOO FAR from the expected outcome.

Deluxe is, I believe, onto something here, and it may show that Hartley's system was unsustainable, and Gulutzan's system was sustainable, but when the current statistical body of work is only touching on certain areas that are probably much more important than what we realize, I can't claim that either way is in fact any more sustainable than the other.

When shots are being recorded without attention to the context that they are coming from (like moving side to side), and even when CORSI is being measured and possession is inferred from it... it leaves the door wide open to misleading interpretations.

I really believe that when it comes to advanced metrics in hockey, we are still very much in its' infancy.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I agree that the narrative of Hartley having a system that was unsustainable was largely justified using the analytics of Corsi vintage. If we are looking at things in a different manner, then we should leave that dependent narrative behind.

Hartley was known to give the opponents the outside, but to make it difficult to get pucks into and through the middle. He was ok giving up a large number of shots from the outside, which hurts Corsi, and liked the quick counterpunch, which creates outnumbered situations which lend themselves to higher danger chances and higher shooting percentage.

(As much as this thread notes a link between team play and expected save percentage, you still have goalies that can perform below that expected level and I am sure that the eye test is sufficient that Hiller did just that.)

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Was it unsustainable though?

We drafted 6th overall the season after, and 4th overall the season before the playoff appearance...it was pretty much the definition of an unsustainable 1 year blip.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Bingo

OK ... how do you focus on shooting percentage.

Hartley's 14-15 team was off the charts because they played a counter attack style that was unsustainable long term.

Get out played badly, but catch the other team with a Rocky Balboa right hook out of nowhere.

I think you should consider this well-written argument that Hartley's style actually was sustainable.

In the end the Flames finished 28th in possession stats in the NHL (44.5%), they should have been the same in the standings, hey with that result they would have won the lottery. Instead they made the playoffs.

...

The luck just keeps on sustaining.

If you want to dial further back in time, to say January 10th, 2014 the Flames finished the 2013-14 season at a 20-17-1 rate.

Add that to this season and this year’s playoffs and you have a club putting up a 69-49-8 record for 146 points in 126 games, good for a .580 win percentage or a 95 point regular season pace.

That’s 90% of two full NHL seasons of regular season hockey.

They are sustaining this.

Luck doesn’t last two seasons. If you’re lucky it lasts 10 games, maybe a dozen. Not two seasons.

...

Their shooting percentage has been high since January of 2014 because their chances to score are on average better than the average NHL shooter, and certainly better than the average of the opposition on any given night shooting through a forest of red black and gold shin pads.

Sustained Winning by D'Arcy McGrath


What's changed since then? If it was the '15-16 results, I think you have to give that a pass based on the same reasoning that the pro-Peters crowd has been using to excuse his 4 years of failure in Carolina (poor goaltending). If it was something else, I'd be genuinely curious to know what it was, because I thought the guy who wrote that article 3 years ago made a whole lot of sense.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

We drafted 6th overall the season after, and 4th overall the season before the playoff appearance...it was pretty much the definition of an unsustainable 1 year blip.

And context matters. The one year blip (it was 1.5 seasons actually) was right during the rebuild.

Not having a competent goalie can also sink a team. Name a team in the NHL that did well in spite of poor goaltending. Heck, look at the Hawks this year.

At any rate, I think in reading ideas and pondering everything, what I think matters MORE than who has the most possession is what team actually does more WITH the possession they get.

The easy conclusion to draw is that possession = winning. The more possession you have, the more winning you do. I think that is only partially true, and there are exceptions which lowers the confidence interval. I think it matters more what you end up doing more often when you have possession.

Of course if you throw 100 shots in from the outside in low scoring areas, or even in high scoring areas but in which the goalie has line of sight to the puck, and is both square and ready for the shot, most of those pucks are going to be saved. The sheer number practically guarantees some squeak in.

So who outplays whom in this situation?

Team A gets 40 shots on net, and almost all has the goalie prepared for the shot.

Team B gets 30 shots on net, but they have a lot of cross-crease passes, breakaways and odd-man rushes.

Can we say that Team A REALLY outplayed Team B?

I think that is the point of this thread. Yes, Hartley's team failed in that last year, and the analytic community said: "See, we predicted this would happen!". Well, considering that the team was a rebuilding team, with a lack of experience, and didn't have stable goaltending - was it much of a prediction or did it just happen to align? Maybe a bit from both at least, but I do think a LOT had to do with the Flames playing in front of poor goaltending. The Flames actually played fantastic during that horrible year in front of Ramo, between the time when he got recalled until getting injured.

There is a tonne of 'noise' in hockey and analytics. It is evolving. CORSI isn't a garbage stat. None of those stats (with the exception of PDO IMO) are garbage stats that I am aware of. They are just not painting a nearly complete enough picture, and adding statistical analysis like Deluxe is trying to touch on here IMO is providing for a clearer and sharper focus. I am betting that in a few years time, there will be other metrics that people will be providing for additional information to raise the confidence interval and actually be more useful in both analyzing how a team is doing, as well as providing a bit more confidence in using them for predictions. With what Deluxe has in the opening post of this thread, it really seems that the work has been happening already, and it is great to see.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

And context matters. The one year blip (it was 1.5 seasons actually) was right during the rebuild.

Not having a competent goalie can also sink a team. Name a team in the NHL that did well in spite of poor goaltending. Heck, look at the Hawks this year.

At any rate, I think in reading ideas and pondering everything, what I think matters MORE than who has the most possession is what team actually does more WITH the possession they get.

The easy conclusion to draw is that possession = winning. The more possession you have, the more winning you do. I think that is only partially true, and there are exceptions which lowers the confidence interval. I think it matters more what you end up doing more often when you have possession.

Of course if you throw 100 shots in from the outside in low scoring areas, or even in high scoring areas but in which the goalie has line of sight to the puck, and is both square and ready for the shot, most of those pucks are going to be saved. The sheer number practically guarantees some squeak in.

So who outplays whom in this situation?

Team A gets 40 shots on net, and almost all has the goalie prepared for the shot.

Team B gets 30 shots on net, but they have a lot of cross-crease passes, breakaways and odd-man rushes.

Can we say that Team A REALLY outplayed Team B?

I think that is the point of this thread. Yes, Hartley's team failed in that last year, and the analytic community said: "See, we predicted this would happen!". Well, considering that the team was a rebuilding team, with a lack of experience, and didn't have stable goaltending - was it much of a prediction or did it just happen to align? Maybe a bit from both at least, but I do think a LOT had to do with the Flames playing in front of poor goaltending. The Flames actually played fantastic during that horrible year in front of Ramo, between the time when he got recalled until getting injured.

There is a tonne of 'noise' in hockey and analytics. It is evolving. CORSI isn't a garbage stat. None of those stats (with the exception of PDO IMO) are garbage stats that I am aware of. They are just not painting a nearly complete enough picture, and adding statistical analysis like Deluxe is trying to touch on here IMO is providing for a clearer and sharper focus. I am betting that in a few years time, there will be other metrics that people will be providing for additional information to raise the confidence interval and actually be more useful in both analyzing how a team is doing, as well as providing a bit more confidence in using them for predictions. With what Deluxe has in the opening post of this thread, it really seems that the work has been happening already, and it is great to see.

It would be shocking if teams already do not have deep event tracking and the resulting analytics that Mr. Mustache is lusting after.

If the Flames are not doing this today they might consider offering Mr. Mustache a couple of hundred thousand budget to follow up on.

[Knalus]

These last few years have really been eye opening to me in learning how the game is structured and how the same team plays with different coaching priorities. Here's one thing I learned about the golden road, and how the flames play with it from two different coaching points of view.

The Flames are a relatively mixed team in regards to skill, and speed, both on the top end, and the back. The highly skilled players with speed, Gaudreau and Monahan, play the Golden Road in Gulutzan's system just the way you are supposed to - and when healthy, they do a bang up job scoring. Up until Monahan's hand injury, it was what made the team work. However, the other lines don't do such a good job. Tell me if I'm crazy, but I saw a lot of setting up on our end before rushing down the ice, trying to get the cross-ice pass happening, only to have the opposing defense also set up, and in position to break that pass up, prevent that pass from happening, and forcing certain players (Bennett) into a low percentage shot.

Hartley's team, however, was set up to use stretch passes and an active D, to account for our teams relative lack of team speed, to get past a defense already set up to break up the cross-ice pass. He got around how relatively slow we were, by giving up possession more often, and paid for that lack of possession by setting up our own D early in a tight box to allow the breaking up of cross-ice passes and shot blocking.

But because the current flames do not use the stretch pass the same way, committing to a team defense system, they just aren't fast enough to get the cross-ice pass, without the opposing defense getting in place - the top line has the ability to both get there faster, and to pass through the D to score (as long as they have the use of all their hands, that is).

Am I wrong? Cause that's how I saw it this year - we were either too slow to use Gulutzan's system properly, or we used Hartley's system which traded off possession for speed.Either way, they both used the "Golden Road" idea.

Let me know what you think is incorrect about this hypothesis - I am the first to admit I'm not a hockey genius, and I don't want to sound like an idiot when talking about this.