[PGT] Flames lose in OT: Season Over

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Nah. I’m not gonna get sucked into the blame the refs crowd. The Flames should’ve just played better in games 2,3 and 4 then we likely wouldn’t have been in an elimination game situation in game 5. And before y’all get at me: The goal should’ve counted. It’s BS that it was waived off when there’s been worse kicking motion goals allowed. It’s just we can’t blame the refs for the bad defensive coverage. We can’t blame the refs for Marky playing his worst stretch of goaltending this season. We can’t blame the refs for Chucky not performing well outside of game 1. Stuff like that is on the team. They just need to play better next time

There is a difference between blaming the refs and suggesting that it was a factor.

[activeStick]

I agree with those who feel that the Flames changed their physical style given the deadly Oilers PP and how often the refs were calling everything. I have 100% faith in Sutter though - that man is a hockey genius. He led the Flames to the finals in 2004 with one style, the league changed after the lock out, opening the game up and he adjusted to the changes, leading the Kings to 2 cups. With Friedman and the other Mcdavid fanboys on SN lobbying for the game to change into a special teams bonanza, Sutter will adjust to account for this, knowing it'll never go all the way to one end but that adjustments need to be made for next year. Like he said in his post game, he has some ideas. The league can and will do what they want, but Sutter can and will figure something out that works.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I agree with those who feel that the Flames changed their physical style given the deadly Oilers PP and how often the refs were calling everything. I have 100% faith in Sutter though - that man is a hockey genius. He led the Flames to the finals in 2004 with one style, the league changed after the lock out, opening the game up and he adjusted to the changes, leading the Kings to 2 cups. With Friedman and the other Mcdavid fanboys on SN lobbying for the game to change into a special teams bonanza, Sutter will adjust to account for this, knowing it'll never go all the way to one end but that adjustments need to be made for next year. Like he said in his post game, he has some ideas. The league can and will do what they want, but Sutter can and will figure something out that works.

I'm fine with them turning it into special team bonanza, but call the penalty both ways. Not one team did it, it's penalty and the other do the same thing and it's being let go.

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Regarding the whole, Flames didn't deserve to win, the Oilers were better argument, I think there were two things that happened in the first two games that changed the series and ultimately led to the Oilers winning it:

1) Markstrom was horrific in game 1, which can destroy a team's confidence. if he had bounced back and been great in game 2, no problem. But he was bad again in game 2. Devastating for the team's confidence and a GIANT boost to the Oilers' confidence.

2) The officiating in game 2. Every time the Flames tried to play physically, they got a penalty. It changed the way they played, and they were never really physical again after that.

The Flames dominated game 1. And they dominated again early in game 2. The 21 penalty calls in game 2, along with Markstrom's play, changed the series and gave the Oilers confidence, while eroding the Fames' confidence.

Now, you have to overcome those tings. In game 3, they were bad. Ga5e 4 was better - not great, but a close game. By game 5, they had adjusted and were containing McDavid. They should have won game 5 and then who knows.

But even as poorly as they played, if Markstrom plays decently, they are probably up 3-2 in the series.

The officiating in this series was an absolute abomination. The way the game was called in game 2 for instance was nothing like how it was called in game 5. It felt to me like the league wanted the game to be played the way the Oilers liked it which was heavy special teams and wide open.

The turning point of the series was probably that weak 4 on 4 call in game 2 that lead to McDavid’s goal where undressed Markstrom to cut their deficit to 3-2. The Oilers and McDavid especially thrives on open ice whereas the Flames at time preferred to keep it 5 on 5.

From that point forward, I think the Oilers outscored the Flames something like 11 to 1. The team ended up losing confidence in Markstrom and it zapped their energy especially right out of the gate in a pivotal game 4.

If Markstrom provided better goaltending in games 4 and 5 like he’s paid to do, this series could’ve been completely different. Crapping the bed in game 4 and putting your team down 3-0 on the road is tough to recover from and that’s exactly how it played out.

Then in game 5 he was not able to shut the door much like game 2, which allowed the Oilers to constantly hang around and ultimately throw the knockout punch. Just a bad performance by one the team’s best players in a crucial position at a critical time.

[The Cobra]

Is it possible that Calgary lost simply because teams lose 50% of the time, and the other team also wants to win?

It's not like losing is such a shocking result ever.

Maybe they just lost. Randomness plays such a large part in sports (and hockey is certainly no exception to that rule), that perhaps, just maybe they lost because they didn't get particularly get good puck luck.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Is it possible that Calgary lost simply because teams lose 50% of the time, and the other team also wants to win?

It's not like losing is such a shocking result ever.

Maybe they just lost. Randomness plays such a large part in sports (and hockey is certainly no exception to that rule), that perhaps, just maybe they lost because they didn't get particularly get good puck luck.

Insightful. From now on, let's just flip a coin and save ourselves all the details.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Is it possible that Calgary lost simply because teams lose 50% of the time, and the other team also wants to win?

It's not like losing is such a shocking result ever.

Maybe they just lost. Randomness plays such a large part in sports (and hockey is certainly no exception to that rule), that perhaps, just maybe they lost because they didn't get particularly get good puck luck.

People have an irrational love of attributing every outcome to something. It’s difficult for us to understand that when an unexpected outcome occurs, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn't due to random variation.

It's a large part of why we enjoy sports.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by butterfly

People have an irrational love of attributing every outcome to something. It’s difficult for us to understand that when an unexpected outcome occurs, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn't due to random variation.

It's a large part of why we enjoy sports.

This is true.

It's also the reason that playoff series are best of 7s (enough sample size to at least somewhat level out the bounces)

None of this eliminates the fact that there are also lots of things to analyze that didn't come down to random bounces

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Insightful. From now on, let's just flip a coin and save ourselves all the details.

My point is, fans are always looking for someone to blame, so explanation for the loss. But teams lose all the time, there doesn't necessarily need to always be some conspiracy theory to explain a loss.

And randomness plays a huge part in a team's fortunes. It's why winning is so hard, even for the teams that are thought to be the best. Ignoring the huge part that randomness plays in determining the outcome of sporting events is simply ignoring reality.

Fact: the team that wins the Stanley Cup gets breaks along the way. I don't care how good you are.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

My point is, fans are always looking for someone to blame, so explanation for the loss. But teams lose all the time, there doesn't necessarily need to always be some conspiracy theory to explain a loss.

And randomness plays a huge part in a team's fortunes. It's why winning is so hard, even for the teams that are thought to be the best. Ignoring the huge part that randomness plays in determining the outcome of sporting events is simply ignoring reality.

Fact: the team that wins the Stanley Cup gets breaks along the way. I don't care how good you are.

Not only do I not dispute that, but I probably make that point more than anyone else on this board.

What i took contention with was that you were using this fact to dismiss peoples' analyses of events that did in fact take place. Yes, there is randomness, but there are still plenty of things to discuss and analyze.

[Manhattanboy]

Can’t imagine I’m alone in thinking that my interest in the NHL will be significantly less next year.

Games are largely unwatchable. Game management is real and has wrecked the league.

Maybe owners and managers are happy but I doubt it.

With Covid restrictions lifted there will be a lot more to do in the fall and winter including travel opportunities.

[DeluxeMoustache]

It has been pretty rough this playoffs

The Rangers beat the Pens with the key goal being where a guy ripped off the Pen’s helmet which takes him out of the play and gives them a 5 on 4 advantage for ~10 seconds, they take advantage of it and score. Given that if you bump in to a guy who doesn’t have the puck, and basically impede him for a second, that’s an interference, so no idea how the deliberate helmet removal is not any kind of penalty, much less interference)

I know that Holl kind of ran a pick on the guy when Tavares scored what looked like a tying goal on Tampa. But based on the standard of what’s been called and what’s been let go, that seems like an inconsistent call with definitive impact on a significant goal (and believe me I wasn’t looking forward to any Leaf success and the resulting fans and media being unbearable)

The Flames series was a joke with the
- highly unusual number of 4 on 4s
- the Lucic 5 minute penalty for pretty much nothing, at a time where the Flames needed to mount a comeback, and defending a 5 minute call killed a heck of a lot of time
- the Coleman non call was just brutal for so many reasons

I am glad I dumped my season tix a few years back because the game management, and impact of inconsistent calls on significant impact events isn’t something that anyone is imagining

I’d feel pretty pissed if I spent a few grand to see the team get jobbed

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Manhattanboy

Can’t imagine I’m alone in thinking that my interest in the NHL will be significantly less next year.

Games are largely unwatchable. Game management is real and has wrecked the league.

Maybe owners and managers are happy but I doubt it.

With Covid restrictions lifted there will be a lot more to do in the fall and winter including travel opportunities.

My interest had already deteriorated a lot due to reffing inconsistencies during recent years. It's not as enjoyable an entertainment product when the rules don't seem the same from game to game and moment to moment.

[TheIronMaiden]

How is everyone handling themselves? I like many people work with Oiler fans and it is ####ing awful. I cant hide my disappointment.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

How is everyone handling themselves? I like many people work with Oiler fans and it is ####ing awful. I cant hide my disappointment.

Several oiler fan colleagues and friends. Can’t say I’m all that affected. They haven’t won #### yet.

Winning the cup is all that matters. Winning a series against us gives them bragging rights for all of five minutes. If/when they lose to the Avs, they’ll be with the flames, on the outside looking in.

[browna]

Originally Posted by Hockey_Ninja

Nah. I’m not gonna get sucked into the blame the refs crowd. The Flames should’ve just played better in games 2,3 and 4 then we likely wouldn’t have been in an elimination game situation in game 5. And before y’all get at me: The goal should’ve counted. It’s BS that it was waived off when there’s been worse kicking motion goals allowed. It’s just we can’t blame the refs for the bad defensive coverage. We can’t blame the refs for Marky playing his worst stretch of goaltending this season. We can’t blame the refs for Chucky not performing well outside of game 1. Stuff like that is on the team. They just need to play better next time

2 of the 3 games that were tied with 10 minutes or less to go in the third (all Flames losses) had Flames goals erroneously called back in those last 10 minutes. Quick whistle game 2 which would’ve tied it 4-4, and Coleman goal.

When goals come off the board, in the last 10 minutes of 1 goal games, that is unquestionably a officiating factor.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by browna

2 of the 3 games that were tied with 10 minutes or less to go in the third (all Flames losses) had Flames goals erroneously called back in those last 10 minutes. Quick whistle game 2 which would’ve tied it 4-4, and Coleman goal.

When goals come off the board, in the last 10 minutes of 1 goal games, that is unquestionably a officiating factor.

An Oiler goal was also called back erroneously on a quick whistle in game 2, so it evens out.

The Coleman goal was erroneously called back, but even if the series goes to a game 6 it's far from a guarantee that the Flames force game 7.

The officiating in the series was bad, but it's not the main reason why they lost.

[Tiger]

My takeaways from this all are strangely positive overall. Yes, the Flames disappointed me greatly. Yes, it sucks losing to the Oilers. But my takeaway really is, even with a generational performance from McDavid (yes draisaitl too but for all his points I still think it was McDavid driving it all), and absolutely terrible goaltending in the series, I can still see with a tiny bit of puck luck the flames Winning Games 2, 4 & 5. like 3 or 4 saves more, which is not much and this is 3-2 or 4-1 Flames, despite playing poorly. Maybe that is why it hurts more because it would have been so easy for the tables to be turned here.

The thing I would have done differently is to have played vlader in game 4, but once it got to game 5 how do you make that change.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

An Oiler goal was also called back erroneously on a quick whistle in game 2, so it evens out.

The Coleman goal was erroneously called back, but even if the series goes to a game 6 it's far from a guarantee that the Flames force game 7.

The officiating in the series was bad, but it's not the main reason why they lost.

I’m not sure what your point is in creating these straw men. Just agree the flames got completely screwed by a blown call in game 5 and move on.

[GS Skier]

We've somehow elevated Sutter himself to some weird infallible status. The record Markstrom had with the Oilers was clear over 14 games and yet Sutter insisted on playing him. Lots oif bad puck luck etc. however game 4 should have been Vladar.

I stopped believing when Markstrom coughed up a hairball and spotted them a lead in 20 seconds.

You have 2 goalies for a reason and it's not just for injuries. Sutter is sometimes just too stubborn.