Worst Bottom 6 in the NHL (Statistically, It's Not Even Close)

[ComixZone]

I think the bottom six is infinitely better now than it was a few weeks ago.

The only remaining adjustment is Brouwer out, Hathaway in.

Bennett - Jankowski - Jagr
Versteeg - Hamilton - Hathaway
Lazar

Stajan and Brouwer just aren’t NHL players anymore.

[Gaskal]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

As for the double, triple stat, yes the research was a little loose. But to research every goal, every situation, every team and etc would've been daunting and not worth it. I did check a lot of teams and based on the number that I selected and every team I checked did double or triple and yes, even quadrupled us. So yes, apologies for the "half way research," but a small portion of time dedicated during lunch just isn't enough time to do such in-depth work.

You could have prevented the dogpile by say, replacing "statistically, it's not even close" to "like, ever omg".

I admit I did wander into this thread expecting to see a really big spreadsheet comparing all 31 teams, mostly from the title, hence the rest of the board's reaction.

[stone hands]

Our bottom six sucks but this thread sucks at least quadruple that

Source: I did the math, trust me

[Classic_Sniper]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, it is absolutely NOT fair to eliminate some, unless you apply the same filter to other teams. This has been explained to you multiple times and you keep brushing it off (erroneously). Every team's goals from the bottom 6 will be littered with assists from top 6 players, or have come on the PP. You can't simply apply a filter to the Flames only.

You think the bottom 6 sucks. Okay, so just say that (which you have). But don't make false assumptions and keep repeating them, when you have been corrected multiple times.

Yes I understood that point and I'm not brushing it off as incorrect. I said it was a loose stat and maybe it's wrong, maybe it's not. But the sheer magnitude of research is simply not worth it. So ignore that point if you'd like, I honestly don't care.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

A lot of points stand. If you don't like the double, triple stat, that's fine. You can ignore that point, but not a chance I'm going to do the research. Do you even realize the magnitude of work needed to actually find out the exact data, it would be ridiculous. The main point I was making is that it is my opinion that we have the worst bottom 6 in the league and I think I've outlined at least a few good points to argue that.

If you’re going to make the claim, you need to do the work. None of your points are very good because they don’t reflect how the bottom six is performing in comparison to the rest of the league.

If 4 is the number after you’ve done the in-depth work on the Flames bottom six, then you can only realistically compare it to other teams where you took their goal total and did the same work. If you don’t, then you can’t compare them, and if you can’t compare them, then any claim that they’re worse than any team (or even bad in general) is null. If you take the original number, 8, then (as has been shown) you can compare it to other teams where you’re doing the limited work. And as we’ve seen, 8 doesn’t appear to be concerning.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Not sure why everyone is arguing with the OPs analysis. Haven't you guys heard of alternative facts?

[Inglewood Jack]

I guess this is what they mean when they use the term "lies, damned lies, and statistics"...

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I would just change the thread title. The topic is worth discussing, the title is just misleading.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I would just change the thread title. The topic is worth discussing, the title is just misleading.

How about "I think it's the worst bottom 6 in the NHL (But Statistically, It's Close)"

[Jason14h]

Our bottom two lines have scored 1 goal even strength outside of the St.L game which is pathetic .

However, I have no idea how pathetic it is compared to other teams !

[Enoch Root]

There is no question that the bottom 6 has been bad so far this year. However, I think it is important to ask whether it is continuing to be bad, is getting better, or is actually getting worse as the season goes on.

In October, the bottom 6 scored 2 goals: both by Versteeg.

In November, the bottom 6 has scored 6 goals: Versteeg (1), Jagr (1), Jankowski (3), and Bennett (1).

So we have a pretty big improvement both in the total production and in the number of guys contributing, and November isn't over yet.

[indes]

I mentioned it in the GG thread but I think the woes of our 4th line are because they try to play the same as our first line. Same breakouts and entries, try to score on the rush, try to be fancy and make nice plays. IMO we would have a much more balanced team if we had Lazar, Hathaway and Hamilton on the 4th line getting pucks deep, throwing hits and bringing up the energy level. Rotate some guys playing for their careers, not a bunch of vets who can't hack it anymore.

The has beens need to go.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

C'mon now guys. Let's be fair here.

I'll do the analysis of the other teams.

I'm going to remove all the goals from the bottom 6 of the other teams that displease me.

Therefore, goals from NHL teams bottom 6 forwards that pleased me as a fan:

Anaheim Ducks 0
Boston Bruins 0
Buffalo Sabres 0
Calgary Flames 4 (using the OP's numbers on this one)
Carolina Hurricanes 0
Chicago Blackhawks 0
Colorado Avalanche 0
Columbus Blue Jackets 0
Dallas Stars 0
Detroit Red Wings 0
Edmonton Oilers 0
Florida Panthers 0
Los Angeles Kings 0
Minnesota Wild 0
Montreal Canadiens 0
Nashville Predators 0
New Jersey Devils 0
New York Islanders 0
New York Rangers 0
Ottawa Senators 0
Philadelphia Flyers 0
Phoenix Coyotes 0
Pittsburgh Penguins 0
Saint Louis Blues 0
San Jose Sharks 0
Tampa Bay Lighting 0
Toronto Maple Leafs 0
Vancouver Canucks 0
Washington Capitals 0
Winnipeg Jets 0

Therefore the Calgary Flames bottom 6 have scored 4 pleasing goals, and the bottom 6 on every other team combined has scored 0 pleasing goals.

I'd like better production from the bottom 6, but clearly, according to science, they rock!

[Classic_Sniper]

Wow, seems like there’s quite a bit of backlash to my thread. It really was meant as more of an opinion piece with a few interesting stats I found. Apologies for the uproar it caused. Hopefully my main point that our struggling bottom 6 hasn’t been good enough and needs to improve came through.

Thanks to all the other posters who aren’t so finicky with all math and etc and can engage in the debate because it’s probably the #1 problem spot of this team right now.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

So this is what happens to CP on a day with zero games.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Wow, seems like there’s quite a bit of backlash to my thread. It really was meant as more of an opinion piece with a few interesting stats I found. Apologies for the uproar it caused. Hopefully my main point that our struggling bottom 6 hasn’t been good enough and needs to improve came through.

Thanks to all the other posters who aren’t so finicky with all math and etc and can engage in the debate because it’s probably the #1 problem spot of this team right now.

I don't want to pile on, but this is the issue. Math isn't finicky. It's one of the few disciplines that is exact, otherwise it ceases to be math. It's not everyone else's fault that you choose to apply mathematical analysis inexactly.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Our bottom two lines have scored 1 goal even strength outside of the St.L game which is pathetic .

However, I have no idea how pathetic it is compared to other teams !

Sums OP up quite nicely.

I also think our 3rd line has improved immensely with 68s return and 77

[edslunch]

OP did a nice job breaking down bottom six scoring and painting a pretty sad picture. The comparison part not so much.

The general response seems to be it’s getting better but it’s still pretty piss poor, let’s be honest. The 6/7 D situation seems to be sorting itself out, the backup G is being dealt with, i expect Treliving to turn his attention to the bottom six soon. There are a bunch of players who are neither scoring nor distinguishing themselves in the NHL and a couple of guys ripping up the AHL. I expect a move soon.

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

*Wow, seems like there’s quite a bit of backlash to my thread. It really was meant as more of an opinion piece with a few interesting stats I found. Apologies for the uproar it caused. Hopefully my main point that our struggling bottom 6 hasn’t been good enough and needs to improve came through.

Hey thanks for giving us something to discuss.
Good thread for that even if many of us do not fully agree with aspects of it.

[bubbsy]

Originally Posted by Classic_Sniper

Wow, seems like there’s quite a bit of backlash to my thread. It really was meant as more of an opinion piece with a few interesting stats I found. Apologies for the uproar it caused. Hopefully my main point that our struggling bottom 6 hasn’t been good enough and needs to improve came through.

Thanks to all the other posters who aren’t so finicky with all math and etc and can engage in the debate because it’s probably the #1 problem spot of this team right now.

I think the backlash is because you put up a thread with a valid opinion, yet suggested in the title that you had hard fact based merit to the opinion in the form of statistics.

The topic and thread is fine but it's still opinion. We actually don't know how much of a problem bottom 6 scoring is by league standards. I'm sure more than half the teams in the league wished they were getting more goals from their bottom lines, especially with the league talent being slightly diluted with the addition of the 31st team this year.

I'm still not concerned as a flames fan. Offense is not the biggest challenge with the team. In my humble opinion it's the craptastic defence that gives up way too many high danger scoring chances despite looking extremely strong on paper. Oh and the pk,that's another area concerning me a quarter of the way thru.