Flames players analytics data

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by united

- Free agent splashes on mid-roster players seldom live up to their contract because they get premium money for middling performance, especially once accounting for age curves. Well managed teams identify these players before they become "mainstream" to extract maximum value. Poorly run teams pay a premium for past performance, often to declining players. July 1, 2016 is the perfect example of this.

- Do nearly whatever it takes to obtain and retain elite talent, and surround them with cost-effective two-way depth. Paying elite money, especially with term, for non-elite players is, by far, the most sub-optimal move a team can make (Hi, Darnell Nurse!).

Outside of the Hamonic trade, this is BT's biggest fault.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Psytic

It would be neat if it was possible to do an aggregate of these stats for the whole team over the last 7 yrs to have some sort of statistical measure of how Treliving is actually doing with the team. Id love to compare it to some of Sutter's teams to. It could actually lend some validity to the job he is doing or not doing well.

I think the standings will provide that information, in a nice clean, easy-to-understand score.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by united

Some notes for those unfamiliar:

- Percentiles are not linear! The difference between a 90th percentile player and an 80th percentile player is much larger than the difference between 80 and 70, or 55 and 45. Good illustration here:

Spoiler!

Via https://hockey-statistics.com/2021/0...ntiles-part-i/

- Patrick Bacon found that Replacement level is 19%. That is, anyone below 19% adds negative value to the lineup.
- The absolute worst players in the league are almost as detrimental to a team as the best players are positive.
- One-dimensional defensive defenceman and forwards are nearly always underrated by these metrics, but not to a huge extent. The opposite for one-dimensional offensive talents.
- With hockey following a Pareto distribution of 19/81, the rule of thumb is the top 20% of players in the league contribute 80% of the wins. Pro-rated to an equal team level, the top 4 players on each team account for 80% of the team's relative strength.
- With that in mind, it is extremely difficult to become a legitimate contender without high-end talent, particularly at the centre position.
- Free agent splashes on mid-roster players seldom live up to their contract because they get premium money for middling performance, especially once accounting for age curves. Well managed teams identify these players before they become "mainstream" to extract maximum value. Poorly run teams pay a premium for past performance, often to declining players. July 1, 2016 is the perfect example of this.

Spoiler!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1195025309814255616

- Do nearly whatever it takes to obtain and retain elite talent, and surround them with cost-effective two-way depth. Paying elite money, especially with term, for non-elite players is, by far, the most sub-optimal move a team can make (Hi, Darnell Nurse!).

Impressive how Pareto appears even though the NHL is the best of the best and there really aren't that many players.

Reminds of how Google once bragged that they broke the curve when it came to hiring.

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by Psytic

It would be neat if it was possible to do an aggregate of these stats for the whole team over the last 7 yrs to have some sort of statistical measure of how Treliving is actually doing with the team. Id love to compare it to some of Sutter's teams to. It could actually lend some validity to the job he is doing or not doing well.

Natural Stat Trick allows for three year views. I'm going to ignore 14-15 because that really was a bit of a weird year, and honestly it was before Treliving really made any substantial changes to the team.

If you compare 2015-2018 to 2018-2021 the team has improved a lot in the underlying metrics, but not as much in actual results (outside of 18-19).

All situations:

2015-2018:

Point Percentage: .518 (22nd)
Goals For: 667 (19th)
Goals Against: 719 (25th)
Corsi For%: 50.9% (11th)
xGF%: 49.7% (20th)
Shooting Percentage: 8.84 (20th)
Save Percentage: .901 (30th)

2018-2021:

Point Percentage: .579 (13th)
Goals For: 648 (10th)
Goals Against: 597 (13th)
Corsi For%: 52.1% (6th)
xGF%: 52.7 (7th)
Shooting Percentage: 9.88 (10th)
Save Percentage: .903 (20th)

Overall the Team the last three seasons is much better at driving play, but even though the goaltending has improved it's still below average.

So better and the last three years are better than the first three years under Treliving, but still lots of room for improvement. Biggest concern here is that the previous core has hit the point in the age curve where regression is likely, so this core is likely on the downswing now.

[Winsor_Pilates]

That Eichel card vs Monahan card shows how different we could be with an elite #1C.
If not happening, Lindholm as #1C has to be the permanent move.

[Psytic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I think the standings will provide that information, in a nice clean, easy-to-understand score.

Not at all. The standings for the team dont tell the whole story. Thats kind of the point of advanced stats is delving into why they placed where they did. The team could be a fluke one year or the team is not good but rode a hot goalie etc. Similar to Super Matts answer but I just mean id like a easy one stop shop Jfresh style little data card format like he does for individual players but for teams aggregated that I could compare. Sure I could go dig the stats up myself but I dont really have that kind of time. Just spitballing maybe another data set he could add to his repertoire id like to see.

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

It could be rosy if you look at the guys singled out and believe that
- Tkachuk’s finishing numbers (which were low for whatever reason) revert to the mean
- Monahan who was known to be injured rebounds
- Markstrom returns to form
- Andersson is somewhere between where he was last year and the previous
- that Darryl can help with some of the above

Maybe a little off topic but what exactly is Markstrom's form

31 year old goaltender 8 years in the league. 132-137 2.78 GAA .910 Sv%

Hockey reference does a Similarity Scores where they compare Goalies careers based on best adjusted point shares.

On Markstrom's chart he compares closely to Ondrej Pavelec who believe it or not delivered 4 good seasons over his career similar to Markstrom. At their peak 4 years they are in a dead heat with Pavelic delivering 41.2 adjust pts and Markstrom 41.0

Yes Markstrom looks to be a legit NHL starter but to have a significant impact with the Flames he would have to play better than he has so far in his career.

Jonas Hiller would have had a better career than Markstrom using the best yr adjusted pts measurement. He was 32 as the Flames playoff goalie that won the first 3 out of 4 and lost game 5 2-1 against the Canucks the last time they won a playoff series.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Psytic

Not at all. The standings for the team dont tell the whole story. Thats kind of the point of advanced stats is delving into why they placed where they did. The team could be a fluke one year or the team is not good but rode a hot goalie etc. Similar to Super Matts answer but I just mean id like a easy one stop shop Jfresh style little data card format like he does for individual players but for teams aggregated that I could compare. Sure I could go dig the stats up myself but I dont really have that kind of time. Just spitballing maybe another data set he could add to his repertoire id like to see.

The stats would follow the same roller coaster that the standings do. They are just as vulnerable to good year/bad year, hot/cold goaltending, who you play with (for individuals), etc

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Absolutely.

And I think we see some of that. Honestly not a lot went right last year outside of Tanev and Hanifin popping.

Probably a mixed bag of some working out and some not, but guessing the happy count will be higher this season than last ... especially with the Sutter factor being a huge one.

Remember all the Flames that got injured?

8 players played all 56 games - 13 played 47 or more games.

The top-4 D-men missed 9 games total. Top-6 forwards Monahan missed 6 and Backlund missed 2.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Maybe a little off topic but what exactly is Markstrom's form

31 year old goaltender 8 years in the league. 132-137 2.78 GAA .910 Sv%.

We will see.

I expect even an average goaltender under Sutter should have above average results if the team executes the system. Average is around .909 or .910

Some people here think he’s a top goalie but that his play was derailed last year by the concussion

Improving from .904 to .914 and supposing he faces 1200 shots, that would be an improvement of 12 GA. Probably enough to make a difference in a game or two here or there

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Not in the pretty card format but there was an article with some Lindholm stats here

https://thewincolumn.ca/2021/06/08/h...up-contenders/




I wonder how this changes if that Tkachuk Lindholm Gaudreau line sticks

The card later in the thread shows him consistently in the mid 80s WAR for the last three years. How far off the ‘big dogs’ is that? Seems like he’s consistently outperforming his advanced stats?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

Remember all the Flames that got injured?

8 players played all 56 games - 13 played 47 or more games.

The top-4 D-men missed 9 games total. Top-6 forwards Monahan missed 6 and Backlund missed 2.

I didn't mention injuries at all, so your reply doesn't really fit.

But yeah Markstrom and Monahan are big injuries know doubt about it, they add up to almost $13M in payroll. Both played hurt for big stretches of the season that wouldn't figure into games missed stats.

But I was talking about play ... Calgary had most of their key players have off years.

If that's the path forward than they're cooked, but I'm guessing some of those players bounce back.

[Strange Brew]

Is there more downside or upside vs last year?

In terms of injuries, big picture, I feel there's more downside. Flames have been quite healthy generally. Monahan and Markstrom have been injured before, last year may not an aberration.

But agree with Bingo, the upside is in "off years". Tkachuk, Rasmus, Monahan should be better, Tanev only one who could really drop. Other guys were in the "as expected" corridor.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Is there more downside or upside vs last year?

In terms of injuries, big picture, I feel there's more downside. Flames have been quite healthy generally. Monahan and Markstrom have been injured before, last year may not an aberration.

But agree with Bingo, the upside is in "off years". Tkachuk, Rasmus, Monahan should be better, Tanev only one who could really drop. Other guys were in the "as expected" corridor.

I agree, subject to it being a little like that Oiler article a few years ago where they predicted everyone would improve therefore the team would be cup bound.

I suppose Mangiapane could plateau or even regress a bit but I don't see it. I see Dube and Valimaki as possibly getting a second wind and really taking a step forward. Maybe Mackey and/or Kylington, with some ice time. Lucic could go either way - he could continue in a useful role or age could slow him some. The same could happen to Backlund. On the other hand I suspect we are going to see a huge uptick for Hanifin and possibly a return to PPG for Gaudreau. Coleman will score more than last year.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I agree, subject to it being a little like that Oiler article a few years ago where they predicted everyone would improve therefore the team would be cup bound.

I suppose Mangiapane could plateau or even regress a bit but I don't see it. I see Dube and Valimaki as possibly getting a second wind and really taking a step forward. Maybe Mackey and/or Kylington, with some ice time. Lucic could go either way - he could continue in a useful role or age could slow him some. The same could happen to Backlund. On the other hand I suspect we are going to see a huge uptick for Hanifin and possibly a return to PPG for Gaudreau. Coleman will score more than last year.

Yeah Mangiapane could go different ways. He could explode which is just what this team needs.

Or if he is closer to the results he put up before the final Vancouver series, then it doesn't move the needle much for the team.

[Bingo]

I'd say Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Monahan all had off years ... Monahan due to injury. Tkachuk pretty much took Lindholm with him.

Valimaki and Andersson should take some steps ... hard to say how much and how far, but in the right direction.

I think Markstrom will less likely be injured due to facing less 10 bell chances under Sutter, and with is a huge bounce back candidate.

The two biggest issues to me are;

1) Can Calgary finish to the degree required to take advantage of Sutter's play driving system?
2) Can the Flames make up for the loss of Giordano which I highly doubt they will fill through player acquisition?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

damn

https://twitter.com/user/status/1428171388624379906

so year after year the Flames start off with a strong positive win above replacement position just by having Gio in the line-up and then they are in the bottom half of the league in actual winning % 17 out of 30 (not counting vegas) or 18 out of 31

[Enoch Root]

it's almost like it's a team game, and you need more than one good player

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

it's almost like it's a team game, and you need more than one good player

See Oilers, Edmonton.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

so year after year the Flames start off with a strong positive win above replacement position just by having Gio in the line-up and then they are in the bottom half of the league in actual winning % 17 out of 30 (not counting vegas) or 18 out of 31

Weren't you suggesting Giordano had lost it for much of the last two seasons?

I mean don't get me wrong, you're actually right now, but your motives get a little sketchy when you can use the same player for your arguments on both the "lost it" and "can't replace him" sides.

But sure I'll bite.

Wins Above Replacement ... so I'd assume a team of exactly zero WAR players would be pretty terrible. Giordano was a big step forward in having a positive WAR league wide and will be tough to replace.

But you need a dozen good players to be an above average team. Calgary lost one.