[CP Story] Are the Flames Poised to Break Out?

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

From Bingo's article:



Of course, this depends upon how "high danger scoring chances" are defined, but given that the same definition is applied to every other NHL team I expect it won't change the outcome.

Bingo has supplied some pretty compelling numbers. You have countered with "the coach is bad, and it just doesn't feel like the team is playing well."

I am strongly compelled to endorse his evaluation over yours.

Sorry but that is not true. I have been validating my opinions with things like goal differential, goals scored, special teams etc. And I hate to break it to you but I have been right. The standings prove me right The same standings prove the advanced stats wrong. Would I want to play LA in a playoff series right now? On paper should be a Flames sweep, right? Do we really believe that we would dominate them like that?

To me it comes down to simple things why I have reserved expectations.
Team is not scoring a lot.
Team is not defending well.
Special teams are spotty, were terrible earlier
The team is not really good at anything. Very average at most. Thus they are a bubble playoff team.
For that I blame coaching. Because I believe they should be more than that.

Bingo has compiled stats that appear to paint a picture that the team is ready to take off and be a much better team. And I don't want to completely discount it, but they have had these good underlaying numbers all season, yet they have not taken off. So I ask, can we really trust them?
Some say that the last 4 games are a sign of huge improvement. Well, we went from getting blown out to these tight games. But is losing 2-1 that much of an improvement?

I think the games are so over analyzed now that simple and proven indicators are being ignored. This team lacks consistency so I expect more of the same, an average team.

[bigrangy]

Bigrangy's 1st rule of fancy stats

You can have good fancy stats and suck, but if you're good and have bad fancy stats, 9/10 times suckage is just around the corner

[Red]

Originally Posted by bigrangy

Bigrangy's 1st rule of fancy stats

You can have good fancy stats and suck, but if you're good and have bad fancy stats, 9/10 times suckage is just around the corner

We've seen that, thats for sure. Don't the Oilers have good stats?

For the record, I don't think the Flames suck. They are a decent team.

[GullFoss]

FWIW, I did a monte carlo on bingo's numbers. It implied that if the flames kept up their play of the past 20 games, they would - on average - finish the season with 103 points. Probably good enough to end up second in the division.

Over a full season, their play over the past 20 games implies a 110 point season, which is good enough to win the division.

Full season Monte Carlo below with points on the x axis and probability of reaching such point totals on the Y axis. Note only 150 observations because my vba skills are bad and im lazy. But it still gives the gist of the probability distribution of what this brand of flames hockey translates into points wise over 82 games.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Red

Sorry but that is not true. I have been validating my opinions with things like goal differential, goals scored, special teams etc. And I hate to break it to you but I have been right. The standings prove me right The same standings prove the advanced stats wrong. Would I want to play LA in a playoff series right now? On paper should be a Flames sweep, right? Do we really believe that we would dominate them like that?

T.

Therein lies the problem. Why would you believe that the Flames on paper should sweep are dominate the Kings. There is maybe one dominate team in the league. On paper the Flames should be in the mix....which they are. Nothing about this team screams dominant or sweep. Your expectations are out of whack

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Therein lies the problem. Why would you believe that the Flames on paper should sweep are dominate the Kings. There is maybe one dominate team in the league. On paper the Flames should be in the mix....which they are. Nothing about this team screams dominant or sweep. Your expectations are out of whack

To add to this, no team in today's NHL is so dominant that you should ever expect a sweep in the playoffs. In a truly lopsided series, the favourite has a chance of maybe 70% of winning any one game, which implies a 25% chance of a sweep.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Wild GM

Therein lies the problem. Why would you believe that the Flames on paper should sweep are dominate the Kings. There is maybe one dominate team in the league. On paper the Flames should be in the mix....which they are. Nothing about this team screams dominant or sweep. Your expectations are out of whack

You misunderstood me. When I said "on paper" I meant "fancy stats" not rosters. It was brought to our attention above that the LA Kings have terrible fancy stats.
And the Flames have great ones.
So according to fancy stats the Flames should beat them easily.

I disagree.

[GullFoss]

Originally Posted by Red

You misunderstood me. It was brought to our attention above that the LA Kings have terrible fancy stats.
And the Flames have great ones.
So according to fancy stats the Flames should beat them easily.

But this isn't really how it works. Even if you're the better team, you're only going to win 55-65% of the time.

Over the past couple weeks, the flames outplayed the flyers, maple leafs and wild, and still lost each of these games. When you're playing really well, this is exactly what should be happening!

[Red]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

But this isn't really how it works. Even if you're the better team, you're only going to win 55-65% of the time.

Over the past couple weeks, the flames outplayed the flyers, maple leafs and wild, and still lost each of these games. When you're playing really well, this is exactly what should be happening!

OMG, the LA comment wasn't meant to be taken so literally, it was a jab at how bad stats can be at predicting future results.

[Textcritic]

Three things...

Originally Posted by Red

Sorry but that is not true. I have been validating my opinions with things like goal differential, goals scored, special teams etc. And I hate to break it to you but I have been right. The standings prove me right The same standings prove the advanced stats wrong.

So, you are declaring victory by fiat? That is generally the last resort of one whose argument has failed.

Would I want to play LA in a playoff series right now? On paper should be a Flames sweep, right? Do we really believe that we would dominate them like that?

I certainly believe that the Flames would beat the LA Kings in a playoff series based on the combination of their solid underlying numbers and the fact that Gulutzan's Flames has a very good record against LA.

Bingo has compiled stats that appear to paint a picture that the team is ready to take off and be a much better team. And I don't want to completely discount it, but they have had these good underlaying numbers all season, yet they have not taken off. So I ask, can we really trust them?
Some say that the last 4 games are a sign of huge improvement. Well, we went from getting blown out to these tight games. But is losing 2-1 that much of an improvement?

I think we can based on what has happened already in October and November. No, the Flames underlying numbers have not been good all season. Look at this visual that Bingo posted:

Originally Posted by Bingo

As he has demonstrated, the Flames were being pretty handily outplayed in Games #1–7 of the year, but won four of those on the strength of Mike Smith's excellent goaltending. The change started to occur in Games #8–11, which saw the Flames' underlying numbers start to consistently improve, but produced only one win. From Games #12–25 the Flames won the metrics contest more often than not, and put together a record of 9-5 to show for it.

Like I have noted a number of times now, Game #26 against Edmonton was bad. It was bad because for various reasons the Flames are coming up against a mental block when playing the Oilers. But after that game they have come out in front in the metrics of four of the next five teams, and have been rewarded with points against four out of five.

This current stretch of five games (2-1-2; GF/GA 11–12) looks very much like the stretch of Games #8–11 (1–3; GF/GA 9–13). They followed that stretch up with a 7-2-1 run in their next ten games (GF/GA 36–31).

So, yeah. I can see some trends which suggest that the team is poised to go on a run.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Red

OMG, the LA comment wasn't meant to be taken so literally, it was a jab at how bad stats can be at predicting future results.

Maybe, but by taking it literally, those posters showed the weakness of your case: Nothing is particularly good at predicting the result of any particular game or even a short series. Even the worst teams win about 30 percent of the time. Even the best teams lose about 30 percent of the time. It's no good getting in a big snit about how team X should have beaten team Y on night Z, and therefore trade the culprit/fire the coach/blow the team up and start over.

(I'm not saying you're in a big snit. I'm saying I've seen many such snits in PGTs after losses, especially this year. If it were all said in conversation, I could chalk it up to blowing off steam, but when people put that stuff in writing they can have a tendency to stick to their most extreme opinions and get defensive rather than cool off and change their minds. Verba volant, scripta manent.)

[Red]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Three things...

So, you are declaring victory by fiat? That is generally the last resort of one whose argument has failed.

Seriously? Grow up.

My argument is 100 valid. As is yours. Difference of opinions. No winners, no losers.

If you don't see it the same way then we are done here because this is no longer a discussion.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Red

My argument is 100 valid. As is yours. Difference of opinions. No winners, no losers.

As wise men have often said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. And the facts do not back a lot of your claims.

[Red]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Maybe, but by taking it literally, those posters showed the weakness of your case: Nothing is particularly good at predicting the result of any particular game or even a short series. Even the worst teams win about 30 percent of the time. Even the best teams lose about 30 percent of the time. It's no good getting in a big snit about how team X should have beaten team Y on night Z, and therefore trade the culprit/fire the coach/blow the team up and start over.

(I'm not saying you're in a big snit. I'm saying I've seen many such snits in PGTs after losses, especially this year. If it were all said in conversation, I could chalk it up to blowing off steam, but when people put that stuff in writing they can have a tendency to stick to their most extreme opinions and get defensive rather than cool off and change their minds. Verba volant, scripta manent.)

Then why discuss it? Looks like a meaningless thread. THANKS BINGO !!!

Its a stats vs eye test discussion. Take a side or not, but don't tell us that we are just wasting our time because no one can predict anything. Its what makes us fans.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

The ability of a scorer to bury his chances and the ability of a goalie to make saves is about the furthest thing from luck IMO.

I agree with the general thrust of the article though and Flames have started to play better as of late. But 4 games is a poor sample size from which to draw many conclusions.

It's not 4 games though, it's the average of about 20.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

As wise men have often said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. And the facts do not back a lot of your claims.

Haven't you heard? Thanks to Trump and others, we have entered the post-fact era. Facts don't matter anymore.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Red

Seriously? Grow up.

My argument is 100 valid. As is yours. Difference of opinions. No winners, no losers.

If you don't see it the same way then we are done here because this is no longer a discussion.

You are charging me with putting an end to discussion? I'm not the one who said:

Originally Posted by Red

...I hate to break it to you but I have been right. The standings prove me right The same standings prove the advanced stats wrong.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Bingo

It's not 4 games though, it's the average of about 20.

Understood, didn’t mean to imply you only looked at 4 games. Just reflecting on my memory of recent play.

It is all so very delicate. Are the Flames trending up? Or will we look back and wish they had garnered more points during a stretch of solid play?

I appreciate the look at the underlying stats. Some believe based on their own inclination towards optimism whereas I would really like to see a few more W’s. In the back of my mind I also worry that this is a team that has faced very little adversity. How would they handle significant injuries for example?

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Red

Seriously? Grow up.

My argument is 100 valid. As is yours. Difference of opinions. No winners, no losers.

If you don't see it the same way then we are done here because this is no longer a discussion.

When did all opinions become equal?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by the2bears

When did all opinions become equal?

Republicans in the US started this on social media a few years ago and it's spread to literally everyone. Attacking an opinion is now attacking a person, countering an opinion is now suppressing an opinion.

All opinions are now equal and all opinions must stand uncontested or that person is being deprived of their right to an opinion, for some reason that escapes anyone capable of critical thought.