GDT: Penguins vs Calgary

[Anglesmith]

Ramo looking sharp tonight. Maybe he'll get another game soon?

 

[Tofveve]

You're saying this as we are playing the Penguins? They're one of the top teams in the East, so losing this game is not a big deal to me because of who we're facing. As some others have said, if there was ever a time to put up a stinker of a game, it's a good thing that it was tonight.

The last part of your post is correct though - this is a top team playing to their potential playing against a team that is still in a rebuild.

The last 20 or so games for the Pens have been tough. Without looking they're what, about .500 over the last 10? I don't put them into the top 5 or 6 in the league. Now ecerything "may" come together over the stretch and this may be the start of it. If so, unfortunate for the Flames.

 

[DCDM]

I blame advanced stats for this game.

Unsustainable?

 

[Anglesmith]

Not just bad offensive game by Gio. He's been below his standard in all three zones tonight.

 

[Hank Plank]

Well that flat out sucked.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Well, at least Fleury was on my fantasy team.

 

[Zirakzigil]

Solid game by the Pens. Not so much for the Flames.

 

[DCDM]

I wonder how many fans at the game tonight knew what the Pens were before 2008.

Yes, I'm bitter.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Not really. Aside from Ortio, our goaltending numbers have been very average, and that's without having been blown out in our losses very often to skew the stats. At this point, 50+ games in, we've consistently been shooting with a high percentage. I feel like there's more in that than luck.

Here's a really good article on the shooting percentage, actually.

It's got some heat maps and stuff, and basically the takeaway is that the Flames aren't really getting shots from better locations than anyone else, which means the elevated shooting percentage is most likely temporary (if season-long, at the point) voodoo.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Too bad Fleury got a shutout. Would've liked at least one Flames goal to spoil it.

 

[Mobiandi]

Ramo looking sharp tonight. Maybe he'll get another game soon?

I think the Pens took their foot of the gas towards the end, but it wouldn't surprise me if Hartley decides to switch it up soon. Personally, I'd keep Hiller in for the foreseeable future

 

[Johnny Hoxville]

Ramo looking sharp tonight. Maybe he'll get another game soon?

I think it's likely.

 

[Anglesmith]

Here's a really good article on the shooting percentage, actually.

It's got some heat maps and stuff, and basically the takeaway is that the Flames aren't really getting shots from better locations than anyone else, which means the elevated shooting percentage is most likely temporary (if season-long, at the point) voodoo.

I'm still reluctant to take those numbers as gospel, though, or even try to interpret them free of the eye-test. For one, the first heat-map was, in my opinion, quite a bit different from one year to the next, but the author downplayed it anyway. That's largely a judgement call. For another, the fact remains that shot quality is only at most half-correlated to shot location.

I think we've all noticed that the Flames have a rush offence this season, and it's always been our MO to try to outnumber the opposition on the rush by bringing a d-man up the ice, and try to isolate a guy with a lane to the net. Shots in those situations are much more likely to go in than shots squeaked out from similar locations on the cycle.

For instance, consider two goals from our comeback win against the Oilers. The first goal was what we might consider a lucky goal. Raymond coming up from the corner and snapping a puck through traffic, that hit Byron and found it's way in. Now consider the fourth goal by Bouma, where Backlund put a perfect pass on his tape an he had half a net to shoot at. Those two goals were basically from the same spot on the ice, but no question one of them is much more likely to go in than the other. I would say Bouma's goal is much more representative of the type of offence we try to generate.

 

[Anglesmith]

I think the Pens took their foot of the gas towards the end, but it wouldn't surprise me if Hartley decides to switch it up soon. Personally, I'd keep Hiller in for the foreseeable future

They weren't pressing that hard, but he still had to make a few solid saves. Overall his composure just looked great.

 

[MuffinMerc]

Zero effort from the Flames tonight.

 

[CraigsList]

Ramo looking sharp tonight. Maybe he'll get another game soon?

I certainly hope so.

 

[Calculon]

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I'm still reluctant to take those numbers as gospel, though, or even try to interpret them free of the eye-test. For one, the first heat-map was, in my opinion, quite a bit different from one year to the next, but the author downplayed it anyway. That's largely a judgement call. For another, the fact remains that shot quality is only at most half-correlated to shot location.

I think we've all noticed that the Flames have a rush offence this season, and it's always been our MO to try to outnumber the opposition on the rush by bringing a d-man up the ice, and try to isolate a guy with a lane to the net. Shots in those situations are much more likely to go in than shots squeaked out from similar locations on the cycle.

For instance, consider two goals from our comeback win against the Oilers. The first goal was what we might consider a lucky goal. Raymond coming up from the corner and snapping a puck through traffic, that hit Byron and found it's way in. Now consider the fourth goal by Bouma, where Backlund put a perfect pass on his tape an he had half a net to shoot at. Those two goals were basically from the same spot on the ice, but no question one of them is much more likely to go in than the other. I would say Bouma's goal is much more representative of the type of offence we try to generate.

I always hesitate to go by "eye test", though, because I, as with most people, am watching the game for entertainment. So I'm not in there with this all-business analytical mentality of "track and compare each scoring chance", which is the only way the eye test is even remotely credible. Some dude chilling and watching the game is not a reliable source; hell, a thousand dudes chilling and watching the game are not reliable sources.

But if someone were to come in with a dataset and say "I've tracked every shot taken this season by and against the Flames, and used xyz criteria to determine the efficacy of each shot", I'd certainly listen to that person. Until then, I'm firmly planted in the "more luck than skill" reasoning for the shooting percentage bolstering.

 

[GAMO1992]

I personally wanna see Ramo in for a string of games, let him get some action, prove himself again. Hiller is probably gassed a bit

 

[Anglesmith]

I always hesitate to go by "eye test", though, because I, as with most people, am watching the game for entertainment. So I'm not in there with this all-business analytical mentality of "track and compare each scoring chance", which is the only way the eye test is even remotely credible. Some dude chilling and watching the game is not a reliable source; hell, a thousand dudes chilling and watching the game are not reliable sources.

But if someone were to come in with a dataset and say "I've tracked every shot taken this season by and against the Flames, and used xyz criteria to determine the efficacy of each shot", I'd certainly listen to that person. Until then, I'm firmly planted in the "more luck than skill" reasoning for the shooting percentage bolstering.

It's fine. In the end, choosing to disregard observation as a complement to advanced stats allows at least as much error in analysis as choosing to consider them in spite of potential bias, in my opinion. The use of advanced stats is often rife with unmentioned assumptions (as I was touching on previously). The question of whether the effect of these assumptions which seek to treat all teams and all shots as equal is greater or less than the effect of human bias is by no means a simple one.

 

[Volica]

Well, we got dummied tonight. No one looked great. I said we needed to get at least 4/5 wins two games ago... So 2-1 is not bad; have to take the next two.

Gotta pick ourselves up and keep plugging away... This team is hard to deal with; two all-world centers who get their choice of matchup... As they use their third line to match up the hardest competition most nights.

Calgary isn't on this level yet; but I hope they can be soon enough.

 

[Unlimited Chequing]

Meh.

We're not going to win all the games. If we're going to lose some, I'm perfectly fine losing them to a team who aren't using the points to get ahead of us in the playoff race.

 

[Lunatik]

Here's a really good article on the shooting percentage, actually.

It's got some heat maps and stuff, and basically the takeaway is that the Flames aren't really getting shots from better locations than anyone else, which means the elevated shooting percentage is most likely temporary (if season-long, at the point) voodoo.

I was going to blast you for calling a flames nation article really good. but then I realized it was Ryan Pike who is the only decent writer they have (unless they hire Scorpion of course)

 

[Lunatik]

I stopped watching at 3-0 (will watch the rest after work), I was quite agitated so I said **** and and got some sleep before my shift.

 

[Turning Mangiapanese]

Didn't see this one but looks like a classic Crosby performance. Nobody in the NHL comes close to a healthy Sid. Glad he's in the East and if McDavid really is on his level he better not end up with the Oilers.