Tungsten Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 I thought he WAS back? Your right,when did he come back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birchy Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Tonight is his first game back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Tonight is his first game back. ...and Bert hasn't lost a step . Actually - thought he played pretty well tonight I had a look at the 10 games prior to "The trade" and the 11 games since. Pretty interesting. Prior to the trade the Flames were 7-1-2 for 16 points. In the 11 games since they are 4-7-0 for 8 points. The PP prior to was 21% and since is at 16%, the PK prior to was 83% and since is 75%. Goals For and against: prior to 40-29. Since 31-42. Here is the most telling thing in my opinion. In the prior 10 games (the games they were winning), the Flames had been Outshot by opponents 313-302. Kippers GAA was 2.9 and his save percentage was 91%. Opponents GAA was 4 and the Save % was 87%. In the last 11 Games, the Flames have Outshot their opponent 360-334. Flames GAA is 3.8 and save percentage is 87%. The Opponents GAA is 2.8 and oppnents Save% is 91%. Almost a complete reversal of fortune So much as I would say that Kipper was a big part of their winning record prior to the trade, it is definately goaltending that is responsible for the slide in the past 11. Again - I'm not sayying Kipper has been bad every game - just that the other goalie is consistently better. In order to win in this league you need a goaltender that has a 90% or better save percentage (or you need to be Detroit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Tonight is his first game back. I was recording the game until my son came home and yelled the Flames are loosing 4 zip. :$*%&: :$*%&: then i saw rehsifylfs post.Turned on the tv to confirm :$*%&: :$*%&: Still peed off after last nights game i posted here. I tell you Sutter better be kicking some ASS right about now,including Keenans. :$*%&: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tungsten Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 Interesting stats,i have noticed that calgarys defence has been shite,watching the puck instead of taking the man.There passing is also a little off.Lets hope that this will turn around and quick because kipper is all we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 a 5-0 beatdown. What else can we say? They just went on a short roadie and got SKUNKED no goals! NONE! I hope some azz kicking is going on. Honestly... they need to sit iginla for a game or two. He needs to get his head on right. And Dion. Sutter needs to grow some balls and bench the guys who arent playing hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 i always say that it doesn't matter so much how the team is playing in december as it does in march/april. so far this spring the flames look mediocre. ay carumba it's hard to be a flames fan these days. could they be any more inconsistent? hopefully an ass-kicking by sutter will get things straightened out but if they don't turn it around they'll be in 5th before they know it (maybe on the weekend) playing the hawks on the road. alhthough if they don't win the division personally i'd rather see them in 6th playing the canucks in round 1. that would be a good series to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlander Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 And then the Canucks were 1 point behind with 8 games to play. The April 7 game is looming larger and larger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I read rehfsiflyf's detailed analysis of pre and post trade performance. Well researched, and a reasonable conclusion. My only question would be has he identified the cause of the recent slide, or just another symptom? In the games before the slide, I would imagine the team was playing with the lead most nights. I'm not a hockey expert, but in sports in general when a team has a lead, particularly a sizable one they tend to go into more of a defensive shell. In hockey, doesn't this mean the forwards stay back more? And isn't the tendency is to not try to limit opposing team's shots, but limit scoring chances? The team playing behind plays more offensively, defensemen pinching in, yes? So in my mind, that would lead to the team playing from ahead getting fewer chances (because they are playing defensive), but when they do get a scoring chance, it is a good one (2 one 1 breaks, that sort of thing). But the team playing behind is getting lots of shots from the outside, but few good chances, therefore the ahead teams goalie has a better save percentage than the goalie of the team behind. Also, how is the defence playing? Wouldn't that have a huge bearing on both save percentage and GAA? Better chances would guarantee both GAA and save percentage to get worse wouldn't it? It could just be the goaltending, but I doubt it is that simple. One of the things I have learned from diagnosing issues with systems or processes is to try hard not to confuse symptoms for causes, and also to pay very close attention when the cause you come up with confirms your preconceived notion. In other words if you don't like the goaltender and your analysis points to the goaltender, question you analysis hard. As to pre and post trade. Look back to Vancouver. How long did it take them to start clicking post Sundin? (The return of the best goaltender in the world aside). 10 games? Some of that was due to Sundin not playing, but some of that was due to process change-with Sundin being the change. In terms of process, Sundin was brought in to improve efficiency. And it looks as though he has. What people never tell you about process change is that when you change process to improve efficiency, short term efficiency will certainly suffer as the system adjusts to the new process. The Flames are smack in the middle of that. Another factor in all this is injuries. 2 key players (and no one needs to remind me I don't like one of them) have been out for awhile now. The team played well without them for awhile. This happens quite often as the other players "pick up the slack." But in almost every case I can think of, after some period of time the players "picking up the slack" wear down and the true impact of the loss of key players starts to be seen. The Flames are in the middle of that as well. Another couple of posts recommend Sutter "kicking some ass". I've always been fascinated when fans feel star players are dogging it. Does anyone truly believe that with 10 games left in the season the star players on this team are not trying? I've worked for a long time. Sometimes more effectively than others. But my failures have rarely been due to not trying. My strong belief is those guys are trying as hard as they can. It just isn't working. There is also a bit of a move afoot to get rid of Keenan. Again, really? With 10 games left? Crazy move, IHMO. There are 10 games left. One of the key players is back. The other is back before the playoffs. Relax everyone, things will be ok. See what happens when I can't fish? Long rambly posts on *hit I know nothing about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveM Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Very insightful post, Rick. Let's hope you're analysis is correct. However, my 12-year old daughter & her friends disagree. They are very sure that the Flames are sucking because they traded away their cutest(in their opinion) player, Matt Lombardi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 [backdoor]Canucks Knocking[/backdoor] Shaggy ~ born in Calgary, but a BC boy now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbow Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 i say start mcelhinney tonight. shake 'em up. do something. it's ugly right now although i only listened to the last 2 games in the radio. wrt to ass kicking it's not so much that the players are trying hard it's how they're trying. sorta like after the sj blowout in november. time to rethink/rejig/remember to play position. take the man etc etc. some knute rockne inspiration. attitude adjustment. every game is a must win for the flames now or at the very least a point. the apr 7 contest will be critical although the flames could be behind the canucks by then....or maybe ahead...ya never know with this team. and to top it off the canucks get to play the avs twice more b/f the end of the year!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Shaggy, shamefull... you gone over to the dark side. BIG game tonight against a lesser team... the flames not only need to win this game they need to destroy minnesota... 100% hard play for 60 minutes and a 6-1 win tonight ... that's my call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Shaggy, shamefull... you gone over to the dark side. BIG game tonight against a lesser team... the flames not only need to win this game they need to destroy minnesota... 100% hard play for 60 minutes and a 6-1 win tonight ... that's my call. Could easily have been 6-1. Great game all around. Hard to dominate like that every night though. I'm still shaking my head at the two waved off goals. I can't quite understand the second one, from the straight-on shot it was pretty clear he made contct below the bar. If that was TO or Vancouver - it was a goal for sure. As for the first one - not sure how the guy can make that call from behind the goalie - they should make that reviewable if the puck goes in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 It could just be the goaltending, but I doubt it is that simple. One of the things I have learned from diagnosing issues with systems or processes is to try hard not to confuse symptoms for causes, and also to pay very close attention when the cause you come up with confirms your preconceived notion. In other words if you don't like the goaltender and your analysis points to the goaltender, question you analysis hard. I like Kipper. When he plays well - I note it, as do many. When he plays poorly - I also note it (as do many). Based on his play this year, I was surprised when Sutter didn't pick up a veteran goalie at the dealine. I hear many of people suggest 'quality of shots' affects save percentage - but since it is not something that is tracked and is subjective, it is tough to say. Other than Detroit (who definately shoot more lower % shots at the net) - I think the quality of shots follows a pretty normal distribution raging from routine saves to spectacular saves over a reasonable sample of games (I chose 10 games - ~300 shots). I think its a fair assumption, but again, some will sugget that defence affects the quality of shot more. Until someone shows me some data, I'll go with the normal distribution. So for me, save percentage is the most telling variable in goalie performance. GAA is more of a team issue (give up more shots, you give up more goals). I'd say the sympton here is goals in the back of the net and the root cause is that not a high enough % of them are being stopped. If the team far outplayed the other team every night, then they could compensate for poorer save % - like they did against Minnesota Saturday (Minn save % .925, Calgary .867) or like Vancouver does most nights (last night they win 4-0 while being outshot 26-23). I haven't looked at the numbers but I'd wager heavily that when Vcr was prepped to fire their coach earlier this year the Save % was low, and in the past 20-25 games it has been very high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I agree that everything aside, quality scoring chances would follow a normal dist. But that assumes you are taking a random sampling of games, not taking games where they are winning vs games they are loosing and trying to draw gaa and save percentage statistical assumptions from them. If, as I contend, that quality chances against go up when a team is playing from behind-then the trend you site could be skewed by picking games they lost. So, lets put all the numbers together over the last 20 games or so (I'll just use your old numbers cuz I'm too lazy to compile new ones, and I just averaged even though one data set is 10 games and one is 11, so I'm probably +/- 1% on save percentage and .05 on GAA or so off). If my math is correct, over all the games you sited: Shots Flames: 662, shots opponents 647. GAA Flames: around 3.4, save percentage 89% GAA Opponents around 3.4, save percentage 89% Record 11-8-2 Seems reasonable? For the season, Kipper is 43-20-5 with a save percentage of 90% (vs. 89% in the latest sample, fairly insignificant) and GAA of 2.9 (so 3.4 is singificantly higher. This must mean significantly more shots-and consequently a fairly mediocre record over that time. What's it all mean? It's the defenses fault for giving up more shots. Or maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walker1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 A lot of the above analysis is reasonable and holds some truth. However, when talking and comparing shots with stats you need to be careful. A team can be outshot but not outplayed. How many shots were due to power play and even 5 on 3???? The QUALITY of the shots is the key. Perimeter players come in by the dozen and so do their shots. Box scores can't explain this. Only watching the game can. I am not a Flames fan but Kipper is famous for making the big save when need be. The guy wins games with not the best stats. It will be interesting to see how the relationship with Captain Hook ( Keenan) goes. Something has to give. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 A lot of the above analysis is reasonable and holds some truth. However, when talking and comparing shots with stats you need to be careful. A team can be outshot but not outplayed. How many shots were due to power play and even 5 on 3???? Sometimes its frustrating posting on here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawgstoppah Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Simple fact is, Kipper needs to make ONE more big save a night, instead of it finding the back of the net. then this team has a chance. right now, it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flytyer Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Simple fact is, Kipper needs to make ONE more big save a night, instead of it finding the back of the net. then this team has a chance. right now, it doesn't. Kipper needs some decent defense in front of him....it is more defence than Kipper!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walker1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Sometimes its frustrating posting on here. Meaning..................................???????? If it reference to your post ( that I did not read) well ..... tough. Many things are frustrating .................... its called life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Pretty good effort tonight. If they hadn't pissed away 1 10 point lead in less than 3 weeks, I'd be satisfied with the effort. At this point though, they need wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 If anyone wants to argue that bad defence loses games - they should have watched the third period of Minn/Vcr tonight. For the 2nd time in three games, Vancouver played miserably and got two points. Outshot 11-0 in the third and Minn had 0 powerplays. A complete reversal from 2004. Then Calgary had a weak team but outstanding goaltending with Kipper. Vancouver had a very strong team, but weak goaltending. Almost feel sorry for Bert. Luongo has faced an average of 28.56 shots per game this year - Kipper 28.4. Luongo GAA 2.34 Kipper 2.85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reevesr1 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 If anyone wants to argue that bad defence loses games - they should have watched the third period of Minn/Vcr tonight. For the 2nd time in three games, Vancouver played miserably and got two points. Outshot 11-0 in the third and Minn had 0 powerplays. Come on rehsfylf. Of course you can find a game where the defence sucks, but the team wins. Particularly when the team in question has arguably the best goaltender in the world behind them, and he's on a hell of a roll. That's sorta like finding one cold winter and saying, see, no global warming. Hey, that was fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rehsifylf Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Big Win. Important not just for the 2, but because Kipper was huge in the 3rd. He and the team needed that - gives them both confidence. Mind you it was Dallas - but killing two penalties in the 3rd. They need to go into Minn tomorrow and do it again. A big noght by the offence would be perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.