Perception, and Reality: G20, Blackhaws @ Flames Post-Game
by R O on Nov 20, 2009 9:41 AM PST
20 comments
Corsi
(note - only shows the first two periods for some reason)
ZoneStart, G20, Blackhawks @ Flames
A team is never as good as it seems when it's winning, and never as bad as it seems when it's losing.
First
EV Shots On Goal : 6-5
EV Shots Toward Net : 14-8
EV Faceoff Starts : 7-3
Second
EV Shots On Goal : 7-6
EV Shots Toward Net : 14-10
EV Faceoff Starts : 4-4
Third
EV Shots On Goal : 8-2
EV Shots Toward Net : 14-8
EV Faceoff Starts : 5-1
Overall
EV Shots On Goal : 21-13
EV Shots Toward Net : 42-26
EV Faceoff Starts : 16-8
For most fans, analyzing a game begins and ends with the score. Which is foolish and stupid for anybody who watches the game with a keen eye. But it's tempting, even for the coldest and most heartless bastards, when your team is drubbed to the tune of 7 goals against and 1 goal for.
But perception and reality are two different things.
It's funny how the game story last night changed according to the score. By the time the third period arrived the air was thick with rumblings of complacency and collapse. The post-game rolls around and the buzzwords are flying: lack of urgency, lack of leadership, adversity, casualness, inconsistency, accountability, laziness...
Damn, these things don't even happen on the ice.
Even the head coach got into it. ASIDE: The Sutters are cut from the same mold. Lying bastards, the lot of them. That's not an insult or a perceived shortcoming btw - the only requirement I have for the hockey people running the Flames is competence. We'll never be as hockey-smart as them but we don't need their words to shape our view of the game, not when their actions speak for themselves and especially not when we have the use of our own two eyes.
Folks, the entire purpose of this blog is to try and look under the surface, past the boxscore and the cliches and the lies that coaches and plaerys tell, to the parts of the game that drive results in the long-term. Phrases like "found a way to win" are not part of the vernacular here, so don't expect us to ever say "found a way to lose", let alone endorse concepts like sense of urgency or inconsistency. What does that even mean? How do hockey players look urgent, or not? How is inconsistency defined? Is it even possible to be consistent in doing something on the ice, under any reasonable definition of the word? I mean, these concepts do exist in the abstract, but discerning them in action is another matter entirely.
This is not some holier-than-thou kick or some such; just a plea for greater attention paid to what's happening on the ice, and less attention paid to the narratives. We all have biases, which color our perceptions, but reality never changes.
This is still only hockey, after all.
---
Last night, against the Chicago Blackhawks, the Calgary Flames had a great game at even strength and a poor game on special teams.
I commented last night that the Flames owned the puck at 5 on 5 through the first two, an assertion that I'll stick to. Commenter "d_p_h" made the point that the possession didn't translate to very many chances. I was skeptical about this, but Kent confirmed it.
Still, possession drives everything imo. Kent commented on the "chances at chances" that the Flames had - pucks in dangerous areas just missing sticks, or going wide when shot. It's not worth looking into too deeply, you get caught up in the minutiae PDQ. But the general point is that possession puts the puck in dangerous places and puts players in places where they can push that puck to the net. You can't really ask for much more after that.
I did think the Flames did a fairly poor job defending the transition. Could be a function of how aggressive they were in the zone. But I don't think it had much to do with passing plays or some such. I especially remember the Byfuglien goal where they were criss-crossing the puck around the Chicago box. I thought that was actually a brilliant play as they were also rotating the defenders, almost like a PP. It was just poor execution on the point shot, which exposed the Flames who were deep in the zone. Whoever that was who made the shot (Iginla maybe?) it was both bad luck and a bad effort.
The special teams though, were an unmitigated disaster. The Flames had all sorts of trouble gaining the zone on the PP. They had quality chances, especially that Bouwmeester chance. Huet made a great guess with his diving save but it was still pure shit luck it didn't go in, unless you're trying to convince me that he has psychic powers. Nevertheless, the Flames should have had more chances, they certainly had the PP icetime to do so. And the PK... well it's best not to speak about it. There were many goats last night but probably Nystrom was the biggest with that terrible puck clearing attempt.
---
The Flames deserved a better fate, no question. Did they deserve to win? No, not exactly. But a 4-4 score going to OT would probably have been more indicative of how the game played out. Certainly they deserved more than zero EV goals, at least in my humble opinion.
---
Game notes:
- Iginla played a buttload against Keith and Seabrook, and his most frequent forward matchups were against Ladd and Madden. Clearly a Quennenville decision, it's his MO to use a dedicated non-Toews, non-Kane line playing the tough minutes (last year it was Havlat). He was also not given very favorable positioning by Sutter. All in all, I was pleased with his overall game.
- Jokinen had seven shots on net? Interesting. He was a different player last night, he didn't get too many OFF zone draws either, and he also faced the Keith/Seabrook tandem with regularity. I don't expect it to last, but it was nice to see.
- Bourque only played 13 seconds in the third period. It won't be good for this team if he's injured, that's for sure. Get well soon.
- Giordano and Pardy were given a whopping 18 minutes of EV icetime each. Actions speak louder than words - either Sutter was not pleased with his defensemen, or he decided to mail it in during the third. Somewhere in the middle, I would imagine.
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Giordano has also been well on the plus side of the corsi and scoring chance ledger for the last couple of games, so it could just be Sutter going with what he’s liked.
It was Iginla on that Buff-lyn goal BTW. Not only did he blow the shot, he coasted on the back-check. Had he caught up to Byfuglien (who isn’t the fleetest player in the world) instead of acting like another middle defender, that goal doesn’t happen.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 20, 2009 9:57 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Very good summary of the game. It was much better than the score (the game, I mean…well, and your summary).
However, as I commented (at ridiculous length) on another thread, there is something to their lack of consistency. I think it is something you can see on the ice, even if it can’t be defined. I may be full of shit because I don’t see every game, but the gaps between good Flames hockey and bad Flames hockey are very large. I don’t know how to capture it in a number; however, when looking at the ‘streaks’ in scoring chances as Kent totals them, it is telling that there are always long streaks both ways, and not a lot of CHI/CGY/CHI/CGY (or pick your opponent).
I’m with you that the buzzwords are generally BS, because it’s easier to write and say that then dig deeper. I just can’t shake my concerns about consistency, though, even if that’s another of the buzzwords.
by maimster on Nov 20, 2009 10:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Matt’s screed on consistency is applicable here, I think. I understand what you’re saying, though – there seems to be a large delta between the Flames highs and lows, which tend to occur inside the same game, making it seem like “if only this club could get it’s act together”…
still, in the end, that’s what makes elite teams elite – they are better than everyone else more often than not.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 20, 2009 10:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny, after reading your comment and before reading Matt, I was reminded of a column I read in SI a few years ago about golf called “you’re not inconsistent, you’re just bad”. Very similar to Matt’s screed. I remember laughing out loud at the truth of what I was reading. Paraphrasing, it was something like:
“1st hole, great drive, 2nd shot pin high, long birdie putt, you’re Phil Mickelson; 2nd hole, scream it 280 down the right side, lay up 80 yards short, nice pitch and two putt, you’re Mike Weir; 3rd hole you drive in the left rough, punch out but still 250 from the green, duff the 3rd, get the 4th close, miss the up and down for a triple – you’re you again, and you’ll be you the rest of the round!”.
Anyway, to put it a different way (which ultimately agrees with what you’ve both written) – the Flames need to get better, and playing to a higher level for a greater percentage of the game seems like a great way to get better. Truth is, I’m not sure this group of players has the talent to do that.
by maimster on Nov 20, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But, are “talent” and “mentality” measured by the same means? I suppose to an extent they are, but saying they aren’t “talented” enough, I don’t think that is necessarily true. They ARE talented, but for some reason they can’t seem to get past the mental hump of playing up to that talent on a regular basis (and yes I think the inconsistency is more a mental than a physical thing). That is the whole reason why this team is so frustrating to watch much of the time. You know they’ve got skilled guys on the team, you know they are capable of playing well, its just that they never seem to do it game in and game out. Look at last year, at the point when they got owned by Chicago and San Jose in back to back games. They got their act together for the next 2 months or so of the season and were one of the hardest working teams in the league, not to mention one of the hardest to beat. This team hasn’t changed that much since that point, so its safe to say that that ability is still in there somewhere, its just a matter of if/when we ever see it again.
by Icedragon on Nov 20, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Talent, ability, skill...
…three different words that seem to mean the same thing, but I don’t think they do. If I had to define them, I’d say skill is raw (how well you shoot or skate), ability is putting skill into action (smart passes on the stick, hard skating, the right shot for the situation), talent is combining a number of abilities into a pleasing whole. I think the Flames have some skill (not as much as some teams, but quite a bit), reasonable ability and not enough talent to allow those abilities to outshine their opponent’s abilities.
by maimster on Nov 20, 2009 12:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not sure that it’s exclusive to Calgary. I tend to try and catch games from certain notable Western Conference teams (Oilers, Canucks, Wings) and I see a lot of the same thing. Not so much in terms of scoring chances, I don’t track those by number generally (only by memory) but in terms of zone time these teams all experience such swings back and forth. And of course, everything happens in the right measures – the Wings will own the streaks more than the Oilers or Canucks, but I rarely see them do 4 shifts in the OFF zone – 1 shift in the DEF zone – 4 -1 – 4 – 1, or some such pattern. They’ll often have go 5-6 shifts in a row where they are chasing the puck too, only thing is at the end of the night they will end up the better team in aggregate.
I’m not sure if that’s inconsistency or just noise. Luck produces streaks, that I learned at an early age so I compensate for it in my head. But maybe too much so – who knows, I might be missing a pattern that is there.
by R O on Nov 20, 2009 10:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I definitely agree, the score was in no way indicative of how close the game really was. The Flames PK has been terrible the last week, and the special teams were easily the difference maker. I guess if Calgary isn’t going to bother killing off penalties anymore they should try to avoid taking them as much as possible huh? Heh, wishful thinking I know. I think the most annoying thing about it though is it gives Hawks fans more fuel to rant about how their team is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If the score had been…2-1 or even 3-1, the loss wouldn’t have stung nearly as much. But 7-1, makes it look like Chicago must have completely dominated in every facet of the game. And what’s with Chicago doing things in 6’s…first game, 6 unanswered goals, this game, 6 unanswered goals…I swear if they score 6 unanswered the next time these two teams play, it will be proof that this team is evil…(which I’ve known all along!!).
by Icedragon on Nov 20, 2009 11:27 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nothing like a vomit-inducing blowout to spur on passionate debate.
OK, here goes my first responses to many a thought:
1. Consistency. Let’s not get into an argument about semantics, but the idea, which many seem to disagree with is there. I agree with the idea. We’re not talking me vs Iginla… and I just need to be more consistent to beat him. We’re not even talking Iginla vs Toews and Iggy needs to be more consistent to beat Toews. What we’re talking is Iggy vs Iggy, and what that means is execution vs ability. You can’t teach someone to be as good as Iginla, but you can teach Iginla to be not as bad as Iginla. Capice? The third goal is a step-by-step disaster. This is how goals go in, this is how games are lost. A+B+C=Fail. When Sutter says consistency what he means is: ‘doing what-the-f*ck I say.’ And they have very short memories.
Skill alone can get you 30 shots for. Poor execution results in you losing 7-1. Some people call it luck, I think of it as relative chaos.
1st goal:
How many Flames does it take to stand around and watch Brouwer screw in a lightbulb? Apparently 3. Enough said. Nystrom, you have a job to do… take the body for Christ’s sake! Maybe you tried, but that was a wimp-ass baby- push if that’s what you were trying. Channel your inner Ovechkin please…it’s not a god damn tea-party.
2nd goal:
Bourque puts himself in a bad postion to be hit (A) + Dawes loses his itty bitty mind and takes a penalty (B) + Nystrom attempts a weak-ass backhand attempt when he has ten years to clear the zone © + Sarich has no stick and wasn’t given one (D) + fine, but low % deflection (E) = you lose. This is repeatedly poor execution and relative chaos. NONE of these plays, save maybe Nystroms, have anything to do with talent, skill, zone pressure etc. they are just simple stupid fuck-ups. It’s players not knowing what to do, which has nothing to do with not being able to.
3rd goal. Iggy can’t handle the nice Jokinen drop pass (A) + decides to lamely shoot it without control anyway into the player vs the corner (B) + closes to within 6 feet of an east-west traveling Bufflin and stops pursuit © + loses HIS itty-bitty mind and for who in god’s name knows why skates to the middle of the ice and effectively removes himself from the play (D) watches pathetically while Bufflin who now has all the time in the world and 3 options picks the post side perfectly.
4th goal…. didn’t we go over line changes last game?
…and on and on and on and on and f*cking on.
THESE plays have nothing, or so little to do with skill and luck it couldn’t be more obvious. It’s just shitty-stupid hockey. It’s pathetic hockey. It has nothing to do with zone-time or corsi, it has to do with being f^&(ing dumb. Call it inconsistency, call it what you may…but it’s not bad luck and it’s not for lack of skill, because if we say that the Flames have been unlucky or don’t have enough skill, I am going to LOSE my mind.
BUT we can say they sucked.
The Flames are officially the Blackhawks little prison bitch. 13 goals against in 2 games.
by LawrenceS on Nov 20, 2009 1:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
“Step by step ways to lose a game and still convince your fans your were even remotely close to being competitive in” by Your Calgary Flames.
by LawrenceS on Nov 20, 2009 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well put...
I have to agree with you totally, so many times when I see the Flames get scored against, and it seems to happen way more often against Chicago for some reason, many times its usually due in large (if not all) part to a completely boneheaded play by a Flames player.
by Icedragon on Nov 20, 2009 3:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lawrence,
Firstly, great analysis of the Flames mistakes on the goals against. I agree with pretty much all of it.
But I think you might be missing the forest here. I won’t deny that these mistakes were bad. But the thing is here, you’ve only highlighted the mistakes that led to goals against. In reality, both teams made all kinds of mistakes – the Flames just paid for theirs.
Chicago let two odd man rushes occur against Iggy that I recall, both just fizzled into nothing (bad luck on the Bourque-Iggy 2-on-1 that they ran out of room as Bourque’s penalty expired, terrible call on the Iggy breakaway). As well their defence let our guys get to the net unimpeded and in scoring position several times (Moss, on a feed from Boyd; Conroy in alone from Glencross; Bouwmeester on the PP). These were horrible mistakes Lawrence, some as bad as the ones that led to Flames GA’s. There must be others, I don’t remember.
And that’s the thing Lawrence, we’re not going to remember every mistake – unless it costs us, but the ones that do will burn into our minds and grow larger than life. It’s human nature, no one’s fault, I’m guilty of it too.
I generally like to look at the minutiae when I want to point something cool out (like that passing play just before the Byfuglien goal – still a thing a beauty imo even if the result was a pissant). But it’s hard to construct a picture that makes sense from these little details, you get caught up in that perception bias or selective perception or whatever the term is.
by R O on Nov 20, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
For most fans, analyzing a game begins and ends with the score. Which is foolish and stupid for anybody who watches the game with a keen eye
I wish I could be as elite of a fan as you, R O. You should campaign to the NHL that which ever team wins the Corsi battle should be awarded the W.
On an unrelated note, since the Flames always seem to take early leads this year, they tend to face the desperation of a losing team late in games, leading to lower Corsi ratings. Which I guess is the true test of a team, not the score. Maybe because the Hawks were dominating last night, they sat back a bit and the Flames led the Corsi charge. But whatever, as a fan who doesn’t judge a team based on bastardized Sabermetrics, but the final boxscore, I must be too naiive and unintelligent to understand that the Flames scored some sort of statistical victory in this game.
by Dustin Timberlake on Nov 20, 2009 1:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
You know, Dustin, I’ve had about enough of your snide comments. If you don’t agree with some of the advanced metrics being used here, fine: engage in other analysis, challenge the assumptions behind them or at least engage in some sort of reasoned debate. Lawrence manages to do it all the time. Condescending sarcasm doesn’t add to the discussion at all.
Your disregard and contempt for the corsi metric is noted. We’ll all keep it in mind.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 20, 2009 1:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Dustin may have a point, but I think we have to remember that the larger the sample size becomes the less likely it would be his explanation would make sense.
In fact Dustin, you could do a little leg work if you really wanted to prove yourself and simply look at the Corsi stats on games where Flames took ‘early leads’ and ones where they didn’t to see if your hypothesis stands up. I expect your work to include statistical significance numbers as well (obviously).
Either you believe in what you say and you’ll do it, or you’ll claim you’re too lazy or busy to do a simple analysis when it would probably take less time than what you spend around here posting dumbass shit.
Either way, if you don’t post the results, I’ll just assume you did it and your idea didn’t pan out.
by therealdeal on Nov 20, 2009 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The study of economics has evolved into a very complicated mess of over-educated individuals trying to explain fiscal and monetary phenomena with mathematical and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, none of these complex formulae could prevent the economic meltdown a year ago. How could the numbers lie? Because an array of exterior factors related to the social implications behind a functioning society cannot be conceptualized by numbers- there are too many unexplainable exterior factors that relate to social systems (religion, military, international relations, weather, anything) that complicated economic mathematical theory cannot distinguish from the models it discerns as correct. On this note, one cannot base all analysis on a sport like hockey with statistics. Those who believe they ‘understand’ the game more because they back up their opinions with numbers pulled from Ferrari or Desjardins don’t need to look down on those who see the game for the simple thing it is- entertainment for the masses. I know that all of you ‘hockey blog intellectuals’ will scoff at me for saying this, but you have to consider leadership, motivation, streakiness and emotion- all unmeasurable statistically, but are ultimately what leads a team to championships. Come on guys- its a blog. A place to read stuff about your favorite teams. This isn’t a forum to try to impress anyone by acting like you’re a graduate of the MIT school of engineering.
by Dustin Timberlake on Nov 20, 2009 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yours is a very simple hypothesis that is very easily testable. You’re weren’t trying to argue statistics weren’t useful, you were claiming that one particular statistic was misleading for a very specific reason.
If you would like to debate the rationality of the markets I would be very pleased to engage you any time you choose, but it seems to me like you’re simply trying to cloud the issue because;
You don’t understand the simplicity of your own argument
OR
you don’t believe your claim to be true, or you are so concerned that it might not be true you’re not even willing to find out.
On a final note, if you believe that people who understand statistics don’t believe emotion, leadership etc. plays a role you’re sorely mistaken.
by therealdeal on Nov 20, 2009 9:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Mathematics and statistics are tools, they’re meant to be used to support or add to our understanding of reality. Nothing more or less. This applies to hockey and to other fields as well. I would think this is too obvious to be stated but it appears I am mistaken.
So I’m not sure what you think it is we’re doing here on this blog. Whatever it is, it’s way offbase.
You seem to want stir shit up here and that’s fine, I appreciate contrarian voices. But you ought to contribute something in the process. You know, any fool can criticize, it takes balls to back it up though, and an uncommonly large set to do it rationally.
So tell me, Dustin, how do you think leadership, motivation, streakiness and emotion contribute to winning hockey games?
I’ll tell you what I think about, say, leadership. I think it might play a factor in shifts in play between periods. My feeling is that there’s something more there than luck would explain. And you know what, you can even test it with numbers!
Of course I think coaching is a bigger factor in this anyway, and there’s no way of separating that. And it’s not something that interests me to investigate, not when there are other more interesting things to look at. But by all means, you go ahead. Show that you have a pair.
by R O on Nov 20, 2009 9:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Momentum
I think maimster makes a really good point regarding the streakiness of scoring chances within a game at even strength. You see that in Kent’s scoring chance numbers, and to about the same extent with the MIN, COL, MTL and EDM scoring chances as well.
I don’t know if any of you read Alan Reifman’s blog, the hot hand in sports, but he has a couple of links there to little online apps that check if a series of events is truly streaky XXOXOOOOOXOOXOXXX, or whatever. And with hockey i really is madass. We’ll call it momentum. Sometimes it’s just because one line has a terrific shift and keeps the other guys pinned in their end, the next line comes over the boards in a great situation and has a good chance of carrying it on. And other times in rolls for 10 minutes or more. And then later in the game the pendulum gets stuck the other way.
I think fights, big hits, pulling the goalie … they can swing it sometimes. And sometimes maybe I just imagine that because it makes for a better narrative. Neilson was digging into that about 20 years ago, and I know that by the mid nineties he was big into hits. Keenan is a sharp guy with this sort of thing. I think his wild goalie pulling shenanigans and bench antics may have served some purpose, even though he did mellow with age in that regard.
I dunno.
by Vic Ferrari on Nov 20, 2009 7:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been thinking of the run test, I think the application would have to be modified though because scoring chances seem to be time-correlated over short spans. That guy you linked to with that paper on semi-Markov processes in hockey – he drives it home for me. Certainly that effect would manifest itself in scoring chances, the Flames counts have been affected by single shifts that have looked like chance-chance-chance-goal. Nothing wrong with that, but it looks like streakiness from the outside when it might just be terrific shifts.
Something I’d like to look at.
As for fights and goalies providing momentum shifts: I’ve seen it go both ways so many times, and to my mind in equal enough measures, that I’m not sure there’s anything in it. But I’ve always tried to condition myself against trying to recognize patterns in noise, so much so that I might have swung my bias the other way.
by R O on Nov 20, 2009 9:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Anaheim
|
Tue 03/23 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Thu 03/25 | 4:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Boston
|
Sat 03/27 | 10:00 AM PDT |
|
@
Washington
|
Sun 03/28 | 12:00 PM PDT |
|
Phoenix
|
Wed 03/31 | 6:30 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sun 03/21 | L 3 - 4 |
|
San Jose
|
Fri 03/19 | W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Wed 03/17 | W 3 - 2 |
|
Detroit
|
Mon 03/15 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sun 03/14 | L 1 - 3 |
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
