Begin the Love-in - What to Like About the Flames Thus Far
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 9:31 AM PST
37 comments
I'm the first to admit that I'm quick to criticize, but slow to compliment. Like Prince's mother, I'm never satisfied.
As such, I've noticed we've been rather tough on the boys 'round these parts recently, especially considering the record. And while I think a lot of the criticisms of the club have been justified, it might be good to take the time and highlight some of the things that are currently going right for the team.
1.) Rene Bourque - Daymond Langkow - Nigel Dawes
I argued that Bourque might be in in line for a regression this year (in terms of the percentages) and his numbers might take a hit as a result. Well, his PDO is down around the league average of 100 (99.1)...and he still leads the team in scoring. Partially because of more PP time and partially because he spends a lot of time in the offensive zone at even strength (best relative corsi rate amongst forwards on the club). There's been nights where Bourque has looked head and shoulders above his teammates and a good portion of the opposition as well. I've actually mistaken him for Jarome Iginla as well (peak Jarome, that is), given his ability to shrug off opponents and drive the puck into scoring areas. He's been outstanding thus far.
His linemates are no slouches either. Langkow's unit has mostly seen the tough match-ups for the last couple of weeks and they've managed to keep their heads above water. A lot of credit has to go to Mr.consistency Langkow himself, because without a capable center a tough match-up usually goes south. However, I've really liked what I've seen out of Dawes mostly, especially given his age and price-tag. Feisty and relatively solid on the puck, he also has decent vision and a good shot. I'd say he's an improvement over Bertuzzi, which is probably why that line looks more capable to me this season.
2.) Mikka Kiprusoff
I doubt anyone has been tougher on Kipper than me. And while he hasn't been "Anderson good" thus far, the first 15 games have definitely been an improvement over a his season last year, especially at ES. While there may be little hope of Kipper regaining his Vezina form, it'd probably be good news for the team if he could maintain his current performance level. He's actually stolen a couple of games for the club recently, which is something you like to see out a $5M goaltender every once and a while. More please!
3.) The blueline
There hasn't been much to complain about on the back-end thus far. Aside from the first few games out of Regehr and the occasional bad night out of a swing defender (be it Pardy, Kronwall, Johnson, etc), the Flames blueline from Phaneuf to Bouwmeester to Giordano has been solid. Phaneuf's shot has seemingly returned and with it some of the offense he lost last year. He and Regehr have also been playing well against second tier competition (ever since Reggie broke out of his funk). Bouwmeester's underlying numbers aren't impressive, but that probably has more to do with his circumstances than his play. I've seen Cory Sarich both good and bad (that's how Sarich rolls), but the former has probably out-weighed the latter. And Giordano has proved he can fill in on probably any of the three pairings capably. Calgary is paying a pretty penny on the back-end, but that doesn't ensure value (right, Glen Sather?), so it's good to see that the back-end is indeed a strength of the team.
4.) The Powerplay
Although the first unit has been up and down, I've mostly liked Calgary's PP so far. A weakness for most of the year last season, the addition of Dawes, Bouwmeester and Bourque to the man advantage has yielded positive results. Now, if only the team could get more PP opportunities*...
*(I suspect one of the reasons Jokinen's counting stats are off is the lack of PP time. Flames have garnered the least PP opportunities in the league and Olli has spent less than 3 minutes a night with the man advantage as a result. That's well below his 4:40 average last season. Not that he's not ripping it up on the PP or anything, but...).
That's most of it from me. There's been flashes of good out of others (Moss, Glencross, Boyd, McElhinney, Prust, Nystrom, Sjostrom), but nothing persistent enough to list here. Feel free to add your own kudos in the comments though.
0 recs |
37 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Vote of Bourque for me. You nailed it re: the blue line – we’re paying for that strength. Bourque is providing outstanding value per $$. And not just that, but his contributions are on the difference-making level, not just the great-for-his-price level.
by R O on Nov 9, 2009 9:36 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I think Bourque is going to take the poll in a walk, but I figured I’d add the other options anyways.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 9:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
i voted kipps. nice to see him earn his october dollars.
by walkinvisible on Nov 9, 2009 9:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I voted this way as well. I expected Bourque to be good value for the dollar, however I did not expect Kipper to play nearly as well as he has. He’s actually stolen a couple of wins for the Flames thus far, something that I don’t recall him doing until well into January last season.
by Subversive on Nov 9, 2009 1:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s all pretty reasonable, Kent. I voted for Bourque, but Kipper’s been better so far, and It’s very nice to see. My pre-season line in the sand was .910. He’s .912, and if the Flames could have killed a penalty worth a damn the first couple of weeks, he’d look even better by the numbers. There haven’t been very many of those goals where he and everyone else seem to deflate.
Re: Bouwmeester, a question came up in comments about his poor Corsi, especially compared to Phaneuf over the last eight games. I looked at Saturday night’s game, and when Bouwmeester was behind 12/21, he was -5. Behind McG on one shift, -4 and those were all SOG. Otherwise, +1. I’m going to look at his numbers over the rest of the last few weeks to see if that’s more than a one-off. I’m suspecting so, but I also want to look at face-off positioning and total ice-time as well. That might be posted later this week.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 9:48 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
That sounds like a great idea. I think I’m coming to a stronger and stronger conclusion that corsi mostly tells us about a defenseman’s circumstances rather than his abilities. Perhaps your study will shed some light one way or the other on the subject.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 9:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Related: how did you parse the corsi results in order to compare shifts?
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 9:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, I went through the play by play sheets one friggin’ occurrence at a time. I’m low-tech that way. I wrote down who he was with, who he was against, and what thing (shot, missed shot, blocked shot) happened either way. Because Vic’s head to head ice time isn’t up for this year, at least as far as I know, it’ll mean I’ll have to try to match ice times the old fashioned was as well. Like I said later this week, and not because I’m some slack-ass.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Commitment in the devoted sense, or in the “you oughta be committed” sense? I’ve no quibble with either at this point.
To the initial matter, I’m coming around to your way of thinking. If you account for linemates and face-off starting points, that will tell you a lot about defencemen and how their underlying numbers look, IMO. QComp is another factor, but Bouwmeester was behind 12/21 on Saturday quite a bit, and very rarely against Gaborik. That job went to Langkow et al with Phaneuf and Regehr, and those guys did OK for themselves. What disturbs me most is that 12 and 21 were up against a mix of Higgins, Kotalik, Anisimov and Avery, particularly after Dubinsky got hurt, and they were still underwater. That isn’t exactly like facing Datsyuk or this season’s model of Brad Richards.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BTW – Behind the net shows Bouwmeester on the ice for a team high 55 defensive zone face-off losses (but only 39 DZ wins). Im guessing that hasn’t been too helpful for the ol’ corsi rate either.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now I feel like I created a horrible amount of work for you. But that does seem interesting.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
by Poseur on Nov 9, 2009 3:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m very glad that you asked the question, Poseur, because this has been something I’ve been curious about for quite a while. The work, well, I could have just blown it off it I wanted to, and no one would have been the wiser. That question was just the prod I needed to get my ass in gear.
Oh, and tough one at ’Bama on Saturday. It might not have been the only reason things went the way they did, but that was a pick, clear as could be.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 3:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It was a bad weekend
There were a litany of bad calls, but that was the capper. Really, the worst have been the Bama trolls infecting our blog. They are even more obnoxious than Canuck fans, which doesn’t seem possible.
I appreciate the work, all because the southern-most Flames fan went on a rant defending Phaneuf.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
by Poseur on Nov 10, 2009 6:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, it may not seem like it, but we appreciate it when people try to keep us honest. That’s why we tolerate Lawrence around here ;).
by Kent Wilson on Nov 10, 2009 7:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch. I’m taking that as a mutual respect kinda thing. Otherwise dammit, when you and WI come here to see that Heat game you eluded to….you’re walking to get your own beer.
by LawrenceS on Nov 10, 2009 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
haha, yeah no disrespect intended.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 10, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, guess what? I voted for Kipper. Big surprise I know, but seriously, we gotta give the man credit where it is due. At least…at least, 4 games he has stolen for us (The first two and the last two) and I could even stretch it to five, but forget it because the point is made that at 6-8-1 we would look a heck of a lot closer to where many of us fear we would be by the numbers, than where we are at 10-4-1.
I look at it two ways:
First: Is the player actually doing well?
Then: Is the player actually playing at value?
The first, is obviously most important. To be a great team, a Stanley cup contender, you need everyone to be playing well, which usually alters the second question because then those players are often playing in a way that equals or surpasses their value. But to me that’s hugely important, but definitely secondary.
As I said, A shitty cheap player is no better on the ice than a shitty expensive player.
This is for Bourque: Bourque has been amazing and likely our best forward, BUT at the same time…we had him slotted for 1st line duties in the off-season. He currently is there, on the ‘second’ (first) line with Lanks and Dawes. He is performing up to that level and very much over-value. The reason Bourque look so good is because everyone else looks so bad. Here’s looking at you Olli, sorry dude.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 10:55 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and Kipper. Playing excellent, but at about value….or maybe just below in my mind. Those two things are different though. Just because he is that pricey certainly doesn’t mean he has to be good. Again….sorry Olli.
One question – shots for. Is this a funk? Is it a coaching thing? Is it a defensive to offensive thing, because not only are we not getting enough shots as a team, but all the ‘big ticket’ individual players are lower than average as well: Iggy, Jokinen, Phaneuf are all shooters and are coming in about 10-12 short of average through 15 games. Lanks is low and Bourque is a hard read due to sample size and injuries years past, but he seems to be the only one on pace.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s the million dollar question with this team right now I think Lawrence – the shot totals at both ends aren’t where they should be (ideally). For whatever reason, they’re spending way more time at the bad end and way less time in the good end than they were last year. Is it a phase? Coaching? personnel? I guess we’ll see.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Food for thought, Lawrence. I think you have Kipper pegged about right. The only advantage that cheap shitty players have over expensive ones is that you’re not stuck with them. Aaron Johnson playing poorly isn’t the sort of cap-related boat anchor that Joker is for this year. Cheap and shitty still gives a GM a chance at flexibility.
I was thinking about why the shots were so low the other night, and then during the Dallas game I watched Iggy and Joker get worked by Dallas’ fourth line down low on two distinct occasions. My cynical guess is that in the case of those two, it’s because they can barely get out of their own zone some nights, so once they do, more often than not, it’s a dump in and a line change. Olli Jokinen has some real issues in down low coverage that get exploited. Tough to shoot when you never get out of your own end, as Kent has noted.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 11:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Robert, you’re totally right, which we both know, but I guess what I’m trying to do is make a distinction between actual performance and value performance, which maybe is dubious because holistically, they are so intertwined. With GM flexibility, it truly is a negative to have a shitty expensive player, but often, we can get lost in the black-hole of contract analysis when evaluating talent. For example, at this point, I don’t really think it is possible for Kipper to out-perform his contract. Maybe in two years he can, but given age and decline, even that’s unlikely. So the best Kipper could ever acheive, shooting 100% is to do what we expect. To evaluate him, Iggy, Phaneuf, or any of the ‘big ticket’ fellas soley from this standpoint is a little unfair, because we know it’s impossible for any one to shoot 100% every night.
Tim Thomas is a good example. He was probably on the good side of lucky last year and signed a massive contract. Now at 6 million and .916% his ‘value’ has blown out the window vs last year at .933 (or whatever) and 1.2 (or whatever). Really, talent alone….he’s the same guy in the same gear, with a bounce or two in either direction, but now the only way he can keep his value currency is to win 60 games, get 30 shutouts, post a .970% and get another 5 Vezinas.
Miikka Kiprusoff can be a elite goalie on the ice, but he was signed to the ceiling. He’ll never be a great value player, only a expected value at best, and that’s an important distinction.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 11:26 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but I can live with him or any other player within a range of the value any particular year because I expect variance, Lawrence. Players aren’t always automatons, and I don’t need Kipper to be one either. It would be nice if he was top 5 every year, but if he’s in the upper half of regular goalies every year, that’s plenty good enough to get by. Perfectly efficient? No. Livable? Yes. He was a long way from that level last year, and not much better in 07/08. This year, he looks like he’s headed back to being at least a mid-level guy. Honestly, if he performed how he did in 06/07 until his contract ran out, I’d be good with it. Out-performing it would just be a bonus, and most out-perfomers, as you note, are cheap guys coming from nowhere.
It’s no different with Joker. He’s signed as a guy to produce between 35-40 goals a year. If he looked decent at EV and was on his way to somewhere right around 30 goals, I’d be a bit more muted in what I’m saying. Instead, he’s been poor positionally, and has 2 goals in his last 28 regular season games. He’s worse by value than Kipper was last year. When I look at value for money, as I said about Kipper, I can live with some variance. My concern occurs when a player is so far from that value that it can’t be mitigated. That’s where Jokinen is right now.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 2:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Jokinen drinking games
It’s about this time with Olli. If we gotta watch him be awful, we gotta make something good out of it and since this post is about positivity:
Falls down: Gulp of beer.
Give away in the D zone: shot of your favorite hard
Fanned shot on 2 on 1: shot of Absinthe
Hits the post: Chug a beer
Loses puck on boards on PP: shot of your old crusty hard that’s been sitting for a while in the cupboard
Scores: Glass of water and a slice of bread. You’re gonna need it.
by LawrenceS on Nov 9, 2009 11:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I’m already drunk just visualizing how much I’ll have to drink if I play this game!
by maimster on Nov 9, 2009 11:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This gave me a serious laugh.
Although I am missing the “random backhand pass to no one in particular” special that we experienced last season with a certain number 7. I had to construct an insane amount of booze just to get through a game with that gem.
I especially like the last one, water and bread.
by jessnbrown on Nov 9, 2009 12:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think many would live through a whole game.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 12:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Some of us actually require our livers to function. I grew up in the hillbilly country around Dauphin, MB., and I might be tempted to head for the homebrew if I started in on this. Of course, if I went blind it would spare me from watching him, so there’s always that.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, the water and bread part is especially awesome.
by walkinvisible on Nov 9, 2009 9:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like the PP is going to come in a distant 4th last in this poll.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 9, 2009 12:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I voted for Bourque soley due to the weeping of Chicago fans.
by ArikJames on Nov 9, 2009 1:04 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Tough call between Bourque and Kipper for me, went with Miikka.
-Colin
by Colin S on Nov 9, 2009 3:54 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It was the whole second line for me. Bourque I half expected to have a good season as I saw him getting more favorable playing conditions than last year. Kipper would be a close second though.
by 44stampede on Nov 9, 2009 6:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
What kind of mark has Calgary made thus far?
I have to say I haven’t been able to keep tabs on the team or any others for that matter so maybe because of the little I have seen or read I can give a reasonable unbiased nosebleed view of things so far. In one word “Consistant” so far I would say consistant they are and they seem to have their heads in the right spot CUP!!! So, they have had not to many bad games in a row and I seems to an all round effort so far which I think is pretty good. If they can play consistantly as a team they will do well, so of course this has to be due to coaching the one area “team Play” that can totally attributed to the coaching staff. I was sure there was going to some kind of noticable change in the team with the new head coach and I think it’s coming around. I guess what I’m saying is I like the pace they are using, nice a steady….not to much all at once, so that any out of the ordinary success doesn’t go right to their heads and then drop 10 or 12 games in a row and then they have to spend weeks trying to figure what happened….“slow and steady” is the motto I say. There will be plenty of time come playoffs to show the league what they are really made of.
by regor62 on Nov 9, 2009 9:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
For the record, I voted for Bourque. I can’t imagine where the team would be if he wasn’t consistently knocking it out of the park.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 10, 2009 7:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I picked the Defense, mainly becuase this is the first time I can remember in a while rarely feeling fear when the D are working down low. And they’re contributing offense, and starting transitions very well. They’re expensive, granted, but generally playing like it and that makes me happy.
Plus, I wanted to be different (but not so different as to pretend their PP is magical this year!).
by maimster on Nov 10, 2009 8:17 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Love the results.....but something is not quite there
I voted for Bourque – he is driving that whole line.Coming in to this season there were questions about his health and ability to perform at the level he established last year. So far, questins answered. With 10 wins in 15 games, and as I said last week, they’ve had a couple of losses that could have been wins; this is a great start, but I am still not sold. They have not dominated anyone, and the goals and shots against need to come down. Interesting to hear Torterella say he thought his team played their best game of the year Saturday, yet somehow Calgary got the win.
At some point the breaks are going to go the other way, just hope they can build a good record before then.
by PrairieStew on Nov 10, 2009 11:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Ottawa
|
Thu 03/11 | 6:30 PM PST |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sun 03/14 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Detroit
|
Mon 03/15 | 6:30 PM PDT |
|
@
Colorado
|
Wed 03/17 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
San Jose
|
Fri 03/19 | 6:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Detroit
|
Tue 03/09 | W 4 - 2 |
|
@
Minnesota
|
Sun 03/07 | W 5 - 2 |
|
New Jersey
|
Fri 03/05 | W 5 - 3 |
|
Minnesota
|
Wed 03/03 | L 0 - 4 |
|
Anaheim
|
Sat 02/13 | W 3 - 1 |
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Right-wing Kugryshev signs three-year deal with Washington Capitals
- Habs' Plekanec leaves game with injury
- Quebec Major Junior Hockey League suspends three players for weekend incidents
- Stamkos firing rockets, has shot at 50-goal season with Lightning
- Penguins GM defends Crosby in wake of criticism over Leterman snub
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.
