0
Photo Credit: Eric Bolte-USA TODAY Sports

Flames 2021-22 seven game segments: 2-2-3 in second segment

The Calgary Flames have completed 14 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of two seven game segments. Their second segment saw them win just twice, with a 2-2-3 record overall and earning half of the available points

Underlying numbers via Natural Stat Trick.

Game by game

(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5.)

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Date Opponent Result CF% SC% HDC% xGF% PP PK
Oct. 30 Flyers (vs) 4-0 W 58.7 70.7 76.9 61.3 2-for-5 3-for-3
Nov. 2 Predators (vs) 3-2 OTL 61.2 69.1 68.8 71.4 1-for-6 2-for-2
Nov. 4 Stars (vs) 4-3 OTL 57.3 55.9 64.3 57.0 1-for-5 2-for-3
Nov. 6 Rangers (vs) 6-0 W 59.8 62.3 57.1 66.1 1-for-3 3-for-3
Nov. 9 Sharks (vs) 4-1 L 54.6 59.2 56.0 60.5 0-for-3 2-for-2
Nov. 11 Canadiens (@) 4-2 L 55.3 52.9 46.2 45.7 0-for-1 3-for-5
Nov. 12 Maple Leafs (@) 2-1 OTL 47.1 44.8 56.5 41.6 0-for-1 3-for-3
This
(Last)
2-2-3
(5-1-1)
57.0
(52.7)
58.8
(55.2)
60.0
(47.1)
58.6
(48.4)
5-for-24
(5-for-19)
18-for-21
(19-for-23)

The Flames were generally better in terms of possession hockey than they were in the first segment, but weren’t nearly as opportunistic as they were in the prior seven games. You can also point to their two road games as their two worst games of this segment – rather handily so.

If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 16 points after 14 games to be on track. They have 18 points so far, roughly a single win ahead of a playoff pace.

Team stats

Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through seven games (all rankings out of eight teams):

  • Their goals for per game is 3.14, down from 3.57. They’re 3rd in the division.
  • Their goals against per game is 2.29, up from 2.14. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their goal differential is +12, up from +10. They’re 2nd in the division.
  • Their power play is at 23.3%, down from 26.3%. They’re 3rd in the division.
  • Their penalty kill is at 84.1%, up from 82.6%. They’re 4th in the division.
  • They’ve taken 8.7 penalty minutes per game, down from 9.1. They’re 6th in the division.
  • Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.53, up from 2.24. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.19, down from 2.39. They’re 2nd in the division.
  • Their 5v5 xGF is 53.6%, up from 48.4%. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 7.27% down from 8.21%. They’re 6th in the division.
  • Their 5v5 save percentage is 94.86%, down from 95.38%. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their 5v5 PDO is 1.021, down from 1.036. They’re 1st in the division.

In terms of underlying numbers, the Flames are better offensively and defensively at even strength than they were in the first segment. But they’re less opportunistic: their shooting percentage has dropped, as has their save percentage, so their goals for and against per game have gone in the wrong direction. Their power play is slightly less potent, while their penalty kill has been more effective.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

All-in-all, if they play this well on the whole for the remainder of the season, they’ll be in good shape.

Player stats

First, the forwards (all situations, ordered by ice time). Last segment’s figures are in brackets.

Game scores: Positive values indicate positive impact, negative values reflect negative impact.

Player TOI G P P/60 SH% xGF%
OZF% PDO Game score
Lindholm 144:40
(137:34)
0
(7)
6
(8)
2.49
(3.49)
0.0
(36.8)
55.2
(59.4)
55.2
(37.6)
1.043
(1.104)
1.39
(1.40)
Gaudreau 132:07
(129:52)
3
(1)
5
(10)
2.27
(4.62)
16.7
(5.3)
60.0
(58.8)
65.5
(52.7)
1.036
(1.098)
1.24
(1.70)
Tkachuk 131:19
(120:45)
4
(2)
7
(4)
3.20
(1.99)
16.0
(8.0)
64.0
(63.8)
66.1
(51.6)
1.027
(1.067)
1.56
(1.24)
Backlund 120:34
(120:37)
2
(1)
2
(3)
1.00
(1.49)
11.1
(9.1)
48.1
(47.6)
37.0
(37.8)
0.929
(0.997)
0.40
(0.54)
Monahan 105:34
(104:13)
2
(0)
5
(1)
2.84
(0.58)
16.7
(0.0)
63.0
(58.0)
64.9
(64.0)
1.054
(0.943)
0.59
(0.25)
Mangiapane 104:16
(103:04)
2
(7)
4
(7)
2.30
(4.08)
18.2
(35.0)
64.5
(50.6)
62.3
(54.6)
0.949
(1.018)
1.08
(1.12)
Coleman 101:55
(98:46)
0
(3)
1
(4)
0.59
(2.43)
0.0
(11.1)
51.9
(55.5)
52.6
(45.2)
0.979
(1.088)
0.48
(1.10)
Dube 97:42
(99:10)
0
(1)
2
(5)
1.23
(3.03)
0.0
(5.3)
65.2
(45.6)
58.9
(70.5)
0.954
(1.019)
0.61
(0.49)
Lewis 93:43
(98:25)
0
(0)
2
(0)
1.28
(0.00)
0.0
(0.0)
40.8
(39.6)
37.9
(43.6)
1.021
(0.932)
0.31
(-0.10)
Lucic 88:55
(84:36)
2
(2)
3
(3)
2.02
(2.13)
22.2
(18.2)
53.0
(46.9)
55.7
(57.6)
0.930
(0.991)
0.38
(0.30)
Pitlick 83:10
(64:18)
0
(0)
1
(1)
0.72
(0.93)
0.0
(0.0)
49.5
(46.3)
49.1
(43.9)
0.874
(1.105)
-0.20
(0.72)
Richardson 54:01
(-)
1
(-)
1
(-)
1.11
(-)
33.3
(-)
37.7
(-)
41.7
(-)
1.010
(-)
0.04
(-)
Ritchie 10:19
(72:37)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0.00
(0.00)
0.0
(0.0)
79.4
(51.3)
80.0
(56.3)
1.000
(1.078)
0.26
(0.34)
Gawdin
(18:28)

(0)

(0)

(0.00)

(0.0)

(59.5)

(37.5)

(1.000)

(0.10)

The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):

  • Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
  • Coleman – Backlund – Pitlick
  • Lucic – Monahan – Lewis
  • Mangiapane – Dube – Ritchie

The only real change in this segment was Brad Richardson making his debut and then bouncing around the lineup a little bit before eventually settling in with Sean Monahan and Trevor Lewis on the fourth line. The fourth line itself remains a bit of a work in progress, as the club only really seems to have three lines clicking at a time and the fourth line seems to be comprised of leftovers.

For the most part, the Flames’ strong underlying performances persist. A few players saw slight dips, but for the most part everybody is performing well. That first line remains excellent, while Andrew Mangiapane is their brightest light aside from the first line group.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Who’s struggling? Well, Richardson and Tyler Pitlick are performing at replacement level or slightly below and, as such, the aforementioned fourth line is… not great.

Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):

Player TOI G P P/60 SH% xGF%
OZF% PDO Game score
Andersson 155:16
(164:25)
0
(0)
3
(4)
1.16
(1.46)
0.0
(0.0)
58.3
(54.9)
63.2
(50.5)
1.012
(1.104)
0.78
(1.03)
Hanifin 149:40
(132:40)
0
(0)
1
(2)
0.40
(0.90)
0.0
(0.0)
52.3
(57.4)
54.9
(46.5)
0.983
(1.102)
0.36
(1.08)
Tanev 146:37
(144:58)
0
(1)
2
(1)
0.82
(0.41)
0.0
(25.0)
51.6
(41.3)
37.1
(34.5)
0.939
(0.973)
1.08
(0.12)
Kylington 125:42
(88:13)
2
(0)
6
(3)
2.86
(2.04)
14.3
(0.0)
61.1
(51.3)
45.7
(55.4)
0.989
(1.003)
1.52
(0.62)
Gudbranson 122:31
(124:45)
0
(0)
1
(3)
0.49
(1.44)
0.0
(0.0)
38.0
(48.5)
37.7
(34.1)
0.977
(1.002)
0.26
(0.66)
Zadorov 112:19
(36:22)
1
(0)
2
(0)
1.07
(0.00)
11.1
(0.0)
49.7
(46.3)
44.1
(45.8)
1.024
(0.842)
0.75
(-0.94)
Välimäki
(110:07)

(0)

(1)

(0.54)

(0.0)

(45.7)

(46.8)

(0.981)

(0.32)
Stone
(17:43)

(0)

(0)

(0.00)

(0.0)

(29.6)

(50.0)

(1.111)

(0.32)

The most common defensive pairings were (in descending order):

  • Hanifin & Andersson
  • Kylington & Tanev
  • Zadorov & Gudbranson

So, uh, no Juuso Välimäki this segment, eh?

The big story here is Oliver Kylington. He was spectacular this period, and out-scored every other player on the team aside from Matthew Tkachuk during this segment, and he and Chris Tanev were the strongest pairing by far. As with the forward group, essentially everybody was about as good possession-wise as in the first segment, just a tad unluckier. (Look at everybody’s PDO drop!)

And finally, goalies (all situations):

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
Player TOI SV% ldSV% mdSV% hdSV% Avg. GSAX
Markström 361:27
(301:48)
.916
(.952)
.955
(.972)
.943
(.913)
.788
(.944)
0.02
(0.95)
Vladar 62:31
(122:31)
.946
(.891)
.923
(.962)
.938
(.867)
1.000
(.727)
1.26
(-0.76)

After a superb first segment, Jacob Markström was merely good in this segment – his Goals Saved Above Expected was in the black. Dan Vladar only played once, but that’s to be expected when the team played only one back-to-back set in the segement and Markström had two shutouts in six appearances.