Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 3-1-1 in bonus twelfth segment
By Ryan Pike
1 year agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 82 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of eleven seven game segments (and one bonus five game segment). Their twelfth segment, a five-gamer, saw the Flames go 3-1-1 and capture seven of a possible 10 points.
Underlying numbers via Natural Stat Trick.
Previous segments:
- First (Games 1-7): 5-1-1 [11 of 14 points]
- Second (Games 8-14): 2-2-3 [7 of 14 points]
- Third (Games 15-21): 5-1-1 [11 of 14 points]
- Fourth (Games 22-28): 3-3-1 [7 of 14 points]
- Fifth (Games 29-35): 3-4-0 [6 of 14 points]
- Sixth (Games 36-42): 5-2-0 [10 of 14 points]
- Seventh (Games 43-49): 7-0-0 [14 of 14 points]
- Eighth (Games 50-56): 4-2-1 [9 of 14 points]
- Ninth (Games 57-63): 4-2-1 [9 of 14 points]
- Tenth (Games 64-70): 4-2-1 [9 of 14 points]
- Eleventh (Games 71-77): 5-1-1 [11 of 14 points]
Through 82 games (and 12 segments), the Flames performed pretty well. They had nine segments where they finished above .500 (and “won” the segment), two segments right at .500 (“tied” segments) and only one segment all season where they captured less than 50% of the available points. All-told, that’s a really productive season.
From the team’s return from their 19-day COVID pause on Dec. 30, the Flames went 35-14-5. They were fifth in points percentage in that span, behind only Florida, Colorado, Toronto and Minnesota. In terms of Expected Goals percentage, they were third in the league behind only Florida and Boston.
The best non-playoff team in the Western Conference, Vegas, had 94 points. So (a) 95 points would’ve been good enough to qualify and (b) the Flames, with 111 points, finished 16 points above the cutline.
Game by game
(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5 and via Natural Stat Trick.)
| Date | Opponent | Result | CF% | SCF% | HDCF% | xGF% | PP | PK |
| Apr. 21 | Stars (vs) | 4-2 W | 50.0 | 43.8 | 38.5 | 43.4 | 1-for-4 | 4-for-5 |
| Apr. 23 | Canucks (vs) | 6-3 W | 63.3 | 64.3 | 68.4 | 60.3 | 1-for-2 | 1-for-1 |
| Apr. 26 | Predators (@) | 5-4 OTW | 56.9 | 50.0 | 60.0 | 54.0 | 1-for-5 | 5-for-7 |
| Apr. 28 | Wild (@) | 3-2 OTL | 54.1 | 42.9 | 45.5 | 46.2 | 0-for-4 | 0-for-2 |
| Apr. 29 | Jets (@) | 3-1 L | 42.1 | 31.4 | 31.8 | 36.3 | 0-for-2 | 4-for-4 |
| This (Last) | — | 3-1-1 (5-1-1) | 52.8 (54.8) | 45.7 (49.3) | 47.1 (48.8) | 46.9 (52.7) | 3-for-17 (5-for-23) | 14-for-19 (21-for-23) |
The good news is that the Flames got the results they wanted during a five game span where the results did not matter. Their underlying numbers were sort of all over the place: they really seemed to scrap and battle against Vancouver and Nashville and then they seemed to run out of steam a bit against Minnesota and Winnipeg.
The details of the Flames’ game weren’t great over the last five games, but they were very much playing out the string and trying not to burn themselves out before the post-season. Their special teams results continued a general downward trend over the past six to eight weeks, but there’s not much to get nervous about here.
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through 82 games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.55, changed from 3.55. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.51, up from 2.48. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +85, up from +82. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 22.9%, down from 23.3%. They’re 3rd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 83.2%, down from 84.0%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- They’ve taken 9.1 penalty minutes per game, up from 8.9. They’re 2nd (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.79, down from 2.84. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGA/60 is 2.29, unchanged from 2.29. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF is 55.0%, down from 55.4%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 8.52%, down from 8.55%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 92.54%, up from 92.52%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.011, unchanged from 1.011. They’re 1st in the division.
The Flames remained pretty good overall. They’re among the NHL’s best clubs offensively and defensively, and both sides of special teams are solid. Their process numbers (xGF/60 and xGA/60) are strong, their puck luck numbers (shooting/save percentage) are good, and so their results numbers (GF and GA) are also very solid.
Through 82 games, the Flames have earned their place in the standings.
Player stats
First, the forwards (all situations, ordered by ice time). Last segment’s figures are in brackets.
xGF% is used as a proxy for possession, offensive zone face-off percentage (OZF%) as a proxy for usage, PDO as a proxy for puck luck. 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 | 104:00 (138:22) | 3 (3) | 4 (7) | 2.31 (3.04) | 17.7 (12.5) | 57.2 (68.0) | 54.4 (47.2) | 1.034 (1.085) | 1.19 (1.80) |
| Gaudreau | 103:51 (133:52) | 2 (4) | 7 (11) | 4.04 (4.93) | 14.3 (22.2) | 64.9 (74.5) | 66.7 (60.8) | 1.076 (1.083) | 1.44 (2.09) |
| Tkachuk | 96:55 (126:19) | 3 (6) | 5 (13) | 3.09 (6.17) | 33.3 (33.3) | 67.4 (75.6) | 66.7 (61.8) | 1.079 (1.096) | 1.53 (2.36) |
| Backlund | 76:09 (123:54) | 0 (0) | 2 (3) | 1.58 (1.45) | 0.0 (0.0) | 54.9 (54.8) | 44.6 (47.5) | 0.929 (1.026) | 0.01 (0.43) |
| Mangiapane | 74:03 (110:55) | 1 (4) | 2 (6) | 1.62 (3.25) | 11.1 (26.7) | 65.4 (58.2) | 65.4 (64.2) | 0.927 (1.044) | 0.43 (0.85) |
| Toffoli | 71:40 (109:19) | 0 (1) | 1 (3) | 0.84 (1.65) | 0.0 (7.1) | 53.9 (58.7) | 54.2 (57.9) | 1.004 (0.966) | 0.00 (0.17) |
| Jarnkrok | 69:51 (65:28) | 0 (0) | 2 (0) | 1.72 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 49.8 (60.8) | 43.6 (52.6) | 1.028 (0.971) | 0.29 (0.06) |
| Dube | 68:04 (100:55) | 4 (4) | 4 (6) | 3.53 (3.57) | 33.3 (44.4) | 61.7 (66.2) | 47.9 (61.1) | 1.064 (1.079) | 1.02 (1.14) |
| Coleman | 66:46 (93:10) | 0 (3) | 0 (4) | 0.00 (2.58) | 0.0 (16.7) | 60.0 (58.6) | 51.2 (44.7) | 0.894 (1.081) | 0.20 (1.25) |
| Lucic | 54:25 (72:49) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 1.10 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 51.0 (45.7) | 76.3 (52.9) | 1.040 (0.844) | 0.14 (-0.42) |
| Ritchie | 50:31 (36:07) | 1 (0) | 2 (0) | 2.38 (0.00) | 50.0 (0.0) | 49.4 (52.2) | 79.4 (35.3) | 0.983 (0.813) | 0.37 (-0.22) |
| Lewis | 36:03 (88:30) | 0 (2) | 1 (2) | 1.66 (1.36) | 0.0 (18.2) | 55.9 (45.2) | 67.9 (58.3) | 1.087 (1.056) | 0.69 (0.54) |
| Carpenter | 11:37 (33:04) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 36.2 (51.7) | 100 (41.7) | 1.000 (0.846) | 0.01 (-0.19) |
| Ruzicka | 11:16 (21:52) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (2.74) | 0.0 (0.0) | 45.7 (45.6) | 66.7 (69.2) | 1.000 (1.083) | -0.05 (0.60) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Dube – Jarnkrok – Coleman
- Mangiapane – Backlund – Toffoli
- Lucic – Ruzicka – Ritchie
The standouts for the Flames were the usual suspects (Gaudreau, Lindholm and Tkachuk) and Dillon Dube, who really finished the regular season strong. Mangiapane, Coleman and Jarnkrok also showed well.
The fourth line group finished the season well, though there’s a bit of a gap between the stronger fourth liners (Ritchie, Lewis) and the others (Lucic, Ruzicka and Carpenter). It’ll be interesting to see how the Flames balance the speedy forecheckers with Lucic on that unit when the playoffs begin.
Tyler Toffoli has been a bit of an enigma lately, as has Mikael Backlund. They’re getting the tough defensive minutes and performing well, but their offensive impacts have been very minimal of late. They’ll need to be more offensive when the post-season puck drops.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 115:37 (163:52) | 0 (0) | 4 (4) | 2.08 (1.46) | 0.0 (0.0) | 64.2 (65.7) | 60.0 (58.3) | 1.033 (1.053) | 0.84 (1.19) |
| Hanifin | 111:15 (160:37) | 2 (1) | 4 (10) | 2.16 (3.74) | 16.7 (4.8) | 62.9 (66.2) | 65.9 (60.4) | 0.959 (1.078) | 0.68 (1.73) |
| Tanev | 101:27 (142:22) | 1 (0) | 4 (0) | 2.37 (0.00) | 10.0 (0.0) | 41.6 (55.0) | 34.2 (39.6) | 0.988 (1.039) | 0.47 (0.58) |
| Kylington | 89:00 (73:18) | 0 (1) | 2 (2) | 1.35 (1.64) | 00.0 (20.0) | 59.0 (52.4) | 45.3 (46.9) | 1.018 (1.171) | 0.45 (1.19) |
| Zadorov | 78:04 (102:30) | 1 (0) | 3 (3) | 2.31 (1.76) | 16.7 (0.0) | 37.7 (48.9) | 57.4 (44.4) | 1.020 (0.984) | 0.41 (0.46) |
| Gudbranson | 67:46 (67:52) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 38.1 (42.2) | 52.2 (40.0) | 0.948 (0.933) | 0.13 (0.01) |
| Stone | 17:13 (51:58) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | 0.00 (2.31) | 16.7 (16.7) | 63.2 (51.8) | 76.9 (36.4) | 1.000 (1.029) | 0.71 (0.12) |
| Mackey | – (40:43) | – (0) | – (1) | – (1.47) | – 0.0) | – (61.0) | – (55.6) | – (0.920) | – (0.62) |
| Valimaki | – (14:31) | – (0) | – (0) | – (0.00) | – (0.0) | – (29.1) | – (0.0) | – (0.917) | – (-1.27) |
The most common defensive pairings were (in descending order):
- Hanifin & Andersson
- Kylington & Tanev
- Zadorov & Gudbranson
As per usual, the defensive group is solid. The top two pairings had consistently good metrics, while the lone “not great” defender was Gudbranson, which is likely a product of the team’s so-so penalty kill results of late.
The Flames’ defensive group has been the same three pairings since the first week of the season and for good reason: they all have well-articulated roles and they perform them well.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Vladar | 179:55 (175:13) | .906 (.921) | 1.000 (.963) | .808 (.947) | .846 (.826) | -0.45 (0.02) |
| Markstrom | 120:10 (247:58) | .896 (.900) | .950 (.971) | .813 (.853) | .900 (.865) | -1.14 (-0.07) |
To keep Jacob Markstrom fresh for the playoffs, Dan Vladar started three of five games in net. He did pretty well overall, and both netminders’ dip in numbers were more of a product of the general malaise in the team-wide metrics than a product of either one of them being particularly iffy.
THIS ARTICLE BROUGHT TO YOU BY DAILYFACEOFF
Looking to up your fantasy hockey game? DailyFaceoff has the tools you need for both daily and season-long fantasy leagues, including a lineup optimizer, daily projections, and a whole lot more. Sign up for the DailyFaceoff tools here.
More from FlamesNation
Recent articles from Ryan Pike
