Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 4-2-1 in the eighth segment
By Ryan Pike
2 years agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 56 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of eigth seven game segments. Their eighth segment saw them go 4-2-1 over seven games, capturing 9 of a possible 14 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]
So far this season, the Flames have had one bad (sub-.500) segment, two segments right at .500, and five segments above the .500 mark. Over their last three segments, they’re 16-4-1, and they’re 19-7-2 in four segments since returning from their COVID stoppage after Christmas.
Game by game
(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5 and via Natural Stat Trick.)
| Date | Opponent | Result | CF% | SCF% | HDCF% | xGF% | PP | PK |
| Feb. 24 | Canucks (@) | 7-1 L | 60.0 | 61.8 | 62.5 | 61.4 | 0-for-1 | 4-for-7 |
| Feb. 26 | Wild (vs) | 7-3 W | 64.5 | 61.8 | 63.6 | 61.8 | 2-for-5 | 2-for-2 |
| Mar. 1 | Wild (@) | 5-1 W | 44.2 | 39.0 | 16.7 | 32.8 | 2-for-3 | 4-for-4 |
| Mar. 3 | Canadiens (vs) | 5-4 OTL | 53.5 | 54.4 | 57.9 | 55.1 | 0-for-3 | 5-for-6 |
| Mar. 5 | Avalanche (@) | 4-3 OTW | 50.9 | 43.2 | 40.0 | 49.2 | 1-for-2 | 1-for-2 |
| Mar. 7 | Oilers (vs) | 3-1 W | 44.8 | 43.3 | 16.7 | 41.7 | 1-for-4 | 4-for-4 |
| Mar. 8 | Capitals (vs) | 5-4 L | 57.0 | 52.0 | 70.6 | 57.2 | 0-for-1 | 3-for-3 |
| This (Last) | — | 4-2-1 (7-0-0) | 53.8 (56.1) | 51.3 (58.7) | 51.0 (60.2) | 52.8 (57.7) | 6-for-19 (5-for-17) | 23-for-28 (17-for-18) |
Last segment, the Flames were really good all over and won all seven games. This segment, the Flames were pretty good across the board in possession metrics but were a fair bit less dangerous with the puck than prior.
On special teams, their power play was cooking (yay!) but their penalty kill was a bit less. Their PP out-scored opposition PPs by a slim 6-5 margin, with three of the PP goals allowed coming from that one ugly Vancouver game.
If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 65 points (64.9) after 56 games to be on track. They have 75 points so far, which is about 10 points ahead of the pace they’d be looking for. (A few models are placing the playoff cut line lower than 95 points, so the Flames may or may not be at a playoff pace depending on whatever model you prefer to use.) They’re in very good shape.
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through 56 games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.48, up from 3.41. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.48, up from 2.33. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +58, up from +55. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 23.0%, up from 21.8%. They’re 3rd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 85.0%, down from 85.6%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- They’ve taken 9.6 penalty minutes per game, up from 8.9. They’re 1st (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.82, down from 2.85. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.27, up from 2.25. They’re 2nd (lowest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF is 55.5%, down from 55.8%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 8.36%, up from 8.27%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 92.57%, down from 92.90%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.009, down from 1.012. They’re 1st in the division.
From a process side, the Flames were a little bit less potent offensively and a little bit less stingy defensively than in the past. But they remain one of the better teams at generating scoring opportunities and suppressing them from the opposition.
They’re a bit better at burying their chances offensively, and a little bit worse at stopping them. Their PDO is down a bit and skewing closer to the mean, but they’re still among the leaders in the percentage-driven outcomes. They’re also among the top teams on special teams.
They’re good all-around, verging on great in some areas.
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 | 139:39 (133:22) | 6 (8) | 11 (12) | 4.73 (5.40) | 30.0 (40.0) | 59.2 (57.5) | 45.9 (53.1) | 1.107 (1.128) | 1.84 (2.13) |
| Gaudreau | 123:01 (125:46) | 3 (2) | 10 (10) | 4.88 (4.77) | 17.7 (11.8) | 63.5 (66.9) | 59.4 (64.4) | 1.084 (1.145) | 1.40 (1.97) |
| Backlund | 115:09 (120:22) | 1 (1) | 4 (7) | 2.08 (3.49) | 7.1 (4.4) | 46.5 (63.2) | 26.0 (39.3) | 0.977 (1.067) | 0.62 (1.56) |
| Tkachuk | 113:52 (125:19) | 3 (4) | 9 (11) | 4.74 (5.27) | 18.8 (22.2) | 65.8 (67.1) | 60.6 (63.0) | 1.055 (1.120) | 1.40 (2.11) |
| Mangiapane | 113:10 (114:37) | 4 (5) | 9 (7) | 4.77 (3.66) | 25.0 (27.8) | 52.8 (65.4) | 44.6 (45.2) | 1.049 (1.096) | 1.32 (1.54) |
| Toffoli | 106:55 (52:34) | 5 (2) | 9 (2) | 5.05 (2.28) | 23.8 (22.2) | 64.5 (65.1) | 55.0 (67.7) | 1.058 (0.938) | 1.09 (0.62) |
| Coleman | 99:58 (107:55) | 2 (0) | 6 (3) | 3.60 (1.67) | 12.5 (0.0) | 52.8 (67.4) | 40.3 (44.6) | 1.070 (1.014) | 0.85 (0.93) |
| Monahan | 93:51 (98:04) | 0 (1) | 0 (3) | 0.00 (1.84) | 0.0 (6.3) | 52.1 (64.5) | 57.4 (75.4) | 0.948 (1.032) | -0.69 (0.53) |
| Lucic | 87:51 (89:33) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0.00 (1.34) | 0.0 (0.0) | 53.4 (55.1) | 59.4 (57.1) | 0.958 (1.112) | -0.52 (0.58) |
| Lewis | 86:34 (86:36) | 0 (0) | 0 (3) | 0.00 (2.08) | 0.0 (0.0) | 43.2 (41.8) | 50.8 (50.0) | 0.902 (1.119) | -0.11 (0.55) |
| Dube | 44:45 (82:19) | 0 (2) | 1 (3) | 1.34 (2.19) | 0.0 (22.2) | 46.1 (49.8) | 62.5 (67.3) | 0.853 (1.071) | 0.32 (0.47) |
| Ritchie | 37:28 (31:37) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 60.5 (68.3) | 66.7 (61.9) | 0.933 (1.000) | 0.02 (0.36) |
| Ruzicka | 30:36 (73:37) | 1 (2) | 2 (3) | 3.92 (2.45) | 50.0 (25.0) | 45.5 (52.0) | 59.1 (59.5) | 1.022 (1.080) | 0.88 (0.85) |
| Richardson | 29:15 (-) | 0 (-) | 0 (-) | 0.00 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 69.0 (-) | 82.4 (-) | 0.900 (-) | 0.25 (-) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Mangiapane – Backlund – Coleman
- Lucic – Monahan – Toffoli
- Lewis – Richardson – Ritchie
Everyone was a little bit worse possession-wise compared to last segment, but the bigger story is that a few players really got punished by drops in puck luck (PDO). The unlucky few were Mikael Backlund, Sean Monahan, Milan Lucic, Trevor Lewis, Dillon Dube, Brett Ritchie and Brad Richardson. Now, that’s basically the bottom six bunch (plus Backlund), which does factor into perceptions that they struggled.
But in particular, Monahan and Lucic had rough segments – they both have negative game scores – while Lewis, Dube, Ritchie and Richardson were also ungood. Ruzicka had good results offensively, but his play away from the puck has drawn some criticism from the coaching staff at times.
The good news: five key players all had average game scores north of 1.00: Johnny Gaudreau, Matthew Tkachuk, Elias Lindholm, Andrew Mangiapane and Tyler Toffoli. Toffoli, in particular, has really settled in nicely, and quickly, too.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 155:07 (155:46) | 0 (1) | 6 (6) | 2.32 (2.31) | 0.0 (5.9) | 56.9 (66.9) | 57.1 (64.4) | 1.020 (1.008) | 0.87 (1.85) |
| Tanev | 144:24 (143:19) | 0 (1) | 1 (4) | 0.42 (1.67) | 0.0 (9.1) | 49.8 (50.3) | 31.0 (38.5) | 0.963 (1.146) | -0.06 (0.79) |
| Hanifin | 141:55 (143:06) | 0 (1) | 2 (6) | 0.85 (2.52) | 0.0 (7.2) | 58.4 (64.8) | 55.8 (53.1) | 0.947 (0.993) | 0.46 (1.68) |
| Gudbranson | 135:16 (127:51) | 2 (2) | 2 (3) | 0.89 (1.41) | 20.0 (11.1) | 43.5 (49.1) | 41.4 (49.5) | 1.113 (1.154) | 0.58 (1.13) |
| Zadorov | 128:34 (122:16) | 0 (0) | 2 (4) | 0.93 (1.96) | 0.0 (0.0) | 53.9 (59.1) | 51.2 (58.7) | 1.055 (1.098) | 0.50 (1.41) |
| Kylington | 120:34 (131:39) | 1 (1) | 1 (3) | 0.50 (1.37) | 7.1 (16.7) | 51.1 (53.3) | 43.0 (46.8) | 0.959 (1.162) | -0.05 (0.45) |
The most common defensive pairings were (in descending order):
- Hanifin & Andersson
- Kylington & Tanev
- Zadorov & Gudbranson
The defensive pairings have been set in stone for the past while.
Chris Tanev and Oliver Kylington had their PDO crater and so did their game scores. They’re not unrelated, but you’ll notice their xGF% also dropped a bit. They were bound for a rough patch, and here it is. The other two pairings were pretty decent: no individual had an outstanding segment, but collectively the blueline group remains quite solid without any obvious big holes in it.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Markstrom | 277:52 (359:22) | .908 (.953) | 1.000 (.986) | .882 (.953) | .767 (.889) | -0.30 (1.00) |
| Vladar | 140:52 (60:00) | .861 (.900) | .969 (1.000) | .844 (1.000) | .667 (.667) | -1.44 (-0.05) |
Both goalies were a bit worse than in the prior segment. We also saw more Daniel Vladar than in prior segments. Goaltending is far from a weakness on this hockey club, but they’ve had better segments than this one. The goaltending dip may be a product of the team being much more defensively leaky than in prior segments, and giving up high-danger opportunities at a higher rate.
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
