Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 5-1-1 in eleventh segment
By Ryan Pike
1 year agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 77 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of eleven seven game segments. Their eleventh segment saw them go 5-1-1 over seven games, capturing 11 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]
- 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]
The Flames have just kept chugging along this season. They’ve won their last six segments.
Through 11 segments, the Flames have one below .500, two segments right at .500, and eight segments above the .500 mark. Dating back to their return from their COVID stoppage on Dec. 30, the Flames are 32-13-4. (Four teams have higher points percentages in that timespan: Florida, Colorado, Toronto and the NY Rangers.)
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. 7 | Sharks (@) | 4-2 W | 66.7 | 62.9 | 90.9 | 68.3 | 0-for-3 | 3-for-3 |
| Apr. 9 | Kraken (@) | 4-1 W | 60.6 | 61.3 | 56.7 | 58.3 | 1-for-4 | 5-for-5 |
| Apr. 12 | Kraken (vs) | 5-3 W | 52.9 | 47.2 | 63.6 | 48.3 | 2-for-5 | 2-for-2 |
| Apr. 14 | Golden Knights (vs) | 6-1 L | 55.6 | 57.7 | 38.1 | 44.8 | 1-for-3 | 3-for-4 |
| Apr. 16 | Coyotes (vs) | 9-1 W | 62.5 | 58.8 | 68.0 | 63.7 | 0-for-2 | 2-for-2 |
| Apr. 18 | Blackhawks (@) | 5-2 W | 51.8 | 47.1 | 60.0 | 57.5 | 0-for-3 | 2-for-2 |
| Apr. 19 | Predators (@) | 3-2 SOL | 42.0 | 41.0 | 40.0 | 39.5 | 1-for-3 | 4-for-5 |
| This (Last) | — | 5-1-1 (4-2-1) | 54.8 (59.1) | 49.3 (57.7) | 48.8 (57.6) | 52.7 (55.4) | 5-for-23 (4-for-18) | 21-for-23 (15-for-23) |
On one hand, the Flames have gotten results this segment. Their special teams have been markedly better than previously, out-scoring the opposition 5-2. But their underlying metrics were all a little bit worse than in the prior segment, and they were actually slightly underwater in terms of scoring chances and high-danger chances. The Flames’ results were boosted by an uptick in their overall shooting percentage, and diminished somewhat by a slight dip in their save percentage.
That said, the Flames trailed for less than a quarter of all of their in-game minutes, and the majority of that was in the Vegas game. Aside from that, they faced a bunch of lesser lights and got the results you would expect a team that’s pushing for a division title to get.
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through 77 games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.55, up from 3.47. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.48, down from 2.49. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +82, up from +70. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 23.3%, down from 23.5%. They’re 3rd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 84.0%, up from 83.2%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- They’ve taken 8.9 penalty minutes per game, down from 9.1. They’re 3rd (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.84, down from 2.87. They’re 1st 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 55.4%, down from 55.6%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 8.55%, up from 8.36%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 92.51%, down from 92.76%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.011, unchanged from 1.011. They’re 1st in the division.
The Flames remain very productive and very dangerous. They’re good at generating offensive opportunities and burying them. They’re good at suppressing opposition scoring chances and then their goalies stop a lot of them. They’re equal parts good and lucky. Their special teams are a bit of a mixed bag lately, but remain among the best in the NHL.
The Flames remain first or second in their division in basically every meaningful statistical category, aside from the power play and taking penalties.
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 | 138:22 (138:06) | 3 (5) | 7 (6) | 3.04 (2.61) | 12.5 (31.3) | 68.0 (60.6) | 47.2 (48.8) | 1.085 (1.021) | 1.80 (1.15) |
| Gaudreau | 133:52 (120:52) | 4 (5) | 11 (15) | 4.93 (6.85) | 22.2 (20.0) | 74.5 (70.4) | 60.8 (62.1) | 1.083 (1.071) | 2.09 (2.60) |
| Tkachuk | 126:19 (125:43) | 6 (4) | 13 (10) | 6.17 (4.77) | 33.3 (15.4) | 75.6 (69.5) | 61.8 (60.4) | 1.096 (1.037) | 2.36 (1.97) |
| Backlund | 123:54 (121:10) | 0 (2) | 3 (5) | 1.45 (2.48) | 0.0 (10.5) | 54.8 (50.4) | 47.5 (46.0) | 1.026 (0.984) | 0.43 (0.83) |
| Mangiapane | 110:55 (106:01) | 4 (0) | 6 (3) | 3.25 (1.70) | 26.7 (0.0) | 58.2 (54.5) | 64.2 (55.1) | 1.044 (0.954) | 0.85 (0.64) |
| Toffoli | 109:19 (113:31) | 1 (2) | 3 (4) | 1.65 (2.11) | 7.1 (11.8) | 58.7 (60.1) | 57.9 (72.8) | 0.966 (1.003) | 0.17 (0.45) |
| Dube | 100:55 (89:54) | 4 (2) | 6 (3) | 3.57 (2.00) | 44.4 (11.8) | 66.2 (50.9) | 61.1 (62.1) | 1.079 (1.002) | 1.14 (0.39) |
| Coleman | 93:10 (96:22) | 3 (0) | 4 (1) | 2.58 (0.62) | 16.7 (0.0) | 58.6 (50.6) | 44.7 (61.7) | 1.081 (0.945) | 1.25 (0.33) |
| Lewis | 88:30 (91:24) | 2 (0) | 2 (0) | 1.36 (0.00) | 18.2 (0.0) | 45.2 (43.5) | 58.3 (69.8) | 1.056 (0.986) | 0.54 (0.39) |
| Lucic | 72:49 (78:01) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (0.77) | 0.0 (0.0) | 45.7 (58.2) | 52.9 (67.5) | 0.844 (0.975) | -0.42 (0.38) |
| Jarnkrok | 65:28 (57:06) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (1.05) | 0.0 (0.0) | 60.8 (59.3) | 52.6 (57.5) | 0.971 (0.980) | 0.06 (0.34) |
| Ritchie | 36:07 (21:37) | 0 (1) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (2.77) | 0.0 (50.0) | 52.2 (65.4) | 35.3 (61.5) | 0.813 (1.143) | -0.22 (1.00) |
| Carpenter | 33:04 (44:34) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (1.35) | 0.0 (0.0) | 51.7 (63.0) | 41.7 (55.0) | 0.846 (1.002) | -0.19 (0.69) |
| Ruzicka | 21:52 (19:24) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 2.74 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 45.6 (48.1) | 69.2 (54.6) | 1.083 (1.100) | 0.60 (0.28) |
| Monahan | – (22:07) | – (0) | – (1) | – (2.71) | – (0.0) | – (53.9) | – (71.4) | – (1.111) | – (1.08) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Mangiapane – Backlund – Toffoli
- Coleman – Dube – Lewis
- Dube – Jarnkrok – Coleman
Injuries caused some shuffling in the bottom two lines, but the top six remained really well-defined and consistent (aside from a couple players getting moved around for a game or so).
Who’s been good and/or really good? The usual suspects, more or less: Matthew Tkachuk, Johnny Gaudreau, Elias Lindholm, Dillon Dube, Blake Coleman and Andrew Mangiapane. Who was decent? Mikael Backlund, Trevor Lewis and Adam Ruzicka. Who was not good? Everybody else, including Milan Lucic, Tyler Toffoli, Calle Jarnkrok, Brett Ritchie and Ryan Carpenter. The bottom six was muddled by injuries, but they also weren’t all that good.
Caveat: yeah, they had a schedule that skewed towards more road games. But the depth players need to be better.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 163:52 (165:06) | 0 (1) | 4 (3) | 1.46 (1.09) | 0.0 (9.1) | 65.7 (61.6) | 58.3 (56.1) | 1.053 (0.999) | 1.19 (0.74) |
| Hanifin | 160:37 (154:33) | 1 (1) | 10 (6) | 3.74 (2.34) | 4.8 (7.1) | 66.2 (55.1) | 60.4 (47.2) | 1.078 (1.029) | 1.73 (1.27) |
| Tanev | 142:22 (138:24) | 0 (1) | 0 (3) | 0.00 (1.30) | 0.0 (20.0) | 55.0 (39.9) | 39.6 (47.9) | 1.039 (1.007) | 0.58 (1.01) |
| Zadorov | 102:30 (118:51) | 0 (0) | 3 (1) | 1.76 (0.50) | 0.0 (0.0) | 48.9 (57.3) | 44.4 (59.4) | 0.984 (0.958) | 0.46 (0.69) |
| Kylington | 73:18 (60:10) | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | 1.64 (1.00) | 20.0 (16.7) | 52.4 (52.4) | 46.9 (65.1) | 1.171 (1.009) | 1.19 (0.44) |
| Gudbranson | 67:52 (130:43) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | 0.00 (0.92) | 0.0 (9.1) | 42.2 (44.9) | 40.0 (43.5) | 0.933 (0.933) | 0.01 (0.76) |
| Stone | 51:58 (53:03) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 2.31 (3:39) | 16.7 (16.7) | 51.8 (50.8) | 36.4 (60.0) | 1.029 (1.111) | 0.12 (1.27) |
| 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
- Zadorov & Gudbranson
- Kylington & Tanev
The good news is that Noah Hanifin, Rasmus Andersson and Chris Tanev played every game and were quite good. Andersson and Hanifin were together all the time. We’re probably still not talking enough about how great that pairing has been. But Tanev played with four different partners (Mackey, Valimaki, Stone and Zadorov) and his numbers took a dip.
The Flames’ blueline is really important and their consistency has propped up the group at times. The Flames were missing roughly half their regulars for chunks of this past segment and, shockingly, much of the team had uneven results.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Markstrom | 247:58 (421:51) | .900 (.901) | .971 (.986) | .853 (.852) | .865 (.827) | -0.07 (0.05) |
| Vladar | 175:13 (-) | .921 (-) | .963 (-) | .947 (-) | .826 (-) | 0.02 (-) |
Jacob Markstrom got pulled twice in-game, but aside from playing less his results were more or less the same. After not playing at all in the prior segment, Vladar played a decent amount and was pretty, pretty good. It’s obvious that this is Markstrom’s net in the playoffs, but the Flames do have a rock-solid second goaltender backing him up.
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
