Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 3-3-1 in fourth segment
By Ryan Pike
2 years agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 28 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of four seven game segments. Their fourth segment saw them go 3-3-1 over seven games, capturing seven of a possible 14 points.
Underlying numbers via Natural Stat Trick.
Game by game
(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5 and via Natural Stat Trick.)
| Date | Opponent | Result | CF% | SC% | HDC% | xGF% | PP | PK |
| Nov. 29 | Penguins (vs) | 2-1 SOW | 67.4 | 72.7 | 73.3 | 75.8 | 0-for-0 | 0-for-1 |
| Dec. 2 | Kings (@) | 3-2 W | 41.1 | 47.5 | 54.2 | 44.2 | 2-for-4 | 2-for-2 |
| Dec. 3 | Ducks (@) | 4-3 SOW | 51.0 | 46.6 | 53.9 | 48.5 | 0-for-1 | 2-for-3 |
| Dec. 5 | Golden Knights (@) | 3-2 L | 44.8 | 41.7 | 14.3 | 31.6 | 0-for-2 | 3-for-3 |
| Dec. 7 | Sharks (@) | 5-3 L | 61.6 | 55.4 | 61.5 | 61.2 | 0-for-3 | 0-for-2 |
| Dec. 9 | Hurricanes (vs) | 2-1 OTL | 55.2 | 51.5 | 45.5 | 47.7 | 0-for-5 | 3-for-3 |
| Dec. 11 | Bruins (vs) | 4-2 L | 62.0 | 62.2 | 52.4 | 52.2 | 1-for-5 | 2-for-2 |
| This (Last) | — | 3-3-1 (5-1-1) | 54.6 (55.0) | 53.5 (58.3) | 53.3 (53.9) | 52.0 (55.0) | 3-for-20 (5-for-20) | 12-for-16 (23-for-24) |
Well, the Flames had some good and bad this segment. Across basically every possession metric, they were a little bit worse than they were in the earlier segment. They were also unluckier: compared to the prior seven games, their shooting percentage (all situations) dropped by 4.59% and their save percentage (all situations) dropped by 4.96%.
That these things both happened at once gave the impression that the Flames were crashing down to Earth, but if you look at their underlyings, they’re still a good hockey club. But average goaltending, average finishing ability and below-average special teams crowded out all the good stuff.
If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 32 points after 28 games to be on track. They have 36 points so far, still roughly four points ahead of a playoff pace.
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through 28 games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.04, down from 3.33. They’re 4th in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.15, up from 2.00. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +25, down from +28. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 22.2%, down from 24.6%. They’re 3rd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 85.7%, down from 88.2%. They’re 3rd in the division.
- They’ve taken 8.8 penalty minutes per game, down from 9.4. They’re 3rd (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.61, up from 2.43. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.26, up from 2.08. They’re 2nd (lowest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF is 53.6%, down from 54.0%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 7.32% down from 7.71%. They’re 6th in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 94.15%, down from 95.07%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.015, down from 1.028. They’re 1st in the division.
The Flames basically ran in place this segment, a product of their offensive output dipping (shooting percentage went down and dragged goals for per game with it) and their defensive output rising (save percentage went up and dragged goals against per game with it). But if you look at the underlyings, their expected goals (on both offensive and defensive ends of things) remain quite healthy and impressive. Their special teams? Both also dropped, again both somewhat productions of their percentages going kablewy.
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 | 146:13 (138:37) | 2 (2) | 4 (9) | 1.64 (3.90) | 9.1 (9.1) | 61.1 (60.5) | 60.7 (48.6) | 0.959 (1.089) | 0.95 (1.96) |
| Gaudreau | 141:33 (117:03) | 1 (5) | 5 (10) | 2.12 (5.13) | 4.4 (16.4) | 64.5 (73.9) | 68.3 (67.5) | 0.999 (1.062) | 0.92 (2.36) |
| Tkachuk | 134:04 (120:54) | 2 (4) | 4 (8) | 1.79 (3.97) | 9.1 (10.4) | 62.4 (73.7) | 69.7 (68.0) | 0.990 (1.070) | 0.95 (1.83) |
| Backlund | 132:55 (119:07) | 0 (1) | 1 (3) | 0.45 (1.51) | 0.0 (7.6) | 53.7 (50.7) | 53.1 (43.8) | 0.951 (1.041) | -0.18 (0.91) |
| Mangiapane | 132:30 (112:58) | 2 (6) | 3 (0) | 1.36 (3.19) | 12.5 (25.0) | 60.3 (64.8) | 62.8 (58.3) | 1.024 (1.054) | 0.39 (1.30) |
| Monahan | 106:31 (97:18) | 2 (0) | 3 (4) | 1.69 (2.47) | 14.3 (0.0) | 62.9 (65.2) | 72.3 (70.9) | 0.916 (0.996) | 0.38 (0.38) |
| Coleman | 105:39 (108:42) | 1 (0) | 1 (1) | 0.57 (0.55) | 3.9 (0.0) | 47.6 (57.7) | 55.6 (51.7) | 0.944 (1.030) | -0.06 (0.45) |
| Lucic | 95:58 (81:12) | 2 (1) | 4 (1) | 2.50 (0.74) | 25.0 (12.5) | 57.8 (50.9) | 68.3 (61.8) | 0.992 (1.093) | 0.33 (0.17) |
| Dube | 81:48 (82:28) | 1 (1) | 1 (2) | 0.73 (1.46) | 11.1 (11.1) | 51.3 (58.9) | 63.5 (60.0) | 0.945 (1.011) | 0.03 (0.34) |
| Lewis | 80:36 (94:49) | 0 (2) | 2 (2) | 1.49 (1.27) | 0.0 (8.9) | 32.6 (34.9) | 53.6 (54.0) | 0.961 (1.075) | -0.07 (0.36) |
| Richardson | 62:43 (81:18) | 0 (1) | 1 (2) | 0.96 (1.48) | 0.0 (16.7) | 33.2 (37.8) | 53.2 (58.0) | 0.980 (1.062) | -0.20 (0.36) |
| Ruzicka | 34:15 (-) | 1 (-) | 1 (-) | 1.75 (-) | 25.0 (-) | 44.5 (-) | 57.1 (-) | 1.056 (-) | 0.27 (-) |
| Pitlick | 29:43 (67:07) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 59.9 (46.0) | 63.2 (60.0) | 0.947 (0.971) | -0.04 (0.03) |
| Duehr | – (8:46) | – (0) | – (0) | – (0.00) | – (0.0) | – (41.8) | – (16.7) | – (1.000) | – (0.17) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Mangiapane – Backlund – Coleman
- Dube – Monahan – Pitlick
- Lucic – Richardson – Lewis
These lines didn’t change from the last segment, though Pitlick suffered an injury midway through the segment that led to some minor shuffling as Adam Ruzicka joined the Flames from Stockton. Milan Lucic moved up to the third line and Brad Richardson moved to the wing so that Ruzicka could be centre on the fourth line. Byron Froese was called up for the last two games but didn’t dress.
As we noted on the team-wide breakdown, the team experienced a collective drop in their shooting and save percentages. The insane thing is: it happened to everybody. Look at the PDOs for each player – their on-ice save and shooting percentage added together – literally everybody’s dropped aside from Ruzicka, who didn’t play in the previous segment. That’s nuts.
Players who took a step back in their expected goals performance include Gaudreau, Tkachuk, Mangiapane, Monahan, Coleman, Dube, Lewis and Richardson. If you thought to yourself: “man, that’s a lot of guys that play key roles on both sides of special teams…” well… yeah. Nobody fell off a cliff, but the combination of “not as good” and “unlucky” killed them this segment.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 161:55 (151:31) | 0 (0) | 4 (4) | 1.48 (1.58) | 0.0 (0.0) | 59.2 (65.7) | 62.3 (57.8) | 0.952 (1.043) | 0.71 (1.70) |
| Hanifin | 150:46 (142:18) | 1 (1) | 2 (5) | 0.80 (2.11) | 6.7 (8.3) | 61.4 (61.6) | 54.6 (52.9) | 0.950 (1.062) | 0.66 (1.65) |
| Kylington | 147:55 (130:00) | 0 (1) | 3 (3) | 1.22 (1.38) | 0.0 (4.6) | 52.5 (62.7) | 57.0 (60.8) | 0.987 (1.096) | -0.02 (1.11) |
| Tanev | 145:43 (150:39) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) | 0.82 (0.80) | 0.0 (0.0) | 50.6 (45.1) | 46.5 (41.0) | 0.948 (1.088) | 0.52 (0.86) |
| Gudbranson | 118:06 (128:41) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 0.51 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 40.8 (32.3) | 60.2 (41.5) | 0.968 (0.996) | -0.18 (0.06) |
| Zadorov | 94:18 (99:01) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | 0.00 (1.21) | 0.0 (6.1) | 50.8 (48.1) | 73.0 (60.0) | 1.003 (1.030) | 0.12 (0.41) |
| Stone | 15:19 (-) | 0 (-) | 0 (-) | 0.00 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 25.4 (-) | 50.0 (-) | 1.000 (-) | -0.58 (-) |
| Välimäki | – (16:40) | – (0) | – (1) | – (3.60) | – (0.0) | – (38.8) | – (63.6) | – (1.222) | – (1.75) |
The most common defensive pairings were (in descending order):
- Hanifin & Andersson
- Kylington & Tanev
- Zadorov & Gudbranson
This hasn’t really changed in… awhile.
As with the forwards, everybody had a dip in their PDO from their performance last segment. Everybody. Also experiencing notable expected goals dips were Anderson and Kylington, though collectively everyone still performed quite well.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Markström | 305:00 (299:58) | .917 (.942) | .982 (.983) | .909 (.919) | .816 (.894) | 0.08 (0.64) |
| Vladar | 124:04 (120:00) | .883 (1.000) | .909 (1.000) | .938 (1.000) | .778 (1.000) | -0.84 (2.13) |
After being excellent last segment, the Flames goaltenders were very average. Sample size warnings, obviously, but these seven games were a big step back – especially in terms of their high-danger performances.
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.
Recent articles from Ryan Pike
