Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 4-2-1 in the ninth segment
By Ryan Pike
2 years agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 63 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of nine seven game segments. Their ninth 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]
- Eighth (Games 50-56): 4-2-1 [9 of 14 points]
So far this season, the Flames have had one bad (sub-.500) segment, two segments right at .500, and six segments above the .500 mark. Over their last four segments, they’re 20-6-2, and they’re 23-10-2 in five 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 |
| Mar. 10 | Lightning (vs) | 4-1 W | 48.9 | 49.1 | 47.6 | 46.8 | 1-for-4 | 3-for-3 |
| Mar. 12 | Red Wings (vs) | 3-0 W | 63.3 | 68.1 | 76.9 | 64.4 | 2-for-3 | 2-for-2 |
| Mar. 13 | Avalanche (@) | 3-0 L | 50.0 | 56.1 | 70.6 | 55.4 | 0-for-3 | 1-for-2 |
| Mar. 16 | Devils (vs) | 6-3 W | 63.7 | 70.2 | 62.5 | 63.9 | 0-for-0 | 4-for-4 |
| Mar. 18 | Sabres (vs) | 1-0 OTW | 54.8 | 56.4 | 41.2 | 55.5 | 0-for-0 | 0-for-0 |
| Mar. 19 | Canucks (@) | 5-2 W | 59.3 | 67.3 | 72.7 | 70.9 | 1-for-2 | 1-for-2 |
| Mar. 22 | Sharks (vs) | 4-3 L | 54.1 | 51.9 | 36.8 | 41.6 | 1-for-2 | 2-for-2 |
| This (Last) | — | 4-2-1 (4-2-1) | 56.1 (53.8) | 59.4 (51.3) | 57.6 (51.0) | 56.9 (52.8 | 5-for-14 (6-for-19) | 13-for-15 (23-for-28) |
They were better across the board in possession metrics than they were in their prior seven games – they didn’t have big jumps in each category, but still noticeable upticks. They deserved the wins they got largely. At five-on-five, they were better than previously, but their shooting was a little worse than previous.
Their special teams were pretty interesting: they drew fewer calls than before but took significantly fewer penalties, as well. Their PP out-scored the opposing PP by a 5-2 margin during the segment, which is quite tidy work from both special teams units when you factor in how many opportunities each side got.
If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 73 points (72.99) after 63 games to be on track. They have 84 points so far, which is about 11 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 63 games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.43, down from 3.48. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.43, down from 2.48. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +65, up from +58. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 23.9%, up from 23.0%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 85.4%, up from 85.0%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- They’ve taken 9.2 penalty minutes per game, down from 9.6. They’re 2nd (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.84, up from 2.82. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.27, unchanged from 2.27. They’re 2nd (lowest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF is 55.6%, up from 55.5%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 8.12%, down from 8.36%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 92.77%, up from 92.57%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.009, unchanged from 1.009. They’re 1st in the division.
In terms of process, the Flames were a little bit better offensively and unchanged defensively. In terms of results, their shooting was a little worse (except on the power play) and their goaltending was a little bit better. All-told, they remained pretty tidy on both ends of the puck and on special teams.
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 | 128:31 (139:39 | 2 (6) | 5 (11) | 2.33 (4.73) | 10.0 (30.0) | 65.0 (59.2) | 58.7 (45.9) | 1.040 (1.107) | 1.84 (1.84) |
| Tkachuk | 121:01 (113:52) | 2 (3) | 11 (9) | 5.45 (4.74) | 8.3 (18.8) | 68.3 (65.8) | 68.6 (60.6) | 1.026 (1.055) | 0.95 (1.40) |
| Gaudreau | 120:52 (123:01) | 6 (3) | 8 (10) | 3.97 (4.88) | 27.3 (17.7) | 67.6 (63.5) | 70.9 (59.4) | 1.034 (1.084) | 1.50 (1.40) |
| Backlund | 113:10 (115:09) | 2 (1) | 3 (4) | 1.59 (2.08) | 11.8 (7.1) | 49.7 (46.5) | 41.0 (26.0) | 1.056 (0.977) | 0.95 (0.62) |
| Coleman | 106:40 (99:58) | 1 (2) | 1 (6) | 0.56 (3.60) | 11.1 (12.5) | 48.9 (52.8) | 56.5 (40.3) | 1.022 (1.070) | 0.23 (0.85) |
| Mangiapane | 104:39 (113:10) | 1 (4) | 1 (9) | 0.57 (4.77) | 10.0 (25.0) | 62.9 (52.8) | 65.7 (44.6) | 0.955 (1.049) | 0.58 (1.32) |
| Toffoli | 104:07 (106:55) | 1 (5) | 4 (9) | 2.30 (5.05) | 4.8 (23.8) | 67.5 (64.5) | 68.9 (55.0) | 1.047 (1.058) | 0.69 (1.09) |
| Lewis | 99:34 (86:34) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 0.60 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 38.0 (43.2) | 48.3 (50.8) | 0.955 (0.902) | 0.02 (0.11) |
| Dube | 87:57 (44:45) | 2 (0) | 4 (1) | 2.73 (1.34) | 14.3 (0.0) | 45.0 (46.1) | 61.7 (62.5) | 1.022 (0.853) | 0.71 (0.32) |
| Lucic | 84:18 (87:51) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 0.71 (0.00) | 10.0 (0.0) | 53.9 (53.4) | 59.5 (59.4) | 0.969 (0.958) | 0.15 (0.52) |
| Monahan | 84:20 (93:51) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 55.8 (52.1) | 61.2 (57.4) | 0.942 (0.948) | 0.20 (0.69) |
| Jarnkrok | 42:40 (-) | 0 (-) | 1 (-) | 1.41 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 58.6 (-) | 62.9 (-) | 0.998 (-) | 0.40 (-) |
| Ritchie | 24:18 (37:28) | 1 (0) | 1 (0) | 2.47 (0.00) | 20.0 (0.0) | 67.0 (60.5) | 64.3 (66.7) | 1.020 (0.933) | 1.04 (0.02) |
| Ruzicka | 23:52 (30:36) | 0 (1) | 0 (2) | 0.00 (3.92) | 0.0 (50.0) | 41.7 (45.5) | 54.6 (59.1) | 1.000 (1.022) | -0.37 (0.88) |
| Richardson | – (29:15) | – (0) | – (0) | – (0) | – (0) | – (69.0) | – (82.4) | – (0.900) | – (0.25) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Coleman – Backlund – Lewis
- Lucic – Monahan – Dube
- Lucic – Monahan – Lewis
The Flames churned through a lot of different lines in this segment as they moved Tyler Toffoli higher in the rotation, acquired Calle Jarnkrok, sent Adam Ruzicka down to the AHL, sat Brad Richardson as a healthy scratch (and lost him on waivers) and acquired Ryan Carpenter. A lot of churn happened!
Who led the way? The four most-used forwards were the best guys consistently: Johnny Gaudreau, Elias Lindholm, Matthew Tkachuk and Mikael Backlund. A second tier of players emerged in the form of Dillon Dube, Andrew Mangiapane and Blake Coleman, but the rest of the forward group was just sorta… there.
Below the “just there” level were the guys who seemed to struggle: Trevor Lewis, Milan Lucic and Sean Monahan. They’ve been placed together and they didn’t have a good game together against San Jose, but even individually they’ve been a very mixed bag (at best). Perhaps integrating Carpenter and Brett Ritchie is the key to making the fourth line a positive contributor again, but right now it’s a trio the Flames have to work around.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 160:37 (155:07) | 1 (0) | 6 (6) | 2.24 (2.32) | 8.3 (0.0) | 56.7 (56.9) | 63.1 (57.1) | 1.072 (1.020) | 1.25 (0.87) |
| Hanifin | 154:33 (141:55) | 1 (0) | 2 (2) | 0.78 (0.85) | 3.8 (0.0) | 50.6 (58.4) | 57.1 (55.8) | 1.020 (0.947) | 0.80 (0.46) |
| Tanev | 139:04 (144:24) | 0 (0) | 2 (1) | 0.86 (0.42) | 0.0 (0.0) | 61.8 (49.8) | 44.7 (31.0) | 0.948 (0.963) | 1.36 (-0.06) |
| Gudbranson | 130:52 (135:16) | 0 (2) | 2 (2) | 0.92 (0.89) | 0.0 (20.0) | 45.7 (43.5) | 54.6 (41.4) | 1.011 (1.113) | 0.26 (0.58) |
| Zadorov | 124:40 (128:34) | 0 (0) | 0 (2) | 0.00 (0.93) | 0.0 (0.0) | 51.8 (53.9) | 67.2 (51.2) | 0.979 (1.055) | 0.16 (0.50) |
| Kylington | 86:57 (120:34) | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.69 (0.50) | 0.0 (7.1) | 67.6 (51.1) | 51.7 (43.0) | 0.989 (0.959) | 1.24 (-0.05) |
| Stone | 36:43 (-) | 0 (-) | 1 (-) | 1.63 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 58.4 (-) | 53.9 (-) | 0.987 (-) | 0.93 (-) |
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.
Not much to say here. Nikita Zadorov and Erik Gudbranson were just kinda there, but the top four blueliners were all quite good (Oliver Kylington missed two games with an injury) and really held things together for the blueline group.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Markstrom | 301:12 (277:52) | .942 (.908) | .967 (1.000) | .975 (.882) | .881 (.767) | 0.77 (-0.30) |
| Vladar | 118:00 (140:52) | .929 (.861) | .971 (.969) | .909 (.844) | .667 (.667) | 0.03 (-1.44) |
Both of Calgary’s goalies were good this past segment, even factoring in Markstrom’s tough night against San Jose. When you’re rocking a .942 save percentage and a positive average Goals Saved Above Expected across a full segment, you’re doing quite well.
Goaltending is a huge strength for the Flames this season.
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
