Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 4-2-1 in tenth segment
By Ryan Pike
2 years agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 70 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of nine seven game segments. Their tenth 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]
- Ninth (Games 57-63): 4-2-1 [9 of 14 points]
The Flames have just kept chugging along this season. They’ve won their last five segments.
So far this season, the Flames have had one bad (sub-.500) segment, two segments right at .500, and seven segments above the .500 mark. They’ve racked up three consecutive identical 4-2-1 segments. Dating back to their return from their COVID stoppage on Dec. 30, the Flames are 27-12-3.
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. 25 | Coyotes (vs) | 4-2 W | 66.7 | 62.9 | 90.9 | 68.3 | 2-for-2 | 3-for-3 |
| Mar. 26 | Oilers (vs) | 9-5 W | 60.6 | 61.3 | 56.7 | 58.3 | 0-for-4 | 2-for-5 |
| Mar. 29 | Avalanche (vs) | 2-1 L | 52.9 | 47.2 | 63.6 | 48.3 | 1-for-5 | 1-for-3 |
| Mar. 31 | Kings (vs) | 3-2 SOL | 55.6 | 57.7 | 38.1 | 44.8 | 1-for-3 | 2-for-2 |
| Apr. 2 | Blues (vs) | 6-4 L | 62.5 | 58.8 | 68.0 | 63.7 | 0-for-1 | 0-for-1 |
| Apr. 4 | Kings (@) | 3-2 W | 58.3 | 56.8 | 41.2 | 53.5 | 0-for-2 | 5-for-6 |
| Apr. 6 | Ducks (@) | 4-2 W | 58.3 | 56.7 | 58.6 | 51.0 | 0-for-1 | 2-for-3 |
| This (Last) | — | 4-2-1 (4-2-1) | 59.1 (56.1) | 57.7 (59.4) | 57.6 (57.6) | 55.4 (56.9 | 4-for-18 (5-for-14) | 15-for-23 (13-for-15) |
From a five-on-five possession standpoint, the Flames were rock-solid in every game. They out-chanced their opposition in six of seven games and had more high-danger chances in five of seven. That’s good! At five-on-five they out-scored the opposition 21-11.
Their special teams were, um, much less good. Their power play scored four goals, while their penalty kill allowed eight goals. Heck, the PK got scored on in five of seven games and the PP only hit the scoreboard in three games. The Flames had success, but it was despite their special teams.
If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 81 points (81.1) after 70 games to be on track. They have 93 points so far, which is about 14 points ahead of the pace they’d be looking for and actually pretty close to the projected cutline. (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, and virtually assured of a post-season berth.
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through 70 games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.47, down from 3.43. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.49, up from 2.43. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +70, up from +65. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 23.5%, down from 23.9%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 83.2%, down from 85.4%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- They’ve taken 9.1 penalty minutes per game, down from 9.2. They’re 2nd (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.87, up from 2.84. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGA/60 is 2.29, up from 2.27. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF is 55.6%, unchanged from 55.6%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 8.36%, up from 8.12%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 92.76%, down from 92.77%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.011, up from 1.009. They’re 1st in the division.
The team-wide impacts line up pretty well with the game-by-game impacts. The Flames are quite good at five-on-five, in terms of both their process (xGF/xGA) and their results (GF and GA per game). Their special teams took a step back, with their PK success rate dropping by 2.2% over the past seven games. (Yikes.)
The Flames are first or second in their division in basically every meaningful statistical category.
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 | 138:06 (128:31) | 5 (2) | 6 (5) | 2.61 (2.33) | 31.3 (10.0) | 60.6 (65.0) | 48.8 (58.7) | 1.021 (1.040) | 1.15 (1.84) |
| Gaudreau | 131:25 (120:52) | 5 (6) | 15 (8) | 6.85 (3.97) | 20.0 (27.3) | 70.4 (67.6) | 62.1 (70.9) | 1.071 (1.034) | 2.60 (1.50) |
| Tkachuk | 125:43 (121:01) | 4 (2) | 10 (11) | 4.77 (5.45) | 15.4 (8.3) | 69.5 (68.3) | 60.4 (68.6) | 1.037 (1.026) | 1.97 (0.95) |
| Backlund | 121:10 (113:10) | 2 (2) | 5 (3) | 2.48 (1.59) | 10.5 (11.8) | 50.4 (49.7) | 46.0 (41.0) | 0.984 (1.056) | 0.83 (0.95) |
| Toffoli | 113:31 (104:07) | 2 (1) | 4 (4) | 2.11 (2.30) | 11.8 (4.8) | 60.1 (67.5) | 72.8 (68.9) | 1.003 (1.047) | 0.45 (0.69) |
| Mangiapane | 106:01 (104:39) | 0 (1) | 3 (1) | 1.70 (0.57) | 0.0 (10.0) | 54.5 (62.9) | 55.1 (65.7) | 0.954 (0.955) | 0.64 (0.58) |
| Coleman | 96:22 (106:40) | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.62 (0.56) | 0.0 (11.1) | 50.6 (48.9) | 61.7 (56.5) | 0.945 (1.022) | 0.33 (0.23) |
| Lewis | 91:24 (99:34) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (0.60) | 0.0 (0.0) | 43.5 (38.0) | 69.8 (48.3) | 0.986 (0.955) | 0.39 (0.02) |
| Dube | 89:54 (87:57) | 2 (2) | 3 (4) | 2.00 (2.73) | 11.8 (14.3) | 50.9 (45.0) | 62.1 (61.7) | 1.002 (1.022) | 0.39 (0.71) |
| Lucic | 78:01 (84:18) | 0 (1) | 1 (1) | 0.77 (0.71) | 0.0 (10.0) | 58.2 (53.9) | 67.5 (59.5) | 0.975 (0.969) | 0.38 (0.15) |
| Jarnkrok | 57:09 (42:40) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 1.05 (1.41) | 0.0 (0.0) | 59.3 (58.6) | 57.5 (62.9) | 0.980 (0.998) | 0.34 (0.40) |
| Carpenter | 44:34 (-) | 0 (-) | 1 (-) | 1.35 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 63.0 (-) | 55.0 (-) | 1.002 (-) | 0.69 (-) |
| Monahan | 22:07 (84:20) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 2.71 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 53.9 (55.8) | 71.4 (61.2) | 1.111 (0.942) | 1.08 (0.20) |
| Ritchie | 21:37 (24:18) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 2.77 (2.47) | 50.0 (20.0) | 65.4 (67.0) | 61.5 (64.3) | 1.143 (1.020) | 1.00 (1.04) |
| Ruzicka | 19:24 (23:52) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.00 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 48.1 (41.7) | 54.6 (54.6) | 1.100 (1.000) | 0.28 (0.37) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Mangiapane – Backlund – Toffoli
- Lucic – Monahan – Lewis
- Mangiapane – Jarnkrok – Coleman
The top line excelled, with super strong game scores (especially Johnny Gaudreau) and many points (especially Johnny Gaudreau). Gaudreau averaged just a smidge over two points per game with 15 during the seven games. That’s excellent.
Every other regular forward varied from decent to good, with Mikael Backlund leading the way. Nobody really struggled, with itself is fairly remarkable considering how rough the fourth line has been for the past couple of months. Sean Monahan going on long-term injury is unfortunate, but from a hockey perspective it makes it easier to have a functional fourth line. (Get well soon, Sean.)
One downside: not a lot of players beyond the top line scored many goals, but if you look at their PDOs this past segment it seems probable that a decent amount of that is puck luck: it’s not like they all got caved in possession-wise, they just couldn’t bury their chances.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 165:06 (160:37) | 1 (1) | 3 (6) | 1.09 (2.24) | 9.1 (8.3) | 61.6 (56.7) | 56.1 (63.1) | 0.999 (1.072) | 0.74 (1.25) |
| Hanifin | 153:43 (154:33) | 1 (1) | 6 (2) | 2.34 (0.78) | 7.1 (3.8) | 55.1 (50.6) | 47.2 (57.1) | 1.029 (1.020) | 1.27 (0.80) |
| Tanev | 138:24 (139:04) | 1 (0) | 3 (2) | 1.30 (0.86) | 20.0 (0.0) | 39.9 (61.8) | 47.9 (44.7) | 1.007 (0.948) | 1.01 (1.36) |
| Gudbranson | 130:43 (130:52) | 1 (0) | 2 (2) | 0.92 (0.92) | 9.1 (0.0) | 44.9 (45.7) | 43.5 (54.6) | 0.933 (1.011) | 0.76 (0.26) |
| Zadorov | 118:51 (124:40) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 0.50 (0.00) | 0.0 (0.0) | 57.3 (51.8) | 59.4 (67.2) | 0.958 (0.979) | 0.69 (0.16) |
| Kylington | 60:10 (86:57) | 1 (0) | 1 (1) | 1.00 (0.69) | 16.7 (0.0) | 52.4 (67.6) | 65.1 (51.7) | 1.009 (0.989) | 0.44 (1.24) |
| Stone | 53:03 (36:43) | 1 (0) | 3 (1) | 3.39 (1.63) | 16.7 (0.0) | 50.8 (58.4) | 60.0 (53.9) | 1.111 (0.987) | 1.27 (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.
Wanna know about defensive depth? None of the pairings were anything but pretty good this segment. Oliver Kylington was the “worst” defender (and was probably playing through something, if we’re being honest) and was replaced by Michael Stone, who slotted in alongside Chris Tanev and has been very good. But all three pairs played well, and the biggest criticism you can have is that Tanev and Erik Gudbranson’s numbers dipped a bit because the penalty kill struggled.
Heck, six different defenders scored goals over the last seven games. That’s quite impressive.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Markstrom | 421:51 (301:12) | .901 (.942) | .986 (.967) | .852 (.975) | .827 (.881) | 0.05 (0.77) |
| Vladar | – (118:00) | – (.929) | – (.971) | – (.909) | – (.667) | – (0.03) |
The Flames are trying to cement their playoff spot, so they leaned on Jacob Markstrom heavily and gave him all seven starts – including both halves of a back-to-back against Arizona and Edmonton. His numbers dipped, aside from his low-danger shot performances.
Is it fatigue? Yeah, that’s possible, because when you break it down he actually faced high-danger shots less frequently than he did in the prior seven games. (It could also be puck luck.)
Either way, it would be wise to use Daniel Vladar more… or at all… in the next seven game segment.
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
