Calgary Flames seven game segments 2021-22: 5-1-1 in third segment
By Ryan Pike
2 years agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 21 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of three seven game segments. Their third segment saw them go 5-1-1 over seven games, capturing 11 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. 14 | Senators (@) | 4-0 W | 55.8 | 64.3 | 55.6 | 64.2 | 1-for-4 | 5-for-5 |
| Nov. 16 | Flyers (@) | 2-1 OTL | 44.2 | 52.4 | 52.9 | 44.8 | 0-for-2 | 4-for-4 |
| Nov. 18 | Sabres (@) | 5-0 W | 59.2 | 63.2 | 56.3 | 54.9 | 1-for-2 | 2-for-2 |
| Nov. 20 | Islanders (@) | 5-2 W | 47.2 | 43.2 | 29.4 | 39.0 | 2-for-4 | 5-for-6 |
| Nov. 22 | Bruins (@) | 4-0 W | 50.0 | 58.3 | 50.0 | 53.2 | 0-for-2 | 3-for-3 |
| Nov. 24 | Blackhawks (vs) | 5-2 W | 61.0 | 65.4 | 64.7 | 68.0 | 0-for-0 | 1-for-1 |
| Nov. 27 | Jets (vs) | 4-2 L | 65.4 | 62.5 | 66.7 | 62.8 | 1-for-4 | 3-for-3 |
| This (Last) | — | 5-1-1 (2-2-3) | 55.0 (57.0) | 58.3 (58.8) | 53.9 (60.0) | 55.0 (58.6) | 5-for-20 (5-for-24) | 23-for-24 (18-for-21) |
All-told, the Flames were a very solid bunch and led across the board in possession metrics. Their metrics, though, all took a tiny step backwards relative to last segment. Their special teams shined, though, with five PP goals for and just one PP goal allowed.
If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 24 points after 21 games to be on track. They have 29 points so far, roughly five points ahead of a playoff pace.
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compare within the Pacific Division through seven games (all rankings out of eight teams):
- Their goals for per game is 3.33, up from 3.14. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their goals against per game is 2.00, down from 2.29. They’re 1st (lowest) in the division.
- Their goal differential is +28, up from +12. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their power play is at 24.6%, up from 23.3%. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their penalty kill is at 88.2%, up from 84.1%. They’re 1st in the division.
- They’ve taken 9.4 penalty minutes per game, up from 8.7. They’re 4th (highest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.43, down from 2.53. They’re 2nd in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.08, down from 2.19. They’re 2nd (lowest) in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF is 54.0%, up from 53.6%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 7.71% up from 7.27%. They’re 4th in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 95.07%, up from 94.86%. They’re 1st in the division.
- Their 5v5 PDO is 1.028, up from 1.021. They’re 1st in the division.
The Flames are a little bit less good at generating expected goals than they were previously, but their percentages went up at five-on-five and their power play was more potent than before so their goals for per game went up. Defensively they were better at preventing expected goals and their penalty kill improved (and their goaltending was superb), so their goals against per game went down.
The Flames are a team that’s riding the goaltending percentages a bit but they’re league-average in shooting percentage, so the goaltending metrics are driving their PDO run. But they’re both good and lucky these days, which is probably a good thing to be.
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 | 138:37 (144:40) | 2 (0) | 9 (6) | 3.90 (2.49) | 9.1 (0.0) | 60.5 (55.2) | 48.6 (55.2) | 1.089 (1.043) | 1.96 (1.39) |
| Tkachuk | 120:54 (131:19) | 4 (4) | 8 (7) | 3.97 (3.20) | 10.4 (16.0) | 73.7 (64.0) | 68.0 (66.1) | 1.070 (1.027) | 1.83 (1.56) |
| Backlund | 119:07 (120:34) | 1 (2) | 3 (2) | 1.51 (1.00) | 7.6 (11.1) | 50.7 (48.1) | 43.8 (37.0) | 1.041 (0.929) | 0.91 (0.40) |
| Gaudreau | 117:03 (132:07) | 5 (3) | 10 (5) | 5.13 (2.27) | 16.4 (16.7) | 73.9 (60.0) | 67.5 (65.5) | 1.062 (1.036) | 2.36 (1.24) |
| Mangiapane | 112:58 (104:16) | 6 (2) | 0 (4) | 3.19 (2.30) | 25.0 (18.2) | 64.8 (64.5) | 58.3 (62.3) | 1.054 (0.949) | 1.30 (1.08) |
| Coleman | 108:42 (101:55) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 0.55 (0.59) | 0.0 (0.0) | 57.7 (51.9) | 51.7 (52.6) | 1.030 (0.979) | 0.45 (0.48) |
| Monahan | 97:18 (105:34) | 0 (2) | 4 (5) | 2.47 (2.84) | 0.0 (16.7) | 65.2 (63.0) | 70.9 (64.9) | 0.996 (1.054) | 0.38 (0.59) |
| Lewis | 94:49 (93:43) | 2 (0) | 2 (2) | 1.27 (1.28) | 8.9 (0.0) | 34.9 (40.8) | 54.0 (37.9) | 1.075 (1.021) | 0.36 (0.31) |
| Dube | 82:28 (97:42) | 1 (0) | 2 (2) | 1.46 (1.23) | 11.1 (0.0) | 58.9 (65.2) | 60.0 (58.9) | 1.011 (0.954) | 0.34 (0.61) |
| Richardson | 81:18 (54:01) | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | 1.48 (1.11) | 16.7 (33.3) | 37.8 (37.7) | 58.0 (41.7) | 1.062 (1.010) | 0.36 (0.04) |
| Lucic | 81:12 (88:55) | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0.74 (2.02) | 12.5 (22.2) | 50.9 (53.0) | 61.8 (55.7) | 1.093 (0.930) | 0.17 (0.38) |
| Pitlick | 67:07 (83:10) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (0.72) | 0.0 (0.0) | 46.0 (49.5) | 60.0 (49.1) | 0.971 (0.874) | 0.03 (-0.20) |
| Duehr | 8:46 (-) | 0 (-) | 0 (-) | 0.00 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 41.8 (-) | 16.7 (-) | 1.000 (-) | 0.17 (-) |
| Ritchie | – (10:19) | – (0) | – (0) | – (0.00) | – (0.0) | – (79.4) | – (80.0) | – (1.000) | – (0.26) |
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Mangiapane – Backlund – Coleman
- Dube – Monahan – Pitlick
- Lucic – Richardson – Lewis
Walker Duehr made his NHL debut this segment and was perfectly fine, albeit in a very small role. Adam Ruzicka was called up for the seventh game but didn’t dress in this segment.
There’s a bit of shuffling in terms of player usage, with the biggest change being fairly decent reductions for a bunch of forwards who usually play the power play – the Flames had fewer PPs than in the prior segment.
The Flames have a well-defined group of six core forwards, and Sean Monahan isn’t part of that group. (Monahan is still a PP1 fixture, though.) Blake Coleman hasn’t been scoring, but the puck is going in for his teammates (look at that PDO for himself, Backlund and Mangiapane!), so in theory it should start going in for him, too. Even with the consistent PP usage, Monahan’s overall game impacts are similar to Dube, Richardson and Lewis’.
The Flames have three forward lines that seem to be working quite well, but the Dube-Monahan-Pitlick line is a bit of a mishmash, and one could argue that Tyler Pitlick is dragging the line down as much as anybody else.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | OZF% | PDO | Game score |
| Andersson | 151:31 (155:16) | 0 (0) | 4 (3) | 1.58 (1.16) | 0.0 (0.0) | 65.7 (58.3) | 57.8 (63.2) | 1.043 (1.012) | 1.70 (0.78) |
| Tanev | 150:39 (146:37) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) | 0.80 (0.82) | 0.0 (0.0) | 45.1 (51.6) | 41.0 (37.1) | 1.088 (0.939) | 0.86 (1.08) |
| Hanifin | 142:18 (149:40) | 1 (0) | 5 (1) | 2.11 (0.40) | 8.3 (0.0) | 61.6 (52.3) | 52.9 (54.9) | 1.062 (0.983) | 1.65 (0.36) |
| Kylington | 130:00 (125:42) | 1 (2) | 3 (6) | 1.38 (2.86) | 4.6 (14.3) | 62.7 (61.1) | 60.8 (45.7) | 1.096 (0.989) | 1.11 (1.52) |
| Gudbranson | 128:41 (122:31) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | 0.00 (0.49) | 0.0 (0.0) | 32.3 (38.0) | 41.5 (37.7) | 0.996 (0.977) | 0.06 (0.26) |
| Zadorov | 99:01 (112:19) | 1 (1) | 2 (2) | 1.21 (1.07) | 6.1 (11.1) | 48.1 (49.7) | 60.0 (44.1) | 1.030 (1.024) | 0.41 (0.75) |
| 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
Michael Stone was on the active roster for this entire segment but didn’t dress. Oliver Kylington joined Noah Hanifin on PP2 sometimes, but not consistently.
The Flames have a well-defined group of six defenders right now and a clear top four. Kylington’s usage is closer to Erik Gudbranson’s because he doesn’t play on the penalty kill (and Gudbranson does), but so far all three pairings have clear functions and uses and are doing well in those functions. Gudbranson was, however, the worst defender on the team last segment, arguably the Pitlick of the defensive group, and Zadorov’s numbers dipped fairly noticeably as well.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Avg. GSAX |
| Markström | 299:58 (361:27) | .942 (.916) | .983 (.955) | .919 (.943) | .894 (.788) | 0.64 (0.02) |
| Vladar | 120:00 (62:31) | 1.000 (.946) | 1.000 (.923) | 1.000 (.938) | 1.000 (1.000) | 2.13 (1.26) |
The Flames had a goalie rock a .942 save percentage this segment, and he wasn’t even their best goalie. Dan Vladar played twice and had two shutouts. Jacob Markström played five times and had one shutout. It’s hard to quibble with the quality of netminding the Flames are getting lately.
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
