Flames in seven games: 4-3-0 in eighth (and final) segment
By Ryan Pike
2 years agoThe Calgary Flames have finished their 56 game, eight segment, 2020-21 regular season. Their finished their eighth and final segment with a 4-3-0 record.
Underlying numbers via Natural Stat Trick.
Game by game
(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5.)
| Date | Opponent | Result | CF% | SC% | HDSC% | xGF% | PP | PK |
| May 1 | Oilers (@) | 4-1 L | 61.4 | 59.4 | 50.0 | 56.0 | 0-for-3 | 1-for-2 |
| May 5 | Jets (vs) | 4-0 L | 62.7 | 57.9 | 30.0 | 56.8 | 0-for-5 | 2-for-3 |
| May 9 | Senators (vs) | 6-1 W | 63.0 | 69.1 | 81.3 | 73.7 | 1-for-1 | 3-for-3 |
| May 13 | Canucks (vs) | 4-1 W | 55.8 | 60.5 | 54.6 | 52.9 | 1-for-4 | 1-for-1 |
| May 16 | Canucks (@) | 6-5 OTW | 61.0 | 52.8 | 70.0 | 56.5 | 0-for-6 | 2-for-4 |
| May 18 | Canucks (@) | 4-2 L | 53.8 | 59.5 | 62.5 | 64.1 | 0-for-3 | 3-for-3 |
| May 19 | Canucks (vs) | 6-2 W | 55.1 | 62.5 | 76.0 | 65.7 | 0-for-2 | 4-for-5 |
| This 7 | — | 4-3-0 | 58.8 | 60.5 | 64.0 | 61.5 | 2/24 | 16/21 |
| Last 7 | — | 4-3-0 | 53.2 | 56.3 | 65.4 | 60.4 | 2/14 | 14/17 |
The Flames won four of seven, with all of their wins coming against non-playoff teams. On the whole, they were pretty strong at five-on-five, getting the better of their opponents for the most part. But their special teams performance was anything but, out-scored 5-2 in the segment.
If you’re looking for positives, even given their opposition, there are positives to be found. After Darryl Sutter took over as head coach on Mar. 11, the Flames went 15-15-0. Their analytic percentages were 55.0% Corsi For (2nd in NHL), 55.2% Scoring Chances For (5th in NHL), 56.3% High-Danger Chances For (3rd in NHL) and 55.6% Expected Goals For (2nd in NHL).
Team stats
Here’s how the Flames compared within the (Scotia NHL) North Division through 56 games:
- Their goals for per game was 2.77, up from 2.65. They’re sixth in the division.
- Their goals against per game was 2.86, up from 2.84. They’re fourth in the division.
- Their goal differential was -5, up from -9. They’re fourth in the division.
- Their power play was 18.3%, down from 19.9%. They’re fifth in the division.
- Their penalty kill was 80.2%, down from 80.8%. They’re third in the division.
- They took 8.0 penalty minutes per game, up from 7.9. They’re fourth in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 was 2.24, up from 2.19. They’re second in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF/60 was 1.93, down from 1.97. They’re first in the division.
- Their 5v5 xGF was 53.8%, up from 52.7% They’re second in the division.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage was 8.54%, up from 8.01%. They’re fourth in the division.
- Their 5v5 save percentage was 91.52%, up from 91.51%. They’re fourth in the division.
- Their PDO was 1.001, up from 0.995. They’re fourth in the division.
In the previous segment, the Flames improved in several of key areas. This segment continued them nudging along in good directions overall. The big positives? Their penalty killing, especially relative to the scary-good North Division power plays, and their overall defensive game.
Player stats
First, the forwards (all situations, ordered by ice time). Last segment’s values in brackets.
Game scores: Positive values indicate positive impact, negative values reflect negative impact.
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | GF% | OZF% | Game score |
| Lindholm | 139:19 (131:13) | 2 (6) | 4 (7) | 1.7 (3.2) | 15.4 (30.0) | 58.7 (66.1) | 45.5 (75.0) | 54.4 (47.1) | 0.713 (1.734) |
| Gaudreau | 131:56 (118:49) | 2 (2) | 11 (7) | 5.0 (3.5) | 10.5 (15.4) | 63.8 (62.0) | 52.2 (69.2) | 67.0 (64.8) | 1.464 (1.710) |
| Backlund | 131:52 (124:30) | 1 (0) | 5 (2) | 2.3 (1.0) | 5.3 (0.0) | 62.4 (44.0) | 57.1 (42.9) | 50.5 (39.0) | 1.430 (0.427) |
| Tkachuk | 126:58 (125:52) | 6 (0) | 10 (4) | 4.7 (1.9) | 27.3 (0.0) | 71.2 (62.7) | 55.0 (75.0) | 66.7 (56.5) | 1.733 (1.337) |
| Mangiapane | 112:31 (113:49) | 5 (1) | 6 (4) | 3.2 (2.1) | 29.4 (8.3) | 59.9 (56.0) | 61.5 (60.0) | 59.5 (50.6) | 1.607 (0.807) |
| Ryan | 95:49 (84:33) | 0 (0) | 4 (3) | 2.5 (2.1) | 0.0 (0.0) | 61.5 (59.8) | 54.6 (66.7) | 47.3 (48.8) | 0.991 (0.934) |
| Lucic | 94:37 (97:10) | 1 (2) | 3 (3) | 1.9 (1.8) | 11.1 (28.6) | 61.3 (53.5) | 50.0 (62.5) | 63.6 (51.5) | 0.756 (0.749) |
| Dube | 91:43 (101:21) | 2 (2) | 4 (2) | 2.6 (1.2) | 13.3 (20.0) | 57.9 (55.1) | 55.6 (60.0) | 59.2 (39.1) | 1.093 (0.667) |
| Nordstrom | 79:49 (88:22) | 0 (0) | 3 (2) | 2.3 (1.4) | 0.0 (0.0) | 60.9 (47.0) | 50.0 (57.1) | 47.0 (46.8) | 0.847 (0.467) |
| Ritchie | 70:07 (83:55) | 1 (1) | 3 (1) | 2.6 (0.7) | 14.3 (12.5) | 57.3 (51.7) | 80.0 (40.0) | 43.8 (50.0) | 0.624 (0.191) |
| Monahan | 44:43 (115:21) | 0 (2) | 0 (4) | 0.0 (2.1) | 0.0 (25.0) | 51.8 (61.7) | 33.3 (60.0) | 56.4 (51.7) | 0.143 (0.804) |
| Ruzicka | 32:15 (-) | 0 (-) | 1 (-) | 1.9 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 63.8 (-) | 100 (-) | 52.6 (-) | 0.657 (-) |
| Leivo | 26:37 (30:19) | 1 (1) | 2 (1) | 4.5 (2.0) | 50.0 (16.7) | 60.0 (77.4) | 100 (33.3) | 64.3 (42.9) | 1.720 (0.700) |
| Gawdin | 20:00 (-) | 0 (-) | 1 (-) | 3.0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 54.8 (-) | 100 (-) | 54.6 (-) | 0.855 (-) |
| Robinson | 18:15 (20:28) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 70.1 (59.2) | n/a (100) | 50.0 (58.3) | 0.310 (0.350) |
| Simon | 18:06 (-) | 0 (-) | 0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 50.4 (-) | 50.0 (-) | 41.7 (-) | 0.310 (-) |
| Phillips | 14:19 (-) | 0 (-) | 0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 76.6 (-) | n/a (-) | 62.5 (-) | 0.620 (-) |
The five most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
- Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
- Nordstrom – Backlund – Mangiapane
- Lucic – Backlund – Dube
- Mangiapane – Monahan – Ritchie
- Nordstrom – Ryan – Robinson
Aside from Sean Monahan, who missed four games due to injury, basically all the major Flames forwards you’d want to see strong finishes from had strong finishes. Among them: Johnny Gaudreau, Matthew Tkachuk, Andrew Mangiapane, Dillon Dube and Mikael Backlund. Nobody was really bad in this segment, all things considered.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | G | P | P/60 | SH% | xGF% | GF% | OZF% | Game score |
| Giordano | 175:24 (174:00) | 1 (1) | 3 (3) | 1.0 (1.0) | 3.03 (14.3) | 67.7 (61.1) | 66.7 (69.2) | 54.7 (45.8) | 2.364 (1.206) |
| Tanev | 145:52 (161:39) | 0 (0) | 3 (3) | 1.2 (1.1) | 0.0 (0.0) | 66.7 (58.6) | 69.2 (53.9) | 45.0 (34.2) | 2.384 (1.203) |
| Andersson | 145:49 (149:34) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 0.8 (1.2) | 10.0 (0.0) | 48.8 (59.2) | 47.1 (70.0) | 53.1 (57.3) | 0.269 (1.339) |
| Stone | 114:45 (108:55) | 1 (0) | 2 (1) | 1.1 (0.6) | 7.1 (8.3) | 55.3 (49.7) | 41.7 (50.0) | 51.5 (52.3) | 0.719 (0.503) |
| Nesterov | 92:22 (47:19) | 0 (0) | 1 (0) | 0.7 (0.0) | 0.0 (0.0) | 48.7 (39.8) | 30.0 (100) | 46.9 (40.0) | -0.302 (0.700) |
| Valimaki | 68:04 (100:10) | 0 (0) | 2 (0) | 1.8 (0.0) | 0.0 (33.3) | 52.1 (57.9) | 55.6 (57.1) | 55.6 (59.6) | 0.773 (0.576) |
| Mackey | 47:58 (-) | 1 (-) | 2 (-) | 2.5 (-) | 33.3 (-) | 56.5 (-) | 60.0 (-) | 53.1 (-) | 1.183 (-) |
| Kylington | 29:00 (-) | 0 (-) | 0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 65.3 (-) | 0.0 (-) | 47.4 (-) | 0.550 (-) |
| Hanifin | – (87:24) | – (1) | – (2) | – (1.4) | – (0.0) | – (50.8) | – (41.7) | – (43.3) | – (0.888) |
The three most common defensive pairings were (in descending order):
- Giordano & Tanev
- Nesterov & Andersson
- Valimaki & Stone
Mark Giordano and Chris Tanev were fantastic in this segment. Nikita Nesterov wasn’t very good from an analytical standpoint. Everybody else was decent, but the blueline group was dragged along by the top pairing.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | GSAA |
| Markstrom | 342:07 (415:25) | .898 (.925) | .946 (.964) | .913 (.913) | .784 (.842) | -0.645 (-0.117) |
| Domingue | 57:42 (-) | .870 (-) | 1.000 (-) | 1.000 (-) | .400 (-) | -1.590 (-) |
Goalies are listed with goals stopped above average. Neither goalie was great overall, but Markstrom was distinctly better than a rusty Domingue.
Recent articles from Ryan Pike
