Flames in seven games: 4-2-1 in third segment
By Ryan Pike
4 years agoThe Calgary Flames have completed 21 games of the 2019-20 regular season calendar. They’re 25.6% of the way through their season, and so we continue the fine tradition of examining their performances in bite-sized seven game morsels. In the first seven games of this season, they went 3-3-1. In their second seven games, they went 3-3-1. In their third seven games, they went 4-2-1, a slight improvement.
Underlying numbers via Natural Stat Trick.
Game by game
(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5.)
| Date | Opponent | Result | CF% | SC% | HDSC% | PP | PK |
| Oct. 31 | Predators (@) | 6-5 OTW | 51.8 | 48.7 | 27.3 | 0-for-3 | 3-for-3 |
| Nov. 2 | Blue Jackets (@) | 3-0 W | 48.0 | 52.1 | 53.3 | 0-for-2 | 3-for-3 |
| Nov. 3 | Capitals (@) | 4-2 L | 56.1 | 55.3 | 57.9 | 0-for-2 | 1-for-2 |
| Nov. 5 | Coyotes (vs) | 4-3 OTW | 63.1 | 58.3 | 42.9 | 2-for-6 | 5-for-5 |
| Nov. 7 | Devils (vs) | 5-2 W | 55.4 | 67.5 | 70.6 | 2-for-6 | 3-for-3 |
| Nov. 9 | Blues (vs) | 3-2 OTL | 50.0 | 45.7 | 54.6 | 0-for-2 | 2-for-4 |
| Nov. 13 | Stars (vs) | 3-1 L | 48.4 | 51.2 | 40.0 | 1-for-4 | 2-for-3 |
The Flames played four games at home (2-1-1) and three on the road (2-1-1). For those who like to keep track, the Flames had two wins and two losses in regulation, and went to overtime three times.
Team stats
The Flames have a 10-8-3 record through their first 21 games, trending slightly upward from their first two segments. They’ve been playing a little bit better lately, but generally speaking we still haven’t seen them play a statement game where they really impose their will on an opponent. More often than not, they get behind in their games and have to claw their way back into things.
- Their goals for per game is 2.76, up from 2.50. They’re 23rd overall in the NHL and 10th in the Western Conference.
- Their goals against per game is 2.90, down from 2.93. They’re 14th in the NHL, and eighth in the Western Conference.
- Their goal differential is -1, up from -4. That puts them 20th in the NHL, and seventh in the Western Conference.
- Their power play is at 18.6%, up from 17.8%. It’s 18th in the NHL, and eighth in the Western Conference.
- Their penalty kill is at 85.5%, down from 86.8%. It’s seventh in the NHL and fourth in the Western Conference.
- They’ve taken 9.8 minutes of penalties per game, down from 10.5. That’s ninth-most in the NHL, and fifth-most in the Western Conference.
- Their 5v5 CF/60 is 58.89, up from 58.05. It’s the sixth highest in the NHL, and third among Western Conference teams.
- Their 5v5 CA/60 is 54.88, down from 55.65. It’s the 16th lowest in the NHL, and eighth lowest among Western Conference teams.
- Their 5v5 CF is 51.7%, up from 51.1%. It’s the 10th highest in the NHL, and third among Western Conference teams.
- Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 7.01%, up from 6.97%. It’s 26th in the NHL.
- Their 5v5 save percentage is 91.46%, up from 91.02%. It’s 21st in the NHL.
- Their PDO is 0.985, up from 0.980. It’s 23rd in the NHL.
The Flames had slightly better standings results than in previous segments and were slightly better in a few key respects, but generally speaking they were the same inconsistent group that we saw in the prior 14 games.
They’re a pretty decent offensive possession team (top third in the NHL), a middling defensive possession team (middle third in the NHL) but pretty rough in terms of burying the bounces (bottom third in the NHL in save and shooting percentage). Eventually their luck will improve, but it seems likely that better defensive zone play would go a long way towards salvaging some of their closer games.
In terms of special teams, their power play is slightly better (but still bottom third) while their penalty kill is slightly worse (but still top third).
Player stats
First, the forwards (all situations, ordered by ice time).
Game scores: 0.950 and above is considered great; 0.450-0.950 good; 0.150-0.450 fine; -0.150-0.150 bad; under -0.150 awful.
| Player | TOI | Goals | Points | P/60 | SH% | CF% | GF% | OZFO% | Game score |
| Lindholm | 417:34 | 10 | 17 | 2.44 | 19.6 | 52.4 | 55.8 | 54.2 | 0.818 |
| Gaudreau | 415:27 | 5 | 18 | 2.60 | 8.8 | 58.8 | 59.1 | 67.4 | 0.881 |
| Monahan | 393:16 | 5 | 17 | 2.59 | 9.8 | 56.7 | 55.3 | 66.8 | 0.704 |
| Backlund | 386:31 | 3 | 8 | 1.24 | 6.5 | 51.5 | 48.7 | 52.1 | 0.487 |
| Tkachuk | 383:07 | 10 | 20 | 3.13 | 15.6 | 60.2 | 61.2 | 64.6 | 1.061 |
| Ryan | 295:00 | 3 | 9 | 1.83 | 10.7 | 43.0 | 59.1 | 41.5 | 0.340 |
| Bennett | 252:33 | 3 | 5 | 1.19 | 9.1 | 53.5 | 62.5 | 57.9 | 0.308 |
| Frolik | 237:24 | 1 | 3 | 0.76 | 5.0 | 46.6 | 19.1 | 48.4 | 0.121 |
| Lucic | 232:21 | 0 | 3 | 0.77 | 0.0 | 57.1 | 44.4 | 58.7 | 0.141 |
| Mangiapane | 226:39 | 3 | 7 | 1.85 | 12.0 | 52.3 | 57.1 | 48.7 | 0.481 |
| Jankowski | 184:10 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.0 | 43.8 | 0.0 | 25.7 | 0.078 |
| Rieder | 166:52 | 1 | 1 | 0.36 | 5.0 | 46.7 | 12.5 | 39.0 | 0.219 |
| Quine | 88:15 | 1 | 1 | 0.68 | 8.3 | 51.6 | 33.3 | 49.1 | 0.179 |
| Czarnik | 81:03 | 2 | 3 | 2.21 | 22.2 | 54.6 | 75.0 | 58.9 | 0.394 |
As we saw in the prior segments, Bill Peters plays the heck out of his top five forwards. If you’re not in that group, you’re seeing a lot less ice.
In terms of the results, the Flames remain pretty top-heavy. By counting stats and underlying metrics, the Flames are carried by four key forwards: Gaudreau, Monahan, Lindholm and Tkachuk. Heck, Tkachuk is currently the team’s runaway leader for game score, a proxy for game impacts. You’ll notice that Backlund plays a heck-ton but his impacts are significantly less than the other four big guns. Some of that is a product of his low personal shooting percentage and some of that is a product of his placement on the underwhelming second PP unit.
Among the rest of the forwards, Ryan and Mangiapane have promising results and seem like the guys to build around. The challenge for the Flames is that the remaining pieces have seen fairly middling performances when on the ice. Heck, the team has been out-scored 13-0 when Jankowski is on the ice. That’s not a good look.
The Flames’ most common line combinations at 5v5 have been:
| Gaudreau | Monahan | Lindholm |
| Tkachuk | Backlund | Mangiapane |
| Tkachuk | Backlund | Frolik |
There’s a pretty big ice time disparity from the first trio to every other line combination.
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
| Player | TOI | Goals | Points | P/60 | SH% | CF% | GF% | OZFO% | Game score |
| Giordano | 515:43 | 4 | 13 | 1.51 | 7.7 | 49.9 | 50.8 | 48.8 | 0.737 |
| Hamonic | 445:45 | 1 | 4 | 0.54 | 3.3 | 42.5 | 34.9 | 34.9 | 0.360 |
| Hanifin | 444:52 | 3 | 7 | 0.94 | 8.1 | 49.1 | 41.7 | 47.7 | 0.470 |
| Brodie | 403:27 | 0 | 8 | 1.19 | 0.0 | 51.3 | 47.1 | 48.2 | 0.412 |
| Andersson | 399:31 | 2 | 6 | 0.90 | 5.1 | 56.2 | 56.7 | 64.2 | 0.470 |
| Kylington | 187:27 | 0 | 1 | 0.32 | 0.0 | 52.1 | 50.0 | 64.4 | 0.196 |
| Stone | 87:51 | 1 | 2 | 1.37 | 11.1 | 42.5 | 42.9 | 46.8 | 0.196 |
It appears Giordano is slowing down a bit – his impacts are noticeably dipping and his possession stats remain underwater – while he’s by far the most-used player on the team. Heck, he’s played 70 minutes more than Hamonic (which is insane). Peters has experimented with using Brodie on PP1 rather than Giordano as a load management option, which may be a good idea to keep Mr. Young and Fresh… fresh.
Even with the dip, Giordano remains the team’s best defender. Peters shuffled up pairings this segment, but it didn’t have much of an impact on overall deployments.
And finally, goalies (all situations):
| Player | TOI | SV% | ldSV% | mdSV% | hdSV% | Game score |
| Rittich | 961:39 | .914 | .972 | .886 | .819 | 0.850 |
| Talbot | 311:58 | .907 | .957 | .950 | .735 | 0.483 |
We hope you’re sitting down: Rittich is pretty good. He’s played a ton and has been strong in every situation. Talbot has played less and out-performed Rittich in medium-danger situations, but otherwise the top netminder has out-paced his backup. Not to rag on Talbot: he’s been a perfectly acceptable backup and given the team a chance to win when he’s played.
Recent articles from Ryan Pike
