Golden Knights 4, Flames 0 post-game embers: Could’ve sworn I just saw this

This time, the Flames skipped with the pretence of scoring goals, and just let themselves fall into their quick second period collapse without fanfare.

The Flames had a great first, largely controlling the flow of play and making Marc-Andre Fleury work, while Mike Smith didn’t have too much to do. Or at least that’s how things went in theory; while the Flames outshot Vegas 20-6 in the first, according to Natural Stat Trick, they won the scoring chance battle 11-7, and had more high danger corsi events, 5-3, so the ice wasn’t as tilted as it initially appeared. They probably deserved to come out of the period with a lead, though.

There is something to say for taking a bunch of low percentage shots not likely to go in. But if all the Flames do is take high percentage shots, are they suddenly that much more likely to win? How many times throughout the year have we watched the Flames go in with a lopsided odd-man rush and come away without even getting a shot on net because they were too busy passing, too busy looking for the perfect play that they neglected to even get any kind of a scoring chance at all? You take the shots you can get and maybe you get lucky (see: some of the nonsense Mike Smith has given up as early as a game ago).

Then, there’s the part where you don’t let narratives get in the way of actual data. The Flames have been better at getting more shots in high danger areas throughout the entire season:

Sometimes it’s just not your game. Or year. At all. That’s how sports work. That’s how a chaotic sport like hockey in particular works, and there really isn’t much to be done about it. If the Flames were getting the luck they got in 2014-15 nobody would be saying a word. They aren’t, so it’s constant angst in its place. Oh well.

Something they can control, though, is not giving up the second they go down a goal.

Four goals against in the second period. The first two were 53 seconds apart. Goals three and four were 1:48 apart. This keeps happening – the broadcast pointed out that they’re something like 20+ instances in which they allow multiple goals mere minutes apart – and, aside from their poor shooting percentage, it’s probably what’s damning them the most.

Can’t score, even when getting chances. Crumble the second another team does succeed. The former may not be in their power, but the latter is.

Mike Smith followed up a dramatic breakaway save with getting beat on the powerplay, getting beat on an easily avoidable two-on-one, getting beat by having the puck go off his glove, and getting beat on a final two-on-one, this time no pass option in play. He wasn’t at his best, again, but he didn’t get any real help, either.

It was a team loss. The third period was just a formality at that point; you knew they weren’t coming back from that. Maybe they would have had a chance if they had limited the dam’s breaking, but honestly, the last time they had anything that could be termed a “comeback victory” was Feb. 11, a 3-2 victory over the Islanders after being down 2-0 early in the second period. That’s about it in this calendar year.

Taking a step back from the overall pathetic play the past couple of games, it wasn’t exactly surprising that the Flames lost them, considering the quality of opponent. Even with those losses, though, they still remain in the hunt, just without much hope remaining. Beating up on lottery teams, plus those two games against the Ducks and the Kings, are the really important ones here.

That poses two outlooks. One: hope remains, even from a realistic standpoint. It’s bleak, but not out of the question.

And two: what’s the point of hope remaining if this is how they’re going to show against playoff-level teams? Does it matter much if Sean Monahan is rumoured to not at full health? If Matthew Tkachuk has to continue missing games? That T.J. Brodie didn’t play the third period? Maybe it does in the scheme of getting more points on the board, but in the terms of the rest of this season – would any of it make a meaningful difference?