The Calgary Flames have completed 14 games of their 2021-22 regular season schedule, the equivalent of two seven game segments. Their second segment saw them win just twice, with a 2-2-3 record overall and earning half of the available points
Underlying numbers via Natural Stat Trick.

Game by game

(Percentage stats in this table are 5v5.)
Date
Opponent
Result
CF%
SC%
HDC%
xGF%
PP
PK
Oct. 30
Flyers (vs)
4-0 W
58.7
70.7
76.9
61.3
2-for-5
3-for-3
Nov. 2
Predators (vs)
3-2 OTL
61.2
69.1
68.8
71.4
1-for-6
2-for-2
Nov. 4
Stars (vs)
4-3 OTL
57.3
55.9
64.3
57.0
1-for-5
2-for-3
Nov. 6
Rangers (vs)
6-0 W
59.8
62.3
57.1
66.1
1-for-3
3-for-3
Nov. 9
Sharks (vs)
4-1 L
54.6
59.2
56.0
60.5
0-for-3
2-for-2
Nov. 11
Canadiens (@)
4-2 L
55.3
52.9
46.2
45.7
0-for-1
3-for-5
Nov. 12
Maple Leafs (@)
2-1 OTL
47.1
44.8
56.5
41.6
0-for-1
3-for-3
This
(Last)
2-2-3
(5-1-1)
57.0
(52.7)
58.8
(55.2)
60.0
(47.1)
58.6
(48.4)
5-for-24
(5-for-19)
18-for-21
(19-for-23)
The Flames were generally better in terms of possession hockey than they were in the first segment, but weren’t nearly as opportunistic as they were in the prior seven games. You can also point to their two road games as their two worst games of this segment – rather handily so.
If you place the playoff cut line at 95 points, the Flames would need about 16 points after 14 games to be on track. They have 18 points so far, roughly a single win ahead of a playoff pace.
Advertisement
Ad

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 3.14, down from 3.57. They’re 3rd in the division.
  • Their goals against per game is 2.29, up from 2.14. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their goal differential is +12, up from +10. They’re 2nd in the division.
  • Their power play is at 23.3%, down from 26.3%. They’re 3rd in the division.
  • Their penalty kill is at 84.1%, up from 82.6%. They’re 4th in the division.
  • They’ve taken 8.7 penalty minutes per game, down from 9.1. They’re 6th in the division.
  • Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.53, up from 2.24. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their 5v5 xGF/60 is 2.19, down from 2.39. They’re 2nd in the division.
  • Their 5v5 xGF is 53.6%, up from 48.4%. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their 5v5 shooting percentage is 7.27% down from 8.21%. They’re 6th in the division.
  • Their 5v5 save percentage is 94.86%, down from 95.38%. They’re 1st in the division.
  • Their 5v5 PDO is 1.021, down from 1.036. They’re 1st in the division.
In terms of underlying numbers, the Flames are better offensively and defensively at even strength than they were in the first segment. But they’re less opportunistic: their shooting percentage has dropped, as has their save percentage, so their goals for and against per game have gone in the wrong direction. Their power play is slightly less potent, while their penalty kill has been more effective.
All-in-all, if they play this well on the whole for the remainder of the season, they’ll be in good shape.

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
144:40
(137:34)
0
(7)
6
(8)
2.49
(3.49)
0.0
(36.8)
55.2
(59.4)
55.2
(37.6)
1.043
(1.104)
1.39
(1.40)
Gaudreau
132:07
(129:52)
3
(1)
5
(10)
2.27
(4.62)
16.7
(5.3)
60.0
(58.8)
65.5
(52.7)
1.036
(1.098)
1.24
(1.70)
Tkachuk
131:19
(120:45)
4
(2)
7
(4)
3.20
(1.99)
16.0
(8.0)
64.0
(63.8)
66.1
(51.6)
1.027
(1.067)
1.56
(1.24)
Backlund
120:34
(120:37)
2
(1)
2
(3)
1.00
(1.49)
11.1
(9.1)
48.1
(47.6)
37.0
(37.8)
0.929
(0.997)
0.40
(0.54)
Monahan
105:34
(104:13)
2
(0)
5
(1)
2.84
(0.58)
16.7
(0.0)
63.0
(58.0)
64.9
(64.0)
1.054
(0.943)
0.59
(0.25)
Mangiapane
104:16
(103:04)
2
(7)
4
(7)
2.30
(4.08)
18.2
(35.0)
64.5
(50.6)
62.3
(54.6)
0.949
(1.018)
1.08
(1.12)
Coleman
101:55
(98:46)
0
(3)
1
(4)
0.59
(2.43)
0.0
(11.1)
51.9
(55.5)
52.6
(45.2)
0.979
(1.088)
0.48
(1.10)
Dube
97:42
(99:10)
0
(1)
2
(5)
1.23
(3.03)
0.0
(5.3)
65.2
(45.6)
58.9
(70.5)
0.954
(1.019)
0.61
(0.49)
Lewis
93:43
(98:25)
0
(0)
2
(0)
1.28
(0.00)
0.0
(0.0)
40.8
(39.6)
37.9
(43.6)
1.021
(0.932)
0.31
(-0.10)
Lucic
88:55
(84:36)
2
(2)
3
(3)
2.02
(2.13)
22.2
(18.2)
53.0
(46.9)
55.7
(57.6)
0.930
(0.991)
0.38
(0.30)
Pitlick
83:10
(64:18)
0
(0)
1
(1)
0.72
(0.93)
0.0
(0.0)
49.5
(46.3)
49.1
(43.9)
0.874
(1.105)
-0.20
(0.72)
Richardson
54:01
(-)
1
(-)
1
(-)
1.11
(-)
33.3
(-)
37.7
(-)
41.7
(-)
1.010
(-)
0.04
(-)
Ritchie
10:19
(72:37)
0
(0)
0
(0)
0.00
(0.00)
0.0
(0.0)
79.4
(51.3)
80.0
(56.3)
1.000
(1.078)
0.26
(0.34)
Gawdin

(18:28)

(0)

(0)

(0.00)

(0.0)

(59.5)

(37.5)

(1.000)

(0.10)
The most common Flames forward lines were (in descending order):
Advertisement
Ad
  • Gaudreau – Lindholm – Tkachuk
  • Coleman – Backlund – Pitlick
  • Lucic – Monahan – Lewis
  • Mangiapane – Dube – Ritchie
The only real change in this segment was Brad Richardson making his debut and then bouncing around the lineup a little bit before eventually settling in with Sean Monahan and Trevor Lewis on the fourth line. The fourth line itself remains a bit of a work in progress, as the club only really seems to have three lines clicking at a time and the fourth line seems to be comprised of leftovers.
For the most part, the Flames’ strong underlying performances persist. A few players saw slight dips, but for the most part everybody is performing well. That first line remains excellent, while Andrew Mangiapane is their brightest light aside from the first line group.
Who’s struggling? Well, Richardson and Tyler Pitlick are performing at replacement level or slightly below and, as such, the aforementioned fourth line is… not great.
Advertisement
Ad
Now, the defence (all situations, ordered by ice time):
Player
TOI
G
P
P/60
SH%
xGF%
OZF%
PDO
Game score
Andersson
155:16
(164:25)
0
(0)
3
(4)
1.16
(1.46)
0.0
(0.0)
58.3
(54.9)
63.2
(50.5)
1.012
(1.104)
0.78
(1.03)
Hanifin
149:40
(132:40)
0
(0)
1
(2)
0.40
(0.90)
0.0
(0.0)
52.3
(57.4)
54.9
(46.5)
0.983
(1.102)
0.36
(1.08)
Tanev
146:37
(144:58)
0
(1)
2
(1)
0.82
(0.41)
0.0
(25.0)
51.6
(41.3)
37.1
(34.5)
0.939
(0.973)
1.08
(0.12)
Kylington
125:42
(88:13)
2
(0)
6
(3)
2.86
(2.04)
14.3
(0.0)
61.1
(51.3)
45.7
(55.4)
0.989
(1.003)
1.52
(0.62)
Gudbranson
122:31
(124:45)
0
(0)
1
(3)
0.49
(1.44)
0.0
(0.0)
38.0
(48.5)
37.7
(34.1)
0.977
(1.002)
0.26
(0.66)
Zadorov
112:19
(36:22)
1
(0)
2
(0)
1.07
(0.00)
11.1
(0.0)
49.7
(46.3)
44.1
(45.8)
1.024
(0.842)
0.75
(-0.94)
Välimäki

(110:07)

(0)

(1)

(0.54)

(0.0)

(45.7)

(46.8)

(0.981)

(0.32)
Stone

(17:43)

(0)

(0)

(0.00)

(0.0)

(29.6)

(50.0)

(1.111)

(0.32)
The most common defensive pairings were (in descending order):
  • Hanifin & Andersson
  • Kylington & Tanev
  • Zadorov & Gudbranson
So, uh, no Juuso Välimäki this segment, eh?
The big story here is Oliver Kylington. He was spectacular this period, and out-scored every other player on the team aside from Matthew Tkachuk during this segment, and he and Chris Tanev were the strongest pairing by far. As with the forward group, essentially everybody was about as good possession-wise as in the first segment, just a tad unluckier. (Look at everybody’s PDO drop!)
And finally, goalies (all situations):
Player
TOI
SV%
ldSV%
mdSV%
hdSV%
Avg. GSAX
Markström
361:27
(301:48)
.916
(.952)
.955
(.972)
.943
(.913)
.788
(.944)
0.02
(0.95)
Vladar
62:31
(122:31)
.946
(.891)
.923
(.962)
.938
(.867)
1.000
(.727)
1.26
(-0.76)
After a superb first segment, Jacob Markström was merely good in this segment – his Goals Saved Above Expected was in the black. Dan Vladar only played once, but that’s to be expected when the team played only one back-to-back set in the segement and Markström had two shutouts in six appearances.
Advertisement
Ad