Flames Notes: Hamilton in the Fold Changes Team Progression

July 1st, 2015 | Posted in Commentary | By: D'Arcy McGrath

I’m a patient guy.

When you hear Brian Burke and Brad Treliving desperately trying to temper expectations after a remarkably successful season that featured a playoff birth and series win, I get it.

The Flames won a lot of games after trailing.
The Flames won a lot of games despite being out “fancied”.
The Kings, Avalanche and Stars all had off years, and should step back into the “norm” when the 2015-16 season comes around.

The Flames were destined to be in a battle and possibly slide back out of the playoff picture, two occurrences that don’t for a second suggest anything is wrong with the rebuild as it stands, nor take the lustre off of a great 2014-15 season.

Did you notice that word “were” in my last statement?
- Full Article –


Flames Acquire Dougie Hamilton In Shocking Draft Day Deal

June 26th, 2015 | Posted in Game Takes | By: D'Arcy McGrath

Two years ago today the Flames had a very different look to them.

Jay Feaster was the general manager.

The Flames had Mark Giordano and TJ Brodie, up front they had Mikael Backlund, they had a tiny prospect named Johnny Gaudreau that only the hardest core fans had heard of.

They were three months from dealing Jarome Iginla and Jay Bouwmeester for 1st round picks and had just said good bye to Miikka Kiprusoff. Those same hard core fans were doing the “Wiser” clap as the Flames were ushering in a rebuild after kidding themselves for a half decade.

The organization was 3 months away from hiring Brian Burke, six months away from firing Jay Feaster, and 10 months away from hiring Brad Treliving.
- Full Article –


NHL Draft Success: Calgary Flames Specific

June 25th, 2015 | Posted in Game Takes | By: D'Arcy McGrath

So we’ve established the Flames have been relatively unsuccessful at drafting in the last ten years, at least how it stands today.

There isn’t a whole lot that will change from 2004 to 2006, but the team may gain in the rankings against pick value from 2007 to 2013 as drafted players potentially play more games than their counterparts.

From 2004 to 2010 certainly the team had a somewhat mixed philosophy as they traded down to add picks, but also traded away 2nd round picks most seasons. As a result they had a very low pick value most seasons, and the scouting staff wasn’t able to save them with savant like picks.

In the past few seasons things have changed however.
- Full Article –


NHL Draft Success: Value in a Pick / Draft Year

June 24th, 2015 | Posted in Game Takes | By: D'Arcy McGrath

Measuring the draft by games played was an interesting start (part one), trying to find sense in it by comparing those games played lost to number of picks, average of picks, and number of top 60 picks (part two) was an attempt to find order in chaos.

But what if you compare data based on the value of each draft pick, essentially the deepest dive you can do in order to analyze draft performance of games played versus draft selections over a ten year span.

I’ve seen attempts to value draft picks before so I’m not inventing the wheel, in fact I really wish I had beat them to it. For this exercise I recreated a similar analysis using games played so I could value each pick in order to get a more comprehensive look at what teams have going for them before you look at the summary table of games played lost over a ten year period.
- Full Article –


NHL Draft Success: Weighting the Results

June 23rd, 2015 | Posted in Game Takes | By: D'Arcy McGrath

In part one of our draft success analysis we looked at lost games played over the course of ten years when you compare a player each team drafted to the two players selected right after them.

I called it the “Hossa Rule” as it always frustrated me that Daniel Tkaczuk was compared to Marian Hossa who was taken 7 selections later. Hindsite has to be reeled in when looking at the past or nothing will be learned for drafting going forward.

The concept was games played was an asset, a determination of an asset, and teams with more assets should be more successful. The results suggest I was wrong, and losing the games played battle is insignificant compared to the right games played. Teams at the top of the list in games played success have been doormats for the past half dozen years, the time frame where 2004 drafting and on should have an impact. Meanwhile teams that have been awful in this measurement have gone on to Stanley Cup success, or at least playoff spots and series wins.

Why is this? Bad teams tend to draft higher, and have easier rosters to crack so players rack of games played on weak teams when potentially better players (or at least equal) are left to percolate in the AHL for longer periods of time. The Detroit Red Wings are a classic example of a team that lets their prospects develop before throwing them to the fire, but in doing so they are missing out on 100s of games played over this time frame.

What we established in part one was that in terms of games played quantity trumps draft acumen as every single NHL team has given up games played when two players after their pick are in competition with their pick over ten years and roughly 70 selections each. However, when measured against on ice success perhaps its a lot more complicated than that.
- Full Article –



All content is property of Calgarypuck.com and cannot be used without expressed, written consent from this site.