|
(Note: This series will cover all 30 NHL teams in 30 days, from worst to first, as according to VUKOTA. This is the same material that would have been available in a 2009-10 Puck Prospectus Annual had we published one.)
Offense:
2008-09 Goals For: 254 (9th on Offense)
2009-2010 Goals For: 249 (9th on Offense)*
Defense:
2008-09 Goals Against: 248 (T-22nd on Defense)
2009-10 Goals Against: 249 (19th on Defense)*
Points:
2008-09 Point Total: 98 (10th in Points)
2009-10 Point Total: 91 (T-12th in Points)*
Team GVT:
2008-09 Team GVT: + 6 (14th Overall)
2009-10 Team GVT: + 0 (T-14th Overall)*
Bayesian Ratings:
2009-10 Offense: 3.04 (10th on Offense)*
2009-10 Defense: 3.04 (T-23rd on Defense)*
2009-10 Total: 0.00 (T-12th Overall)*
Team Contention Status:
Western Conference Playoff Contenders (1st Round +)*: 60.2 %
Western Conference Noisemakers (2nd Round +)*: 28.7 %
Western Conference Contenders: (3rd Round +)*: 13.0 %
Stanley Cup Contenders (Stanley Cup Finals)*: 5.6 %
Stanley Cup Champions*: 2.3 %
*2009-2010 VUKOTA Projections (Bayesian Ratings derived from VUKOTA)
At the top of their game the Calgary Flames are still a top ten team. However, without a comeback season from Kiprusoff in the net and more consistent play, the Flames are more likely to finish closer to the middle of the pack.
Forwards:
The Calgary Flames have a deep but aging group of forwards who are among the better units in the league when performing at their best. Historically they have been led by Jarome Iginla, but Rene Bourque could be poised for a breakthrough season.
Legend:
Age: Age as of January 1, 2010. Players enter their prime around 26.
Tm: Team from 2008-2009 season.
RPM: Relative Plus/Minus, average is 0, and +10 or better is excellent.
OGVT: Offensive GVT
DGVT: Defensive GVT
GVT: Total GVT
2008-2009 2009-2010 VUKOTA Projections
Age Player Tm P GP G A PTS RPM OGVT DGVT GP G A PTS OGVT DGVT GVT
32 Jarome Iginla CGY RW 82 35 54 89 7 12.8 1.4 77 34 47 80 12.3 2.5 14.8
31 Olli Jokinen CGY C 76 29 28 57 -5 6.8 0.9 70 25 31 56 7.5 1.6 9.1
33 Daymond Langkow CGY C 73 21 28 49 7 5.8 1.3 67 19 28 47 5.7 2.0 7.7
28 Rene Bourque CGY LW 58 21 19 40 16 6.9 4.6 62 16 19 35 4.6 2.5 7.0
27 Curtis Glencross CGY LW 74 13 27 40 12 3.7 4.8 67 13 22 35 3.6 2.8 6.4
38 Craig Conroy CGY C 82 12 36 48 15 5.0 6.4 69 10 24 34 2.8 2.8 5.7
28 David Moss CGY RW 81 20 19 39 -4 3.3 0.6 64 16 17 34 3.5 1.4 4.9
28 Jamie Lundmark CGY C 27 8 8 16 3 2.8 0.6 40 10 12 21 2.5 0.8 3.3
24 Nigel Dawes PHX LW 64 10 11 21 -2 -1.1 0.7 61 12 14 26 1.3 1.5 2.9
23 Dustin Boyd CGY C 71 11 11 22 -13 0.3 -0.4 59 11 11 23 1.1 1.0 2.1
20 Mikael Backlund CGY C 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 29 6 7 13 0.9 0.6 1.5
27 Colin Stuart ATL LW 33 5 3 8 2 0.0 0.7 41 7 7 14 0.7 0.9 1.5
28 Jason Jaffray VAN RW 14 2 2 4 -3 0.1 -0.2 34 6 7 13 0.8 0.6 1.5
22 Brett Sutter CGY LW 4 1 0 1 -2 -0.1 -0.3 30 6 7 13 0.8 0.5 1.3
26 David Van Der Gulik CGY LW 6 0 2 2 -1 0.0 -0.1 29 5 7 12 0.7 0.5 1.3
23 Kris Chucko CGY RW 2 0 0 0 0 -0.1 0.0 28 5 6 12 0.7 0.6 1.3
26 Kyle Greentree CGY LW 2 0 0 0 -1 -0.1 -0.2 27 5 6 11 0.6 0.5 1.1
26 Fredrik Sjostrom NYR RW 79 7 6 13 -12 -2.9 1.3 64 8 8 16 -0.9 2.0 1.1
25 Riley Armstrong SJS RW 2 0 0 0 -1 -0.2 -0.1 28 5 6 11 0.6 0.5 1.1
26 Eric Nystrom CGY LW 76 5 5 10 -9 -1.3 0.1 56 6 7 13 -0.1 1.1 1.0
27 Garth Murray PHX C 10 0 0 0 -2 -0.5 -0.3 30 4 5 9 0.2 0.5 0.7
28 Brian McGrattan PHX RW 5 0 0 0 -2 -0.3 -0.3 32 4 5 9 0.2 0.5 0.6
34 Andre Roy CGY LW 44 3 0 3 -1 -0.8 0.0 45 4 3 7 -0.5 0.5 0.0
25 Brandon Prust PHX RW 36 1 2 3 -8 -1.6 -1.0 41 4 5 8 -0.7 0.3 -0.4
The VUKOTA calculations project that Calgary’s forwards will combine for a GVT of 66.9 above replacement level, which is quite competitive. However, it is an aging lineup, with only 3 forwards under the age of 27. Fortunately the Flames have tremendous depth, and very few teams have as many forwards, even if most of them are replacement-level. The depth players will most certainly have a tough fight for the limited opportunities. Nine of these players scored at least 10 goals last season, and VUKOTA projects next season it could be ten.
Once again Iginla figures to be the top Flame forward, complemented by two other strong weapons in Jokinen and Langkow. Bourque, Conroy and Glencross all had very high RPM’s last season, while Boyd’s and Sjostrom’s were disappointingly low.
Legend:
ESG/ESA/PPG/PPA: Even-strength (ES) or Power-Play (PP) goals (G) or assists (A) per 60 minutes. At even strength, 0.4 is average for goals, 0.7 for assists. Anything 1.0 higher than that is excellent.
ESGFA/PPGFA: ES or PP Goals For Average (Team goals for per 60 minutes). At even-strength 2.50 is about average, 5.60 on the power-play. Over 4.00 is exceptional.
QTEAM: Relative Quality of linemates, average is 0.
GvA: Giveaways per 60 minutes. 1.4 is about average and 1.0 less than that is excellent.
DRAW: Penalties drawn per 60 minutes. 0.6 is about average, higher for forwards. Anything over 2.0 is excellent.
OGVT: Offensive GVT
Player ESG ESA ESGFA PPG PPA PPGFA QTEAM GvA DRAW OGVT
Bourque 1.6 1.5 3.92 0.0 1.0 3.01 0.07 0.8 0.8 0.43
Lundmark 1.5 1.0 2.66 0.0 3.1 4.14 -0.28 1.7 1.0 0.34
Iginla 1.1 1.4 3.41 1.5 3.3 7.01 0.10 1.7 1.2 0.30
Conroy 0.7 2.1 3.82 0.0 0.0 2.52 0.14 2.0 1.1 0.26
Glencross 0.7 1.6 3.45 1.1 4.4 8.87 0.05 1.4 1.0 0.20
Jokinen 1.0 0.9 2.56 1.7 2.1 5.61 -0.06 1.8 0.5 0.20
Langkow 1.1 1.0 2.73 0.9 2.6 6.82 -0.01 2.2 0.8 0.19
Moss 0.8 1.0 3.02 3.2 1.2 6.85 0.24 1.0 0.9 0.15
Jaffray 1.1 1.1 2.22 0.0 0.0 3.23 -0.28 0.9 2.4 0.04
Boyd 0.8 0.7 2.35 0.8 1.7 3.38 -0.05 1.2 0.5 0.02
Stuart 0.4 0.4 2.83 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.02 0.6 1.5 0.00
Dawes 0.6 0.8 2.28 2.2 0.7 5.75 0.15 1.4 0.6 -0.07
Nystrom 0.4 0.3 1.30 0.0 0.0 0.00 -0.32 1.2 0.6 -0.12
Roy 0.7 0.0 1.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 -0.59 1.2 7.4 -0.20
Sjostrom 0.4 0.4 1.70 0.0 0.0 14.97 -0.35 0.8 0.8 -0.20
Prust 0.2 0.5 1.14 0.0 0.0 0.00 -0.25 2.2 1.3 -0.35
The Flames forwards combined for an Offensive GVT of 2.13 above replacement level over 60 minutes, which is among the best in the league. Very few teams have as many offensive weapons, with twelve players having at least 0.5 ESG per 60 minutes, six of whom had over 1.0 ESG. Eight Flames had 1.0 ESA per 60 minutes including Conroy, who had an amazing 2.1. Alberta's team has almost two full lines of players with over 3.00 ESGFA, and almost seven players above the 0.20 Offensive GVT per 60 minutes threshold. In all, the Flames have two, almost three full lines of solid offensive contributors.
In this impressive collection of scorers, who was their best offensive threat? Surely it must be Iginla, right? Nope. Jokinen? Guess again. Try Rene Bourque, who comfortably outscored both Iginla and Jokinen at even strength, and with whom the Flames enjoyed the most scoring. Second to Bourque in both categories is Conroy, the team’s best playmaker thanks to some unexpectedly premium ice-time. Indeed, the Flames have a lot of offensively talented but unheralded players, including Lundmark, who scored 2.5 even-strength points per 60 minutes despite playing on the 4th line, and Curtis Glencross, whose 2.3 even-strength points per 60 minutes and 3.45 ESGFA closely resembled Iginla’s totals of 2.5 and 3.41.
In the end, the Flames should have very little trouble putting together two or three lines of scoring threats, with only players such as Dawes, Nystrom, Sjostrom and Prust lacking the potential to contribute.
Legend:
ESGAA/SHGAA: ES or Short-handed (SH) Goals Against Average (Team goals against per 60 minutes). At even-strength 2.50 is about average, 5.60 short-handed. Below 2.00 is very good.
QCOMP: Relative Quality of competition, average is 0.
FO%: Face-off winning percentage. Over 50% is good.
TM%: Percentage of team’s face-offs taken.
HITS: Hits thrown per 60 minutes. 4.2 is about average, 15.0 is exceptional.
BkS: Shots blocked per 60 minutes. 2.2 is about average, higher for defensemen. Anything over 6.0 is excellent.
TkA: Takeaways per 60 minutes. 1.3 is about average, over 3.0 is exceptional.
Pen: Minor penalties taken per 60 minutes. 0.9 is about average, and very disciplined players are around 0.2 or 0.3.
DGVT: Defensive GVT
Player ESGAA SHGAA QCOMP FO% TM% HITS BkS TkA Pen DGVT
Conroy 2.63 7.74 -0.03 52.8 28.8 2.0 2.4 2.8 0.7 0.33
Bourque 2.45 5.60 0.04 50.0 0.5 5.3 2.1 2.1 1.6 0.28
Glencross 2.50 9.10 -0.01 48.4 1.4 6.8 1.6 1.9 0.9 0.26
Stuart 2.26 8.05 0.07 41.7 0.6 8.6 2.3 2.9 1.3 0.11
Sjostrom 2.60 3.65 -0.02 60.0 0.1 7.5 3.1 1.2 0.9 0.09
Lundmark 2.28 0.00 -0.13 51.7 7.8 2.2 1.1 1.4 1.0 0.07
Langkow 2.67 0.00 -0.03 46.9 17.5 2.1 1.4 2.1 0.4 0.04
Dawes 2.76 0.00 0.01 0.0 0.0 5.9 1.8 1.2 0.4 0.04
Iginla 3.50 0.00 -0.01 52.5 10.4 2.8 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.03
Moss 3.37 5.29 -0.04 50.0 0.9 5.2 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.03
Jokinen 3.21 5.16 0.02 43.4 21.7 3.0 1.0 1.6 1.3 0.03
Nystrom 2.06 4.52 -0.17 37.9 0.6 6.5 3.1 1.5 0.9 0.01
Roy 1.25 0.00 -0.10 100.0 0.0 10.4 0.0 1.7 3.5 0.00
Boyd 3.31 4.68 -0.04 45.5 11.4 3.0 2.0 1.5 0.3 -0.02
Jaffray 3.33 0.00 -0.18 47.7 8.1 3.3 1.4 0.9 0.9 -0.07
Prust 2.95 0.00 -0.17 54.8 1.5 5.4 2.0 0.9 2.0 -0.22
With all of this offense, it could be reasonable to assume that Calgary would be weak defensively, but according to their combined defensive GVT total of 1.32 goals above replacement value per 60 minutes, they were very effective. Most of that is thanks to Calgary being blessed with having three solid shutdown forwards in Conroy, Bourque and Glencross.
Of those three skaters, Bourque faced the toughest opponents, but kept scoring down almost to its lowest point. Conroy is the go-to face-off man, but Iginla was good too. A couple of the newest Flames should improve the Flames defensively. In Atlanta, Stuart was primarily used against the tougher opponents, and kept scoring to a minimum by throwing hits, blocking shots, and getting takeaways at very high levels. In Sjostrom, the Flames picked up another key shot-blocker who knows how to play physically. With players like Stuart and Sjostrom on the roster, players such as Boyd and Nystrom will have to work hard to improve their game defensively or risk losing their spots on the team.
Defensemen:
The Calgary Flames have an average set of defensemen. Their defenders are young, which might sound promising, but Calgary only has one good offensive pair, and one good defensive pair. Despite the money invested in their three pairs, the Flames shouldn’t expect much more out of their defensemen other than to be sufficient enough at both ends of the ice for the team to compete.
Legend:
Age: Age as of January 1, 2010. Players enter their prime around 26.
Tm: Team from 2008-2009 season.
RPM: Relative Plus/Minus, average is 0, and +10 or better is excellent.
OGVT: Offensive GVT
DGVT: Defensive GVT
GVT: Total GVT
2008-2009 2009-2010 VUKOTA Projections
Age Player Tm P GP G A PTS RPM OGVT DGVT GP G A PTS OGVT DGVT GVT
24 Dion Phaneuf CGY D 80 11 36 47 -4 3.9 2.2 81 14 41 55 7.9 5.5 13.4
26 Jay Bouwmeester FLA D 82 15 27 42 -6 5.0 1.4 75 11 29 41 5.6 3.6 9.2
31 Cory Sarich CGY D 76 2 18 20 8 2.1 5.3 64 2 11 14 0.6 3.7 4.3
26 Mark Giordano CGY D 58 2 17 19 4 1.2 2.1 58 3 15 18 1.3 2.5 3.8
29 Robyn Regehr CGY D 75 0 8 8 6 -3.0 5.1 68 2 10 12 -0.7 3.9 3.3
23 Anton Stralman TOR D 38 1 12 13 2 0.9 1.3 48 3 11 14 1.1 1.8 2.8
25 Adam Pardy CGY D 60 1 9 10 1 -0.3 1.6 55 2 9 11 0.2 2.2 2.4
22 Matt Pelech CGY D 5 0 3 3 1 0.6 0.3 30 2 7 10 1.0 1.2 2.2
20 John Negrin CGY D 3 0 1 1 -2 0.1 -0.5 29 2 6 9 0.7 0.9 1.6
27 Staffan Kronwall WSH D 3 0 0 0 -1 -0.2 -0.2 30 1 5 6 0.1 1.0 1.1
The Calgary Flames defensemen are projected to combine for a GVT of 36.8 over replacement level, which is certainly respectable. Unfortunately, depth is an issue for this club as almost all of that 36.8 GVT value is projected to come from the elite level of play expected of Phaneuf, and the solid play of the newly-acquired top-level Florida defenseman Jay Bouwmeester.
Not much is expected of the Flames beyond their big two, other than strong defensive play from Sarich and Regehr. With only seven regular defensemen, the Flames are only an injury or two away from giving a young Pelech, Negrin or Kronwall a spot.
Legend:
ESG/ESA/PPG/PPA: Even-strength (ES) or Power-Play (PP) goals (G) or assists (A) per 60 minutes. At even strength, 0.4 is average for goals, 0.7 for assists. Anything 1.0 higher than that is excellent.
ESGFA/PPGFA: ES or PP Goals For Average (Team goals for per 60 minutes). At even-strength 2.50 is about average, 5.60 on the power-play. Over 4.00 is exceptional.
QTEAM: Relative Quality of linemates, average is 0.
GvA: Giveaways per 60 minutes. 1.4 is about average and 1.0 less than that is excellent.
DRAW: Penalties drawn per 60 minutes. 0.6 is about average, higher for forwards. Anything over 2.0 is excellent.
OGVT: Offensive GVT
Player ESG ESA ESGFA PPG PPA PPGFA QTEAM GvA DRAW OGVT
Bouwmeester 0.2 0.6 2.62 1.5 1.9 6.33 0.12 1.4 0.2 0.11
Sarich 0.1 0.8 2.54 0.0 1.6 1.61 0.01 2.0 0.3 0.10
Phaneuf 0.3 0.8 3.58 0.5 2.3 7.00 0.08 1.8 0.7 0.08
Stralman 0.1 0.9 2.71 0.0 3.0 7.16 0.00 1.6 0.8 0.07
Giordano 0.0 1.0 3.22 0.7 1.5 5.52 0.05 0.6 0.7 0.06
Pardy 0.1 0.7 2.68 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.05 1.7 0.5 -0.02
Regehr 0.0 0.4 2.87 0.0 0.0 5.47 0.07 1.4 0.3 -0.12
Calgary defensemen combined for a 0.42 Offensive GVT above replacement-level per 60 minutes, placing them right around average. A strength of the Flames last year was that they had three defensemen who averaged over 1.0 even-strength points per 60 minutes in Stralman, Giordano and Phaneuf, the latter two of which had ESGFA well above 3.00. Calgary’s other two decent defenseman offensively are Bouwmeester and Sarich.
Legend:
ESGAA/SHGAA: ES or Short-handed (SH) Goals Against Average (Team goals against per 60 minutes). At even-strength 2.50 is about average, 5.60 short-handed. Below 2.00 is very good.
QCOMP: Relative Quality of competition, average is 0.
FO%: Face-off winning percentage. Over 50% is good.
TM%: Percentage of team’s face-offs taken.
HITS: Hits thrown per 60 minutes. 4.2 is about average, 15.0 is exceptional.
BkS: Shots blocked per 60 minutes. 2.2 is about average, higher for defensemen. Anything over 6.0 is excellent.
TkA: Takeaways per 60 minutes. 1.3 is about average, over 3.0 is exceptional.
Pen: Minor penalties taken per 60 minutes. 0.9 is about average, and very disciplined players are around 0.2 or 0.3.
DGVT: Defensive GVT
Player ESGAA SHGAA QCOMP HITS BkS TkA Pen DGVT
Sarich 1.89 7.14 -0.02 5.9 3.1 0.6 1.6 0.24
Regehr 2.40 5.85 0.01 4.6 3.4 0.3 1.1 0.21
Pardy 2.47 5.65 -0.07 5.1 2.9 1.3 1.8 0.11
Giordano 3.06 5.69 -0.02 3.5 2.5 1.3 1.4 0.10
Stralman 2.97 6.85 -0.05 3.8 3.8 1.1 1.0 0.10
Phaneuf 4.03 6.62 -0.03 4.5 2.4 0.7 0.8 0.05
Bouwmeester 2.69 7.93 0.07 3.1 3.5 0.7 0.9 0.03
The Flames defensemen total 0.81 defensive GVT above replacement level per 60 minutes, placing them marginally below average. They have two top defensive veterans in Regehr and Sarich, who is one of the rare defensemen against whom fewer than 2 even-strength goals per 60 minutes were scored.
The weakest pair defensively is their star offensive pair of Phaneuf and Bouwmeester. Bouwmeester’s poor results can partly be attributed to being used against the more difficult opponents of Florida last season. As for Phaneuf, opponents scored over 4 even-strength goals per 60 minutes against him on average.
Goaltending:
The Calgary Flames are again pinning all of their hopes in goal on the former Vezina winner Miikka Kiprusoff. Unless he improves dramatically this season, he will leave the Flames as one of the weakest teams in the net.
Legend:
TGP: Total Games Played is Minutes Played divided by 60.
S/GP: Shots Against per 60 minutes.
ESSV%: Save Percentage at even-strength. Average is around .913.
GVT: Goals Versus Threshold; Value above replacement-level player, in goals.
GVT/GP: GVT per 60 minutes. 0 is replacement-level.
2009-2010
VUKOTA
2008-2009 Projection
Age Goalie Team GP TGP S/GP SV% ESSV% GVT GVT/GP GVT
32 Miikka Kiprusoff CGY 76 73.6 29.3 .903 .907 -1.7 -0.02 2.9
25 Curtis McElhinney CGY 14 8.6 32.4 .889 .897 -3.6 -0.42 -0.2
According to GVT, Kiprusoff contributed below the level one would expect from a replacement-level goalie. Even at his age (32), he is predicted to rebound, but not very far above that level. His backup, McElhinney, is not even a replacement-level player. This is clearly not a good sign for Calgary.
Legend:
GS: Games Started.
QS: Quality Starts.
WS: Quality Starts that were Wasted (lost) due to lack of offense.
BO: Non-Quality Starts where the goalie was Bailed Out by a good offense.
QS%: Percentage of all starts that were Quality Starts. Over 50% is good.
GR: Games Relieved.
Goalie GS SV% QS WS BO QS% GR MIN SV%
Kiprusoff 76 .903 36 6 15 47.4% - -- --
McElhinney 6 .891 2 1 0 33.3% 8 155 .886
Kiprusoff recorded a Quality Start in under half of his whopping 76 starts. Fortunately for him, the Flames bailed him out of 15 of his 40 sub-par starts, and won all but 6 of his 36 Quality Starts. McElhinney struggled to be effective in both of his starts, and his relief appearances.
Other Players:
The Flames are well stocked on depth players already, and there are even more skaters in the system on which they can rely on to bring up should injuries really take a toll on this team. Those depth players include four forwards who are capable of scoring goals in the double digits, and two defensemen that can contribute assists at the same rate.
Converted to NHL Equivalent
Age Pos Player Lge GP G A PTS
28 RW Jason Jaffray AHL 71 12 13 35
26 LW Kyle Greentree AHL 81 17 16 33
23 RW Kris Chucko AHL 78 12 10 22
26 RW David Van Der Gulik AHL 81 7 12 19
25 RW Riley Armstrong AHL 75 11 7 18
20 D John Negrin WHL 75 3 15 18
26 D Staffan Kronwall AHL 63 4 11 15
20 C Mikael Backlund WHL 64 6 8 14
22 C Brett Sutter AHL 77 5 7 12
27 C Garth Murray AHL 76 5 4 9
22 D Matt Pelech AHL 65 1 6 7
In Negrin and Backlund, Calgary also has two young talented players that should be ready to play NHL-level hockey within a couple of seasons. Calgary Flames legend Theo Fleury will also be in training camp, but at age 41 the chances of him having an impact above replacement level is extremely small.
Shootout:
With Bertuzzi gone, Jokinen was their only remaining player with a shootout goal last season (1 for 3). It's shocking to think about the fact that Iginla was somehow 0 for 5 last year. That’s probably one reason the Flames picked up Sjostrom, who was 3 for 9 last season in New York. Dawes might get some opportunities, but was only 1 for 5.
Nevertheless, the Flames had a winning record in shootouts last season, thanks to Kiprusoff stopping 11 of 14 shootout attempts (.786, 8th best in the league). Unless he pulls a rabbit out of the hat again, the Flames will probably leave points on the table with consistent shootout losses.
Special Teams:
The Flames had a below-average power play last season, scoring on 17.0% of opportunities. Up front the Flames primarily use Iginla, Jokinen and Langkow with the man advantage. Beyond that tandem, the Flames have Glencross, who led the team in both power play points per 60 minutes with 5.5 and PPGFA with 8.87, and Moss, who was 3rd in both categories (Iginla’s in between).
Calgary’s top pairing on defense will be Phaneuf and Bouwmeester, who combined for 6.2 power play points per 60 minutes in 2008-09. Stralman actually leads all defensemen in PPGFA, and his scoring was second only to Bouwmeester’s. He’ll likely be paired up with the serviceable Giordano on the second line.
Calgary had the fourth best penalty killing unit in the league last season at 83.4%, and stands to be even better this season with the addition of Sjostrom, one of the league’s elite penalty killers. Given Conroy’s average short-handed performance last season, the Flames might give more penalty killing opportunities to someone like Nystrom, Boyd, Moss or Bourque, all of whom kept scoring below 6 goals per 60 minutes. Regehr is their best penalty killer on defense, but both Sarich and Bouwmeester are coming off disappointing seasons where they weren’t even as effective killing penalties as the mediocre Phaneuf.
Overall:
We project the Flames to take a slight step back this season at both ends of the ice, sliding closer to the middle of the pack in a fight for second in their division, finding themselves on the road again this postseason.
Season GF/G GA/G PTS
2008-09 3.06 3.00 98
2009-10 3.04 3.04 89
We calculate Calgary has a good 60.2% chance of making the playoffs, but only a longshot 2.3% chance of hoisting their second Stanley Cup (or their third, if you count the controversial video replay in 2004). More realistically, the Flames would love to make the second round for only the second time in the past twenty years, and have an estimated 28.7% chance of achieving that mark.
Robert Vollman is an author of Hockey Prospectus.
You can contact Robert by clicking here or click here to see Robert's other articles.
| 
0 comments have been left for this article. 
Conn Smythe Watch: Lundqvist Leads