I was going to publish a reaction to the recent IOC "furor" over the Women's Ice Hockey Gold Medal celebration, but SI does it for me:
The Olympic champs were still wearing their gold medals — but they were also holding beers, champagne bottles and stogies, and taking tons of pictures. I cut off my live blog of the game at the medal ceremony, and started a new post on the Molson Party, which is the most authentically cool celebration I’ve seen at these Games.
And to what-ever beuracrats, hypocrites or busy-bodies are put off by the supposed "poor sportsmanship" or *gasp* the shocking evils of an 18 year old drinking champagne...kindly go f*** yourselves.
Christ. Of all the stupid bullshit to worry about.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
On Corsi
This post is directed at a certain audience, but perhaps it'll be useful for others.
Corsi is becoming a bit more understood and mainstream these days, but there remains a lot of folks who are confused by it. This will be my attempt to clarify the stat. What it means and how it's useful in analysis.
What it is
Let's start with a simple definition. "Corsi" is the difference between all shots directed at net for and against at even strength. That is (shots+blocked shots+goals+missed shots FOR - SH+BLK+G+MS AGAINST). The purpose of the stat is to determine possession. It is, in fact, a proxy for "zone time". A positive corsi rate = more offensive zone time. Negative = more defensive zone time.
Here's an analogy that might help. Let's say a hockey game is a tug of war. Corsi is the how far right or left of center the rope is. On an individual level, it's an expression of which players are really pulling the rope. Therefore, if your team has a positive corsi rate, it means they are spending more time in the offensive zone at even stregth. It means they are pulling the rope harder than the opposition.
Why it's useful
In general, two things determine goals for (GF) and goals against (GA) in hockey: volume and frequency. Volume is the amount of shots a team generates and allows. Frequency is how often a team scores or allows goals on those shots. What we're learning in the NHL is that the former is far more repeatable and indicative of skill than the latter. Let's put it another way...
Goals are relatively random events in the game. On any given night, 60-80 pucks may be directed at the net at both ends. Maybe 5-10 goals will be scored. As a result, goals are statistically less powerful because the sample size is small. This means that randomness has a far greater influence. And what we've discovered at the NHL level is that percentages (SH% and SV%) tend to regress to the mean over the long term. As a result, a team that is winning via high frequencies is said to be "riding the percentages" and their success is probably based on randomness or "luck".
Another example. We all know that the chances of a flipped coin landing on heads is 50%. However, it's entirely possible that a coin will land on heads 7 or 8 times in a ten flip sample. This is not indicative of a special coin or special "coin flipping skill". It's variance. As such, we can say with confidence that over, say, 1000 flips, we'll get back down to the 50-50 split.
Volume, or outshooting (corsi) is far more powerful statistically, however, and therefore less skewed by randomness. So, whereas percentages tend to regress to the mean, outshooting is far more stable and therefore indicative of a team's (or players) abilities. The evidence of corsi's value is being investigated by smarter men than me these days, but the evidence continues to pile up. Corsi correlates strongly with scoring chances. It also correlates highly with outscoring (0.65) over the course of the season. From the latter link, JLikens explains that outshooting explains 40% of the variance in EV scoring. Almost half. That's regardless of of things like goaltending ability or the percentage of shots a team has blocked versus what they get on net. It also excludes randomness as we discussed above.
Corsi is a long range stat. A team can outshoot the bad guys in a single game or even a series of games and still lose. The hockey gods can be arbitrary. But, eventually, outshooting teams will win more than they lose. And the more time they spend in the offensive zone, the better they are, the more they'll win.
Evaluating individual players with corsi is a little trickier, because circumstances can elevate or sink skaters, depending. The checking center or shut down defender who starts every shift in his own zone against superstars is bound to have a lousy rate, for example. But that's probably a discussion for another time.
I hope this helped clarify things.
Corsi is becoming a bit more understood and mainstream these days, but there remains a lot of folks who are confused by it. This will be my attempt to clarify the stat. What it means and how it's useful in analysis.
What it is
Let's start with a simple definition. "Corsi" is the difference between all shots directed at net for and against at even strength. That is (shots+blocked shots+goals+missed shots FOR - SH+BLK+G+MS AGAINST). The purpose of the stat is to determine possession. It is, in fact, a proxy for "zone time". A positive corsi rate = more offensive zone time. Negative = more defensive zone time.
Here's an analogy that might help. Let's say a hockey game is a tug of war. Corsi is the how far right or left of center the rope is. On an individual level, it's an expression of which players are really pulling the rope. Therefore, if your team has a positive corsi rate, it means they are spending more time in the offensive zone at even stregth. It means they are pulling the rope harder than the opposition.
Why it's useful
In general, two things determine goals for (GF) and goals against (GA) in hockey: volume and frequency. Volume is the amount of shots a team generates and allows. Frequency is how often a team scores or allows goals on those shots. What we're learning in the NHL is that the former is far more repeatable and indicative of skill than the latter. Let's put it another way...
Goals are relatively random events in the game. On any given night, 60-80 pucks may be directed at the net at both ends. Maybe 5-10 goals will be scored. As a result, goals are statistically less powerful because the sample size is small. This means that randomness has a far greater influence. And what we've discovered at the NHL level is that percentages (SH% and SV%) tend to regress to the mean over the long term. As a result, a team that is winning via high frequencies is said to be "riding the percentages" and their success is probably based on randomness or "luck".
Another example. We all know that the chances of a flipped coin landing on heads is 50%. However, it's entirely possible that a coin will land on heads 7 or 8 times in a ten flip sample. This is not indicative of a special coin or special "coin flipping skill". It's variance. As such, we can say with confidence that over, say, 1000 flips, we'll get back down to the 50-50 split.
Volume, or outshooting (corsi) is far more powerful statistically, however, and therefore less skewed by randomness. So, whereas percentages tend to regress to the mean, outshooting is far more stable and therefore indicative of a team's (or players) abilities. The evidence of corsi's value is being investigated by smarter men than me these days, but the evidence continues to pile up. Corsi correlates strongly with scoring chances. It also correlates highly with outscoring (0.65) over the course of the season. From the latter link, JLikens explains that outshooting explains 40% of the variance in EV scoring. Almost half. That's regardless of of things like goaltending ability or the percentage of shots a team has blocked versus what they get on net. It also excludes randomness as we discussed above.
Corsi is a long range stat. A team can outshoot the bad guys in a single game or even a series of games and still lose. The hockey gods can be arbitrary. But, eventually, outshooting teams will win more than they lose. And the more time they spend in the offensive zone, the better they are, the more they'll win.
Evaluating individual players with corsi is a little trickier, because circumstances can elevate or sink skaters, depending. The checking center or shut down defender who starts every shift in his own zone against superstars is bound to have a lousy rate, for example. But that's probably a discussion for another time.
I hope this helped clarify things.
Patrick Thoresen, The Norse Bargain
One guy getting some attention this Olympics is Norway's leading scorer, Patrick Thoresen. The one time Flyer/Oiler appeared in a 100 NHL games, put up marginal results and fled to Europe when no one stepped up to re-sign him.
He's knocked it out of the park over there. This season, he's managed 21 goals and 52 points in 53 games for Ufa of the KHL. He's 7th overall in scoring there.
Of course, maybe he's just one of those guys who can dominate in lower leagues but never make it over the hump in the NHL. Maybe, but if you look at his underlying numbers during his final season in the NHL, there's a suggestion he was already finding his feet on this side of the pond:
Corsi: +3.87
Rel Corsi: +12.8
QUAL COMP: +0.027
ESP/60: 1.15
PDO: 93.2 (!)
Aside from the scoring rate, those are strong advanced stats for a guy who was in his second year in the league. The percentages were also pretty cruel to Thoresen that year and explain why his counting stats were so poor (that and bottom 6 ice time of course).
For further context, consider the fact that Thoresen scored 108 points in 71 games during his final year in the QMJHL. He fled to the SEL after that and managed 17 goals and 36 points in 50 games as a 23 year old. Desjardins rates the SEL at about .59 in his league equivalencies, meaning Thoresen's expected output in the NHL as a 23 year old would have been about 35 points, based on his output in Sweden. That's no homerun, but it's decent just the same.
I don't know what Thoresen's commitments are like in Russia, but if he's willing to give the NHL another shot this off-season, he'd probably cost pennies on the dollar relative to the other guys in the free agent market.
He's knocked it out of the park over there. This season, he's managed 21 goals and 52 points in 53 games for Ufa of the KHL. He's 7th overall in scoring there.
Of course, maybe he's just one of those guys who can dominate in lower leagues but never make it over the hump in the NHL. Maybe, but if you look at his underlying numbers during his final season in the NHL, there's a suggestion he was already finding his feet on this side of the pond:
Corsi: +3.87
Rel Corsi: +12.8
QUAL COMP: +0.027
ESP/60: 1.15
PDO: 93.2 (!)
Aside from the scoring rate, those are strong advanced stats for a guy who was in his second year in the league. The percentages were also pretty cruel to Thoresen that year and explain why his counting stats were so poor (that and bottom 6 ice time of course).
For further context, consider the fact that Thoresen scored 108 points in 71 games during his final year in the QMJHL. He fled to the SEL after that and managed 17 goals and 36 points in 50 games as a 23 year old. Desjardins rates the SEL at about .59 in his league equivalencies, meaning Thoresen's expected output in the NHL as a 23 year old would have been about 35 points, based on his output in Sweden. That's no homerun, but it's decent just the same.
I don't know what Thoresen's commitments are like in Russia, but if he's willing to give the NHL another shot this off-season, he'd probably cost pennies on the dollar relative to the other guys in the free agent market.
Bourque Extension Coverage
My take on the recent contract here.
M&G conversation on the topic here.
My article back in December on why the Flames need to re-sign Bourque here.
Some final words:
There's no question this is a controversial signing given the 6 year term. There's also no question whatsoever that Bourque is worth the money right now, however, and any claim to the contrary is wrong. Bourque has driven results since he arrived in Calgary. Full stop.
The issue real is the deferral of risk. It actually strikes me as rational decision making. There are uncertainties surrounding Bourque's prospective performance, especially in years 4-6 of the contract. No one really knows where the Flames will be at that time in terms of needs/cap position either. That said, Sutter does know the demands of the club today and going forward into the near future (next season) and has concluded (rightly) that Bourque, at a 3.3M cap hit, makes sense for the club. He's underpaid relative to his current contributions and there's almost no chance the organization could have replaced him via the free agent market this off-season. At least, not anywhere near this price point. So, Sutter trades an increase in future risk for circumstances that are favorable currently.
M&G conversation on the topic here.
My article back in December on why the Flames need to re-sign Bourque here.
Some final words:
There's no question this is a controversial signing given the 6 year term. There's also no question whatsoever that Bourque is worth the money right now, however, and any claim to the contrary is wrong. Bourque has driven results since he arrived in Calgary. Full stop.
The issue real is the deferral of risk. It actually strikes me as rational decision making. There are uncertainties surrounding Bourque's prospective performance, especially in years 4-6 of the contract. No one really knows where the Flames will be at that time in terms of needs/cap position either. That said, Sutter does know the demands of the club today and going forward into the near future (next season) and has concluded (rightly) that Bourque, at a 3.3M cap hit, makes sense for the club. He's underpaid relative to his current contributions and there's almost no chance the organization could have replaced him via the free agent market this off-season. At least, not anywhere near this price point. So, Sutter trades an increase in future risk for circumstances that are favorable currently.
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 55 versus Edmonton
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20815
Due to the craziness that followed it, I was unable to get to counting scoring chances for this game previously.
The Flames won handily in all facets. Nice way for Dion to end his time with the Flames I'd say.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| EDM | 1 | 16:56 | 3 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 12 | 27 | 40 | 44 | 77 | 89 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 16:16 | 16 goal | 4 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 34 | 60 | 10 | 18 | 34 | 37 | 40 | 71 | 5v5 |
| EDM | 1 | 7:36 | EDM goal | 6 | 7 | 20 | 23 | 34 | 13 | 19 | 37 | 40 | 71 | 89 | 4v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 6:41 | 17 goal | 3 | 4 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 21 | 13 | 22 | 40 | 44 | 77 | 78 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 1 | 6:12 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 23 | 34 | 45 | 12 | 27 | 40 | 44 | 77 | 89 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 4:02 | 3 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 33 | 34 | 13 | 27 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 78 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 1:51 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 23 | 34 | 45 | 16 | 19 | 37 | 40 | 67 | 71 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 18:27 | 5 | 7 | 12 | 21 | 23 | 34 | 16 | 18 | 40 | 41 | 67 | 71 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 15:59 | 3 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 16 | 19 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 67 | 5v5 | |
| EDM | 2 | 15:00 | 4 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 34 | 60 | 12 | 27 | 37 | 40 | 71 | 89 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 13:13 | 16 goal | 4 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 22 | 34 | 12 | 18 | 40 | 44 | 77 | 89 | 5v5 |
| EDM | 2 | 12:42 | 3 | 21 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 45 | 16 | 19 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 67 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 12:29 | 3 goal | 3 | 21 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 45 | 12 | 16 | 19 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 2 | 10:53 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 20 | 33 | 34 | 10 | 18 | 34 | 40 | 44 | 77 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 10:22 | 5 | 10 | 11 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 16 | 18 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| EDM | 2 | 7:22 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 33 | 34 | 10 | 18 | 34 | 37 | 40 | 71 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 6:00 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 21 | 34 | 10 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 5v3 | |||
| CGY | 2 | 5:49 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 21 | 34 | 10 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 5v3 | |||
| CGY | 2 | 4:49 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 21 | 34 | 16 | 19 | 40 | 43 | 5v3 | |||
| CGY | 2 | 4:48 | 12 goal | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 21 | 34 | 16 | 19 | 40 | 43 | 5v3 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 18:15 | 4 | 20 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 27 | 37 | 40 | 71 | 4v5 | ||
| EDM | 3 | 17:42 | 4 | 12 | 16 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 13 | 22 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 67 | 5v5 | |
| EDM | 3 | 14:40 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 16 | 34 | 60 | 13 | 22 | 37 | 40 | 71 | 78 | 5v5 | |
| EDM | 3 | 13:18 | 6 | 7 | 17 | 20 | 34 | 12 | 16 | 27 | 37 | 40 | 77 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 10:22 | 12 goal | 4 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 34 | 60 | 16 | 19 | 37 | 40 | 43 | 67 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 3 | 5:35 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 33 | 34 | 13 | 22 | 37 | 40 | 77 | 78 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 4:36 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 23 | 34 | 45 | 10 | 18 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 71 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 4:05 | 3 | 21 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 45 | 10 | 18 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 71 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 2:48 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 34 | 10 | 18 | 37 | 40 | 43 | 5v4 | ||
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | D. PHANEUF | 16:56 | 6 | 2 | 0:19 | 0 | 0 | 0:01 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 17:22 | 7 | 3 | 1:06 | 0 | 0 | 3:22 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 13:59 | 4 | 1 | 1:40 | 1 | 0 | 3:21 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 12:42 | 5 | 2 | 0:51 | 0 | 0 | 3:52 | 0 | 2 |
| 7 | A. PARDY | 14:17 | 4 | 1 | 1:09 | 1 | 0 | 4:19 | 0 | 2 |
| 10 | B. MCGRATTAN | 9:55 | 4 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | F. SJOSTROM | 9:52 | 3 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 12:23 | 5 | 2 | 1:10 | 0 | 0 | 0:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | D. BOYD | 12:30 | 4 | 3 | 0:52 | 0 | 0 | 0:24 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 10:24 | 2 | 1 | 1:09 | 1 | 0 | 6:00 | 0 | 1 |
| 20 | C. GLENCROSS | 10:37 | 2 | 1 | 1:46 | 1 | 0 | 5:12 | 1 | 2 |
| 21 | O. JOKINEN | 11:57 | 7 | 1 | 0:03 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | D. LANGKOW | 10:34 | 2 | 1 | 1:09 | 1 | 0 | 5:09 | 1 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 13:46 | 6 | 1 | 1:12 | 0 | 0 | 2:50 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 16:47 | 4 | 3 | 0:27 | 0 | 0 | 4:45 | 1 | 0 |
| 33 | B. PRUST | 10:07 | 3 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 45:42 | 14 | 6 | 2:43 | 1 | 0 | 9:50 | 1 | 2 |
| 45 | J. LUNDMARK | 12:08 | 5 | 1 | 0:33 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 13:08 | 3 | 3 | 0:27 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 21 | 8 | 15 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Due to the craziness that followed it, I was unable to get to counting scoring chances for this game previously.
The Flames won handily in all facets. Nice way for Dion to end his time with the Flames I'd say.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Canada Loses to the US - Let the Hand Wringing Begin!
Canada lost to the US in a fashion that has become disturbingly familiar for Flames fans this year - out-shoot, out-chance, lose anyways. Lots of fingers are pointing at Brodeur this morning (and fair enough, he wasn't good), but Flames fans will tell you that even excellent goaltending won't always deliver the "W" at the end.
Us basement-dwelling bloggers who point to the effect of chance on outcomes in the short term (ie; it's significant) have been somewhat vindicated over the last 2 Canada games. The good guys have doubled up on both the shots and scoring chances (at least) and come away with a narrow S/O win and a loss. And that's just the way it goes sometimes folks, now matter how good you are, how good your coaching is or how much "leadership and character" you have. It's what makes hockey interesting and infuriating.
Brodeur struggled last night, sure, but at least two of the American's point shots hit things on their way into the net. They could have easily bounced off a pad or stick and gone wide. At the other end of the ice, the opposite happened for most of the evening. The bounces are capricious. They are unmoved by debates on national character.
Some other observations:
- I long ago abandoned the concept of "chemistry" in hockey. Usually it's just shorthand for "scoring". It describes little more than that and it's predicted by almost nothing. You get chemistry in all of two ways - with the percentages or with good players playing with each other. The former can overcome the latter. As such, I'm not going to tie myself into knots over who should be playing with whom on the basis of "chemistry". Put the guys who are playing well on the ice and the rest will sort itself out.
- Including Pronger and Neidermayer on this team is looking like a mistake. They've both clearly lost a step. I don't know if swapping them out for, say, Bouwmeester and Green would make the team that much better, but there's almost no chance it would hurt them either.
Us basement-dwelling bloggers who point to the effect of chance on outcomes in the short term (ie; it's significant) have been somewhat vindicated over the last 2 Canada games. The good guys have doubled up on both the shots and scoring chances (at least) and come away with a narrow S/O win and a loss. And that's just the way it goes sometimes folks, now matter how good you are, how good your coaching is or how much "leadership and character" you have. It's what makes hockey interesting and infuriating.
Brodeur struggled last night, sure, but at least two of the American's point shots hit things on their way into the net. They could have easily bounced off a pad or stick and gone wide. At the other end of the ice, the opposite happened for most of the evening. The bounces are capricious. They are unmoved by debates on national character.
Some other observations:
- I long ago abandoned the concept of "chemistry" in hockey. Usually it's just shorthand for "scoring". It describes little more than that and it's predicted by almost nothing. You get chemistry in all of two ways - with the percentages or with good players playing with each other. The former can overcome the latter. As such, I'm not going to tie myself into knots over who should be playing with whom on the basis of "chemistry". Put the guys who are playing well on the ice and the rest will sort itself out.
- Including Pronger and Neidermayer on this team is looking like a mistake. They've both clearly lost a step. I don't know if swapping them out for, say, Bouwmeester and Green would make the team that much better, but there's almost no chance it would hurt them either.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Quote of the Day
Bottom-up thinkers...focus on the complexity of the underlying systems, and resist the urge to over-simplify the situation by focusing too much on the people in charge (or lack thereof).
Via Bottom-up.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
More Personal Stuff
After a year heading the ship over at SBN, I've been recruited to be the managing editor for Flames Nation. As such, the bulk of my Flamescentric thoughts will be found there from now on. I will continue to add my general musings here as well as Flames scoring chances, but almost everything else will appear at my new digs.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 62 Versus Anaheim
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20914
Dominating night for Calgary. Removing Getzlaf from the roster is a big blow for the Ducks.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| CGY | 1 | 18:30 | 3 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 19 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 15:26 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 34 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 14:21 | 3 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 1 | 9:32 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 34 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 1 | 7:46 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 22 | 27 | 28 | 34 | 50 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 1 | 7:35 | ANA goal | 3 | 12 | 15 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 22 | 27 | 28 | 34 | 50 | 5v5 |
| ANA | 1 | 7:23 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 22 | 27 | 28 | 34 | 50 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 7:10 | 3 | 5 | 19 | 20 | 23 | 34 | 1 | 20 | 22 | 34 | 50 | 53 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 3:19 | 23 goal | 4 | 6 | 15 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 17 | 21 | 33 | 53 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 2 | 18:44 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 11 | 19 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 17:48 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 20 | 27 | 34 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 2 | 17:28 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 20 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 20 | 27 | 34 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 2 | 17:27 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 20 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 20 | 21 | 53 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 17:38 | 12 goal | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 20 | 27 | 34 | 5v5 |
| ANA | 2 | 16:20 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 25 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 19 | 20 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 2 | 15:17 | 4 | 18 | 20 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 34 | 4v5 | ||
| ANA | 2 | 14:51 | 4 | 20 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 34 | 4v5 | ||
| ANA | 2 | 13:47 | 5 | 6 | 18 | 20 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 34 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 10:28 | 5 | 6 | 20 | 23 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 19 | 27 | 33 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 8:31 | 5 | 6 | 12 | 15 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 13 | 21 | 22 | 27 | 28 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 6:03 | 12 goal | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 9 | 17 | 27 | 33 | 34 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 2 | 3:28 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 1 | 10 | 28 | 34 | 39 | 53 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 18:55 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 26 | 34 | 1 | 22 | 27 | 34 | 39 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 17:52 | 3 | 5 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 19 | 22 | 28 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 17:18 | 5 | 15 | 21 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 10 | 11 | 27 | 34 | 50 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 10:26 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 19 | 21 | 28 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 3 | 10:01 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 20 | 27 | 33 | 34 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 8:27 | 5 | 7 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 17 | 19 | 33 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 6:39 | 5 | 7 | 21 | 25 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 19 | 20 | 33 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 5:16 | 4 | 6 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 4:49 | 4 | 6 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 34 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 3 | 4:30 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 23 | 26 | 34 | 1 | 8 | 11 | 27 | 33 | 34 | 5v5 | |
| ANA | 3 | 0:03 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 20 | 27 | 34 | 5v5 | |
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 17:08 | 6 | 7 | 1:34 | 1 | 0 | 0:13 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 17:46 | 6 | 4 | 1:33 | 1 | 0 | 2:21 | 0 | 2 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 20:40 | 7 | 2 | 2:03 | 1 | 0 | 1:26 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 15:09 | 7 | 3 | 0:20 | 0 | 0 | 1:26 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | A. PARDY | 15:15 | 3 | 0 | 0:25 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 13:17 | 6 | 3 | 1:48 | 1 | 0 | 0:13 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 15:43 | 6 | 8 | 2:27 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | N. DAWES | 13:53 | 3 | 3 | 0:17 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 14:06 | 7 | 6 | 2:27 | 1 | 0 | 1:26 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 9:54 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | C. GLENCROSS | 8:15 | 3 | 2 | 1:21 | 1 | 0 | 2:40 | 1 | 3 |
| 21 | C. HIGGINS | 15:38 | 6 | 1 | 0:49 | 1 | 0 | 0:54 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | D. LANGKOW | 15:52 | 5 | 0 | 1:33 | 1 | 0 | 0:23 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 9:19 | 3 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:37 | 1 | 1 |
| 25 | D. MOSS | 13:26 | 1 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:20 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 13:35 | 4 | 1 | 1:58 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 17:45 | 5 | 4 | 0:41 | 0 | 0 | 2:34 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 52:00 | 17 | 10 | 4:00 | 2 | 0 | 4:00 | 1 | 3 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 13:19 | 2 | 4 | 0:44 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 20 | 13 | 17 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Dominating night for Calgary. Removing Getzlaf from the roster is a big blow for the Ducks.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 60 Versus Ottawa
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20879
Senators had the reffing and the bounces in their favor, but that's usually what happens when you win the chances battle. Flames got progressively worse as the night wore on, despite the fact they were chasing for the entire second half.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| CGY | 1 | 18:44 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 18:01 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 73 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 1 | 15:03 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 23 | 34 | 45 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 13:06 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 13:01 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 17 | 19 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 11:44 | 3 | 7 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 18 | 30 | 39 | 41 | 43 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 9:29 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 9:11 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 12 | 14 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 7:54 | 3 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 18 | 30 | 39 | 41 | 43 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 7:53 | 3 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 18 | 30 | 39 | 41 | 43 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 4:21 | 5 | 6 | 16 | 19 | 20 | 34 | 22 | 25 | 30 | 39 | 45 | 73 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 3:30 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 4 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 41 | 43 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 3:23 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 4 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 41 | 43 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 3:10 | 11 goal | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 |
| OTT | 1 | 2:48 | OTT goal | 4 | 5 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 24 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 1 | 2:28 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 24 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 1 | 2:00 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 24 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 0:26 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 18 | 24 | 30 | 41 | 43 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 19:33 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 9 | 11 | 19 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 16:43 | 18 goal | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 19 | 24 | 30 | 41 | 5v5 |
| OTT | 2 | 14:47 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 34 | 45 | 60 | 12 | 17 | 25 | 26 | 30 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 14:36 | 3 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 14 | 22 | 25 | 30 | 45 | 73 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 13:06 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 39 | 43 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 12:47 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 30 | 39 | 43 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 11:58 | 4 | 6 | 20 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 41 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 11:36 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 34 | 45 | 60 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 41 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 10:25 | OTT goal | 3 | 4 | 18 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 17 | 18 | 25 | 30 | 39 | 73 | 5v5 |
| OTT | 2 | 10:02 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 9:48 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 5:59 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 2 | 3:24 | OTT goal | 5 | 7 | 20 | 34 | 45 | 60 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 39 | 41 | 5v5 |
| OTT | 2 | 2:05 | 3 | 4 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 11 | 19 | 24 | 30 | 45 | 4v4 | |||
| CGY | 2 | 1:26 | 3 | 7 | 18 | 21 | 34 | 9 | 17 | 24 | 30 | 43 | 4v4 | |||
| OTT | 3 | 19:20 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 3 | 14:56 | 5 | 7 | 20 | 34 | 45 | 60 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 30 | 41 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 3 | 11:26 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 3 | 10:16 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 30 | 41 | 45 | 5v5 | |
| OTT | 3 | 5:18 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 25 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 2:57 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 22 | 24 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 0:21 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 4 | 11 | 17 | 19 | 27 | 30 | 4v5 | ||
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 21:58 | 4 | 10 | 0:25 | 0 | 0 | 1:17 | 1 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 23:32 | 9 | 12 | 1:35 | 1 | 0 | 1:30 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 18:06 | 6 | 8 | 0:25 | 0 | 0 | 0:58 | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 15:44 | 4 | 7 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:39 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | A. PARDY | 12:38 | 2 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:39 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 15:52 | 5 | 6 | 1:35 | 1 | 0 | 1:17 | 1 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 16:44 | 5 | 6 | 1:54 | 1 | 0 | 0:59 | 1 | 0 |
| 16 | D. BOYD | 8:02 | 1 | 7 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 16:37 | 6 | 7 | 1:35 | 1 | 0 | 1:58 | 1 | 0 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 7:14 | 0 | 8 | 0:06 | 0 | 0 | 0:09 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | C. GLENCROSS | 12:33 | 1 | 5 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:35 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | C. HIGGINS | 16:50 | 7 | 5 | 0:25 | 0 | 0 | 0:40 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | D. LANGKOW | 16:44 | 6 | 6 | 0:25 | 0 | 0 | 1:34 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 7:12 | 1 | 7 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:39 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 16:35 | 6 | 7 | 1:35 | 1 | 0 | 0:19 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 17:27 | 3 | 7 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:30 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 54:34 | 14 | 24 | 2:00 | 1 | 0 | 2:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 45 | J. LUNDMARK | 13:22 | 2 | 3 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 13:40 | 1 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 16 | 24 | 14 | 24 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Senators had the reffing and the bounces in their favor, but that's usually what happens when you win the chances battle. Flames got progressively worse as the night wore on, despite the fact they were chasing for the entire second half.
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 59 Versus Tampa Bay
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20863
Flames were walking away with the game until they fell into the "dreaded shell" in the third period. Didn't help that the refs stop calling penalties on T-bay after the Flames scored on the PP, of course.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| TBL | 1 | 18:06 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 20 | 34 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 30 | 77 | 4v4 | |||
| TBL | 1 | 16:15 | 7 | 17 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 26 | 30 | 91 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 1 | 15:46 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| TBL | 1 | 13:56 | 3 | 5 | 22 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 5 | 30 | 39 | 91 | 4v4 | |||
| TBL | 1 | 11:21 | 4 | 21 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 26 | 30 | 91 | 4v5 | ||
| TBL | 1 | 10:03 | 4 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 5 | 13 | 19 | 30 | 77 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 4:47 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 26 | 34 | 12 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 77 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 1 | 4:17 | 5 goal | 3 | 5 | 16 | 20 | 34 | 60 | 5 | 11 | 30 | 39 | 44 | 5v4 | |
| CGY | 1 | 1:33 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 12 | 30 | 39 | 44 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 1 | 1:07 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 12 | 28 | 30 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 13:05 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 17 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 11:00 | 5 | 7 | 19 | 21 | 22 | 34 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 30 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 10:42 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 30 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| TBL | 2 | 8:27 | 3 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 9 | 26 | 30 | 32 | 91 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 6:58 | 3 | 16 | 20 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 5:10 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 6 | 17 | 28 | 30 | 39 | 77 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 3:45 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 22 | 34 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 26 | 30 | 91 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 3:20 | 4 | 5 | 21 | 22 | 34 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 26 | 30 | 91 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 2:55 | 4 | 6 | 20 | 23 | 34 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 26 | 30 | 91 | 4v5 | ||
| TBL | 3 | 19:01 | TBL goal | 4 | 6 | 11 | 19 | 22 | 34 | 9 | 26 | 30 | 32 | 77 | 91 | 5v5 |
| TBL | 3 | 18:40 | 4 | 6 | 16 | 20 | 34 | 60 | 4 | 13 | 19 | 30 | 32 | 77 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 15:47 | 3 | 16 | 20 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 19 | 30 | 5v5 | |
| TBL | 3 | 4:06 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 30 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| TBL | 3 | 0:28 | 4 | 6 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 34 | 5 | 9 | 26 | 30 | 39 | 91 | 5v5 | |
| TBL | 4 | 4:36 | 3 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 5 | 12 | 13 | 30 | 39 | 4v4 | |||
| CGY | 4 | 3:13 | 6 | 11 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 30 | 4v4 | |||
| TBL | 4 | 3:04 | TBL goal | 6 | 20 | 22 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 9 | 14 | 30 | 39 | 4v4 | ||
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 18:54 | 4 | 4 | 1:11 | 2 | 0 | 0:09 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 19:58 | 3 | 5 | 5:10 | 1 | 0 | 4:04 | 3 | 1 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 18:31 | 2 | 3 | 1:41 | 1 | 0 | 2:06 | 2 | 0 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 11:34 | 4 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 2:37 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | A. PARDY | 10:46 | 2 | 1 | 0:27 | 1 | 0 | 1:35 | 0 | 1 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 14:57 | 6 | 3 | 4:42 | 2 | 0 | 0:06 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 17:20 | 5 | 3 | 4:42 | 2 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | D. BOYD | 7:35 | 2 | 2 | 0:53 | 1 | 0 | 0:08 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 0:03 | 0 | 0 | 0:10 | 0 | 0 | 0:39 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 17:40 | 5 | 3 | 4:42 | 2 | 0 | 0:16 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 13:09 | 1 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:53 | 1 | 0 |
| 20 | C. GLENCROSS | 14:40 | 2 | 4 | 1:03 | 1 | 0 | 2:19 | 1 | 0 |
| 21 | C. HIGGINS | 14:33 | 1 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 3:05 | 1 | 1 |
| 22 | D. LANGKOW | 17:09 | 2 | 5 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 2:43 | 2 | 1 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 10:50 | 1 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 3:01 | 1 | 1 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 1:55 | 0 | 1 | 3:01 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 20:16 | 3 | 3 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 3:39 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 49:08 | 9 | 10 | 5:45 | 3 | 0 | 7:05 | 3 | 2 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 10:05 | 1 | 1 | 1:03 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 15 | 12 | 9 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Flames were walking away with the game until they fell into the "dreaded shell" in the third period. Didn't help that the refs stop calling penalties on T-bay after the Flames scored on the PP, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)