I know, I know...why bother, when I got almost the entire Eastern Conference wrong? Well, because I went 4-4 in the West, you smarmy git (as the British would say).
East
PIT vs MTL
The Canadiens are the worst team left in the playoffs. Their upset of the Capitals was remarkable...in that is was incredibly lucky and little else. Only COL got outshot more in the first round. So unless Halak continues to post a .940 SV%, there's little chance the Habs make it out of the second round, even if the Penguins aren't quite as good as the Capitals.
Pittsburgh in 5
PHI vs BOS
Not a lot to choose from between these two teams, especially when the Flyers supposed weak spot (Brian Boucher) wasn't a weak spot at all in round 1. That said, the Flyers lost Carter and Gagne while the Bruins gained Savard. That likely tips the scales in Boston's favor.
BOS in 7
West
SJS vs DET
Really tough choice here. Flip a coin. I think Detroit might actually be the better team from top-to-bottom, but there's not a lot of separation here. It may just depend on whether who out of Nabakov or Howard is less mediocre. For now, I'll go...
SJS in 6.
CHI vs VAN
The Blackhawks looked mortal in the first couple of games of the Nashville series, but slowly started to take things over as the games progressed. I still think they're the best team in the league (even with Niemi in net) and should be able to take the Canucks down. Again.
CHI in 6.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Staples, MacKinnon and Sports Journalism
David Staples has an interesting piece on the changing landscape of sports journalism this morning. Of note is the fact that the beat writer's job was transforming before the advent of the internet and user-generated content:
In response to TV, sports journalists started to spend less time writing about the exact details of the game. Instead, for good and for ill, they focused more on what the athletes and coaches had to say both before and after games. I'd guess that the majority of column inches in newspapers for several decades have been devoted to such musings. It's the rare writer who still produces a well-told, blow-by-blow narrative account of the game, or even makes the attempt.
David goes on to discuss how the wide availability of televised games, slow-motion replays and PVR's has granted increased observational power to the average viewer, powers perhaps superior to the live observer.
The most interesting part of the article may actually be the comment section where veteran Edmonton scribe John MacKinnon makes a case for the beat writer to continue to "show up" for games:
Showing up doesn't just mean being in the press box (where replays are readily available), it means showing up in the locker room after games, at practice on off-days, taking people to lunch (exceedingly rare these days), catching guys coming into the arena pre-game, pre-practice, post-game, calling contacts at home or on cell phones, texting people, whatever keeps you in contact.
It's reading body language in the locker room, catching the locker-room give-and-take, getting a sense of who's close with who, and who is disliked.
It's being there when the coach cusses out an error-prone player at practice, then talking with both of them post-practice
On and on and on.
The reporter's first responsibility is to the story, actually, to getting as close as possible to the truth under often complicated circumstances and on deadline, day after day. It is not necessarily to the consumer.
I sympathize with MacKinnon, who also discusses the compromises the beat reporter with access must sometimes make in order to maintain a relationship with the team. However, Tyler responds in the same comment section and his misgivings on the subject reflect my own.
As far as getting close goes, closeness comes with a price, which a lot of members of the Edmonton sporting press seem happy to ignore while pretending that the closeness is all important. If what getting as close to the subject as possible gets me, as a media consumer, is media guys who are compromised all over the place, pull punches in opinion pieces and stories peppered with stock quotes and obvious observations from the participants, guys who APOLOGIZE after asking an unexpected question, who cares about it?
What we have here is the contrast between journalism in principle versus journalism in practice. Everything MaKinnon says in his comment strikes me as credible...except that, as Tyler says, beat writers rarely farm anything of value from their access these days. When was the last time, for instance, any ink-stained wretch in Calgary produced a hard hitting expose of the Flames supposed locker room issues? A couple of seasons ago, the team was able to mostly conceal the fact that Alex Tanguay had requested a trade and was unhappy with his role on the club. Sure, there were trade rumors during the year - but they were often breathlessly reported, without attribution, by the likes of Pierre McGuire during in-game color commentary. So either the press club in town didn't know about any of this, or were persuaded to keep silent on the matter. Either way, their showing up for each and every game was useless to me, the consumer without access.
More recently, rumors of dressing room discontent ran rampant throughout town. We still have no real idea of the true culprit or the meat of the issue(s). Was Phaneuf roundly hated? Was it Jokinen? Was it conflict that sparked the mid-season rebuild? Sutter and King hinted obtusely at such things during their year-end presser, but there's never been any real explication of the matter. So, again, either the beat guys in town have no idea (and that's very probable. To Sutter, press relations and mushroom farming are basically the same thing) or they "weren't allowed" to share the info. Whatever the case, the truth stays buried and what we're left with is stock quotes, press releases and innuendo.
There's probably still some value to having access - a connected journo can ask a GM or coach if trade rumor X or Y is in any way true or credible for instance (although that's probably fruitless in CGY as well for the reason parenthetically stated above). A sit down interview with a player or prospect can yield worthwhile information, depending on what questions are being asked too.
Beyond those functions, however, I will remain dubious of the value of "showing up and getting close to the story". If there's insider narratives to be had from observing the culture of the dressing and such, prove it. Until then, I'll continue to skip the fish wraps.
In response to TV, sports journalists started to spend less time writing about the exact details of the game. Instead, for good and for ill, they focused more on what the athletes and coaches had to say both before and after games. I'd guess that the majority of column inches in newspapers for several decades have been devoted to such musings. It's the rare writer who still produces a well-told, blow-by-blow narrative account of the game, or even makes the attempt.
David goes on to discuss how the wide availability of televised games, slow-motion replays and PVR's has granted increased observational power to the average viewer, powers perhaps superior to the live observer.
The most interesting part of the article may actually be the comment section where veteran Edmonton scribe John MacKinnon makes a case for the beat writer to continue to "show up" for games:
Showing up doesn't just mean being in the press box (where replays are readily available), it means showing up in the locker room after games, at practice on off-days, taking people to lunch (exceedingly rare these days), catching guys coming into the arena pre-game, pre-practice, post-game, calling contacts at home or on cell phones, texting people, whatever keeps you in contact.
It's reading body language in the locker room, catching the locker-room give-and-take, getting a sense of who's close with who, and who is disliked.
It's being there when the coach cusses out an error-prone player at practice, then talking with both of them post-practice
On and on and on.
The reporter's first responsibility is to the story, actually, to getting as close as possible to the truth under often complicated circumstances and on deadline, day after day. It is not necessarily to the consumer.
I sympathize with MacKinnon, who also discusses the compromises the beat reporter with access must sometimes make in order to maintain a relationship with the team. However, Tyler responds in the same comment section and his misgivings on the subject reflect my own.
As far as getting close goes, closeness comes with a price, which a lot of members of the Edmonton sporting press seem happy to ignore while pretending that the closeness is all important. If what getting as close to the subject as possible gets me, as a media consumer, is media guys who are compromised all over the place, pull punches in opinion pieces and stories peppered with stock quotes and obvious observations from the participants, guys who APOLOGIZE after asking an unexpected question, who cares about it?
What we have here is the contrast between journalism in principle versus journalism in practice. Everything MaKinnon says in his comment strikes me as credible...except that, as Tyler says, beat writers rarely farm anything of value from their access these days. When was the last time, for instance, any ink-stained wretch in Calgary produced a hard hitting expose of the Flames supposed locker room issues? A couple of seasons ago, the team was able to mostly conceal the fact that Alex Tanguay had requested a trade and was unhappy with his role on the club. Sure, there were trade rumors during the year - but they were often breathlessly reported, without attribution, by the likes of Pierre McGuire during in-game color commentary. So either the press club in town didn't know about any of this, or were persuaded to keep silent on the matter. Either way, their showing up for each and every game was useless to me, the consumer without access.
More recently, rumors of dressing room discontent ran rampant throughout town. We still have no real idea of the true culprit or the meat of the issue(s). Was Phaneuf roundly hated? Was it Jokinen? Was it conflict that sparked the mid-season rebuild? Sutter and King hinted obtusely at such things during their year-end presser, but there's never been any real explication of the matter. So, again, either the beat guys in town have no idea (and that's very probable. To Sutter, press relations and mushroom farming are basically the same thing) or they "weren't allowed" to share the info. Whatever the case, the truth stays buried and what we're left with is stock quotes, press releases and innuendo.
There's probably still some value to having access - a connected journo can ask a GM or coach if trade rumor X or Y is in any way true or credible for instance (although that's probably fruitless in CGY as well for the reason parenthetically stated above). A sit down interview with a player or prospect can yield worthwhile information, depending on what questions are being asked too.
Beyond those functions, however, I will remain dubious of the value of "showing up and getting close to the story". If there's insider narratives to be had from observing the culture of the dressing and such, prove it. Until then, I'll continue to skip the fish wraps.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
2010 Playoff Prognostications
Picking winners in the post-season is a fools errand because almost anything can happen in a 7 game series. Of course, that never stops any of us now does it?
East
MTL vs WAS
I regard the Canadiens as one of the weakest clubs in the playoffs this year. Goaltending and their perennially hot PP kept them above the water line, but just barely. They have a terrible shot differential and extremely lackluster forward depth. They suffered through some health issues which likely put a dent in the underlying numbers, but even healthy I can't see them beating the Caps (unless Theodore blows up completely).
Washington in 5.
NJD vs PHI
The Devils were somewhat mediocre after the Olympic break, while the Flyers were somewhat mediocre all year, although a think a large measure of Philadelphia's problems were percentage-based (ie; luck) and the lack of a true starting goalie. So while I think this could have been a good series had PHI been starting, say, Emery, there's little chance that Boucher out-duels Broduer.
NJD in 6.
BOS vs BUF
The Bruins came back down to earth despite the fact that Tuuka Rask became a legit goalie this year. The Sabres, probably the best team not to make the dance last year, deserve to be where they are (although I wouldn't bet on Miller reproducing this season next year). Without Savard in the line-up, I don't give Boston much hope in this one.
BUF in 6.
PIT vs OTT
The Senators don't impress me at all. They rode a very fortunate winning streak to their current position, but have been fairly unimpressive otherwise. Their goaltending is crap, their forward and defensive depth is "meh" and they'll be facing two of the best forwards on the planet in the first round.
No way they advance.
Pittsburgh in 5.
WEST
SJS vs COL
I think both clubs are relatively lucky to be in the position they're in: San Jose to win the division and Colorado to make the playoffs. That said, the Sharks are the better team from tip to stern. Unless the bounces start favoring the Avs again (with extreme prejudice) the Cinderella story ends here.
SJS in 6.
CHI vs NSH
It's remarkable the Predators are in the playoffs at all given their line-up and budget restraints. That said, the Blackhawks are the WC juggernauts (despite their goaltending issues) and I expect them to roll over the Preds in short order.
Chicago in 4.
VCR vs LAK
This could be the most contentious first round match-up. I like aspects of both teams, including the top 6 forward depth for both. However, both also have their holes (Canucks bottom end of the roster, injuries to the blueline...Kings goaltending and medicore defensive depth) so there's no clear winner here. If Luongo can't get back on the horse, the Canucks are in trouble. However, an elite Luongo can also probably be the difference.
Vancouver in 7.
DET vs PHX
The Coyotes won a lot of shoot-outs this year (14!), so their point total is no doubt inflated. That said, they have pretty decent underlying stats across the board so they aren't pretenders like, say, the Ottawa Senators. I think almost any other match-up would have been more favorable for them however. The Red Wings are finally healthy and the percentages have swung back into their favor (after struggling under the weight of the bounces for most of the first half). Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen are still outstanding and there's just no response for that level of skill on the Coyotes side. I'll be cheering for the Desert Dogs in this one, but I wouldn't put money on them.
DET in 6.
East
MTL vs WAS
I regard the Canadiens as one of the weakest clubs in the playoffs this year. Goaltending and their perennially hot PP kept them above the water line, but just barely. They have a terrible shot differential and extremely lackluster forward depth. They suffered through some health issues which likely put a dent in the underlying numbers, but even healthy I can't see them beating the Caps (unless Theodore blows up completely).
Washington in 5.
NJD vs PHI
The Devils were somewhat mediocre after the Olympic break, while the Flyers were somewhat mediocre all year, although a think a large measure of Philadelphia's problems were percentage-based (ie; luck) and the lack of a true starting goalie. So while I think this could have been a good series had PHI been starting, say, Emery, there's little chance that Boucher out-duels Broduer.
NJD in 6.
BOS vs BUF
The Bruins came back down to earth despite the fact that Tuuka Rask became a legit goalie this year. The Sabres, probably the best team not to make the dance last year, deserve to be where they are (although I wouldn't bet on Miller reproducing this season next year). Without Savard in the line-up, I don't give Boston much hope in this one.
BUF in 6.
PIT vs OTT
The Senators don't impress me at all. They rode a very fortunate winning streak to their current position, but have been fairly unimpressive otherwise. Their goaltending is crap, their forward and defensive depth is "meh" and they'll be facing two of the best forwards on the planet in the first round.
No way they advance.
Pittsburgh in 5.
WEST
SJS vs COL
I think both clubs are relatively lucky to be in the position they're in: San Jose to win the division and Colorado to make the playoffs. That said, the Sharks are the better team from tip to stern. Unless the bounces start favoring the Avs again (with extreme prejudice) the Cinderella story ends here.
SJS in 6.
CHI vs NSH
It's remarkable the Predators are in the playoffs at all given their line-up and budget restraints. That said, the Blackhawks are the WC juggernauts (despite their goaltending issues) and I expect them to roll over the Preds in short order.
Chicago in 4.
VCR vs LAK
This could be the most contentious first round match-up. I like aspects of both teams, including the top 6 forward depth for both. However, both also have their holes (Canucks bottom end of the roster, injuries to the blueline...Kings goaltending and medicore defensive depth) so there's no clear winner here. If Luongo can't get back on the horse, the Canucks are in trouble. However, an elite Luongo can also probably be the difference.
Vancouver in 7.
DET vs PHX
The Coyotes won a lot of shoot-outs this year (14!), so their point total is no doubt inflated. That said, they have pretty decent underlying stats across the board so they aren't pretenders like, say, the Ottawa Senators. I think almost any other match-up would have been more favorable for them however. The Red Wings are finally healthy and the percentages have swung back into their favor (after struggling under the weight of the bounces for most of the first half). Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen are still outstanding and there's just no response for that level of skill on the Coyotes side. I'll be cheering for the Desert Dogs in this one, but I wouldn't put money on them.
DET in 6.
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 79 Versus Chicago
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21176
Calgary with their best effort by this metric in awhile. Of course, they lost the game 4-1. Chasing in the third bumped the chances count in their favor, but they were neck-and-neck with a very good team up until that point anyways. All of the Flames primary difference makers were actually in the black for a change as well.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| CGY | 1 | 19:48 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 1 | 17:06 | CHI goal | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 31 | 46 | 55 | 82 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 1 | 10:58 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 9:56 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 2 | 7 | 11 | 31 | 36 | 5v4 | ||
| CHI | 1 | 7:58 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 5 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 1 | 5:07 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 4:35 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 31 | 36 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 4:34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 31 | 36 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 1 | 3:30 | 4 | 23 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 88 | 4v5 | ||
| CHI | 1 | 2:32 | 5 | 23 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 10 | 16 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 4v5 | ||
| CHI | 1 | 2:14 | 5 | 23 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 10 | 16 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 4v5 | ||
| CHI | 1 | 0:55 | CHI goal | 3 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 31 | 36 | 88 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 2 | 15:53 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 2 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 33 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 13:52 | 4 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 6 | 31 | 46 | 55 | 82 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 11:48 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 10:18 | 4 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 60 | 2 | 31 | 33 | 36 | 55 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 8:34 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 5 | 6 | 31 | 46 | 55 | 82 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 7:18 | 4 | 18 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 10 | 16 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 5:30 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 31 | 32 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 4:51 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 4:29 | CHI goal | 3 | 17 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 2 | 7 | 22 | 31 | 36 | 88 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 2 | 3:27 | 3 goal | 3 | 17 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 5 | 6 | 22 | 31 | 36 | 88 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 3 | 18:43 | 4 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 22 | 31 | 33 | 36 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 16:29 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 42 | 2 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 33 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 13:53 | 3 | 11 | 17 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 2 | 11 | 16 | 31 | 33 | 82 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 9:44 | 4 | 12 | 24 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 22 | 31 | 36 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 9:12 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 2 | 22 | 31 | 33 | 36 | 46 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 8:41 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 7:30 | 4 | 11 | 18 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 5 | 6 | 31 | 55 | 82 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 7:11 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 18 | 25 | 34 | 2 | 31 | 33 | 55 | 82 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 6:29 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 2 | 11 | 16 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 3:46 | 3 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 16 | 31 | 32 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 2:47 | CHI goal | 3 | 4 | 11 | 18 | 25 | 34 | 2 | 10 | 19 | 31 | 33 | 81 | 5v5 |
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 19:13 | 6 | 5 | 0:52 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 20:06 | 7 | 6 | 1:07 | 0 | 0 | 2:49 | 0 | 2 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 17:43 | 5 | 0 | 0:50 | 1 | 0 | 0:59 | 0 | 2 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 14:30 | 5 | 0 | 0:10 | 1 | 0 | 1:46 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 17:51 | 6 | 7 | 1:10 | 0 | 0 | 0:13 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 19:27 | 8 | 6 | 1:10 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | N. DAWES | 13:34 | 6 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 15:31 | 5 | 3 | 0:50 | 1 | 0 | 0:26 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 17:44 | 6 | 7 | 1:26 | 0 | 0 | 2:00 | 0 | 1 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 6:31 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 7:15 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 3:07 | 0 | 4 |
| 24 | C. CONROY | 13:18 | 6 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:31 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | D. MOSS | 12:58 | 7 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:28 | 0 | 2 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 16:51 | 3 | 2 | 0:50 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | S. STAIOS | 17:43 | 5 | 6 | 0:58 | 0 | 0 | 1:58 | 0 | 2 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 17:37 | 7 | 5 | 0:03 | 0 | 0 | 2:02 | 0 | 2 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 51:46 | 17 | 11 | 2:00 | 1 | 0 | 4:47 | 0 | 4 |
| 42 | B. SUTTER | 5:38 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:49 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 14:02 | 3 | 2 | 0:34 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 18 | 15 | 17 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
Calgary with their best effort by this metric in awhile. Of course, they lost the game 4-1. Chasing in the third bumped the chances count in their favor, but they were neck-and-neck with a very good team up until that point anyways. All of the Flames primary difference makers were actually in the black for a change as well.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 78 Versus Colorado
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21162
The lowest event game of the season featured a lot of shots from outside the scoring areas by both teams, but not much else. The Flames with an appalling 5 ES scoring chances, but win the game thanks to some favorable bounces and outstanding goaltending by Kipper in the third.
Iginla et al with another oh-fer night. Calgary's "first line" is absolutely abysmal right now.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| CGY | 1 | 17:59 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 25 | 34 | 60 | 9 | 10 | 23 | 41 | 52 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| COL | 1 | 14:19 | 3 | 12 | 17 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 10 | 25 | 26 | 32 | 41 | 52 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 12:04 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 4 | 37 | 41 | 44 | 55 | 59 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 10:17 | 3 | 5 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 10 | 18 | 39 | 41 | 52 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 1 | 5:52 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 25 | 34 | 22 | 27 | 32 | 37 | 41 | 5v4 | ||
| COL | 1 | 3:47 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 9 | 25 | 39 | 41 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| COL | 1 | 2:49 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 22 | 27 | 37 | 41 | 55 | 59 | 5v5 | |
| COL | 1 | 2:06 | 3 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 32 | 37 | 41 | 44 | 59 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 17:33 | 15 goal | 5 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 22 | 27 | 32 | 37 | 41 | 59 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 2 | 14:11 | 5 | 6 | 23 | 34 | 42 | 4 | 9 | 23 | 26 | 41 | 88 | 4v5 | ||
| COL | 2 | 9:54 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 16 | 18 | 32 | 41 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| COL | 2 | 1:19 | 4 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 60 | 10 | 23 | 26 | 39 | 41 | 52 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 17:50 | 17 goal | 5 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 10 | 37 | 41 | 52 | 55 | 59 | 5v5 |
| COL | 3 | 12:30 | COL goal | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 10 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 39 | 41 | 5v5 |
| COL | 3 | 9:49 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 9 | 27 | 41 | 44 | 59 | 88 | 5v5 | |
| COL | 3 | 6:57 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 22 | 27 | 37 | 41 | 55 | 59 | 5v5 | |
| COL | 3 | 5:56 | 3 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 10 | 25 | 26 | 39 | 41 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 4:13 | 3 | 17 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 4 | 25 | 37 | 39 | 41 | 52 | 5v5 | |
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 16:37 | 1 | 4 | 3:09 | 2 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 20:19 | 0 | 2 | 2:57 | 0 | 0 | 1:12 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 15:17 | 4 | 3 | 3:02 | 2 | 0 | 0:48 | 1 | 0 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 16:10 | 4 | 4 | 0:59 | 0 | 0 | 0:48 | 1 | 0 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 17:31 | 0 | 5 | 1:19 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 16:12 | 0 | 5 | 2:52 | 1 | 0 | 0:04 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | N. DAWES | 13:45 | 3 | 2 | 0:19 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 15:00 | 2 | 3 | 2:49 | 1 | 0 | 0:26 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 16:07 | 0 | 4 | 2:52 | 1 | 0 | 0:04 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 6:38 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 8:09 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:51 | 1 | 0 |
| 24 | C. CONROY | 15:19 | 2 | 2 | 0:19 | 0 | 0 | 0:39 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | D. MOSS | 13:07 | 3 | 2 | 2:52 | 1 | 0 | 1:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 14:21 | 2 | 2 | 2:49 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | S. STAIOS | 17:47 | 0 | 2 | 1:52 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 17:50 | 1 | 5 | 0:01 | 0 | 0 | 1:12 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 52:00 | 5 | 10 | 6:00 | 2 | 0 | 2:00 | 1 | 0 |
| 42 | B. SUTTER | 6:23 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:51 | 1 | 0 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 13:28 | 3 | 3 | 1:49 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 8 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The lowest event game of the season featured a lot of shots from outside the scoring areas by both teams, but not much else. The Flames with an appalling 5 ES scoring chances, but win the game thanks to some favorable bounces and outstanding goaltending by Kipper in the third.
Iginla et al with another oh-fer night. Calgary's "first line" is absolutely abysmal right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)