Lots of interesting arb cases coming up, one of which is Anton Stralman - former Flame and Leaf and current Columbus Blue Jacket. Stralman was had for a 3rd rounder from CGY (don't ask) and ended up leading the Blue Jackets in scoring from the back-end with 34 points in 73 games. He's also just 24 years old.
That's not a player I'd take to arbitration personally (depending on his demands, of course). Frankly, I'd seek to lock him up for the next 4 years at anywhere from 1-2M a season.
However, it seems the BJ's are thinking of walking away from any award that lands in the 1.5-2.2M area. That's crazy talk.
And Why? Because of a team low -17 rating and the perceived "defensive liability" that comes with it (Stralman arrived with this stigma, so there's a bit of confirmation bias going on here).
Let's look at the underlying numbers to see if the reputation bears out -
- Stralman's QoC (corsi) was middling - worse than guys like Commodore and Pahlson, but superior to Russel and Methot. So he wasn't overly sheltered.
- Corsi = +2.17/60. Best amongst regular skaters on the team.
- Zonestart = 50.9%. Tougher than Russell (54%), but easier than the shut-down guys who were all below 50%.
- PDO = 96.8 (!!). Team low amongst regular skaters. Look no further if you want an explanation for his -17 rating. 'Twas the bounces.
- ESP/60 - 0.58. Meh.
- PPP/60 - 4.80. Best on the team amongst blueliners.
So middling competition and zonestart, team leading possession numbers, team leading PP production rate and a plus/minus killed by bad percentages. And he's 24 years old. This is a player CBJ should bet on, not spurn. They have about 10M in cap space and an urgent need for offensively capable players on the back-end. Playing hard ball with Stralman wouldn't make a lick of sense. It's not like there's better bargains sitting on the free agent market or anything.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
...Feaster, on the other hand
In direct contrast to my previous post, here's a quote from new Flames Ass. GM Jay Feaster today:
"I know the trend now is maybe you don't need that world-class goalie," he said. "I still think you build from the net out and I think it's one of the strong suits of this team -- the fact we have a world-class goaltender and we have a solid blue-line. That is one of the things that makes this attractive because I think the pieces are in place."
Sigh. No. No, no, no. The idea that "building from the net out" is a sound strategy in the current environment is a pernicious falsehood. Goaltending is an incredibly abundant, incredibly cheap commodity in the post lock-out NHL. It's also the toughest to properly predict. That's why committing a lot of money in net isn't a good idea anymore. Skilled forwards, on the other hand, drive things like scoring and possession which are must haves.
It's true that the Flames have a strong back-end and decent goalie (...maybe). However, their huge commitment in dollars and cap space to those areas of the organization has largely proven to be a weakness (with perhaps one exception) since Sutter took over, given the club's near total inability to build a strong, self-sustaining group up front.
Now, it's entirely possible that Feaster is speaking as a politician to the press here and is merely ingratiating himself with his new boss and fan base. That said, it doesn't fill me with hope.
"I know the trend now is maybe you don't need that world-class goalie," he said. "I still think you build from the net out and I think it's one of the strong suits of this team -- the fact we have a world-class goaltender and we have a solid blue-line. That is one of the things that makes this attractive because I think the pieces are in place."
Sigh. No. No, no, no. The idea that "building from the net out" is a sound strategy in the current environment is a pernicious falsehood. Goaltending is an incredibly abundant, incredibly cheap commodity in the post lock-out NHL. It's also the toughest to properly predict. That's why committing a lot of money in net isn't a good idea anymore. Skilled forwards, on the other hand, drive things like scoring and possession which are must haves.
It's true that the Flames have a strong back-end and decent goalie (...maybe). However, their huge commitment in dollars and cap space to those areas of the organization has largely proven to be a weakness (with perhaps one exception) since Sutter took over, given the club's near total inability to build a strong, self-sustaining group up front.
Now, it's entirely possible that Feaster is speaking as a politician to the press here and is merely ingratiating himself with his new boss and fan base. That said, it doesn't fill me with hope.
So Far So Good For Stevey Y
Early this off-season, Flames fans were wondering if the franchise was going to fire Darryl Sutter and replace him with erstwhile DET captain and executive Steve Yzerman. They didn't, of course, and Yzerman landed in Tampa Bay instead.
A legitimate question was raised at the time, though: what kind of GM is Yzerman going to be? Aside from a few years in the Red Wings front office, Yzerman didn't really have any management experience. And, as we've seen numerous times, great hockey players don't necessarily make great coaches or GM's. Skepticism regarding Stevey Wonders abilities in the big chair was warranted.
The early returns for Tampa Bay fans are positive though. Very positive. Here's the bulk of Yzerman's work so far this summer:
- Re-signed Martin St.Louis 3 year 5.625M/year contract.
- Dealt Meszaros and his $4M cap hit to the Flyers.
- Signed Brett Clark to a 2 year, 1.5M/year contract.
- Signed Pavbel Kubina to a 2 year, 3.85M/year contract.
- Signed Dan Ellis is a 2 year, 1.5M/year contract.
- Dealt Matt Walker and 4th round pick to the Flyers for Simon Gagne
In short, he flipped Meszaros for Kubina and saved some cap space, signed a "1B" goaltender to a cheap deal (very Detroit model-esque), signed a capable depth defender to a cheap deal and swiped a legit top 6 forward from Philly for what amounts to a bag of pucks. The only quibble I have with the above is the St. Louis contract (strikes me as a year too long given his age), but the way Marty continues to produce, it's not indefensible.
On top of all that, here's what Yzerman had to say about "team toughness" recently:
"I want to improve the skill level and the ability of the team with players who compete hard. Guy uses the term 'first on the puck.' That’s the kind of toughness he wants. He wants guys going in there playing all out. We’re not going to emphasize having to fight. I think it's an over-emphasized part of the game. I think guys who compete hard and are willing to do whatever you have to do to win are more important. Just use Marty St. Louis as an example. He competes hard and is as tough as there is because he’s willing to do whatever he has to do to win a hockey game. That’s the kind of toughness we’re talking about."
Very sensible.
Obviously, a good summer does not a great GM make. However, one has to like both Yzerman's actions and words this off-season.
A legitimate question was raised at the time, though: what kind of GM is Yzerman going to be? Aside from a few years in the Red Wings front office, Yzerman didn't really have any management experience. And, as we've seen numerous times, great hockey players don't necessarily make great coaches or GM's. Skepticism regarding Stevey Wonders abilities in the big chair was warranted.
The early returns for Tampa Bay fans are positive though. Very positive. Here's the bulk of Yzerman's work so far this summer:
- Re-signed Martin St.Louis 3 year 5.625M/year contract.
- Dealt Meszaros and his $4M cap hit to the Flyers.
- Signed Brett Clark to a 2 year, 1.5M/year contract.
- Signed Pavbel Kubina to a 2 year, 3.85M/year contract.
- Signed Dan Ellis is a 2 year, 1.5M/year contract.
- Dealt Matt Walker and 4th round pick to the Flyers for Simon Gagne
In short, he flipped Meszaros for Kubina and saved some cap space, signed a "1B" goaltender to a cheap deal (very Detroit model-esque), signed a capable depth defender to a cheap deal and swiped a legit top 6 forward from Philly for what amounts to a bag of pucks. The only quibble I have with the above is the St. Louis contract (strikes me as a year too long given his age), but the way Marty continues to produce, it's not indefensible.
On top of all that, here's what Yzerman had to say about "team toughness" recently:
"I want to improve the skill level and the ability of the team with players who compete hard. Guy uses the term 'first on the puck.' That’s the kind of toughness he wants. He wants guys going in there playing all out. We’re not going to emphasize having to fight. I think it's an over-emphasized part of the game. I think guys who compete hard and are willing to do whatever you have to do to win are more important. Just use Marty St. Louis as an example. He competes hard and is as tough as there is because he’s willing to do whatever he has to do to win a hockey game. That’s the kind of toughness we’re talking about."
Very sensible.
Obviously, a good summer does not a great GM make. However, one has to like both Yzerman's actions and words this off-season.
Friday, July 16, 2010
On Scouting and Weighting Personal Factors
Elliote Friedman has probably his best "30 thoughts" piece up today. The most interesting portion is the bit on scouting and why players may fall or rise during the event, specifically in relation to consensus rankings:
"(Central Scouting) focuses on physical ability - not mental ability, work ethic or character," says number three. "It's up to regional scouts to sort through rumours and innuendo. If something is said about a prospect, you need them to determine if this is real or a negative vendetta. That's why these regional guys are so valuable."
"They don't look at character, or what guys are like in the room or on the bench," adds number one. "They have a different set of criteria."
This observation fits well with that I gleaned from Joyce's Future Greats and Heartbreaks: teams spend a lot of time and energy (in my view, an inordinate amount) looking into players "intangibles" - there are large portions of the book dedicated to investigating individual guys backgrounds, their attitudes, their personal histories, their relationships with coaches and teammates, their demeanor, etc. In fact, aside from individual on-ice performances that stood out (for good or bad reasons), most of the book is filled with this type of material. I considered that this may be because 1.) Joyce is a journalist and a writer, not a scout and 2.) it was done to give the work a narrative backbone.
However, in light of Elliote's piece today, it seems that a lot of scouting in the NHL is indeed focused on sussing out "what kind of guy" a player is, rather than, you know...if he drives results on the ice.
Which is fair enough. Prospects represent a lot of time, effort and money and it would seem negligent for club's to focus entirely on on-ice performance and exclude potentially confounding factors. Hockey players are people, after all, and a team has a social dynamic which may effect performance. One wonders to what degree scouts are weighting these factors though and, more importantly, how much they actually predict future performance. Not only are some personal factors largely unimportant when it comes to hockey ability, but one has to keep in mind that 17 year old kids are hardly fully formed adults and projecting their future selves (and not just their future hockey performances) is a dicey proposition. Today's snot-nosed punk may become tomorrow's captain.
Another reason investigating personal factors may be a concern in scouting is human perception isn't great at filtering the signal from the noise. To put it another way - having a mountain of info is not necessarily a good thing. Not just because the relevant data may be merely lost amongst the flotsam like a needle in a haystack, but because potentially unrelated bits of info can actually influence evaluation. In psychological circles, this is called "the dilution effect" and it's defined as the tendency for neutral or irrelevant info to weaken a judgment.
Here's an example - Who is the better prospect?
John spends 30 hours a week practicing, both on and off the ice.
Ivan spends 30 hours a week practicing both on and off the ice. He has two brothers and one sister. He visits his girlfriend in another town at least once a week. He enjoys reality television and spends a lot of his free time watching "Survivor" and "The Bachelor".
This exercise is a variant of studies executed by Henry Zukier. The results typically show a majority of subjects conclude that "person A" (John) would be superior to "person B", even though the relevant, diagnostic info for both is the same.
To bring this back to Joyce, "Future Greats" was written during the draft seasons of guys like Akim Aliu, Patrick Kane, Sam Gagner and Phil Kessel. Reading much of the material with the benefit of hindsight, most of the player biographical stuff struck me as unimportant bits of trivia. Interesting in narrative form, but largely unimportant when it came to predicting future success in the show. Phil Kessel in particular seemed to struggle through stuff like the combine and interviews, but has turned out to be a pretty effective NHLer.
"(Central Scouting) focuses on physical ability - not mental ability, work ethic or character," says number three. "It's up to regional scouts to sort through rumours and innuendo. If something is said about a prospect, you need them to determine if this is real or a negative vendetta. That's why these regional guys are so valuable."
"They don't look at character, or what guys are like in the room or on the bench," adds number one. "They have a different set of criteria."
This observation fits well with that I gleaned from Joyce's Future Greats and Heartbreaks: teams spend a lot of time and energy (in my view, an inordinate amount) looking into players "intangibles" - there are large portions of the book dedicated to investigating individual guys backgrounds, their attitudes, their personal histories, their relationships with coaches and teammates, their demeanor, etc. In fact, aside from individual on-ice performances that stood out (for good or bad reasons), most of the book is filled with this type of material. I considered that this may be because 1.) Joyce is a journalist and a writer, not a scout and 2.) it was done to give the work a narrative backbone.
However, in light of Elliote's piece today, it seems that a lot of scouting in the NHL is indeed focused on sussing out "what kind of guy" a player is, rather than, you know...if he drives results on the ice.
Which is fair enough. Prospects represent a lot of time, effort and money and it would seem negligent for club's to focus entirely on on-ice performance and exclude potentially confounding factors. Hockey players are people, after all, and a team has a social dynamic which may effect performance. One wonders to what degree scouts are weighting these factors though and, more importantly, how much they actually predict future performance. Not only are some personal factors largely unimportant when it comes to hockey ability, but one has to keep in mind that 17 year old kids are hardly fully formed adults and projecting their future selves (and not just their future hockey performances) is a dicey proposition. Today's snot-nosed punk may become tomorrow's captain.
Another reason investigating personal factors may be a concern in scouting is human perception isn't great at filtering the signal from the noise. To put it another way - having a mountain of info is not necessarily a good thing. Not just because the relevant data may be merely lost amongst the flotsam like a needle in a haystack, but because potentially unrelated bits of info can actually influence evaluation. In psychological circles, this is called "the dilution effect" and it's defined as the tendency for neutral or irrelevant info to weaken a judgment.
Here's an example - Who is the better prospect?
John spends 30 hours a week practicing, both on and off the ice.
Ivan spends 30 hours a week practicing both on and off the ice. He has two brothers and one sister. He visits his girlfriend in another town at least once a week. He enjoys reality television and spends a lot of his free time watching "Survivor" and "The Bachelor".
This exercise is a variant of studies executed by Henry Zukier. The results typically show a majority of subjects conclude that "person A" (John) would be superior to "person B", even though the relevant, diagnostic info for both is the same.
To bring this back to Joyce, "Future Greats" was written during the draft seasons of guys like Akim Aliu, Patrick Kane, Sam Gagner and Phil Kessel. Reading much of the material with the benefit of hindsight, most of the player biographical stuff struck me as unimportant bits of trivia. Interesting in narrative form, but largely unimportant when it came to predicting future success in the show. Phil Kessel in particular seemed to struggle through stuff like the combine and interviews, but has turned out to be a pretty effective NHLer.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances - Game 80 Versus San Jose
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21190
An apt end of the Scoring Chance project for the Flames in 2009-2010. They generated precious few chances and the differential was only close at ES at the end because San Jose steadfastly sat on the lead for the entire 3rd period.
Ray Ferraro made a comment tonight that stood out to me. It was, verbatim:
"When you have a talented team you need just a few chances. When you're a team that has to work so hard for your goals, you need so many chances because you don't have a natural scorer."
This was said at the start of the third period with the Flames ahead on the shot clock by 2, but behind on the scoreboard by the same count. The funny thing is the reality was the exact opposite: San Jose had grossly outchanced the Flames to that point in the game, including a 7-1 trouncing in the second period. I don't necessarily blame Ferraro for making this "observation" - the Sharks hadn't spent long stretches of time dominating. In fact, the teams frequently exchanged rushes during the game. The difference was, the Sharks were getting their shots from scoring areas. The Flames weren't. If I hadn't been counting things, I may have made the same comment.
More to the point, as is becoming increasingly clear, the truth is that talented teams tend to get more chances than their opponents - not merely better chances, but more.
Also of note - Jarome Iginla enjoyed buttery soft minutes on this evening relative to his pay grade and he was still underwater by the end of the night in terms of scoring chances. Despite playing 18 ES minutes, he saw almost nothing of Thronton et al (just over 3 minutes). That assignment was left mostly to Bourque and, incredibly, Conroy. Iginla also enjoyed the most offensive zone face-offs amongst all Flames forwards (13).
This type of performance wasn't atypical or Jarome in 2009-10. One wonders if it's possible he'll be able to recover some measure of his previous form next year. He slid well down the slope this past season.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| CGY | 1 | 15:32 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 4 | 16 | 17 | 20 | 21 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 14:16 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 34 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 14:15 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 34 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 11:38 | 4 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 8 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 4v5 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 11:12 | 4 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 42 | 8 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 4v5 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 11:11 | 4 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 42 | 8 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 4v5 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 9:51 | 4 | 18 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 16 | 20 | 29 | 39 | 60 | 4v5 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 9:46 | 4 goal | 4 | 18 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 16 | 20 | 29 | 39 | 60 | 4v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 7:41 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 7:20 | 3 | 15 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 7 | 8 | 20 | 29 | 40 | 64 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 5:27 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 42 | 3 | 16 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 3:51 | 5 | 11 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 7 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 64 | 5v4 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 0:27 | 4 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 0:26 | 4 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 0:25 | 4 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 14:54 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 20 | 29 | 39 | 44 | 64 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 14:14 | 64 goal | 5 | 6 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 34 | 4 | 20 | 29 | 39 | 44 | 64 | 5v5 |
| SJS | 2 | 13:19 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 27 | 34 | 60 | 3 | 8 | 16 | 20 | 22 | 29 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 8:24 | 4 | 11 | 18 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 7:55 | 4 | 12 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 60 | 4 | 8 | 17 | 20 | 29 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 7:27 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 7 | 20 | 27 | 39 | 44 | 64 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 4:47 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 3 | 20 | 22 | 27 | 29 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 4:46 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 3 | 20 | 22 | 27 | 29 | 39 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 18:37 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 4 | 8 | 16 | 20 | 29 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 16:53 | 3 | 17 | 18 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 15:41 | 17 goal | 3 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 34 | 7 | 17 | 20 | 27 | 40 | 5v4 | |
| SJS | 3 | 9:52 | 4 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 8 | 16 | 20 | 22 | 29 | 60 | 4v5 | ||
| SJS | 3 | 8:30 | 6 | 17 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 4 | 12 | 15 | 19 | 20 | 44 | 4v5 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 7:55 | 4 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 26 | 34 | 3 | 17 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 27 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 2:49 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 15 | 23 | 34 | 7 | 17 | 20 | 21 | 27 | 40 | 5v5 | |
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 18:37 | 4 | 2 | 4:12 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 17:45 | 4 | 9 | 3:55 | 1 | 0 | 2:46 | 0 | 6 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 17:37 | 5 | 2 | 3:22 | 1 | 0 | 0:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 13:17 | 3 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:12 | 0 | 1 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 14:49 | 3 | 2 | 2:31 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 17:49 | 3 | 5 | 4:07 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | N. DAWES | 9:20 | 1 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 13:48 | 3 | 7 | 3:19 | 2 | 0 | 1:33 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 15:37 | 4 | 3 | 3:39 | 1 | 0 | 0:56 | 0 | 2 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 7:02 | 2 | 0 | 0:01 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 10:20 | 2 | 0 | 0:01 | 0 | 0 | 1:25 | 0 | 1 |
| 24 | C. CONROY | 11:28 | 3 | 5 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 1:41 | 0 | 4 |
| 25 | D. MOSS | 12:57 | 2 | 2 | 3:07 | 0 | 0 | 1:43 | 0 | 4 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 15:01 | 3 | 7 | 2:42 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | S. STAIOS | 13:22 | 0 | 5 | 2:25 | 1 | 0 | 0:58 | 0 | 1 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 17:23 | 2 | 4 | 0:14 | 0 | 0 | 2:33 | 0 | 6 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 47:49 | 9 | 12 | 7:04 | 2 | 0 | 3:58 | 0 | 7 |
| 42 | B. SUTTER | 8:09 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:38 | 0 | 2 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 11:38 | 0 | 4 | 1:45 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 6 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 11 | 19 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
An apt end of the Scoring Chance project for the Flames in 2009-2010. They generated precious few chances and the differential was only close at ES at the end because San Jose steadfastly sat on the lead for the entire 3rd period.
Ray Ferraro made a comment tonight that stood out to me. It was, verbatim:
"When you have a talented team you need just a few chances. When you're a team that has to work so hard for your goals, you need so many chances because you don't have a natural scorer."
This was said at the start of the third period with the Flames ahead on the shot clock by 2, but behind on the scoreboard by the same count. The funny thing is the reality was the exact opposite: San Jose had grossly outchanced the Flames to that point in the game, including a 7-1 trouncing in the second period. I don't necessarily blame Ferraro for making this "observation" - the Sharks hadn't spent long stretches of time dominating. In fact, the teams frequently exchanged rushes during the game. The difference was, the Sharks were getting their shots from scoring areas. The Flames weren't. If I hadn't been counting things, I may have made the same comment.
More to the point, as is becoming increasingly clear, the truth is that talented teams tend to get more chances than their opponents - not merely better chances, but more.
Also of note - Jarome Iginla enjoyed buttery soft minutes on this evening relative to his pay grade and he was still underwater by the end of the night in terms of scoring chances. Despite playing 18 ES minutes, he saw almost nothing of Thronton et al (just over 3 minutes). That assignment was left mostly to Bourque and, incredibly, Conroy. Iginla also enjoyed the most offensive zone face-offs amongst all Flames forwards (13).
This type of performance wasn't atypical or Jarome in 2009-10. One wonders if it's possible he'll be able to recover some measure of his previous form next year. He slid well down the slope this past season.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)