Some minor news causing an odd stir today. The Wild re-signed James Sheppard. I didn't think much of it personally - former first round pick who stuck as a 20 year old but hasn't put up numbers in the big league yet. No big deal - 22 year olds who make the dance straight from junior are guys you re-sign as RFA's as a matter of course.
Except that Wild fans apparently hate the guy. Which is a fairly strong reaction towards what is a depth player making less than 1 million bucks. Especially one that is bound to improve.
What's the source of this animosity? Well, he's not an amazing player, sure...but to cause that kind of reaction he's either terrible, or has been caused to look terrible by either the gods or his coaches.
Turns out it's the latter (and both). He had nominal possession stats this year (-9.42 corsi/60...worst on the team) and a terrible ES scoring rate (0.44 ESP/60) but those things have a lot to do with his circumstances: bad teammates and a team worst PDO (97.9) come to mind. He also had one of the toughest zone starts ratios in the league: 39.7%. That's a tough gig as a 21 year old sophomore, even if you're only playing other scrubs. His offensive stats were further depressed by spending all of 19 seconds per night on the PP.
So while I don't think Minny has a star on their hands, Sheppard probably isn't nearly as bad as last year made him seem. On top of that, he's bound to improve. Most guys haven't even made the dance by his age.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
New Design
I changed the blog template, mostly because the old one couldn't seem to accommodate the scoring chance tables properly. This one seems to. Let me know if you have any concerns/improvements in mind.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Stop it. Just Stop it.
- photoshop courtesy of Ben.
What's even more amazing (perhaps a better word would be "dumbfounding") than the cancer and madness that is the London Games Mascots is the utterly nonsensical bullshit being proffered in the wake of their recent unveiling.
"The games have got a few stupendous assets – the mascot, tickets, the volunteers, the torch relay – and you have got to really use those to bring home your key messages," said Locog's chief executive, Paul Deighton.
"If you link them together you begin to have a really powerful story that people will respond to."
This is an almost meaningless jumble of buzzwords. Or, to be more specific, it's a packaging of disparate things in order to equate the terrible (the mascots) with the good (volunteers!). Meaning, if you link them together, you can slide out of the press conference relatively unscathed.
The real key message was delivered by the eloquent first commenter to the linked story -
I think I speak for everyone when I say:
Jesus Fucking Christ
Indeed.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Ville Leino and Why Chance and Circumstance Matter
Up until, well...this past week or so, Ville Leino had been seen as a bust. An overaged free agent from the Finnish elite league signed by Detroit, Leino spent a season putting up just okay results in the AHL before making the leap for the injury plagued parent club this year. He didn't do much. All of his stats were mediocre or worse across the board (11 points in 55 games between DEt and PHI) . He looked for all the world like a replacement level NHLer and not much else.
Lo and behold, he's a better than PPG player in the post season! What happened? Well, for one, his PP ice time per game has increased from 29 seconds in the regular season to just under 3 minutes in the playoffs. He's also probably most coddled Flyer at even strength - in the first 9 games played, the former healthy scratchhas started more than 70% of his shifts has a zone start ratio of 70+%(!). Compare that to Mike Richards at 49% and poor ol' Blair Betts at 25%.
Of course, the real culprit behind his explosion is the bounces. His PDO, before tonight's performance, was a shade above 106. I'm sure that'll go up after this evening. (PDO during the regular season = 96.4).
The truth of Ville Leino is probably somewhere in between the two extremes of his regular season and playoff results. Luckily for the Flyers, Leino is signed through next season so they won't be forced to overpay for his string of luck and unrealistically easy circumstances come July.
Lo and behold, he's a better than PPG player in the post season! What happened? Well, for one, his PP ice time per game has increased from 29 seconds in the regular season to just under 3 minutes in the playoffs. He's also probably most coddled Flyer at even strength - in the first 9 games played, the former healthy scratch
Of course, the real culprit behind his explosion is the bounces. His PDO, before tonight's performance, was a shade above 106. I'm sure that'll go up after this evening. (PDO during the regular season = 96.4).
The truth of Ville Leino is probably somewhere in between the two extremes of his regular season and playoff results. Luckily for the Flyers, Leino is signed through next season so they won't be forced to overpay for his string of luck and unrealistically easy circumstances come July.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Down to the Semis - Picking Winners 2010
The wacky East keeps making me look like a fool while the steady West, a genius. So after going 0 for 2 and 2 for 2, here are my picks for the East and West finals.
East
MTL vs PHI
I don't know why I bother, but I'm going to pick against the Canadiens again. Nothing I've seen out of them makes me think they're good enough to sustain this level of finishing/stopping, although I said the same thing about the Avs in the regular season and they stuck around for months, so who knows.
It's also immensely ironic to see the Flyers make it to the third round (in history making fashion, no less) with the likes of Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher in net. Obviously the Habs have the edge in goal with Halak playing out of his mind, but that's been true of Flyers other two opponents and it hasn't mattered much*.
Philadelphia in 7
*related - Aside from Halak, none of the NHL's top goalies made it into the third round. Rask, Brodeur, Kipper, Hiller, Lundqvist, Anderson, Miller, Luongo, Bryzgalov...all done for the year.
West
CHI vs SJS
The winner of this series will be the unofficial champion before the finals even start in my opinion. Both are quality teams with Chicago having the edge in depth at both forward and defense. As such, I'm picking them to win both this round and the finals over whatever sucker makes it out of the East.
Chicago in 6.
East
MTL vs PHI
I don't know why I bother, but I'm going to pick against the Canadiens again. Nothing I've seen out of them makes me think they're good enough to sustain this level of finishing/stopping, although I said the same thing about the Avs in the regular season and they stuck around for months, so who knows.
It's also immensely ironic to see the Flyers make it to the third round (in history making fashion, no less) with the likes of Michael Leighton and Brian Boucher in net. Obviously the Habs have the edge in goal with Halak playing out of his mind, but that's been true of Flyers other two opponents and it hasn't mattered much*.
Philadelphia in 7
*related - Aside from Halak, none of the NHL's top goalies made it into the third round. Rask, Brodeur, Kipper, Hiller, Lundqvist, Anderson, Miller, Luongo, Bryzgalov...all done for the year.
West
CHI vs SJS
The winner of this series will be the unofficial champion before the finals even start in my opinion. Both are quality teams with Chicago having the edge in depth at both forward and defense. As such, I'm picking them to win both this round and the finals over whatever sucker makes it out of the East.
Chicago in 6.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
A Note on Scoring Chances
I have one more Flames game left to score before collating the material, which will be done at some point this summer. Frankly, I'm saving the work for the mid-summer doldrums when nothing in particular is happening. At that point, we'll be able to do all the fun correlating stuff and see how the Flames season shook our in aggregate and on an individual level.
If anyone has a question or suggestion for the scoring chance data, feel free to email me.
If anyone has a question or suggestion for the scoring chance data, feel free to email me.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Exposing Nonsense
Historically, I have been a Doug Wilson fan. He seemed to understand the importance of chemistry and the need to acquire players who value the crest on the front of their sweater more than the name on the back.
...
For a group that appears to need more leadership, grit and mental toughness how is Heatley the answer?
Most of all, it's validation of their resiliency, after bounding back from the Boyle Goal in Round 1 and then from the 7-1 curb-stomping in Game 4 against Detroit. The team has more backbone than every previous San Jose playoff team combined, minus the one with Irbe between the irons.
The first bit is from Jay Feaster, when he condemned the Heatley trade last summer. The second bit is Greg Wyshynski talking about the Sharks after their relatively easy dismissal of the Detroit Red Wings in round two.
The Feaster claims struck me as ridiculous the day they were written and it's somewhat fortunate that the Sharks post-season success has fully exposed them as such some eight months later.
My purpose, however, isn't (merely) to write a mocking send-up of a former NHL general manager who should know better. It's to once again highlight the scourge of the fundamental attribution error in hockey writing and analysis.
It's actually quite remarkable the degree to which both fans and analysts alike attribute success or failure in sports to the supposed psychological qualities or failings of a given player (or group of players). The overarching assumption I suppose is "winners win" and, of course, it's corollary, "losers lose". Which is why clubs that defy expectations in either direction are often met with well-worn but plausible sounding bromides about how they "wanted it more" or "have lost confidence in X" or "don't have enough character in the dressing room" etc etc. What's especially amusing about these stories is they are often proffered by people who have little to no idea about the inner workings of the dressing room in question. Just take a stroll through your local messageboard and marvel at the number of fans who seem to know who is (or isn't) inspiring confidence, being passionate about winning, (insert cliche about winners and losers here), despite never even once passing within spitting distance of the guys whose character they are praising or condemning.
In one way, this speaks to the intractability of an observers expectations wherein the disparity of an assumed level of performance and the actual level is explained away by some innate quality of the actor(s) involved. It couldn't be that one misjudged the potential for success or failure of a team or that chance skewed the results to "n" degree - it's that all the guys in the room came together and played for each other. Or there was more (or less) confidence suddenly. Also, passion, heart, grit. And so forth.
Of course, what's obviously clear over a long enough time line is that folks are just chasing results around and attaching labels to them in the aftermath. Joe Thornton is a poor leader and a choke artist right up until the point where he isn't. Pavel Datsyuk was a soft, fancy-pants Euro dangler a few short years ago. A guy who could put up points in the regular season but disappeared in the play-offs. Dany Heatley's selfishness was going to sink the San Jose dressing room. And the Colorado Avalanche were a plucky group of fresh-faced, exuberant underdogs who battled against all the odds - until they started losing, of course:
I don’t think this team wants it bad enough. That may sound harsh, but I think it’s the truth. I just don’t think they have the drive to be, nor the confidence that they are a playoff team anymore.
That's Adrian Dater back on April 1, when the percentages were finally starting to regress to the mean for Colorado.
We still don't fully have a handle on what moderates success in the NHL. A large portion of it is talent of the skaters. Another is coaching. Then there's quality of goaltending, injuries, organizational depth, officiating, quality of conference/division, difficulty of schedule and, of course, that fickle mistress, variance. If there's a thimble sized amount of explanatory power left over for "leadership, grit, poise, pluckiness, passion" etc. after all that, well...I'd be surprised.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Housekeeping
For those wondering what happened to the scoring chances project, it's still ongoing. I have one more game from the regular season to count before collating all the data, which will be done at some point this summer.
As for my season reviews, they've all appeared at Flamesnation. I looked at Darryl Sutter, Brent Sutter and had a three part series on Jarome Iginla (1, 2, 3).
I still have stuff appearing at rototimes.com once a week and Hockey's Future every so often as well.
Some other things may be in the offering this summer. Announcements will be made if they come to pass.
As for my season reviews, they've all appeared at Flamesnation. I looked at Darryl Sutter, Brent Sutter and had a three part series on Jarome Iginla (1, 2, 3).
I still have stuff appearing at rototimes.com once a week and Hockey's Future every so often as well.
Some other things may be in the offering this summer. Announcements will be made if they come to pass.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Second Round Predictions, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 77 Versus Phoenix
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21148
Flames roundly beat-up at ES, but Kipper pulls out the win. I think this was Rene Bourque's worst game of the season by this metric.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| CGY | 1 | 18:38 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 18 | 25 | 34 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 23 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 18:24 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 18 | 33 | 34 | 38 | 5v4 | ||
| PHX | 1 | 15:39 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 14 | 19 | 38 | 53 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 1 | 11:37 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 1 | 14 | 18 | 19 | 33 | 38 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 1 | 9:25 | 3 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 22 | 53 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 1 | 8:53 | 3 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 22 | 53 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 1 | 8:32 | 3 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 22 | 53 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 1 | 4:28 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 19 | 23 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 3:20 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 25 | 34 | 1 | 15 | 29 | 53 | 55 | 5v4 | ||
| PHX | 1 | 3:09 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 17 | 34 | 1 | 15 | 29 | 53 | 55 | 5v4 | ||
| PHX | 2 | 14:55 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 24 | 34 | 1 | 11 | 16 | 22 | 53 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 2 | 13:51 | 3 | 17 | 18 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 11:51 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 23 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 2 | 7:13 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 14 | 18 | 19 | 33 | 38 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 6:49 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 14 | 18 | 29 | 33 | 38 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 5:46 | 17 goal | 3 | 5 | 12 | 18 | 25 | 34 | 1 | 11 | 29 | 53 | 55 | 5v4 | |
| PHX | 2 | 5:15 | 4 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 14 | 18 | 19 | 33 | 38 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 2 | 4:43 | 4 | 17 | 26 | 27 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 14 | 19 | 23 | 38 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 2 | 0:04 | 3 | 17 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 15 | 22 | 53 | 55 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 3 | 17:20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 42 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 29 | 34 | 53 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 3 | 17:13 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 42 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 3 | 17:11 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 42 | 1 | 2 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 55 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 16:15 | 26 goal | 3 | 17 | 26 | 28 | 34 | 60 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 19 | 38 | 53 | 5v5 |
| PHX | 3 | 12:41 | 4 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 1 | 15 | 22 | 23 | 55 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 10:58 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 15 | 18 | 22 | 33 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 8:44 | 3 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 11 | 18 | 29 | 33 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 7:24 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 33 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 3 | 6:54 | PHX goal | 3 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 15 | 22 | 23 | 55 | 86 | 5v5 |
| PHX | 3 | 6:26 | 3 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 22 | 53 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 3 | 3:41 | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 22 | 23 | 86 | 5v5 | |
| PHX | 3 | 0:50 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 3 | 11 | 16 | 17 | 19 | 33 | 5v5 | |
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 16:33 | 3 | 8 | 4:05 | 4 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 16:39 | 1 | 7 | 2:40 | 0 | 0 | 2:15 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 16:53 | 4 | 4 | 3:59 | 4 | 1 | 0:57 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 17:44 | 3 | 4 | 0:35 | 0 | 0 | 1:45 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 13:13 | 3 | 5 | 3:24 | 2 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 14:43 | 3 | 6 | 4:31 | 4 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | N. DAWES | 13:06 | 2 | 3 | 0:18 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 15:52 | 2 | 8 | 1:57 | 0 | 1 | 1:06 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 14:15 | 3 | 6 | 3:56 | 4 | 0 | 2:20 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 10:01 | 0 | 6 | 0:35 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 9:26 | 0 | 6 | 0:35 | 0 | 0 | 0:47 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | C. CONROY | 12:54 | 1 | 4 | 0:18 | 0 | 0 | 1:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | D. MOSS | 11:23 | 2 | 3 | 1:30 | 2 | 0 | 0:53 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 12:43 | 2 | 4 | 1:40 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | S. STAIOS | 13:00 | 1 | 6 | 2:06 | 0 | 0 | 0:48 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 17:58 | 2 | 9 | 0:07 | 0 | 0 | 2:15 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 49:14 | 7 | 19 | 6:46 | 4 | 1 | 4:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 42 | B. SUTTER | 7:08 | 0 | 3 | 0:35 | 0 | 0 | 1:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 12:39 | 3 | 3 | 0:59 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 11 | 20 | 7 | 19 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Flames roundly beat-up at ES, but Kipper pulls out the win. I think this was Rene Bourque's worst game of the season by this metric.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Quick Note...
...I'm appearing on CBC.ca today to chat about the Flames. The chat will start at 12pm (MT) and should last about an hour.
I'm sure the mood will be a cheery one.
I'm sure the mood will be a cheery one.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Flames Scoring Chances, Game 73 Versus NYI
Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21098
With the play-offs on the line, playing one of the worst teams in the league on the second night of a B2B, the Flames putative best player was on the ice for zero ES scoring chances for.
These boys are done.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | CGY | Opponent | |||||||||||
| NYI | 1 | 13:53 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 42 | 15 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 57 | 91 | 5v5 | |
| NYI | 1 | 13:07 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 24 | 26 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 20 | 28 | 43 | 5v5 | |
| NYI | 1 | 11:38 | NYI goal | 3 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 28 | 34 | 7 | 16 | 38 | 43 | 44 | 51 | 5v5 |
| NYI | 1 | 11:09 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 42 | 2 | 4 | 15 | 43 | 57 | 91 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 1 | 10:48 | 15 goal | 5 | 6 | 15 | 23 | 25 | 34 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 20 | 43 | 57 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 1 | 7:40 | 4 | 11 | 15 | 25 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 43 | 57 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 1 | 3:06 | 5 | 11 | 12 | 18 | 27 | 34 | 10 | 20 | 38 | 43 | 44 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 16:20 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 16 | 5v4 | ||
| NYI | 2 | 9:52 | 5 | 6 | 15 | 25 | 34 | 60 | 4 | 15 | 38 | 57 | 91 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 9:19 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 26 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 21 | 5v3 | |||
| CGY | 2 | 6:54 | 23 goal | 6 | 19 | 23 | 28 | 34 | 42 | 4 | 15 | 38 | 57 | 91 | 5v4 | |
| CGY | 2 | 0:39 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 23 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 15 | 16 | 42 | 91 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 2 | 0:22 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 16 | 91 | 5v4 | ||
| NYI | 3 | 19:32 | NYI goal | 4 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 27 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 21 | 26 | 43 | 5v5 |
| CGY | 3 | 13:16 | 4 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 42 | 10 | 20 | 28 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| NYI | 3 | 11:46 | 3 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 28 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 21 | 26 | 43 | 51 | 5v5 | |
| NYI | 3 | 8:30 | NYI goal | 5 | 6 | 24 | 25 | 34 | 2 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 43 | 57 | 4v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 7:10 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 34 | 10 | 21 | 38 | 43 | 44 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 6:22 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 34 | 2 | 38 | 43 | 51 | 57 | 5v4 | ||
| CGY | 3 | 5:51 | 4 | 5 | 11 | 26 | 34 | 60 | 10 | 20 | 28 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 | |
| CGY | 3 | 4:25 | 5 | 6 | 19 | 23 | 34 | 42 | 4 | 7 | 15 | 38 | 43 | 91 | 5v5 | |
| NYI | 3 | 3:38 | 3 | 5 | 12 | 17 | 24 | 34 | 2 | 21 | 26 | 43 | 44 | 51 | 5v5 | |
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | I. WHITE | 11:52 | 0 | 3 | 10:22 | 2 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | J. BOUWMEESTER | 12:29 | 2 | 2 | 8:19 | 4 | 0 | 1:12 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | M. GIORDANO | 12:18 | 3 | 3 | 9:14 | 3 | 1 | 0:48 | 0 | 1 |
| 6 | C. SARICH | 10:20 | 3 | 2 | 4:37 | 1 | 1 | 0:55 | 0 | 1 |
| 11 | N. HAGMAN | 8:47 | 1 | 1 | 9:04 | 2 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | J. IGINLA | 8:23 | 0 | 4 | 10:06 | 6 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | N. DAWES | 6:47 | 1 | 1 | 2:54 | 1 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | R. BOURQUE | 8:26 | 0 | 3 | 7:27 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 18 | M. STAJAN | 9:32 | 0 | 1 | 9:05 | 3 | 0 | 1:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. MAYERS | 8:18 | 2 | 2 | 4:45 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | E. NYSTROM | 8:24 | 3 | 2 | 4:05 | 2 | 0 | 0:57 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | C. CONROY | 8:07 | 0 | 4 | 4:15 | 2 | 0 | 1:03 | 0 | 1 |
| 25 | D. MOSS | 6:04 | 1 | 0 | 4:27 | 1 | 1 | 0:55 | 0 | 1 |
| 26 | A. KOTALIK | 8:30 | 1 | 1 | 4:47 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | S. STAIOS | 8:31 | 0 | 2 | 7:33 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 28 | R. REGEHR | 8:20 | 0 | 2 | 6:40 | 1 | 0 | 1:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 34 | M. KIPRUSOFF | 30:01 | 4 | 7 | 23:14 | 8 | 1 | 2:00 | 0 | 1 |
| 42 | B. SUTTER | 8:26 | 2 | 2 | 4:20 | 1 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | M. BACKLUND | 5:55 | 1 | 0 | 4:10 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 13 | 9 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
With the play-offs on the line, playing one of the worst teams in the league on the second night of a B2B, the Flames putative best player was on the ice for zero ES scoring chances for.
These boys are done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)