Five Hole Fanatics

End of the Road

2010-10-01T12:19:00.004-06:00

Alas, this may indeed be the final post for FHF. This blog was started in 2005 as a hobby more than anything and now some several thousand posts later and freelance jobs elsewhere, it looks like I won't have anything left to say. For this space, anyways.

This site isn't going to go away since I still use a lot of the links in the blogroll and occassionally reference some of the material in the archives. My writing will continue to appear in a bunch of different places around the web, including:

- Flamesnation.ca
- The Score.com
- The Fourth Period
- Rototimes.com/fanball.com

For those interested in the Scoring chance project, I will indeed be counting Flames scoring chances again this year. The results will likely appear on game posts over at Flamesnation, so feel free to swing by and take a look when the regular season begins.

The All Reject Team

2010-08-25T10:03:00.003-06:00

There are some fanbases out there eagerly awaiting a fresh salary dump, either to get their favored club under the cap ceiling or just to be rid of a boat anchor contract. Names like Souray, Sarich, Staios, Kotalik and Bieksa pop up a lot around these parts.

The problem with these expectations is two-fold: lots of clubs have spent their money already AND there's a glut of viable NHLers waiting in the unemployment line who can likely be signed for less without having to give up any assets at all.

To illustrate, here's my "all reject" line-up, consisting entirely of currently UFA players.

Kariya - Weight - Stempniak
Kozlov - Morrison - Svatos
Dawes - Comrie - Guerin
Fedotenko - Halpern - MacArthur

(Lang, Belanger, Nolan, Modin)

Johnson - Mitchell
Mara - Exelby
Schubert - Bergeron

(McKee, Mottau, Witt)

Theodore
Niemi

(Emery)

I bet you this club could beat the current iteration of the Edmonton Oilers, New York Islanders and maybe Colorado Avalanche.

Sharks Sign Mayers...For Some Reason

2010-08-03T15:01:00.003-06:00

Ex-Flame and Maple Leaf Jamal Mayers has reportedly signed with the San Jose Sharks. I made an off-the-cuff remark on Twitter that the move made the Sharks a little worse and it sparked some friendly debate. So here's where I'm coming from.

Mayers doesn't look too bad when you watch him once or twice: his fundamentals aren't terrible, he can win a face-off, he works hard and he's tough. Thing is, his results are awful. Really awful. He was roundly despised by the end of his tenure in Toronto...and while the howling masses in the center of the universe can sometimes be less than rational, this time it was for good reason. His underlying stats from last year are just putrid: a corsi rate of -11.37/60 despite playing for strong (Leafs) and middling (Flames) possession teams is bad. That he garnered that rate playing against nobodies (only Nystrom and McGrattan saw easier qual comp on the Flames) and starting more often in the offensive zone (53.8%) is that much worse. I recently took a spin through the scoring chance numbers I collected for the Flames last season...and let's just say that Mayers was consistently on the wrong end of things.

Glancing at the Sharks current line-up, I'm guessing Mayers has been signed to be a hired goon and not much else. He's probably more functional than your average enforcer (think Derek Boogaard) since he can win a face-off and scores more than once a year, but he's not much better. At 35 years old he won't be improving either.

On Niemi and the Hawks

2010-08-02T10:36:00.005-06:00

So the Hawks predictably walked away from Niemi's 2.75M arb award today and signed Marty Turco in his stead. First off, let's establish that I think the Hawks made the right move here, and not just because their precarious cap position left them basically no choice on the matter.

Goaltending in the best place to skimp on in the current environment, especially if you have a quality team on your hands. In addition, despite the perception that Niemi is now a quality, established starter in the league, he was simply the lesser of two evils last year thanks to Huet doing his best Andrew Raycroft impression. The only thing remotely impressive about Niemi was his win totals. His overall SV% was a mediocre .912 (good for about 20th overall), a number that was propped up by an unnaturally high SH SV% (.899). His ES SV% rate was merely .914 - good for 50th in the league. Nor does Niemi have any kind of impressive resume: in 2008-09, he managed a .913 save rate for the Rockford Icehogs of the AHL. One may be tempted to project Niemi as improving substantially as he grows into the role, but the truth is the dude is already 27 years old come August 29th. He's much closer to his ceiling than his floor and all evidence points to a fairly low ceiling.

Turco, on the other hand, has had a couple of off-seasons recently and carries around the stigma of fading has-been. However, the 34 year old managed a .926 ES SV% behind a decidedly inferior Dallas Stars team last year. Over the last 3 seasons his ES SV% has averaged .917...about the same as Miikka Kiprusoff and still superior to Niemi's .914. As such, paying less for Turco strikes me as a good bet for the Hawks, especially on a one-year contract.

Related, I wonder if Niemi's agent didn't stub his toe a bit this summer. I can sympathize with trying to leverage a Stanley Cup ring to a big pay day, but the truth is the Hawks were never in a position to pay his client what could be argued to be a "fair amount". The problem is the Hawks have called his bluff and now Niemi is a free agent in a decidedly stagnant market. Most clubs have spent their dollars and it's likely whatever team decides to take a chance on him: a.) won't pay him all that much anyways and b.) won't have the firepower to deliver him wins despite his mediocrity. Meaning Niemi won't get the big dollars in the short term anyways and may very well be exposed as a not-so-great goaltender (meaning no big dollars in the long term either). If I was Niemi's agent, I may have advised my client to consider a haircut on a one or two year deal (1.5M/year or something) in order to remain a Hawk.

On the Anton Stralman Arbitration

2010-07-22T09:57:00.004-06:00

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.

...Feaster, on the other hand

2010-07-21T20:11:00.003-06:00

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.

So Far So Good For Stevey Y

2010-07-21T14:58:00.003-06:00

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.

On Scouting and Weighting Personal Factors

2010-07-16T10:16:00.005-06:00

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.

Flames Scoring Chances - Game 80 Versus San Jose

2010-07-14T21:24:00.003-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21190

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.

On Dudley and the Byfuglien Trade

2010-06-23T21:12:00.003-06:00

What follows is an excerpt from Gare Joyce’s book Future Greats and Heartbreaks featuring a brief profile on Rick Dudley, then an executive with the Chicago Blackhawks. Joyce had spent some time profiling draft prospect Akim Aliu for the Blue Jackets, and Dudley has just told Joyce that he likes what he sees in Aliu...

"I could see that he would. Dudley spends more time in the gym than any NHL executive, and probably more than a lot of NHL players. His arms are as big as Lou Ferrigno’s. Dudley was a hard-rock heart-and-soul forward in his day with the Buffalo Sabres, and an even better lacrosse player. He looks for athletes and athleticism – he’d be anti-Moneyball. Some scouts almost hold pure athleticism against a player – reasoning that what they do matters more than what they might become – in fact, to the complete exclusion of their athleticism. It’s the divide between potential and performance. That’s not to say Dudley doesn’t care how Aliu plays, but it’s Aliu’s athleticism that intrigues him."

That's via Jonathan Willis in April. An oddly prescient passage of Greats and Heartbreaks to excerpt given the events of today. It's one that stuck out to me during my reading as well: it's a perfect illustration of my cowbells shorthand concept. It's also something that renders the Byfuglien deal more sensible, at least from the perspective of the Thrashers new GM. I personally don't like the deal for the Thrashers because I don't rate any of the players they got all that highly. For Dudley though - a man that values "toughness", "build" and other uber-macho aspects of hockey - a package featuring Byfuglien, Eager and Akim Aliu must have been like catnip.

Were I a fan that had suffered through years and years of Waddell's bungling, I'm sure the trade today - and the potential motivation behind it revealed above - wouldn't fill me with fuzzy feelings.

"Clutch", of course, being a totally meaningless term

2010-06-17T11:59:00.003-06:00

Simply put, Skinner is a goal-scoring machine and is the best clutch goal scorer in this draft class. When a player scores 50 goals and 25 of them are first goals, insurance goals or game winners, that is the definition of clutch.

Via Sportsnets mock draft.

I'd say that a very high percentage of goals in any given game are "first goals, insurance goals or game winners". Wouldn't you?

Give Sheppard a Chance!

2010-06-16T20:46:00.005-06:00

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.

New Design

2010-06-10T18:35:00.001-06:00

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.

Stanley Cup Finals Prediction 2010!

2010-05-28T08:30:00.000-06:00

The Chicago Blackhawks will win.

Stop it. Just Stop it.

2010-05-19T15:17:00.001-06:00

- 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.

Ville Leino and Why Chance and Circumstance Matter

2010-05-18T19:28:00.006-06:00

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 scratch ~~has 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.

Down to the Semis - Picking Winners 2010

2010-05-16T12:43:00.003-06:00

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.

A Note on Scoring Chances

2010-05-13T18:00:00.002-06:00

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.

Exposing Nonsense

2010-05-11T09:21:00.005-06:00

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.

Housekeeping

2010-05-03T09:21:00.003-06:00

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.

Second Round Predictions, 2010

2010-04-29T12:27:00.005-06:00

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.

Staples, MacKinnon and Sports Journalism

2010-04-28T09:42:00.005-06:00

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.

2010 Playoff Prognostications

2010-04-13T10:37:00.003-06:00

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.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 79 Versus Chicago

2010-04-04T15:29:00.003-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21176

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.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 78 Versus Colorado

2010-04-03T10:35:00.002-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21162

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.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 77 Versus Phoenix

2010-03-31T22:01:00.002-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21148

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.

Quick Note...

2010-03-30T10:36:00.002-06:00

...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.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 73 Versus NYI

2010-03-25T19:29:00.002-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21098

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.

Pass Me Whatever That Dude's Smoking

2010-03-21T22:54:00.001-06:00

“Vesa is more than capable of doing it,” Sutter said. “Was he as sharp as he would have liked to be tonight? No he wasn’t.

“That being said, we’re still going to need him down the stretch here.”

Via

Brent, you have all of 10 games left this season. You're about a 17% chance of making the post-season and your back-up goalie has been one of the worst puck stoppers in the entire league over the last 3 seasons.

Stop being ridiculous.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 72 versus Minnesota

2010-03-21T15:51:00.003-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21069

Team	Period	Time	Note	CGY						Opponent
MIN	1	16:43		4	24	25	28	35		3	11	14	16	37	48	4v5
MIN	1	15:50		4	19	23	27	35	60	6	12	21	22	36	37	5v5
MIN	1	12:54		4	6	15	19	35	60	6	14	21	37	48	55	5v5
MIN	1	12:53		4	6	15	19	35	60	6	14	21	37	48	55	5v5
MIN	1	12:52		4	6	15	19	35	60	6	14	21	37	48	55	5v5
MIN	1	11:34		3	12	17	18	28	35	6	11	17	37	51	55	5v5
CGY	1	10:37		4	11	22	26	27	35	3	9	15	20	37	45	5v5
MIN	1	8:48		4	19	23	27	35	60	6	12	21	22	37	45	5v5
CGY	1	7:48		5	6	12	17	18	35	3	11	17	37	51	55	5v5
CGY	1	7:18	27 goal	4	11	22	26	27	35	3	6	16	37	51		5v4
MIN	1	6:45	MIN goal	3	15	24	25	28	35	8	9	15	20	37	55	5v5
MIN	1	5:57		4	19	23	27	35	60	8	12	21	22	36	37	5v5
MIN	1	0:42	MIN goal	5	6	17	18	35		3	11	16	37	45	48	4v5
CGY	1	0:07		4	12	17	18	27	35	8	9	15	20	36	37	5v5
CGY	2	17:25		5	6	15	24	25	35	8	11	17	37	45	51	5v5
CGY	2	17:24		5	6	15	24	25	35	8	11	17	37	45	51	5v5
MIN	2	16:57		3	19	23	28	35	60	12	17	21	36	37	55	5v5
MIN	2	16:56	MIN goal	3	19	23	28	35	60	12	17	21	36	37	55	5v5
CGY	2	14:09	3 goal	3	12	17	18	28	34	3	6	14	16	37	48	5v5
MIN	2	11:07		4	19	23	25	27	34	3	6	9	15	20	37	5v5
MIN	2	10:51		4	19	23	25	27	34	3	8	9	11	17	37	5v5
CGY	2	7:05		4	15	23	25	27	34	8	12	21	22	37	45	5v5
MIN	2	5:41		5	6	12	17	18	34	3	6	11	37	48	51	5v5
CGY	2	5:01		4	11	24	26	27	34	14	16	36	37	48	55	5v5
MIN	2	2:44		5	6	12	17	18	34	9	12	22	36	37	55	5v5
MIN	2	2:38	MIN goal	5	6	12	17	18	34	8	9	12	22	37	45	5v5
CGY	2	2:25		4	11	15	24	27	34	3	6	12	21	22	37	5v5
CGY	2	1:29		5	6	19	23	26	34	12	21	22	36	37	55	5v5
CGY	3	16:02		4	11	12	24	27	34	8	9	15	20	37	45	5v5
CGY	3	15:43		4	11	12	24	27	34	8	9	15	20	37	45	5v5
CGY	3	14:12	23 goal	5	6	18	23	25	34	3	6	11	17	37	51	5v5
MIN	3	13:26		4	12	17	18	27	34	3	6	11	15	20	37	5v5
MIN	3	12:59		5	6	11	24	26	34	8	9	15	20	37	45	5v5
CGY	3	12:04		3	15	23	25	28	34	14	16	36	37	48	55	5v5
MIN	3	11:25		4	12	17	18	27	34	3	6	14	16	37	48	5v5
MIN	3	10:02		5	6	12	17	18	34	3	11	17	36	37	51	5v5
CGY	3	7:04		5	6	12	17	18	34	3	6	9	15	20	37	5v5
CGY	3	2:25		5	11	12	18	27	34	3	6	14	16	37	48	5v5
CGY	3	0:33		4	5	12	17	18	24	3	6	12	21	22	37	5v5

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
3	I. WHITE	19:28	2	4	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
4	J. BOUWMEESTER	24:33	8	10	0:25	1	0	1:57	0	1
5	M. GIORDANO	16:42	8	5	0:00	0	0	1:41	0	1
6	C. SARICH	13:47	6	8	0:00	0	0	1:41	0	1
11	N. HAGMAN	16:39	6	1	0:25	1	0	0:00	0	0
12	J. IGINLA	22:58	8	7	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
15	N. DAWES	11:30	5	4	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
17	R. BOURQUE	20:25	5	7	0:00	0	0	0:32	0	1
18	M. STAJAN	21:32	7	7	0:00	0	0	0:12	0	1
19	J. MAYERS	9:40	1	10	0:00	0	0	0:17	0	0
22	D. LANGKOW	5:23	1	0	0:25	1	0	1:19	0	0
23	E. NYSTROM	12:47	4	7	0:00	0	0	0:52	0	0
24	C. CONROY	12:41	7	2	0:00	0	0	2:03	0	1
25	D. MOSS	12:01	5	3	0:00	0	0	2:01	0	1
26	A. KOTALIK	13:59	3	1	0:25	1	0	0:00	0	0
27	S. STAIOS	20:53	8	7	0:25	1	0	0:00	0	0
28	R. REGEHR	16:31	2	4	0:00	0	0	1:57	0	1
34	M. KIPRUSOFF	35:42	11	9	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
35	V. TOSKALA	19:02	5	10	0:25	1	0	3:38	0	2
60	M. BACKLUND	9:29	0	8	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	4	10	3	8	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0
2	7	7	7	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	7	4	7	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	18	21	17	19	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0

A bit of reversal from last game, with the big boys getting things done and the bottom-end skaters getting killed. The Flames were ahead in terms of possession all night, but had a hard time converting zone time into real scoring chances for a large measure of the evening.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 71 Versus San Jose

2010-03-19T21:33:00.002-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21054

Team	Period	Time	Note	CGY						Opponent
SJS	1	19:39		3	12	17	18	28	34	3	8	12	15	20	22	5v5
SJS	1	19:35		3	12	17	18	28	34	3	8	12	15	20	22	5v5
CGY	1	18:12		4	11	22	26	27	34	4	7	20	21	27		5v4
CGY	1	18:03		4	11	22	26	27	34	4	7	20	21	27		5v4
CGY	1	16:37	12 goal	3	5	12	17	18	34	3	8	12	20	22	40	5v5
CGY	1	14:59		5	6	15	24	25	34	4	17	20	27	39	40	5v5
CGY	1	14:58		5	6	15	24	25	34	4	17	20	27	39	40	5v5
SJS	1	13:29		3	12	17	18	28	34	7	12	15	19	20	22	5v5
SJS	1	12:37		5	6	19	23	34	60	7	20	21	28	59	64	5v5
CGY	1	11:09	22 goal	5	6	11	22	26	34	3	8	16	20	22	29	5v5
SJS	1	8:00		4	24	25	28	34		8	12	15	19	20	22	4v5
CGY	1	2:41		3	5	12	17	18	34	3	12	15	19	20	22	5v5
SJS	1	0:20		3	12	17	18	28	34	3	12	17	19	20	22	5v5
SJS	2	17:20	SJS goal	3	17	18	19	28	34	3	12	15	19	20	22	5v5
CGY	2	16:59		3	12	17	18	28	34	4	8	16	20	29	40	5v5
CGY	2	10:58		3	5	15	19	34	60	3	15	19	20	22	29	5v5
CGY	2	10:57	15 goal	3	5	15	19	34	60	3	15	19	20	22	29	5v5
CGY	2	8:59		5	6	19	23	34	60	3	20	21	22	59	64	5v5
CGY	2	8:58	23 goal	5	6	19	23	34	60	3	20	21	22	59	64	5v5
SJS	2	7:23		4	24	25	28	34		8	12	15	19	20	22	4v5
CGY	3	18:06		17	18	19	27	28	34	3	8	16	20	22	64	5v5
SJS	3	17:26		5	6	15	24	25	34	7	17	20	27	28	39	5v5
SJS	3	11:50		5	6	19	23	24	34	4	17	20	27	39	40	5v5
SJS	3	7:58	SJS goal	4	19	23	27	34	60	7	17	20	27	28	39	5v5
SJS	3	1:52	SJS goal	4	12	17	18	27	34	12	15	19	22	39	40	5v5
CGY	3	1:40		5	6	11	22	26	34	4	7	8	16	20	29	5v5

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
3	I. WHITE	12:05	5	5	2:45	0	0	0:11	0	0
4	J. BOUWMEESTER	19:27	0	2	3:12	2	0	2:47	0	2
5	M. GIORDANO	15:23	10	3	2:33	0	0	1:55	0	0
6	C. SARICH	15:52	6	3	0:10	0	0	3:02	0	0
11	N. HAGMAN	12:49	2	0	3:14	2	0	0:00	0	0
12	J. IGINLA	14:39	3	5	2:46	0	0	0:00	0	0
15	N. DAWES	10:12	4	1	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
17	R. BOURQUE	16:46	4	6	2:46	0	0	0:43	0	0
18	M. STAJAN	15:46	4	6	2:46	0	0	1:36	0	0
19	J. MAYERS	9:19	5	4	0:00	0	0	0:34	0	0
22	D. LANGKOW	11:57	2	0	3:14	2	0	1:35	0	0
23	E. NYSTROM	8:48	2	3	0:00	0	0	2:16	0	0
24	C. CONROY	12:14	2	2	0:00	0	0	2:38	0	2
25	D. MOSS	10:39	2	1	0:00	0	0	2:38	0	2
26	A. KOTALIK	12:44	2	0	3:14	2	0	0:00	0	0
27	S. STAIOS	15:48	1	2	3:05	2	0	1:07	0	0
28	R. REGEHR	17:39	2	5	0:15	0	0	2:58	0	2
34	M. KIPRUSOFF	47:56	12	10	6:00	2	0	6:00	0	2
60	M. BACKLUND	7:57	4	2	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	7	6	5	5	2	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
2	5	2	5	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	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	14	12	12	10	2	0	0	0	0	2	0	0

A decent night of work, considering the competition. The Flames bottom-enders like Backlund and Dawes were especially effective, which was good news considering that's where the Sharks are most vulnerable.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 70 versus Colorado

2010-03-17T21:38:00.003-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21040

Team	Period	Time	Note	CGY						Opponent
CGY	1	16:49	17 goal	5	6	17	18	35		10	16	25	27	40	41	4v5
COL	1	16:16		4	12	17	18	27	35	9	22	23	41	52	88	5v5
COL	1	15:51		4	12	17	18	27	35	9	22	23	41	52	88	5v5
COL	1	15:22		5	6	15	24	25	35	4	32	37	40	41	44	5v5
CGY	1	12:26	23 goal	4	19	20	23	27	35	4	15	39	41	44	45	5v5
COL	1	11:43		3	15	24	25	28	35	10	25	26	39	41	52	5v5
CGY	1	11:00		5	6	12	17	18	35	22	27	32	37	40	41	5v5
CGY	1	10:11		4	11	22	26	27	35	9	10	22	23	41	88	5v5
CGY	1	10:10		4	11	22	26	27	35	9	10	22	23	41	88	5v5
COL	1	6:15		4	19	20	23	27	35	4	15	16	41	44	45	5v5
CGY	1	5:09		3	6	12	17	18	35	22	26	27	32	41		5v4
CGY	1	4:46		4	11	20	22	26	35	10	37	39	41	52		5v4
CGY	2	18:33		3	15	24	25	28	35	22	23	26	27	41	88	5v5
COL	2	17:41		5	6	11	12	18	35	4	32	37	40	41	52	5v5
CGY	2	17:13		4	12	17	18	27	35	22	25	26	27	39	41	5v5
CGY	2	16:10		3	12	20	23	28	35	22	26	39	41	45	52	5v5
CGY	2	15:02		4	15	24	25	27	35	10	32	37	40	41	52	5v5
CGY	2	14:56		4	15	24	25	27	35	10	32	37	40	41	52	5v5
CGY	2	14:24		4	11	22	26	27	35	9	22	23	27	41	88	5v5
COL	2	13:19		3	5	12	17	18	35	22	27	37	39	41		5v4
CGY	2	13:06	17 goal	3	5	12	17	18	35	22	27	37	39	41		5v4
CGY	2	12:06		5	6	19	20	23	35	4	10	15	16	41	45	5v5
COL	2	11:19		4	11	22	26	27	35	22	32	37	40	41	52	5v5
COL	2	10:54		4	11	22	26	27	35	22	32	37	40	41	52	5v5
COL	2	7:35		4	19	20	23	28	35	22	27	32	37	41	45	5v5
COL	2	6:18	COL goal	5	6	11	22	26	35	15	16	22	41	45	52	5v5
COL	2	5:25		3	19	20	23	28	35	4	22	25	26	39	41	5v5
CGY	2	1:45		6	12	17	18	28	35	4	9	10	25	39	41	5v5
COL	2	0:37		5	19	20	23	28	35	10	32	37	40	41	52	5v5
CGY	3	19:12		4	11	22	26	27	35	9	10	23	41	52	88	5v5
CGY	3	17:04		5	6	19	20	23	35	4	15	16	41	45	52	5v5
COL	3	11:19		4	24	25	28	35		4	9	23	26	41	88	4v5
CGY	3	10:55		5	6	22	23	35		4	9	23	26	41	88	4v5
CGY	3	8:35		3	11	24	26	28	35	10	25	26	27	39	41	5v5
CGY	3	8:10		3	5	12	17	18	35	15	22	37	41	52		5v4
COL	3	6:07		4	6	11	23	25	35	4	9	22	23	41	88	5v5
COL	3	5:01		4	22	23	28	35		4	9	23	26	41	88	4v5
CGY	3	4:47		4	22	23	28	35		4	9	23	26	41	88	4v5
COL	3	2:46		5	6	12	17	18	35	9	16	22	23	41	52	5v5
COL	3	0:51		5	15	24	25	28	35	9	10	26	27	39	88	5v5
COL	3	0:32		4	12	17	18	28	35	4	9	23	25	26	88	5v5

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
3	I. WHITE	14:25	3	2	3:44	3	1	0:00	0	0
4	J. BOUWMEESTER	19:07	8	8	2:13	1	0	4:34	1	2
5	M. GIORDANO	16:17	3	6	2:50	2	1	1:23	2	0
6	C. SARICH	13:17	4	5	1:32	1	0	1:23	2	0
11	N. HAGMAN	11:37	5	5	2:31	1	0	0:00	0	0
12	J. IGINLA	16:11	4	5	3:33	3	1	0:00	0	0
15	N. DAWES	11:35	3	3	0:18	0	0	0:00	0	0
17	R. BOURQUE	15:26	3	4	3:33	3	1	0:20	1	0
18	M. STAJAN	13:56	3	5	3:33	3	1	0:20	1	0
19	J. MAYERS	7:31	3	4	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
20	C. GLENCROSS	9:12	4	4	0:50	1	0	0:18	0	0
22	D. LANGKOW	12:25	4	3	2:34	1	0	3:32	2	1
23	E. NYSTROM	9:35	4	5	0:00	0	0	3:15	2	1
24	C. CONROY	11:59	4	3	0:15	0	0	2:13	0	1
25	D. MOSS	12:31	3	4	0:18	0	0	1:56	0	1
26	A. KOTALIK	10:57	5	3	2:14	1	0	0:00	0	0
27	S. STAIOS	16:00	8	5	1:34	0	0	0:00	0	0
28	R. REGEHR	16:24	4	6	0:18	0	0	4:34	1	2
35	V. TOSKALA	47:41	15	16	6:22	4	1	5:57	3	2

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	7	5	4	5	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
2	9	8	8	7	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
3	6	6	3	4	1	0	0	0	2	2	0	0
4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	22	19	15	16	4	1	0	0	3	2	0	0

This was a strange one. Both teams spent portions of the game dominating the other. The biggest swing came in the second, when the Flames went on a long run culminating in their third goal. After that, the Avs took over.

Calgary won the overall chance count, but were nominally behind at ES. That said, they were owed one by the Hockey Gods considering many of the other matches versus the Avs this year.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 69 versus Detroit

2010-03-15T22:06:00.002-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21027

Team	Period	Time	Note	CGY						Opponent
CGY	1	18:17		5	6	15	24	25	34	3	17	22	33	35	43	5v5
CGY	1	18:16		5	6	15	24	25	34	3	17	22	33	35	43	5v5
CGY	1	18:15	24 goal	5	6	15	24	25	34	3	17	22	33	35	43	5v5
CGY	1	13:10		4	11	22	26	27	34	5	11	28	35	40	51	5v5
DET	1	11:24		5	6	19	20	23	34	3	20	22	29	35	44	5v5
DET	1	11:23		5	6	19	20	23	34	3	20	22	29	35	44	5v5
DET	1	9:24		4	5	24	25	34		23	35	44	51	55		4v4
DET	1	8:13		4	15	20	25	27	34	11	23	35	40	51	55	5v5
DET	1	4:34		3	5	12	17	18	34	5	11	20	23	35		5v4
CGY	2	16:57		4	12	17	18	27	34	17	22	23	33	35	43	5v5
DET	2	16:03		3	12	17	18	28	34	5	13	28	35	51	96	5v5
DET	2	13:57		5	6	19	20	23	34	3	20	22	29	35	44	5v5
CGY	2	9:03		5	6	12	17	18	34	5	11	28	35	40	93	5v5
CGY	2	8:38		5	6	12	17	18	34	5	11	28	35	40	93	5v5
DET	2	8:14		4	11	18	26	27	34	3	20	22	29	35	44	5v5
CGY	2	7:13		3	19	20	23	28	34	13	23	35	51	55	96	5v5
DET	2	6:15		4	11	22	26	27	34	3	17	22	33	35	43	5v5
CGY	2	4:38		3	12	17	18	28	34	5	28	29	35	40	93	5v5
CGY	2	1:30	20 PS	4	20	24	28	34		11	29	35	40	44	55	4v5
DET	2	1:09		4	17	22	28	34		5	13	28	35	93	96	4v5
DET	2	0:50	DET goal	4	17	22	28	34		5	13	28	35	93	96	4v5
CGY	3	16:05		3	5	12	17	18	34	5	20	23	35	43		5v4
CGY	3	14:30		3	4	12	15	20	34	5	20	23	35	51		5v4
DET	3	10:41		4	12	17	18	27	34	5	11	28	35	40	51	5v5
DET	3	5:20		3	11	12	22	28	34	13	23	35	55	93	96	5v5
CGY	3	4:26		4	17	18	23	27	34	5	20	28	29	35	44	5v5
DET	3	2:20		4	11	19	22	27	34	5	11	28	35	40	51	5v5
DET	3	1:20	DET goal	3	12	17	18	28	34	13	23	35	55	93	96	5v5

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
3	I. WHITE	20:28	2	3	3:35	2	1	0:00	0	0
4	J. BOUWMEESTER	22:01	3	6	3:07	1	0	1:16	1	2
5	M. GIORDANO	15:26	5	4	2:51	1	1	0:00	0	0
6	C. SARICH	13:02	5	3	0:03	0	0	0:00	0	0
11	N. HAGMAN	16:28	1	4	1:49	0	0	0:00	0	0
12	J. IGINLA	19:17	4	4	3:13	2	1	0:00	0	0
15	N. DAWES	7:56	3	1	1:51	1	0	0:00	0	0
17	R. BOURQUE	14:43	5	3	2:55	1	1	0:40	0	2
18	M. STAJAN	18:03	5	4	2:13	1	1	0:00	0	0
19	J. MAYERS	8:54	1	4	0:05	0	0	0:00	0	0
20	C. GLENCROSS	11:43	1	4	2:14	1	0	0:36	1	0
22	D. LANGKOW	15:28	1	3	1:50	0	0	0:40	0	2
23	E. NYSTROM	9:36	2	3	0:05	0	0	0:00	0	0
24	C. CONROY	9:00	3	1	0:04	0	0	0:36	1	0
25	D. MOSS	9:00	3	2	1:04	0	0	0:00	0	0
26	A. KOTALIK	15:10	1	2	0:46	0	0	0:00	0	0
27	S. STAIOS	16:44	3	5	1:49	0	0	0:00	0	0
28	R. REGEHR	17:41	2	3	0:41	0	0	1:16	1	2
34	M. KIPRUSOFF	51:29	10	12	6:03	2	1	1:16	1	2

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	4	5	4	4	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	6	6	5	4	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0
3	3	4	1	4	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	13	15	10	12	2	1	0	0	1	2	0	0

Flames with 4 shots and 3 scoring chances in the third period of a tied game against the team they're chasing for the final play-off spot. And that's including a 4 minute PP.

"Not with a bang but a whimper".

Flames Scoring Chances, Game68 versus Vancouver

2010-03-15T09:23:00.003-06:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 21024

Team	Period	Time	Note	CGY						Opponent
VAN	1	18:52		12	17	18	27	28	34	1	6	22	23	26	33	5v5
VAN	1	18:48	VAN goal	12	17	18	27	28	34	1	6	22	23	26	33	5v5
VAN	1	12:34	VAN goal	3	12	17	18	28	34	1	6	14	17	23	38	5v5
VAN	1	11:09		4	17	18	26	27	34	1	5	10	21	41		5v4
VAN	1	9:33		3	19	20	23	28	34	1	3	5	26	33	36	5v5
CGY	1	8:50		4	11	24	25	27	34	1	3	21	36	41	42	5v5
VAN	1	7:46		4	21	22	28	34		1	6	22	26	33	38	4v5
CGY	1	6:52		6	20	24	28	34		1	5	14	17	23	42	4v5
VAN	1	6:13		4	21	22	27	34		1	5	22	23	26	33	4v5
VAN	1	6:03		4	21	22	27	34		1	5	22	23	26	33	4v5
VAN	1	5:39		3	12	17	18	27	34	1	3	22	29	33	36	5v5
VAN	1	3:38		4	22	27	34			1	6	22	23	26	33	3v5
VAN	1	3:37		4	22	27	34			1	6	22	23	26	33	3v5
VAN	1	3:36		4	22	27	34			1	6	22	23	26	33	3v5
CGY	2	18:48		3	11	24	25	28	35	1	5	22	26	33	41	5v5
CGY	2	16:56		5	6	19	20	23	35	1	3	17	24	29	37	5v5
CGY	2	14:41		5	6	21	22	26	35	1	5	14	17	38	41	5v5
CGY	2	14:06		4	21	23	26	27	35	1	5	14	17	38	41	5v5
CGY	2	10:22		5	6	19	20	22	35	1	3	14	17	29	37	5v5
VAN	2	10:06		4	19	20	23	27	35	1	3	10	21	29	37	5v5
CGY	2	9:18		3	12	17	18	28	35	1	6	22	23	26	33	5v5
VAN	2	8:36		4	11	24	25	27	35	1	5	21	36	41	42	5v5
VAN	2	8:30		6	20	23	28	35		1	5	14	17	23	42	4v5
CGY	2	6:10		3	5	12	17	18	35	1	3	10	17	41		5v4
CGY	2	2:14		5	6	18	21	35		1	5	14	26	38	42	4v5
CGY	2	1:52		5	6	17	18	35		1	5	14	17	23	42	4v5
VAN	2	1:30		5	6	17	18	25	35	1	5	14	17	23	42	5v5
CGY	2	0:13		3	5	11	12	22	35	1	6	14	17	38	41	5v5
CGY	3	18:29		3	5	12	17	18	35	1	5	14	17	23		5v4
VAN	3	16:43		3	19	20	23	28	35	1	3	22	26	29	33	5v5
VAN	3	16:42		3	19	20	23	28	35	1	3	22	26	29	33	5v5
CGY	3	15:11		5	6	21	23	35		1	5	22	26	33	38	4v5
CGY	3	8:11	28 goal	3	11	20	22	28	35	1	3	22	29	36	42	5v5
CGY	3	2:58		3	5	11	17	18	35	1	5	14	17	38	41	5v5
CGY	3	1:28		3	4	11	12	20	22	1	10	21	23	41		5v4
VAN	1	3:07		4	24	25	27	34		1	5	14	17	38	42	4v5
VAN	1	3:04		4	24	25	27	34		1	5	14	17	38	42	4v5
VAN	1	1:30		3	12	17	18	28	34	1	3	10	21	29	36	5v5

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
3	I. WHITE	14:55	5	6	6:26	3	0	0:16	0	0
4	J. BOUWMEESTER	12:48	2	2	4:06	1	1	6:10	0	5
5	M. GIORDANO	11:39	5	1	5:39	2	0	2:05	3	0
6	C. SARICH	12:20	3	1	0:00	0	0	3:11	4	1
11	N. HAGMAN	11:12	5	1	3:18	1	0	0:00	0	0
12	J. IGINLA	13:15	2	5	7:59	3	0	0:00	0	0
17	R. BOURQUE	12:35	2	6	4:37	2	1	0:56	1	0
18	M. STAJAN	13:40	2	6	5:35	2	1	0:54	2	0
19	J. MAYERS	7:56	2	4	0:01	0	0	0:00	0	0
20	C. GLENCROSS	9:57	3	4	2:04	1	0	2:19	1	1
21	C. HIGGINS	8:19	2	0	0:00	0	0	3:12	2	3
22	D. LANGKOW	10:21	4	0	4:14	1	0	3:15	0	3
23	E. NYSTROM	7:50	2	4	0:08	0	0	2:22	1	1
24	C. CONROY	7:55	2	1	0:00	0	0	3:26	1	2
25	D. MOSS	7:14	2	2	0:00	0	0	3:18	0	2
26	A. KOTALIK	9:04	2	0	2:53	0	1	0:00	0	0
27	S. STAIOS	11:49	2	5	3:31	0	1	2:31	0	4
28	R. REGEHR	16:29	3	7	0:12	0	0	5:29	1	2
34	M. KIPRUSOFF	13:43	1	6	2:00	0	1	3:51	1	5
35	V. TOSKALA	25:35	9	5	6:59	2	0	6:00	3	1

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	2	15	1	6	0	1	0	0	1	5	0	3
2	10	4	7	3	1	0	0	0	2	1	0	0
3	5	2	2	2	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	17	21	10	11	3	1	0	0	4	6	0	3

A dreadful first period sank the Flames in this one. They entered the second down 3-0 on the scoreboard and 15-2 in terms of scoring chances. Eight of the Canucks 15 came on the PP.

The Flames were full value from then on, outchancing the bad guys 15-6 the rest of the way, but the hole was already dug.

Flames Scoring Chances, Game 67 versus Ottawa

2010-03-11T22:24:00.002-07:00

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20998

Team	Period	Time	Note	CGY						Opponent
OTT	1	18:48		4	21	22	26	27	34	5	12	27	30	43	65	5v5
CGY	1	17:08		3	5	12	17	18	34	4	9	12	24	30		5v4
CGY	1	14:32	19 goal	5	6	19	20	23	34	12	27	30	39	43	55	5v5
OTT	1	11:22		6	20	21	28	34		7	9	11	19	30	65	4v5
OTT	1	9:06		4	19	20	23	27	34	10	18	30	39	55	73	5v5
CGY	1	6:31		4	11	24	25	27	34	5	7	25	26	30	65	5v5
OTT	1	3:19		4	17	18	27	34		4	5	12	25	27	30	4v5
OTT	2	19:37		3	12	17	18	28	34	4	9	11	19	24	30	5v5
OTT	2	18:36		3	4	21	22	26	34	5	12	27	30	43	65	5v5
OTT	2	17:54		5	11	24	25	27	34	7	25	26	30	39	55	5v5
CGY	2	16:05		3	12	17	18	28	34	4	9	11	19	24	30	5v5
CGY	2	13:21		4	21	22	28	34		7	9	19	27	30	65	4v5
OTT	2	10:02		3	21	22	26	28	34	4	9	11	19	24	30	5v5
CGY	2	8:03		4	19	20	23	27	34	10	18	30	39	55	73	5v5
CGY	2	7:22		3	21	22	26	28	34	4	9	11	19	24	30	5v5
OTT	2	5:55		4	11	24	25	27	34	5	12	25	26	30	65	5v5
CGY	2	2:59		3	12	17	18	28	34	4	9	11	19	24	30	5v5
OTT	2	1:10		5	6	20	23	34		7	12	27	30	43	65	4v5
CGY	3	19:35		3	21	22	26	28	34	4	9	11	19	24	30	5v5
OTT	3	18:40		4	12	17	18	27	34	5	12	26	27	30	65	5v5
OTT	3	17:50		5	6	11	24	25	34	7	25	30	39	43	55	5v5
OTT	3	17:32		5	6	11	24	25	34	7	19	25	39	43	55	5v5
OTT	3	14:51		3	12	17	18	28	34	4	18	30	39	43	73	5v5
OTT	3	12:10		3	19	20	23	28	34	5	26	27	30	43	65	5v5
OTT	3	12:09		3	19	20	23	28	34	5	26	27	30	43	65	5v5
OTT	3	11:25		5	20	23	25	27	34	26	27	30	39	43	55	5v5
CGY	3	10:56	21 goal	3	21	22	26	28	34	5	9	11	19	30	65	5v5
CGY	3	9:52		5	6	12	17	18	34	12	26	27	30	39	55	5v5
CGY	3	4:34		4	11	24	25	27	34	5	18	30	43	65	73	5v5
OTT	3	1:48		4	19	20	23	27	34	7	9	11	19	27	65	5v5
CGY	3	0:47		3	4	12	17	18	34	5	9	30	43	65		5v4

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
3	I. WHITE	14:39	5	6	3:19	2	0	0:00	0	0
4	J. BOUWMEESTER	17:06	3	6	2:17	1	0	5:50	1	1
5	M. GIORDANO	14:56	2	4	2:45	1	0	2:46	0	1
6	C. SARICH	14:27	2	2	0:00	0	0	4:10	0	2
11	N. HAGMAN	8:06	2	4	1:11	0	0	0:00	0	0
12	J. IGINLA	17:26	3	3	3:48	2	0	0:00	0	0
17	R. BOURQUE	16:26	3	3	3:43	2	0	0:41	0	1
18	M. STAJAN	16:27	3	3	3:48	2	0	0:32	0	1
19	J. MAYERS	8:13	2	4	0:00	0	0	0:27	0	0
20	C. GLENCROSS	9:39	2	5	0:00	0	0	4:49	0	2
21	C. HIGGINS	10:32	3	3	0:08	0	0	3:47	1	1
22	D. LANGKOW	10:13	3	3	1:06	0	0	3:52	1	0
23	E. NYSTROM	9:35	2	5	0:00	0	0	3:54	0	1
24	C. CONROY	8:48	2	4	0:08	0	0	0:47	0	0
25	D. MOSS	9:05	2	5	0:08	0	0	1:11	0	0
26	A. KOTALIK	9:37	3	3	1:06	0	0	0:00	0	0
27	S. STAIOS	14:37	3	7	1:43	0	0	1:24	0	1
28	R. REGEHR	14:25	5	5	0:00	0	0	5:50	1	1
34	M. KIPRUSOFF	44:58	10	15	5:02	2	0	10:00	1	3

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	3	4	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	2	0	0
2	5	6	4	5	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0
3	5	8	4	8	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	13	18	10	15	2	0	0	0	1	3	0	0

Not the prettiest game, both by observation and in terms of the numbers. Oh well, I'll take the 2 points.

Normalizing plus/minus: Carl Gunnarsson

2010-03-11T11:02:00.007-07:00

James Mirtle tweeted about the Leafs suddenly stand-out rookie d-man Carl Gunnarsson today. The positive press made me check his underlying numbers because when you have unusually good results for a young no-name player, it typically means the hockey gods are throwing the guy some love.

Turns out that's the case with Gunnarsson this year. He has the leafs highest PDO (on-ice SH% and SV%) at 102 according to behind the net. The timeonice app, which restricts inquiries slightly differently than behindthenet, has it even higher at 106 (Sv5 of .950! and SV of 11.5%). The Leafs team-wide average is (90.1 + 7.1%) 97.2, putting Gunnarsson some 9.3 percentage points above the teams PDO - that's huge and almost certainly all randomness (unless you think the Leafs have found the biggest difference maker in the game since...I don't know, uh, Bobby Orr?).

It's easy enough to normalize the percentages to see what Gunnarsson's ES "expected" plus/minus would be.

ES shots on net with Gunarsson on the ice = 148
ES shots against = 121
Current plus/minus (17 GF - 6 GA) = +9

Expected GF = 148* .071 = 10
Expected GA = 121* .901 = 12
Expected ES plus/minus = -2

Delta between actual and expected = +11

So the bounces have inflated Gunnarsson's plus minus by 11 points thus far. If you wanted to compare this rate across the leafs, then you could normalize each guy's PDO to the team average. Repeat and rank.

*(Keep in mind, that's just using the timeonice information - things would be slightly different if we employed Gabe's info, which either includes or expels stuff like 4on4/3on3 data. The principle and activity would be the same, however).