Postgame: A Rough Night

Pat Steinberg
November 22 2010 08:06PM

NEW YORK - JANUARY 19: Dan Girardi #5 of the New York Rangers celebrates his goal against the Tampa Bay Lightning with teammates Marian Gaborik #10, Michael Del Zotto #4 and Brandon Dubinsky #17 on January 19, 2010 at Madison Square Garden in New York City. (Photo by Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

A day after a strong performance minus the correct result in Detroit, the Flames were unable to pull things out at Madison Square Garden, falling 2-1 in their only meeting with the New York Rangers.  It was a game filled with hard hitting, chippy play...and one crushing hit delivered by Marc Staal to Calgary's Matt Stajan.  Regardless, the Flames are three games below the .500 mark heading into New Jersey on Wednesday.

What Happened

The Flames were not good to start this game, playing a very listless opening 20 minutes.  Kent had scoring chances 9-2 in that opening frame in favor of New York, and had Calgary registering zero at even strength, which is unacceptable.  But the Flames caught some breaks...the Rangers had finish issues, Miikka Kiprusoff made some saves, and this one was scoreless after one period of play.

The Flames seemed to reel things back in in the middle frame, but made a key mistake early on...an awful line change sent the Rangers in 2-on-0, and as Brendan Mikkeslon tried to get back into the play off the bench, Brian Boyle's pass went off his stick and into the back of the net.  Boyle got credit for his ninth of the season at 2:08, but it didn't take long for the Flames to tie things back up...an odd man rush the other way lead to a nice passing sequence, when Jay Bouwmeester found Jarome Iginla in the right circle, and the red hot captain snapped one past Martin Biron to tie things at one.  As things went back and forth, Ryan Callahan would deliver a clean hit on Jay Bouwmeester...something that Curtis Glencross decided to avenge.  His retaliation put him in the box and New York took advantage in short order, as Dan Girardi wired one past Kiprusoff just 14 serconds into the powerplay to put New York up 2-1 after 40.

The third period saw Calgary fire 15 shots on the Rangers net, however only five of those were counted as scoring chances...Kent had chances 5-4 in favor of the Flames, and counted none on their only powerplay of the frame, which again, can't happen.  New York went into a very visible shell and the Flames had difficulty breaking through, and Biron made a few key saves...two in particular on Jarome Iginla.  The final would end up 2-1, as Calgary opens their five game road trip with two losses, albeit earning the one point Sunday in Detroit.

One Good Reason...

...the Flames lost?  Calgary didn't really show up until they were down by a goal, and with how this team fights the puck at times, it just can't happen.  The first period was an absolute write off, as they were controlled and lucky not to be down a few goals.  After Iginla scored to tie it, they had a nice push for two or three minutes before things settled down once again.  Their third period wasn't poor, and they fired 15 shots on net...but we've heard "too little, too late" a little too often as of late.

Red Warrior

GLENDALE, AZ - JANUARY 28: Jay Bouwmeester #4 of the Calgary Flames in action during the NHL game against the Phoenix Coyotes at Jobing.com Arena on January 28, 2010 in Glendale, Arizona. The Coyotes defeated the Flames 3-2 in an overtime shootout. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)
 

With no Robyn Regehr in this game, Jay Bouwmeester really stepped up on this night.  I've been very impressed over the last number of games, as he's been solid in his own end and has been an offensive factor more than he's ever been in his time with the team.  He lead all players with 25:45 of ice time and logged some tough minutes as well...he was under water in chances, but very few players weren't in this game.  I liked Bouwmeester in this game.

Sum It Up

It sets up another November must-win on Wednesday in New Jersey, and it makes you wonder...who the heck gets the start in net when Calgary crosses the Hudson River?  The original thought, going back as far as the weekend, is that Henrik Karlsson would start against the Devils...however, now, the speculation would be that is not the case.  It's an extremely difficult debate, because you can see both sides.  But do you really want your goalie playing 5 games in 7 nights?

The Marc Staal on Matt Stajan hit obviously needs to be addressed.  I'm still formulating my take, but I think Staal was targetting the chest and made impact with the head.  Therefore, I think it should be looked at by the NHL, but I don't know if anything will come of it...this will certainly put to test the new "blindside" rule, as you can make a debate that it is or isn't from the blindside.  I think it was, which is why I think it should be looked at...but who knows with how disipline is handed out in this league.

1cd23297a0d13720ec2fc6d9740ce395
Pat Steinberg can be heard daily on the Fan960 in Calgary at can be read at the FAN 960. Born and raised in Calgary, Steinberg considers himself a huge fan of all sports including the CFL, MMA and 13 round bare knuckle boxing matches. Follow Steinberg on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Fan960Steinberg.
Avatar
#1 Kent Wilson
November 22 2010, 08:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Flames played well enough after going down (although still not great)...but moral victories are pretty much hollow at this point.

Avatar
#2 B
November 22 2010, 08:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

...Glencross robbed by Biron, Bouwmeester hits the post, Morrisson robbed by Biron etc.

...the Flames were so unlucky tonight.

...agree with you though Kent, moral victories just aren't cutting it anymore.

Avatar
#3 Kent Wilson
November 22 2010, 08:35PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
B wrote:

...Glencross robbed by Biron, Bouwmeester hits the post, Morrisson robbed by Biron etc.

...the Flames were so unlucky tonight.

...agree with you though Kent, moral victories just aren't cutting it anymore.

Flames only got 10 ES chances tonight. Some of them were 10 bell chances, granted, but that's not enough against most NHL goalies on most nights. They also spent a lot of time shooting pucks into shinpads.

It wasn't that good of a performance.

Avatar
#4 schevvy
November 22 2010, 09:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Iginla has 6 goals and an assist in the last 3 games, all of those without Jokinen, coincidence?

Avatar
#5 PrairieStew
November 22 2010, 09:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
schevvy wrote:

Iginla has 6 goals and an assist in the last 3 games, all of those without Jokinen, coincidence?

I think the more important stat is 1 win, 1 loss and 1 overtime loss whild Jarome is racking up the points. So while Iggy appears to have his luck changing a bit offensively, the overall results are not much better, and his underlying numbers are not that much improved.

Avatar
#6 Sherw88d
November 22 2010, 09:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Lost 9 of our last 11 games. Bourque hurt. Reggie hurt. Stajan hurt. Glennie pedestrian. Jokinen coming back... New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia next 3 games.

Holy balls do things not look good for this week.

Avatar
#7 Sherw88d
November 22 2010, 09:59PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Kent Wilson

I thought they had possession for most of the last 40 minutes. NYR's big guns were completely invisible. Anyone notice Gaborik at all? We needed to win that game, mostly because I can't see us winning more than 1 of the next 3.

Avatar
#8 SmellOfVictory
November 22 2010, 10:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
PrairieStew wrote:

I think the more important stat is 1 win, 1 loss and 1 overtime loss whild Jarome is racking up the points. So while Iggy appears to have his luck changing a bit offensively, the overall results are not much better, and his underlying numbers are not that much improved.

But they are improved, and beyond that, he actually looks competent (sometimes even dangerous) on the ice the majority of the time now. He may not still be his old single-handed-bus-driving self, but I don't think it's fair to say that the Flames' record is indicative of his play.

Avatar
#9 John Deere Green
November 22 2010, 10:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Stick a fork in 'em. Hey Darryl, you sure there isn't any more third and fourth line grinder's out there that could help your brutal, cap pinched team? Second oldest team in the league, at the cap limit, way to many NTC's, can't seam to win enough games to dig themselves out of any holes, frick, this looks like Toronto Maple Leafs East. They're done like dinner.

Avatar
#10 R O
November 22 2010, 10:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Not sure why "old" keeps coming up without explanation or context. Red Wings are still great (though helped a ton by refs) and they have lots of older guys in important positions.

Skill and established level of ability are important. Older guys are prone to decline but they've also for the most part passed the test of usefulness. They're in this league because they're good (mostly).

Young players, they enjoy a physical edge (after around the age of 20) but also less prone to making good decisions, and you don't really get to find out which of them will turn out to be stars vs. bums until they get... older.

Avatar
#11 CitizenFlame
November 23 2010, 12:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Wow, the way most people are commenting what is the point in even playing the games. You can just look at rosters on paper, apparently add up the cumulative age of the players on the team and voila! the outcome of the game is already determined. Now where is that "sim" button so we don't actually have to play through the remaining 60 odd games and we can get right to the draft?

This isn't EA sports people. Nobody expected the Flames to beat Chicago, but they did. They weren't supposed to beat Detroit either, they got one point from that game and would have had two but they blew it. Not the other way around. People expected them to beat NYR but they came up short. At this point expect the unexpected.

Avatar
#12 Tach
November 23 2010, 12:25AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I must say that I am surprised how down on the Flames the commentariat is tonight. Maybe it is just because I missed the Detroit game (at the McMahon Ice Bowl) but aside from the first 10 minutes (which were admittedly awful) I thought the Flames played well. Or at least better than they were during their last losing streak. The Morrison whiffer on the empty net followed by Glencross off the post was the back breaker to me.

Again what strikes me is the total lack of skill coming out of our end. The passes into the shin pads of the other team, the bobbled handles at the blue line. It is all just so...unskilled. They look like a team of pluggers, and not even fast pluggers like the 03-04 version.

And while there continues to be lots of blame to go around - I note again that Kipper let in 2 stoppable goals. The first was a fluke and the second a good chance that he got a piece of. But for $5.7 million he has to find a way to stop 1 of those two chances. An average or even good Kiprusoff does not get the Flames a win. They need a superlative Kiprusoff to succeed. The more I watch, the more I think that moving Kiprusoff as part of a further reallocation of salary from the backend to the front seems a move that makes sense, although probably in the off season.

Avatar
#13 Grumpy
November 23 2010, 12:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Tach

If the Flames were winning games 3-2, 4-2 we might not be talking about Kipper's softies. The guy has bailed this team how many times? It's high time team score him some goals!

Now if we could just figure out why when one line gets hot the other goes cold. Looked to me like Bouque was coasting a bit tonight, while Iginla is looking better. Is it a coincidence when Bourque plays well IGGy does not?? Could we have some egos. Help me out here?

Avatar
#14 Sincity1976
November 23 2010, 12:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I like the optimism I am seeing from some of the fan base. And I understand that making a run into the playoffs isn't impossible. But its pretty darn unlikely at this point. They will need a point % of approximately 63% to pull that off. Only 4 teams in the NHL maintained that pace last season.

I am not sure what magic bolt of lightning people are expecting that will transform this team into a top 4-elite team over night.

Iggy is scoring ... they are still losing. Injured players are coming back .... they are still losing. They are playing pretty solid games .... they are still losing.

Thats a 102-games and counting of under performance. It is what it is. They are who they are. What you have seen is probably what you are going to get.

I don't want to see a "blow it up" rebuild. However, its time they start looking at next season and make moves to that end imo.

Besides, if they are going to turn things around its going to because of a strong shock to their system. Doing the same thing and expecting different results .... well, you get the picture.

Avatar
#15 R O
November 23 2010, 01:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thats a 102-games and counting of under performance

Hm.

Well, over 82 games a team's record might not even explain more than 2/3 of their talent.

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/11/22/1826590/luck-in-the-nhl-standings

And when you consider that there are 30 teams in this league, well... there are a few teams guaranteed to look like crap while not being crap, and a few teams guaranteed to look like NHL All-Stars while icing AHL All-Stars.

Exhibit A on the latter effect: the Colorado Avalanche.

So "it is what it is" - isn't.

Avatar
#16 R O
November 23 2010, 01:12AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Well, over 82 games a team's record might not even explain more than 2/3 of their talent.

Er wow.

That meant to say, team's talent might not explain 2/3 of record.

Avatar
#19 CitizenFlame
November 23 2010, 03:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Grumpy wrote:

If the Flames were winning games 3-2, 4-2 we might not be talking about Kipper's softies. The guy has bailed this team how many times? It's high time team score him some goals!

Now if we could just figure out why when one line gets hot the other goes cold. Looked to me like Bouque was coasting a bit tonight, while Iginla is looking better. Is it a coincidence when Bourque plays well IGGy does not?? Could we have some egos. Help me out here?

I have been wondering the exact same thing. I was wondering if there wasn't a bit of a power struggle in the room. I think that it is probably pretty obvious that Jerome needs to produce offensively otherwise he seems lost. Bourque seemed to relish being the go to guy, and Iggy seemed to flounder while all the "passing-the-torch" talk was going on but now that Iggy is heating up again, RBQ goes cold. Coincidence?

Avatar
#20 CitizenFlame
November 23 2010, 03:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Sincity1976

It was pointed out in the Scoring Chance thread that the Flames need to win 63% to hit 95 points.

Vancouver is currently in 8th spot with 23 points. They have to win 58% to hit the magic 95 points. Calgary needs to win 3 more games than Vancouver over the final 62 games and we still have 6 games vs. Vancouver in that span. This is a little simplified ofcourse, because we are ignoring the rest of the conference, and loser points, etc. but it illustrates the point- this season is far from over. Who is to say that Calgary can't go on a run like Anaheim or Columbus have over the last 10 games. Or that Vancouver or San Jose suffer an injury to Sedin or Thornton? That's why the season is played.

Avatar
#21 Kent Wilson
November 23 2010, 08:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Sherw88d

The Rangers went defensive shell pretty hard after getting their second goal. All but the worst teams in the league have possession when they're chasing.

Flames chance count is underwhelming through the last 2 periods even though they had the puck much more. Some of that is the Rangers (lots of shot blocking and suck), some of that might be the B2B effect and some of that was Flames just not being good enough.

Avatar
#22 jr_christ
November 23 2010, 08:31AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Wow, Stajan got absolutely crunched. When I first saw it I thought it was a definite head shot, however, after looking at the replay a few times you can see that Stall's shoulder hit Stajan in the chest.

I hate to see hits keep a good guy down, but keep you damn head up kid!

Bowmeester played one of his best of the year last night with some great defensive and offensive plays. It's too bad that he doesn't play like that more often. Another couple seasons at 30 points and he'll quickly fall off the map.

Avatar
#23 sam67
November 23 2010, 09:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

"Wow, Stajan got absolutely crunched. When I first saw it I thought it was a definite head shot, however, after looking at the replay a few times you can see that Stall's shoulder hit Stajan in the chest."

Please explain to me how a guy is almost knocked out cold and coudln't stand from a shot to the chest? This was a head shot and I cannot believe more isn't being made of it. It's what the league supposedly is trying to eliminate.

Avatar
#24 Rain Dogs
November 23 2010, 09:50AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@ Tach

If you think this team is being held back by goaltending, take a gander at McElhinney.

I guess he probably wasn't trying on Calgary right?

Or he just trained better over the summer?

Nope, maybe there is a big gap between who we are, and who we think we are, and goaltending is doing a Lion's share of narrowing that gap. Sure, we can compare our goalies to Detroit's and Philly's all season long by stats, but you really believe we switch goalies and they get worse? Give me a break.

Every shot is "stoppable", but yet there is a reason why goalies don't get 82 shutouts. It's an own goal and a deflection, 2 GA, Flames should STILL win, but we don't. It's the same idea as calling out Lundqvist. Yeah, ride Biron (who actually isn't that bad) for the season, you're not coming out ahead.

Your comment is mind-numbing. It's like saying "player X got 5 shots, he's got to find a way to score on 4 of those, instead of only one"

Avatar
#25 JF
November 23 2010, 10:26AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
R O wrote:

Not sure why "old" keeps coming up without explanation or context. Red Wings are still great (though helped a ton by refs) and they have lots of older guys in important positions.

Skill and established level of ability are important. Older guys are prone to decline but they've also for the most part passed the test of usefulness. They're in this league because they're good (mostly).

Young players, they enjoy a physical edge (after around the age of 20) but also less prone to making good decisions, and you don't really get to find out which of them will turn out to be stars vs. bums until they get... older.

Sure, sure.

Really thou, if the Flames were the Red Wings no one here would be complaining. It's one thing to have an old team and win (like the Wings do) but to have an older team and lose... I mean you say "Skill and established level of ability are important. Older guys are prone to decline but they've also for the most part passed the test of usefulness. They're in this league because they're good"... so what does that say about the current performance of the Flames?

I guess what it comes down to is that at least with an underperforming young team you can look at them and dream of a brighter future... with an underperforming older team all you have is a nightmare for further decline.

Avatar
#26 CitizenFlame
November 23 2010, 10:29AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@sam67

C'mon, what was Stajan doing? He enters the zone going through the middle of the ice with two defenceman in front of him, dishes a soft back hand and then watches it admiringly. That's an area of the ice you need to keep your head up. What bothers me is the comments by Staal that he knew Stajan had his head down and still railroaded him but lets be honest, when you were playing hockey as if you didn't dream of that exact moment; lining up a guy with his head down?

Two points on this: 1)players need to quit putting themselves in vulnerable positions and relying on rules to protect them, 2)watch the play in real time, not frame by frame. I would like to see Staal let up there and not kill Stajan, but when you see it in real time it's a fraction of a second and Stajan put himself in that position. I hope Stajan is ok, and this isn't a long term issue for him.

Avatar
#27 Rob in Toronto
November 23 2010, 10:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The big problem here is consistency. The NHL has handed down suspensions for far lesser hits this year, so why not for this one?

Whether or not you think it was a "clean" hit, I have absolutely no doubt that if the name on the back of the jersey had been Avery instead of Staal, he'd be sitting for at least three.

Avatar
#28 R O
November 23 2010, 10:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

at least with an underperforming young team you can look at them and dream of a brighter future

Dreams don't win hockey games and many young players never learn how to play in this league.

Avatar
#29 R O
November 23 2010, 10:46AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Colie fined Nash 25 c-notes for his crosscheck to Gio's head and then gives Olli 1 more game than Briere for the same crosscheck.

So it's really no surprise that the upright Marc Staal was ale to deliver that squeaky clean hit to Stajan, who's probably just faking his brain injury.

Avatar
#30 PrairieStew
November 23 2010, 11:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props
R O wrote:

at least with an underperforming young team you can look at them and dream of a brighter future

Dreams don't win hockey games and many young players never learn how to play in this league.

Past performance doesn't win hockey games either RO. Pinning hopes on numerous key players with multiple seasons of declining performance is also a poor strategy.

The fact that Detroit is the oldest team in the league and Calgary is the second oldest is very instructive. Detroit is a smart, disciplined, consistent group, and Calgary is not. Instead of having the advantages of a veteran team they are an inconsistent and erractic coach eating bunch. One might tolerate that if you had the advantages of a young team - enthusiastic, capable of exploding with periods of dominance. Conversley, one might tolerate the lack of speed and finish of a veteran squad if you knew they would play a smart game every time out and find crafty ways to win . The fact remains that there is most of the disadvantages of age with this team, and very few of the advantages.

Avatar
#31 KS
November 23 2010, 11:47AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The Flames are playing well and the last five games have not been really bad but they have not been really good. I have mentioned this in other posts. This team works pretty hard and look pretty good at times. THEY CANNOT FINISH. There is a big difference you have the medium to above average skilled players and you have the grinders versus a pure play maker and or a pure goal scorer Now that Iggy is rolling and the bounces are going his way a little more the rest of the team has gone cold. Sports are a funny thing. Take Sundays football game, Regina really should not have been in this game (sorry Regina fans) but Burris comes out and plays one of his average games if not below average and the team took untimely (some uncalled for) penalty's and Regina hung around long enough to get the win. With team sports you just don't know from game to game. If your team is firing on all cylinders you have a great chance of winning or you win 9 out of 10 times. Come out average or below average and your appointment is going to pick you apart and upset you. Chicago last year was so good that no one could really slow them down and they got timely goaltending in the playoffs and who wins the Stanley Cup. They were that good even with some of the upsets in the playoffs last year Chicago should have won based on the skill and talent they had at the time. They played as a team and were able to keep there game at a high enough level throughout the playoffs.

I still think when Darryl brought in Cammi from LA, then brought in Olli from Phoenix and then let Cammi go in the off season and hung his cowboy hat on Olli to be the playmaking centre the Flames were looking for it killed our offence. I feel we should have built around Cammi and Iggy and gone from there. We do not have another player like Cammi on the team and the only player that I am thinking could give the Flames a shot in the arm with more offence is Kotalik. This guy has the potential to do it but will he is able to do it and how many games will he need to get back into game condition?

The No Trades Clause contracts are going to hurt this team if and when the Flames need to start to move players and add some youth to the team or gather some draft picks. If the players with the NTC contracts object the Flames are going to have their hands somewhat tied because who do you really trade then? Lanny Theo Vernon Ramage……!!

Avatar
#32 Tach
November 23 2010, 11:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rain Dogs

Well, I prefaced that whole paragraph by saying "There is lots of blame to go around" so all I am pointing out is that Kiprusoff is as equally to blame for the team's inability to win as all the other players.

While I will take your point that any goalie is going to have some "stoppable" shots get past him, my broader point is that if Kiprusoff is not performing at a level that is commensurate with his $5.833 million cap hit, this team is going to have a tough time winning hockey games. They need to win a disproportionate number of 1-0, 2-1 games in order to succeed. It is the way Sutter has allocated his cap space.

Whether it is reasonable or not, Kiprusoff has to be damn near super human for this team to win. If you have a problem with that, talk to Darryl.

Avatar
#33 Bob Cobb
November 23 2010, 12:09PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

The hit on Stajan was fine, if you are a Flames fan and think it was dirty you're a hypocrit. How many hits have guys like Regher, Phanuef, Sarich and a few others, hit exactly like that and got nothing. The Flames have been a cheap team for years, just look at Regher's cheap hits on Hemsky or Sarich's hit on Marleau from the plaoffs a few years back, I thought he left his feet and lead with this forearm. Those are apparently just hard hockey plays, well the Stajan hit was a hard hockey play, Stajan should learn to keep his head up and not admire his pass.

Avatar
#34 Rain Dogs
November 23 2010, 12:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Tach

"all I am pointing out is that Kiprusoff is as equally to blame for the team's inability to win as all the other players...whether it is reasonable or not, Kiprusoff has to be damn near super human for this team to win."

These statements simply aren't true, for one, and they are borderline contradictory for two.

I've been looking for ways to start to separate team effects from goaltending, and I can't say I'm finding much.

However, I was interested by this article (http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=54) by puck prospectus about quality starts. Read it before continuing. In that, any game by a goalie with less than 2GA and above .885sv% is a quality start (teams win 73% of the time), or any game with over a .912sv% is a quality start (teams win 78% of the time).

However, I believe that model only takes us half the way. There are games where statistically goaltending looks poor, but had no effect on the outcome. Which is what we're trying to measure.

I also want to apply the same metric to measure Quality starts for teams.

To clarify, we're trying to find games where the goalie has directly made is easier or harder for his team to win beyond wasted quality starts.

Therefore, 7-2 losses to Washington, and shutouts against, are outliers. I call them blowouts. Call them what you want. But in these games it wasn't the goaltending for, that was a difference maker either way.

If you cut out the blowouts/shutouts (3 this season) You get a record of 9-6-3 and 60% quality starts for Kipper. For Karlsson it's 1-1-0 and 50%. The team is 8-12-3 40% Quality starts.

Kipper is running +4 relative to the team (which does correlate with "wasted starts in the article" so maybe it's the same?), Karlsson who got goal support in both games is running -1. The team is -3 overall to both goalies.

Therefore, goaltending has been a more consistent difference maker than the forwards and d to the tune of 4 times this year in 20 games, all on Kipper's back as Karl is -1.

If they were "equally to blame" or "equal" in quality starts, it is fair to hypothesize that Flames would have 3 more wins and 23 points, and would have 3.5-4 more wins, with Kipper in net in every game.

Avatar
#35 CitizenFlame
November 23 2010, 12:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Bob Cobb

Obviously an Oilers fan. It's not Reghers fault that Hemsky is drawn to the Tunnel of Death like a moth to a flame.

Avatar
#36 CitizenFlame
November 23 2010, 12:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Rob in Toronto wrote:

The big problem here is consistency. The NHL has handed down suspensions for far lesser hits this year, so why not for this one?

Whether or not you think it was a "clean" hit, I have absolutely no doubt that if the name on the back of the jersey had been Avery instead of Staal, he'd be sitting for at least three.

Can't argue that point. If it was Avery on the delivery or a Crosby on the receiving end I'm sure the determination would be different.

But looking at the play I don't feel that it was really a dirty hit based on the rules. Just because Stajan turns his head doesn't make it a blind-side hit. I think that video replay angles make the head shot inconclusive as different angles make the hit look like it strikes the head or chest. But as RO pointed out, who knows how the wheel of justice will turn out.

Avatar
#37 reluctantcitizen
November 23 2010, 02:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
John Deere Green wrote:

Stick a fork in 'em. Hey Darryl, you sure there isn't any more third and fourth line grinder's out there that could help your brutal, cap pinched team? Second oldest team in the league, at the cap limit, way to many NTC's, can't seam to win enough games to dig themselves out of any holes, frick, this looks like Toronto Maple Leafs East. They're done like dinner.

You were on the right track with your comment until the last two lines. And maybe you said it flippintly without really thinking about what you were saying, but please, please, tell me how the Calgary Lames are in anyway like the Leafs.

I submit to you off the top of my head, the ways in which the Leafs are different from the Lames:

A-Team age

B-Cap space

C-A GM that actually knows how to operate in the post-lockout NHL

D-2 goalies that can be counted on- that's right, a back up goalie that can actually play so that the starter doesn't have to play 73-76 games per year

E-Team speed (maybe the age of Calgary wouldn't be such a bad thing if they weren't so slow)

F-Prospects in the system (or already on the team) that actually have potential

G-A deep defence core, I'm talking 1-6, not 1-3

H-And the biggest difference of all: NO SUTTER'S!!! Not even one.

So please refrain from comparing the Lames to the Leafs. Yesterday they had one thing in common- the same number of points; that isn't even the same anymore.

Avatar
#38 Tach
November 23 2010, 02:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rain Dogs

I read the article, interesting and I can operate from that premise. Lets just deal with Kipper. And I don't think it is fair to give Kiprusoff a +QS for Chicago if you don't give him a -QS on the Washington game. Plus, there is something wonky on the numbers here. The Flames have 20 games. If you take out the 2 Karlsson games, the two shutouts against and each blowout going either way, you have 14 starts for Kipper, 8 QS, 6 non-QS, 57% QS rate. Looks not bad, but I guess we would have to do this for

Of course, my point is that in order for Kipper to be worth it, the $5.833 million in cap space has to be matched by his contribution. Assuming he starts games at the same pace as he has this season, he would start 73 games. If he got 57% QS in those games, the Flames record should be 39 wins. ((.57*.775)+(.43*.225)*73) and 34 losses.

Lets say a replacement goaltender for $2 million cap hit could do a 50% QS over those same 73 games. The Flames projected record would be 36 wins. But they could allocate that $3.8333 million cap hit to a UFA forward at a rate of wins at $2.23 million per win (see this link (http://www.behindthenethockey.com/2010/1/6/1234466/how-much-do-ufas-and-rfas-cost-per) They would be buying back just under two wins, getting them to ~38 wins. If they bought an RFA player they would be getting about 3 wins or the exact same results as they would get with Kipper in net.

And your estimate is based on pretty favourable circumstances. If you add back in the shutouts and blowouts that you took out, Kippers rate of QS falls to 50%. And he probably won't end up starting in 73 games either. In which case you could easily make the case that he isn't supplying the needed value for his cap hit.

Avatar
#39 propositionWes
November 23 2010, 02:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
reluctantcitizen wrote:

You were on the right track with your comment until the last two lines. And maybe you said it flippintly without really thinking about what you were saying, but please, please, tell me how the Calgary Lames are in anyway like the Leafs.

I submit to you off the top of my head, the ways in which the Leafs are different from the Lames:

A-Team age

B-Cap space

C-A GM that actually knows how to operate in the post-lockout NHL

D-2 goalies that can be counted on- that's right, a back up goalie that can actually play so that the starter doesn't have to play 73-76 games per year

E-Team speed (maybe the age of Calgary wouldn't be such a bad thing if they weren't so slow)

F-Prospects in the system (or already on the team) that actually have potential

G-A deep defence core, I'm talking 1-6, not 1-3

H-And the biggest difference of all: NO SUTTER'S!!! Not even one.

So please refrain from comparing the Lames to the Leafs. Yesterday they had one thing in common- the same number of points; that isn't even the same anymore.

They both have GM's that trade away 1st round picks?

Avatar
#40 reluctantcitizen
November 23 2010, 02:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@propositionWes

Haha, touche. So that is one thing they have in common, lol.

Avatar
#41 John F
November 23 2010, 03:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
reluctantcitizen wrote:

You were on the right track with your comment until the last two lines. And maybe you said it flippintly without really thinking about what you were saying, but please, please, tell me how the Calgary Lames are in anyway like the Leafs.

I submit to you off the top of my head, the ways in which the Leafs are different from the Lames:

A-Team age

B-Cap space

C-A GM that actually knows how to operate in the post-lockout NHL

D-2 goalies that can be counted on- that's right, a back up goalie that can actually play so that the starter doesn't have to play 73-76 games per year

E-Team speed (maybe the age of Calgary wouldn't be such a bad thing if they weren't so slow)

F-Prospects in the system (or already on the team) that actually have potential

G-A deep defence core, I'm talking 1-6, not 1-3

H-And the biggest difference of all: NO SUTTER'S!!! Not even one.

So please refrain from comparing the Lames to the Leafs. Yesterday they had one thing in common- the same number of points; that isn't even the same anymore.

C- E-Team Speed-have you watched the Leafs recently? They are by no means one of the quick teams in the League. F- The Leafs are not exactly loaded with high end prospects particularly considering how many years they have been at or near the bottom of the pack. Flames # 1 farm team has been at or near top spot while the Marlies are in 5th place with one of the older teams in the AHL The Flames have not in their history had a draft pick as high as the Leafs had in 2010. We will only find out down the road how good Seguin is going to be but I would suggest he will be very good. There is a big difference between picking in the late teens or 20's where the Flames have picked and top 10 where the Leafs have been picking. Oh and by the way we have a #1 pick this year-where is the Leaf's pick in 2011(likely to be a high one) going? Go Bruins!!

Avatar
#42 John F
November 23 2010, 03:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Forgot to mention Abottsford Flames have the youngest team in AHL.

Avatar
#43 Rain Dogs
November 23 2010, 03:53PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Tach

Why on Earth would you not record Kiprusoff having a quality start against Chicago?

That doesn't make sense.

The rest of your stuff, is just here-say. There are no numbers suggesting a replacement level goalie would operate better than Karlsson or McL did here.

Additionally, you cannot conclude that QS correlate directly with wins on this team, it's possible, but not the case now. Kiprusoff has 6 of the last 9 games as Quality starts...and 2 wins, because the team has had 'poor starts'

The point is, you said they were equal (the team and the goalie) and that is not the case. The team has fewer Quality Starts.

Avatar
#44 dotfras
November 23 2010, 04:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Hilarious that we have a Leafs troll on here trying to talk smack.

Looking forward to the Flames killing the Leafs both times they play them this year.

Kipper is not to blame for most of our losses, we lost in overtime after being up 4-2 in the third....that's just a team breakdown, maybe even B Sutter doing a bad job at defending the lead.

And a 2-1 loss to the Rangers with Biron in net is our offenses fault. They gotta bury more pucks.

Avatar
#45 reluctantcitizen
November 23 2010, 04:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
John F wrote:

C- E-Team Speed-have you watched the Leafs recently? They are by no means one of the quick teams in the League. F- The Leafs are not exactly loaded with high end prospects particularly considering how many years they have been at or near the bottom of the pack. Flames # 1 farm team has been at or near top spot while the Marlies are in 5th place with one of the older teams in the AHL The Flames have not in their history had a draft pick as high as the Leafs had in 2010. We will only find out down the road how good Seguin is going to be but I would suggest he will be very good. There is a big difference between picking in the late teens or 20's where the Flames have picked and top 10 where the Leafs have been picking. Oh and by the way we have a #1 pick this year-where is the Leaf's pick in 2011(likely to be a high one) going? Go Bruins!!

Yup, I watch the leafs all the time. Did I say they were one of the quick teams in the league? Nope, just comparing them to the Flames.

Also, I never said the Leafs are "loaded with high end prospects." And who cares that the Heat are near the top of the AHL, that means nothing when comparing prospects, nor does the age of the AHL teams. Most of Toronto's prospects or young players are already in the NHL- Kessel, Kadri, Bozak, Kulemin, Grabovski, Schenn, Versteeg, Gustavsson- all 26 and under.

And I'm not too concerned about your first round pick, Darryl will either trade it or botch the pick.

Avatar
#46 reluctantcitizen
November 23 2010, 04:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
dotfras wrote:

Hilarious that we have a Leafs troll on here trying to talk smack.

Looking forward to the Flames killing the Leafs both times they play them this year.

Kipper is not to blame for most of our losses, we lost in overtime after being up 4-2 in the third....that's just a team breakdown, maybe even B Sutter doing a bad job at defending the lead.

And a 2-1 loss to the Rangers with Biron in net is our offenses fault. They gotta bury more pucks.

I am hardly a Leaf troll, nor am I 'trying' to talk smack. Just felt the need to point out facts.

I'm looking forward to the games this year as well. But if you think the Flames will 'kill' the Leafs both times you are clearly misguided.

Avatar
#47 dotfras
November 23 2010, 04:42PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
reluctantcitizen wrote:

I am hardly a Leaf troll, nor am I 'trying' to talk smack. Just felt the need to point out facts.

I'm looking forward to the games this year as well. But if you think the Flames will 'kill' the Leafs both times you are clearly misguided.

Toronto's team is just as bad this year as it was last year & we demolished them both times.

I don't see how it will be any different this year.

Avatar
#48 Tach
November 23 2010, 04:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rain Dogs

Lawrence said "Why on Earth would you not record Kiprusoff having a quality start against Chicago?"

You were taking out three decidedly non-quality starts in the games against Edmonton, LA and Washington because they were shut-outs or blowouts. I fail to see why you would discount a blowout which shows negatively against Kiprusoff on one side and then include one that is positive on his side. I am all for including all the data. You were cherry picking.

Lawrence said "The rest of your stuff, is just here-say. There are no numbers suggesting a replacement level goalie would operate better than Karlsson or McL did here."

It's "hearsay". As are all of these statistics unless you were personally present for all of the Flames games this year and recorded all the stats yourself - but I digress. I searched for a marker for replacement level QS and couldn't come up with anything. You wanted to use QS as a marker, if you can show me what a replacement level is we can use that. Karlsson is at 50% on the year so I set it at exactly what he has done so far and paid the guy more than twice as much. I think my assumptions are fairly conservative.

Lawrence said "Additionally, you cannot conclude that QS correlate directly with wins on this team, it's possible, but not the case now. Kiprusoff has 6 of the last 9 games as Quality starts...and 2 wins, because the team has had 'poor starts'"

If QS is not supposed to correlate to wins...then what is the point of the number?

Lawrence said "The point is, you said they were equal (the team and the goalie) and that is not the case. The team has fewer Quality Starts."

If you have a some article that describes what a "Quality Start" is for a whole team, I would be happy to see it. As it is, I have no idea what you are talking about. The team has scored

My point is that this team has a disproportionate amount of its salary cap weighted to the back end, including the sixth highest cap hit for a starting goaltender in the league. This results in less salary cap dollars allocated to players putting the puck in the net at the other end. Kiprusoff has not performed at a level commensurate with his salary. Neither have a host of other players on this team. The team is above average, 13th, in offence with an average payroll up front. Kiprusoff appears to be below average in stopping pucks, but has an above average salary. Hence, he is as much to fault for the record as the others.

Avatar
#49 reluctantcitizen
November 23 2010, 04:55PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
dotfras wrote:

Toronto's team is just as bad this year as it was last year & we demolished them both times.

I don't see how it will be any different this year.

This years Leaf team is so completely different from last years. To say otherwise shows that you don't know much about the Leafs. At this time last year they had 3 wins, compared to the 8 we have now. The teams are very very different.

And you demolished the Leafs last year?? First game you were up 2-0 early then were outplayed the rest of the game and badly outshot and won 5-2. The second game you won 3-1, with one of the goals being an empty net goal. Where in the world are you getting this 'demolished' idea from?!?!

Avatar
#50 John F
November 23 2010, 06:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
reluctantcitizen wrote:

I am hardly a Leaf troll, nor am I 'trying' to talk smack. Just felt the need to point out facts.

I'm looking forward to the games this year as well. But if you think the Flames will 'kill' the Leafs both times you are clearly misguided.

So far you've offered no facts just your opinion, to which you are entitled.

Try to appreciate the distinction!

Now return to the Leafs blog where your "facts" are appreciated.

Comments are closed for this article.