Flames Scoring Chances - Game 33 versus Minnesota

Kent Wilson
December 19 2010 06:53PM

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20482

Team Period Time Note CGY Opponent  
CGY 1 19:28   4 10 13 17 28 34 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
MIN 1 18:35   5 6 12 18 34 40 3 5 21 24 32 96 5v5
MIN 1 18:02   5 6 12 18 34 40 4 7 19 20 32 46 5v5
CGY 1 10:49   5 6 15 16 25 34 4 21 24 32 46 96 5v5
MIN 1 8:13   7 12 18 33 34 40 5 21 23 24 32 46 5v5
MIN 1 6:51   5 6 8 11 26 34 4 7 19 20 32 46 5v5
CGY 1 6:18   7 12 18 33 34 40 7 8 12 15 32 55 5v5
MIN 1 3:31   4 8 11 26 28 34 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
MIN 1 3:30   4 8 11 26 28 34 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
CGY 2 19:08   4 5 13 16 17 34 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
CGY 2 12:08   5 6 12 18 34 40 21 24 32 46 55 96 5v5
CGY 2 4:57   5 6 17 25 34   8 15 19 24 32 96 4v5
MIN 2 4:36 Miettinen goal 4 11 28 34 40   3 7 9 15 20 32 4v5
MIN 2 0:53 Koivu goal 7 8 11 26 33 34 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
CGY 3 18:27   6 7 12 18 34 40 3 5 7 24 32 96 5v5
MIN 3 12:20 Kobasew goal 7 12 25 33 34 40 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
MIN 3 8:57   4 8 10 17 33 34 3 5 7 19 20 32 5v5
CGY 3 8:12   4 8 10 17 28 34 8 9 12 15 32 55 5v5
CGY 3 7:32   5 6 15 16 25 34 5 8 9 15 22 32 5v5
CGY 3 5:18 Stajan goal 6 10 17 18 28 34 4 7 8 19 20 32 5v5
CGY 3 3:18   4 5 10 17 18 34 3 5 21 24 32 96 5v5
CGY 3 1:19   4 5 12 13 17 40 3 5 11 22 23 32 5v5
CGY 3 1:03   4 5 12 13 17 40 3 5 11 22 23 32 5v5

 

# Player EV PP SH
4 J. BOUWMEESTER 22:08 6 3 0:53 0 0 2:03 0 1
5 M. GIORDANO 21:57 7 3 1:07 0 0 1:36 1 0
6 C. SARICH 18:55 5 3 0:00 0 0 1:19 1 0
7 A. PARDY 14:53 2 3 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
8 B. MORRISON 10:53 1 5 0:00 0 0 1:30 0 0
10 N. HAGMAN 15:00 4 1 0:47 0 0 0:09 0 0
11 M. BACKLUND 9:13 0 4 0:00 0 0 0:48 0 1
12 J. IGINLA 20:49 5 4 1:09 0 0 0:05 0 0
13 O. JOKINEN 16:42 4 0 0:47 0 0 0:05 0 0
15 T. JACKMAN 10:41 2 0 0:04 0 0 0:00 0 0
16 T. KOSTOPOULOS 11:06 3 0 0:20 0 0 0:33 0 0
17 R. BOURQUE 16:36 7 1 0:53 0 0 1:22 1 0
18 M. STAJAN 15:18 5 3 0:53 0 0 0:00 0 0
25 D. MOSS 11:10 2 1 0:20 0 0 1:39 1 0
26 A. KOTALIK 8:30 0 4 0:47 0 0 0:00 0 0
28 R. REGEHR 16:06 3 2 0:20 0 0 1:46 0 1
33 A. BABCHUK 15:17 1 4 0:47 0 0 0:00 0 0
34 M. KIPRUSOFF 53:05 10 9 2:00 0 0 3:22 1 1
40 A. TANGUAY 19:29 5 4 0:53 0 0 0:33 0 1

 

Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
1 3 6 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
3 7 2 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 13 10 12 9 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Head to head Ice

Corsi

Face-offs

Another night when the Flames didn't do much until they were chasing in the third. Five ES chances through two periods against a soft opponent in your own barn is hardly compelling work. Calgary actually spent a decent amount of time in the offensive zone through the second period onward, but had a lot of issues trying to convert possession to actual scoring chances. Like many of their losses in November, the Flames directed a lot of shots from outside the scoring area at the net or into blocks. They ran up the count at the end when the Wild were satisfied to ice the puck, but by then it's obviously too late.

The individual numbers are self explanatory, so I'm going to go into some live observations about coaching. My seats were conveniently situated in the second balcony behind both benches, so I was able to easily monitor the bench management of both clubs. This evening was a case of almost diametrically opposite methods.

Todd Richards spent a lot of time trying to get Koivu favorable circumstances. He targetted Flames third and fourth lines whenever possible and Calgary's third defense pairing. Not having last change, Richards wasn't shy about changing on the fly when he saw the Flames soft underbelly exposed. The strategy worked too: one the Wild's second goal, Backlund's unit with Babchuk and Pardy iced the puck. Koivu et at came out for the ensuing face-off and the overmatched Flames line wasn't able to get the puck beyond the red-line, leading to Koivu's marker. That's probably the reason Sutter benched Backlund and Kotalik for the final frame, although one cana hardly blame the guys in question: they were fighting outside of their weight class in those circumstances.

Richards changed on the fly to get Koivu out against Pardy and Babchuk again for the Kobasew marker. Sutter only got Iginla and Tanguay on the ice before the Wild cashed in.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of how to run a bench when you have limited options. I critcized Richards in my pre-game post, but I was relatively impressed with how active he was in his bench management*.

*(There was also an interesting sequence in the second period where Richards made four line changes inside a minute with the Flames Iginla line on the ice. The shift included three face-offs, including two in the neutral zone and Richards cycled through each of his lines except the Koivu unit while Jarome was on the ice. I wondered what the hell was going on at first and my conclusion now is that Richards was testing to see how senstitive Sutter was to match-ups and whether Richards could run the Flames bench by making them chase certain Minnesota lines. To Brent's credit., he didn't take the bait)

Sutter, on the other hand, spent a great deal of time giving his fourth line the high ground last night. Now, Moss and Jackman were playing pretty well and they managed to generate some shots and possession more than once, but this is abjectedly ridiculous. If you click the face-offs link above, you'll see that the Moss line was gifted the most offensive zone draws at ES last night on the team (8!!). So the reason the Flames 4th line looked like the best one on the evening last night is because Sutter made them the best unit. I lost count of the amount of times he put them out after an icing. At the end of the first period, with the game tied and just 33 second left on the clock, there was a draw in the Wild's end. Out comes the fourth line. I was incredulous. Jarome Iginla had half the amount of offensive zone face-offs as Tom Kostopolous. That's flat out nonsense.

Take a look at the Wild face-offs numbers. Richards didn't waste time feeding John Madden and Erin Nystrom offensive zone draws. In Vancouver, AV doesn't put Glass and Hanson out after icings - he uses the Sedins. And to good effect. 

Sutter did a lot of this silly conservative stuff last year and I hated it. He needs to pull up his socks,

39d8109299a9795cb3b41a4e9b49d501
Former Nations Overlord. Current FN contributor and curmudgeon For questions, complaints, criticisms, etc contact Kent @ kent.wilson@gmail. Follow him on Twitter here.
Avatar
#1 hal a pena
December 19 2010, 07:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

tactical error, or simply out coached? the pardy badchuck pairing will be feasted on by every coach if they continue to be paired together. hockey 101, don't play your weakest 2 dmen together. particularily if the skill level from 1 through 6 drops off so severely.

Avatar
#2 Robert Cleave
December 19 2010, 08:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Kent, I hear you on the faceoff thing, but if Brent was under the impression that his other lines weren't doing anything with the o-zone faceoffs they did get, he might argue he wasn't entirely without evidence.

The Flames took 21 EV O-zone faceoffs last night and as you noted, Moss et al. were on the ice for 8 of them. His line generated 8 attempts on goal in the aftermath of those faceoffs, based on looking at the PbP sheet and seeing what events followed those faceoffs. In other words, I looked to see if the next item on the PbP sheet was a Flames' attempt on goal of some sort, and that line got 8 attempts towards the net before any other activity was recorded.

In the first 12 O-zone faceoffs by other lines, the Flames generated a whopping 2 attempts by that same measure, with all 3 other lines getting a mixture of those chances. The only decent shift that immediately followed a faceoff was the 13th and last one, when Stajan scored his goal in what was pretty much garbage time. So, in the immediate aftermath of 21 O-zone faceoffs, the Flames had 13 attempts towards the net, and 8 of them were from the fourth line. That tells me a lot about how the other forwards were doing when they got a softer opportunity, and it wasn't much. It wasn't just because Moss' line got the easy chances that they looked better, it's also because they generated some pressure from those chances, and the other lines didn't do anything at all.

That said, the general issue I still have with feeding your fourth line the offensive opportunities is that if you're ever going to assemble players that might be poor SH% types, that's normally the place, so even a night where they get a bunch of attempts might not lead to any goals, and that's exactly what we saw last night. Personally, I'd feed those chances to Iggy's line every time in the hope something would click, even if his line didn't have a great start to the game.

Comments are closed for this article.