Flames Scoring Chances - Game 35 versus Columbus

Kent Wilson
December 21 2010 07:53PM

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20498

Team Period Time Note CGY Opponent  
CBJ 1 18:18   4 12 13 28 35 40 3 20 32 50 61 97 5v5
CGY 1 18:11   4 7 12 13 35 40 20 32 35 50 51 61 5v5
CGY 1 17:34   7 10 17 18 33 35 16 18 32 35 51 93 5v5
CBJ 1 14:47 Voracek goal 4 8 16 17 28 35 3 16 18 32 93 97 5v5
CBJ 1 12:57   7 12 13 28 35 40 3 15 19 26 32 97 5v5
CBJ 1 11:32   8 16 20 28 33 35 3 16 18 32 35 93 5v5
CGY 1 9:46   4 5 25 26 35 40 3 20 32 50 51 61 5v5
CBJ 1 7:13   5 6 10 17 18 35 6 10 16 20 32 93 5v5
CBJ 1 5:56   4 6 8 17 35   32 35 50 51 61   4v4
CGY 1 4:06   4 7 8 18 35   6 10 16 18 20 32 4v5
CBJ 1 3:48   5 7 12 17 18 35 3 6 20 32 50 93 5v5
CBJ 1 1:10   4 20 25 28 35   10 18 20 32 50 61 4v5
CGY 1 0:57   5 6 20 25 35   10 18 20 32 50 61 4v5
CBJ 2 18:31   5 6 10 17 18 35 16 18 32 35 51 93 5v5
CBJ 2 16:34   4 20 25 26 28 35 3 20 32 50 61 97 5v5
CGY 2 14:00   7 10 17 18 33 35 6 10 20 32 50 61 5v5
CGY 2 13:17   4 20 25 26 28 35 6 10 20 32 50 61 5v5
CGY 2 12:12   5 12 13 25 35 40 3 19 26 32 97   5v4
CBJ 2 12:00   5 10 12 17 35 40 15 25 32 35 51   5v4
CBJ 2 10:06   4 18 20 26 28 35 6 10 16 18 32 93 5v5
CBJ 2 8:45   4 20 25 26 28 35 23 25 32 35 40 51 5v5
CBJ 2 8:42 Boll goal 4 20 25 26 28 35 23 25 32 35 40 51 5v5
CBJ 2 7:41   7 12 13 33 35 40 3 15 19 26 32 97 5v5
CBJ 2 7:04   4 10 17 18 28 35 20 32 35 50 51 61 5v5
CGY 2 4:21   4 20 25 26 28 35 20 32 35 50 51 61 5v5
CGY 2 3:27 Jokinen goal 5 12 13 17 35 40 3 19 26 32 97   5v4
CGY 2 2:21   5 6 12 13 35 40 3 20 32 50 61 97 5v5
CGY 2 1:53   5 6 12 13 35 40 3 15 19 26 32 97 5v5
CBJ 2 0:14   4 20 25 26 28 35 3 20 32 50 61 97 5v5
CGY 3 17:25   7 10 18 26 33 35 23 25 32 35 40 51 5v5
CBJ 3 13:22   4 20 25 28 35   10 18 20 32 50 61 4v5
CBJ 3 13:12   4 20 25 28 35   10 18 20 32 50 61 4v5
CGY 3 11:15   7 12 13 33 35 40 3 15 19 26 32 97 5v5
CGY 3 8:04   4 5 10 18 26 35 15 19 26 32 35 51 5v5
CBJ 3 5:14   8 17 20 28 33 35 3 20 26 32 50 61 5v5
CGY 3 2:41   4 12 13 26 35 40 3 18 32 50 97   5v4

 

# Player EV PP SH
4 J. BOUWMEESTER 19:28 5 9 0:43 1 0 3:01 1 3
5 M. GIORDANO 16:30 4 3 4:26 2 1 1:56 1 0
6 C. SARICH 13:30 2 3 0:04 0 0 2:10 1 0
7 A. PARDY 16:06 5 3 0:04 0 0 0:19 1 0
8 B. MORRISON 12:23 0 4 0:04 0 0 1:34 1 0
10 N. HAGMAN 9:24 4 3 1:01 0 1 0:00 0 0
12 J. IGINLA 18:09 4 4 5:22 3 1 0:58 0 0
13 O. JOKINEN 15:51 4 3 4:25 3 0 0:00 0 0
15 T. JACKMAN 6:57 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
16 T. KOSTOPOULOS 11:17 0 2 0:04 0 0 1:05 0 0
17 R. BOURQUE 13:03 2 7 2:57 1 1 1:40 0 0
18 M. STAJAN 10:30 4 5 0:04 0 0 0:14 1 0
20 C. GLENCROSS 13:05 2 7 0:00 0 0 3:10 1 3
25 D. MOSS 9:37 3 4 1:52 1 0 2:26 1 3
26 A. KOTALIK 11:01 5 5 0:33 1 0 0:00 0 0
28 R. REGEHR 16:35 2 11 0:00 0 0 2:52 0 3
33 A. BABCHUK 16:08 4 3 0:38 0 0 0:32 0 0
35 H. KARLSSON 48:42 11 16 5:26 3 1 5:25 2 3
40 A. TANGUAY 15:27 5 3 4:57 3 1 0:19 0 0

 

Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
1 5 8 3 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
2 7 9 5 8 2 1 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 16 20 11 16 3 1 0 0 2 3 0 0

Head to head ice

Corsi

Face-offs

Unlike last night, Flames deserved to lose this one. Eleven ES scoring chances is a pretty lackluster total, moreso because CGY was chasing from the middle of the first period onward.

The Bourque and Glencross got killed tonight in terms of possession and chances, but the pair of them saw a combined 12 defensive zone draws to just 5 in offensive zone (Bourque was on the ice for a single O-zone draw tonight. Tim Jackman saw two), so that partially explains their struggles. Regehr was also the defender that saw the hardest zone starts and his numbers reflect it.

The Iginla line managed to end the night in the black, but that was mostly due facing Pahlsson. Given their opposition, 4 ES chances is a really pedestrian total. The other guy who struggled was Brendan Morrison, who has stepped into an elevator shaft since his strong opeing month. He didn't generate anything at ES and could be a candidate for the next scratch.

 

 

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 Robert Cleave
December 21 2010, 08:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

If you correct Bourque's night for the Zone Starts, he still got swamped. You'd knock off about 4 events (-5 x .8), right? That would get him all the way to -10 Corsi and likely still in the hole in terms of SC. He's struggling pretty badly, and playing with Brendan Morrison isn't helping. If they're going to suck, play Backlund and live with the growing pains. He's not worse than what we're seeing from #8 anyway.

Avatar
#2 hal a pena
December 21 2010, 08:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Robert Cleave wrote:

If you correct Bourque's night for the Zone Starts, he still got swamped. You'd knock off about 4 events (-5 x .8), right? That would get him all the way to -10 Corsi and likely still in the hole in terms of SC. He's struggling pretty badly, and playing with Brendan Morrison isn't helping. If they're going to suck, play Backlund and live with the growing pains. He's not worse than what we're seeing from #8 anyway.

rainy boork was invisible. no big hits, nothing. power forward?

Avatar
#4 hal a pena
December 21 2010, 08:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

regher yikes.

Avatar
#5 Rain Dogs
December 22 2010, 09:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

"Unlike last night, Flames deserved to lose this one"

Not sure if we're just getting into semantics, but I think we deserved to lose the last three.

Scoring 1 goal in three consecutive games means you lose. I know that by scoring chances and shots, it seems like we are robbed, but somehow, we must be seeing evidence of there not being a direct correlation. (I believe in the volume argument generally) However, last year it was Col. this year Cal. from opposite ends of the spectrum.

We've scored 1 goal or less in 13!! games. Those are 12 losses, that should be 13. The goalies NEED a shutout to win. There alone we should be 0-13 and we're 1-12.

THEN, we've scored 2 goals in 7 more games, three of which have gone to shootout, and one more (a 8th game) into overtime which was a 3-2 win (2 GF in 60min.). In the 8 we're 3-5. We should likely be the equivalent of 0-8. So, that's a record of 4-17 when we've scored 2 or less goals in regulation. We likely could be 0-21 in those games. How many losses do we have this season? 21 losses exactly. 14-18-3.

If we're coming out of 21 games where we need Kipper and Karlsson to allow only 1 goal or LESS to win in regulation... we're f**ked.

Certainly, there have been nights like the two against Minny, where the goaltending COULD have, SHOULD have been better. BUT does it even matter? We're playing to a losing formula. Full Stop. We have been for years. How many mistakes to the forwards make? The goalies cannot even let in a tic-tac-toe for this team to have a chance. Nevermind making an error. Kipper or Karl make a mistake and it's "trade the bum" or "well, now you're not playing for a month."

That's 60% of our games needing 1 GA or LESS and 37% needing a SHUTOUT for us to record a regulation win. That's insane and a recipe for last place.

Yet, we're 16th in ShotsFor/Game and 9th in ShotsAgainst. It seems pretty clear to me, that shot differential and scoring chances do not correlate into wins and goals with THIS team.

Avatar
#6 Rain Dogs
December 22 2010, 09:54AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Oh, and on the other side of things:

We have 3 shutouts in 35 games.(9% on season pace for 7)

We have 2 one goal against games. (6% on pace for 5)

We have 12 two goals against games. (35% on pace for 28)

That's 17 games with two goals against or less (excluding games with empty net goals against which would bring it to 19 games, as was the case last night, and vs Phox.)

Those should almost all be wins. That should be 17 wins in 35 games on goals against alone and games played well defensively.

Yet, we only have 14 wins. The defensive side, is giving us pace to be .500 on goals against alone.

How the HELL is goal scoring not the problem with this team? AND we've traded AWAY star defenders (Phanuef) and top-four (White) to address it, to the point where our bottom three D are now questionable.

We have some kind of "suck" at forwards. Either it's little talent, little effort (doubt it), poor coaching, poor PP execution, or all of these.

Avatar
#7 wattree
December 22 2010, 10:28AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Rain Dogs wrote:

Oh, and on the other side of things:

We have 3 shutouts in 35 games.(9% on season pace for 7)

We have 2 one goal against games. (6% on pace for 5)

We have 12 two goals against games. (35% on pace for 28)

That's 17 games with two goals against or less (excluding games with empty net goals against which would bring it to 19 games, as was the case last night, and vs Phox.)

Those should almost all be wins. That should be 17 wins in 35 games on goals against alone and games played well defensively.

Yet, we only have 14 wins. The defensive side, is giving us pace to be .500 on goals against alone.

How the HELL is goal scoring not the problem with this team? AND we've traded AWAY star defenders (Phanuef) and top-four (White) to address it, to the point where our bottom three D are now questionable.

We have some kind of "suck" at forwards. Either it's little talent, little effort (doubt it), poor coaching, poor PP execution, or all of these.

The scary part is, that on most nights, the effort is there. It's more depressing to live with we gave it everything we had and it wasn't enough, as opposed to we just didn't show up and the other team got one by us.

The Sutter regime scouting seems fairly adept at identifying good defenders, but near useless for scoring talent.

Avatar
#8 CitizenFlame
December 22 2010, 01:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@wattree

"The Sutter regime scouting seems fairly adept at identifying good defenders, but near useless for scoring talent."

Don't forget pluggers. The Sutters are great for identifying them as well. Just look at Jackman. I actually mean that sincerly and not as a hate on Sutter.

Avatar
#9 Pat Steinberg
December 22 2010, 01:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Rain Dogs

Hope you don't mind Lawrence, but that was some really good research, so I used it (with credit) on the air today. It really does paint the picture as to why this team is 14th in the West.

Avatar
#10 Rain Dogs
December 22 2010, 02:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Pat Steinberg

No problem, I heard that. Thanks for the cred. Yeah, when I looked at those numbers it really was an eye-opener for me as well.

Avatar
#11 CitizenFlame
December 22 2010, 02:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Pat Steinberg

Ya, you have entirely way to much time on your hands! LOL. I enjoy reading your posts Lawrence even if I don't always agree with your stance, you always do the research to back up your view. You should be nominated for the post of the week! What ever happened to that anyway? It died pretty quickly.

Avatar
#12 Pat Steinberg
December 22 2010, 02:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@CitizenFlame

What ever happened to that anyway? It died pretty quickly

It's probably my fault...it's supposed to be Kent and I choosing it. One of us has skirted their responsibility.

Comments are closed for this article.