Flames Scoring Chances - Game 50 versus Nashville

Kent Wilson
January 24 2011 10:05PM

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20730

Team Period Time Note CGY Opponent  
NSH 1 18:38   7 10 18 20 33 34 8 13 25 29 35 52 5v5
NSH 1 18:37   7 10 18 20 33 34 8 13 25 29 35 52 5v5
CGY 1 16:56   4 13 17 25 33 34 8 11 29 35 55   5v4
CGY 1 13:49   7 8 12 33 34 40 8 11 27 33 35 52 5v5
CGY 1 12:05   5 8 12 15 34 40 6 13 20 25 35   5v4
CGY 1 10:29   4 13 17 25 33 34 8 11 29 35 55   5v4
CGY 1 9:47 Glencross goal 6 10 18 20 28 34 6 9 10 20 35 53 5v5
NSH 1 6:09   6 7 16 17 34   4 27 33 35 52 74 4v5
NSH 1 0:48   6 7 17 18 34   4 10 11 29 35 52 4v5
CGY 2 15:46   4 8 12 28 34 40 6 9 10 20 35 74 5v5
CGY 2 15:35   4 8 12 28 34 40 6 9 10 20 35 74 5v5
CGY 2 14:38   4 13 17 25 33 34 8 13 25 35 55   5v4
CGY 2 11:44   5 7 11 12 16 34 8 11 24 35 52 53 5v5
CGY 2 11:26   5 7 11 12 16 34 8 11 24 35 52 53 5v5
NSH 2 10:33   5 7 13 17 25 34 6 9 10 20 35 74 5v5
CGY 2 10:22   5 7 13 17 25 34 6 9 10 20 35 74 5v5
NSH 2 9:29   4 10 18 20 28 34 4 11 29 33 35 55 5v5
NSH 2 9:28 Legwand goal 4 10 18 20 28 34 4 11 29 33 35 55 5v5
NSH 2 9:15   5 6 10 18 20 34 4 11 27 33 35 55 5v5
NSH 2 9:13   5 6 10 18 20 34 4 11 27 33 35 55 5v5
CGY 2 6:59 Iginla goal 5 6 12 18 34 40 8 13 25 35 55   5v4
CGY 2 6:28   6 7 13 17 25 34 6 11 20 27 33 35 5v5
CGY 2 6:19   6 7 13 17 25 34 6 11 20 27 33 35 5v5
CGY 2 3:19   8 10 20 28 33 34 8 9 10 27 35 52 5v5
NSH 3 17:44   4 13 17 25 28 34 4 9 10 27 35 55 5v5
NSH 3 16:02   4 11 15 16 28 34 8 9 24 29 35 52 5v5
NSH 3 15:25   4 8 12 28 34 40 4 10 11 33 35 55 5v5
NSH 3 14:57   5 6 8 17 25 34 4 10 33 35 53 55 5v5
NSH 3 8:27   4 11 12 28 34 40 6 11 20 29 35 53 5v5
NSH 3 8:14   4 11 12 28 34 40 6 11 20 29 35 53 5v5
CGY 3 6:25   4 5 8 12 34 40 8 11 29 35 55   5v4
CGY 3 5:42 Morrison goal 4 5 8 12 34 40 8 11 29 35 55   5v4
CGY 3 5:27   6 13 17 25 28 34 6 9 10 20 33 35 5v5
NSH 3 4:44   7 10 18 20 33 34 8 27 35 52 53 74 5v5

 

# Player EV PP SH
4 J. BOUWMEESTER 17:32 2 7 5:17 5 0 4:29 0 0
5 M. GIORDANO 12:20 3 4 4:51 4 0 1:28 0 0
6 C. SARICH 13:11 4 3 0:13 1 0 3:34 0 2
7 A. PARDY 14:47 6 4 0:00 0 0 3:46 0 2
8 B. MORRISON 10:14 4 2 3:25 3 0 4:03 0 0
10 N. HAGMAN 11:57 2 7 0:16 0 0 0:00 0 0
11 M. BACKLUND 9:02 2 3 0:13 0 0 0:00 0 0
12 J. IGINLA 14:58 5 3 4:40 4 0 0:00 0 0
13 O. JOKINEN 11:11 4 2 4:07 3 0 0:00 0 0
15 T. JACKMAN 4:34 0 1 3:43 1 0 0:00 0 0
16 T. KOSTOPOULOS 8:03 2 1 0:13 0 0 2:03 0 1
17 R. BOURQUE 10:22 4 3 4:10 3 0 2:32 0 2
18 M. STAJAN 10:32 1 7 1:13 1 0 4:03 0 1
20 C. GLENCROSS 10:58 2 7 0:08 0 0 4:42 0 0
25 D. MOSS 8:19 4 3 3:49 3 0 2:25 0 0
28 R. REGEHR 16:44 5 7 0:16 0 0 6:31 0 0
33 A. BABCHUK 8:16 2 3 3:42 3 0 0:00 0 0
34 M. KIPRUSOFF 41:08 11 14 8:58 7 0 9:54 0 2
40 A. TANGUAY 12:34 3 3 4:34 4 0 0:00 0 0

 

Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
1 5 4 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
2 10 5 8 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 7 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 18 16 11 14 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Head to head ice

Corsi

Face-offs

Flames were mostly the better team tonight, aside from sitting on the lead for the third period. They fell behind on the chance count at ES because of that, but finished in the black overall thanks to their - gasp! - PP. To be fair, the Preds took a bunch of penalties, so Calgary had a lot of tries, but they did manage to actually generate something with the man advantage for a change,

With last change and the Preds lacking a true power verus power option, Iginla's line faced a mixed bag of opponents tonight, none of them on the level of, say, the Sedins or Kesler in Vancouver. They finished above water by all measures as a result, although marginally. Glencross and Stajan's numbers are surprisingly bad given the fact I didn't consider them a weak link while viewing. A lot of the damage must have been done in the third.

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 Tach
January 25 2011, 08:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Re Stajan and Glencross - looks like the numbers are a bit deceiving in that it appears that every time they gave up one chance, another followed shortly behind it on the rebound as the first 6 scoring chances against them are 1-2 seconds apart. That probably makes the count look deceptive compared to as viewed because I agree with your assessment.

Comments are closed for this article.