Flames Scoring Chances (sort of) – Game 3 vs Montreal Canadiens

 

 

Final Score: 4-1 win

Final Summary

Corsi

Head-to-head ice

Face-offs

Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20040

Team Period Time Note CGY Opponent  
MTL 1 18:14 0                         -1v-1
MTL 1 18:13 Kostitsyn goal                         -1v-1
MTL 1 14:22 -1                         -1v-1
MTL 1 14:21 -1                         -1v-1
MTL 1 14:19 -1                         -1v-1
CGY 1 12:45 Bourque goal                         -1v-1
CGY 1 10:51 0                         -1v-1
CGY 1 10:17 0                         -1v-1
CGY 1 9:53 0                         -1v-1
MTL 1 9:12 0                         -1v-1
CGY 1 8:22 Hagman goal                         -1v-1
MTL 1 6:32 +1                         -1v-1
CGY 1 5:06 Moss goal                         -1v-1
CGY 1 4:51 +2                         -1v-1
CGY 1 2:18 +2                         -1v-1
CGY 1 1:53 +2                         -1v-1
CGY 1 1:32 +2                         -1v-1
MTL 2 16:31 +2                         -1v-1
MTL 2 14:05 +2                         -1v-1
CGY 2 12:41 +2                         -1v-1
MTL 2 11:27 +2                         -1v-1
CGY 2 6:38 Bourque goal                         -1v-1
CGY 2 6:18 +3                         -1v-1
MTL 2 5:57 +3                         -1v-1
MTL 2 4:33 +3                         -1v-1
CGY 2 3:42 +3                         -1v-1
MTL 2 3:03 +3                         -1v-1
MTL 2 2:40 +3                         -1v-1
MTL 2 1:17 +3                         -1v-1
MTL 3 16:21 +3                         -1v-1
CGY 3 2:03 +3                         -1v-1

 

# Player EV PP SH
4 J. BOUWMEESTER 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
5 M. GIORDANO 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
6 C. SARICH 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
10 N. HAGMAN 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
12 J. IGINLA 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
13 O. JOKINEN 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
15 T. JACKMAN 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
16 T. KOSTOPOULOS 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
17 R. BOURQUE 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
18 M. STAJAN 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
20 C. GLENCROSS 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
22 L. STEMPNIAK 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
23 S. HANNAN 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
25 D. MOSS 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
27 D. SMITH 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
34 M. KIPRUSOFF 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
40 A. TANGUAY 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
44 C. BUTLER 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
51 R. HORAK 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0

 

Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

So something in the gamesheet tonight killed the chance app, so all we get is the raw by period numbers. Sorry folks.

In general, the Flames played well when the score was close, leading the first period and then falling back after pushing things to 4-1 in the second. They spent a bit too much time in their own zone in the third by my liking and they are still giving up too many shots, but at least they only gave up one chance against while shelling in the third. If you’re going to sit on a lead, that’s the way to do it.

Again, sorry about the bad tables. I’ll keep trying the application tonight and will put up the good data if things get worked out.

  • ChinookArchYYC

    Sutter is the Master of Tough Love. He gives his players struggling with confidence (Hagman, Stajan) the toughest minutes on the night. It worked tonight, but I not an advocate of this. How do you make these guys into assets for a trade, if his constantly makes them all look worse than they are?

    • ChinookArchYYC

      Good gods – we are at this Brent Sutter giving people tough minutes by zone starts again!

      There were 41 EV faceoffs on the night. The Flames had 8 in the offensive zone.

      The Flames played 45:51 at EV. Stajan played 13:56 at EV in 15 shifts. Hagman played 12:33 at EV in 15 or 16 shifts. Bourque played 12:38 at EV in 15 or 16 shifts. If we took their ice time proportionate to the number of O zone faceoffs, what do we get?

      Stajan = ~30% EV ice time or 2.43 O zone draws
      Hagman = ~27% EV ice time or 2.19 O zone draws
      Bourque = ~27% EV ice time or 2.20 O zone draws

      So out of 15 EV shifts, if Sutter had been giving them equally proportionate zone draws to everyone else, they would have started 2 of their 15 shifts in the o zone. Given all the different factors that go into when to putting players on the ice (opponent match-ups, fatigue, game situation) I cannot believe that Sutter made an active decision to just not play these guys in the O zone to give them tough minutes. It makes no sense whatsoever.