Flames vs. Stars first round report cards

The Calgary Flames have been eliminated from the 2020 Stanley Cup playoffs. They were dispatched in six games by the Dallas Stars. In a lot of ways, the series wasn’t all that close.

We dug into the numbers to compile our First Round report cards and examine what went wrong for the gentlemen in red sweaters.

(Players in each category are sorted by total Time On Ice.)

First Round:
125:58 TOI (85:22 5v5 / 17:43 PP / 17:31 PK), 24-for-48 in face-offs (50.0%)
0 goals, 3 assists / 11 shots / 9 scoring chances, 3 high-danger
45.7 CF% / 49.2 OZF% / -1 goal differential 5v5, 0 overall

Lindholm was fine, but a flat goal differential for the most-used forward on the team isn’t great. Relative to his ice time, especially PP time, he didn’t generate a ton of chances. But his face-off results were among the better performances on the team in that respect.

First Round:
117:10 TOI (90:01 5v5 / 8:09 PP / 12:58 PK), 42-for-94 in face-offs (44.7%)
2 goals, 1 assists / 15 shots / 15 scoring chances, 4 high-danger
49.1 CF% / 50.8 OZF% / -3 goal differential 5v5, -6 overall

Backlund was a mixed bag. He wasn’t great at face-offs and was middling possession-wise, but he generated some chances at least. His goal differential was, in a word, bad.

First Round:
110:43 TOI (89:12 5v5 / 17:34 PP / 0:28 PK), 54-for-94 in face-offs (57.5%)
0 goals, 2 assists / 16 shots / 19 scoring chances, 11 high-danger
42.4 CF% / 53.3 OZF% / -4 goal differential 5v5, 0 overall

Monahan’s possession numbers sucked and he didn’t put a lot of offense on the board. That said, he was effective at face-offs and generated a lot of chances (especially on the PP). Like Lindholm, a flat goal differential for a player that’s used that much isn’t good.

First Round:
110:16 TOI (89:58 5v5 / 17:49 PP / 0:13 PK)
2 goals, 2 assists / 18 shots / 12 scoring chances, 2 high-danger
45.8 CF% / 57.1 OZF% / -2 goal differential 5v5, +2 overall

Gaudreau wasn’t much of a needle-mover at all at even strength, and the number of chances he generated is a bit disappointing given how much he plays (especially on the PP).

First Round:
97:55 TOI (85:10 5v5 / 8:36 PP / 1:19 PK)
1 goal, 0 assists / 5 shots / 10 scoring chances, 2 high-danger
47.1 CF% / 50.9 OZF% / -5 goal differential 5v5, -4 overall

Mangiapane was a little bit worse at everything against Dallas than he was against Winnipeg. Like Backlund, his goal differentials were pretty bad.

First Round:
94:04 TOI (83:55 5v5 / 8:09 PP / 0:16 PK)
3 goals, 0 assists / 18 shots / 10 scoring chances, 6 high-danger
48.1 CF% / 60.0 OZF% / 0 goal differential 5v5, 0 overall

Dube scored some nice goals, but he wasn’t quite as awesome defensively than against Winnipeg. Still, a very effective first playoff year for the rookie.

First Round:
95:51 TOI (85:33 5v5 / 8:10 PP / 0:00 PK), 23-for-43 in face-offs (53.5%)
0 goals, 2 assists / 9 shots / 6 scoring chances, 2 high-danger
49.1 CF% / 47.8 OZF% / +1 goal differential 5v5, +2 overall

Lucic was strong at the face-off dot, but he was a little bit worse offensively for the Flames than he was in the qualifying series.

First Round:
101:28 TOI (83:43 5v5 / 15:37 PP / 0:16 PK), 12-for-29 in face-offs (41.4%)
3 goals, 2 assists / 23 shots / 15 scoring chances, 9 high-danger
48.3 CF% / 47.9 OZF% / +1 goal differential 5v5, +5 overall

Bennett was a little bit worse at a few things against Dallas – face-offs, possession – but he was arguably Calgary’s most dangerous offensive player. When Tkachuk was hurt, Bennett took over his PP duties and he performed well. He was the best non-Talbot Flames player.

First Round:
92:28 TOI (73:31 5v5 / 0:15 PP / 14:51 PK)
2 goals, 1 assists / 9 shots / 9 scoring chances, 7 high-danger
51.8 CF% / 65.1 OZF% / -3 goal differential 5v5, -3 overall

The bad news is Rieder was in the red in terms of his goal differential. The good news is he was used a ton and generated shots and chances. He was playing above his head, but he did well given the circumstances.

First Round:
64:28 TOI (48:40 5v5 / 0:15 PP / 14:15 PK), 18-for-39 in face-offs (46.2%)
0 goals, 1 assist / 4 shots / 3 scoring chances, 2 high-danger
48.8 CF% / 51.7 OZF% / +1 goal differential 5v5, +2 overall

Ryan’s offensive output wasn’t anything to write home about, but he was good at the dot and effective on the penalty kill in limited usage overall.

First Round:
27:06 TOI (24:21 5v5 / 2:06 PP / 0:00 PK)
0 goals, 0 assists / 1 shots / 1 scoring chance, 0 high-danger
40.9 CF% / 50.0 OZF% / -2 goal differential 5v5, -2 overall

A disclaimer: Tkachuk only really played in Game 1. He was speared and likely concussed in Game 2 and obviously wasn’t himself in that game. That said, he didn’t hit the scoresheet but he was among the more physically engaged players. The club missed him when he was injured.

First Round:
25:19 TOI (25:19 5v5 / 0:00 PP / 0:00 PK)
0 goals, 1 assist / 0 shots / 1 scoring chance, 0 high-danger
43.4 CF% / 50.0 OZF% / +1 goal differential 5v5, +1 overall

Quine played three games on the fourth line, but he wasn’t on the ice for any goals against and he got a primary assist at even strength (setting up a TJ Brodie goal). For the time he was given, he did well.

First Round:
23:58 TOI (19:48 5v5 / 0:00 PP / 4:07 PK), 6-for-11 in face-offs (54.6%)
0 goals, 0 assists / 2 shots / 4 scoring chances, 2 high-danger
54.6 CF% / 80.0 OZF% / 0 goal differential 5v5, -2 overall

Jankowski didn’t play a ton. His face-off and possession numbers were solid, but he was in the red in terms of his goal differential.

First Round:
23:46 TOI (23:31 5v5 / 0:15 PP / 0:00 PK)
0 goals, 0 assists / 0 shots / 0 scoring chances, 0 high-danger
38.3 CF% / 55.6 OZF% / +1 goal differential 5v5, +1 overall

Rinaldo was a possession sinkhole and took a penalty. He didn’t play much, but he didn’t help much either.

First Round:
10:45 TOI (10:45 5v5 / 0:00 PP / 0:00 PK)
0 goals, 0 assists / 0 shots / 1 scoring chances, 0 high-danger
66.7 CF% / 80.0 OZF% / 0 goal differential 5v5, 0 overall

Robinson only played in Game 6 and wasn’t on for any of the seven goals allowed.

First Round:
136:49 TOI (107:03 5v5 / 7:22 PP / 16:04 PK)
0 goals, 2 assists / 13 shots / 6 scoring chances, 2 high-danger
49.0 CF% / 49.3 OZF% / 0 goal differential 5v5, -1 overall

Giordano played a ton. While he didn’t generate a lot offensively, he had one of the better defensive performances of the blueline group.

First Round:
136:22 TOI (117:19 5v5 / 0:10 PP / 14:18 PK)
2 goals, 2 assists / 9 shots / 3 scoring chances, 0 high-danger
44.5 CF% / 54.6 OZF% / -2 goal differential 5v5, -3 overall

Andersson was significantly worse five-on-five than he was against Winnipeg – a team-wide phenomenon. But he was quietly effective on the PK and was the only regular PK defender who was on the ice for as many shorthanded goals for for as PP goals against.

First Round:
124:46 TOI (107:37 5v5 / 0:25 PP / 12:49 PK)
1 goals, 2 assists / 3 shots / 1 scoring chances, 0 high-danger
47.1 CF% / 50.0 OZF% / -2 goal differential 5v5, -4 overall

Brodie performed similarly to Giordano, albeit slightly worse defensively.

First Round:
120:55 TOI (115:58 5v5 / 0:10 PP / 2:40 PK)
0 goals, 2 assists / 10 shots / 4 scoring chances, 0 high-danger
44.4 CF% / 52.4 OZS% / -2 goal differential 5v5, -2 overall

Hanifin performed similarly to Andersson, albeit slightly worse defensively.

First Round:
103:36 TOI (79:45 5v5 / 0:21 PP / 20:28 PK)
1 goal, 1 assist / 6 shots / 5 scoring chances, 0 high-danger
45.1 CF% / 58.0 OZF% / -3 goal differential 5v5, -7 overall

On one hand, Forbort had a goal. On the other hand, that goal differential is horrendous (the worst on the team overall in the round) and doubly disappointing considering the offensive zone high ground he received.

First Round:
102:58 TOI (83:58 5v5 / 18:19 PP / 0:00 PK)
0 goals, 1 assist / 13 shots / 4 scoring chances, 1 high-danger
51.8 CF% / 56.0 OZF% / -1 goal differential 5v5, +3 overall

On one hand, Gustafsson contributed positively to the PP. On the other hand, despite good possession numbers and all kinds of O-zone high ground he was largely a non-entity five-on-five.

First Round:
357:13 TOI (293:04 5v5, 23:49 PP, 31:54 PK)
0.913 SV, 0.926 5v5 SV% (0.926 low-danger / 0.943 medium-danger / 0.871 high-danger)
18 GA (12 5v5, 1 PP, 4 PK)

Talbot was the main reason the Flames hung in the series for as long as they did. His numbers dipped a bit, aside from his superb high-danger performance, but he faced a ton of shots and a slight dip meant he allowed three times as many goals against Dallas as he did against Winnipeg.

First Round:
16:34 TOI (13:18 5v5, 2:00 PP, 1:16 PK)
0.667 SV, 0.500 5v5 SV% (1.000 low-danger / 0.000 medium-danger / 0.000 high-danger)
3 GA (2 5v5, 0 PP, 1 PK)

Coming in cold in relief during Game 6, Rittich was set up to fail – and did.

The Flames’ special teams out-scored Dallas’ by an 8-6 margin during the series.

The power play generated 28 scoring chances (scoring on four) and eight high-danger chances (scoring on two) in 26:13 of PP time. On an hourly basis, they had 64.10 scoring chances per hour and 18.31 high-danger chances. They allowed one shorthanded goal.

The penalty kill allowed 31 scoring chances (with goals on four) and 12 high-danger chances (with goals on three) in 34:43 of PK time. On an hourly basis, they allowed 55.17 scoring chances per hour and 21.35 high-danger chances. They also scored three shorthanded goals.

Their PP was better than Dallas’ at generating chances, but worse at generating high-danger chances overall. Call it a draw.