• Scoring chances for/against: Feb 21: Cgy vs Edm

    by  • February 22, 2009 • Uncategorized • 18 Comments

    Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20886

    Team Period Time Note Oilers Opponent  
    CGY 1 19:37 10 24 26 27 35 44 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    EDM 1 17:02 33 5 33 35 51 77 85 3 4 12 13 24 34 5v5
    CGY 1 14:39 PP 10 24 35 44 85 3 12 13 25 33 34 4v5
    CGY 1 14:24 PP 10 24 35 44 85 3 12 13 25 33 34 4v5
    CGY 1 14:19 PP 10 24 35 44 85 3 12 13 25 33 34 4v5
    CGY 1 12:04 12 35 49 77 83 89 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    EDM 1 12:10 83 12 35 49 77 83 89 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    CGY 1 10:23 26 27 35 43 49 89 23 29 33 34 45 55 5v5
    EDM 1 8:02 PP 26 10 24 26 27 35 44 3 4 18 25 34 5v4
    EDM 1 7:34 Goal 26 10 24 26 27 35 44 3 4 18 25 33 34 5v5
    EDM 1 12:41 18 18 24 26 35 44 85 18 20 28 34 45 55 5v5
    CGY 1 3:07 SH 10 12 35 44 77 89 3 4 16 23 34 5v4
    CGY 1 2:08 5 10 24 27 35 46 3 4 12 13 24 34 5v5
    CGY 1 1:23 13 18 35 43 44 46 3 12 13 34 45 55 5v5
    EDM 2 19:38 PK 51 18 24 35 44 51 3 12 13 25 33 34 4v5
    CGY 2 19:00 PP 5 26 35 43 51 3 6 12 13 25 34 4v5
    CGY 2 18:27 12 35 49 77 83 89 6 7 28 34 45 47 5v5
    CGY 2 17:51 24 33 35 44 51 85 3 4 7 34 45 47 5v5
    CGY 2 15:33 5 10 18 27 35 77 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    CGY 2 14:17 12 35 43 49 83 89 6 16 20 25 34 55 5v5
    CGY 2 12:34 5 13 18 35 46 77 3 4 12 13 24 34 5v5
    CGY 2 12:18 5 10 18 35 46 77 3 4 12 13 24 34 5v5
    CGY 2 9:40 12 35 43 77 83 89 6 12 13 25 34 55 5v5
    CGY 2 9:30 12 35 43 77 83 89 6 12 16 25 34 55 5v5
    EDM 2 9:03 PP 44 10 27 35 44 77 83 20 24 28 33 34 5v4
    EDM 2 6:00 33 33 35 43 49 51 85 7 28 33 34 45 47 5v5
    EDM 2 5:59 33 33 35 43 49 51 85 7 28 33 34 45 47 5v5
    CGY 2 5:03 5 10 26 35 77 83 3 4 16 20 25 34 5v5
    EDM 2 3:56 13 5 12 13 27 35 77 6 18 23 29 34 55 5v5
    CGY 2 3:20 Goal 5 10 18 35 46 77 6 12 13 24 34 55 5v5
    CGY 2 2:06 33 35 43 49 51 85 3 4 7 34 45 47 5v5
    CGY 2 1:08 12 13 35 49 77 89 6 16 20 25 34 55 5v5
    CGY 2 0:14 10 24 26 35 44 83 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    CGY 3 19:29 10 24 26 35 44 83 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    EDM 3 18:14 Goal 83 10 26 35 43 49 83 6 16 20 25 34 55 5v5
    EDM 3 16:49 PP 77 10 27 35 44 77 83 16 23 28 33 34 5v4
    EDM 3 15:36 PP 44 10 26 35 44 77 83 20 28 33 34 5v3
    EDM 3 15:29 PP 10 10 26 35 44 77 83 4 20 28 33 34 5v4
    EDM 3 13:40 PK 18 18 26 35 43 44 3 7 12 13 33 34 4v5
    CGY 3 12:03 5 12 35 77 83 85 6 7 16 28 34 47 5v5
    CGY 3 12:01 5 12 35 77 83 85 6 7 16 28 34 47 5v5
    CGY 3 11:22 12 35 49 77 83 89 16 20 25 28 33 34 5v5
    EDM 3 8:08 10 10 24 26 35 44 83 12 13 24 28 33 34 5v5
    CGY 3 7:33 10 24 26 35 44 83 6 12 13 24 34 55 5v5
    CGY 3 1:05 Goal 10 26 35 43 44 83 3 6 12 18 20 34 5v5
    # Player EV PP SH
    5 L. SMID 17:12 2 8 0:52 0 0 1:20 0 1
    10 S. HORCOFF 15:45 3 10 5:44 4 1 3:45 0 3
    12 R. NILSSON 15:43 2 9 4:03 0 1 0:06 0 0
    13 A. COGLIANO 12:09 1 3 1:28 0 0 0:00 0 0
    18 E. MOREAU 10:59 1 5 0:00 0 0 3:05 2 0
    24 S. STAIOS 14:13 3 6 1:29 1 0 3:42 1 3
    26 E. COLE 14:29 4 7 3:31 2 0 2:55 1 1
    27 D. PENNER 11:31 2 4 3:14 3 0 0:00 0 0
    33 S. MACINTYRE 3:25 3 2 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    35 D. ROLOSON 43:52 9 24 10:14 4 1 8:00 2 4
    43 J. STRUDWICK 12:02 3 7 0:00 0 0 3:27 1 1
    44 S. SOURAY 15:39 3 7 9:58 4 1 5:04 2 3
    46 Z. STORTINI 7:24 0 5 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    49 T. PECKHAM 11:57 4 7 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    51 K. BRODZIAK 4:12 3 2 0:00 0 0 4:04 1 1
    77 T. GILBERT 19:20 3 13 9:21 3 1 2:37 0 0
    83 A. HEMSKY 13:37 3 13 7:31 3 0 0:00 0 0
    85 L. REDDOX 7:30 4 4 0:00 0 0 1:59 0 3
    89 S. GAGNER 14:24 1 8 4:52 0 1 0:06 0 0
    Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
    1 5 9 4 5 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0
    2 5 14 3 13 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
    3 6 6 2 6 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Totals 16 29 9 24 4 1 1 0 2 4 0 0

    18 Responses to Scoring chances for/against: Feb 21: Cgy vs Edm

    1. February 22, 2009 at

      To start with, here’s a note on the the Oilers loss in Dal on Feb 19th.

      I have that game logged but for some reason the scoring chance page omits Turco for the entire 3rd period so that skews everything.

      So, what I’ll do is post a copy and paste – as shown above – for the first 40 min and then I’ll go old school and count up the last chances by hand and post the final results at the bottom.

      Look for that in the next couple of days.

      I look to get these summaries done as soon as the game’s over and the topic’s hot so the time’s pass now for the Dal game but the info will be there for Ty, Bruce, Scott or whomever wants to use it.

      On to last night’s game.

      I dare say that last night was the Oilers worst home performance in terms of being outchanced. The final tally read 16-29 OV and 9-24 EV which is absolutely unacceptable for any home game.

      I don’t know how we classify the last Flames GF (was it just a bi-product of a great shot by a shooter that’s on fire or did Roli leave too much room on the one particular side) but Roloson had to make many great saves just to bring the Oilers to that point in the first place.

      It seems like things just won’t turn around for the Oilers regarding home-play.

    2. lowetide
      February 22, 2009 at

      Reddox! Clearly Pouliot was holding people back.

    3. February 22, 2009 at

      LT: YES!

      I imagine 78′s done as an Oiler and we’ll probably know for sure if he’s sitting again come Tues. There’s no chem on the new 13 line and once again 18′s drowning in the chances, but, yeah, it is probably Pouliot’s fault.

      Smac had three, count em, three chances in this one so it would be hard to take him out based on that. JFJ’s on the backburner; even though he played well in Dal.

      The problem with the Oil is they can’t score.

    4. HBomb
      February 22, 2009 at

      So Pouliot’s in the doghouse, JFJ’s on the back-burner, and apparently the 1LW position is not good enough for MacT’s liking.

      If we could only trade JFJ and MAP for Zach Parise, all our problems would be solved…..

    5. February 22, 2009 at

      Just wondering if there’s been any work correlating this scoring chance stuff with Corsi rates? Just cause to my naked eye I thought the game was relatively even (with a slight edge to the Flames) but both Dennis scoring chance tally and the corsi numbers say Calgary was firmly ahead…

    6. February 22, 2009 at

      Kent: I don’t think the game was close at all. Roli made a tonne of big saves and the last GA might be a bit weak but the Flames were finding themselves in primo scoring areas all bloody night.

    7. Bank Shot
      February 22, 2009 at

      The problem with the Oil is they can’t score.

      Or defend. Other then that everything is rosy.

    8. David Staples
      February 22, 2009 at

      Dennis, I think the game wasn’t so lopsided, as Calgary had just a few more Grade A chances than Edmonton, chances from right in the slot area.

      Nonetheless, Calgary did have the better of it.

    9. HBomb
      February 23, 2009 at

      Judging it purely territorially, I had the Oilers and Flames roughly even after 40 with the Oilers having a possession edge in the 3rd.

      Might have been deceptive though – maybe it was one of those nights where the puck was in the Flames end but it wasn’t ending in quality opportunities often (lots of play along the boards, cycle time, etc.)

      I wish I had PVR’d this one – would have been worth a re-watch to see why what I saw in the rink and what Dennis logged at home doesn’t line up.

    10. February 23, 2009 at

      A bit more lopsided than I was expecting, but we were lucky to be ahead after one and really got badly outplayed in the second. The third was decent and I thought we would steal it, but at the end of the day Oilers were likely fortunate to come away with the one point.

      I thought by eye the “skill” players — Hemsky, Gagner, Nilsson, Gilbert — had a shitty game. They were all minus double digits in Fenwick numbers and they don’t look any better by the scoring chance metric. The high-skill line of 12-83-89 pretty much Sucked, and 12 and 89 didn’t get it done on the PP either, at +0/-1 in over 4 minutes apiece. So let’s rewrad them with a shootout opportunity, they could hardly screw up any worse, could they? Well yes, they could.

      Pretty sorry state of affairs that not one skater was on the ice for as many as 5 EV SCF, but 13 guys were on for 5+ SCA, with a few of them in double digits. Yet again a visiting team has strutted into our building and imposed their will and I’m getting goddam sick and tired of that.

    11. February 23, 2009 at

      HB: it could be that the second viewing swayed me or gave me a better picture. I watched the first 40 min live but I was also taping it at home and then I rewatched it today.

      As always, I’ll stick by my numbers;) but I’ll guess that if there was an area where I might have erred, maybe I gave the Flames too much credit. On the oilers side, they just weren’t getting anything done and just in case a couple of plays coloured your judgement, both the play where 5 drove the net and the one where 26 drew the penalty, neither of those were scoring chances because the puck didn’t wind up being directed on or towards the goal.

    12. David Staples
      February 23, 2009 at

      Dennis, I was wondering about this missed shot issue.

      On the Smid play, the Oil did everything right, Smid drove the net hard, then he gets hacked, and a penalty is called, so he doesn’t get a shot on net. But clearly, this was a good scoring chance, hence the penalty.

      So should this be deemed a scoring chance or not?

      It’s a tough one.

      And what do we make of a play where Horc is wide open, Hemsky puts it over, but Horc doesn’t get all of it, just kind of puts a weak shot kind of at the net. So Hemsky has set up a great scoring chance, but Horc hasn’t really delivered?

      There’s no right or easy answer on such plays, but so long as you’re consistent. Now that you’ve done this a long while, I suspect you’re very consistent, but perhaps you’ve changed your thinking on what is and isn’t a scoring chance. . . Is that the case?

      If there’s one piece I’d like to see from you, it’s at the end of the year you write about what is and isn’t a scoring chance, and give us examples.

    13. HBomb
      February 23, 2009 at

      I thought by eye the “skill” players — Hemsky, Gagner, Nilsson, Gilbert — had a shitty game. They were all minus double digits in Fenwick numbers and they don’t look any better by the scoring chance metric. The high-skill line of 12-83-89 pretty much Sucked, and 12 and 89 didn’t get it done on the PP either, at +0/-1 in over 4 minutes apiece. So let’s rewrad them with a shootout opportunity, they could hardly screw up any worse, could they? Well yes, they could.

      Thoughts on this:

      1) Gilbert: he and Souray, same damn thing – both are running on fumes right now. Help for the blue is needed, pronto. In the meantime, I’m in favor of some sort of 4F-1D PP alignment. Give Cogliano some 2nd unit minutes and play Hemsky the full two.

      83-10-27-89-44

      83-12-26-13-77

      Something like that.

      2) 12-89-26. I don’t like that combo on the PP and I don’t like it at ES either. Just doesn’t seem to mesh together. Unfortunate, because I actually like the ability of the 27-10-26 line to cycle the puck in the offensive zone.

      3) I have no issues going back to those three in the shootout, bad night or not. Those are your skill guys and they give you the best chance to succeed in that scenario. And if you don’t go with them, who do you go with? Horcoff I could see, but Cole? Penner? Would we see the debut of Liam Reddox in that scenario.

    14. February 23, 2009 at

      HBomb:
      1) That is dead on. 44-77 are sucking up major minutes, and in a stretch of 5 games in 8 days in 5 cities that is going to take a toll. Souray played 148:28 in those games, Gilbert 135:30, and Staios 116:43. That takes its toll more than physically, and may have played a role in things like brain cramp pairing changes just before the tying goal or the completely bizarre one when both guys went off with 5 seconds to go in overtime, and only one came on. That would have been an even sicker way to lose than that pathetica shootout was.

      2) Do you mean 12-89-83? Cuz that’s the complementary unit to 27-10-26 and obviously Cole isn’t in both places. Whatever, that 12-89-83 group just made me shudder on Saturday. By Dennis’s metric they got owned 6-1 in scoring chances when all three were on the ice. Much of that ownership was against the likes of Boyd, Moss and GlenX who kept the pressure up in our zone while our skill guys couldn’t make a decent breakout pass to save their collective souls.
      We used to say “not enough pucks” for a combo like that. That’s the problem with 83-26 together as well. Other puck carriers like Cogliano and Moreau have struggled with Hemsky as well, whereas the most successful unit by far — BY FAR, MacT, if you’re reading — is Horpensky, simply cuz 10 and 27 are unselfish players who excel away from the puck.

      3) On Saturday night I wanted to see Sheldon Souray in the shootout, in fact I’d be tempted to lead off with Sheldon. Rather than lose the puck on his nifty deke, he might “lose” one around the goalie’s ears. There may be a code about that.
      I know when it comes to Nilsson in recent shootouts, he has looked confident and scored easily on the days he has played well (at STL and LA), and looked tentative and missed feebly on those days he’s not feeling it (@ MIN, vs CAL). Should be an easy call for the coach.
      The three bobbles together on Saturday had me gnashing my teeth in utter frustration.

    15. February 23, 2009 at

      DS: Eventually, I guess I should do that:) and I probably will:)

      A lot of what I’m trying to convey is the guys who are getting in the right position OR the guys who are letting the baddies get in the right position. And the kicker is getting the shot directed towards or on goal. There was a play the other night where 10 was in the FO circle all alone but got off a weak shot but I counted that as a chance because there he was free and clear and people needed to be awarded for that.

    16. February 23, 2009 at

      Hey Dennis, it’s interesting and informative to hear where you draw the line and why. To me those Smid and Cole rushes are scoring chances all the way. It was because they were scoring chances that the Flames took the penalties, and they were good penalties. In both cases the foul obviated the shot, but one could argue the powerplay opportunity that ensued was itself the Scoring Chance that 5 and 26 generated. (Or not, considering it was an Oilers powerplay.)

    17. February 23, 2009 at

      Bruce: Teams get the same two minute chance to score from a PP whether a fellow hauls down 5 on the way to the goal or whether 18 hooks a guy 190 feet from the net;)

      For my money, there’s no chance for a puck to go into the net when it isn’t being directed towards the goal so that’s how I rule.

    18. February 23, 2009 at

      I think Dennis has it right – it’s not a scoring chance if the puck isn’t directed at the net. Everything else is a chance at getting a scoring chance, if you catch my drift.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *