• Scoring chances: G2: versus Panthers; Oct 10th

    by  • October 10, 2010 • Uncategorized • 41 Comments

    Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20026

    Team Period Time Note EDM Opponent  
    FLA 1 15:20   2 27 35 49 83 89 5 6 13 21 29 85 5v5
    FLA 1 15:19   2 27 35 49 83 89 5 6 13 21 29 85 5v5
    FLA 1 10:56   2 27 35 49 83 89 5 6 14 18 29 61 5v5
    EDM 1 9:30   4 6 10 14 26 35 14 19 29 43 52   5v4
    FLA 1 7:31 PP 4 2 16 35 49 67 91 7 9 10 24 29 67 5v5
    FLA 1 4:58   2 4 10 14 35 49 7 9 10 24 29 67 5v5
    FLA 1 4:43   2 6 27 35 83 89 7 16 19 24 26 29 5v5
    EDM 1 4:21 83 6 26 27 35 83 89 7 16 19 24 26 29 5v5
    FLA 1 3:44   6 26 28 35 46 89 5 6 14 18 29 61 5v5
    FLA 1 3:07   5 27 35 77 83 89 5 6 9 10 29 67 5v5
    FLA 1 1:26   4 6 10 26 35 83 13 21 29 43 52 85 5v5
    FLA 2 19:39   6 13 26 35 67 91 7 14 18 24 29 61 5v5
    EDM 2 18:27 Goal 27 5 27 35 77 83 89 5 6 9 10 29 67 5v5
    EDM 2 14:26 Goal 28 2 16 28 35 46 49 10 19 26 29 43 52 5v5
    FLA 2 13:49 Goal 6 16 26 28 35 46 7 16 19 24 26 29 5v5
    EDM 2 13:32 27 5 27 35 77 83 89 5 6 14 18 29 61 5v5
    EDM 2 12:50 10 2 4 10 14 35 49 5 6 9 10 29 67 5v5
    FLA 2 12:40 Goal 10 2 4 10 14 35 49 5 6 9 10 29 67 5v5
    FLA 2 11:38   6 26 27 35 83 89 13 21 29 43 52 85 5v5
    EDM 2 10:37   5 13 35 67 77 91 7 9 14 18 24 61 5v5
    EDM 2 10:26 SH 28 2 16 28 35 49   6 9 10 24 29 67 4v5
    FLA 2 4:38 PP 6 16 35 49 67   6 9 10 24 29 67 4v5
    FLA 2 2:09 Goal 2 13 35 49 67 91 5 6 10 19 26 29 5v5
    EDM 3 19:12 83 6 26 27 35 83 89 6 9 10 14 24 29 5v5
    FLA 3 16:50   6 16 26 28 35 46 7 14 18 29 52 61 5v5
    FLA 3 13:40   2 16 28 35 46 49 7 14 18 24 29 61 5v5
    EDM 3 10:55 13 5 13 35 67 77 91 7 18 24 29 61 67 5v5
    EDM 3 9:42 28 6 16 26 28 35 46 7 19 24 26 29 61 5v5
    EDM 3 6:44 13 5 13 27 35 46 77 10 19 26 29 43 52 5v5
    EDM 3 5:44   4 5 10 14 35 77 6 19 21 29 52 85 5v5
    EDM 3 3:51 27 2 27 35 49 83 89 6 13 14 29 52 61 5v5
    # Player EV PP SH
    2 J. VANDERMEER 15:06 3 9 0:05 0 0 2:41 1 0
    4 T. HALL 14:35 2 3 0:47 1 0 0:00 0 0
    5 L. SMID 17:13 6 1 0:50 0 0 1:52 0 0
    6 R. WHITNEY 19:24 3 7 1:06 1 0 3:47 0 1
    10 S. HORCOFF 13:54 2 3 0:47 1 0 2:38 0 0
    13 A. COGLIANO 10:03 3 2 0:27 0 0 0:29 0 0
    14 J. EBERLE 13:15 2 2 0:47 1 0 1:44 0 0
    16 C. FRASER 10:35 2 4 0:05 0 0 3:02 1 1
    26 K. FOSTER 15:00 3 6 0:47 1 0 2:01 0 0
    27 D. PENNER 14:23 6 6 0:51 0 0 0:00 0 0
    28 R. JONES 8:43 2 4 0:05 0 0 2:29 1 0
    35 N. KHABIBULIN 50:06 12 16 2:05 1 0 7:33 1 1
    46 Z. STORTINI 9:04 3 4 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    49 T. PECKHAM 16:27 3 8 0:09 0 0 2:36 1 1
    67 G. BRULE 10:47 2 3 0:11 0 0 0:47 0 1
    77 T. GILBERT 17:37 6 1 1:13 0 0 2:09 0 0
    83 A. HEMSKY 16:13 5 7 1:02 0 0 1:22 0 0
    89 S. GAGNER 15:20 5 7 0:46 0 0 1:24 0 0
    91 M. PAAJARVI 12:07 2 3 0:27 0 0 0:00 0 0
    Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
    1 2 9 1 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    2 6 6 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
    3 6 2 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Totals 14 17 12 16 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

    41 Responses to Scoring chances: G2: versus Panthers; Oct 10th

    1. October 10, 2010 at





    2. October 10, 2010 at

      A rough night for any D tandems not including the 5-77 duo and maybe Renney ran 10+kids at the Weiss line because he wasn’t overly pleased with the job 89 and co. were doing.

      The Oilers had a rank first period but sawed off in the second and then controlled the third so I imagine they’ll take what they can get.

      The funny thing about 49 grabbing the third star is that I saw him bullying guys and blocking shots and at first it looked like he was having a great night – well outside of the second goal – but the SC stats didn’t like him.

    3. October 10, 2010 at

      lol Dennis and I just finished saying that I thought the 89 line had a nice night and that 13 was awful.

      Shows what I know. ;)

      I’ve really liked both of Peckham’s outings except of course he was watching the puck on Reasoner’s second goal. I think he’s going to get outchanced because Renney isn’t afraid to roll the D so he’s going to be facing some big boys and on top of that he is paired with Vandermeer who is slow afoot and also likes to jump into the play for some odd reason.

      Smid has had a nice start to the season. His partner is the best Dman on the team but to me he’s doing a fine job.

    4. Coach PB
      October 10, 2010 at

      Dennis – there was no matching from Renney, again. It was roll ‘em until the second half of the third.

      Vandermeer was brutal tonight, especially in the first.

    5. Coach PB
      October 10, 2010 at


      You have a chance backwards:

      FLA 2 12:40 Goal 10

    6. David Staples
      October 11, 2010 at

      I had it the same as you Dennis, 14 Edmonton, 16 Florida.

      Hemsky and Penner led the way on the attack.

      Paajarvi-Brule-Cogliano not thriving yet.

      And Tom Gilbert looks like Niklas Lidstrom. That’s a development I’d love to see continue.

    7. dawgbone
      October 11, 2010 at

      I think we knew that one line was going to get exposed and it was most likely going to be the one with Cogs and Brule on it when Penner moved up to play with Gagner & Hemsky.

      I don’t mind the line rolling this year, it makes more sense than last year. At least this year there will be some benefit to seeing guys play way over their heads for long stretches.

      As nice as the CGY game one, this one was a tad worrisome. If there is a team with a worse offence than the Flames it is probably the Panthers.

      Gotta feel bad for Vokoun as well. Not a chance on any of those goals.

    8. October 11, 2010 at

      Thanks again for doing the count Dennis. I was at this one live (first time in a while), and I’ll admit to being surprised at the chances being this close. I was expecting an absolute drubbing given the amount of time the Oilers spent in their own end.

      And let me just say that Jim Vandermeer looked awful tonight, definitely full value for that minus six. I’ve got to agree with Pat that the most disturbing part is his constantly jumping into the play and/or rushing the puck despite being terrible at both.

      • September 6, 2011 at

        If inrfaomtion were soccer, this would be a goooooal!

    9. October 11, 2010 at

      Scott: that D tandem got caught up a couple of times for breakaways or odd-man rushes and later on I saw 2 furiously pinching at the right point and I had to wonder why;)

      BTW, as much as it would be nice to move 13 for a D that will be ready whenever the team is and no matter how much I wonder where he’ll fit in if he can’t even be one of Renney’s six PKers – which he wasn’t on this night – he had two excellent chances to score and if he pops one then it’s a totally different narrative this early in the season.

      Also switching 27 with 91 balances out the three lines a little more but it might be spreading it a bit thin as well.

      Back to 49 and I kept thinking it would be nice for him to break in being sheltered with a D that can move the puck and perhaps 26 would be that guy. Tambo should have swallowed his pride and stashed 2′s pact in the minors and brought back 44.

      Do that and add a Belanger type for your third line and all of a sudden you’re in much better shape.

      But, you keep being reminded that this season isn’t about that – though I’m not sure why it couldn’t have been – when you see the fourth line getting shifts with under four min left in a one goal game. Now, I understand it would be hard to get it to three responsible lines but when you see 16 logging just two min less than 91 at EV you see the kids will play and so will everyone else.

      I had won big yesterday on a Twins 3race and the Titans both covering and on the $line – a stupid +250 given the inconsistency of the cowboys – so I threw down $50 on the Oil to win in regulation and you know that makes you watch things more closely.

    10. October 11, 2010 at

      I’m also surprised that the Oilers actually outchanced in the third because they still looked like garbage, even if it wasn’t hot garbage like the previous periods. ;)

      And yeah, the chance on 10′s goal is messed up.

    11. Jason Gregor
      October 11, 2010 at

      I worked the game for Florida Fox Sports and had to keep track of scoring chances. I had Florida ahead 20-11.

      Each will have their own idea of what is a scoring chance. For instance, if I’m reading yours correct, on the Florida 2nd goal you only have one scoring chance. Booth was robbed point blank, and then Reasoner banged home the rebound. Shouldn’t that account for two chances? Or do you calculate it in another way.

      Also, do you count shots that miss the net as a scoring chance? I did, since the Oilers best chances on the net, never actually registered as shots on goal. Hall missed wide about nine minutes into game, Penner had a breakaway and didn’t get a shot, and then Colin Fraser has an empty net with no one on him and misses it. I know it was a meaningless play, since the buzzer sounded seconds later, but wouldn’t that be a scoring chance? Curious if you count missed shots and why Fraser wasn’t deemed a scoring chance?

      Florid was the same, especially Kulikov. That guy had three great chances, and missed the net on every one.

      Obviously every shot on goal isn’t a scoring chance, so curious what is your ruling/decision on what is deemed one.


    12. Jason Gregor
      October 11, 2010 at

      Should read 20-13

    13. October 11, 2010 at

      I didn’t count Fraser’s because it was on an open net so not a lot to learn from a play like that.

      I count chances when a guy in a prime and/or scoring position directs a shot towards that net that isn’t blocked along the way.

    14. Tyler Dellow
      October 11, 2010 at

      Do you keep a list of what you counted as scoring chances Jason? Can you post it?

    15. David Staples
      October 11, 2010 at

      @Jason. Do you review each scoring chance to check if it really was one or not? Tough to do if you’re at the game, but it’s helpful when it comes to fairness, accuracy and consistency.

      BTW, I counted both Fraser’s shot as a chance, and Booth shot-Reasoner goal as two chances.

    16. Jason Gregor
      October 11, 2010 at

      I didn’t keep time, just the players on a sheet. I didn’t keep the sheet, but will for the next time.

      @David Staples

      On the replays that we have in the booth, I did but not every one. The interesting part about a scoring chance is how each person looks at what is considered a legitimate chance differently.

      And I was just checking to see if an empty netter was considered a chance. An easy chance we would think, but Fraser proved it isn’t a guarantee..ha

    17. slipper
      October 11, 2010 at

      I think you just disregard the player shooting and the result of the shot (goal/save/miss/post) and consider simply if the attempt consitiutes an opportunity to score. Did the player have the time and space to get a shot off from a legitimate scoring area?

      The fact that so many ppl are within similar range here indicates that our personal discretion isn’t worlds apart.

    18. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      How far away from an empty net does a player have to shoot from for it not to be considered a scoring chance? Any shot on the far side of the red line?

      I can’t see enough useful information being gathered from counting chances 6v5, what with the 50 minutes of empty net ice each team sees each season. Though, if you’re counting the chances against then you might aswell count the chances for, and make sure to identify the chances were with the goalie pulled.

    19. BRIdub
      October 12, 2010 at

      I disagree slipper, I think you should look at the chance as if a goalie were in the net. For example on fraser’s opportunity a shot from there wouldn’t be considered a chance with a goalie in, but I think in situations where the goalie is pulled but there is a breakaway or 2 on 1 for an empty netter that should be considered a chance. Just my opinion.

    20. dawgbone
      October 12, 2010 at

      One thing I’ve always debated as to whether a scoring chance can immediately preceed a goal.

      For instance, I might have given 10 a SC on his partial breakaway about 10-15 seconds before he scored.

      In any case, it doesn’t really matter as long as the person scoring it is consistant from game to game.

    21. October 12, 2010 at

      DB: I messed it up a little – I’m using IE now so it doesn’t allow me to go back and change things like if I was still using Mozilla – so even though I fudged it on the actual sheet by giving the 10 goal to Fla as it were;) we were on the same page because I gave Horc a SC 10 seconds before he scored his goal

    22. October 12, 2010 at

      dawgbone – absolutely, at least in my opinion

      I think I differ from Dennis, when we did the 72 series I counted misses, blocks etc, I guess I’m more with slipper in how I view it. If player A gets the puck in the slot then its a scoring chance. I think I even counted whiffs when I did them.

      And in your example dawgbone you could have three or four chances follow one after the other, for example Cournoyer’s goal in game eight. Esposito had a shot saved by Tretiak and then batted the rebound wide and then he got the puck out in front where they had three whacks at it.

      Five chances by my count, the last being a goal.

    23. October 12, 2010 at

      Pat: the way I look at that is I reward the guy defending if he happens to block the shot. I count an attempt as a chance as long as the puck’s directed towards the net without it’s path being altered along the way

    24. October 12, 2010 at

      Dennis: yeah I understand your reasoning, really I don’t think there are too many blocks in scoring areas to sku it too much anyhow

      Do you count actual missed shots, so if buddy rings it off the post or just shoots wide? You don’t, right?

    25. dawgbone
      October 12, 2010 at

      I’m more liberal as well. I had to make a few adjustments in my counting when I did them for that spell last year.

      To me if a guy is wide open and the puck bounces over his stick at an empty net, I count it as a SC. No shot, but as a defensive player there is no way I’d want that situation again.

      I’ve viewed SC as exactly that, a chance to score. A 2 on 1 where the defenceman makes a diving play to block a pass is still a SC to me because even though he made a good play to stop a shot, there was still a pretty good chance.

      Either way though, it doesn’t matter as long as it’s consistant (which Dennis has been). Whether you are liberal or strict it plays out in the overall numbers I think.

    26. October 12, 2010 at

      Pat: I usually designate “post” in the comments section if a guy rings iron.

    27. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      I’m not sure where I stand on blocks. We know that point shots, ecspecially where the shooter is moving from the corner of the attack zone toward the middle, are dangerous opportunity. But once the shots let off it becomes a game of plinko.

      I disagree with you, BRI. The teams are playing 6v5, not 5v5. Total different strategies on both teams part which affect the outcomes of plays. Most players will take a shot once they pass the red and have the puck cradled, so it is like a different game altogether.

    28. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      A defender’s action to prevent the shot, as DB describes, does reflect a teams’ ability to prevent scoring chances against, right?

      Though I would consider a whiffed shot or a skipping puck a chance, never mind where the goalie is, as long as the shooter found the time, space and position.

    29. October 12, 2010 at

      dawgbone – I agree with you there, its the consistency that matters, usually if you compare numbers between different folks they’re in the ballpark

      And I do count, say, a two on one where the puck bounces over the shooter’s stick at the last second.

      But the numbers don’t skew much for these instances. For the 72 series I think I had two or three chances in the entire series where I counted a chance and the player didn’t even get wood on it because of a tricky hop. I would be if I looked back that the amount of blocked shots would have been fairly small as well.

    30. dawgbone
      October 12, 2010 at

      Slipper, the team also let it become a 2 on 1 in the first place, so they both created and eventually took it away. If you get a clear cut 2 on 1 from centre ice in, the other team messed up somewhere to let you get to that point. Just because I shot when I should have passed (or vice versa), doesn’t take away the opportunity.

      My definition of a scoring chance was always “Would I want my team in that position?” If the answer was yes it would be a scoring chance. It’s just an interpretation and I know mine is a lot more liberal than most.

      In the end, I had about double what Dennis had for the same game, but the ratio was almost dead on.

    31. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      Yeah, I understand, but it’s a little unfair, ecspecially to the defensemen. If the player makes a clear action that eliminates the chance, it reflects the player’s and team’s ability, and that should be relected in the stat.

      2 on 1′s are tough, and I’d love to hear more people’s opinions on this.

      I think of Lubo chasing down guys who were on breaks or odd man rushes, and cleanly breaking up the play. Why should he be identified as being on the ice for an SCA when his action directly eliminated the chance.

      You could argue that every 2 on 1 that does not result in a shot attempt is the fault of a mistake made by the attacking players. But you could also argue that any won attack zone draw that doesn’t result in a shot attempt is a failure of attacking players to properly execute.

      Say the defender on the 2 on 1 sprawls, eliminating the pass, and the outlet doesn’t effectively reposition and the puck carrier freezes in that instant. To me all those decisions and actions are precisely what you are trying to discover in accumulating data, and marking it as a SCF doesn’t achieve that in my mind.

    32. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      I should add that not every odd man rush is created equal. It could be an attacker’s mistake, a beauty play by the defender, a bad bounce off the boards, shitty ice, a poor line change, good/bad coverage, etc.

      A million random causes. Do the players on the ice have the ability to eliminate/capitalize in the moment?

    33. dawgbone
      October 12, 2010 at

      The question then becomes why did Lubo have to chase the guy down? Where was he before that? He may have ultimately ended the chance but he was part of how it was generated in the first place.

      There’s a big difference from failing to gain a shot on a 2 on 1 advantage to not getting one 5 on 5.

      If the defender sprawls and eliminates the pass and you still try and pass it, that’s a mistake that you made to negate the scoring chance.

      Same thing if the defenceman dives from behind you on a breakaway to slap the puck away as you try to deke. He took away that particular opportunity but if you had shot the puck you’d still have an excellent chance to score.

      If you can get the puck into a good shooting position within the prime scoring area, I view that as a scoring chance. Because you didn’t shoot or because you chose to pass instead doesn’t change anything in my view.

    34. dawgbone
      October 12, 2010 at

      I should add that not every odd man rush is created equal. It could be an attacker’s mistake, a beauty play by the defender, a bad bounce off the boards, shitty ice, a poor line change, good/bad coverage, etc.

      A million random causes. Do the players on the ice have the ability to eliminate/capitalize in the moment?

      Don’t all of those reflect the players on the ice?

      If you make a bad line change you’ve done something to hurt your team. It may reflect on the guys on the ice after you get off but it doesn’t change the fact that mistakes were made.

      The rare exception would be a puck taking a bad hop off the ice (after being flat) and going over his stick creating a turnover that way.

      Generally, someone is out of position which is how odd man rushes start.

    35. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      You’re with and without data benefits, too. I really think you’re compromising the data on your players , D ecspecially, if you don’t account for them cleaning up each other’s mistakes. So much of the time the defense is at the forwards they’re on the ice with, as is. Good defenseman will break up chances, while lesser D will not. Then you are able to seperate the players’ minutes from one another in orderto evaluate trends. One group of forward were making mistakes that created a lot of rushes but weren’t resulting in goals/chances because they were on the ice with players A and B- but when they were on the ice with players C and D… look out!

    36. slipper
      October 12, 2010 at

      I think most rushes would end in a decent opportunity if the players didn’t hustle back and get into position. A lot of forwards cheat on positioning all the time because they feel they have the speed to make up for it. You’ll see that with MPS constantly, I’m sure, where he’ll race back and get coverage on the third man at the last possible instant. That is where particular tool box comes into play, and it is precisely what the scoring chance data looks to measure. I don’t see why you wouldn’t afford the defensemen the same.

      Just my opinion. I’m no expert.

    37. dawgbone
      October 13, 2010 at

      I don’t see how you are compromising anything, because it works at both ends of the ice. You’ll get dinged at one end but make up for it at the other end.

      I did about 4 or 5 games last year scoring them my way and the results were almost double, but the ratio was pretty much spot on with what Dennis did.

      For me the key is getting the puck into a good shooting position in the prime scoring area (basically a trapezoid that extends from just outside the posts out to between the hashmarks and faceoff dots).

    38. October 13, 2010 at

      I guess I’ll wade in here too.

      Here’s what I don’t count:

      - Blocks close to the source of the shot. So, if a guy is in the scoring area, but drives the puck directly into the pads of the player in front of him…not a scoring chance.

      However, let’s say he has a clear shot and some sliding defender or stick shaft deflects the puck away at the last second before it goes in the net…that’s a scoring chance.

      - Whiffs, fans and chances at chances. If you don’t meaningfully direct the puck at the net from the scoring area, it’s not a scoring chance.

      - Many deflections. This is an area I struggle with, but I see a lot of deflection as random/fluke bounces than meaningful chances. I play it by ear with these, but I exclude a fair amount of them.

    39. slipper
      October 13, 2010 at

      I was debating the direct block thing and concluded the same. If the defender gets directly in the way then I feel the shooter didn’t have enough time or space.

      Wiffs are debateable, though. Kind of like a stick breaking. I think it depends on the situaution.

    40. NewAlgier
      October 14, 2010 at

      Wildly off topic, and I apologize, but I can’t restrain myself. Garry Bettman is the most powerful man in the world: “A third source, an NHL governor, said Hulsizer was told at least a month ago that Bettman will never agree to sell the franchise for less than what the entire Coyotes’ debacle has cost the league.”

      I could only wish to have such power over the gods of trading, so as to dictate the terms under which I would countenance a loss.

    Leave a Reply

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