• Scoring Chances: G1: Oct 9th, vs Penguins

    by Dennis • October 9, 2011 • Scoring Chances 2011-12 • 31 Comments

    Scoring Chances for NHL Game Number 20024

    Team Period Time Note EDM Opponent
    PIT 1 17:08 PP 5 10 24 40 91 1 14 18 26 48 58 4v5
    PIT 1 17:05 PP 5 10 24 40 91 1 14 18 26 48 58 4v5
    PIT 1 15:40 4 25 40 77 83 93 1 4 7 9 11 46 5v5
    EDM 1 14:16 PP 4 4 40 77 91 93 94 1 2 9 24 58 5v4
    EDM 1 13:54 PP 4 4 40 58 77 83 93 1 2 11 27 58 5v4
    EDM 1 9:35 93 4 40 58 77 83 93 1 2 5 6 9 24 5v5
    PIT 1 8:27 5 14 20 24 40 94 1 2 6 14 46 48 5v5
    EDM 1 3:35 PP 58 13 14 23 40 58 94 1 2 4 10 27 5v4
    PIT 1 0:32 PP 5 20 24 40 91 1 2 7 10 11 24 4v5
    EDM 2 17:48 24 4 5 24 40 83 93 1 2 6 9 24 46 5v5
    PIT 2 12:50 10 23 25 40 77 94 1 4 5 11 18 26 5v5
    PIT 2 8:28 PP 25 28 40 57 58 1 2 7 10 11 24 4v5
    EDM 2 3:20 28 5 14 24 28 40 93 1 2 10 18 26 58 5v5
    EDM 2 3:19 14 5 14 24 28 40 93 1 2 10 18 26 58 5v5
    EDM 2 0:02 4 4 13 40 77 83 93 1 4 7 11 24 27 5v5
    EDM 3 18:56 94 5 14 24 40 93 94 1 5 11 14 48 58 5v5
    EDM 3 15:26 83 4 13 40 58 83 93 1 4 6 9 27 46 5v5
    PIT 3 11:10 13 14 40 58 94 1 2 9 11 58 4v4
    PIT 3 10:17 PP 5 10 24 40 1 14 18 26 58 3v4
    EDM 3 8:34 93 4 5 28 40 58 93 1 2 7 10 11 48 5v5
    EDM 3 5:56 10 5 10 23 40 77 91 1 5 9 10 26 58 5v5
    EDM 3 5:55 10 5 10 23 40 77 91 1 5 9 10 26 58 5v5
    PIT 3 5:20 4 13 40 58 83 93 1 2 6 9 24 46 5v5
    EDM 3 4:55 Goal 93 4 13 40 58 83 93 1 2 6 24 27 46 5v5
    PIT 3 3:41 PP 5 20 24 40 91 1 11 18 26 48 58 4v5
    PIT 3 0:32 PP 5 20 24 28 40 1 11 18 26 48 58 4v5
    PIT 3 0:29 PP 5 20 24 28 40 1 11 18 26 48 58 4v5
    PIT 4 4:45 PP 5 10 24 40 1 11 18 26 58 3v4
    PIT 4 3:24 4 14 25 40 58 1 4 10 14 58 4v4
    EDM 4 1:36 10 10 25 40 77 93 1 2 18 48 58 4v4
    EDM 4 1:04 58 post 13 14 40 57 58 1 4 7 14 48 4v4
    # Player EV PP SH
    4 T. HALL 14:58 6 3 4:14 2 0 0:00 0 0
    5 L. SMID 11:05 7 1 0:13 0 0 9:49 0 8
    10 S. HORCOFF 10:53 3 1 0:15 0 0 8:27 0 4
    13 C. BARKER 15:53 4 2 4:49 1 0 0:03 0 0
    14 J. EBERLE 10:52 4 3 3:28 1 0 0:00 0 0
    16 D. HORDICHUK 0:59 0 0 0:00 0 0 0:00 0 0
    20 E. BELANGER 7:54 0 1 0:20 0 0 5:44 0 4
    23 L. OMARK 7:36 2 1 3:45 1 0 0:00 0 0
    24 T. PECKHAM 7:02 4 1 0:00 0 0 9:43 0 8
    25 A. SUTTON 14:22 1 3 0:00 0 0 5:46 0 1
    28 R. JONES 6:52 3 0 0:06 0 0 4:52 0 3
    40 D. DUBNYK 40:19 13 6 7:35 3 0 16:26 0 9
    57 A. LANDER 6:26 1 0 0:00 0 0 2:54 0 1
    58 J. PETRY 15:47 5 3 3:37 2 0 1:39 0 1
    77 T. GILBERT 17:20 5 2 3:21 2 0 5:52 0 0
    83 A. HEMSKY 14:03 5 2 3:20 1 0 0:00 0 0
    91 M. PAAJARVI 9:12 2 0 3:30 1 0 5:58 0 4
    93 R. NUGENT-HOPKINS 13:11 10 2 3:53 2 0 0:00 0 0
    94 R. SMYTH 10:52 1 3 3:58 2 0 3:01 0 0
    Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH
    1 4 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
    2 4 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
    3 6 6 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0
    4 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
    Totals 16 15 13 6 3 0 0 0 0 9 0 0

    31 Responses to Scoring Chances: G1: Oct 9th, vs Penguins

    1. October 9, 2011 at

      Ty’s trying a new format here so he’ll have to make a tweak or two until we get the data into the old orderly form.

    2. October 9, 2011 at

      Lines and D pairings:

      94-10-14
      91-10-23
      4-93-83
      16-57-28

      25-77
      13-58
      24-5

      Dubnyk

      • Dennis
        October 9, 2011 at

        First line has 20 as the pivot.

    3. Tyler
      October 9, 2011 at

      Alright, so I gotta figure out how to make the table lines appear…shouldn’t be hard.

    4. Dennis
      October 9, 2011 at

      I bookmarked the results so as soon as you figure out the tables I can just copy and paste the bookmark.

    5. Dennis
      October 9, 2011 at

      Some thoughts on this one.

      Faceoffs: Oilers not named Lander or Hopkins went 33-20; club went 38-39 overall. Smyth went 6-2 and won some big offensive zone PP faceoffs. Belanger clearly wasn’t 100% but still went 9-9 and Horcoff was 17-9.

      PK: I’m still pretty sure I’m right about the decision to rest noted PK guy Petrell for Hordichuk being one of abject stupidity but the Oilers did a really good job on the PK and finally went back to consistently using six forwards. The pairs were 10-91, 57-28 and 20-91. On the last kill I thought that 57 and 24 were especially noteworthy.

      PP: lots of puck control but nothing happening. So the more things change…

      EV: I had the Oilers winning the battle 13-6 so there’s not a lot to pick apart. Sure, it was driven by the 93 line and 23 really didn’t make much of an impact but even without Malkin and Crosby being in the lineup you still have to like these numbers.

      Netminding: I haven’t really stumped for Dubnyk but I noticed last year that his style got a lot quieter and he’s always had the ability to make the tough save. His enemy is the soft goal and tonight he allowed one early but then hunkered down and looked quite solid right up until the last SO attempt nearly dribbled through him.

      To close: young 93 made a couple of defensive plays that made me take notice and in this regard seems much farther ahead than say 4 was at his age. On the offensive side he has a knack for drawing in the opponent before making the pass at the last second.

    6. dave
      October 10, 2011 at

      ummm have to like 93′s numbers

    7. Mike
      October 10, 2011 at

      Smyth went 6-2 and won some big offensive zone PP faceoffs.

      I was at the game tonight, and I have to admit, every time Smyth lined up for a draw on the PP I was cursing Renney and predicting a faceoff loss to waste the clock (especially when Smytty took the draw with a 30 second 5-on-3). And the bugger just kept winning them.

      What the heck do I know, I guess?

      • dawgbone
        October 11, 2011 at

        Well in fairness, he lost the first 2 very badly and then stopped trying to win them clean and just tied up the centre.

    8. The Other John
      October 10, 2011 at

      Watched Smytty’s in face-off dot closely. He was trying to not lose draw: ie tie up opponents stick couple of his wins were off bounces off teammates legs. Can safely say he will be in the 40′s (percentage) if he takes 250+ draws. Gilbert had strong game. Hope I am wrong but Pens looked very tired with 2 of top 10 players in world not dressed but it is simply about wins, not how you got them.

      • Tyler Dellow
        October 10, 2011 at

        The chances being 5-2 at ES at the 36 minute for PIT kind of suggests that that’s right.

    9. October 10, 2011 at

      Can you delete this thread, Ty? I just posted the new and improved deal.

    10. Tyler Dellow
      October 10, 2011 at

      I’m gonna delete the other after moving the HTML so we don’t lose the comments. Guess I should have told you about editing posts ;)

    11. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      I had the chances at 18 Oilers, 20 Pens. 13 ev/5 pp for Oilers. 10 eves, 10 pp for Pens.

      I marked down times and am curious to see where we differed, and if we actually had just small differences in opinion, or if we have a bigger difference when it comes to criteria.

    12. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      You had 31 chances marked down. I agreed with 27 of those chances.
      I had 38 chances marked. You agreed with 30 of those chances.

      It’s useful for me at least to compare notes with you, to see if either I’ve made a mistake, which sometimes happen, or if we just disagree on criteria, which is also the case on some shots.

      FIRST PERIOD

      16:49. Letang scores on power play one-timer, while Peckham screens and Dubnyk flubs it. I say it’s a chance, you don’t. I agree that just because a goal is scored, it doesn’t mean you have to assign a chance. Letang’s shot was a hard one-timer, but from outside the kill-zone. I only count shots as chances from clearly outside the kill-zone if they’re screened. In this case, Peckham screened it a bit, a mistake by a position playe. He needed to block that shot or get out of the way. My criteria: if there’s a mistake on a shot by a postion player, I consider it a scoring chance against.

      VERDICT: A 50/50 call, neither of us right or wrong.

      5:07. Hemsky busts down the wing, charges past two d-men who get a stick on him, but he makes it through, has a partial breakaway, only to have goalie come out and block him. He loses the handle as he’s trying to go to backhand, puck goes wide. I had it a chance, you didnt’.

      My criteria: If the goalie makes the play on the shooter on a breakaway, and he doesn’t get off a shot because of it, I still consider that a scoring chance, as the goalie has to make the save. If the dman made the same play to stop the shooter, I wouldn’t consider it a chance against, as the d-man has averted the shot on goal.

      Here, the goalie never touched puck, but his positioning stopped Hemsky’s move.

      VERDICT: It’s another close call.

      5:01. RNH passes to Hemsky in the slot. He’s got a great chance, but Dupuis hooks him. This is a scoring chance, in my mind, as it was only averted by a penalty, and Dupuis went to the box. That’s how I call anything in the kill zone where the shooter is fouled and a penalty is called.

      VERDICT: Not sure of your criteria here, but I’m sticking with mine, believe it’s sound.

      cont ….

    13. October 10, 2011 at

      Staples: basically my reasoning is the opposite of yours:)

    14. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      Part 2.

      SECOND PERIOD

      18:57 Kunitz gets off a one-timer shot from the high slot, middle of the ice, not screened. Last year I wouldn’t have considered this a chance, but I’ve expanded my definition of the kill zone. I did so because I saw a chart of where goals are actually scored from in the NHL, and in the middle of the ice the kill zone isn’t straight across from the top of the face off circles, but it bubbles out a bit. That put Kunitz’s shot on the top border of the kill zone.
      The shot was also a one-time right on net, adding to its degree of difficulty, so I deemed it as a scoring chance.

      VERDICT: Close call, but I’ll be sticking with my revised criteria as I believe its based on the facts of where goals come from.

      17:48. Peckham gets a pass from Hemsky, takes a shot from the blueline, as RNH screens. The goalie saves it.

      You had it as a chance. I didn’t.

      This is a hard shot from outside the kill zone, but it’s screened and it’s also on net. It’s a Grade B chance, but it’s a chance.

      VERDICT: You were right, I was wrong.

      16:39. Power play one-timer from Kunitz from above the dot and below top of faceoff circle, right on the border of my kill zone, but clearly inside it. The fact that it’s a one-timer also factors into my thinking.

      VERDICT: It fits my criteria of chance, and I’ll stick with that. Not sure of your criteria for shots on border of kill zone.

      12:50 Sniper James Neal gets a shot as he comes out of the corner. The shot comes from outside the faceoff dot and from below the dot, though it’s a hard shot on net. This is well outside of the kill zone, as I define it, and from a place where not many goals are scored.

      VERDICT: Based on my criteria, I was right, you were wrong.

      • godot10
        October 10, 2011 at

        Didn’t Neal score from there against the Oilers late in the game or in OT to win it for Dallas last year? Neal has an exceptional shot. For a mediocre to bad shooter, it is not a scoring chance. For Neal?

        • David Staples
          October 10, 2011 at

          Some goals do come from outside the kill zone. It’s true.

          But not many.

          And it’s more likely a good sniper with a heavy, heavy shot like Neal will score from outside the kill zone, also true.

          But it only happens a few times a year, I’d suggest.

          It’s not a high percentage shot, even for a big time scorer, I’d suggest.

          But I could be wrong here.

          If someone can show me a goal-scoring/shot location chart of a real sniper, and he’s scoring at a high rate from outside the kill zone as well, I’d have to rethink my criteria (as would most folks who chart scoring chances, I do believe).

    15. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      Yeah, sometimes we do disagree.

      Other times I’m just wrong, and other times you’re just wrong. That’s going to happen.

      What’s interesting to me is a) to correct my own results and b) to see if there’s some criteria or issue that you’re using that I should adopt.

      It’s a useful exercise for me, at least.

    16. Joel
      October 10, 2011 at

      Edm beat the B team of Pittsburg.

      • godot10
        October 10, 2011 at

        The B team finished with 100 points in the NHL last year, and didn’t it take Tampa 6 or 7 games to get rid of them in the playoffs.

        • godot10
          October 10, 2011 at

          i.e. It is a pretty good B team, probably still top 10 in the NHL.

          • Joel
            October 10, 2011 at

            Yes tired from the third game, missing Sid , Malkin and their starting goalie. Edm beat a B team tonight.

    17. October 10, 2011 at

      Staples: I can’t ever remember me being wrong so this would be a first:)

    18. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      THIRD PERIOD

      18:56. Smyth goes hard to net, gets a stick on good pass from RNH, the puck goes wide.

      You had it as a chance, I didn’t.

      Here’s my criteria on a missed shot. If a player is in the kill zone and has a real chance to place the puck, then tries to pick the corner and misses wide, I consider that a chance. He could have missed the five-hole and hit the goalie, so I don’t see why one should be a chance, the other not a chance.

      But if the shooter is trying to get a shot on net, and he fails to do so because of the effort of a d-man, I don’t count it as a chance. I see it as a defensive stop, not a chance. The defence did its job.

      In thise case, Smyth couldn’t get the shot on net because of defensive pressure, IMO.

      VERDICT: Missed shot caused by defensive pressure, so I don’t see it as a chance, and would have to hear compelling argument to change my criteria.

      14:53 Eberle gets a hard shot on net from the high slot in the middle of ice, just outside my defined kill zone, but it’s double screened, lots of traffic.

      I had it as a chance, you didn’t.

      VERDICT: 50/50 call. Outside shots that are screened are hardest to grade when it comes to scoring chances.

      11:54. Tyler Kennedy breaks down wing, gets a shot from inside the top of the left faceoff circle, just inside the dot. It’s a hard shot inside my defined kill zone.

      VERDICT: It fits my criteria, but maybe we disagree on criteria.

      4:45 and 4:44. RNH’s goal. He puts in rebound shot.

      I had it as two chances, you had it as one.

      The question is: Did RNH force goalie to make two shots, or was first shot blocked by dman?

      VERDICT: You were right. Just one chance. D-man blocked first shot, not goalie.

      3:42 and 3:41. Neal on the power play gets one shot from slot, then another shot from side of net on rebound.

      I had it as two chances, you had it as one.

      VERDICT: Both shots came the kill zone, unless I missed something here. I think I’m right on this one.

      OVERTIME

      2:10 Letang breaks in one two-on-one, goes around Barker, gets off backhand shot.

      I saw it as a chance, you didn’t.

      THE VERDICT. I think I’m right on this one, too.

      1:36. Horcoff in a big pile-up off players gets off a shot from the slot that goes wide.

      You had it as a chance, I didn’t.

      I saw the d-men preventing Horc from getting off the shot on net he wanted, forcing it wide, stopping the chance, and I stick to my criteria.

      VERDICT: A 50/50 call.

    19. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      Denis.

      I was utterly shocked to see I had a made a mistake too. But there is a first for all things.

    20. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      BTW, Dennis, thanks for publishing all the times of your chances. It’s a very useful research tool for me.

    21. October 10, 2011 at

      Anything I can do so that you can copy it and make it your own, I’m all about it:)

    22. October 10, 2011 at

      I didn’t like the angle on that Kennedy shot and I Hated the angle on the second Neal chance.

      and I could tell right off the bat that 93′s first attempt went off a dman; there was something about how flat it fell as to indicate it didn’t go off any netminding equipment.

    23. David Staples
      October 10, 2011 at

      Copy you? Hmmm…. I am guilty as charged of copying someone, but that someone is Roger Neilson.

    Leave a Reply

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