Canucks 6 Kings 4 - Game 4 Scoring Chances
Everything about the first period just felt so right. The Kings were dominating at evens for the first time in the series and still found time to add to the delightful comedy that is the Canucks' penalty killing unit by scoring on their only power play of the period. Even after the Canucks managed to start the second by tying the game, they still hadn't shown much at even strength and when the Kings got another power play and scored for the sixth consecutive time, it would have taken all of the energy in the world not to laugh at their misery. I didn't have the strength. But then there was doubt. Vancouver tied it again in the second before the Kings regained their one-goal lead before the second intermission. By the time the Kings had squandered four good chances in the first half of the third period I was nervous like a fourteen year-old boy making his first play for third base. A three to one series lead seemed so close at hand. And like that, (...), it's gone.
Scoring Chances
For those who'd like a definition: a scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area - loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score. And, of course, a big thanks to Vic Ferrari for making the whole damn thing possible with his awesome script.
The first period was a wonder to behold. The Kings controlled the play all period and when the puck did come into their zone, the Canucks weren't able to get to a dangerous scoring area. The PK was working, the PP continued to be touched by God and after the green light lit up they left the ice with a one-goal lead. But they couldn't keep it going. Frustrating. Looking at the game as a whole the Kings did manage to out-chance the Canucks at even strength but I should mention that the Canucks won the territorial battle. Although they had trouble generating chances when they were in the Kings' zone, they spent a lot of time there. This reality was especially true in the first half of the third period when the Kings would be playing the Canucks along the boards in their defensive zone and then getting a chance themselves on the counter-attack. But the Canucks' team Corsi of +19 at even strength does imply that they were going to get their chances. Spend enough time in the offensive zone and you will. And once they did, they were going in.
I also wanted to comment briefly on the Canucks' PK which is still struggling despite breaking the curse before it reached the most perfect number (once they made it to six I started frantically looking for a good Philo reference... alas, it was not to be). That ridiculous streak aside, two goals and seven scoring chances in under six minutes is still really bad. On the first goal, the Canucks were even kind enough to illustrate my point about being poor in front of the net. Thanks guys! I'm sure that helped everyone understand one of your problems a little bit better! On to the individual chances:
The line of Handzus, Modin and Richardson had another great game matched against the Sedins. They were out for 70-80 percent of the Sedins' even strength ice time and through two periods they were up 4-1 in chances in the match-up. Although they ended up getting scored on in the third (the Samuelsson goal), out-chancing the Sedins 4-2 is a great night's work. I can only hope and pray that Terry Murray goes hard after that match-up when he can for Game Five because the Sedins just destoryed the Kings in the first two games in Vancouver. The Kopitar line was better in this game but my goodness did they ever look bad on the last goal. Wayne Simmonds with the theatrical dive behind the net followed by Ryan Smyth losing a puck battle and Anze Kopitar playing low enough in the offensive zone to give the Canucks a 4-on-2. Not pretty guys.
Prepared in Advance for God's Glory
3. Pavol Demitra - Go Slovakia! Miroslav Satan puts home the overtime winner while Pavol Demitra plays his way back into a meaningful role. In the first period Demitra only played 2:59 and if the night before was any indication he probably wasn't going to get too much more. But by the end of the game Demitra had played 15:45, drawn a penalty, registered the Canucks' second goal and led the team in chance differential. On a night that saw Alex Burrows, Ryan Kesler and both Sedins struggle to varying degrees, the Canucks needed some of their other players to step up. Demitra (and Kyle Wellwood - the two were often playing together) did just that and both guys deserve to be recognized for their positive performance.
2. Christian Ehrhoff - This was apparently a high event game for Ehrhoff but I noticed more of his good plays than his bad ones, especially in the offensive zone. He scored the first goal for the Canucks on the power play (that's his goal in the picture) with a great low shot after creeping in pretty far from the point. On the second goal, he picked up an assist with a beautiful pass that sent Demitra and Wellwood in two-on-one with the Kings in the middle of a bad change. On the third goal, it was Ehrhoff who gained the zone, dished the puck to the wall and then provided a screen for Michal Samuelsson. Ehfhoff also managed to take a few shifts on the PK without getting scored on, a nice accomplishment in this series. And all of this while adapting to a new partner seemingly every second shift. A very good game for the German with the wide range of skills.
1. Drew Doughty - Yeah, yeah, -2. One of those came on the empty-netter and the other was Samuelsson's beautiful tip from pretty far out. I don't know that Doughty really should have done much differently on either play. At any rate, he was a very effective player yet again. As I mentioned above, there was a lot more time in the Kings' zone in this game which is why I thought to give a defender the nod over the Kings' checking forwards. The pairing of Doughty and Scuderi have done a good job on the Sedin line over the last two contests and tonight was particularly good. Sure, Henrik scored the winner but that was against Sean O'Donnell and Matt Greene. Doughty won that battle for most of the evening and he made the Kings very good power play hum. The more I see him, the more I like what he brings to the table.
Objects of Wrath Destined for Destruction
3. Sean O'Donnell - Two horrific plays to go along with a putrid series overall land the veteran defender in third spot. Both mistakes (be careful not to say "errors") found their way to the back of the net which, of course, doesn't help. In the first case, he made an atrocious change after making an abominable give-away which lead pretty directly to Pavol Demitra scoring the Canucks' second goal (that Ehrhoff pass? You may as well give O'Donnell the second assist for all the zeal he showed defensively. Just awful. In the second case he was made to look the fool by the Sedin brothers as they drew him away from the middle of the ice when Henrik worked a give-and-go with Daniel Sedin on the near boards. The winning goal was scired within seconds. If the Kings are going to win two of the next three games, I think O'Donnell is going to need to be better.
2. Alex Burrows - Holy hell was this guy bad. After the first period the chances read 5-0 at even strength for the Kings with Burrows on the ice. On the penalty kill, his largest contribution was guarding nobody in particular so that he could have an excellent view of Drew Doughty scoring the game's first goal. I'm sure that his only regret is forgetting the camera. Burrows started the second period by trying to draw a penalty but all he got was another minus in the scoring chance column when the Kings took the puck to the net. He was the only Canuck to post a negative Corsi number (-2) and his -6 chance differential would be worse if not for the empty-net goal. Excluding that empty-netter, Henrik Sedin's chance differential was +1 without Burrows and -3 with him. In traditional plus/minus Burrows ended the night +2. It was about the worst +2 you could imagine.
1. Jonathan Quick - Roberto Luongo made some saves. Jonathan Quick didn't. I think the guy most frustrated by that is probably Matt Greene. On two separate occasions Greene took away the pass on a 2-on-1 and on two occasions the puck ended up in the back of the net (Demitra and Sedin). That's definitely not the kind of positive reinforcement Matt Greene needs. On top of that, there were two big blasts from the high slot that beat Quick and on one of them he had a clean look. None of the goals were soft but you need to make a save. The Canucks only had six chances in the third period and they scored on three of them. None of them were rebounds. Quick needs to be better.
In the last game recap I mentioned that it would be nice to see the Kings get the better end of the chances. Clearly, I misspoke. What would be nice is to see them win. Goilerskings!
20 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good stuff again Scott.
Along with Demitra and Wellwood, Bernier deserves some credit too. He’s been awful most of the season but played well with his fourth line duties last night, especially in the dying moments of the game when the Kings were pressing for the tie.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
Thanks. By the numbers Bernier had a solid outing for sure but I didn’t really notice him all that much. He didn’t really play a whole lot at even strength, so it’s kind of hard to get a read. I find it interesting that he’s consistently getting PP time despite not getting much time at EV and having a pretty bad track record this year and last. Has Vigneault ever mentioned why he uses him as a PP guy?
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 22, 2010 12:05 PM MDT up reply actions
He’s easy to miss, rarely going above ten minutes in a game.
AV rolls him out on the PP because he’s one of the bigger guys (height and girth). Like in game two, he can plant himself near the crease and pounce on rebounds, but he rarely uses his body right. Glass half empty: He’s slowly morphing into Brad Isbister which is no good.
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
by Yankee Canuck on Apr 22, 2010 12:29 PM MDT up reply actions
Screened shots
I’ve always felt that screened shots from the point are scoring chances, too, as teams work hard to set up such plays, and they often result in goals. Even weak shots from the point quite often go in when there is a good screen in front of the goalie.
What do you think?
Do you count such shots as scoring chances?
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 22, 2010 10:50 AM MDT reply actions
Oh, I see you do mention screens.
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 22, 2010 10:54 AM MDT reply actions
Yeah, it’s tough because it’s a judgment call every time but if there’s what I would consider a good screen in front of the net and the shot isn’t blocked, I count them. But it’s instances like that where I’m sure two different people could see a play and one sees a scoring chance and another doesn’t.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 22, 2010 11:18 AM MDT up reply actions
Two referees could see the same infraction and one would call a penalty and one wouldn’t. At a certain point it’s a judgement call. A 50/50 or 60/40 call gets counted as a 1 or a 0, either way you accept it and move on. The scoring chance numbers are far more consistent than a lot of the official NHL stats are.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Apr 22, 2010 6:41 PM MDT up reply actions
I think if you had two guys going by the same criteria on scoring chances, they’d be pretty close in their final scores.
For example, one guy would have it 23-14 and the other guy 25-12, that kind of thing.
Of course, with my own particular (peculiar?) philosophy on this, I’m a big fan of breaking down each scoring chance, and assigning only plus marks to those who are in on the play and minus marks to the culprits.
With a PVR, it’s relatively easy to do this as the game is going on, especially if you’re rating just one team, because the TV ads take up so much time.
I did this kind of individual scoring chance breakdown for both Pittsburgh and Detroit in last year’s Cup final (and that was quite a bit of work).
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 22, 2010 11:30 AM MDT reply actions
Well, we’ve had some games scored by two different observers using similar criteria. Some of the games are very close (Kent and I were generally pretty good with Avs-Flames stuff) but others had more differences than I expected. I did a detailed analysis of one game that had several differences (JLikens adds a lot in the comments). The correlation was “only” 0.66 for that one.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 22, 2010 12:09 PM MDT up reply actions
If scoring chances were to be a stat where you could compare different players on different teams in terms of plus/minus, a lot of work would have to be done to make sure the folks scoring the chances were using the same criteria. It’s essential that everyone is on the same page starting out.
For instance, a group would have to score the same five or ten games, then discuss why their marks varied and how they could reduce that variance.
This would be a lot of work, but it’s the kind of thing that would take your work to the next level, I believe.
Maybe you’ve done this kind of stuff already, I’m not sure.
(An emphasis on having the same criteria and standard practices would be even more necessary if one were to add in my preference for a “true” scoring chance plus/minus, where each play was broken down in an effort to eliminate false positives and false negatives)
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 22, 2010 1:24 PM MDT up reply actions
I think the definition is pretty consistent. The problem is that there are a lot of judgment calls. Was that just inside the dot or just outside? Was there a rebound there or not? Things like that. I agree that it’s important to have people on the same page but you’ll never get everybody seeing the game in exactly the same way. Moving forward, I think the best practice would likely be to have a “panel” judging each game, say three people. Every time two of them call a scoring chance, it counts in the total. It has the added benefit of limiting the number of low quality chances that get counted (everyone will note the good ones). If you have, say, sixty or so people rotating around instead of sitting on an individual team, the biases should largely wash out. The problem, of course, is getting sixty people.
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 22, 2010 1:36 PM MDT up reply actions
I think as this kind of rating system took off, and as the Internet gathers in more fans, you could find two or three fans per team to do this work. It would take some time, but if people see the exercise as worthwhile and significant, that could happen.
It took years and years in baseball for fielding stats — based on careful observation — to take hold, so it’s a slow process . .
by David Staples @ The Cult of Hockey on Apr 22, 2010 3:08 PM MDT up reply actions
It’s roughly the equivalent of Project Scoresheet, for sure. That was a major effort, but it worked.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Apr 22, 2010 3:45 PM MDT up reply actions
Great analysis as always.
I cannot express how much I am looking forward to the ascension of Jonathan Bernier. (In fact, I wish he were here now, though I think Rudy would disagree with me.) Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of options on defense. Still, I’m looking forward to the next game with a hopeful heart.
once they made it to six I started frantically looking for a good Philo reference…
Aw, darn it!
In Dinglebarn We Trust
Good stuff. That third period was hard to watch; the Kings were on their heels almost the entire final 15 minutes.
Bettman's Nightmare: We See a Good Bettman/Fans Metaphor When We See One, and Frankly, Lane Smith Was Too Hard on Emilio Estevez When He Was A Kid.
http://bettmansnightmare.blogspot.com/
by Bettman's Nightmare on Apr 22, 2010 12:26 PM MDT reply actions
Addendum: I hate VAN with a passion but they probably deserved their luck this game due to losing some earlier games where they outchanced.
And damn, LA is still burying its chances better than Mario himself, which is incredible and at the same time gives me a bit of fear. I wish they had just pulled out the win somehow (clubbed a Canuck in the head?) but there it is.
Still, LA looked frickin good last night and the Sedins were frustrated for 50 minutes. So that gives hope. Of course they played some of the best that LA had to offer.
This was the first game of the series I have been able to watch from start to finish. My kudos to Scott for a terrific write-up. Your reversible 3 stars are bang on, and well described. I think that’s the worst game I’ve seen Alex Burrows play in at least two years.
My only quibble is Doughty could have done something different on the empty net goal, say, not give the puck away. It was his misfired pass that Kesler turned around. Mind you they were grasping at straws by then, so normal risk management was out the window.
Doughty is a beauty isn’t he? With due respect to Larry Murphy, he’s the finest young defenceman the Kings have had since they traded the draft pick that became Ray Bourque. He has stepped into the league in a similar manner as Bourque did, made the league right away and started dominating soon thereafter. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
Yeah, Doughty is a beauty player. I was nervous when he was picked for the Olympic team but that wasn’t based on watching him a whole lot. I probably shouldn’t have been nervous (at least not about him).
by Scott Reynolds on Apr 22, 2010 8:01 PM MDT up reply actions

by 





























