Blackhawks 2 - Sharks 1: Game One Scoring Chances
There were a few interesting points to this game. First and foremost, Todd McClellan was happy to play power versus power, as he did in the first two series against the Avalanche and the Wings, but Joel Quenneville would have none of it. Quenneville did everything he possibly could to get Jonathan Toews away from Joe Thornton and out against Manny Malhotra or Joe Pavelski. There are a few people that still can't get away from the "choker" narrative with Thornton, but he's gone power versus power for eleven games and he's outchanced in these playoffs. That Quenneville was running like hell when the matchup came about speaks volumes for the Sharks top centerman.
The second is the notion that Chicago is deeper than San Jose. They may be deeper, but Quenneville was not utilizing it in any noticeable way last night. Adam Burish, John Madden, Ben Eager and Jordan Hendry remained stapled to the bench for long stretches.
The third thing that is being bantered about is that Evgeni Nabokov "wants that one back" in reference to the Patrick Sharp goal. As someone that has taken to watching every play at the net in slow motion to record a scoring chance, I knew what was going on during this play before the play-by-play crew and I knew immediately that they were wrong when they blamed Nabokov. More analysis after the jump...
This wasn't a "soft" goal by Nabokov, as he was completely screened on the shot. I can't find a replay of the shot from behind the net, but that replayed showed, in frame-by-frame at least, that Nabokov never saw the puck until it was on him. The puck comes through two screens, and then out of the pants of the defender in front of him, Douglas Murray.
![]() |
You can see here that Nabokov was at the top of his crease, in proper position for the play. Sharp is throwing the puck on net and Troy Brouwer has cut through the slot taking Douglas Murray through the slot with him.
![]() |
You can see here that Nabokov slams the pads shut, but it's too late, the puck is already through him. He's still at the top of his crease but moving down and back. The end result is the picture at the top of the article and it led to the goalie being blamed for being too deep in his positioning, when he was not.
Before blaming Nabokov, NBC Color Announcer Ed Olczyk immediately jumped on Dan Boyle and Murray for giving the shooter too much space, but that's not right either. As we can see in the next picture, this goal is on either Patrick Marleau or Dany Heatley.
![]() |
As the Blackhawks rushed into the zone, Joe Thornton is back and marking Marian Hossa, the first man up the ice. Douglas Murray has backed off a bit, but he's clearly marked Troy Brouwer. Dan Boyle has stepped up and decided to take on Duncan Keith. Patrick Marleau and Dany Heatley are not to be found - they are just exiting the Blackhawks end. As the play develops, Brouwer drives the high slot taking Murray with him and Keith drives wide, dropping the puck for Sharp. Thornton recognizes what's happening, but it's too late as Sharp is wide open. The first screengrab shows Thornton getting to the scene three steps too late. Even if Thornton had recognized this earlier, Sharp would have had time to hit a wide open Marian Hossa, Thornton's previous mark, for a one-on-none. I've read a couple of comments that blame Thornton, but the people writing those are out to lunch. The blame here is squarely on Marleau and Heatley for not hustling back into the play.
Watch the entire sequence here.
Scoring Chances for game 30321
For those of you who are new to the concept of tracking scoring chances, 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. Vic Ferrari makes this all possible with his tools to evaluate Corsi, head-to-head ice time and scoring chances.
I'm tracking this series with the Sharks as the home team, so in any unlabeled sequence, the first number is for the Sharks, the second for the Blackhawks.
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 23 | 13 | 15 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
As has become the custom, the Sharks narrowly won the battle at even strength and got the lion's share of the power plays. The Blackhawks muttered about this a bit, but the Sharks winning the power play battle is not news. They are doing it to every team, every game. Unless you can find a grand refereeing conspiracy, the conclusion must be that the Sharks are playing a game that is drawing penalties.
| Team | Period | Time | Note | SJS | CHI | |||||||||||
| SJS | 1 | 18:39 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 7 | 40 | 20 | 36 | 32 | 16 | 4 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 16:49 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 22 | 20 | 19 | 81 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 15:50 | 27 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 60 | 20 | 36 | 32 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
| SJS | 1 | 10:17 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 10 | 22 | 81 | 4 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 8:41 | GOAL | 12 | 19 | 15 | 22 | 60 | 20 | 19 | 81 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v4 | |
| SJS | 1 | 4:15 | 17 | 27 | 39 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 10 | 22 | 81 | 5 | 6 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 1 | 3:55 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 22 | 20 | 11 | 36 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
| CHI | 1 | 1:58 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 19 | 81 | 88 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 1 | 1:40 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 19 | 81 | 88 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 19:17 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 19 | 33 | 88 | 4 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 15:30 | 12 | 19 | 16 | 40 | 60 | 20 | 36 | 33 | 88 | 7 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 15:00 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 40 | 60 | 20 | 36 | 32 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 14:38 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 36 | 32 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 12:16 | GOAL | 12 | 19 | 15 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 10 | 22 | 81 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 |
| CHI | 2 | 11:48 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 19 | 33 | 88 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 11:14 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 19 | 33 | 88 | 4 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 10:01 | 17 | 27 | 39 | 7 | 40 | 20 | 36 | 32 | 16 | 5 | 6 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 8:02 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 10 | 81 | 55 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 2 | 6:42 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 10 | 22 | 81 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 5:06 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 22 | 20 | 19 | 81 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
| SJS | 2 | 4:25 | 27 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 60 | 20 | 11 | 36 | 2 | 5 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
| SJS | 2 | 4:13 | 27 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 60 | 20 | 11 | 36 | 2 | 5 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
| SJS | 2 | 2:08 | 21 | 27 | 39 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 36 | 22 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 2 | 0:02 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 11 | 10 | 22 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 15:58 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 36 | 32 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 15:25 | 17 | 39 | 64 | 7 | 40 | 20 | 10 | 32 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 13:56 | 8 | 27 | 16 | 7 | 40 | 20 | 19 | 33 | 88 | 4 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 8:34 | 17 | 27 | 39 | 7 | 40 | 20 | 11 | 36 | 32 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 7:38 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 22 | 44 | 20 | 10 | 32 | 16 | 2 | 51 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 6:45 | GOAL | 12 | 19 | 15 | 4 | 44 | 20 | 19 | 33 | 88 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 |
| CHI | 3 | 5:00 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 22 | 40 | 20 | 36 | 81 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| CHI | 3 | 4:53 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 10 | 22 | 81 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 4:33 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 11 | 36 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 4:22 | 8 | 16 | 29 | 3 | 22 | 20 | 11 | 36 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 1:10 | 8 | 27 | 16 | 29 | 4 | 22 | 36 | 32 | 16 | 2 | 7 | 31 | 5v5 | |
| SJS | 3 | 0:28 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 15 | 29 | 22 | 11 | 36 | 4 | 5 | 31 | 5v4 | ||
This was a game for those that like to use "momentum" and the newly-coined "push back" as a narrative in hockey. The chances seemed to come in strings, and then the ice would tilt back the other way for a string of chances against.
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | D. MURRAY | 18:56 | 6 | 3 | 0:05 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | R. BLAKE | 17:44 | 5 | 5 | 2:31 | 3 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | N. WALLIN | 10:15 | 2 | 3 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | J. PAVELSKI | 18:21 | 7 | 5 | 4:03 | 4 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | P. MARLEAU | 19:18 | 5 | 6 | 4:40 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | D. HEATLEY | 17:44 | 4 | 6 | 4:53 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | D. SETOGUCHI | 16:17 | 8 | 5 | 2:48 | 3 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | T. MITCHELL | 9:54 | 2 | 2 | 0:07 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. THORNTON | 17:36 | 5 | 6 | 4:44 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | E. NABOKOV | 52:05 | 14 | 13 | 6:43 | 7 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | S. NICHOL | 8:58 | 1 | 0 | 0:11 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | D. BOYLE | 20:50 | 7 | 5 | 5:49 | 5 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | M. MALHOTRA | 13:33 | 4 | 2 | 2:41 | 3 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | R. CLOWE | 18:52 | 7 | 4 | 3:35 | 4 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 39 | L. COUTURE | 9:46 | 3 | 2 | 0:07 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 | K. HUSKINS | 13:44 | 4 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 44 | M. VLASIC | 17:18 | 4 | 6 | 0:13 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 60 | J. DEMERS | 5:55 | 2 | 0 | 2:37 | 4 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 64 | J. McGINN | 7:00 | 0 | 1 | 0:07 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
One thing that bothered me during the game was that the Sharks were underutilizing Logan Couture. I realize that Quenneville was trying to get Toews and Patrick Kane out against him and Malhotra whenever possible, but with the home chance, the Sharks should have been able to find more ice time for Couture. He's won his battles at every turn.
Joe Pavelski played eighteen minutes at even strength, nearly eleven of them against Toews and Kane and went 1/3 against them.
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 2 | D. KEITH | 23:45 | 10 | 9 | 0:00 | 0 | 4 | 3:31 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | N. HJALMARSSON | 17:57 | 2 | 5 | 0:00 | 0 | 4 | 4:21 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | B. SOPEL | 16:25 | 1 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 6 | 4:45 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | J. HENDRY | 7:39 | 1 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | B. SEABROOK | 21:15 | 9 | 9 | 0:00 | 0 | 2 | 2:41 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | P. SHARP | 15:11 | 5 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:51 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | J. MADDEN | 9:07 | 0 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 4 | 3:13 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | A. LADD | 14:31 | 4 | 8 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. TOEWS | 15:48 | 6 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 3 | 3:23 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | T. BROUWER | 12:51 | 3 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:31 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | A. NIEMI | 52:21 | 13 | 15 | 0:00 | 0 | 8 | 7:39 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | K. VERSTEEG | 14:25 | 3 | 6 | 0:00 | 0 | 1 | 1:31 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | D. BYFUGLIEN | 15:36 | 4 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | D. BOLLAND | 15:49 | 2 | 10 | 0:00 | 0 | 5 | 3:01 | 0 | 0 |
| 37 | A. BURISH | 5:40 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 51 | B. CAMPBELL | 17:48 | 3 | 4 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 55 | B. EAGER | 6:27 | 0 | 1 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 81 | M. HOSSA | 15:01 | 6 | 3 | 0:00 | 0 | 3 | 2:48 | 0 | 0 |
| 88 | P. KANE | 16:30 | 6 | 2 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 | 0:00 | 0 | 0 |
Quenneville's work to hide Toews worked well, as his 6/1 is lights out for a playoff game. Using Dave Bolland in a defensive role against Pavelski and Thornton might not be the best idea. Of his fifteen minutes of even strength time, twelve of them were against the Joes, and Bolland took it on the chin.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow. This is an awesome amount of detail. I’m glad you’re doing this, because it’s really useful. Thanks guys.
The curse shall be ended.
Battle of California
I disagree on the removal of all blame from Nabby. Where’s his stick discipline on that save selection? The correct answer is flapping in the wind to his right. A properly executed ButterFly save through a screen is often a “traditional” flared BF with the arms tight and hands and wrists open to take all of the low part of the net and cover as much territory up high as possible. I know Nabby is somewhat unconventional in his save selection and his style is more upright at times, but had he executed a BF or maintained his stick discipline on a 5-hole shot, then maybe that surprise shot hits him instead of squeaking through.
I could be wrong since I can’t see a good replay anywhere that isn’t shot from the Goodyear blimp circling the arena, but unless that shot trickled under his arm, I still think he should have gotten a piece of it with a properly positioned stick.
You’re 100% correct on his positioning being sound and the fact that the lack of a back-check created the situation in the first place.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
He was screened, as Zona (and one of the NBC commentators too) mentioned.
If he puts his stick flat on the ice to protect his five-hole and it goes in blocker side, we’d be criticizing him for letting it in blocker side. And it wouldn’t change the fact that he didn’t see the shot, he just guessed at that point.
Yeah, but it wasn’t blocker, it was 5-hole and his execution was sloppy in my opinion, even for guessing. All save selection through screens is guessing by nature. My contention isn’t that he guessed wrong (he didn’t, he’s attempting what appears to be a narrow BF save), it’s that his execution was lacking.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
I’m not a goalie, nor do I pretend to know what goes on back there, but is dropping to the butterfly the correct technical move in this case? It would seem to me that a shot from that distance is going to go high, not low, and that it would be best to stay up.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Yes it is.
The issue is if he didn’t know the shot was taken and tried to make a reaction save at the last second. If he knew the shot was being taken, he blew the save. If it was a last second reaction it’s more forgivable.
Ideally on a screen you are supposed to drop to the butterfly and take as much net away as possible. On a wristshot though, it’s difficult to know that a shot has been taken.
My issue with Nabokov in this instance is that he doesn’t really look like he’s trying very hard to see the puck (ie moving his head to the side), almost as if he’s not expecting a shot.
My issue with Nabokov in this instance is that he doesn’t really look like he’s trying very hard to see the puck (ie moving his head to the side), almost as if he’s not expecting a shot.
I still haven’t been able to find the behind the net shot, but moving his head would have done nothing except put him out of position. Sharp was tucked in behind the two players so well.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Good point. Jerking your head around to see past a screen never does a goalie any good.
The curse shall be ended.
Battle of California
It might, but in that case, I don’t know. I’m not a goalie, and I’m not all googly-eyed, like a goalie, so I don’t know. I just don’t see how he plays that differently.
The blame is squarely on Marleau and Heatley. Everyone does their jobs there (especially Thornton) except the wings.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I’m not debating the relative guilt of Marleau and Heatley, just that perhaps Nabby’s somewhat unconventional save selection didn’t do him any favors. As a goalie, I always blame my wings.
As for the proper save selection on a screen shot, it almost ALWAYS butterfly and get as big as you can.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
As for the proper save selection on a screen shot, it almost ALWAYS butterfly and get as big as you can.
This.
If it comes in high, your in deep doo-doo anyway because if you can’t see it, it’s near impossible to get your hands out/up fast enough to do anything about it.
Camp Tortorella - Where Vomit is a Mainstay
by George E. Ays on May 18, 2010 9:43 AM MDT up reply actions
Sure it does. You don’t need to jerk your head anywhere, but you do need to find the open spots between the players to find the puck.
These aren’t doors, they are people… there are areas to look (i.e. between legs).
I don’t think you’ll find a goalie coach in the world who would argue that looking around a screen to find the puck is a bad idea. It doesn’t mean moving your whole body, off to the side, but a quick peek around a set of legs is pretty standard practice.
I spent a good two hours looking, and I haven’t been able to find a single authority on goaltending (either on youtube or text) that suggests that looking around a screen has somehow become taboo for a goaltender.
In fact, what I’ve found is that it’s standard practice.
That’s because it is the standard practice. When you feel the shot being taken (body language, sound, etc.) and you can’t see the shot, take away the bottom of the net (highest percentage of goals scored there) and try to cover up as much up high as possible.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
Not to beat this into the ground, but when I’m talking about jerking your head around I’m talking about on a play like this, where it’s in motion, rather than a typical screen with someone who is somewhat stationary in front of a goaltender. In the latter case, it’s smart to try and look around somewhat, but in this case there was no time to spend looking around the defensemen because Nabby had to be ready in case of the pass.
The curse shall be ended.
Battle of California
How can he be ready for the pass if he can’t see the puck?
His first priority is the shot, and he needs to see the puck. If you can find anything to support your case I’d be willing to hear it, but I don’t think you can.
The goalie has to do something to keep his eye on the puck, whether it’s change the level of his crouch (higher or lower) or to look around the screen.
Unless the puck was 4-5 inches off the ice… then the stick being square isn’t going to help you at all, it’s a matter of getting the legs closed in time (whether by going down or just shutting them).
But a square stick during a butterfly execution covers that area of low ice that is the last to be covered by the collapsing knees. That’s why it’s called stick discipline and not stick WHOGAS.
From the photo, it appears the shot was along the ice and five-hole. Then a lack of stick discipline while executing a narrow BF (like Nabby is doing in the photo) is a mistake in execution. Like Derek and others have said, there isn’t good video or photographic evidence to discuss, so I’m only going off of what little evidence we do have to peruse.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
A shot 4-5 inches above the ice is over the stick though, which is why it’s up to the collapsing pads to make the save.
I’m not arguing that it was poorly executed or that the puck was/wasn’t along the ice, only that on a shot at that height your stick position isn’t going to help you.
Wasn’t the shot almost 2 feet above the ice? I’m pretty sure it went in right underneath Nabby’s cup.
I blame Nabby on the goal because he was backing up really, really fast for some reason. He starts above the crease but by the time the puck gets to him he’s almost at the goal line. When you’re backing up that fast you can’t react as quickly and Nabby ended up getting handcuffed by the shot.
And yeah, his stick’s out of position. That’s not a surprise though, Nabby is a weirdo.
The West Coast is the Best Coast.
If it was 2 feet off the ice then his stick positioning is almost irrelevant.
I think the whole backing up thing is not quite accurate. I think what happened was is he picked up the shot late, then reacted to it. From the looks of it, he slid back a good foot and a half after he went down. It was almost like he sort of threw himself at the puck in a reactionary move as opposed to anything else.
Tough to see on those replays though.
As someone who believes in the depth of the Chicago forwards, I’m not surprised they’re not playing the fourth line all that much on the road. It’s just asking to get caught. Their strength lies in having three very good forward lines at EV. If you’ve got that, why would you play your fourth line a bunch? There’s usually only about fifty minutes of hockey at EV in any given game so a 15/15/15/5 split seems good to me. Quenneville was also extremely aggressive on the road against Vancouver, trying to get Bolland v. Sedin. It will be interesting to see if McClellan continues to accept that match-up like Vigneault did. On defence, I’m sure they’d like to give the 6th defender more ice but Jordan Hendry just isn’t very good.
It will be interesting to see if McClellan continues to accept that match-up like Vigneault did.
I think that McClellan might. Toews was a beautiful 6/1, but Bolland got drilled for a 10/2.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Bolland got smoked in Corsi numbers against the Sedins
Not sure how the scoring chances ended up against them though. But I think Q-Stache is willing to live with this matchup if he can free up Toews/Kane Hossa/Sharp against everyone else.
Also, looking at your numbers, the Toews line out chanced the Thornton line 3-0 at EV when they were on the ice together, so maybe Q is digging too deep in trying to get his match-ups. But Q will keep the Bolland line on Thornton no matter how many chances Big Joe gets until that line proves it can put the puck in the net. Same thing he did against the Sedins.
And another note, I fault Nabby more for the goal against Buff than I do against Sharp. He has plenty of opportunity to set up (it wasn’t a one-timer like others have said) and was beaten clean from the top of the circle. Although it’s not a horrible goal to give up, that’s a shot you want your goalie to stop.
by EamusCatuli23 on May 18, 2010 9:55 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m going to be citing this article left and right in my Sharks gameday tomorrow, since you guys do all the great work I wish I had the dedication to do.
The curse shall be ended.
Battle of California
After watching six months of 58 point hockey, I’ve actually come to enjoy doing this for each Sharks series. And I think Logan Couture is going to be excellent because of the time I’ve spent watching him.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
He definitely looked brilliant at times in the Avalanche series. I’m still waiting for him to prove it against tougher competition, but I agree he has the skills.
The curse shall be ended.
Battle of California
Given their cap situation, it looks like he’ll get the chance to prove it next year.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Great stuff Derek, thanks for this.
I only got to catch the third thanks to a kids birthday party. Host was a Leafs’ fan. I asked him if he knew the score in the game and he said ‘what game?’ Then I realized that as a Leafs’ fan he probably is not aware of hockey in May.
Ba dum ba.
I thought that the Hawks carried the play in the third for the most part. I’m interested to see if that is a sign of things to come or if there’s not much to it other than the ebb and flow of the game. I’ll be able to get all of Tuesday’s game in – looking forward to it.
I would say that the Hossa/Sharp improvement is a good sign for the Hawks but I’ll be interested to see how Quennville runs against Thornton next game. I like Bolland and company but it might be better to spread the pain out a little. Buddy was on for two thirds of the chances against at evens.
Yikes!
Great stuff Derek, thanks for this.
Any time, sir.
I would say that the Hossa/Sharp improvement is a good sign for the Hawks but I’ll be interested to see how Quennville runs against Thornton next game. I like Bolland and company but it might be better to spread the pain out a little. Buddy was on for two thirds of the chances against at evens.
Yikes!
The Hawks are sacrificing Bolland for Toews and it worked out to be a draw in game one. Pavelski got him 3/0 and got Sharp 3/1. If Toews is 6/1 but Bolland is 2/10, who wins?
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
How did Hossa do? I think that’s what it comes down to. Chicago has three lines they think are very good and will try to use Bolland’s against the toughs because the other two have better offensive skills. Bolland wasn’t very successful in this one but he had games like that against Vancouver too. If he does well, it gives the Hawks a great chance to have one of their two lines run up the chance differential for the team.
by Scott Reynolds on May 18, 2010 9:05 AM MDT up reply actions
I saw the back half of this one, and I thought it was the best Hossa has looked in any of the Hawk games I’ve seen. When he’s on his game the guy is a checking demon, and the rest seems to flow out of that.
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 May 18, 2010 11:37 AM MDT up reply actions
I’m confused – is scoring chances the same as Corsi? If not – how are they different? Thank you!
Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin
"It's getting harder and harder to differentiate between schizophrenics and people talking on a cell phone. It still brings me up short to walk by somebody who appears to be talking to themselves." -- Bob Newhart
corsi = shots on goal + missed shots + blocked shots.
Scoring chances are much more subjective, but Derek gives a good definition of scoring chances in his article.
by EamusCatuli23 on May 18, 2010 10:06 AM MDT up reply actions
I posted this over at BoC but don’t want us to seem like jerks over here :) so I’ll put it up in case there are other folks with the same question:
Scoring chances (a shot toward the goal from below the top of the FO circle and between the FO dots) and Corsi (goals+saved shots+missed shots+blocked shots) differ in that scoring chances are measuring both quality and quantity while Corsi measures only quantity and is usually used as a proxy for zone time. Over large samples Corsi and scoring chances come together but in small samples the two measures can differ substantially.
In Game One, the Blackhawks won the Corsi battle at EV 73-53 which is a pretty big gap and suggests that, at EV, more of the game was spent in SJ’s zone than in Chi’s zone. However, many of those shot attempts were blocked shots (Chi had ten more shots blocked than SJ) which almost always get passed over when counting scoring chances. Beyond that, so long as you trust Derek’s counting (I do), the Sharks were able to get their shot attempts from higher percentage areas in Game One. Over time, that’s not the kind of thing that teams can do consistently.
by Scott Reynolds on May 18, 2010 11:12 AM MDT up reply actions
This is incredible stuff
As a baseball fan, I truly enjoy the hockey community’s movement towards stats analysis, despite how difficult it is to do so in this type of sport.
Also, the back and forth debate is good stuff, as well. Even with the disagreement, reasoned argument always is beneficial.
As far as the actual game, this does help to clear up a lot of misconceptions. I think some Sharks fans think that, just as you stated here, that the goal was on Nabby and the Dmen. The wingers most likely should bear at least the brunt of the blame, despite said wingers being Marleau and Heatley. On the other hand, it seems some Hawks fans think that Coach Q is not trying to hide Teows from Thornton, which is pretty much the case, and in the end is probably a bad idea.
Thanks for the kind words!
which is pretty much the case, and in the end is probably a bad idea.
It’s going to come down to Hossa’s line
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Which means they’re a lock for the Finals only to lose to Philly to keep Hossa’s curse thriving.
If we don't get our sauce, we ain't watching the game!
That’s the only reason I can find to not root for the Blackhawks to win the cup.
But if they don’t win it this year, they are in for a rocky road ahead with their cap situation.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by 



































