Blackhawks - Sharks Scoring Chances Totals
A very wise man once told me, "You can have the greatest team in the history of hockey, and they can lose in the first round because the other team's goalie plays out of his mind for four games." The converse of what my dad told me is that you can have a fantastic team and lose because your goalie plays like a backup for four games. In the San Jose Sharks case, they lost because their goalie performed like he has since the lockout. It's a shame that it was a sweep, really, because it's pretty clear that these were the two best teams in hockey. Perhaps the Sharks can take the Prince Of Wales Trophy?
The two teams were evenly matched except for that one pesky position. I don't know if the Sharks, their fans or the mainstream media have learned the correct lesson from this playoff run though. The fans are calling for a rebuild and parts of the mainstream media are looking for a big-ticket goaltender. Soon, very soon, executives are going to realize that big contracts for goaltending are not worth it, and that throwing $4,000,000 plus at a goalie with one or two decent years harms their teams in the long run. Until then, we'll have goalies with enormous contracts like Evgeni Nabokov. San Jose's best bet next season? Pay Tomas Greiss and Martin Biron and use the $3,000,000 that's leftover to bolster the rest of the roster.
Scoring Chances for Western Conference Finals,
Games 30321, 30322, 30323, 30324
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 | 27 | 15 | 19 | 15 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 25 | 18 | 14 | 15 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 21 | 23 | 18 | 17 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Totals | 75 | 62 | 53 | 53 | 21 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The chances were 53/53 at even strength -- in a four-game sweep. The Sharks were +13 on special teams -- and got swept.
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 3 | D. MURRAY | 69.33 | 23 | 19 | 0.08 | 0 | 3 | 8.87 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | R. BLAKE | 70.77 | 14 | 18 | 4.35 | 6 | 5 | 13.12 | 1 | 0 |
| 7 | N. WALLIN | 41.20 | 6 | 8 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 2.93 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | J. PAVELSKI | 67.65 | 23 | 18 | 8.82 | 14 | 3 | 8.63 | 1 | 0 |
| 12 | P. MARLEAU | 68.48 | 16 | 19 | 9.93 | 15 | 2 | 11.65 | 1 | 0 |
| 15 | D. HEATLEY | 66.47 | 17 | 17 | 10.35 | 16 | 1 | 3.22 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | D. SETOGUCHI | 62.03 | 23 | 16 | 4.07 | 5 | 0 | 0.60 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | T. MITCHELL | 46.62 | 11 | 11 | 0.12 | 0 | 3 | 6.47 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. THORNTON | 74.33 | 22 | 24 | 10.00 | 15 | 3 | 4.28 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | E. NABOKOV | 198.2 | 48 | 52 | 13.52 | 20 | 9 | 1.62 | 1 | 0 |
| 21 | S. NICHOL | 26.05 | 4 | 6 | 0.18 | 0 | 3 | 5.82 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | D. BOYLE | 79.35 | 28 | 24 | 12.05 | 15 | 4 | 8.57 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | M. MALHOTRA | 48.45 | 9 | 15 | 4.22 | 6 | 3 | 9.27 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | R. CLOWE | 72.18 | 19 | 19 | 4.92 | 6 | 0 | 0.85 | 0 | 0 |
| 39 | L. COUTURE | 44.97 | 16 | 8 | 0.38 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 | K. HUSKINS | 50.22 | 11 | 15 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.72 | 0 | 0 |
| 44 | M. VLASIC | 71.38 | 15 | 17 | 0.98 | 1 | 6 | 13.75 | 1 | 0 |
| 60 | J. DEMERS | 18.72 | 8 | 4 | 2.62 | 6 | 0 | 0.22 | 0 | 0 |
| 64 | J. McGINN | 28.15 | 4 | 5 | 0.12 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0 | 0 |
There are a number of interesting things to talk about here:
- Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, and Dany Heatley were winning the battle at home. The narrative was that Dave Bolland was winning their battle, but as we saw after game two, the narrative often lies. At Chicago, not so much. I'm not sure how much of that was due to being on the road and how much was due to Todd McClellan breaking out the Bass-o-Matic on his lineup in games three and four. I think the series may have turned out differently if McClellan would have left well-enough alone, but he would have been torn apart by the hockey media.
- San Jose's top pairing looks like they fared extremely well against the Hawks, but Douglas Murray and Dan Boyle only spent ~16 minutes against the Jonathan Toews, Dustin Byfuglien and Patrick Kane line.
- Rob Blake and Marc-Edouard Vlasic spent ~40 minutes against the Toews line and the rest of their ice time was distributed close to evenly against Chicago's second and third lines.
- Manny Malhotra was 7/3 at home and 2/12 on the road. His minutes in Chicago were limited almost exclusively to Toews and Patrick Sharp, whereas they were spread among the top three lines at home. He didn't fare well at all. He was skating almost exclusively with Logan Couture and Torrey Mitchell at home and one of McClellan's significant changes at Chicago was moving Malhotra to a line with Marleau and Heatley.
- Speaking of Logan Couture, he's become a personal favorite since I started this project a month ago and he did not disappoint in this series. He was 4/2 at home with Malhotra and Mitchell and he was 12/6 on the road with Thornton. He won the head-to-head battle (however small) against eight of the top nine Chicago forwards.
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 2 | D. KEITH | 93.67 | 25 | 30 | 13.97 | 7 | 11 | 8.05 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | N. HJALMARSSON | 68.78 | 21 | 13 | 0.00 | 0 | 8 | 6.32 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | B. SOPEL | 67.78 | 13 | 12 | 1.22 | 0 | 15 | 7.12 | 0 | 0 |
| 6 | J. HENDRY | 24.62 | 3 | 7 | 0.20 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | B. SEABROOK | 85.65 | 24 | 31 | 9.93 | 4 | 8 | 7.42 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | P. SHARP | 52.03 | 13 | 12 | 13.12 | 3 | 6 | 2.43 | 0 | 0 |
| 11 | J. MADDEN | 45.50 | 8 | 17 | 0.60 | 0 | 5 | 5.83 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | A. LADD | 37.33 | 12 | 17 | 0.88 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | J. TOEWS | 58.33 | 21 | 11 | 23.22 | 6 | 8 | 5.48 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | T. BROUWER | 45.53 | 8 | 11 | 8.62 | 3 | 1 | 1.03 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | A. NIEMI | 200.8 | 53 | 53 | 24.42 | 9 | 21 | 14.45 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | K. VERSTEEG | 65.65 | 17 | 21 | 8.58 | 3 | 7 | 3.23 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | D. BYFUGLIEN | 57.03 | 16 | 10 | 14.42 | 6 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | D. BOLLAND | 69.67 | 14 | 24 | 1.58 | 0 | 5 | 5.38 | 0 | 0 |
| 37 | A. BURISH | 22.88 | 4 | 6 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 51 | B. CAMPBELL | 62.05 | 20 | 13 | 11.65 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 55 | B. EAGER | 26.92 | 4 | 7 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 81 | M. HOSSA | 56.65 | 19 | 12 | 9.45 | 3 | 5 | 5.00 | 0 | 0 |
| 88 | P. KANE | 63.62 | 20 | 10 | 13.98 | 6 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 |
The Hawks stuck with the hard match of Dave Bolland on Joe Thornton for the entire series. It paid dividends at home when McClellan started bouncing Thornton around as Bolland got the best of him any time he was on the ice except with Couture and Devin Setoguchi. And the juggling ended with both the Toews and Sharp lines beating the heck out of the Malhotra - Marleau - Heatley line.
Of note:
- Niklas Hjalmarsson played the series with both Brent Sopel and Brian Campbell and it didn't matter much to him. He wasn't seeing much of Joe Thornton, but his managed minutes look excellent by this count.
- Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook were on the ice for 62 of Thornton's 74 minutes in this series.
- The story of the series somehow remains Dave Bolland, even though he was getting beaten up pretty badly on the chances sheet.
Below are the chances broken out per 15 minutes of even strength time:
| # | Player | ESTOI | CF/15 | CA/15 |
| 3 | D. MURRAY | 69.33 | 4.98 | 4.11 |
| 4 | R. BLAKE | 70.77 | 2.97 | 3.82 |
| 7 | N. WALLIN | 41.20 | 2.18 | 2.91 |
| 8 | J. PAVELSKI | 67.65 | 5.10 | 3.99 |
| 12 | P. MARLEAU | 68.48 | 3.50 | 4.16 |
| 15 | D. HEATLEY | 66.47 | 3.84 | 3.84 |
| 16 | D. SETOGUCHI | 62.03 | 5.56 | 3.87 |
| 17 | T. MITCHELL | 46.62 | 3.54 | 3.54 |
| 19 | J. THORNTON | 74.33 | 4.44 | 4.84 |
| 20 | E. NABOKOV | 198.22 | 3.63 | 3.94 |
| 21 | S. NICHOL | 26.05 | 2.30 | 3.45 |
| 22 | D. BOYLE | 79.35 | 5.29 | 4.54 |
| 27 | M. MALHOTRA | 48.45 | 2.79 | 4.64 |
| 29 | R. CLOWE | 72.18 | 3.95 | 3.95 |
| 39 | L. COUTURE | 44.97 | 5.34 | 2.67 |
| 40 | K. HUSKINS | 50.22 | 3.29 | 4.48 |
| 44 | M. VLASIC | 71.38 | 3.15 | 3.57 |
| 60 | J. DEMERS | 18.72 | 6.41 | 3.21 |
| 64 | J. McGINN | 28.15 | 2.13 | 2.66 |
And Chicago's numbers. Notice Bolland - he was giving up two more chances than he was creating...per game.
| Player | ESTOI | CF/15 | CA/15 |
| D. KEITH | 93.67 | 4.00 | 4.80 |
| N. HJALMARSSON | 68.78 | 4.58 | 2.83 |
| B. SOPEL | 67.78 | 2.88 | 2.66 |
| J. HENDRY | 24.62 | 1.83 | 4.27 |
| B. SEABROOK | 85.65 | 4.20 | 5.43 |
| P. SHARP | 52.03 | 3.75 | 3.46 |
| J. MADDEN | 45.50 | 2.64 | 5.60 |
| A. LADD | 37.33 | 4.82 | 6.83 |
| J. TOEWS | 58.33 | 5.40 | 2.83 |
| T. BROUWER | 45.53 | 2.64 | 3.62 |
| A. NIEMI | 200.87 | 3.96 | 3.96 |
| K. VERSTEEG | 65.65 | 3.88 | 4.80 |
| D. BYFUGLIEN | 57.03 | 4.21 | 2.63 |
| D. BOLLAND | 69.67 | 3.01 | 5.17 |
| A. BURISH | 22.88 | 2.62 | 3.93 |
| B. CAMPBELL | 62.05 | 4.83 | 3.14 |
| B. EAGER | 26.92 | 2.23 | 3.90 |
| M. HOSSA | 56.65 | 5.03 | 3.18 |
| P. KANE | 63.62 | 4.72 | 2.36 |
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Comments
The media loves to make up stories, so this whole Bolland thing will have legs for a while.
I really like Bolland, I wanted him over Schremp back in 04. He’s a smart hockey player who can play at both ends. Sure he got over matched by Thornton (who doesn’t), but he’ll be a good one in a couple of years.
But yeah, he got run over a bit in this series, and he’s definitely not the hero he’s being made out to be.
Run over?
Bolland: 81:06 TOI, 2-1-3, +4
Thornton: 96:04 TOI, 0-1-1, -5
Yes, scoring chances show a somewhat different story, but those are not the boxcars of a guy who got run over. At least, Bolland’s aren’t.
In a not-unrelated matter, Antti Niemi outplayed a big-money, big-rep goalie for the second series running.
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 26, 2010 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions
You’re not this obtuse. Yes, both of us understand what the scoreboard said. The scoreboard also showed a four-game sweep. Did the play on the ice look like a four game sweep? DB and I clearly understand when the box scores say, we don’t need to see it, or hear the story. But for the Sharks bad luck and crappy goaltending, the story wouldn’t exist. I’d prefer to look at what actually happened in the series to understand it.
I can’t believe you’re making the argument that, prior to this season, Robert Nilsson was Edmonton’s best player.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
No I’m not. Read my comment from the bottom up.
You’re the one talking about narrative. The story of the series is the exact same as the scoreboard, that the Hawks SWEPT the Sharks. Like their teams, Bolland may not have outplayed Thornton, but he outscored him. It’s even supported by the statistics! Ergo, there’s your narrative.
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 26, 2010 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m more interested in the play behind the play, as it were. Were the series to be played in this exact fashion 100 times, with Thornton +8 in chances against Bolland over four games, how many times do you think Bolland comes out on top?
Luck’s a bitch sometimes. Bolland lost the battle but hit a couple of hard sixes.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Except here’s the thing: the series was only played once. The other 99 series are a fantasy. Interesting to ponder, but they don’t change what really happened in this universe.
Besides, scoring chances, like shots or Corsi, aren’t created equal. Ultimately it comes down to execution, which Bolland delivered while Big Joe didn’t.
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 26, 2010 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions
No they don’t change… but I mean it’s the same thing that applied to the Habs in the first 2 rounds or the Avalanche in the first 3 games against the Sharks.
The whole Bolland delivered while Big Joe didn’t sort of misses the point. Bolland didn’t stop Thornton, he didn’t outplay him. He got better bounces at both ends of the ice. I can recognize that and accept it, I have no issues with that, but it is what it is.
Much like the Habs weren’t keeping everyone to the outside and limiting the good chances against the Caps and Pens. You can play like the better team and lose. You can play like the better player and end up on the negative side.
While ultimately the end result is what matters, I still think you need to look at the process or else you’ll be in the same situation next time and wonder why you came out on the short end. I don’t think hockey does this enough.
Still don't understand...
… why Bolland was getting all the love and not Keith and Seabrook.
In baseball it’s nice to know how hard a player is hitting the ball when he is going 0 for 12. If he is hitting line drives it’s just bad luck. Not making much contact is another story.
This scoring chances is really helpful in looking at Hossa. He played a good series he just wasn’t getting the results that Toews was getting…
While ultimately the end result is what matters, I still think you need to look at the process or else you’ll be in the same situation next time and wonder why you came out on the short end. I don’t think hockey does this enough.
This statement I accept wholeheartedly, and I realize that’s what Derek and Scott in particular have been doing here during the playoffs. Solid observation and analysis which adds real context to what really happened out there, even as it doesn’t change the outcome. Perhaps the best narrative of all would be explaining why what “should” have happened, didn’t happen.
I would suggest the answer to that question almost always contains the word “goaltending”.
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 27, 2010 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Will this do?
A very wise man once told me, “You can have the greatest team in the history of hockey, and they can lose in the first round because the other team’s goalie plays out of his mind for four games.” The converse of what my dad told me is that you can have a fantastic team and lose because your goalie plays like a backup for four games. In the San Jose Sharks case, they lost because their goalie performed like he has since the lockout. It’s a shame that it was a sweep, really, because it’s pretty clear that these were the two best teams in hockey. Perhaps the Sharks can take the Prince Of Wales Trophy?
by Passive Voice on May 27, 2010 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, that more or less covers it. Darn, that Derek guy is pretty good with a narrative, what?
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 27, 2010 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The shitty part, if you’re a Sharks fan, is that it wasn’t dumb luck, like Halak stealing games. It was just Nabokov being himself.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I didn’t even look at the boxscores or scoring chance numbers (HTH or otherwise).
Aside from the 2 goals Bolland scored, what I remembered most about him this series was everytime I saw him he was getting the puck out of his end and changing. He seemed to be spending a lot of time in his own zone and not enough elsewhere.
It only stood out to me because all of the other Hawks lines seemed to be carrying their weight (and in some cases) carrying the play.
Sweep remorse
It’s a shame that it was a sweep, really, because it’s pretty clear that these were the two best teams in hockey.
No doubt. Even Game 4 was damn close and entertaining. This was my favorite series of the whole playoffs, and I only got four games of it, and it will go down in history as one of the typical media narratives that it wasn’t, sadly.
Lighthouse Hockey: Playing the NHL Lotto
after these playoffs i am convinced of the over-rated nature of elite goaltending. A really good defense with avergae goaltender can take u places!
I’m not… both Niemi and Leighton have played very well.
Elite goaltending is essential. That being said, just because you don’t have a goalie who’s elite year in and year out doesn’t mean you can’t have one for a 15 game stretch in the playoffs.
Niemi has a .921 sv% in the playoffs so far.
Philly has a team sv% of .929.
Both teams have gotten here because round after round they’ve won the goaltending matchup.
Your general statement is right… you don’t need the big name big money goaltender… but you do need a guy to play like that to have success in the playoffs.
i guess i should have said elite goaltender and not goaltending. Of course without halak We might have been seeing a different match-up.
elite goaltender
To me it is more a question of the modern day salary cap. You can get a bigger bang for your salary cap buck paying for the D-Men in front of the goaltender than paying for the goaltender, himself…
Truth is it probably has always been more important, it’s just more obvious now with the salary cap.
http://www.coppernblue.com/2009/05/love-me-tender.html
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=780372
One of Pierre McGuire, Doug Wilson, or “West Islander” has been smoking crack.
I don’t know.. I see some of the points of this article, but I also see some flaws, and I sense that the author is maybe a Sharks fan or just dislikes the Blackhawks because he’s too damn smart with statistics to make such a bad mistake for any reason other than emotional bias.
Bolland did get outchanced… but there’s two huge things you’re missing:
1) Bolland’s line isn’t meant to be an offensive powerhouse, so why are you comparing Thornton’s lines scoring chances against Bolland’s as a way of determining how well they played defensively? This argument seems flawed.
2) Following #1 – wouldn’t a better statistic be to see how much Thornton’s line outchanced other teams “shutdown” lines compared to the Blackhawks shutdown line?
Finally, Bolland also scored a couple of clutch goals this series at critical points in the game, which is a big part of why he’s being given hero status along with Byfuglien… Granted, this has little to do with his defensive prowess, but it certainly fuels the media’s positive thoughts of him.
and I sense that the author is maybe a Sharks fan or just dislikes the Blackhawks
You’re on a site unfortunately dedicated to…the Oilers. I neither like the Sharks (except for Couture now after tallying these chances) nor hate the Blackhawks. I’m simply counting chances as a way to advance the scoring chances project that Dennis King, Vic Ferrari and Tyler Dellow started.
1) Bolland’s line isn’t meant to be an offensive powerhouse, so why are you comparing Thornton’s lines scoring chances against Bolland’s as a way of determining how well they played defensively? This argument seems flawed.
Because scoring chances generate goals. Outchancing means outscoring. Goals win games. What good is a defensive line if they can’t stop the opponent from creating scoring chances? Toews and Kane may not be great defenders, but if they are outchancing the other team’s best lines, does it matter?
2) Following #1 – wouldn’t a better statistic be to see how much Thornton’s line outchanced other teams "shutdown" lines compared to the Blackhawks shutdown line?
Why is this a relevant comparison?
reason other than emotional bias.
I think a Hawks fan is going to have to come up with more evidence than this to be able to claim emotional bias. This is the third series that I’ve tracked and in two of them, one set of fans didn’t like what the numbers were showing and claimed that I “hated” their team. The chances don’t hate you, don’t hate the chances.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.

by 


























