Blackhawks 4 Flyers 3 - Game 6 Scoring Chances
The Edmonton Oilers have won the Stanley Cup five times. But the last time they won it, I was six years old and I remember 1990 about as well as I remember 1984, which is to say that I remember the Cup wins fondly - it's part of the institutional memory of the hockey community I belong to after all - but I don't remember living it. But 2006, that I lived. The experience strikes me as being extremely similar to what Flyer fans are went through over the season right down to the presence of Chris Pronger as the team's star. It was a wonderful time, a magical and unexpected run through the playoffs that ended just short of glory. For those of you who are invested, you'll remember both the weeks of joy and the heart-wrenching conclusion for a long time to come (Aside: Cam. Fucking. Ward.). So congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks and especially to Marian Hossa who deserves it more than anybody but you'll need to forgive me if the picture I can most relate to from last night is the one pictured above.
Every year at this time I think of Rem Murray. Murray came back to play hockey for a chance at the Cup after coming out of an injury-induced retirement. He started in the AHL but managed to snag a spot with the Oilers just before the playoffs. The decision to play cost Murray his million-dollar insurance policy but the man just wanted to play. The problem was, he was never all that good to begin with and through that playoff run, it was clear his days in the NHL would last as long as the Oilers did that Spring. It was his last chance and he knew it as well as anybody. Watching his face as the camera panned the Oilers' bench after the final horn sounded on that Game Seven loss... even the camera man had to turn away. The poor bastard is now a point-per game man in the Italian league. Way to love hockey, Rem!
I don't know who the Flyers' Rem Murray is or even if you have one but as a supporter of a team with Cups in its past but not so much in mine, I can relate to your mixture of pain and joy. And because we can do this one together and with conviction: Andrew. Fucking. Ladd. Scoring chances and analysis after the jump.
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 scripts.
The numbers have Philadelphia getting the better of the chances in the first period but we all know that's probably not the best reflection of how this thing went down. Chicago was dominant territorially but it seemed like from the outset they'd decided that more goals would come by getting more rubber on net from poor angles than by trying to get into better scoring position and, in so doing, risk losing the puck. Sigh. That overtime goal proved somebody was on the money with that strategy. That said, the play was a lot more even for the rest of the game and the Flyers looked like the better team in overtime.
Joel Quenneville continued with the strategy he used in Game Four combined with the lineup he used in Game Five. The Dave Bolland line - and Kris Versteeg's scoring chance numbers tell you just how well they did - didn't check any one group in particular (possibly because the Richards line is always dangerous but the Briere line was killing them) and instead opted to give him as many defensive zone starts as he could which naturally pairs him up against the offensive players on the Flyers. Patrick Kane's group was at the other end of the spectrum, soaking up more than their share of the offensive zone starts, and they made some hay with the ice time.
On the Philly side, Chris Pronger had a great game, except for the fact that he took those two minor penalties in the first period. I have no idea why Peter Laviolette was tinkering so much during the game but I did find it odd that Arron Asham was sat down in favour of Darroll Powe, who was on the ice for the game's last goal. The line of Powe, Simon Gagne and James Van Riemsdyk was actually pretty decent but it just seemed like such an odd departure from what he'd been doing in the past. I guess he just felt like Gagne and Asham weren't going while Giroux and Powe were and so the changes were made but that kind of switching mid-game to lines that haven't been together all playoffs seems like it's begging for a miscommunication.
In the Highest Heaven
3. Jeff Carter - I think that I'm the opposite of most fans in that the vast majority of the time I give credit to guys for getting chances rather than crucifying them for not being able to finish. That chance with about a buck and a half to go in the third period was a beauty but Carter just couldn't elevate the puck quite enough to find twine. What a tough year for Carter though. Flying to Vancouver for the Olympics only to get cut and then losing in the Stanley Cup Finals. Talk about highs and lows.
2. Marian Hossa - The scoring chances don't scream "Awesome Night!" but Hossa was great again. He and Toews should be a scary combination power v. power, especially if they get to play with another good player. Even with Tomas Kopecky they looked dominant at times tonight. He led the team with a +10 Corsi and also drew two penalties, the first of which came through nothing but hard work. I said it once already, but this is the one player I'm most happy won the Cup.
1. Patrick Kane - It's not every day that you get to score a goal to win the Stanley Cup. But even setting the goal aside, Kane had a strong game with two assists in addition to the game-winner. He was effective with Andrew Ladd and Patrick Sharp for most of the night, but was good enough to earn some shifts on other lines as well. The winning goal wasn't overly impressive but the stick-handling that came before it was. There just aren't too many players who can jive with the puck and be effective against a defender as good as Kimmo Timonen. Kane has a long way to go before he's a complete player, but as a pure offence guy, he's already really fun to watch.
In the Depths of the Pit
3. Matt Carle - I didn't much care for his game tonight. The second goal seemed to be created partially because Carle didn't trust that Krajicek had his man. Thus, Carle moved over to take care of Krajicek's assignment and left Sharp all alone in front. It's a goal that Leighton likely could have had, but Carle also could have played that quite a bit better. When the Philly PA announced the starting defenders as "Chris Pronger accompanied by Matt Carle" I thought it was pretty fitting. Carle is the Virgil to Chris Pronger's Million Dollar Man.
2. Braydon Coburn - He had some serious trouble in front of the net on two of the goals against. The first came on the penalty kill when Dustin Byfuglien was able to stand in front and collect the puck without anyone touching him. Coburn was aware that Blair Betts no longer had his stick and probably should have been more aggressive with his coverage, knowing that no help was on the way. On the other, Andrew Ladd just made a great tip, but that tip was made possible because Coburn was following his man without battling him. You need to make sure, especially as a shot is coming, that the offensive player doesn't have complete control of his stick.
1. Michael Leighton - I don't know that this needs anything in the way of explanation. I'm sure Leighton feels Jim-Joyce-level horrible about that game-winner. With Brian Boucher already under contract for next season, it will be interesting to see what becomes of Leighton.
Note to Readers: I'll have a series review that compiles all of the scoring chance numbers from the series up on Saturday morning.
0 recs |
54 comments
|
Comments
Muttering to themselves...
When Kane’s goals went in one of my thoughts was "what are the C&B guys going to think about that? :)
I figured you guys would be muttering to yourselves “I know Kane’s shot was a goal, I know it won the Stanley Cup for the Chicago BlackHawks but I refuse to count that shot as a ‘scoring chance’!”
I’m glad that you did, I’m pretty sure Derek wouldn’t have…
In any event I have come to the conclusion that any time Patrick Kane shoots the puck it IS a scoring chance.
Dunno about Scott, but to me a non-scoring chances goal is, say, if Hartnell doesn’t touch the puck on Phi’s third goal.
But after reading that Jim Corsi interview, I guess I could be convinced not to count a goal from outside the perimeter as a chance.
That goal, though, is a pretty good indication as to why I don’t trust much the Play by Play x-y position data; you look at the chart and not only is the whole thing upside down, but they have Kane scoring from the board when, looking at the video, you realize he actually was below the circle but almost in line with the faceoff dot.
I mean, this is the most important goal of the year and they get it wrong by a mile.
The Philadelphia scorer is very inconsistent with regard to shot distance. Or at least he was over the last two rounds of the playoffs (as I’m sure you noticed). I also pretty much always count goals as scoring chances and I think Derek likely would’ve counted that one. He was just angry with Nabokov because he grew attached to Couture and didn’t want the kid to get eliminated :)
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions
gmh over at SCH has made this observation
that the scorers in general have been awful at recording shot locations correctly… and that yes, the chart is flipped — how can they get something so simple so wrong!?!?!
I remember Gabe looking at it in a post a while back, and basically showing that the NHL’s scorers, as a collective, are stoned out of their Goddamned minds when they record their distances. Or watching through a fish-eye lens. From Jupiter.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
All analysis aside, that was a fucking fantastic game to watch last night. Easily the best of the series. I’d use the tape of this game to sell people on hockey.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
in the first 2 and half periods it always looked like Philly entered the zone and always gained a good scoring chance. Puck would be in thier zone for a long time, but they would get to Hawk zone and gain 2 or 3 really good chances in a row.
It was a really odd game that way. Chicago would keep the puck deep for long stretches and just throw everything to the net. Then Philadelphia comes back and gets about twenty seconds but often gets a nice shot toward the goal. The Flyers might’ve been better off hitting the net on more of those chances though. They missed the net A LOT.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Kind of begs the question for me
Is it more important to make the shots you get on goal to be quality chances, or is it more important to just hit the net in the first place?
The Derek-signal!
Also, I assume the guys missing the net are just trying to hit their spot, though obviously the goalie can’t screw up and let in a goal if your shot misses the net, so probably guys should try to miss on the right side if you will, sort of like putting.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Yep
Truly begs the question. Prepare for the wrath of Derek.
I think I’m going to start warning people that do that.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
That is raising the question, not begging the question!
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Thanks for all of this work Scott, great stuff.
A lot of fun last night. The move to put Toews and Hossa together was a stroke of genius. Essentially when they were on the ice the puck was in Philly’s end and there wasn’t much the Flyers could do but hang on. I thought that Sharp/Kane/Ladd had an excellent game as well. The Bolland line, not so much, but they did survive for the most part.
Exciting to see the Cup go to Chicago. A very very satisfying playoffs this year.
Yeah, that Bolland line got drilled again, but they really did start in their own end a bunch. It doesn’t make up the whole difference of course, but it’s at least a bit of an excuse. I know it’s probably not the time to be talking this way but if they can’t move the fatso contracts (Huet and Campbell) then I think the guys to go have to be the guys getting the pump in these playoffs, i.e. Bolland and Byfuglien.
I totally agree about the playoffs; they were great this year.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for all the hard work!
Really appreciated you doing this. I’ll admit, one of the ’Hawks commenters said something along the lines of “if we win, will the C&B guys think we were the luckiest Cup winner ever?” and that thought did cross my mind at some point.
I think you did a great job with the analysis here though, highlighting when the zone pressure (positive effects of lower quality shots) was more important and when it was actually bad or dangerous (possession-endangering properties of lower quality shots). Hopefully it’s something we can all get to understand better — I guess there’s a whole offseason for this, and I’ll try to read your articles as long as you guys are producing. Great stuff, and thanks again!
There’s no chance that anyone will ever (EVER!) overtake the 2006 Carolina Hurricanes for luckiest Cup champion in the post-expansion era (this comment is only half in jest). Pre-expansion, that last Leafs win looks pretty ridiculous based on their in-season goal differential. Frankly, the Hawks aren’t in the discussion. They were clearly one of the better all season long.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions
The ’86 Habs and the ’93 Habs beg to differ.
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 Jun 10, 2010 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Firstly, you must really hate the Habs. Seriously though, the and 86’ and ‘93 Habs were pretty decent clubs. The ’86 team had a +50 goal differential in the regular season and beat a powerhouse Flames squad in the Finals. the ’93 club was +46 in the regular season and did get a really lucky draw through the playoffs plus that ridiculous streak in overtime, so I think we’ll name them the Habs nominee.
Now, the Hurricanes regular season goal differential was only +34 and that’s with the extremely unbalanced schedule playing in a crap division (they were the only positive goal differential team). In the playoffs, they almost lost to Montreal until the freak Koivu injury, beat a decent New Jersey club, took out a very good Buffalo squad and then got the eight seed (us) out of the much stronger West. Roloson goes down in Game One and they take it in seven.
I don’t think that those Habs teams are clearly worse, though I’ll admit to not remembering a single thing of the ’86 team as it was happening.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
took out a very good Buffalo squad
The Sabres were so banged up. Connolly and Vanek missed 18 playoff games.
Their defense was a mess — Numminen missed 6, Kalinin missed the last 10, Tallinder missed the last 4, and Lydman was playing hurt. Rory Fitzpatrick was taking 18 minutes a night.
Numminen got hurt in game one and was replaced by Doug Janik. Janik was replaced in the second game by Jeff Jillson! Then Tallinder went down in game three and both Janik and Jillson drew in for game four. Lydman was still playing hurt. Numminen tried to come back for game six, but couldn’t play. Fitzpatrick as the fourth dman ended up getting 25 minutes because McKee got hurt.
In game seven, the Sabres went in with only one healthy regular D in Campbell. Lydman was playing hurt and the other four dmen were Fitzpatrick and Janik on the second pairing, and Paetsch and Jillson on the third pairing.
It was by no means a very good Buffalo squad at that point.
Carolina had luck on the ice, luck in goal, and luck with injuries.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
The ‘93 Habs were also on pace for 2nd overall (behind the NHL’s new presumed dynasty, the Penguins) until they fell apart in March.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
The ’86 Habs finished the season with 87 points, and wound up playing teams with 86, 84, and 78 points in the East, as others upset the powerhouses. Then they got the 89-point Flames in the SCF rather than the 119-point Oilers. They never played one team that got as many as 90 points. Find me another example of a Stanley Cup champ that faced such limp competition through four rounds of playoffs.
In ’93 the Habs knocked out a legit contender in the Nordiques (104 points) in Round 1, but after that they never faced a real strong team, as Buffalo (86) took out Boston (109) for them, Islanders (87) knocked out Pittsburgh (119) in a huge upset, while LA (88) ran a series of upsets in the west. That was the year Montreal ran this total shit streak of 10 straight OT wins, when they had a PDO of about 1.50 in OT, or so it seemed. That team got ALL the bounces.
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 Jun 10, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, we could go back and forth on this for a while. Clearly, you like points more for evaluating how strong the teams were in the reg. season as well as the strength of their opposition. I prefer goal differential as the better of the two measures which I think is pretty much standard and that obviously paints the Canadiens in a better light and makes the Hurricanes look worse. So, in order for the discussion to advance we’d need to come to some kind of agreement on weighting the validity of those two measures.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, the playoff seedings are based on points, and they’re the quickest available dataset for what is a relatively minor point. If I was researching for a thesis I could probably do better. I concur with you that goal differential is actually preferable, I actually use that every year when rating the teams for playoff pools …still, the facts remain that other teams took down all the powerhouses in both those years, and ’93 featured that OT shit streak, winning 10 straight against 1000:1 odds. Greasy, garbage goals, too.
Let’s just say that both years I spent the summer thinking Montreal was exceedingly fortunate to walk away with the silverware when they were a long way from the best team in the league in my view. Same goes for the Hurricanes in 2006, they sure belong on the short list of incredibly lucky teams. Fuckers.
I don’t think we’re disagreeing so much as I’m expanding the list to include more than one lucky team.
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 Jun 11, 2010 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Well, obviously, the “correct” winners would’ve been Edmonton and Pittsburgh, respectively, but all things considered, I wouldn’t consider Montreal entirely unworthy. Everyone needs to get lucky to win at some point.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Which brings me back to, you must really hate the Habs. :)
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 11, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
Cam Ward
Proof that luck and more specifically, lucky goaltending can take you far.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
That chance with about a buck and a half to go in the third period was a beauty but Carter just couldn’t elevate the puck quite enough to find twine.
We watched the replay carefully – Carter got it up but Cambell dove his stick in front of the shot to deflect it down to Niemi. It was huge but seemed that only 1 camera angle captured it.
by till_horcoff_is_coach on Jun 10, 2010 8:58 AM PDT reply actions
Here’s the video: skip to 0:33: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_803biLoDg
by till_horcoff_is_coach on Jun 10, 2010 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_803biLoDg#t=0m30s
You can use the #t tag to start a video whenever you’d like.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Do you think he hit that? It looks like Carter shoots it over his stick to me.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions
The Blade shake makes it look pretty clear to me, but it’s not the most conclusive video you could imagine.
by till_horcoff_is_coach on Jun 10, 2010 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, I watched that on HDTV and there was one conclusive angle that Campbell got a piece of that shot. Easily the kind that could have hit his stick and gone up and in, but it kind of went sideways and hit Niemi in the mask and the shoulder. Very fortunate, but Carter did NOT get off an uncontested shot.
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 Jun 10, 2010 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
You guys and your HDTV… pfft… my CBC computer feed is just fine!
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Seriously, and it’s a pet peeve of mine: No, it isn’t.
The Olympics feed was gorgeous (altough still at 30fps instead of 60), the TSN feed is decent, but the CBC feed is atrociously choppy. That or they have some kind of flash player bugs that make it terribly crappy on my mac.
I dabble with video encoding for my job, and I think Hockey is one of the most challenging content to broadcast over current internet streaming technologies. Sad.
It definitely looks more like turd on my Mac than my PC. I thought CBC’s feed was actually WMV.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Thanks, I always forget that trick.
by till_horcoff_is_coach on Jun 10, 2010 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
First, Scott, thanks for these recaps, as they’re easily the best post-game analysis’ on the internet.
Next — have you put up a primer or a step-by-step on how you record scoring chances (something a little more in-depth than you’re opening paragraph)? I’d like to do this next year and talked to Hawerchuk about it, but wanted some more information on just how it’s done.
Honestly, there are a bunch of games already done so if you can find some games archived (I know CBC has some, but don’t know if you have access), look at the definition and just try it. Then compare your results with the people who have been doing it. As a Hawks’ fan – if you have Gamecenter – you may want to go back and note chances for the Hawks’ games that were already scored by Dennis, Derek, JLikens, Kent, Olivier, Slava and myself. It would be like a twenty game apprenticeship if you include the playoffs. If you do a couple and have some questions, definitely send me an email and we can talk about some specific problems you’re having. But the most important thing is to thank Vic over and over for this site which makes the whole endeavor a lot easier.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Should I make apostrophes in non-genitive plurals my tic like “begging the question” is Derek’s? ;)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
http://www.apostropheabuse.com/
:)
"While there's life, there's hope." --Cicero
Science nerd and proud of it!
How did I know a site like that would exist? =)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
First of all, my thanks to you Scott and to Derek for your fantastic work on scoring chances during the playoffs. No mean feat to make C&B a must-visit site in a season our shitty team finished DFL.
The numbers have Philadelphia getting the better of the chances in the first period but we all know that’s probably not the best reflection of how this thing went down.
Wow, that’s a surprise. Shots 17-7 CHI, chances 5-2 PHI? Only 1 chance for the two teams combined at even strength? Chicago was dominating territorially and while I never got the feeling they were generating a whole lot, I didn’t realize it was quite so little.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
I think they settled for less by design, figuring Leighton might collapse a bit more under volume than your average goalie. And… well… we know what happened.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 10, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Let me reflect the sentiment that has already been expressed.
You guys do an incredible job here and Derek has a great team.
Managing Editor - HockeyOutsiders.com
by HockeyOutsiders on Jun 10, 2010 11:58 AM PDT reply actions
1st period Hawk dominance
The numbers have Philadelphia getting the better of the chances in the first period but we all know that’s probably not the best reflection of how this thing went down.
I commend you for making this allowance, rather than simply chalking up such a view to confirmation bias or somesuch.
You probably don’t like me, but I think you guys are doing some cool shit here. Have a nice summer.
Gentlemen! I have invented...this thing!
It’s gonna be funny when every American soccer fan on SBN comes charging over here howling about how Ben’s scored the match against England. All four of them. ;)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
All four American soccer fans, or all four scoring chances in the entire game? :)
by Passive Voice on Jun 10, 2010 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I was going for the fans, but that’ll do, too. =)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
PassiveAggressive Voice strikes again. :) That made me laugh out loud.
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 Jun 11, 2010 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions

by 




























