Blackhawks and Flyers - Series Review
With news pouring in that the Blackhawks have cap problems that are even worse than expected, it's a darn good thing those boys came through and won the Cup now. This new NHL is a bit of an odd duck as your best chance to win it all seems to come before rather than during the prime of your most talented players. As Tyler mentioned a few days ago, let's hope the Oilers are taking notes.
During the regular season the Blackhawks were clearly the better of the two finalists but that considerable gap wasn't obvious to anyone who hadn't followed both teams closely during the season. Indeed, though there were times when the Hawks looked dominant, there were also such times for the Flyers and, on the whole, the teams were very evenly matched. Well, except in goal where Antti Niemi allowed less than three goals only once... and was clearly the better netminder. Crazy stuff. Scoring chances and analysis after the jump.
Scoring Chances (Series Totals)
I'll start by giving the links to each game in case you want to be reminded of any particular contest when looking at the series totals:
Game One
Game Two
Game Three
Game Four
Game Five
Game Six
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.
I wanted to start by looking at special teams since that's where the Flyers have the bulk of their advantage. Coming into the series I thought that special teams would be a big advantage for Chicago and so having it go so far in the other direction was a big surprise. I thought that the Hawks advantage would mostly come through having more opportunities but that just didn't happen. In fact, the Flyers ended the series having played 36:17 on the power play compared to only 30:06 for the Hawks. On top of having more time the Flyers were also more efficient. For every 2:00 of power play time they generated a chance differential of +1.76 whereas the Blackhawks generated a differential of only +1.33 for every two minutes. Both more opportunities and better efficiency is a good combination.
Turning our attention to even strength play, the Hawks did have an advantage at even strength in the first two periods but then pissed it all away and more in the third period and overtime. Some of that has to do with having the lead more often in the third and taking a defensive posture but even when the score tied they were outchanced 12-9 so at least a part of that shift seems to be for reasons other than playing to the score. Looking at the game-by-game totals, you'll notice that the Flyers were even or better at even strength in every game but one. You would think keeping things even or better at even strength combined with a substantial advantage on special teams would have been enough to win but when bad luck and bad goaltending get together they're an awfully powerful force.
Chris Pronger is an absolute beast. He was +3 -13 in EV scoring chances in Game Five and still had over 55% for the series as a whole. If we take out those Game Five results his SC percentage soars to 64.5% which is amazingly good. He was also an entertaining villain, much moreso than I ever remember before and for that the league probably owes him. The NHL doesn't often have a lot of personality but that sure wasn't a problem in the Finals with Pronger standing above the rest. The "other" top Flyer defender, Kimmo Timonen, also had an amazing series. The gap in performance between Timonen and the other non-Pronger defenders is probably best seen in his numbers compared to that of his regular partner, Braydon Coburn. Timonen actually played fewer EV minutes than Coburn but the two were together for about 67% of Coburn's EV TOI (and 79% of Timonen's). When the two were together the Flyers were +20 -16 for scoring chances (55.6%). Timonen with other partners ended up +15 -7 (68.2%), while Coburn was +5 -15 (25.0%). Now, it's quite possible that Timonen played in offensive situations when the two were apart and Coburn in defensive ones but even if that is the case, that is just an enormous difference. With both Pronger and Timonen on the same team, it seems to me the Flyers have some amazing pump and dump opportunities over the next couple of seasons.
The forwards are an interesting study. Both Briere and Richards had lines that were outchancing at even strength and yet both of them were slightly outshot. The goal differential? Yeah, that wasn't the same. Check out this chart of even strength shots and goals (empty-netters excluded):
That's a pretty stark contrast! It's a real shame for the guys at the bottom that the percentages are what usually drive playoff narratives because these guys are getting their asses handed to them in that department. Jeff Carter especially should be lauded for what he was able to accomplish playing through an injury, but sometimes it's difficult to see through a -5, a -6 or, God forbid, a -8. At the other end you've got three guys outscoring so far above their abilities it is to laugh. I know it's hard to part with playoff heroes but this run could really net the Flyers a bounty if they can convince themselves to trade Ville Leino to someone who believes that he's the real deal and move Danny Briere - though he has a NMC - to a GM who feels his playoff performance shows that he's worth his contract.
The Hawks numbers aren't all that flattering. Dave Bolland's line was the main beneficiary of Yahweh's wrath against Carter, Gagne and Richards with flat-out incredible percentages at both ends of the rink. Given their cap crunch, I'd be really tempted to move Dave Bolland on out if there are general mangers who believe in him as much as the general public. If so, he could be moved for real value without much loss in performance. After all, it can't be that hard to find someone who gets the crap kicked out of him while taking on defensive assignments, that is unless his magic is real. Unfortunately, his magic is probably about as real as that of Benny Hinn (I can see Bruce sizzling on the floor now, "Bolland is real!"). Can we nickname Bolland Benny Hinn?
Two guys who should absolutely stick around are Marian Hossa and Patrick Sharp. When they were on a line together, the two of them were fantastic, both in this series and before. Once they were separated, Hossa did a wonderful job with Jonathan Toews while Sharp formed a fantastic line with Patrick Kane and Andrew Ladd. If I were in Stan Bowman's shoes, it's those five forwards that I would be trying my best to keep together. Obviously they'll be keeping more than five of their current guys, but those five form a very nice core.
On defence, the Hawks had a tremendous top pairing and that's about it. Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brian Campbell and Brent Sopel all had some nice moments but for the most part were less than what was needed. Hjalmarsson obviously played a much larger role than what was expected of him so he deserves some credit there but he looked overmatched at times and made some really bad gaffes, especially in Game Four. Sopel had a similarly larger role and didn't struggle quite so badly, but he's probably a guy you'd like to have fifth or sixth on the depth chart and the Hawks really can't afford that right now. And then there's Campbell. He looks good by the scoring chances but he was used almost exclusively in the offensive zone so, in my opinion, you'd hope for a bit more.
Finally, it was a great series to watch and a thoroughly enjoyable playoffs overall. I hope Oiler fans watched it because, cheering for a team like that, I think you need good hockey to keep you going. Next up is the draft and the UFA derby. Unfortunately for the Hawks (and fortunately for the rest of the league!), the off-season could be almost as exciting.
0 recs |
6 comments
|
Comments
Both more opportunities and better efficiency is a good combination.
Now you’re talking my language. The two together are a winning combination. In isolation, I’d likely choose more opportunities as the better long-term indicator (with exceptions) but in the short term (such as a playoff season) I’ll take better efficiency every time.
I’d be really tempted to move Dave Bolland on out
I was wondering the same thing, whether they might want to move him now that they’ve pumped him up with all that soft ice time playing with star teammates against the dregs, all of it in the good end of the rink of course. I imagine there might be a market.
Unfortunately, his magic is probably about as real as that of Benny Hinn (I can see Bruce sizzling on the floor now, “Bolland is real!”).
Whatever magic he and his linemates had going, was real enough to sustain right through the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs. What’s real are these facts, which normally are well-received among the statzis:
1) Toughest comp
2) Toughest ZoneStarts
3) Outscoring
4) Winning
What would the reaction around the Oilogosphere be if Shawn Horcoff had posted results like these?
In reality I think the Bolland group’s performance is somewhat lightning-in-a-bottle in a similar manner to what The Zero Line (Pahlsson-Moen-R.Niedermayer) did for Anaheim in 2007. They played well, but surely they too were riding the percentages something fierce. Unfortunately given it’s three whole years ago we don’t have scoring chance or shots/Corsi data from those playoffs (do we? all I can find for individual players is regular season), so all we’re left with is stats lines showing all three guys scoring beyond their means and posting nice plus numbers against what we all remember was the toughest of comp and tons of PK duty. Maybe they were Benny Hinn too, but I seem to recall a lot of sympathy for Sami Pahlsson as a Smythe candidate that year.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
What would the reaction around the Oilogosphere be if Shawn Horcoff had posted results like these?
Horcoff’s done that stuff for three seasons running and his chances are nowhere nearly as poor as the crud that Bolland is posting.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Horcoff’s done that stuff for three seasons running
Outscoring? Winning?
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 12, 2010 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I was wondering the same thing, whether they might want to move him now that they’ve pumped him up with all that soft ice time playing with star teammates against the dregs, all of it in the good end of the rink of course. I imagine there might be a market.
Whatever magic he and his linemates had going, was real enough to sustain right through the 2010 Stanley Cup playoffs.
In reality I think the Bolland group’s performance is somewhat lightning-in-a-bottle in a similar manner to what The Zero Line (Pahlsson-Moen-R.Niedermayer) did for Anaheim in 2007.
I think you betray yourself a little bit with these comments Bruce. The reason you trade someone isn’t because he’s pumped up on soft ice time but rather because he’s being overvalued relative to his likely future performance. The fact that he was able to ride the percentages for the 2010 playoffs does not mean that he’s bound to do so again in the future. You seem to be aware of this with your “lightning-in-a-bottle” comment and yet still seem to think it would be a bad idea to trade him. If there’s a GM in the league who thinks Bolland’s results are “real” as in “likely to repeat” and is willing to give value for him then why wouldn’t you trade him if you don’t think his results are likely to continue in subsequent seasons? That Bolland is being overvalued as a “tough minutes” guy instead of a “soft minutes” guy does little to sway me in the direction of keeping him. The fact that there’s a market for him despite his probable future performance being something less than what he did in the playoffs is exactly why I would consider trading him.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 20, 2010 2:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Nah, I’m not betraying anything. It’s complicated. Is it fair to say Bolland did well, AND was lucky? I think it is. Even if his future performance is “something less than what he did in the playoffs”, that could still be quite a lot. There’s also the distinct possibility/probablility that he is not done improving as yet.
But absolutely there’d be a market for a 23-year-old kid who just did what he did, signed to a pretty reasonable contract. My personal opinion is Chicago would be nuts to trade him right now but if you really want to gamble on “selling high” now might be the time. But if you were wrong, you’d regret it for a l-o-o-n-g time.
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 20, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
I actually don’t think it’s fair to say that Bolland did all that well in the last two series. In order to say that one needs to give him more credit for his ability to finish than I think is warranted. That said, he’s been facing tough minutes in the regular season for about two years now and he’s done well so, overall, I think he’s a good player and a very reasonable option as a tough minutes center. The idea of trading him is based on getting something more valuable than that going forward if there’s a GM out there who believes his performance implies someone on the cusp of elite performance. Moving Bolland straight across for Stephen Weiss saves them about 275k against the cap over the next three years and, IMO, gets the Hawks the better player to boot. Martin Hanzal may be another good fit depending on his contract. If he comes in around $2.5M over three years but the Coyotes think Bolland is the significantly better player and are willing to deal, that probably makes a great deal of sense for the Hawks. I don’t think they should be dumping him for maybes and at least on that we almost certainly agree.
by Scott Reynolds on Jun 20, 2010 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions

by 




























