Canucks and Hawks - Game Four Scoring Chances

Glorious. With a 7-2 shellacking, the Blackhawks now lead the series on goal differential! That doesn't matter of course, but it did make for one very fun evening. That the beatdown comes just one day after Jonathan Toews' called out the Canucks for being overrated only makes it that much better. I guess when Alain Vigneault put the quote on the bulletin board, his guys all took it as gospel truth. The Hawks have been the significantly better team for two straight games now, so even though they're down 3-1, I've got at least a little bit of hope. Scoring chances and more after the jump.

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. Finally, a big thanks to Vic Ferrari for making the whole damn thing possible with his awesome scripts.

Head-to-Head Even Strength Scoring Chances

*Click to enlarge

The game was close through the first period, mostly because the Blackhawks took a couple of early penalties, which gave Vancouver some chances, as well as their first goal of the game (it wasn't recorded as a chance since it bounced off Brian Campbell's chest and in). In the second, however, the Blackhawks really took over, and it was interesting to hear the narrative from the commentators change from the lifeless Hawks to something a bit more complimentary. Even astute observers seemed to think the Hawks were done, but to me, the series never really looked that way, and this contest looked like more of the same in a different way: the home team gets the match-ups and dominates some sections of the game. We'll see if Chicago can reverse that trend on Thursday. With Bolland providing more strength up the middle, and two different lines beating up the Sedins in games three and four, I'm feeling hopeful.

Sons of Abraham

3. Kevin Bieksa - The refs were pretty determined to make sure that no stupid shit went down, and yet Kevin Bieksa managed to both do some stupid shit and not take an instigator penalty. On a night when both teams danced around whether or not someone was going to get a pounding, Bieksa decided he's just serve one up. It's kind of silly, but I like it. Very authentic. Oh, and he was probably one of the very best Canucks on the ice in terms of actually playing the game too. The first goal of the game looked really bad, and Bieksa definitely got beat, but his partner made a terrible pinch (which has happened in almost every game; Dan Hamhuis is really bad at knowing when to pinch), and when he was matched against Jonathan Toews' line, I thought he did well.

2. Dave Bolland - I don't know if he came back early from his concussion, but I did kind of suspect it, and down 3-0 in the series, that really wouldn't be very smart. That said, Bolland was fantastic. His line absolutely crushed the Sedins, which is hilarious. I guess the back-elbow to the face was a stupid penalty, and if the Canucks had won this game, I'd be pointing at that as a bad one, but they didn't win, Bolland played really well otherwise, and that penalty kind of set the "we're done not dishing it out" tone.

1. Michael Frolik - He was on Bolland's wing, and he looked incredible. The 3-1 goal really set the party tone, and that play saw Frolik just shove Daniel Sedin aside, claim the puck, and move it to Duncan Keith who promptly scored. The 4-1 goal saw Frolik strip Tanner Glass of the puck, and move it to Bolland, who scored. The 5-1 goal was Frolik's own on a beautiful deke. He worked to get himself another breakaway late in the third too. He was hard on the puck, winning battles, and creating offense. Not that I've seen a lot of Michael Frolik, but that was easily the best game I've ever seen him play.

Sons of Sodom

3. Roberto Luongo - None of the goals came on non-scoring chances, but at some point, you need to make a save. He was incredible in Game Three, and maybe he did nothing different and I'm guilty of just not understanding goaltending (probably), but I look at six goals against on seventeen chances, and I can't help but think the goalie needs to bear some of the responsibility.

2/1. Daniel Sedin and Henrik Sedin - Holy moly were these guys bad tonight. The signature play of the game for me really is the image of Daniel falling to the ice as Michael Frolik takes the puck. Just crazy. It's one thing to lose the battle against Jonathan Toews and the Hawks' top line. It's another thing entirely to get obliterated by Chicago's depth group. Dave Bolland, Michael Frolik, and Bryan Bickell are good hockey players, but if your line is supposed to include two of the absolute best players in the league, how do you get outchanced that badly?