The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: G5 Stars @ Flames Post-Game
by R O on Oct 10, 2009 9:33 AM PDT
Email
PrintIt's not surprising that the Flames lost last night, given the perfect storm of circumstances that afflicted them: second half of a back-to-back, playing in front of a much-maligned Curtis McElhinney, with one of their most useful players (David Moss) out of the lineup and one of their least useful players (Olli Jokinen) in the lineup. Here's what Kent had to say about it before the game:
Flames tackle another, more recent nemesis this evening for the first time as well: the second night of a back-to-back. I'm sure I don't have to remind everyone that Calgary was absolutely putrid in these circumstances last season: not only did they frequently lose...they frequently lost BIG TIME. Here's hoping the team comes out with some sort of purpose tonight.
Prescient, my friends, prescient.
First Period
EV shots: 9-9
EV Corsi: +1 Calgary
Second Period
EV shots: 7-6 Dallas
EV Corsi: +4 Dallas
Third Period
EV shots: 4-3 Dallas
EV Corsi: +1 Dallas
Overall
EV shots: 20-18 Dallas
EV Corsi: +4 Dallas
(note: I derived these values by manually counting up shots from the game log. I'm not sure why but TimeOnIce is registering one more shot-on-goal from both teams)
I missed the first period, so in lieu of a period-by-period breakdown, I will just share some observations of what I was able to watch:
- My God the Iginla line was horrible again (Corsi: Iggy -10, Jokinen -8, Nystrom -10). He wasn't this ineffective early last season. At one point in the second period he got one-handed hard along the boards and onto the ice by Stephane fucking Robidas (HockeyDB: 5'11", 195 lbs.). Really, Jarome? Get your head outcher ass already!
- Dustin Boyd is getting a lot of shit dumped on him but I thought he played well and apparently he got something like 3 shots in 3 seconds in the first period. I didn't see what happened but that sounds like "shot-rebound-rebound", which translates to "scoringchance-scoringchance-scoringchance". Good for him.
- Calgary's PP looked dangerous again. One of their bright spots.
- The officiating wasn't great. A couple of obvious tripping penalties on both sides went completely unnoticed.
- Curtis McElhinney's first game of the year wasn't exactly awe-inspiring, but it wasn't entirely his fault. I'll say it right now, the first goal he let in was awful, he looked completely out of position. But the second period goals were flukey, and that fourth goal was just a great pass by Richards followed by Bouwmeester unable to react in time (although you will notice that Bouwmeester is in position and aware that Eriksson was there!)
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Boyd thing was exactly that – he got the puck in a scoring position, made a move that Auld stopped, took another shot that slithered through Auld and trickled wide and then banged another shot from the side of the net that was stopped as well.
Boyd’s become a whipping boy in some parts. He’s not bearing down on chances right now, but at least he’s getting them. He also has more ES points (1) than Jarome does.
“not bearing down on chances” is pretty much the theme for the 09/10 calgary flames. as for mcbackup, i did a little study last night latenight and (while i’m not suggesting that a better goaltender couldn’t have WON some of those games) it seems to me that cumac keeps getting starts in games that are less likely wins. the team is often playing tired in front of him (they sure looked pooped in the third last night) and his confidence is probably totally non-existant at this point.
I don’t know…I think the Flames have scored at a pretty good rate through 5 games – perhaps a greater rate than could be expected out of the number of shots and chances they created. “Not creating chances at all” is the theme for the first line, however.
by Kent Wilson on Oct 10, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Its a chicken and egg problem though. The team in front needs to be a hell of a lot better for McElhinney, but despite what they were saying at the end of last year, there is no way on earth the rest of the team has any confidence in him when he gives up an atrocious goal one minute in, then gives up a goal each time they tried to battle back. His rebound control and lateral movement is so poor, there were several instances last night of skaters trying to play goal to help him out.
totally agreed. he needs to be stronger. but perhaps he WOULD be stronger if he was playing in the first game of a b2b, or (here’s a notion) a standalone game !!! chicken and egg, indeed.
by walkinvisible on Oct 10, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
The team, last year, needed to be better for both goalies, not just McElhinney. If the Flames are thinking “McL is in net, we better be good tonight” vs “Kipper is in there, then no problem, lets not worry too much” then you have a big problem, or multiple problems. I think this is why a ‘details’ and ‘accountability’ coach was hired. The Flames haven’t been earning their dollars in the defensive zone for a number of years now, and it hasn’t changed that much quite frankly.
I agree. Flames have a lot of work to do in their own end. Whoever’s in net.
by Kent Wilson on Oct 11, 2009 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d like to elaborate on the last sentence I wrote. For some time of reading this blog there have been a group of thoughts about the Flames goaltending that I would summarize like this:
Kipper was an elite goalie, his statistics show that every year he is less elite to the point that he is now average or worse than average.
McElhinney is a young goalie, who has hardly played but could be good although his numbers are worse than Kippers in every capacity, but perhaps he just isn’t getting a fair shake.
These two ideas seem conflicting, but who cares really, that’s another debate.
What I would suggest is this, and I’m hoping it will change under Sutter:
Maybe the Flames have decent goaltending, Kipper better than McL for now, as it should be. BUT, maybe the Flames just aren’t as good as we think they are, in front of BOTH goalies. Maybe they have just been a shitty defensive team for about 2 and a half years now.
I don’t think McElhinney is good. I don’t know how good McElhinney is. I know he received very poor goal support last year, which would skew his W/L record, but he also has less admirable SV% numbers – which is discouraging, but could be a small sample effect.
The two ideas aren’t conflicting. Kipper has seen thousands and thousands of shots the last few years, making for a huge sample and great deal of power behind his stats. McElhinney has much fewer shots against but a huge order of magnitude – meaning any conclusions we take from his results should be tempered with a healthy skepticism since randomness could be having a much greater effect.
However, I am willing to concede the team has been mediocre or worse defensively in front of both guys the last couple of seasons (the start of this one included). On the topic of shot quality, CG posted some studies on that recently. One of them showed that Calgary was in the bottom third of the league last year, with an expected goal differential of .906. Of course, Kipper ended up with a .903 SV% which suggests, as I’ve maintained for awhile, neither party held up their end of the bargain. As an aside, the Bruins finished about on par with the Flames in the same study with an expected SV% of .905 (.906 with Thomas in net), but Tim ended up with the best SV% in the league.
Sure, but half the stuff on CG’s blog is still in development, and quite frankly it’s just as easy to find data which contradicts it. For example from his blog on the same article, but instead from Alan Ryder’s work:
with New Jersey, Phoenix, Buffalo, Minnesota and Columbus the candidates for easier than average shot quality and Toronto, Dallas, Carolina, Montreal and Calgary possibly allowing harder than average shots against.
So the Flames were one of the teams which ‘may have’ allowed some of the more difficult shots in the league… with Tor, Dal, Mtl and Car. How good did those teams do last year? All worse than the Flames and with goalies who all had pretty similar numbers to Kipper @ .903. The other starters were .916, .905, .898, .891.
With so many ideas floating around on the internet, and so many people writing from their own perspectives, it’s hard to fully trust anyone’s statistical information.
It is funny looking at the names when seeing Ryder’s teams:
Easier than average: Brodeur, Bryzgalov, Miller, Backstrom, and Mason (good goalie’s right?)
Harder than average: Toskala, Turco, Price, Ward and Kipper. (lousy/inconsistent goalie’s right?)
As an aside, let’s keep watching Thomas this year as I’m sure he’s not going to come close to that sv% again. he’s not off to a great start – .868, but at the end of the season I doubt I’ll be thinking he’s suddenly a drastically worse goalie.
I can’t decide what is you’re debating here. I don’t know what’s contradictory about two studies both saying the Flames allowed harder than average shots against. In fact, you seemed to support this very claim two comments above this one. Is it the specific numbers you mistrust or the claim that Kipper didn’t outperform his expected save percentage last year (while others, like Tim Thomas, did)?
Yeah, it was late last night when I wrote/re-read that post on CG and Krzywicki’s pdf. I had thought that the one study done by Ken Krzywicki was saying ‘the Flames should have gotten .906 goaltending from Kipper/McL vs .903/.898 because their shots were easier than average’ as opposed to ‘Calgary had more difficult shots that would predict a .906 sv%, yet Kipper underperformed slightly and only managed .903 and McL a little more at .898.’ My mistake.
Interestingly, Gabe has a post on this very topic over at behind the net (except it’s ES SV% only). He looks at goalie’s SV% and Expected SV% since the lock-out and shows that Kipper has actually outperformed his expect SV% over that period. Of course, I’m guessing a lot of that has to do with his earlier seasons and not the last two.
by Kent Wilson on Oct 11, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions
For what it’s worth I don’t think the team played well in front of McElhinney all night but at the same time he didn’t do himself any favours. I thought he overextended on a lot of plays and was giving out way too many big rebounds.
As for Boyd… it’s nice that he’s getting chances but at some point he has to start burying them. In the limited viewings so far he’s starting to look a lot like Matthew Lombardi last year, a bundle of flash but no finish.
I was tracking the NHL event summary in the game thread, and it had the Flames with 10 EV shots after 1 rather than 9, with the resultant Corsi of +2 for CGY, so there’s where the discrepancy would likely be.
Otherwise, pretty much as you say. McE wasn’t very good, and you’re maybe more generous about the third Dallas goal than I would be. The team was no hell in front of him, but at some point an NHL goalie has to do better than what McElhinney has accomplished. There isn’t much room for a sub-.900 SV% in the NHL, regardless of whatever team effect may or may not occur.
I don’t know why anyone would be on Boyd all that much. If he has a good year, would he get maybe 20 goals at most? He has some talent, but if he stays in the top nine, it’ll be his first extended stint in significant minutes, so anyone with really high expectations of him was asking a hell of a lot, IMO. We can all see that he’s struggling with finishing chances, but guys that keep hitting the ball hard eventually get a few to fall in.
Jokinen and Iginla aren’t hitting the ball hard. Period. They don’t work. I half-jokingly suggested that they stay together for quarantine purposes, because splitting them might infect two lines, but seriously, I don’t know what they are going to do, and it isn’t all Joker’s fault.
About the third goal: I’d like to talk about that. It seemed like plain bad luck to me. I mean, I don’t buy the Sportsnet “he wasn’t square to the shot” because, well, he was square to the shot. I don’t know how it deflected off his stick (might have caught the top edge?) but after it bounces up it’s just plain bad luck that it bounces off his back. What do you think?
About McElhinney in general: Every goalie has bad games, so I’m wary of evaluating them over 7 starts in two seasons. I mean, Luongo looked awful in his first three games this year, right? They’re not like skaters where there are so many things they can do well or awful (forecheck, backcheck, puck battles, puck distribution, etc. etc.) – all we can really evaluate is positioning and reflexes. And failure is the nature of the position which makes evaluating these skills even harder.
Sorry, but no. The third McElhinney goal was terrible, very very terrible. There are fewer more routine saves than a shot directly at you and then you deflect it into your own net (whether it bounced over his head or not). It’s happened to every goalie, it’s happened to me, and it’s a terrible feeling. That goal lost the game for the Flames, plain and simple and McElhinney would have gone to sleep at night convinced of it, no matter how much anyone would disagree. I guarantee it. Is it bad luck? Yes, of course….but it happened, and he can never erase that. He just has to be better next time.
What Sportsnet meant by “square to the shot” was vertically. His weight was back, fading too quickly, this caused his stick to lie flatter to the ice…like a wedge, which is what you do to chip long shots into the corner, but he just got caught, and chipped it over his own head. With that said…one bad goal does not mean you’re a bad goalie.
You’d think that when the Flames play the b/u that has no wins and little fan confidence …. we would all see a big collective effort to “tighten up” in front of him to at least get the poor sap a “W” … clear the lanes, gobble up those rebounds, etc.
But then it makes my point look moot when at certain times he looks like his skill level has maxed out and he’s in over his head …
*I’’m sounding like a parrot here – but thanks for putting the period summaries and the Corsi on after every game.
by Calgarian in SJ on Oct 10, 2009 3:55 PM PDT reply actions
You’d think that when the Flames play the b/u that has no wins and little fan confidence …. we would all see a big collective effort to "tighten up" in front of him to at least get the poor sap a "W" … clear the lanes, gobble up those rebounds, etc.
which is PRECISELY why putting him into the SECOND game of a b2b makes no sense at all, because the team is too TIRED to tighten that stuff up properly…..
by walkinvisible on Oct 11, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
McElhinney
Whatever you want to say about the team in front of him, McE did himself no favours last night. I would be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the first goal than the third, but I think all the goals had a lack of confidence and overplaying the puck like it was his first pro game. I half hope Sutter chucks him right back in against Chitown so we can see what we have. Calgary is notoriously bad in those afternoon Chicago games, so maybe that would just be feeding him to the wolves again.
As for Boyd, I guess it depends on what you want him to be. If he turns out to be a perfectly serviceable third liner, what you’re seeing is what you will get and I see no reason to complain. If you think we need him to move into the top six, we need him to bury those chances.
I thought Regehr actually played a bit better, including getting the best of Benn on their second encounter. It may be damning with faint praise to note he successfully won a battle with a rookie though.
by CalTach on Oct 10, 2009 4:44 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Yup, Regehr played a lot better yesterday. There was a sequence that I remembered where he succesfully pinned a Dallas forward against the board and kept him still there while his partner recovered the puck. He didn’t do that at all in games 1 to 4, not that I noticed.
There was nowhere to go but up, anyway.
Shantz must come up
I’m not trying to be negative but David Shantz must come up and back up Kirpusoff, or pickup a goalie in a trade-how about trading Oli for a legitimate goalie? Anything! The dream is over-time to make some moves to improve the team-look at San Jose-Hillier and Guigerre-nice goalie tandem. If we are going to give our main goalie a rest now and then, well we need to have a chance at winning the game. The try-out is over-make some moves to clear some cap space-send Jokinen down and see if he clears waivers-let someone else pay the salary or trade for another goalie. I like the Shantz acquisition more and more-just dump some salary and move forward.
i said the same exact thing two nights ago, before being informed that shantzy has actually been demoted to the ECHL (making it pretty effin’ clear that the goalie hierarchy in the flames org is kipps, cumac, irv, keets, shantz).
bottom line : unlikely.
by walkinvisible on Oct 11, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Oops
I meant look at Anaheim’s goalie tandem Hillier and Guigerre, I’d personally like to see a bonafied goalie backing up Kirpusoff.
Plus, this ‘bonafied goalie’ is very very likely not David Shantz. Leland Irving is in line before Shantz although two years younger, and I don’t think he is ready quite yet either. His development trajectory has been a little more consistent. Next year though will be different. This is likely McElhinney’s last kick at the can. The Flames will stick with him unless he repeats last year’s numbers in double or 2.5x the amount of games. Then, I would guess a trade would bring in a band-aid veteran. I don’t think David Shantz is the answer solely based on a decent pre-season.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
Related FanShots on Matchsticks and Gasoline
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Sat 02/11 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Toronto
|
Tue 02/14 | 6:00 PM PST |
|
@
Dallas
|
Thu 02/16 | 5:30 PM PST |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Sat 02/18 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Edmonton
|
Tue 02/21 | 6:00 PM PST |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Phoenix
|
Thu 02/09 | OT - L 1 - 2 |
|
@
San Jose
|
Wed 02/08 | W 4 - 3 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Mon 02/06 | SO - L 2 - 3 |
|
Chicago
|
Fri 02/03 | W 3 - 1 |
|
Detroit
|
Tue 01/31 | L 1 - 3 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Game Show Friday, Mats Sundin debates and did Gomez score (yes)?
- Boston Bruins’ Nathan Horton has a concussion rehab setback
- Trending Topics: Stay out of NHL fighting, Ralph Nader
- Can Jeremy Roenick save the Phoenix Coyotes?
- Should Dominic Moore be suspended for this hit on Rangers’ Fedotenko? (Video)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
