Paying the Devil His Dues: G11, Avalanche @ Flames Post-Game
by R O on Oct 29, 2009 12:29 PM PDT
26 comments
Sometimes the better team doesn’t win.
Breakdowns:
First
EV Shots On Goal: 8-6
EV Shots Toward Net: 13-13
EV Faceoff Starts: 4-3
Second
EV Shots On Goal: 7-4
EV Shots Toward Net: 17-6
EV Faceoff Starts: 4-3
Third
EV Shots On Goal: 9-4
EV Shots Toward Net: 18-9
EV Faceoff Starts: 8-3
Overall
EV Shots On Goal: 24-14
EV Shots Toward Net: 48-28
EV Faceoff Starts: 16-9
Am I disappointed about the result? Naturally. Zero points is less than two points. But the Flames were the better team in every way but the score, and there were a lot of positives to take from this unrewarded effort.
First and foremost was a fantastic effort at EV. The Avs have spent most game nights practicing their D coverage so it was no surprise that it was good. The Flames obliged the Colorado youngsters by spending most of the second and third periods in their zone – how else are these young pups going to learn? Despite the Avs best efforts not to get run over, mistake-free hockey does not happen in this league and the Flames were able to create several nice chances. While it’s true that they didn’t get many open looks at Anderson, they did have a few of the "crease-scrum, garbage-goal" variety. That’s what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object (i.e. Flames offense vs. Avs defense).
Speaking of mistakes, the Flames made only a few last night. Unfortunately most of them ended up in the back of the net. The first period was a bit of running around, it was probably the Flames worst and the Avs best. That’s both commendation for the Flames and condemnation for the Avs. It’s unfortunate that the two shifts the Flames spent running around in their own zone in the third period led to that beauty Wolski goal. Luck is a fickle bitch.
The special teams last night were simply sublime. The first PP was a beauty and led to a glorious Nigel Dawes chance that goes through the five-hole every damn time he aims it there. The second and third PPs were a little more muted. The PK was as close to perfect as you can get. I think we might have broken even with the Avs on chances, on their PPs. Glencross and Bourque in particular were absolutely ferocious on the PK forecheck. This isn’t going to happen every night but the effort was there which was nice to see.
I thought Jarome Iginla and Olli Jokinen both had okay games. These oft-vilified millionaires get a lot of bad press from all authors on this blog, to the point where we sometimes get caught up in the minutiae of their play and miss the forest. I didn’t see these guys particularly great last night – they gave away the puck for no reason a couple times – but overall Iginla was double-shifted to fantastic effect (14-3 EV shots while he was on the ice) and Jokinen obviously scored and had two consecutive shifts in the third where a nice scoring chance was generated (and the second shift led to a Flames PP on a phantom tripping penalty). Are they playing like they are paid a combined $12.25M annually? Even without knowing who Sutter matched them up against last night and where they started their shifts and all that jazz, the answer is "not yet". But it was a big step in the right direction.
We will surely look back upon this game in April and wonder "what if?". I am sure that in a thousand parallel universes, more than 700 identical me's are writing about victory. But in this universe we lost two points. Hopefully when we do reflect upon this game at season's end, it will be because we are wondering if it was the difference between 3rd and 2nd in the West, or 2nd and 1st.
The implications of the loss:
-
The Flames drop to 7-3-1 (112 point pace), so ever closer to the 100 point marker that I see as a reasonable expectation. The shooting percentage is coming down, but the shot differential is going up. Way up. We in the business call this "fuck yeah".
-
This was the first inter-division loss the Flames suffered, but it’s the best possible loss that could have happened. If hockey were gravity then some teams would be rocks and some teams would be planes. The Avs are a rock, and the Flames are a plane. Rocks fall, planes fly, you see where this analogy is heading. It’s a lot easier to swallow the loss knowing it was a two-point game and not a four-point game.
-
Another day of media types peddling bullshit stories about how the kids on the Avs are finding ways to win and how Joe Sacco is the next coming of Scotty Bowman. Shoot me now.
Final note: it has come to my attention that some fans on CP didn't think outshooting an opponent 32-14 last night was significant because many of those were "low quality shots". The effort level of the Flames was put into question.
All I can say is that we weren't watching the same game, or even the same sport. When one team outshoots another by such a wide margin (both in terms of difference and in ratio) then it means that they controlled the puck for most of the game. Nothing happens in hockey without control of the puck.
0 recs |
26 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
But the Flames were the better team in every way but the score, and there were a lot of positives to take from this unrewarded effort.
Except in goal right? This is not to shit on Miikka’s parade, but he came up one goal heavy on the ‘unlucky goalie of the night’ voting. This is the type of game that drives us keepers crazy. Woulda, shoulda, coulda. I would say both goalies looked great last night…if it wasn’t for those 5 goals. 3 on 14 looks about .200 too ugly and unfair to our guy, and Anderson effectively pitched a shutout if it wasn’t for those ‘bouncy’ two… or one, depending on how hard you wanna be. It wasn’t a great night to be a goalie, especially if your name is Kiprusoff.
Here’s where the pain sets in:
Last night: 0.786% ev sv%, Highlight reel: 0-7
HOLY, stop me before I puke.
Game stats Kipper: 7-2-1 – .898% (.916% ev)
.920 sv% +: 3 of 10
sv% >/= opp. sv%: 8 of 10
<27 s/a: 2 of 10
>30 s/a: 6 of 10
>33 s/a: 4 of 10
Highlight reel: 37 – 25
Yeeesh, .898%. I don’t think Kipper could buy a bounce for a dollar at this point. We’ve got ‘stars’ on two sides of the spectrum – one where the counting numbers are making moe look respectable, and one where the numbers are being so wholly unfair – except wins of course…but those really don’t reflect anything of the individual do they?
I thought Kipper was ok. First goal was a weird deflection, second was a scrum (and Anderson was damn lucky not to get victimized in the multiple scrums the Flames had) and the third… well it was a great shot but I think if Kipper could have made a save then it should have been on that third goal. Probably his only mistake of the night, but on a night like last night every mistake was going in the net.
Which is not to say that I find his save % is acceptable from a strict numbers perspective. You never want your goalie to go sub-900 in that department, but these 3-in-14 games will happen as surely as the 1-in-25 games will happen.
I think once we have a good 40-50 game sample and can start doing a rolling average, we can maybe get an idea of how Kipper’s really doing this year.
I guess, and if I detect a hint of forgiveness in your voice, the numbers don’t have the same sympathy. The third goal by Wolski was all world with a leg kick to freeze the goalie, a quick move left to gain an angle and a perfect shot…sure that is saveable, but…
One of my main motivations to keeping a running log of games played is so that I can be upstream from a likely conversation around how good Kipper is. Either he ends the season better, the same or worse than expected. It’s one of those concepts…which I cannot fully articulate, and often comes across as apologist – by the relative influence sv% has on that conversation.
it goes like this: In 20 games, we won’t remember the details of this game, but we’ll see it’s ‘effect’. Through the first 10 games Kipper’s sv% is slowly plummeting – now at 24th in the league, below .900, and continuing it’s precipitous slip from grace throughout his career. I guess, I think it’s important to note that we were all just days ago talking about how improved he has been, how the team has been outshot, and how he ‘stole’ the first 3 or so games. Let’s see how long those memories last, before wins are thrown out again, and sv% is isolated. If Kipper doesn’t suddenly put together 10 well above average games…he stands to be around the .905 mark 25 games in – and branded a sieve once again, who isn’t worth anything. I could be wrong about this, of course, but having years of obsessing about goals, numbers wins vs losses as a goalie, I can’t help but continue those questions into my fandom.
For me, it’s 2 wins 3 losses…1.80 GAA, 1 shutout…. 9 GA in 5 games. Unknown sv% (they don’t keep track)…woulda, shoulda, coulda. I’m certain that those numbers only paint part of the picture. Luck? I dunno, but sometimes the numbers ‘lie.’
There is a hint of forgiveness in my voice. I didn’t think Kipper played bad at all, he technically could have saved the 3rd goal but that was a 25-cent chance if I ever saw one.
In 20 games, we won’t remember the details of this game, but we’ll see it’s ‘effect’.
I think that’s kind of what we want though. No, no one will remember in 20 games that this game just had a frustrating combination of unlucky bounces and little mistakes, and those 3 EV goals will surely shift the numbers to the Raycroft side of the ledger. But that ledger will also ignore that EV goalpost that the Oilers had in the third period on Saturday, that chance was 25-cent too and we’ll forget that a couple centimetres saved Kipper’s ass.
It all evens out, Lawrence, it all evens out. As surely and persistently as gravity pulls down, the bounces will cancel out if you give it enough time. I do sympathize as it is most certainly frustrating to see good efforts get sucked into the numerical abyss. Luck’s a fickle bitch. But fair.
just to offer a Colorado perspective...
I agree the Avs were outplayed last night. Calgary played balls out on offense and tried to hit the Avs anywhere they could on the ice when the Avs had the puck. It was very aggressive defense, the kind of stuff I like to watch. Even when the aggressive D didn’t work out, your incredible defensemen usually made up for it. Mad props.
But, the aggressive style also led to higher quality chances for the Avs those rare times they did get chances. And our boys did what they’ve done all year — they buried them.
I thought the one area the Avs were better than the Flames was in consistent work ethic. They were clearly exhausted (see below), but we never stopped working our asses off, ever. The Flames were by and large good in that area too, but had a couple lapses. I thought the Colorado goals came on moments late in shifts for both teams, where they just didn’t seem to have that extra oomph the Avs did, especially on the game-winner.
It’s also worth noting the Avs didn’t play well either. It was the tail end of their 2nd back-to-back in a week and their 9th road game in the 14 they’ve played. The “OMG THE AVS ARE SO LUCKY THEY BURY EVERY CHANCE” tune might have been true for this game, but it’s not been typically for the last 13. That’s some credit to the Flames, but also due to the schedule as well.
Hi, thanks for commenting. Don’t take the following as ripping you or anything, I just disagree with a lot of what you said and I am going to elucidate as to why.
But, the aggressive style also led to higher quality chances for the Avs those rare times they did get chances. And our boys did what they’ve done all year — they buried them.
Agree, the Avs scoring chances were glorious and credit to Wolski for a particularly great shot, but it’s the volume that matters. Kent does Flames scoring chances and Scott does Avs scoring chances so when they’ve counted this game up we’ll have a numerical basis to debate upon. But my eyes told me the Flames had many more chances than the Avs and that matters a lot. No team can keep scoring on such few chances forever.
I thought the one area the Avs were better than the Flames was in consistent work ethic. They were clearly exhausted (see below), but we never stopped working our asses off, ever. The Flames were by and large good in that area too, but had a couple lapses. I thought the Colorado goals came on moments late in shifts for both teams, where they just didn’t seem to have that extra oomph the Avs did, especially on the game-winner.
I suppose if by “work ethic” you mean “Avs worked hard on D zone coverage” then I agree with you on that point, it was good. But it’s not like the Avs didn’t make mistakes in their D-zone to give the Flames beauty chances. The consistency that you saw was just a mirage I think – the Avs didn’t get burned on their mistakes, and the Flames did. If the reverse happened, I might be telling you not to sweat your team’s “inconsistent work ethic”. And that could easily have happened, because the Flames spent way more time in the Avs zone than vice versa.
It’s also worth noting the Avs didn’t play well either. It was the tail end of their 2nd back-to-back in a week and their 9th road game in the 14 they’ve played. The "OMG THE AVS ARE SO LUCKY THEY BURY EVERY CHANCE" tune might have been true for this game, but it’s not been typically for the last 13. That’s some credit to the Flames, but also due to the schedule as well.
The Avs didn’t play well last night, and it might have been due to schedule. After that we depart in opinion:
- Firstly the Avs haven’t been playing too well all season. Scott at Gospel of Hockey has them outchanced 46-54 in their first ten games. NHL.com has them outshot by 8 every game. Most teams who do that don’t get away with 8 wins and 2 losses.
- The Avs have been getting lucky finishing thier chances over 13 games. NHL.com has them shooting at 13%, which can and does happen over 13 games but not over 82.
- They’ve also gotten out-of-this-world goaltending from Anderson. So out-of-world that it is not long for this world. Anderson’s SV% is 0.940. To put that into perspective – Dominik Hasek, considered by many to be among the best, if not the best, goaltender of all time, posted 0.937 in his his best season.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of this applies to the Flames too, who have gotten some incredible puck luck this young season. But the Flames have a lot going for them – a track record of dominant puck possession going back to last season, as well as numerous arrows pointing north over the last couple of games in terms of outshooting, outchancing and controlling play. The only arrow pointing in the Avs favor right now is the wins column.
Agree, the Avs scoring chances were glorious and credit to Wolski for a particularly great shot, but it’s the volume that matters. Kent does Flames scoring chances and Scott does Avs scoring chances so when they’ve counted this game up we’ll have a numerical basis to debate upon. But my eyes told me the Flames had many more chances than the Avs and that matters a lot. No team can keep scoring on such few chances forever.
I’ve seen their stuff, it’s very informative. But I disagree with that bolded part above. I don’t think the scoring chances metric really captures another important side of the chances — just how good was it? I thought the Avs’ chances were higher quality than the Flames, despite their lower number. And the ES chances weren’t much different anyways, 11 – 8. It’s not as bad as you say, sorry. But we definitely need more, I agree.
I suppose if by "work ethic" you mean "Avs worked hard on D zone coverage" then I agree with you on that point, it was good. But it’s not like the Avs didn’t make mistakes in their D-zone to give the Flames beauty chances. The consistency that you saw was just a mirage I think – the Avs didn’t get burned on their mistakes, and the Flames did. If the reverse happened, I might be telling you not to sweat your team’s "inconsistent work ethic". And that could easily have happened, because the Flames spent way more time in the Avs zone than vice versa.
Agree to disagree, I suppose. I thought we didn’t make many mistakes and others agree. As your example from 5 Hole Fanatics said, “They spent a lot of time in their own end, but never made any significant mistakes and collapsed around their goaltender expertly.” A large part of not making mistakes on D is effort, wouldn’t you agree?
The Avs didn’t play well last night, and it might have been due to schedule. After that we depart in opinion:
- Firstly the Avs haven’t been playing too well all season. Scott at Gospel of Hockey has them outchanced 46-54 in their first ten games. NHL.com has them outshot by 8 every game. Most teams who do that don’t get away with 8 wins and 2 losses.
Haha, because shot differential and chance differential are the only parts of hockey that matter. I won’t repeat myself completely, I’ll just point out that solid D, playing from ahead, and quality of chances are not a part of your analysis. And they matter. You can say that the Avs are purely lucky, and I will disagree based on those other factors. We can argue til we’re blue in the face, but there’s nothing that will prove to either of us except the actual results. So we’ll check back later in the year, ok?
- The Avs have been getting lucky finishing their chances over 13 games. NHL.com has them shooting at 13%, which can and does happen over 13 games but not over 82.
- They’ve also gotten out-of-this-world goaltending from Anderson. So out-of-world that it is not long for this world. Anderson’s SV% is 0.940. To put that into perspective – Dominik Hasek, considered by many to be among the best, if not the best, goaltender of all time, posted 0.937 in his his best season.
Yes, that’s true. To cast those factors as the only reasons the Avs are winning is not exactly a complete analysis though. Like I said, we’ll see how it goes.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of this applies to the Flames too, who have gotten some incredible puck luck this young season. But the Flames have a lot going for them – a track record of dominant puck possession going back to last season, as well as numerous arrows pointing north over the last couple of games in terms of outshooting, outchancing and controlling play. The only arrow pointing in the Avs favor right now is the wins column.
I see what you’re saying. There’s definitely some red flags, and I also doubt they will maintain this pace. But, what will happen when they come back to earth in those statistical categories? you and many other national media people assume they’ll go down in flames (ha!) spectacularly, I’m not so sure. They’re doing so many other things right — things that don’t show signs of abating. Things I doubt you see from watching them once. We’ll see. I won’t be surprised either way.
And then there’s that tiny chance they don’t come back to earth . And Forsberg coming back. And when Duchene finally gets untracked… :) It’s good to be an Avs fan.
oh, and one other note: if the Avs proceeded at the 07-08 NHL average points percentage of 56.2% (only one i could find in a quick search) from here on out, they’d end with 100 points. Behind the Net also notes that only 2 teams with a similar start have ever missed the playoffs.
Even if they come back to earth, I think they still end up in the playoffs. And that’s a huge step for such a young team.
Its nice to actually see for once someone admit when their team was outplayed. Over on the Yahoo boards the common Avs fan take is “the avs keep winning every game because they are the best and outwork the other team every night”.
you make it sound like it’s that way every game. have you watched every game? or are you inferring from stats?
Of course it’s not that way every game. They dominated Edmonton, for instance.
I haven’t watched every game, so it might be unfair to say what I said. But the thing is, shot differential correlates to territorial advantage in all sorts of ways. It’s evident when you watch the game that teams that really own the puck will get a lot of shots on net, and vice versa for teams who can’t keep the puck. If you wan numbers to back this correlation up, here it is.
that is interesting
I feel like I jumped into the middle of some other debate there, so I’m not sure I get that graph fully. that’s correlation squared to winning?
the comments note my first instinct on why it doesn’t correlate nearly perfectly anyways — whats the quality of shots/chances that comes from the shots/time of possession?
The short version: teams that get routinely outshot have to rely on the percentages (SH% and SV%) to consistently win. And in the NHL, the percentages eventually regress to the mean over the long term.
You’re definitely stepping into the deep end when you come to M&G :-)
To answer your first question, the graph shows correlation (squared) to EV goal differential.
As far as shot quality goes, the bridge from shot to scoring chance is being built as we speak. A number of fine folks are doing scoring chances for various teams (Flames, Oilers, Avs, Wild, and there is somebody doing them for the Canadiens too but they’re not published yet). Differentiating between quality of chances, well that’s probably not going to happen until scoring chances come into common usage – one step at a time and all that.
But even without knowing about shot quality, shot volume tells a pretty good story. Already at the league level we’ve see that outshooting/possession/zone-time (all of which are interrelated) and outscoring are intrinsically linked. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. Over short time spans the effect is almost invisible but as the number of games grows the factor dominates. Percentages drive short-term success (no surprise) and outshooting drives long-term success.
And the nice part is that outshooting is highly repeatable. So if you’re outshooting in, say, the first half of the season, odds are you will be doing so in the second half of the season. And the better outshooting teams right now tend to be the better outscoring teams forty games from now. So outshooting is sustainable and is a good predictor of future goal differential production. Certainly a much predictor than your goal differential over a short time span – there’s almost no repeatability in that. So if you only gave me a list of the goals for/against or wins/losses after 10-15 games, and told me to bet on what the records would be forty games from now – I probably wouldn’t make money. Give me the shot profiles and it’s a different story.
Which is not to say that taking more shots is the key to winning games or anything. Some coaching philosophies are more shot-happy than others and there is the thing you bring up about shot quality. But watch enough games and you’ll see certain teams doing a lot of outshooting and you notice all sorts of other trends – they win more puck battles, they gain the zone better, they spend more time in the offensive zone, the pucks are on their sticks more often, they’re better at relieveing pressure in their own end, they create more sustained pressure, I could go on and on. Shooting doesn’t mean much when you’re focused on the minutiae of the individual shot (where is it taken? was it a chance? etc.) but when you step back you see that it’s just one consequence of a team that is doing good things in all areas of the ice.
And if you’re still hung up about how shots become chances, well there are pretty good preliminary cases made here and here about how outshooting and outchancing are related.
Is this a convincing case?
It's not that I'm disagreeing with you on the stats
I can interpret them the same as you, and they appear to be quite good at predicting the general case. I just tend to think they’re being over-applied to this specific case. The Avs don’t fit into those categories neatly, which has been my point all along. Part of that is probably fair to say, part of that is probably me being a homer.
There’s really nothing else to say except we’ll have to see.
good discussion. we should continue it later in the year.
IMO – this is what happens when the Flames make their bread and butter by blasting away from the point and going for deflections and screens … there are days you die by your own sword – you outwork the other team but the bounces just don’t go your way. Although it didn’t help that Phaneuf was standing around watching during the winning goal.
*Did anyone catch Abbotsford at Milwaukee live on adthe.net? I was watching the Heat and the Flames games simultaneously. Irving picked up the s/o facing 25 shots.
by Calgarian in SJ on Oct 29, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions
Aside from the obvious stuff on luck and outshooting, I will say I’ve been impressed with of what I’ve seen out of some individual Avs this year, including Duchene. He looks very much like the real deal to me. Kyle Cumiskey stuck out last night too – dude can skate and handle the puck. And even if Anderson’s SV% does eventually regress, I think he might be the next Kipper-like steal in the NHL.
It’s a nice base to build on going forwards.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Northwest Standings
Flames Schedule
Next 5 Games
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
Vancouver
|
Tue 09/21 | 7:00 PM PDT |
|
Tampa Bay
|
Sat 09/25 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
Phoenix
|
Tue 09/28 | 6:00 PM PDT |
|
@
New York Islanders
|
Wed 09/29 | 5:00 PM PDT |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/10 | L 3 - 7 |
|
Minnesota
|
Thu 04/08 | SO - L 1 - 2 |
|
San Jose
|
Tue 04/06 | L 1 - 2 |
|
@
Chicago
|
Sun 04/04 | L 1 - 4 |
|
@
Colorado
|
Fri 04/02 | W 2 - 1 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Puck Daddy news: NHL Store event, Bourne debut on Wednesday
- James Sheppard's make-or-break year gets broken in ATV accident
- Puck Headlines: NHL 11 reviews; Phaneuf sees Leafs in playoffs
- Which current players will own their sweater numbers in NHL?
- NHL 2010-11 Season Preview: Wrestling with Chicago Blackhawks
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
