G19, Avs @ Flames, Talk-Radio-Free Post-Game
by R O on Nov 18, 2009 8:55 AM PST
Email
Print
About 99% of sports talk radio callers make shit up*. Case in point: I tuned in to the FAN960 post-game last night.
That was a mistake.
They sure love their C-words on the FAN: confidence, character, ciller instinct (heh). I'm pretty sure those things played a role in last night's loss, but some folks are so focused on the game-within-the-game-within-the-game. It's like double vision, you see two of everything so you think there's two of everything. Sometimes there's not even one of anything.
First
EV Shots On Goal : 9-10
EV Shots Toward Net : 16-18
EV Faceoff Starts : 6-2
Second
EV Shots On Goal : 11-9
EV Shots Toward Net : 17-14
EV Faceoff Starts : 5-4
Third
EV Shots On Goal : 9-2
EV Shots Toward Net : 22-3
EV Faceoff Starts : 6-3
Overall
EV Shots On Goal : 29-21
EV Shots Toward Net : 55-35
EV Faceoff Starts : 17-9
- It might be just me but I think the faceoff starts told the story of the game better than the Corsi. The Flames were easily worse in the second period to my eye, than either the first or third.
- As near a hard match as you can ask for between Iginla and Stastny (12 of Jarome's 16 EV minutes and Stastny's 17). Who lost that battle? I'd say Jarmoe.
- A lot of Stastny minutes for Regehr and Phaneuf, but Bouwmeester actually took a fair chunk of that time himself. Even when he's not taking the toughs, he's taking the toughs. Speak of the devil, he played a whopping 18 EV minutes in total, the most amongst the Flames skaters.
- Without shift charts (hopefully Vic gets this going again, but if not, don't worry folks, it's coming!), the story is not complete. But it looks to me like Boyd was given some sweet ice time to work with. And he looked comfortable playing those minutes.
- The first COL goal was bogus, you could see Phaneuf's stick was held, preventing him from getting to the loose puck. So much for that "lack of desperation" theory.
- WalkInvisible in last night's comments said that Bourque's fight was selfish on his part. Maybe. But the replays showed an uncalled slash on Bourque's stick (can anyone second this?) which effectively killed our 6-on-5 anyway. Myriad other incidents confirm: officiating was not at its finest.
- The Corsi count might indicate that the Flames only outshot the Avs on the back of that third period flurry, but the ice was already tilted way before then. Colorado was more "opportunistic"... whatever that means.
The Avalanche are not a good team.
* I just made this up.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
hey, i never suggested that there shouldn’t have been a slashing call. i simply pointed out that since there wasn’t, that one of calgary’s best getting into a dust-up at a time when the team needed a goal BAD was ill-advised. not only did it leave the team a man short, but it brought the faceoff back in front of sir kiprusoff, ultimately ending the game with 7 seconds left. a lot of bad decisions in a very short period of time at game’s end by the swedish chef.…
as for the stick-holding on the av’s first goal, i would suggest that dion could engage his body if and when his stick is unavailable…. again, there should have been a call but there wasn’t, and players should not rely on the zebras to get it right.
as for the stick-holding on the av’s first goal, i would suggest that dion could engage his body if and when his stick is unavailable…. again, there should have been a call but there wasn’t, and players should not rely on the zebras to get it right.
The issue is getting to the loose puck. Body engaged or not, Phaneuf doesn’t recover the puck without control of his stick, it was too far away for a non-groin-ruining skate kick.
That play enraged me btw – I can understand that calls can be subjective but that’s about as clear as they are cut. And Phaneuf gets unfairly shat on for it, AND that rage is carrying over to the second goal too. Over on CP some are even misremembering Phaneuf as the one initiating that bad change. WTF? Do people not watch the game?
i’d have to watch the play again, but (in my head) it reminded me a bit of the bolland goal in the 6-5 ’hawks comeback game where all dion had to do was drop to the ice in the crease and try to smother the puck, but instead spent an agonizing amount of time trying to make some cutesy stick play….
i would also have to re-watch the game’s dying seconds cause i don’t remember the puck leaving the zone until after the fight commenced (when bourque was no longer chasing it due to broken stick). if that was the case then brent probably wasn’t quite as pissed off as i was…
as for CP, RO you know better. ;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 18, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
you could always read my site, y’know. a little more grinning, a little less wincing….
by walkinvisible on Nov 18, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
The Avalanche are not a good team.
I fail to see how you can justify this statement. Are they an elite team, probably not. But they are a good team.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2009 10:08 AM PST reply actions
I think I’ve made my case before, and various other sources (BehindTheNet, objectivenhl.blogspot.com, GospelOfHockey, etc.) have hammered home the point senseless. There is nothing that indicates that the Avs are a top-half team in the NHL, other than their record.
As far as I can tell you’ve used EV SF/SA, which only has an R^2 rating of 40% according to behind the net. Even the EV SF/SA when tied only has a 56% R^2.
everything I’ve seen people use to describe the Avs as below average have similar points. That certain indicators say the Avs are below-average, but those indicators are far from infallible.
I remain highly unconvinced that the metrics cited in those posts were the end-all-be-all measurements of how good a team is (especially the Corsi stuff.). Even if I were to concede that these are great metrics (and I’m not) I don’t know how you can justify this:
The Avalanche are not a good team.
Without at least adding…
but neither is Calgary.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2009 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
I think the Avs are better than I thought they’d be, if only because Wolski has taken the next step this year and he and Stastny form a pretty potent duo up front. In addition, Sacco has them playing textbook clog-and-pray hockey which served Lemaire so well in the early days of the Minnesota Wild. So, if:
- Anderson continues to one of the top 5 goalies in the league
- The bounces continue to favor the Avs
- Stastny/Wolski stay healthy
I think Colordao has a shot at the post-season. It’s possible, but it’s not something I’d bet my own money on, personally.
As for the Flames, I think you have a fair point. In my eyes, Calgary is a pretty middling club at the moment.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 18, 2009 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I think it’s a little more possible than that. Behind the net did some interesting work on how poorly the Avs would have to play to miss out on the playoffs after their hot start.
I think the avs chances are pretty good right now.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2009 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
As far as I can tell you’ve used EV SF/SA, which only has an R^2 rating of 40% according to behind the net. Even the EV SF/SA when tied only has a 56% R^2.
Normally I would put a long and reasoned response so we could debate this back and forth, endlessly and ad nauseam. But I don’t feel like that today, so I will just steal a quote from a much smarter hockey blogger than myself:
Pure shithouse luck has the biggest say in the results on any given night in the NHL.
- Vic Ferrari
—
everything I’ve seen people use to describe the Avs as below average have similar points. That certain indicators say the Avs are below-average, but those indicators are far from infallible.
I remain highly unconvinced that the metrics cited in those posts were the end-all-be-all measurements of how good a team is (especially the Corsi stuff.).
Well, if you remain unconvinced that shots + and – at even strength are an indication of possession of the puck, and if you don’t think that puck possession drives results in the long run, then all I have to say is that we are not watching the same game.
—
Even if I were to concede that these are great metrics (and I’m not) I don’t know how you can justify this:
The Avalanche are not a good team.
Without at least adding…
but neither is Calgary.
If you read any of the myriad posts in the last month by the regular posters on this blog you would realize that we have been saying that Calgary has not been playing very well. But to insinuate that Calgary and Colorado could be on the same level of suck… damn. That takes balls.
Agree that Luck is the biggest determiner from night to night.
I think EV SF/SA is an indicator of puck possession, and yes puck possession does some to drive results long term. I don’t think it’s the end all-be all though and I certainly don’t think the correlation is as strong as you seem to think it is.
And in regards to the Avs Corsi F/A… They have played exactly 6 games (out of 21) against teams who weren’t in the top 1/2 of Corsi F/A, and 2 of those were against the Flames (16th). For comparison Calgary has played 13 games against teams in the lower 1/2. It’s certainly well within reason to assume that the Avs Corsi F/A will improve as they play teams that aren’t as good. Hell 1/4 of the Avs games so far have been against teams in the top 5 (CHI & DET), which will severely depress their numbers.
So yeah, I don’t disagree with you that the Flames are probably an Average team right now, I just disagree with you that the Avs suck. They have certainly gotten lucky, and are playing above their head, but to insinuate that they are a sucky team this year is probably a bit strong.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2009 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
Not to pick on you or anything but this sentence:
So yeah, I don’t disagree with you that the Flames are probably an Average team right now, I just disagree with you that the Avs suck.
is offbase. Every statistic or observation that says that the Flames are average also equally says that the Avalanche are horrible. Shots +/-, Corsi +/- (when tied or not), scoring chances, all of it points to a truly putrid Avs team.
I mean, you might have a point about the tough schedule but that kind of measure (toughness of schedule) is a moving target, the way you are doing it now is close to cherry-picking.
is offbase. Every statistic or observation that says that the Flames are average also equally says that the Avalanche are horrible. Shots +/-, Corsi +/- (when tied or not), scoring chances, all of it points to a truly putrid Avs team.
except for that pesky “winning” metric, hm? That one doesn’t matter at all in the face of Corsi ratings though, amirite?
Howso?
How is it cherry-picking. The Avs have played a tough schedule. It’s a moving target for sure, but it’s the only one there is. It’s not like I took a stretch of games to maximize the effect. I used every game.
and again, I still haven’t seen how shots +/- and Corsi +/- are as accurate indicators as you seem to imply they are. An R^2 of 56% is pretty mild.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2009 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
I think I’ve mentioned Irrelevant Oiler Fans (vhockey.blogspot.com) several times, it’s required reading. Obviously it’s just a few guys’ opinions, but they also back their opinions up with things that actually happen on the ice – as we try to do here on M&G. I’ve posted links to individual stories several times. I’m not going to bother now though, I’ll just say that it’s worth reading the entire archive.
Because if you do, then you’ll see that other people have already done the research that you so desire. That correlation coefficient is corsi-while-tied to current regulation points percentage. That’s not a predictor, that’s just telling you what happened, and luck’s a bitch. Corsi, or shots, or faceoff zone starts, as a predictor for future EV goal differential – much stronger. And current EV goal differential predicts shit all.
I think that will be my last word on this, at least for the time being. It will take you hours to read the IOF archives (and it’s worth it). Until that time, it’s not worth debating. This ain’t talk radio.
I’ve read bits and pieces of IOF, and I respect their work, but I think they also have a tendancy to misread their results a little.
The New Improved Avalanche. Now with Real Coaches!
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Nov 18, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
*irreverent.
i presume “irrelevant oiler fans” is a typo cause i know you really actually like that site. btw: it’s pretty a pretty funny typo. :)
by walkinvisible on Nov 18, 2009 12:21 PM PST up reply actions
“Colorado was more “opportunistic”…" I definitely have to agree with this, the Avs were definitely not the better team in either game, but both wins they have against the Flames, they just managed to take advantage of the opportunities they had. I will say the Avs were definitely better last night than they were the first game, but even still, 2 of the 3 goals they scored were pretty lucky, and the 2nd one only resulted from a poor play by Iggy (not dumping the puck deeper into the Avs zone on the line change). With all this talk too about the Avs not being a good team, I just have to say its pretty obvious the biggest reason they’re having as much success as they are is because of Anderson, no question. I do have to agree with Kent Wilson on the fact that the Avs are doing better than I, and probably most, people would have figured they would be doing at this point, but nevertheless they are considerably ahead of where they probably ought to be, in terms of numbers.
Honestly, the current Avs remind me a lot of the 2001-2002 Flames. That team started the year off 13-2-3-2 (best start in Franchise history I think) on the strength of some unsustainably good goaltending by Turek and Iginla’s break-out.
The wheels fell off in the second quarter however when Turek came back down to Earth. Calgary finished with a 32-35-12-3 record and ended up 4th in the division. Iginla continued to knock it out of the park that year, but it didn’t matter: the lack of depth killed the club. Plus, as we all learned soon after, Turek wasn’t all that great a goalie.
Anderson is probably better than Turek, so the Avs may be able to rely on better than average goaltending for a majority of the season. Perhaps that’ll be enough to keep them form stepping into the same elevator shaft as that Flames club.
That’s my read on it as well. Not only do they remind me of the 01-02 Flames in terms of their start to their season, they also remind me of the 98-99 Flames in terms of overall talent. While I’m pissed at how we lost these two games against the Avs, I’m also not remotely worried about them. They really do look like a house of cards that will blow over at any time.
I actually gained a lot of respect for Bourque he’s really turning into a prototypical power forward and those are tough to come by and he was provoked in the first place you’re down late in the 3rd period things haven’t gone your way with the blocked shots and the frustration level just boiled over.
I’d say look out Blackhawks when Iginla gets mad he’s dangerous I think same goes for Rene.
30 years of the NHL's Best Hockey, It got us through some tough times.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
