Flames @ Blue Jackets Post-Game
by Kent Wilson on Nov 29, 2009 11:32 AM PST
22 comments
One of the consequences of writing about hockey is you begin to plan your pieces while the game is playing. Watching the contest this morning, I was prepared to positively gush about the Flames effort and performance...until about the 10:00 mark in the second period. That's when Huselius and Nash started going all Harlem globetrotters on Calgary, culminating in a 9-0 scoring chance run and three straight Columbus tallies. My evaluation of the club obviously soured at that point.
Of course, things would change again at the 10:00 mark of the third period, when the Jackets went into "prevent defense" mode and the Flames managed to even the score. Calgary continued to dominate into the over time, so it was nice to see them skate away with a shoot-out victory (for a change).
Iginla and Jokinen played about 40 minutes of "#1 line" hockey I thought, which is perhaps another step in the right direction. They ended up under water in terms of possession and scoring chances, but that's often what happens when you play Rick Nash on home ice with Jamie Lundmark on your line. Jokinen is gradually becoming the player I thought he was, meaning, a forward who at least creates some havoc in the offensive zone, even if he's not without his flaws. His improvement has occured in lockstep with Jarome looking more and more like the elite power forward we'd come to know and love and that probably isn't a coincidence. I'm guessing they could start holding their own in all measures of performance if, say, a Bourque-like forward was added to the mix (*hint hint). It's instructive that Brent Sutter chooses to place Boyd over Lundmark on the left hand side when things get serious and the bench shortens.
Other stuff:
- Aside from his great feed to Dawes for the GTG, I thought Moss really struggled. He bobbled the puck a lot in bad areas and made some questionable passes and decisions. Still not up to snuff I'm afraid.
- Kristian Huselius always seems to show why I liked him as a player whenever the Flames make the trip to Columbus. He was deadly.
- Rich Nash is frighteningly good.
- Nigel Dawes might be the best value addition of the off-season.
- Calgary's PK gave up a lot of quality scoring chances the last two games. It's amazing the Flames escaped with just 1 PPG against.
- McElhinney had a couple of tough sequences and the Methot goal was probably stoppable. That said, he made some nice saves on close in chances and actually got some goal support.
0 recs |
22 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
i raised the roof to jamie mclennan over at mine this morning…. i’m not sure what it is exactly but SOMETHING is going right in the netminding department and i have to wonder he isn’t the missing link.
also, if you haven’t already erased the game, i would love to know if regehr simply stood huseilus up at the blueline towards the end of the game (perhaps in overtime ?) or if he actually punched him in the face. i’m guessing you would have noticed it, like i did, but i don’t have the power of the pvr…..
I don’t understand how most of the penalties work in the NHL anymore, frankly.
And if Jamie McLennan can improve goalies stats to this degree, he’s probably one of the most valuable coaches in the league.
i suppose sutter could be a factor but realistically, credit should probably go to noodles.
by walkinvisible on Nov 29, 2009 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
I think Curtis McElhinney has always been this player. He played numerous similar games last year, with the difference being the Flames would do nothing at the other end and the Flames would lose.
As for Kipper, well…he’s had similar periods of effectiveness during the past few seasons, only to drop to the mediocre level for a majority of the season (Jan-Feb comes to mind from last season for example). Im thrilled with his play, but I’m going to hold back on declaring this renaissance for real until we’re looking at similar performances and stats in March as well.
you’re absolutely right. it’s probaby because of noodles.
;)
by walkinvisible on Nov 29, 2009 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I can say I was pleasantly surprised to see the Flames come from behind to win, in Columbus no less. I had figured their history of playing like crap in front of McElhinney and losing all the time in Columbus would be a recipe for disaster, and by the end of the second it was looking that way (though to be fair the first period the Flames were definitely the dominant team). I didn’t watch most of the third, figuring the Flames would continue their trend, but when I saw they had made it 3-3 my jaw literally dropped. Credit to the team for coming out and not giving up in the third, going back to their play from the first and getting the job done. McElhinney was strong for the most part, though as you mention that second goal probably should have been stopped. Heck the third one too probably should have been as well, considering Boll isn’t exactly a great shot. The Nash goal was just a damn nice shot though, not much most goalies are going to do about that one. Anyway, nice to see the Flames finally buck a trend and win in Columbus…now they need start beating the Ducks in Anaheim and the Hawks, well, at all. Also, its nice to see the Avs finally starting their downward spiral back to earth. Hopefully the Flames can put some more distance between them against Nashville, though the Preds have been super hot lately so it should be a great game.
Ok Ok...
you’re going to hate me for bringing this up, but…..uhhh, No. McL has not yet proven he is an answer. He did not play great last night, he played only well enough to hang on. Allow me to explain myself here, because I’m not just a guy with a unbiased hate on for him.
1st..the game. The three goals in 32 shots is a .906sv% which is hardly spectacular. The second and third goal are both soft plays with the third being at an inopportune time (with 0:32 left in the period). As well, the PP goal was a nice shot…and maybe forgiveable, but it’s a wrister from the board side of the face-off dot, which, if I’m not mistaken, by Kent’s ‘pie-shape’ chances diagram, isn’t even a scoring chance if it’s saved. It was a far cry from a tic-tac-toe PP goal.
2nd the season. Hello people, the kid has an even strength sv% of .883! He also is running a season sv% of .903% which is being aided by a highly unsustainable pksv% of .958%.
You guys are praising the kid for equal or worse stats than Kipper had last year, that you completely argued to the death about with me! When I defended Kiprusoff last year saying that Kipper could bounce back, and something else was to blame, the response was at an evsv% of .907% he was worse than Raycroft! McElhinney has actually gotten worse this year at .883 compared to last years .897 evsv%
We have one goalie with an evsv% of .940 and one with a .883….the second is not good enough. Whatever the reason is for Kipper’s resurgence (be it not having Keenan and Marcoux, or having Noodles, both, olympic motivations or just cutting out the smokes) the effects have not continued to McL. He isn’t getting better. Now, he has only played 3 games and I seriously DO hope he proves me wrong, and that this is just a sample size issue but until then, I am of the opinion that this team NEEDS a better backup. I said it last year, if even for the fact to push Kipper re: his declining stats.
There are many goalies without jobs right now, right Mr. Weekes? These guys, or a guy like Curtis Sanford, who I have mentioned numerous times as an ideal fit, sporting a .931sv% in the AHL and making the same dough as McElhinney, are needed if we seriously think we are a contender. if Kiprusoff is hurt, we are in a bad boat.
I’m sorry, I’m all for developing the youth but as WI had in her post, and what I’ve been saying all along is what Noodles said:
“It’s not about placing him in the right situation, it’s about him earning it. Any situation he’s in, he’s got to rise to the challenge… That’s his job. Curtis has definitely given himself a right to play.”
Well, he better get better, cause if not I would at least like to see the Flames give Irving a serious shot next year, and if not trade for another goalie at the deadline. I just have yet to see Curtis give me reason to believe in him other than a half dozen solid saves.
I think he’s a solid backup option and better than anyone else we’d bring into this particular situation this year. If Kipper goes down, we’re screwed no matter who is here, probably. Next year is next year, and Irving will be here then.
Maimster…what metric is informing you that he is better than anyone else we’d bring into this particular situation this year? Let’s use an example. Why would he be [certainly] better than say Curtis Sanford who has sported a .916, .909, and .920 evsv% over the last 3 NHL seasons in relief?
That’s the catch 22 of trying to develop a young goaltender behind a highly paid, highly decorated goaltender like Kipper: there’s little to no incentive or motivation to give the guy the proper amount of at-bats to determine whether he’s worth a damn.
I agree with you Lawrence: Curtis McElhinney doesn’t look any better this year than he did last year. That said, the kid has started less than 20 games in his career. He’s seen a grand total of 103 shots this year. Those are positively miniscule numbers to judge a goalie’s performance by, let alone a goalie who is supposedly still developing and improving (although one wonders how much one would develop in such a circumstance).
In case it sounds like I’m arguing…I’m with you. A proven NHLer is probably the way for the Flames to go. Then they don’t risk the present by potentially handing over a season to an unknown kid like McElhinney should Kipper go down AND you don’t bugger the development of a future asset by putting him on the bench for 85% of the season. Personally, as you probably know, I kinda see tinvesting time, money and draft picks in goalies a bit of a mugs game at the NHL level (unless you’re absolutely certain you have a home run), because of what we’re talking about now. As you point out, there’s plenty of cheap options for back-up that would likely be as good or better than Curtis.
That said, I still stand by my contention that we have no real idea what kind of player we have in him yet. The body of work is way too small.
Agreed – the body of work is too small to make a sound judgement. The issue is whether you have the ability to make this guy the proven NHLer you need. The past couple of seasons, the team started poorly and had no room to give him his shot. At his current cap hit, 5-7 wins on the season would be decent value – cheaper than Kipper. Frankly if he provides 10 more starts like Columbus – 3 GA on 30 shots; then 3 or 4 more wins are possible and is all you need. I think the way forward is to hope that Irving is ready next year – and ready to start 20-25 games.
Things could be worse fellas – we could have Edmonton’s goalies…….
These are all fair points, but I disagree.
First, Curtis has 3 wins at 535,000 in 11 games. That is not better value than Kipper (who costs ~$2880/win or $207,395/win @ win%) vs McL @ $178,333/win or $560,796/win@win%)
Second, Curtis’s value, which is unfair to compare to Kipper, needs to be compared to another backup. My over-used example are both Curtis’s. Sanford vs McElhinney. If we’re paying ~$550k for a backup goalie is should be for the best backup goalie we can get for that money. I contend McL isn’t it that goalie. Of course there are acquisition costs to consider, but Sanford is playing in the AHL, I’m sure the asking price won’t be high. Unless of course they trade Halak…which is very likely…rumble rumble.
Third, the sample size argument is valid, but a different dynamic than with players. Players are subject to limited minutes, quality of linemates, usage, etc. A goalie plays when he plays…60 minutes. I’m not asking for a change to be made today, but by the trade deadline at earliest, if necessary. We will have given McL two full seasons of backup duty and a cup o’ coffee in 07-08. He has yet to average a .900 sv % over those 23 games and 12 starts. His career-to-date evsv% is .893 and going down thus far this season. His current evsv% is 59th out of 67 goalies, right there with the Vesa Toskala’s of the world.
I guess the question is: If we know a backup is only going to play 10 or so games a season behind Kipper (until ~2013) then how many seasons does that goalie get to be evaluated? In other words, how long do we need to evaluate McElhinney? I hope we’re not waiting for injury to Kipper do the evaluations.
Going into the playoffs there is a good chance of injury to Kiprusoff and quite frankly I don’t feel confident in a McElhinney/Irving duo for any long playoff runs. If we feel McL has any value then trade him with that value, after all goalie’s these days are a dime a dozen….nevermind back-ups who win 25% of the time.
These two propisitions are seemingly contradictory, but valid:
1.) McElhinney’s body of work is way too small to draw real conclusions from
2.) He hasn’t shown enough to warrant faith that more work would necessarily improve his numbers.
Seasons isn’t an issue with goalies. Number of shots is. It’s the same with forwards and shooting percentage: small numbers skews things. A dude who scores 20 goals on 100 shots has a 20 SH%, but I wouldn’t wager anything on him repeating that rate through the next 100 (or 500) shots. If we see a guy maintain a 20% success rate through 1000 shots though…then we can be certain we’re much closer to his real ability. More power is added as the sample increases. Similarly, power diminishes the smaller the sample.
As such, I admit that the arrows don’t point in the right direction for Curtis. His body of work in the NHL is tiny but not very promising and it probably makes sense for a team aiming at a long play-off run to hedge their bets with a more proven back-up. However, he also can’t really be compared to guys like Toskala or Raycroft, who have sustained shitty save rates through vastly higher sums of shots on goal. Not yet, at least.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 30, 2009 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah, McL doesn’t look much better this year then last to my eye. He still gives out those heart-attack inducing juicy rebounds and lets in some soft shots that really shouldn’t be goals. The only difference is that he’s picked up W’s. Which is (ultimately) all that matters.
I think the team in front of him is playing better. They seem to be jumping on those juicy rebounds and clearing them whereas last year they’d seemingly just allow a shooting gallary to continue. Plus last year the team always looked pooped/slow on the back half of a 2-in-2 and this year they have a bit more jump in their step.
I think it’s time we all realized that last years team sucked! They just were not good. Which is why I have been ok with agreeing to give McElhinney more time, but his stats are going the wrong way…even if he is winning (which I agree with that when it comes to backups it truly is all that matters). I just don’t see it lasting long term if he keeps letting in 12% of shots at evens.
Nah. Last year’s team was great at a few things and medicore to lousy at others. In the end, the result was probably an average to marginally above average squad.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 30, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
Ok, fair enough. Sucked is harsh. Where I come from though…average to marginally above average isn’t good enough. As well, I think the tone of this blog demands more. Hell, we’re 16-6-3 and still tearing the team. I’m just saying that last few years teams were certainly not ones to evaluate much on.
CG posted this in response to some crazy lunatic saying the Flames could have won the cup last year if Kipper didn’t suck.
2005-06: 20th
2006-07: 14th
2007-08: 11th
2008-09: 7th
Those are win thresholds, irrespective of goaltending. I don’t think the Flames have ever been elite during this period, and this particular stat is flattering I think. Sheer wealth of talent alone has saved the Flames during Keenans era. As well, the first round exits are not something to write home about. This year’s team is the first I have some faith in….outstanding deficiencies addressed of course.
Anyway….this is off topic, and really doesn’t matter at all
You’re preaching to the choir. I tend to be unpopular on messageboards because I don’t take the “you need to clap HARDER” approach to Flames fandom and analysis.
by Kent Wilson on Nov 30, 2009 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Matchsticks and Gasoline
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
- In which former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock foils a shoplifter
- Montreal's Price talks new 2-year contract, expectations post-Halak
- Donald Fehr aware of Kovalchuk drama, mum on everything else
- Puck Headlines: Savard's agent rants on Bettman; Halak in Montreal
- Boudreau, Crawford placed on the coaching hot seat
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.
