Readers Respond: G15, Rangers @ Flames Post-Game
by R O on Nov 8, 2009 11:43 AM PST
Email
PrintLet's try something different here. I have a poll after the jump asking this question: "Did the Flames play well last night"? Answer the poll first (it's at the bottom of the page), then read my post-game and see if your perception of the game matched mine.
Breakdown:
First
EV Shots On Goal : 9-9
EV Shots Toward Net : 18-18
EV Faceoff Starts : 7-4
Second
EV Shots On Goal : 4-7
EV Shots Toward Net : 12-11
EV Faceoff Starts : 2-3
Third
EV Shots On Goal : 5-7
EV Shots Toward Net : 12-12
EV Faceoff Starts : 3-3
Overall
EV Shots On Goal : 18-23
EV Shots Toward Net : 42-41
EV Faceoff Starts : 12-10
Points of discussion:
- For the record, my answer to the poll would be "no". Yeah I know we won, and the goals weren't flukey or anything. But we got pinned in our own zone way too often, mostly due to all of the turnovers at the blueline. When we did manage to get out of our zone, we had a few glorious chances in transition, but other times we had trouble even gaining their zone. And I'm not happy that so many of our other breakouts were stymied like that, and they resulted in glorious NYR scoring chances. I don't even think the Rangers have the best forecheck in the world (that distinction probably belongs to Detroit and Chicago). Our D having to make risky 30 foot passes like they did all night - it points to a lack of forward support, Maddening.
- The Iginla-Jokinen duo spent a lot of time in their own zone (and more time apart as the game went on) - and color me biased, but Jokinen was driving the buss (off the cliff). He was fighting the puck all night, which I can probably overlook (shit happens). But I can't forgive that 15-foot miss on Iginla's sweet feed - what was that??? And his game was totally off. I can't count the number of times he either shied away from a down-low battle if the Flames zone, or simply floated around in the faceoff circle while one of his wingers cleaned up the mess. Either that's a Sutter decision to relieve Jokinen of his position's defensive responsibilities (good for Sutter, but it just highlights Jokinen's weaknesses) or his wingers were simply adjusting (good for the wingers, but it just highlights Jokinen's weaknesses). If Jokinen's not playing injured, then he needs to pull something toot sweet, because there's no excuse otherwise.
- Iginla, on the other hand, was engaged. He's still not 07/08 form, and I didn't get the impresion that he played against Gaborik much, but he was nonetheless battling and creating chances.
- Kiprusoff had another outstanding performance last night. Some of those close-in chances were sure goals, and Kipper guessed right on all of them last night.
- Bourque was a force. Most of the sustained offensive pressure came when Bourque's unit was on the ice, and Bourque played a huge role of keeping cycles alive.
- The Glencross hit on Drury was dangerous and unnecessary. He did have a basis to lay a hit on Drury as the puck was coming across, but it didn't have to be that hit.
Fire away...
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think the important part of your question was “did the Flames play a good game” Were they great? No. But were they good? Sure – and they could have been better.
You know what? I gotta say this. Now, that I am less needed to defend Kipper (for now) I am going to jump in front of the bus for Jokinen. OK, it’s true he is bad, right now. At times he is really, really bad. He also isn’t lucky right now. BUT, at the same time I think that we are all getting on board the ‘kick his teeth down his throat when he’s down’ bus.
Last night though, I was counting up ‘shitty ass plays’ in a way I thought was quite fair, and if I didn’t lose the piece of paper I would have been able to tell you with more confidence that Jokinen wasn’t leading by a country mile…in fact, there were players who played worse than he last night, we just don’t collectively hate those guys. Granted, GlenX for example, is making a fraction of the dough Joker is, but I think that’s a management concern vs an on-ice concern. A shitty cheap player is no better on the ice than a shitty expensive player.
I bet you there is no one more disappointed with his game than Jokinen, and it won’t last long term. Either, he’ll snap out of it, he’ll be traded, or he’ll be benched. My guess is he will snap out of it eventually, because the second two are so unlikely that is the only option. I don’t think Joker played that poorly last night, but he was very unfortunate. He was in the right places often, played hard (sometimes) and made a couple of good plays. If he stops putting so much pressure on himself…the 2 on 1 for example, is a goal. It’s not going to help us if we are all lining up to burn effigies of the poor sucker right now. But hey, fair enough if we/you hate him.
The thing is, I don’t think anyone is really playing THAT great right now, and it’s easy to focus on Jokinen because he has been the most consistently poor.
I still think that there are only three of four guys who for most nights are leading the Flames, and quite frankly that isn’t good enough.
One of them is Kipper:
Last night: 0.970% ev sv%, Highlight reel: 5-1
Game stats Kipper: 9-3-1 – .912% (.926% ev)
.920 sv% +: 6 of 13
sv% >/= opp. sv%: 10 of 13
<27 s/a: 2 of 13
>30 s/a: 7 of 13
>33 s/a: 4 of 13
Highlight reel: 51 – 30
I think the important part of your question was "did the Flames play a good game" Were they great? No. But were they good? Sure – and they could have been better.
Alright Lawrence – that is fair.
Now let me ask you this: what would your opinion be if we had lost the game instead?
by R O on Nov 8, 2009 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
Ah, I never thought we were losing that game so I couldn’t have possibly had another opinion!
:-)
Seriously, that’s a fair question (even though you asked Lawrence, I’ll answer!). I thought they played reasonably well in any event; I thought they were skating well, the play was quick and they had more ‘wave’ action on NYR than vice versa. I thought their defensive effort, vis a vis getting the damn puck out of their end when they had a clear chance, was very poor and this was the cause of most of the chances against, but I thought they were the better team in transition.
I do agree with the points you raised, so I guess if you add those up and the answer should be ‘they played a poor game’, then that’s a fair opinion.
I thought their defensive effort, vis a vis getting the damn puck out of their end when they had a clear chance, was very poor and this was the cause of most of the chances against, but I thought they were the better team in transition.
Well said, this is the crux of it, I think. By far the Flames were worse at relieving sustained pressure in the D zone. By far the Flames were the superior team in transition.
I suppose it’s my bias but I prefer chances from sustained zone time to chances from transition. I realize that goals from either are equal, but if you miss on a rush, the other team’s forwards are in a much better position to get an equally saucy chance against you.
Although I will say, most odd-man rushes always result in quality chances so having that as an offensive option is always good. But it needs to be accompanied with the ability to keep the puck in the offensive zone once it’s there, imo.
by R O on Nov 8, 2009 2:51 PM PST up reply actions
I’ve been thinking about this, and I think ultimately my reaction to these two facets of the game is a function of if the team won or lost. If they win, and they’re playing a fast moving game with lots of up-and-down-the-ice play…well, that’s an ‘exciting’ way to play and winning a game with that type of play justifies my cheering for an exciting team (who may have a few defensive flaws).
However, if they lose, it is likely because of 2-3 goals off the types of turnovers we’re talking about. Last night, for example, the NYR goal came 15-20 seconds after a point where I swore at someone (either Sarich or Phaneuf, if I recall correctly) who didn’t get the puck out. It is tough to enjoy good facets of their play when they lose and make these type of boneheaded plays.
So, to summarize, I probably feel most good about their play last night because they won – I’m ultimately results oriented in my fanship. I hope and trust, however, that the coaching staff takes a more nuanced view of things, similar to how you broke things down, and they don’t stop realizing there is plenty of room for improvement.
RO, I think Maimster said it very well below how our response can and should be skewed slightly by the score. Call it cheering to the score effects. I don’t think the Flames played a good game because we won, but I think that the Flames playing a good, but not great game, assisted their winning potential.
I don’t want to make this about semantics (good vs great) because that’s unfair to you, but I do think that Kipper, Dawes and Regehr played great to excellent and those performances tilt the table. I also believe that the Flames played a better game in the neutral zone vs the previous two, so that could do it for me as well.
For the Flames to have lost…there would have had to be the same plays leading to either ‘soft goals’ by the defensive unit and Kipper, or the entire team being stricken with Jokihands, or both. Adding and witnessing those factors, had they happened, would have certainly made me vote otherwise.
Ultimately, I believe that Flames are still a team, as they have been for the last few years, that are being led by individuals, and don’t get solid team-unit efforts. I’m not saying two or three are driving the bus and the others are on it – I mean, two or three are driving a race car and the others haven’t even walked to the track yet.
Scoring chances are up.
I thought the game was closer to what I’d like to see from Calgary, but still a ways away from ideal. Iginla and Jokinen are still under water in terms of corsi and chances and until that turns around to some degree (for one or the other), the team is going to continue to look relatively mediocre.
Defending Phaneuf
Speaking of guys who are constantly getting criticized on this site, since Phaneuf play those back-to-back miserable games against Chicago and Columbus, in the last 8 games, Phaneuf’s total Fenwick is +14 and Corsi is +27.
Over the same stretch of 8 games, Bouwmeester’s Fenwick is -21 and Corsi is -39. While I realize Bouwmeester is facing the top lines and Phaneuf is not, is the gap in competition really the entire explanation for a difference of +66 in Corsi for Phaneuf? Over the past 8 games, which is a small sample, Phaneuf averaqes a Corsi of about +8 over the more heralded Bouwmeester.
This isn’t to say Bouwmeester is playing poorly, but perhaps we should lay off of Dion just a little bit. The stats are not backing up the seemingly relentless criticism of Phaneuf. He’s been thriving in his role on the secondary pairing and providing offense for the Flames.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
I personally don’t remember anyone coming down hard on Phaneuf recently around here. Last year and in the off-season…sure. Lately? I think I had something bad to say at the end of a game recently, but otherwise I think he’s been pretty sound. I’d like to see him against tougher competition, but there’s only so many minutes like that to go around.
i would suggest that dion’s “soundness” is largely BECAUSE he’s seeing middling competition. i think that sutter has identifyed dion’s strengths where keenan had failed: keep his minutes down around the <24 range, keep him away from the toughest competition, and keep him off the PK.
by walkinvisible on Nov 8, 2009 6:47 PM PST up reply actions
The one point I’ll caution people about re: Bouwmeester’s Corsi is that he’s not only faced the other team’s best, but he’s spent a lot of time behind Jokinen and Iginla doing it, which will put anyone in the hole. If the Flames ever go power vs. power with the Langkow line and Bouwmeester-Sarich on a full time basis, I have a feeling that his advanced numbers will be better. I won’t imply that defencemen aren’t simply innocent by-standers, but being behind a forward group that can’t get out of it’s own way many nights will hurt their numbers in a way that might not match their quality of play.
Phaneuf’s been fine. My hope for him this year was that he re-established himself at EV vs. at least second level opposition, which he’s done. I didn’t exactly presume he’d be doing it alongside Regehr, but that’s how it’s been, and if he and Reggie continue to develop some comfort together, it’ll give the team two very sound pairs.
by Robert Cleave on Nov 8, 2009 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
That should read “defencemen are innocent by-standers”, of course
by Robert Cleave on Nov 8, 2009 5:28 PM PST up reply actions
This was the first game I could watch fully. Jokinen was not good. On one powerplay he gave the puck away twice and whiffed a good scoring chance. Since his slump has been since well into last season how much time does he need to snap out of it?
I am all for not over-reacting or giving guys a chance but enough is enough.
Now when it comes to what to do? That is something I will leave to Sutter but I hope to God he has a plan. I still can’t see who would want him but there has to be a desperate team somewhere.
Questions
I notice the emphasis of statistics on this site as a measure of the team’s ability to win. While I agree that the numbers that you present do not look good, how is it that the Flames are continuing to win? Is it that the sample size is too small (too few games) or that the win/loss stat is skewed by Kipper’s stats?
How is it that the Flames have won the majority of their games – and yet most of the games are rated “bad” in this site? In the same vein, if the Flames are playing “badly” in so many of their games, what does this say about the teams that lose to the Flames? Have there been “good” teams in history that have had “bad” statistics?
Thanks
Well, there’s a couple of things you have to keep in mind with this stuff:
1.) There’s lots of parity in the NHL. Honestly, the division between bad and good teams in this league is probably thinner than it’s ever been before. Most nights, either team could win – even the ones that play worse games.
2.) As such, in short stints like 10-15 games, chance can have a sizable effect, Fifteen games seems like a big sample to our brains, but it’s actually pretty minuscule. It’s not even a quarter of the season.
Colorado is actually the best team to illustrate this point. The Flames most lopsided game this year in terms of shot and chance differential (on the plus side) came against the Avs…and they lost that game. Colorado has managed a number of victories like that this year. Is it going to continue in the long term? Unless Anderson is the next Hasek, I seriously, seriously doubt it. You can be outshot and outchanced and win…but only for so long.
I think a poker analogy is apt here…
Anyone who’s played poker at all has sat down at a table with a poor player: a guy who makes bad bets and chases river cards. Sometimes those guys catch their cards and win a few hands. Sometimes they can do it for an hour, sometimes for a night…eventually, though, they start to lose because you can only beat the odds for so long.
I voted NO
simply because they were still getting overmatched for long stretches. Thankfully Kipper was there and in fine form (when has he ever played this well at the start of a season?) and pulled it out for them.
Molberg suggest suspension as a possibility. Maybe the Flames got a notice of a conference call from the league?
by Robert Cleave on Nov 9, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
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
@
Anaheim
|
Mon 02/06 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
@
San Jose
|
Wed 02/08 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
@
Phoenix
|
Thu 02/09 | 6:00 PM PST |
|
Vancouver
|
Sat 02/11 | 7:00 PM PST |
|
Toronto
|
Tue 02/14 | 6:00 PM PST |
Last 5 Games
|
Chicago
|
Fri 02/03 | W 3 - 1 |
|
Detroit
|
Tue 01/31 | L 1 - 3 |
|
San Jose
|
Tue 01/24 | L 0 - 1 |
|
@
Edmonton
|
Sat 01/21 | W 6 - 2 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Thu 01/19 | SO - W 2 - 1 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Friday’s Three Stars: Brassard wins it for Blue Jackets in overtime; Halak blanks Kings
- Puck Previews: Blues host Kings in first game after break; Blackhawks’ road struggles
- Best barometer of the St. Louis Blues’ success? Gifts from political lobbyists
- ‘Scott Gomez Can’t Put Anything In’: The ‘Hey Jude’ of Scott Gomez protest songs (Video)
- Puck Headlines: Jimmy Howard’s injury; top 50 players; drinking beer out of hockey skate (yuck)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- WHL Roundup: A look at Friday's games
- Gabriel and Leipsic two goals each as the Winterhawks defeat the Silvertips 7-3
- Feser solidifies Americans win with two empty-net goals against the Thunderbirds
- Holberg scores winner in shootout as the Chiefs beat the Royals 6-5
- Brown makes 26 saves to lead the Rockets over the Cougars 2-1
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.
