Connect with us

Calgary Flames

Flames 3, Ducks 6 – Flames Victims of Nightmarish Meltdown [Game #59 Stats Recap]

Ew.

Published

on

The Calgary Flames took on the Anaheim Ducks in something that looked like a hockey game for at least two periods. The third period took place and the Flames decided that hockey was boring and that they didn’t feel much like playing any longer. The Ducks came back from a two to one deficit to take a five to two lead before the Flames answered with a goal of their own. That only helped Anaheim score an empty netter though as the Ducks downed the flames by a score of six to three.

The Corsi Table

# Period One Period Two Period Three Total
CF CA CF% CF REL% CF CA CF% CF REL% CF CA CF% CF REL% CF CA CF% CF REL%
7 5.7 5.0 53.3% 11.4% 6.8 6.6 50.7% 15.1% 7.3 6.0 54.9% 43.8% 19.8 17.7 52.8% 20.6%
5 4.7 5.0 48.5% 3.9% 5.8 9.2 38.7% -3.1% 5.0 3.3 60.2% 40.1% 15.5 17.6 46.8% 10.4%
19 4.0 5.1 44.0% -2.5% 7.7 6.3 55.0% 21.9% 2.1 4.3 32.8% .9% 13.8 15.7 46.8% 9.8%
11 4.0 5.1 44.0% -2.5% 7.7 7.3 51.3% 17.0% 2.1 4.1 33.9% 2.2% 13.8 16.5 45.5% 8.1%
23 3.8 1.0 79.2% 39.4% 4.8 5.6 46.2% 7.4% 2.4 6.4 27.3% -7.1% 10.9 12.9 45.8% 7.7%
17 4.0 5.1 44.0% -2.5% 8.7 7.2 54.7% 23.1% 2.1 6.2 25.3% -9.8% 14.8 18.5 44.4% 6.8%
24 2.8 0.9 75.7% 33.9% 3.8 4.7 44.7% 5.1% 2.4 6.4 27.3% -7.1% 9.0 12.1 42.7% 3.5%
13 2.8 0.9 75.7% 33.9% 3.8 5.4 41.3% .9% 2.4 6.4 27.3% -7.1% 9.0 12.8 41.3% 1.8%
4 4.9 8.1 37.7% -13.6% 9.7 8.4 53.6% 23.4% 3.1 9.4 24.8% -13.4% 17.7 25.8 40.7% 1.4%
21 2.0 6.2 24.4% -28.8% 4.9 5.8 45.8% 7.0% 2.4 3.1 43.6% 14.4% 9.3 15.1 38.1% -2.4%
25 4.8 5.1 48.5% 4.0% 0.0 2.9 .0% -43.8% 0.9 2.1 30.0% -2.4% 5.7 10.1 36.1% -4.5%
20 2.9 6.1 32.2% -18.9% 3.9 8.4 31.7% -12.8% 3.5 4.2 45.5% 18.5% 10.4 18.8 35.6% -6.1%
60 2.9 6.1 32.2% -18.9% 3.9 8.1 32.5% -11.6% 2.7 3.3 45.0% 16.4% 9.6 17.7 35.2% -6.5%
8 5.7 5.0 53.3% 11.4% 0.0 7.1 .0% -49.3% 2.9 5.1 36.3% 5.8% 8.6 17.2 33.3% -8.8%
33 4.8 4.1 53.9% 11.4% 1.0 6.5 13.3% -33.5% 0.8 4.2 16.0% -19.7% 6.6 14.8 30.8% -11.5%
6 4.0 8.2 32.8% -21.1% 8.7 9.3 48.3% 13.8% 0.8 10.5 7.1% -42.3% 13.4 27.9 32.4% -12.7%
29 4.8 4.1 53.9% 11.4% 1.0 8.1 11.0% -38.2% 0.8 4.2 16.0% -19.7% 6.6 16.4 28.7% -14.6%
18 3.8 5.0 43.2% -3.5% 0.0 2.9 .0% -43.8% 0.9 5.1 15.0% -21.9% 4.7 13.0 26.6% -16.2%
Tm 14.5 17.2 45.7% 16.5 24.1 40.6% 8.9 18.8 32.1% 39.9 60.1 39.9%
Player Data from War-On-Ice.com
All data is five on five and score adjusted.

There’s no way around it; the possession metrics on this one were horrid throughout this game. The team started out slightly above their average in the first period, but their average isn’t very good. They would only get worse as the game went on as only T.J. Brodie posted positive numbers. Matt Stajan posted the worst possession numbers of the game (though he did put home a goal). Dennis Wideman was just impeccably bad and Deryk Engelland played poorly enough to pass Brandon Bollig for the second worst possession numbers on the team with only Markus Granlund.

Speaking of Granlund, his team worst -4.5 percent relative Corsi value actually got worse this game. While he was doing well down in Adirondack with 12 points in 14 games, he was shooting at an unsustainable 17.1 percent. In addition to this he’s already 21 and AHL to NHL equivalency models only project for around 30 to 31 points over the course of an 82 game season. Combine those numbers with his terrible possession and it looks like he isn’t quite ready for the NHL just yet, although there are certainly hints of promise. The decision to drop the currently better Josh Jooris in the lineup for Granlund was rather peculiar, though.

The Stats Table

# All Scenarios 5v5 4v5 PK 5v4 PP
TOI G A iSC iCF PND PNT FOW FOL BS HIT +/- OZS DZS +/- FA P iCF
18 9.2 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 0
17 16.7 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 4 7 0 1 0 0
23 17.1 1 0 2 3 0 0 13 10 0 0 -2 5 5 0 0 0 2
8 13.3 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 2 3 1 3 3 0 1 0 0
20 15.7 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 2 -2 1 5 0 0 0 0
13 16.7 0 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 -2 5 4 0 0 0 1
6 25.5 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 -2 4 8 0 1 0 2
25 7.4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 0
60 13.4 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 5 1 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
5 24.4 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 1 0 2
7 20.6 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 5 0 1 0 0
29 12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 2 5 0 0 0 0
19 17.7 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 5 -1 4 7 0 0 0 0
33 15.8 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 -1 3 5 0 0 0 2
21 16.9 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 2 5 0 0 0 1
24 15.8 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 -2 5 4 0 0 0 1
11 19.5 0 0 4 5 0 0 9 12 1 0 -2 5 6 0 0 0 3
4 21.6 0 0 2 5 1 0 0 0 2 1 -2 4 8 0 1 0 1
TOI – Time on Ice | G – Goals | A – Assists | ISC – Individual Scoring Chances | ICF – Individual Corsi | PND – Penalties Drawn | PNT – Penalties Taken | FOW – Faceoffs Won | FOL – Faceoffs Lost | BS – Blocked Shots | HIT – Hits | OZS – Offensive Zone Starts | DZS – Defensive Zone Starts | FA – Fenwick Against | P – Points
All Data from war-on-ice.com

Stajan didn’t have a great game, but still came out on the positive end of the plus minus scale in addition to his goal. The fourth line wound up positive despite an otherwise lackluster game. Lance Bouma got the third star for his effort and he was very good for the Flames, but it was a rather uninspired performance from the team as a whole and the third star probably should have gone to another member of the Ducks.

The W.O.W.Y. Table

4 5 6 7 8 11 13 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 29 33 60
4 NA NA 14/25 4/1 2/2 12/15 0/3 13/13 0/2 12/13 5/8 4/8 0/3 0/3 0/2 NA NA 6/6 18/26
5 NA NA 0/1 16/15 2/4 2/1 9/8 2/3 1/1 2/2 3/9 3/4 11/10 9/9 2/0 0/3 0/0 2/7 16/19
6 14/25 0/1 NA 1/2 0/4 11/15 0/4 11/14 0/4 11/12 3/10 5/9 0/4 1/4 0/2 NA 0/1 4/6 15/29
7 4/1 16/15 1/2 NA 4/3 5/2 9/7 4/6 1/3 5/3 5/5 4/4 11/9 10/8 2/0 NA 0/0 4/4 21/18
8 2/2 2/4 0/4 4/3 NA 1/0 0/2 1/2 4/13 0/0 3/4 1/0 1/1 NA 5/10 5/13 5/10 2/4 9/18
11 12/15 2/1 11/15 5/2 1/0 NA 0/0 14/14 NA 14/14 0/3 1/3 NA 1/0 NA 0/0 0/1 NA 15/17
13 0/3 9/8 0/4 9/7 0/2 0/0 NA NA 0/0 0/0 0/1 NA 9/13 9/12 NA 0/3 0/3 NA 9/14
17 13/13 2/3 11/14 4/6 1/2 14/14 NA NA 0/2 13/16 NA 1/0 0/2 0/1 NA 0/1 0/1 1/1 15/19
18 0/2 1/1 0/4 1/3 4/13 NA 0/0 0/2 NA 1/0 0/1 NA NA NA 5/10 4/8 4/8 NA 5/13
19 12/13 2/2 11/12 5/3 0/0 14/14 0/0 13/16 1/0 NA 0/0 1/0 0/1 1/0 1/0 0/1 0/1 0/1 15/16
20 5/8 3/9 3/10 5/5 3/4 0/3 0/1 NA 0/1 0/0 NA 9/15 1/1 0/1 NA 3/5 3/3 9/15 11/20
21 4/8 3/4 5/9 4/4 1/0 1/3 NA 1/0 NA 1/0 9/15 NA 1/0 1/0 0/0 3/2 3/3 8/12 11/15
23 0/3 11/10 0/4 11/9 1/1 NA 9/13 0/2 NA 0/1 1/1 1/0 NA 9/13 1/0 0/2 0/2 NA 11/14
24 0/3 9/9 1/4 10/8 NA 1/0 9/12 0/1 NA 1/0 0/1 1/0 9/13 NA NA 0/1 0/1 NA 10/13
25 0/2 2/0 0/2 2/0 5/10 NA NA NA 5/10 1/0 NA 0/0 1/0 NA NA 4/8 4/8 0/0 6/10
29 NA 0/3 NA NA 5/13 0/0 0/3 0/1 4/8 0/1 3/5 3/2 0/2 0/1 4/8 NA 7/14 2/7 7/17
33 NA 0/0 0/1 0/0 5/10 0/1 0/3 0/1 4/8 0/1 3/3 3/3 0/2 0/1 4/8 7/14 NA 2/4 7/15
60 6/6 2/7 4/6 4/4 2/4 NA NA 1/1 NA 0/1 9/15 8/12 NA NA 0/0 2/7 2/4 NA 10/18
18/26 16/19 15/29 21/18 9/18 15/17 9/14 15/19 5/13 15/16 11/20 11/15 11/14 10/13 6/10 7/17 7/15 10/18 42/62
.409 .457 .341 .538 .333 .469 .391 .441 .278 .484 .355 .423 .440 .435 .375 .292 .318 .357 .404
Attempts For/Attempts Against – Even Strength Corsi Numbers With – Data from Natural Stat Trick

There’s a whole lot of red in this table. A whole lot of red… There are a few positives, but they’re one offs with plus ones and twos while the negatives really ad up a lot. Wideman was quite terrible and negative with literally everybody he was paired with. Granlund, Curtis Glencross and Raphael Diaz were even or worse with everybody they were paired with. The numbers were just not good at all and hopefully they come out stronger against the Rangers.

by Les Mavus