Quote:
The Flames were not the best team through 40 minutes. The shots were close, the score was close, but the team was tight and as a result the Dallas Stars had the best of the five on five play for the most part. The third period? Very different scenario. Through the game the Flames had the better of the possession, but the high danger stuff was with Dallas, in the third Calgary pushed hard and caught up.
Five on five the Flames had 62% of the shot attempts with period splits of 47%/62% and 71% respectively. In terms of five on five expected goals, the Flames had 54%, and for high danger scoring chances the Flames had 50%, with a 5-5 split. The Flames had a 4-0 high danger split in the third period.
In all situations the Flames had 63% of the shot attempts, 65% of the expected goals, and 50% of the high danger splits.
|
Thank you for always summarizing these stats. It does tell the story of the game. That seemed like a very strong Dallas game in the first two periods and a great response to the beating they took in game 4. They executed their game plan perfectly: clog up the neutral zone, box out everyone from the middle of the ice, and pounce on any opportunities. They had no response in the third period. Their leadership and coach seemed lost for answers afterwards. It will be interesting to see how they respond in game 6. You could already hear Sutter's warning to his team that getting win 4 is harder than getting win 3. I do hope that he sticks with Coleman-Backlund-Mangiapane. The team had very little push back until that trio was put back together.