[Game Takes] Flames 6 Predators 5 (OT)

[Bingo]

Game Takes:
Flames 6 Predators 5 (OT)

- Matthew Tkachuk wills them to victory
- huge comeback
- Tkachuk through the legs ot winner one for the ages
- Monahan a big push back game

[Strange Brew]

Great writeup as always Bingo.

So Button talked about actual possession time which I guess must be tracked somewhere. That’s very interesting. Why isn’t that the de facto calculation for “possession” instead of shot attempts? I would love to hear more about that number and the Flames reduction in that metric pretty much matches the eye test.

Huge character win tonight. Now time to start showing up ready to play.

[Dion]

I missed the game so it's nice to able to read your takes, Bingo.

[Kovaz]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Great writeup as always Bingo.

So Button talked about actual possession time which I guess must be tracked somewhere. That’s very interesting. Why isn’t that the de facto calculation for “possession” instead of shot attempts? I would love to hear more about that number and the Flames reduction in that metric pretty much matches the eye test.

Huge character win tonight. Now time to start showing up ready to play.

There's no publicly available "time of possession" data like there is for shot attempts. I'm sure teams track it internally but I can't just go find it on the NHL site.

[Jeff Lebowski]

To me possession time is related to how you enter the zone. Dump it in and you give up possession, exert a ton of effort to get it back and try and get some zone time. Even with a hard forecheck you’re kind of relying or trying to force mistakes by opponent. Now you have to do it sometimes, just nature of the game.

However if you use the middle, possess the puck with a good entry you can keep it and make plays. In order to do that you have to start in your end. CGY was dynamite at that last year. Exits, passes into middle, carry through neutral zone, entry-> plays -> Goals -> fun to watch.

[Enoch Root]

Great write-up, as always.

I have to ask about high danger chances - of all the stats that get published, I find this one the most baffling, and the most disconnected with the eye test. There is simply no way the Flames had only 3 high danger chances, 5 on 5.

I re-watched the 3rd period and OT, and just from that 25 minutes I got:

Monahan, tip in front 18:08 (do tips count? they should)
Andersson, goal (at the hash mark, so maybe just outside the HD zone) 18:03
Backlund, backhander that missed the net, 17:38
Gaudreau had a shot from between the dots at 14:26 but just above them - if not HD, it should be
Backlund tip at 11:08
Quine at 3:21 with the 4th goal
Lindholm at 1:08 (shot wide)
Monahan at 0:54 (shot wide)
Monahan at 0:41
Tkachuk goal from the corner of the crease at 0:39

In OT:
Monahan, tip at 4:45
Tkachuk goal at 0:01

so I count 12, just in the 3rd and OT. How they were credited with 3 for the game, when they scored 6 goals and had 4 posts, is tough to fathom

I mean, just look at the Flames' 6 goals:
Ryan, maybe just to the side of the HD zone (but shouldn't be)
Andersson, between the dots, maybe inches outside the HD zone (but shouldn't be)
Lindholm to the side of the HD zone, but wide open, 10' from the net
Quine, HD zone
Tkachuk, maybe to the side of the HD zone (but shouldn't be) at the edge of the crease
Tkachuk, HD zone

Even if you reject all 4 - at which point the HD zone is clearly too small and tight - that means the Flames had 1 HD scoring chance for the entire game, other than Quine and Tkachuk's goals. Which is ridiculous.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I mean, just look at the Flames' 6 goals:
Ryan, maybe just to the side of the HD zone (but shouldn't be)
Andersson, between the dots, maybe inches outside the HD zone (but shouldn't be)
Lindholm to the side of the HD zone, but wide open, 10' from the net
Quine, HD zone
Tkachuk, maybe to the side of the HD zone (but shouldn't be) at the edge of the crease
Tkachuk, HD zone

Even if you reject all 4 - at which point the HD zone is clearly too small and tight - that means the Flames had 1 HD scoring chance for the entire game, other than Quine and Tkachuk's goals. Which is ridiculous.

Remember it's five on five too ...

So you have to eliminate the two Tkachuk goals as they were 6-5 and 3-3.

In this game, letter of the law says only the Quine goal was high danger. I do think those things even out though. Generally on the goal line off to the side of the net isn't dangerous if a scramble hasn't occurred.

[Bingo]

Here is the recorded shot matrix ...



It actually has all four goals out of the home plate area.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Here is the recorded shot matrix ...



It actually has all four goals out of the home plate area.

Out of or in?

Don’t you draw line from post to face off dot, then straight up to the top of the circles?

[Bingo]

the one on the bottom is out for sure, but you're right the three on the top look like they're almost on the line.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Remember it's five on five too ...

So you have to eliminate the two Tkachuk goals as they were 6-5 and 3-3.

In this game, letter of the law says only the Quine goal was high danger. I do think those things even out though. Generally on the goal line off to the side of the net isn't dangerous if a scramble hasn't occurred.

Oh okay. To me, those are both even strength, so I would prefer looking at all even strength chances, but I acknowledge that the stat was in fact 5 on 5 only.

Regardless, to claim the Flames had 3 high danger chances is crazy

(I realize you are just the messenger here, in case there is any doubt)

[Enoch Root]

Yeah, based on the graphic above, the top 3 look in and the bottom one looks out, but they are all borderline.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Oh okay. To me, those are both even strength, so I would prefer looking at all even strength chances, but I acknowledge that the stat was in fact 5 on 5 only.

Regardless, to claim the Flames had 3 high danger chances is crazy

(I realize you are just the messenger here, in case there is any doubt)

To put things in your terms the stats read Calgary 4-2 in high danger chances in the third in all situations.

In overtime it was 2-0 Calgary as well.

7-1 Nashville in the first two periods.

[Enoch Root]

Question: are HD chances only counted if it is a shot on goal?

Scenario: player is on a breakaway, they deke the goalie and ring it off the post. Not a shot on goal. Is it a scoring chance? And is it a HD scoring chance (assuming it is from in front of the net)?

Because if not, then scoring chances are misleading and miscalculated, IMO. I think a glorious opportunity, that is shot wide, is still a scoring chance, even though it sin't a shot.