[Game Takes] Flames 3 Jets 2

[Bingo]

Flames 3 Jets 2

- Lindholm has a night
- Ruzicka getting comfortable
- Markstrom dominant
- Flames shut down the Jets in the third
- 7 Game SKID snapped!

[Imported_Aussie]

Now that Ruzicka is getting game time and playing well, hopefully once Huberdeau is back he can stick in the top 9. I think this team looks better with Ruzicka in the top 9 and Lewis back to the 4th line, bumping Ritchie out of the lineup. Ritchie is good for a game here and there, but he hurts way more often than he helps.

[442scotty]

Ruzicka seems to work well with Lindholm and Toffoli. Leave him there and put Huberdeau with Kadri

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Imported_Aussie

Now that Ruzicka is getting game time and playing well, hopefully once Huberdeau is back he can stick in the top 9. I think this team looks better with Ruzicka in the top 9 and Lewis back to the 4th line, bumping Ritchie out of the lineup. Ritchie is good for a game here and there, but he hurts way more often than he helps.

Sure seemed like Sutter was frustrated with 2/3 of his fourth line last night.

Could trigger some change.

Lewis scores a goal and makes a difference again and Lucic had his moments, but Ritchie and Rooney (especially) were stapled to the bench with terrible metrics.

[Enoch Root]

Ruzicka taking his game to the next level is exactly what the team needs. If he can continue playing a decent top 9 role, it really solidifies the lines:

Huberdeau - Kadri - Mangiapane
Ruzicka - Lindholm - Toffoli
Dube - Backlund - Coleman
Lucic - Lewis - Ritchie

(a lot of people have been penciling Dube onto the Kadri line, but I think it would be a huge mistake to put him with Huberdeau, until he can show that he can finish.)

[iggyloob12]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Huberdeau - Kadri - Mangiapane
Ruzicka - Lindholm - Toffoli
Dube - Backlund - Coleman
Lucic - Lewis - Ritchie

I could see that once Huby is back.

[Enoch Root]

Lots to like last night, but I think the most important thing was that, despite going up against the guy that has arguably been the best goalie in the league this year, not only did we not get outgoaltended, but Markstrom probably won the battle.

[Enoch Root]

So I re-watched the game, keeping an eye on scoring chances. If the fancy stats say that the Jets had more high danger chances, then the fancy stats are flawed, or at least had an off night.

The Jets had 3 really good chances. The second goal was beautiful, and the windmill is a goal most nights. They also had a really good chance early in the game and Markstrom made a great pad save. Beyond that, dangerous chances were hard to find - a couple good shots that Markstrom didn't have any trouble with. Even the first goal wasn't very dangerous - a wrist shot from the point that Markstrom had a clear view of, and would have had no trouble with, but unfortunately it hit Mackey and changed direction.

Conversely, in the 3rd period alone, the Flames had a 2 on 0 where Mangiapane got a very dangerous shot off, two 2 on 1s where they got good looks, a 3 on 1 that was every bit as dangerous as the windmill, but hit the inside of the post, a rebound on the PP that rolled past the post, and a couple other rebounds where they had clear looks from the slot. Those chances alone were more than what the Jets had for the evening.

Note: I am not trying to take anything away from Markstrom here - he stopped everything he could, and one of the 2 that he had no chance on. And the windmill save was a momentum builder that was one of the key reasons they won. But the Flames had more dangerous looks than the Jets, and it wasn't all that close.

Also, I know this contradicts my prior post a bit, but that's what re-watching showed me.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So I re-watched the game, keeping an eye on scoring chances. If the fancy stats say that the Jets had more high danger chances, then the fancy stats are flawed, or at least had an off night.

The Jets had 3 really good chances. The second goal was beautiful, and the windmill is a goal most nights. They also had a really good chance early in the game and Markstrom made a great pad save. Beyond that, dangerous chances were hard to find - a couple good shots that Markstrom didn't have any trouble with. Even the first goal wasn't very dangerous - a wrist shot from the point that Markstrom had a clear view of, and would have had no trouble with, but unfortunately it hit Mackey and changed direction.

Conversely, in the 3rd period alone, the Flames had a 2 on 0 where Mangiapane got a very dangerous shot off, two 2 on 1s where they got good looks, a 3 on 1 that was every bit as dangerous as the windmill, but hit the inside of the post, a rebound on the PP that rolled past the post, and a couple other rebounds where they had clear looks from the slot. Those chances alone were more than what the Jets had for the evening.

Note: I am not trying to take anything away from Markstrom here - he stopped everything he could, and one of the 2 that he had no chance on. And the windmill save was a momentum builder that was one of the key reasons they won. But the Flames had more dangerous looks than the Jets, and it wasn't all that close.

Also, I know this contradicts my prior post a bit, but that's what re-watching showed me.

Here is the shot volume chart ... shows more concentration in the home plate area for the Jets, but more overall volume for Calgary?



Either way I hear you ... it was a pretty tight game overall.

Best for the Flames was the third period where they gave up nothing at all. Very good sign.

[Enoch Root]

The Jets were taking many of their shots from the middle of the ice, yes. But the Flames blocked or deflected a lot of them, and they were rushed on most of them. There were very few where they had the time, or the setup, for a real scoring chance. Like I said, I watched the game again, looking at the scoring chances for each team, and the Jets had surprisingly few. It is interesting to watch a second time, because you can do so without the stress of worrying about what is going to happen next - will the goalie save it, etc. And you know when/where the goals, penalties, and such happen, so you can just evaluate plays for what they are.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the stats were recorded improperly or anything like that, but the fact is that they have to follow strict criteria, meaning a really good chance, that is a couple feet outside of home plate, doesn't count as a high danger chance, while some shots from inside home plate are not dangerous at all. Yes, that averages out over time, which is why stats need large sample sizes to be useful. In smaller samples (individual games) they can err by large margins. IMO, last night was one of those nights.

Really good chances - ones where if you get 5 of those, you're going to score at least one or two - I had at maybe 7 or 8 to 3 for the Flames. Play that 3rd period 5 times and the Flames blow it open in 2 or 3 of them.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The Jets were taking many of their shots from the middle of the ice, yes. But the Flames blocked or deflected a lot of them, and they were rushed on most of them. There were very few where they had the time, or the setup, for a real scoring chance. Like I said, I watched the game again, looking at the scoring chances for each team, and the Jets had surprisingly few. It is interesting to watch a second time, because you can do so without the stress of worrying about what is going to happen next - will the goalie save it, etc. And you know when/where the goals, penalties, and such happen, so you can just evaluate plays for what they are.

To be clear, I am not suggesting the stats were recorded improperly or anything like that, but the fact is that they have to follow strict criteria, meaning a really good chance, that is a couple feet outside of home plate, doesn't count as a high danger chance, while some shots from inside home plate are not dangerous at all. Yes, that averages out over time, which is why stats need large sample sizes to be useful. In smaller samples (individual games) they can err by large margins. IMO, last night was one of those nights.

Totally know what you mean! Such a different perspective.

If I have a game PVR'd but someone texts me "what a game!!!!" I have an inkling I can chill when I watch it.

And agreed. Plus the stats aren't 100% indicative of what's happening. They're evolving, but there are still way too many variables to make them 100% in a single game sample size.

There's been a few games (or periods) when team X has more shot attempts, scoring chances and high danger chances but less in terms of the expected goals splits, which puzzles me.

You can be high on high danger, but lose the split because of shot volume, but when you're up in all three but down overall I can't make it work.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Totally know what you mean! Such a different perspective.

If I have a game PVR'd but someone texts me "what a game!!!!" I have an inkling I can chill when I watch it.

And agreed. Plus the stats aren't 100% indicative of what's happening. They're evolving, but there are still way too many variables to make them 100% in a single game sample size.

There's been a few games (or periods) when team X has more shot attempts, scoring chances and high danger chances but less in terms of the expected goals splits, which puzzles me.

You can be high on high danger, but lose the split because of shot volume, but when you're up in all three but down overall I can't make it work.

Exactly. For individual games, any imbalance can occur. Over larger sample sizes, that should take care of itself, but people need to understand that small sample sizes are random.

One example from last night - the Flames best chance in the game - was the 3 on 1 where Lindholm hit the post. That is a goal 3 or 4 times out of 5. But it probably wasn't recorded as a high danger chance, simply because Lindholm may have been a little to the left of home plate.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

So I re-watched the game, keeping an eye on scoring chances. If the fancy stats say that the Jets had more high danger chances, then the fancy stats are flawed, or at least had an off night.

The Jets had 3 really good chances. The second goal was beautiful, and the windmill is a goal most nights. They also had a really good chance early in the game and Markstrom made a great pad save. Beyond that, dangerous chances were hard to find - a couple good shots that Markstrom didn't have any trouble with. Even the first goal wasn't very dangerous - a wrist shot from the point that Markstrom had a clear view of, and would have had no trouble with, but unfortunately it hit Mackey and changed direction.

Conversely, in the 3rd period alone, the Flames had a 2 on 0 where Mangiapane got a very dangerous shot off, two 2 on 1s where they got good looks, a 3 on 1 that was every bit as dangerous as the windmill, but hit the inside of the post, a rebound on the PP that rolled past the post, and a couple other rebounds where they had clear looks from the slot. Those chances alone were more than what the Jets had for the evening.

Note: I am not trying to take anything away from Markstrom here - he stopped everything he could, and one of the 2 that he had no chance on. And the windmill save was a momentum builder that was one of the key reasons they won. But the Flames had more dangerous looks than the Jets, and it wasn't all that close.

Also, I know this contradicts my prior post a bit, but that's what re-watching showed me.

Jets had a breakaway as well, no?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Jets had a breakaway as well, no?

I don't remember that now, but my memory is short. When was that?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't remember that now, but my memory is short. When was that?

In the third. Might have only been partial.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In the third. Might have only been partial.

The one where Lucic had him angled off and he took a fairly weak shot from the angle? I don't think there was any clear cut breakaway.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The one where Lucic had him angled off and he took a fairly weak shot from the angle? I don't think there was any clear cut breakaway.

I recall another play in which Rick Ball called "breakaway" that was clearly a two-on-two.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I recall another play in which Rick Ball called "breakaway" that was clearly a two-on-two.

Sent from my SM-G986W using Tapatalk

There was a 2 on 1 where the pass never got through