[Game Takes] Wings 3 Flames 1

[Bingo]

Wings 3 Flames 1

- Wolf gives up two early and then shuts the door
- Flames two new players looked good, but had no points
- Kadri with a good third period almost pulled them back into it

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wings 3 Flames 1

- Wolf gives up two early and then shuts the door
- Flames two new players looked good, but had no points
- Kadri with a good third period almost pulled them back into it

I just want to say thanks for doing these. I feel like they are underappreciated.

[DoubleK]

I thought Jake Bean had a really strong game tonight.

[Enoch Root]

For some reason, Detroit owns us.

Trap team (no surprise with McLellan) and they are confident right now, and getting good goaltending. Once they got the lead, the Flames were going to be in tough. If we score on one of the early chances, it's a completely different game.

We have been out-goalied, twice in the last week. It happens - hopefully not too many more.

[Bingo]

Thought Morgan Frost was a really smart hockey player.

Always in position.

Good with the puck.

But elite with support reads. He's going to be a great addition.

Farabee played on the team's best line, and had huge underlying numbers. Didn't standout as much in the last 2/3 of the game as he did in the first period. Really goes to the net, which I think plays well with Kadri's game. Huberdeau needs to get those pucks through.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I just want to say thanks for doing these. I feel like they are underappreciated.

I was so sure that I'd be writing these in October, and then going to a summary format for the rest of the year when the Flames were out of it.

Still writing in February!

Crazy!

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Wings 3 Flames 1

- Wolf gives up two early and then shuts the door
- Flames two new players looked good, but had no points
- Kadri with a good third period almost pulled them back into it

Nice write up as usual.

I am trying to understand the advanced stats.

If Calgary had 48% of the expected goals, how were they obviously the better team?

I am away and missed the the game, so did not see it.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by The Cobra

Nice write up as usual.

I am trying to understand the advanced stats.

If Calgary had 48% of the expected goals, how were they obviously the better team?

I am away and missed the the game, so did not see it.

Looks like the Flames were dominated when it wasn't five on five but even strength ...

five on five they were 56% in 54.5 minutes
Even they were 41% in 56.5 minutes

Those two minutes (was it 4 on 4? Don't remember) they were absolutely run over.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Looks like the Flames were dominated when it wasn't five on five but even strength ...

five on five they were 56% in 54.5 minutes
Even they were 41% in 56.5 minutes

Those two minutes (was it 4 on 4? Don't remember) they were absolutely run over.

There was no 4 on 4 time.

Only 2 penalties, both to DET.

Plus the 6 on 5 I guess - which I would think was largely spent in DET's end. I believe the Flames pulled the goalie with about 2:30 left, so that, plus 4 minutes of PPs, accounts for the 54.5 minutes of 5 on 5.

[Bingo]

agreed ...

I guess it's a full goal in the 2.5 minutes to have a break into an empty net.

In a low event game that was say 2.9 to 2.5 for Calgary, a 0.0 to 1.0 finale really swings things.

So to answer the question ... Calgary was the better team by all metrics!