G1 - Canucks/Penguins Scoring Chances
Follow the jump...
This season, Nucks Misconduct and Canucks Army will be sharing post-game information. For home games, scoring chances will be posted here, so, this being a home game, we will start here:A scoring chance is defined over at Copper n Blue as
"a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area - loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots (nicknamed the Home Plate), though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score."
The app is not yet set up for the 2011/12 season, so I tallied these manually tonight.
First, the list of chances. We tally the period, the time left on the clock, the score, the team that took the chance, the game state (EV is 5-on-5, FF is 4-on-4), and the Canuck players on the ice (by number). Goals are bolded.
| Period | Time | Score | Team | State | Canuck | Canuck | Canuck | Canuck | Canuck |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19:04 | 0 | PIT | EV | 27 | 26 | 15 | 2 | 3 |
| 1 | 16:19 | 0 | PIT | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 6 | 23 |
| 1 | 11:57 | -1 | VAN | EV | 27 | 26 | 20 | 4 | 8 |
| 1 | 11:16 | -1 | PIT | EV | 40 | 32 | 54 | 6 | 23 |
| 1 | 8:05 | -1 | PIT | SH | 14 | 15 | 2 | 3 | |
| 1 | 7:30 | -1 | PIT | SH | 40 | 54 | 4 | 8 | |
| 1 | 6:30 | -2 | VAN | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 6 | 23 |
| 1 | 4:55 | -2 | PIT | EV | 9 | 14 | 15 | 2 | 3 |
| 1 | 3:22 | -2 | VAN | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 3 |
| 1 | 2:03 | -1 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 4 | 8 |
| 2 | 19:18 | -1 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 3 | 23 |
| 2 | 18:59 | -1 | VAN | EV | 27 | 36 | 22 | 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 16:51 | -1 | PIT | PP | 9 | 15 | 22 | 3 | 6 |
| 2 | 14:42 | -2 | PIT | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 4 | 8 |
| 2 | 13:35 | -2 | PIT | EV | 9 | 26 | 15 | 6 | 23 |
| 2 | 11:01 | -2 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 6:19 | -2 | PIT | FF | 40 | 20 | 6 | 23 | |
| 2 | 5:05 | -2 | VAN | EV | 40 | 14 | 15 | 2 | 3 |
| 2 | 2:29 | -2 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 4 | 8 |
| 2 | 2:15 | -2 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 4 | 8 |
| 2 | 1:09 | -1 | PIT | EV | 40 | 32 | 54 | 6 | 23 |
| 2 | 0:49 | -1 | PIT | EV | 40 | 32 | 54 | 6 | 23 |
| 3 | 18:57 | -1 | VAN | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 17:07 | -1 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 6 | 23 |
| 3 | 16:52 | -1 | PIT | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 6 | 23 |
| 3 | 13:54 | -1 | PIT | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 12:36 | -1 | PIT | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 4 | 8 |
| 3 | 12:19 | -1 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 6 | 23 |
| 3 | 12:16* | -1 | VAN | EV | 33 | 40 | 14 | 22 | 6 |
| 3 | 12:09* | -1 | VAN | EV | 33 | 40 | 14 | 22 | 6 |
| 3 | 10:02 | 0 | PIT | EV | 9 | 26 | 15 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 9:40 | 0 | PIT | EV | 9 | 26 | 15 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 9:19 | 0 | VAN | EV | 33 | 20 | 22 | 7 | 8 |
| 3 | 6:44 | 0 | VAN | EV | 40 | 32 | 54 | 2 | 3 |
| 3 | 5:54 | 0 | VAN | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 4 | 8 |
| 3 | 5:40 | 0 | PIT | EV | 27 | 36 | 20 | 4 | 8 |
| 3 | 1:39 | 0 | VAN | EV | 9 | 26 | 15 | 2 | 6 |
| 3 | 0:49 | 0 | VAN | EV | 33 | 14 | 22 | 3 | 4 |
| 4 | 4:43 | 0 | VAN | FF | 33 | 22 | 2 | 3 | |
| 4 | 4:26 | 0 | VAN | FF | 33 | 22 | 2 | 3 | |
| 4 | 3:39 | 0 | PIT | FF | 14 | 15 | 6 | 23 | |
| 4 | 1:06 | 0 | VAN | FF | 33 | 22 | 6 | 23 |
*Alexander Edler was also out on these two chances. Lapierre jumped out as an extra attacker.
What we do then is count up the number of chances for and against each player was out for. The even-strength number includes 4-on-4 play due to the overall small percentages of chances that appear 4-on-4.
| Number | Player | EV F | EV A | EV +/- | PP F | PP A | PP +/- | SH F | SH A | SH +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Hamhuis | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 3 | Bieksa | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 4 | Ballard | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 6 | Salo | 7 | 8 | -1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | Tanev | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 9 | Hodgson | 1 | 4 | -3 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 14 | Burrows | 10 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 15 | Sturm | 2 | 6 | -4 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 20 | Higgins | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 22 | D. Sedin | 14 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | Edler | 7 | 8 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | Samuelsson | 2 | 4 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | Malhotra | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | Weise | 1 | 3 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 33 | H. Sedin | 14 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 36 | Hansen | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 40 | Lapierre | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
| 54 | Volpatti | 1 | 3 | -2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -1 |
The +/- numbers appear after the "for" and "against" numbers.
Now, let's discuss a little...
- The Sedins were awesome tonight. Daniel Sedin set up four chances and took six on his own and led the team. All throughout the game they were the best Canuck line on the ice.
- The third line of Malhotra, Hansen and Higgins were rolling as well, and while we don't yet have the numbers for zone starts, they definitely had a lot of defensive starts like last season, but managed to turn their night into positive chances at either end.
- Special teams was horrible. Aside from giving up the shorthanded goal and two on the powerplay, the Canucks failed to generate a single chance on the powerplay.
- Each team had a goal that didn't qualify as a scoring chance. Maxim Lapierre and James Neal both scored from behind the net.
- Meanwhile, I had an inner debate as whether or not to award a chance to Matt Cooke on his shorthanded goal. Kevin Bieksa kept him generally to the perimeter, but he didn't do much to prevent the shot coming off Cooke's stick and it went through his legs, qualifying the shot as a screen. Luongo didn't see the shot coming off the stick.
- The fourth line is brutal. Maxim Lapierre came out even because he jumped onto the ice for the Sedin goal, but wasn't really part of the play. I think that he was probably the best of that line, Dale Weise and Aaron Volpatti were hemmed in their own end. At one point they got a shift in the third period with the game tied and six minutes to go. If the company we had over were a little quieter, they may have heard me screaming at the TV.
- The turning point was 12:36 of the third period. Evgeni Malkin stepped into the middle and took a shot that went careening wide. The Penguins never recovered that shift and Burrows went for a skate that kept the Canucks pressuring for three chances and finally got one to count. That was the Daniel Sedin marker that tied the game. Malkin made up for that in the shootout.
- Keith Ballard passed the eyeball test tonight, and he certainly did well to prevent chances along with Chris Tanev against relatively easy competition. The Kevin Bieksa and Dan Hamhuis pairing had the benefit of seeing some time with the Sedins to boost their totals. Alex Edler and Sami Salo had a rough outing. Ballard looked very confident on the puck past centre tonight, something that was pretty rare last season.
- On a personal note, Chris Tanev, Cody Hodgson and Dale Weise starting in the lineup mark the first time that the Canucks started a player in the lineup younger than me. I feel wicked old.
27 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
On a personal note, Chris Tanev, Cody Hodgson and Dale Weise starting in the lineup mark the first time that the Canucks started a player in the lineup younger than me. I feel wicked old.
Yeah, think of how you’ll feel once you start hearing the phrase “wrong side of 30” and think “FUCK THAT’S ME”
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
"Pucks are awful little things" - Passive Voice.
Having not seen the game thanks to Versus and blacking it out online
What are the initial thoughts on Sturm, especially since he’s wearing that gawdy -4?
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
"Pucks are awful little things" - Passive Voice.
Wasn’t all that impressed with him last night. Looked too much like the last guy to wear #15, just minus the hits
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
Floating and out of position?
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
"Pucks are awful little things" - Passive Voice.
by Yankee Canuck on Oct 7, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
That's probably the best thing about him
He’s just so recognizable. I didn’t watch any pre-season games with sound so I “guess” I knew that Sturm was 15, but when we saw the Canucks come out of the tunnel, a friend asked me who wore 15. I had to admit I had to think about it. It’s just like when Gillis signed him. I had forgotten whether he played for Los Angeles or Washington.
Anyway, that whole line looked pretty invisible on the right side of centre except for that play at the end for Hodgson nearly won it by Fleury just got a piece of it. Sturm wasn’t even involved in that play.
Drop at line at The Backhand Shelf or any of the fine Nations Network blogs: Canucks Army, Jets Nation, The Leafs Nation
@camcharron
And when I say "recognizable"
I may as well be saying “he’s the German Tanner Glass” when it comes to production.
Drop at line at The Backhand Shelf or any of the fine Nations Network blogs: Canucks Army, Jets Nation, The Leafs Nation
@camcharron
on the hitting side of things ...
was it just me, or were both sides relatively tentative?
I mean, when the best hit of the night was Canuck on Canuck, something is going wrong.
Are players worried about getting Shanabanned?
We have to remember
that this is a ver tight-knit squad, and Sturm is brand new in the line-up. I remember that Higgins was kind of tentative the first few games, before he really gelled with the rest.
It’s not fair to expect him to stand out this early.
Los Angeles, CA
worst old man troll tweet yet
StanFischler Stan Fischler
Roberto Luongo’s two BAD goals last night indicates that his back-up IS better.
One of those jerks from Nucks Misconduct
@KentBaskyNM
"ryan kesler will impregnate your mouth" - Passive Voice
hahahaha. Oh man what great insight
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
seriously
the dude’s got issues with Luongo and it’s all because he covers the rangers, devils and islanders. that’s it. he’s one of those guys. so for all these years he’s carried this lil pathetic torch of hate, taking potshots at him whenever he sees the opportunity, despite being wrong about Luongo not being able to get team canada through the medal round, beating chicago last year… and nashville… and san jose
One of those jerks from Nucks Misconduct
@KentBaskyNM
"ryan kesler will impregnate your mouth" - Passive Voice
It’s also funny because him letting in two bad goals in no way proves Schneider is better. All it proves is he let in two bad goals. Schneider might have done the same thing.
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
not to mention
Fleury also let in a stinker, does that mean Johnson is just as good?
One of those jerks from Nucks Misconduct
@KentBaskyNM
"ryan kesler will impregnate your mouth" - Passive Voice
That's true.
Luongo letting in two bad goals is no proof that Schneider is good.
But the fact that Shneider rarely (if ever) lets in two bad goals in a game, may just be the proof.
Los Angeles, CA
Well, Schneider also doesn’t have anywhere close to the number of games Luongo has, so naturally he will have far fewer multi-bad goal games.
Although that one game he started in the playoffs he did
"Playin hurt, baby that don't faze me. I don't got time for pain. The only pain I've got time for is the pain I put on fools who don't know what time it is!"
Schneider has,
on occasion, looked a bit off in games. But he also doesn’t start as many games, so 2-3 bad games for him would be equivalent to 6-9 bad games for Lu, which is about right when it comes to ratios.
<3 Boobies!
notafullcolon CS: Well obviously I meant we were snorting blow off hookers at the time of the goal
Every goalie lets in softies
But it seems the media and a bunch of radio jocks only seem to notice when Lalongo does it.
Seriously… do these guys watch the games?
Drop at line at The Backhand Shelf or any of the fine Nations Network blogs: Canucks Army, Jets Nation, The Leafs Nation
@camcharron
during the Olympics
I called him out on an anti-Luongo tweet that was more of the same nonsense and he called me a ‘homer crybaby’. At least he had the old, wrinkled balls to tweet it directly to me unlike Mark Spector and his cowardly one way DM’s
One of those jerks from Nucks Misconduct
@KentBaskyNM
"ryan kesler will impregnate your mouth" - Passive Voice
by Kent Basky on Oct 7, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I can think of at least one person
here who does exactly the same thing, so I wouldn’t say it’s only the media.
<3 Boobies!
notafullcolon CS: Well obviously I meant we were snorting blow off hookers at the time of the goal
The Andy Rooney of the hockey world. Soon he’ll be tweeting about applesauce and those stupid new Depends that don’t have the emergency strap (sorry my knowledge of adult protective garments is quite lacking)
'Nucks Misconduct - Housing Swedish Millionaires Since 2000.
"Pucks are awful little things" - Passive Voice.
by Yankee Canuck on Oct 7, 2011 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Go Monster Ballard go!!
Writer at Nucks Misconduct
by Sean Zandberg on Oct 7, 2011 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Great article Cam you didn’t disappoint @ForeverWCanucks
by Vancouver Canuck on Oct 7, 2011 9:25 PM PDT reply actions

by 
















