Canucks beat Blackhawks in underwhelming affair: Recap and chance data

Cam Charron
February 02 2013 12:10AM


Photo via Jeff Vinnick/NHLInterative

When our pal Thomas sent out an email Friday afternoon putting himself out for the night with a lower-body injury, I sympathized. It did remain that we needed somebody to step in and count the scoring chances and write a post-game recap for this contest. Hockey is a physical game, and blogging can take a toll on a human being as well. You may laugh, but without being in the right creative mindset, or generally feeling uncomfortable, blogging feels like work, man.

I think I would have preferred to spend my Friday night messed up on painkillers nursing a back injury than re-living this dud of a game. A hockey game was scheduled to start just after 7:00 p.m. on a gorgeous February night in Vancouver. A little over two and a half hours later, the game was over, and the Canucks found themselves with a 2-1 shootout victory over the Chicago Blackhawks. There was supposed to be a furious pace, there was supposed to be furious retribution for Duncan Keith's elbow to Daniel Sedin's head when the teams last faced each other. Neither of those things happened.

Neither team deserved to win. Neither team dressed more than one line for the contest. But somebody did and, to the readers of this blog, the right team won. Analysis below.

-Scoring chances… TSN counts them now. They don't offer a breakdown by game state or by strength, but the guys on that panel are generally aware of the potential for streamlined analysis of hockey games that goes beyond looking at which players scored which goals and when. Sometimes they flash up a graphic showing one team in the lead in scoring chances, and I do have to admit, it seems a lot more genuine when it's right there on the broadcast rather than some Twitter account associated with a blog tweeting about them seven or eight times a contest. 

-That said, I count scoring chances because I think they're important, they're an excellent proxy for determining which lines had and didn't have the puck during a game and which match ups were working. Chicago had 15 scoring chances in this game and Vancouver had 5. Chicago had 8 scoring chances at 5-on-5 and Vancouver had 3. Chicago had 7 scoring chances in a "score close" game state and Vancouver had 3. However you slice it, Vancouver was on the wrong end of the play in this game.

-When the scoring chance project first took off during the 2010 season (I think it was thereabouts, it really got going in 2011) it was generally accepted that teams could expect about 15 scoring chances a game. When Thom and I tracked every game last year, we found that anything above 12 was the baseline for an offensive hockey team. 5 is something I've never seen. I think I tracked an 8-7 game last season, but I've never seen a team go as low as 5. When Alex Edler scored the Canucks' lone regulation goal, there was 4:19 to go in the first period. That was the last time a Canuck recorded a scoring chance at 5-on-5.

-Sigh.

-Basically, this game was boring, and this game was boring because rubes in certain American markets only pay attention to hockey when their team is successful, and the way to create illusory parity was to give out points for overtime losses, which was theoretically a way to spruce up boring overtime games in the late-90s. After the advent of the shootout however, the single point had a negative effect, since teams in tied third periods had a greater motivation to gain the one point and not lose anything.

-So basically, if you're a Chicago fan reading this who started watching the game when the league was created in 2008, you are the precise reason this game was so horrible to watch and did not meet any expectations. Canucks-Blackhawks games for the last several years have been fast-paced and exciting, not just because the teams sort of hate each other, but because they're two good hockey teams. Neither were tonight.

-Well, maybe Chicago was, but only because of Jonathan Toews and Brandon Saad. Patrick Kane didn't really show up until late in the third period. That Toews and Saad pairing was dangerous all night. I have Toews with four individual chances and Saad with three, and it's criminal neither were rewarded with a goal tonight. The perpetrator? Roberto Luongo.

-Yeah, he was pretty good. Luongo stopped 21 of 22 shots at even strength and 11 of the 12 scoring chances (two missed nets and a post for the Blackhawks). Mostly, he was just really calm and didn't at all look like the goaltender at the centre of a goaltending controversy. Perhaps that's because he's a really good goaltender with probably four or five good seasons left in him, perfect for a team that has a dwindling championship window.

-There was a scramble at the end of the game that was fairly odd. Brent Seabrook took a long wrist shot that was knocked down in front, Andrew Shaw had his stick tied up and kicked it and a scramble appeared. Luongo made the save with his ding-a-ling and Patrick Sharp failed to knock it in before the whistle blew. It was a weird play all around, and since Shaw kicked at it, I'm not sure the goal would have counted had Luongo not registered the save off his athletic support.

-That was with 1:46 to go, and sure as heck wouldn't have been controversial.

-Another controversial play came in overtime, with Patrick Kane decided to rag the puck, and he was covered by Jason Garrison who took two whacks at him, the second one was called because his stick made some contact with Kane's chin. It was actually Garrison's second penalty on the night. There must have been a fan near the home penalty box with details on Mumford & Sons upcoming tour.

-#JasonGarrisonIsAHipster

-The Canucks' third line… second line… (the one Alex Burrows is on) got killed in this game in possession. They appeared to be matched up against the Toews line, and while Burrows, Chris Higgins and Jannik Hansen are all pretty good defensive players, Toews was better at offence on this night. Another sneaky one was Marian Hossa, who led all forwards with 8 attempts at net, although four were blocked. The Canucks collapsed well and made sure a lot of chances taken from inside the scoring chance range didn't reach the net.

-The Sedins played well, starting rushes and looking dangerous, and the only Canucks line that recorded multiple scoring chances in the game, including the goal. Zack Kassian didn't quite take over this game, but he looked pretty good and seems to fit in more with the Sedins each game. He's learned to stop even bothering with skating in the offensive zone. He had 5 attempts: two shots, two blocks, one missed, and his pass to Edler was excellent.

-Alex Edler, incidentally, led all skaters with nine shot attempts: three on goal, three blocked, three missed. 

-If Kassian's going to play up top, Burrows is going to have to be a lot better. He got his payday, and now makes $4.5-million to centre a depth line. This could be an interesting roster with some good options once Ryan Kesler and David Booth get back, and those two definitely need to come back because the Canucks keep getting smoked in puck possession. 

-A note for Jordan Schroeder, who played a strong game in this one. He drew the late penalty by going to the net and scored the shootout winner with a great shot. He looked like a natural at centre ice, sort of thrown into the middle of the rivalry after a bunch of years in the minors. Too bad the NHL won't officially count that as an NHL goal for him, but I'd hope they let him keep the puck in case he doesn't score another before Kesler comes back and he's again relegated to Chicago…

-I'd normally talk a little more about the match ups and what worked, and how Chicago adjusted to David Bolland's injury (that looks pretty serious) but it's sort of inconsequential. Both teams were terrible, and the Canucks are lucky to come away with a win despite being more terrible on this night. It was a bad hockey game that should be memorable for Jordan Schroeder and nobody else.

Scoring chance breakdown. Basically like plus/minus, but with scoring chances, and only counting 5-on-5 situations.

  Chances For Chances Vs. Differential
Henrik Sedin 2 2 0
Zack Kassian 2 2 0
Daniel Sedin 2 2 0
Jordan Schroeder 0 1 -1
Mason Raymond 1 0 1
Dale Weise 0 1 -1
Alex Burrows 0 4 -4
Chris Higgins 0 5 -5
Jannik Hansen 0 4 -4
Manny Malhotra 1 1 0
Aaron Volpatti 0 0 0
Maxim Lapierre 1 1 0
Kevin Bieksa 1 4 -3
Jason Garrison 1 4 -3
Dan Hamhuis 1 2 -1
Alex Edler 2 3 -1
Keith Ballard 1 2 -1
Chris Tanev 0 2 -2
  Chances For Chances Vs. Differential
Jonathan Toews 6 0 6
Brandon Saad 5 0 5
Marian Hossa 6 0 6
David Bolland 0 1 -1
Patrick Sharp 2 1 1
Patrick Kane 3 1 2
Andrew Shaw 2 1 1
Viktor Stalberg 0 1 -1
Bryan Bickell 0 2 -2
Marcus Kruger 0 1 -1
Brandon Bollig 0 0 0
Michael Frolik 0 1 -1
Duncan Keith 2 2 0
Brent Seabrook 4 2 2
Niklas Hjalmarsson 3 1 2
Johnny Oduya 5 1 4
Nick Leddy 1 0 1
Sheldon Brookbank 1 0 1

And by team:

  1st 2nd 3rd OT Total
Chicago (EV) 5 (3) 3 (3) 3 (3) 4 (3) 15 (12)
Vancouver (EV) 3 (3) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (0) 5 (3)

Canucks Army Three Stars

  1. Roberto Luongo
  2. Jonathan Toews
  3. Brandon Saad
63811cbf517d2d685ea09e103488ea3a
Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
Avatar
#1 immie_8
February 02 2013, 12:27AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Thanks for the recap, Cam!

"I think I would have preferred to spend my Friday night messed up on painkillers nursing a back injury..."

That bad, huh? I'm glad I chose studying then. Oh well, a win is a win. Next few games are going to be key, though - 4 straight vs. NW teams.

Avatar
#2 Snoozer
February 02 2013, 12:49AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Wow, I can't believe they created so few scoring chances. What a dud. Lu really saved their collective butts - again.

It's past the 8 game mark, so I can officially start critiquing. It's not ideal, but the team has had 8 games to find some sort of game. Burrows, Higgins and Bieksa need to figure it out. Burr and Higgy are generally eating the toughest mins, but they're not a checking line - they're paid to score. Bieksas slowly improving, as he did last yr but he has ZERO points. How crazy is that. The Sedins also look lost out there sometimes. I was thinking that a lot of that can be attributed to a new linemate. As good as Kass has been with them, he's still trying to figure out how to cycle with them. You know they're a little more cautious and don't feel as comfortable with a new guy.

All in all, the Hawks stink. Keith will get his karma one day.

Avatar
#3 Betty Henderson
February 02 2013, 01:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

We WON. Take THAT to the Bank. Now, let's critique your writing skills......hmmmm. Kick 'em for a loss, kick 'em for a Win. Sigh. Don't ya know, it's not how you Play the game,ISN'T it? it's if you lose,or if you WINNIT ! POINTS BABY Points.

Avatar
#5 v
February 02 2013, 07:05AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

you don't feel that the 60 minutes of tension and dread makes up for a 20 scoring chance game?

tsk tsk

Avatar
#6 Goalie Guru
February 02 2013, 07:42AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Chicago had 15 scoring chances? I counted 3 and 1 went in.

A scoring chance is a shot from a scoring DISTANCE which is 20 feet or less. It has to be with enough TIME for the shooter to try and pick a spot. It has to be in the CENTRE REGIONS of the ice, not off to the sides where goalies can simply prevent a goal by just being there because of a bad angle. The shooter needs SPACE to be able to release the puck so it's a HARD shot. Or the goalie has to be on the MOVE a considerable distance to make a save (i.e. back door).

But most importantly, it's also not a scoring chance if the goalie doesn't extend a limb or close the 5, 6, or 7 hole to GENERATE a save. If it hits the goalie while he is in his stance or a blocking save, it's not a scoring chance that goalie prevented by being quick and skilled.

Chicago 15? I don't think so. Does Luongo stop the goal scored on Crawford? No! Does Crawford stop the goal on Luongo? No! They were both QUALITY scoring chances. If Reimer was in either of those goals last night, he gives up just 1 goal as well.

The three stars should have been three Defencemen for preventing scoring chances and keeping them to less then 5 chances for BOTH teams. But that has NEVER happened in NHL history where the Three Stars have been all Defencemen for their defensive efforts. NEVER!

Must drive the D men nuts, cause it sure drives me nuts!

Avatar
#7 v
February 02 2013, 08:39AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Goalie Guru

i dont like your definition of a scoring chance and i dont like the numbers you have listed

Avatar
#8 Gilchy
February 02 2013, 09:04AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Guru, I think your criteria would better be called a scoring opportunity. If a player happens to find themselves with that much space and time to pick a shot, they have a relatively high likelihood of scoring.

Scoring chances are better described as having a reasonable likelyhood of success, where something outside would just be a lob at the net, or a fluke goal.

Avatar
#9 Unknown Comic
February 02 2013, 09:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Goalie Guru wrote:

Chicago had 15 scoring chances? I counted 3 and 1 went in.

A scoring chance is a shot from a scoring DISTANCE which is 20 feet or less. It has to be with enough TIME for the shooter to try and pick a spot. It has to be in the CENTRE REGIONS of the ice, not off to the sides where goalies can simply prevent a goal by just being there because of a bad angle. The shooter needs SPACE to be able to release the puck so it's a HARD shot. Or the goalie has to be on the MOVE a considerable distance to make a save (i.e. back door).

But most importantly, it's also not a scoring chance if the goalie doesn't extend a limb or close the 5, 6, or 7 hole to GENERATE a save. If it hits the goalie while he is in his stance or a blocking save, it's not a scoring chance that goalie prevented by being quick and skilled.

Chicago 15? I don't think so. Does Luongo stop the goal scored on Crawford? No! Does Crawford stop the goal on Luongo? No! They were both QUALITY scoring chances. If Reimer was in either of those goals last night, he gives up just 1 goal as well.

The three stars should have been three Defencemen for preventing scoring chances and keeping them to less then 5 chances for BOTH teams. But that has NEVER happened in NHL history where the Three Stars have been all Defencemen for their defensive efforts. NEVER!

Must drive the D men nuts, cause it sure drives me nuts!

You strike me as someone who is trying too hard to pass themselves off as some sort of expert.

Scoring chances for these purposes have been clearly defined by the Nations Network and a large number of bloggers use the same definition for uniformity sake. We now have something to compare to other games.

You can suggest you "think" scoring chances should be defined differently, but in the end, when you come on here attempting to pass yourself off as a definitive expert, you actually come across like a douche.

Avatar
#11 BrudnySeaby
February 02 2013, 12:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

Lower body injury? As in groin area? Thomas!? ;-)

Avatar
#12 Goalie Guru
February 02 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
Cam Charron wrote:

Don't you have to dissect how poorly Luongo played in the shootout?

No. You have convinced me that 5 on 5 play (when the goalie has the most help) is when a goalie's skill is tested most.

Comments are closed for this article.