What no Flames destruction analysis?
1-0 - Higgins, Hansen +1
Great pass to Higgins by Hansen to set up the break away.
2-0 - PP Burrows, Kesler +1
Bit of a scramble but hard work by both and great effort by Burrows to score from the seat of his pants.
3-0 - PP D. Sedin, H. Sedin, Edler +1
Good work by Edler to find Henrik who made a brilliant pass to Dan to create the goal.
4-0 - Hodgson, Lapierre +1
All Lapierre, great hustle and magnificent pass to give Hodgson a tap in.
5-0 Edler, Hodgson +1
Bit of a scramble play, Hodgson did good work to find Edler open at the point who shot it through the mass of bodies and bounced in of Bouwmeester.
5-1 - Edler, Salo -1
Edler fell which gave the Flames player the time to pass cross ice to Tanguay whose stick wasn't tied up by Salo.
For some reason I thought the last goal had Bieksa tripping, but I went and looked at the replay and it was just Edler doing a Bieksa impersonation.
Goal 1(Van ES)
-Kesler forces the defense to make a play up the boards turning the puck over to Burrows who takes a shot on net and gets a very flukey goal. Normally on completely fluke goals I'd only give a +1 to the scorer, but since Kesler forced the turnover as well, I'd give him a +1 too.
Result: Kesler and Burrows = +1
Goal 2(Blues ES)
This goal was all confusion and people not picking up checks. D. Sedin fails to do something with the puck when Edler gets it to him along the boards and D. Sedin turns it over. Edler then follows his man out front and gets tangled up with H. Sedin who has lost his man leaving the canucks outnumbered by the goal. D. Sedin then leaves his check at the side of the net to go after H. Sedin's man who passes back to D. Sedin's man.. who Hamhuis is trying to get to because he's wide open right by Schneider. Hamhuis is forced to leave his man, who is then passed to before Hansen can get to him and cover. Goal is scored... get all that? Yeah, a mess. Do we give a - to all of them? Or just a couple who started missing their checks?
Result: D. Sedin and H. Sedin both a -1.
Explanation: D. Sedin get's the -1 for the initial turnover, and he SHOULD get a -1 for leaving his guy wide open in front of the net. I didn't give Hamhuis a -1 because he was left with no choice but to go after D. Sedins man who was wide open at the net. Edler was likely the only guy who had the correct man the entire shift. Hansen doesn't get a - because he had to leave his man to cover Hamhuis who had to cover someone else. This one should be up for some debate.
Goal 3(Blues ES)
This started out with a mess behind the net. Bieksa loses his check who comes out the other side with the puck, however the forward on the play (H. Sedin) had to give his stick to Alberts who either had his stick broken or dropped it, hard to say. Both Alberts and H. Sedin were to busy switching sticks and allowed the player to walk out and take a shot. Hodgson also makes a poor effort to tie up the guy right in front of the net with the puck.
Result: Alberts, H. Sedin and Hodgson -1
Goal 4(Canucks PP)
D. Sedin was the player who drew everyone away and makes a nice pass back to the point (Edler) who passes it over to the far point who is still wide open from everyone being fooled by D. Sedin. Hamhuis makes a nice one-timer shot at a screened (Kesler) goalie who manages to make the first save but knocks the puck up in the air and Kesler bats in the rebound.
Result: D. Sedin, Edler, Hamhuis and Kesler = +1PP
Goal 5(Blues ES)
Ebbett turns the puck over in our zone and then stands around just watching everything else thats going on. Another Canucks has to pick up his man and Ebbett still just stands around and eventually the man left wide open in front of the net scores. I'm only going to give Ebbett a - here because it all honesty every other Canucks HAD their man. I didn't like how Hodgson was lazy at the goal time, but fact of the matter is that his man was up near the blue line, he wasn't even technically supposed to be near the guy at the goal.
Result: Ebbett -1 and in my opinion entirely his fault.
There is one up at the top of the post. Timmer44 usually updates it once every couple of games and then I change it once he's posted it. He'll probably do one after we've analyzed the Chicago game.
Chicago game (Still nothing up for the Wild game, didn't see it so I can't really say much)
1-0 PP + Booth, Hodgson
Great pass by Hodgson to give Booth enough time to roof it on his rebound.
1-1
All on Luongo here, no minus' for such a bad goal.
2-1 PP + Rome, Hodgson
Nice pass by Hodgson back to Rome (albiet it was to Booth) and wow never knew Rome could blast it Iafrate style like that.
3-1 PP + D. Sedin, H. Sedin
Great vision by Hank to find Daniel wide open.
3-2 - Lapierre
Lazy backchecking by Lapierre, he had Kruger and let him go.
4-2 + Hansen, D. Sedin
Great drive to the net by Hansen created the havoc and nice pass by Dan to Hansen.
5-2 PP + Hamhuis, Kesler
Hank's "pass" was a riccochet, hard to give him credit for that but Kesler's screen was Holmstrom like. Nice shot by Hamhuis.
6-2 PP + H. Sedin, Edler, Kesler
Such a nice goal, smart play and pass by Edler, Kesler's net front pressence opened up the ice for Hank to make that nifty move the backhand.
Chicago game (Still nothing up for the Wild game, didn't see it so I can't really say much)
1-0 PP + Booth, Hodgson
Great pass by Hodgson to give Booth enough time to roof it on his rebound.
1-1
All on Luongo here, no minus' for such a bad goal.
2-1 PP + Rome, Hodgson
Nice pass by Hodgson back to Rome (albiet it was to Booth) and wow never knew Rome could blast it Iafrate style like that.
3-1 PP + D. Sedin, H. Sedin
Great vision by Hank to find Daniel wide open.
3-2 - Lapierre
Lazy backchecking by Lapierre, he had Kruger and let him go.
4-2 + Hansen, D. Sedin
Great drive to the net by Hansen created the havoc and nice pass by Dan to Hansen.
5-2 PP + Hamhuis, Kesler
Hank's "pass" was a riccochet, hard to give him credit for that but Kesler's screen was Holmstrom like. Nice shot by Hamhuis.
6-2 PP + H. Sedin, Edler, Kesler
Such a nice goal, smart play and pass by Edler, Kesler's net front pressence opened up the ice for Hank to make that nifty move the backhand.
3-2 - Lapierre
Lazy backchecking by Lapierre, he had Kruger and let him go.
Agree with everything except this one. It all started because Ballard had a wide gap on Stalberg, and Booth decided to make some kind of weird backcheck bump. Traditionally, Booth would have had the trailer, who ended up being the goal scorer. Lappierre was trying to cover up a mistake. He was the 4th entry into the defending zone. He should have been looking for the high trailer, not the guy driving to the net.
Chicago game (Still nothing up for the Wild game, didn't see it so I can't really say much)
1-0 PP + Booth, Hodgson
Great pass by Hodgson to give Booth enough time to roof it on his rebound.
1-1
All on Luongo here, no minus' for such a bad goal.
2-1 PP + Rome, Hodgson
Nice pass by Hodgson back to Rome (albiet it was to Booth) and wow never knew Rome could blast it Iafrate style like that. 3-1 PP + D. Sedin, H. Sedin
Great vision by Hank to find Daniel wide open.
3-2 - Lapierre
Lazy backchecking by Lapierre, he had Kruger and let him go.
4-2 + Hansen, D. Sedin
Great drive to the net by Hansen created the havoc and nice pass by Dan to Hansen.
5-2 PP + Hamhuis, Kesler
Hank's "pass" was a riccochet, hard to give him credit for that but Kesler's screen was Holmstrom like. Nice shot by Hamhuis.
6-2 PP + H. Sedin, Edler, Kesler
Such a nice goal, smart play and pass by Edler, Kesler's net front pressence opened up the ice for Hank to make that nifty move the backhand.
no love for hamhuis finding a shooting lane and getting the shot through?
Canucks 3 Kings 2
1-0 PP Salo, D. Sedin, Higgins
BOOM, Salo with a rocket shot wow. Nice quick pass across the blueline by Daniel gave Salo the time to wind up and blast it past Quick who was screened very well by Higgins (ballsy).
2-0 PP Ebbett, Edler, Booth
Lucky bounce into the net but Booth created such havoc in front if it didn't bounce in off Mitchell he would've scored. Edler's pass to Ebbett was very nice and gave Ebbett the time to make the play.
3-0 Rome, H. Sedin, Hansen
Bit of a broken cycle play by the Sedins but Hank managed to give Romer a great pass to wire, Good net front pressence by Hansen that distracted Quick enough that he wasn't able to get over in time.
3-1 PK Kesler
Tough to say as Doughty's shot was absolutely perfect, the only thing I could say is that Kesler wasn't aggressive enough on the point and gave the Kings time to set up that one timer.
3-2 Lapierre, Hamhuis
Lapierre didn't win the faceoff, lost it pretty clean actually which allowed the Kings to set up the shot. Hamhuis, Volpatti and Bieksa were all front of Luongo in a cluster****, Richards was Hamhuis' man.
00:25 ANA Saku Koivu (2) Snap - ASST: A. Cogliano (2)
-1 Bieksa, Booth, Higgins
kesler broke his stick and either booth or higgins had to take away the trailer. They would have both been fine if Bieksa actually came back and supported his partner.
12:45 ANA PPG - Andrew Cogliano (2) Wrist - ASST: B. Ryan (3) AND J. Hiller (1)
-1 Ballard Higgins
Both went for the same guy. Ballard with the weak gap and Higgins with the poor read.
15:23 ANA PPG - Corey Perry (6) Wrist - ASST: R. Getzlaf (5) AND T. Selanne (10)
-1 Hamhuis. Have to tie up the stick.
17:22 ANA Peter Holland (1) Snap - ASST: T. Lydman (5)
Salo -1
Didn't have the wheels to drive his check wide enough. Lou probably wants this one back but the guy is in a great scoring area.
3rd Period
04:32 VAN PPG - Kevin Bieksa (1) Tip-In - ASST: D. Booth (5) AND D. Hamhuis (6)
+1 Booth, Bieksa, Hodgson
Nice Pass by Booth and screen by Cody
09:12 VAN Jannik Hansen (3) Tip-In - ASST: D. Sedin (15) AND S. Salo (6)
+1 D Sedin, Hansen
Nice effort by Daniel and good tip
13:04 VAN Jannik Hansen (4) Wrist - ASST: D. Sedin (16) AND K. Bieksa (4)
+1 Henrik, Hansen
Henrik was pushed in, but I would be mad if Lou or Schneider were interferred with like that
Islanders:
1st Period
01:57 VAN Aaron Rome (3) Backhand - ASST: D. Booth (6) AND C. Hodgson (5) +1 - Rome, Booth, Hodgson
2nd Period
00:34 VAN Henrik Sedin (6) Wrist - ASST: K. Bieksa (5) +1 - Henrik, Hansen
15:09 NYI Matt Moulson (4) Backhand - ASST: M. Grabner (2) AND J. Tavares (6) -1 - Salo - Where did you go?
3rd Period
02:47 VAN PPG - Cody Hodgson (4) ASST: A. Rome (1) AND C. Higgins (4) +1 - Booth, Hodgson, Rome
16:59 VAN EN - David Booth (2) Wrist - ASST: A. Rome (2) AND M. Lapierre (3) +1 - Booth, Hodgson (nice backcheck)
I will be more than happy to do the Chicago game. Just give me a few hours as I'm at work. I have a feeling there are going to be a bunch of negatives.
Goal 1 (Van at ES)
Daniel does a nice job of getting to the loose puck in the Canucks zone and banking it off the boards to his brother Henrik who makes a beautiful saucer pass to Hansen who taps it in.
Result: D. Sedin, H. Sedin, and Hansen +1.
Goal 2 (Chi on PP)
Kesler takes a Penalty that lead to the PP, but I can't remember what he did so someone else will need to speak up on whether it was a bad penatly and deserves an ES -1.
This goal was the result of a pretty nice passing play but Chicago still managed to pass the puck basically right through Hamhuis and then through Bieksa who I'm going to give both a PP-1 to.
Result: Hamhuis and Bieksa PP-1.
Goal 3 (Chicago on PP)
Edler and Salo don't get their men in time. Edler first missed the puck along the boards and then Salo didn't pick up Toews infront of the net. I know that Kane got credit for the goal, and was Edlers guy, but I think Schneider has this puck if Toews isn't left along in front of the net.
Result: Edler and Salo PP-1
Goal 4 (Chi at ES)
Higgins and Kesler lost the battle for the puck in the Chicago zone (But I'm not giving them a -1 for it) but then at lazy on the backcheck which lead to Chicago having an odd man rush going the other way and the third man (Toews - Keslers man) scoring the goal on a nice passing play started by Hossa. And screw it, Burrows was down low behind all the players and made no effort to get back either.
Result: Edler, Rome, Kesler, Higgins and Burrows -1.
Goal 5 (Chi at ES)
Hamhuis gets beat by Kane on a breakaway and then the Canucks fail to pick up their checks quickly allowing the Hawks to pass the puck around back to the point and Sharp gets a shot off on net. Hamhuis allows Carcillo to push him out of the way in front of the net and cause traffic in front of Schneider who would have easily stopped this shot otherwise.
Result: Booth and Hamhuis -1.
Goal 6 (Chi at ES)
Another 3 on 2 break by the Canucks where the trailing player (Montador) wasn't picked up by the Canucks. Salo and Rome had their man but none of the Canucks forwards had skated back to pick up the trailing Montador who was left wide open for a shot. This is a goal I'd like to see Schneider stop, but you can't really blame him that he didn't either. Although Salo and Rome were 'near' their men, I still think they could have done better as at this point it looked like the effort level was nil.
Result: Rome, Salo and Higgins -1.
I would switch/add Higgins and Hamhuis on the first goal. Higgins let his guy gain the zone way too easily. He was flatfooted and was burnt. Hamhuis played it as the Canucks have been playing it under AV. On that specific play, you try to force the puck carrier into making a rushed pass, it is Bieksa's job to attack the near side guy and take way his shot/pass. The thought is that two rushed passes will rarely be successful, if they even manage to get them away. Bieksa tried to knock down the pass, which was the wrong play.
Second Chi goal I would give Malhotra a minus as well. He was far too high and wide and didn't take away the middle lane. all around a cluster-****.
All others I would agree.
Edit: Actually, I remember the last goal being a poor play by Higgins. Salo and Rome really had no faults on essentially a great pass by Hossa.
Goal 1 (Canucks on PP)
Nice passing play from Kesler to D. Sedin who passes it to H. Sedin who has nobody covering him for the one-timer on a goal the goalie would likely like to have back.
Result: Kesler, D. Sedin and H. Sedin PP+1
Goal 2 (Sens @ ES)
Aaron Rome is lazy in front of the net and isn't paying attention as Spezza makes a great pass to Greening in front who shoots it in before Rome even realizes the puck is near him.
Result: Rome -1
Goal 3 (Canucks @ ES in OT)
This goal was really the result on an ugly bouncing shot by Hamhuis and a really nice tip from Higgins.
Result: Hamhuis and Higgins +1.
To be honest, I was out of town for a month so it was hard for me to keep doing the games (When I wasn't even able to watch most of them). I had hoped that others would take it and run.
I do think that the thread proved a point though. If you look at the players that we had listed as getting a - or +, there were instances where players were their - was becoming extremely exaggerated when they weren't even at fault for the goal.
Having said that, there were some players getting + when they didn't really do much to contribute to the goal.
The +/- figure is extremely subjective whichever method you use however. There are some plays where it is obvious who is at fault, but there there are others where it's a matter of opinion...
To be honest, I was out of town for a month so it was hard for me to keep doing the games (When I wasn't even able to watch most of them). I had hoped that others would take it and run.
I do think that the thread proved a point though. If you look at the players that we had listed as getting a - or +, there were instances where players were their - was becoming extremely exaggerated when they weren't even at fault for the goal.
Having said that, there were some players getting + when they didn't really do much to contribute to the goal.
The +/- figure is extremely subjective whichever method you use however. There are some plays where it is obvious who is at fault, but there there are others where it's a matter of opinion...
so which is better? Are either methods good?
I had to bail as I was going through a career change. Maybe retry next year or playoffs?
I had to bail as I was going through a career change. Maybe retry next year or playoffs?
I'd be up for that if we could get more people involved. There was one point where about a month after I got back into town (2 months after the last game stats were posted) that I thought about going through each game... but there was like 20 games to go through... haha.
It'd be neat to see this done in the playoffs actually... maybe that'd give people a better idea of who the real scapegoats should be when we lose rather than blaming the usual suspects.
