Scoring Chances
| Team | Period | Time | Note | Home | Away | State | ||||||||||
| Away | 1 | 16:37 | Wideman, save | 4 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 61 | 83 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 21 | 37 | 60 | 5v5 |
| Away | 1 | 14:03 | Colborne, goal (4v5 PK) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 68 | 88 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 18 | 37 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 1 | 13:52 | Goodrow from Sheppard, save (5v4 PP) | 15 | 31 | 44 | 57 | 80 | 89 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 13 | 37 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 1 | 12:15 | Brodie from Monahan, save | 12 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 80 | 83 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Home | 1 | 11:32 | Couture from Karlsson, post | 8 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 68 | 88 | 4 | 6 | 18 | 25 | 32 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 19:21 | Backlund from Brodie, miss | 8 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 68 | 88 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 24 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 17:31 | Burns from Couture, save (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 18 | 37 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 2 | 17:22 | Pavelski from Marleau, save (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 32 | 37 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 2 | 17:21 | Thornton from Pavelski rebound, goal (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 32 | 37 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 2 | 11:00 | Karlsson from Pavelski, goal | 4 | 25 | 31 | 48 | 61 | 81 | 15 | 18 | 25 | 29 | 32 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 10:06 | Colborne from Raymond, save | 15 | 31 | 44 | 83 | 88 | 89 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 21 | 37 | 60 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 9:07 | Marleau from Wingels, save | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 57 | 88 | 4 | 6 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 8:29 | Hudler from Backlund, goal | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 68 | 5 | 7 | 11 | 13 | 24 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 3:53 | Byron from Brodie, miss | 15 | 31 | 44 | 57 | 83 | 88 | 5 | 7 | 18 | 25 | 32 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 3:06 | Colborne from Brodie, miss | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 57 | 80 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 21 | 37 | 60 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 1:09 | Colborne from Raymond rebound, miss | 25 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 81 | 88 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 21 | 37 | 60 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 10:56 | Marleau from Couture, save | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 80 | 81 | 4 | 6 | 11 | 13 | 24 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 3 | 9:11 | Monahan from WIdeman, save (5v4 PP) | 31 | 44 | 61 | 83 | 89 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 21 | 23 | 37 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 3 | 7:41 | Backlund from Hudler, miss | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 57 | 88 | 5 | 6 | 11 | 13 | 24 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 5:02 | Marleau from Burns, miss | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 88 | 5 | 7 | 17 | 19 | 23 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 1:23 | Pavelski from Thornton, miss | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 61 | 68 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 11 | 13 | 37 | 5v5 |
| Away | 4 | 4:37 | Monahan from Giordano, goal | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 61 | 5 | 7 | 23 | 32 | 37 | 4v4 | ||
San Jose
Even Strength Scoring Chance Save Percentage: 80.0%
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 4 | DILLON, BRENDEN | 17:19 | 2 | 3 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | PAVELSKI, JOE | 14:51 | 3 | 3 | 01:46 | 3 | 1 | 01:47 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | MARLEAU, PATRICK | 16:20 | 3 | 4 | 01:46 | 3 | 1 | 01:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | SHEPPARD, JAMES | 09:58 | 0 | 2 | 00:10 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | THORNTON, JOE | 15:01 | 2 | 5 | 01:46 | 3 | 1 | 00:20 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | MCGINN, TYE | 11:36 | 1 | 1 | 00:34 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | HANNAN, SCOTT | 12:25 | 1 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 01:52 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | NIEMI, ANTTI | 6 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 39 | COUTURE, LOGAN | 14:55 | 3 | 2 | 00:50 | 3 | 0 | 01:19 | 0 | 0 |
| 44 | VLASIC, MARC-EDOUARD | 22:56 | 3 | 6 | 00:54 | 1 | 0 | 02:08 | 0 | 1 |
| 48 | HERTL, TOMAS | 13:54 | 1 | 1 | 00:51 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 57 | WINGELS, TOMMY | 15:43 | 1 | 3 | 00:10 | 1 | 0 | 01:39 | 0 | 0 |
| 61 | BRAUN, JUSTIN | 17:06 | 2 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 01:57 | 0 | 1 |
| 68 | KARLSSON, MELKER | 14:46 | 2 | 2 | 00:39 | 0 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 80 | TENNYSON, MATT | 15:06 | 1 | 2 | 00:44 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 81 | KENNEDY, TYLER | 14:57 | 2 | 1 | 00:34 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 83 | NIETO, MATT | 10:00 | 0 | 4 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:54 | 0 | 1 |
| 88 | BURNS, BRENT | 22:57 | 3 | 5 | 01:36 | 3 | 1 | 02:03 | 0 | 0 |
| 89 | GOODROW, BARCLAY | 09:16 | 0 | 1 | 00:10 | 1 | 0 | 00:56 | 0 | 1 |
Calgary
Even Strength Scoring Chance Save Percentage: 83.3%
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 4 | RUSSELL, KRIS | 18:22 | 2 | 4 | 01:51 | 1 | 0 | 00:50 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | GIORDANO, MARK | 23:40 | 8 | 1 | 02:09 | 0 | 0 | 01:40 | 0 | 3 |
| 6 | WIDEMAN, DENNIS | 20:03 | 3 | 4 | 01:55 | 1 | 0 | 00:50 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | BRODIE, TJ | 23:29 | 7 | 1 | 02:05 | 0 | 0 | 01:40 | 0 | 3 |
| 8 | COLBORNE, JOE | 14:52 | 4 | 1 | 01:33 | 1 | 0 | 00:08 | 1 | 0 |
| 11 | BACKLUND, MIKAEL | 15:40 | 3 | 2 | 01:38 | 0 | 0 | 01:00 | 0 | 1 |
| 13 | GAUDREAU, JOHNNY | 16:09 | 3 | 2 | 01:38 | 0 | 0 | 00:10 | 0 | 1 |
| 15 | SMID, LADISLAV | 11:37 | 0 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 17 | BOUMA, LANCE | 16:21 | 1 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 01:18 | 0 | 1 |
| 18 | STAJAN, MATT | 08:48 | 1 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 01:01 | 1 | 3 |
| 19 | JONES, DAVID | 14:57 | 1 | 2 | 00:49 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | RAYMOND, MASON | 12:45 | 4 | 0 | 01:51 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 23 | MONAHAN, SEAN | 16:55 | 2 | 2 | 01:51 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | HUDLER, JIRI | 14:36 | 3 | 1 | 01:38 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | BOLLIG, BRANDON | 08:56 | 1 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 29 | ENGELLAND, DERYK | 10:37 | 0 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 32 | BYRON, PAUL | 08:48 | 2 | 2 | 00:31 | 0 | 0 | 00:50 | 0 | 2 |
| 37 | ORTIO, JONI | 10 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | |||
| 60 | GRANLUND, MARKUS | 12:31 | 4 | 0 | 00:31 | 0 | 0 | 00:33 | 0 | 0 |
Period-by-Period Summary
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The common narrative after last night’s game was that San Jose had a bad first period, great second period, and the game evened out from there. Realistically though, I don’t think that narrative is at all true. Despite getting outscored 2-0 in the opening frame, San Jose was only outchanced by 1 at even strength, and shot attempts were pretty even in that period. While San Jose outchanced Calgary 4-1 in the first nine minutes of the second period (three of those courtesy of the Sharks’ powerplay), they were outchanced 5-1 the rest of that period, with all of those scoring chances occurring at even strength. The third period, though it wasn’t the period with the highest scoring chance count, was ruled by San Jose, as they outchanced Calgary 3-1 at evens before Calgary’s first and only scoring chance of overtime that brought the game to an end.
It’s hard to gauge the success of certain lines in this game, given that most of them were thrown into the blender midway through the game, but that isn’t much of a concern, as all the numbers basically boil down to (1) the Sharks’ fourth line was arguably their best again and (2) every player not on the fourth line and not named Logan Couture finished the night with either an even or negative scoring chance differential.
A lot of the damage Calgary dealt last night came from some of their depth players, as Granlund, Raymond and Colborne posted great differentials. Other than those three, the Flames’ top pair posted amazing numbers, showing part of why T.J Brodie and Mark Giordano are easy shoe-ins for the Norris Trophy debate. The Flames’ second pairing didn’t experience nearly as much success as their top pairing did though, as San Jose managed four of their six even strength scoring chances against that pairing.
Zone Entries
San Jose
| Player | # of successful entries | Shots generated from player’s entries | Shots per entry | # of controlled entries | Shots generated from player’s controlled entries | Shots per controlled entry | % of entries with control | Failed entries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | 0 |
| 8 | 5 | 2 | 0.40 | 4 | 2 | 0.50 | 80% | 2 |
| 12 | 7 | 5 | 0.71 | 4 | 4 | 1.00 | 57% | 0 |
| 15 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 19 | 4 | 5 | 1.25 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 50% | 1 |
| 25 | 5 | 2 | 0.40 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 20% | 0 |
| 27 | 2 | 3 | 1.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 39 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 100% | 0 |
| 44 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 33% | 0 |
| 48 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 67% | 3 |
| 57 | 4 | 2 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 61 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 25% | 0 |
| 68 | 8 | 6 | 0.75 | 5 | 4 | 0.80 | 63% | 0 |
| 80 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 81 | 8 | 7 | 0.88 | 7 | 7 | 1.00 | 88% | 1 |
| 83 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 33% | 0 |
| 88 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 89 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 100% | 1 |
| Team | 68 | 40 | 0.59 | 34 | 22 | 0.65 | 50% | 8 |
| Opp | 65 | 34 | 0.52 | 33 | 17 | 0.52 | 51% | 4 |
Calgary
| Player | # of successful entries | Shots generated from player’s entries | Shots per entry | # of controlled entries | Shots generated from player’s controlled entries | Shots per controlled entry | % of entries with control | Failed entries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGY4 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 |
| CGY5 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CGY6 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CGY7 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 75% | 0 |
| CGY8 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 67% | 0 |
| CGY11 | 6 | 3 | 0.50 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 33% | 0 |
| CGY13 | 7 | 1 | 0.14 | 5 | 1 | 0.20 | 71% | 1 |
| CGY15 | 2 | 3 | 1.50 | 1 | 2 | 2.00 | 50% | 0 |
| CGY17 | 5 | 2 | 0.40 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 20% | 0 |
| CGY18 | 1 | 2 | 2.00 | 1 | 2 | 2.00 | 100% | 0 |
| CGY19 | 6 | 5 | 0.83 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 67% | 1 |
| CGY21 | 4 | 5 | 1.25 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 75% | 1 |
| CGY23 | 6 | 4 | 0.67 | 4 | 3 | 0.75 | 67% | 0 |
| CGY24 | 7 | 2 | 0.29 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 29% | 0 |
| CGY25 | 7 | 1 | 0.14 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 57% | 1 |
| CGY29 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | 0 |
| CGY32 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CGY60 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| Team | 65 | 34 | 0.52 | 33 | 17 | 0.52 | 51% | 4 |
First off, it’s worth noting that San Jose’s high failed entries count comes due to the high amount of offsides they had last night in the third period, and not due to an amazing effort defending against entries by the Calgary D. Other than the turnover count, and just being barely edged by Calgary in the carry-in percentage category, San Jose won the neutral zone battle handily in this game. Although many players contributed to San Jose’s great numbers (Thornton, Marleau and Karlsson certainly had good nights), I think the most important contribution was that of Tyler Kennedy, who carried the puck in seven times on eight entry attempts, and whose entries the team managed seven shot attempts off of. With Marty Havlat’s departure in the offseason, the Sharks’ lost one of their best neutral zone players, but it’s good to see Kennedy upping his game from last year to help fill that void.
Calgary had quite a few players who managed good entry numbers last night, as Monahan, Raymond, Gaudreau and Brodie posted good numbers, but I think the most surprising performances came from Ladi Smid and Brandon Bollig, with Bollig somehow managing to carry the puck into the Sharks’ end on over 50% of his entry atempts. Aside from scoring a short-handed goal, Joe Colborne had a good game entering the offensive zone too, as he carried the puck in two times on three entry attempts, and the Flames averaged a shot attempt per every one of his entries.
Entry Targeting
San Jose
| Player # | # of entry attempts against | Carry-ins against | Failed entries against | Carry % against | Break up % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 44.44 | 0.00 |
| 5 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 10 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 12 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 25 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 27 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 25.00 | 0.00 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 38 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 39 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 41 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 43 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 44 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 44.44 | 0.00 |
| 48 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 52 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 57 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 61 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 87.50 | 0.00 |
| 68 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 75 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 76 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 80 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 62.50 | 12.50 |
| 81 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 83 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 88 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 58.33 | 8.33 |
| 89 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Team | 59 | 29 | 2 | 49.15 | 3.39 |
Calgary
| Player # | # of entry attempts against | Carry-ins against | Failed entries against | Carry % against | Break up % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 57.14 | 0.00 |
| 5 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 30.00 | 0.00 |
| 6 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 85.71 | 0.00 |
| 7 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 16.67 | 33.33 |
| 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 10 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 11 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 13 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 15 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 60.00 | 0.00 |
| 16 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 17 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 21 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 22 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 23 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 24 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 40.00 | 0.00 |
| 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 27 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 29 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0.00 | 50.00 |
| 32 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 33 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 59 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 60 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 79 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 86 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| Team | 69 | 34 | 3 | 49.28 | 4.35 |
While the Flames only managed a 41% carry-in percentage against the left side of the Sharks’ D, they posted almost polar opposite numbers against the right side of the Sharks defense, carrying the puck in a combined nineteen times on twenty-eight entry attempts against Tennyson, Braun and Burns, amounting to a 68% carry-in percentage. Although Tennyson and Burns were the only Sharks’ D-men to deny a Calgary entry attempt, I don’t think many will be surprised when I say that isn’t quite enough to make up for the fact that Calgary burned those two and Braun on their entry attempts. The right side of the Sharks’ defense has generally been worse at defending against opposition zone entry attempts than the Sharks’ left side, but this game was especially bad for the Sharks’ right D, and here’s to hoping that efforts this bad don’t continue against teams less speedy than the Flames.
Much like the scoring chance numbers, Calgary comes out of zone entry targeting analysis with their first pairing looking great (San Jose only carried the puck in 25% of the time against Giordano-Brodie) and their second pairing looking pretty bad (San Jose carried the puck in 67% of the time against Russell-Wideman). Smid also doesn’t look great by these numbers, though it’s hard to say much about Engelland’s numbers, given that he played only ten and a half minutes (it sure is great having a top pairing that can take minutes away from your bottom pairing, isn’t it, Calgary?).
Zone Exits
San Jose
| Player # | Touches | In-Zone Passes | Pass-Outs | Carry-Outs | Turnovers | Icings | Overall Success % | Exit Success % | Turnover % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 30.00 |
| 5 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 8 | 7 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 42.86 | 60.00 | 28.57 |
| 10 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 12 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 40.00 | 66.67 | 20.00 |
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 15 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 25.00 | 50.00 | 25.00 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 19 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 60.00 | 85.71 | 10.00 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 25 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 40.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 27 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 22.22 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 38 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 39 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 66.67 | 25.00 |
| 41 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 43 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 44 | 15 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 13.33 | 40.00 | 20.00 |
| 48 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 33.33 | 50.00 | 33.33 |
| 50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 52 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 57 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 11.11 | 20.00 | 44.44 |
| 61 | 13 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 15.38 | 25.00 | 30.77 |
| 68 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 80.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 75 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 76 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 80 | 16 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6.25 | 20.00 | 25.00 |
| 81 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 77.78 | 87.50 | 11.11 |
| 83 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 22.22 | 40.00 | 33.33 |
| 88 | 17 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 11.76 | 18.18 | 52.94 |
| 89 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 |
| Totals: | 155 | 71 | 27 | 13 | 42 | 2 | 25.81 | 47.62 | 27.10 |
Calgary
| Player # | Touches | In-Zone Passes | Pass-Outs | Carry-Outs | Turnovers | Icings | Overall Success % | Exit Success % | Turnover % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 16 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 6.25 | 12.50 | 37.50 |
| 5 | 14 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 7.14 | 16.67 | 28.57 |
| 6 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 40.00 | 57.14 | 30.00 |
| 7 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 20.00 | 30.00 | 33.33 |
| 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 |
| 10 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 11 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 66.67 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 13 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 71.43 | 83.33 | 0.00 |
| 15 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 40.00 |
| 16 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 17 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 60.00 | 75.00 | 20.00 |
| 18 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 66.67 | 25.00 |
| 19 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 60.00 | 75.00 | 20.00 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 21 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 40.00 | 66.67 | 20.00 |
| 22 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 23 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 40.00 |
| 24 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 50.00 |
| 25 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 | |
| 27 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 29 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 30.00 |
| 32 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 50.00 | 50.00 |
| 33 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 59 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 60 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33.33 | 50.00 | 33.33 |
| 79 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 86 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| Team | 126 | 43 | 17 | 21 | 38 | 7 | 30.16 | 45.78 | 30.16 |
Last night’s game had the Sharks’ posting some of their lowest turnover numbers on zone exits that I can remember, and that’s likely due to the large number of in-zone passes they used, as in-zones accounted for almost 50% of San Jose’s touches, compared to about 33% for Calgary. Pavelski, Hertl, Thornton and Karlsson all managed good games on zone exits, with Karlsson turning the puck over zero times and Thornton breaking the puck out successfully six times, but I think special note needs to be taken of TK’s numbers, as he only utilized an in-zone pass once and turned the puck over once en route to successfully exiting the zone seven times, and posting fantastic numbers all-around on zone exits.
Somewhat replicating TK’s performance was Johnny Gaudreau for the Flames, as he successfully carried the puck out of Calgary’s defensive zone five times on his seven puck touches, and managed to turn the puck over zero times (though he did ice it once). When discussing scoring chances and entry targeting, I mentioned Giordano-Brodie posting numbers that way outdid Russel-Wideman’s numbers, but zone exits was one place where this didn’t happen. Although the pairing as a whole didn’t excel, as Russell only managed one successful zone exit, Wideman did very well, managing four successful breakouts on his ten D-zone touches, leading the Flames’ D on zone exits.
Notes:
-San Jose was outchanced 6-10 at evens, with only Kennedy and Couture finishing their nights with positive scoring chance differentials
-Calgary’s top pairing dominated last night’s game, only allowing one even strength scoring chance against in almost 24 minutes of even strength ice time
-Tyler Kennedy’s good performance on scoring chances carried over to zone entries, where he excelled once again
-Monahan, Raymond and Gaudreau led the Flames’ carry-in efforts, while Ladi Smid and Brandon Bollig posted surprisingly good entry numbers
-The Flames carried the puck in on 68% of their entries against Burns, Braun and Tennyson
-The Sharks carried the puck in 67% of the time against the Flames’ second pairing, but only 25% of the time against the Flames’ first pairing
-Kennedy put up really good zone exit numbers as well, as he, Thornton, Karlsson and others helped the Sharks attain some pretty good zone exit numbers, managing some of their lowest turnover numbers of the season
-Johnny Gaudreau exited the zone with quite a bit of success, as did Dennis Wideman
As many of you know, Fear the Fin is an independent site run by Sharks fans for Sharks fans. Help keep Fear the Fin independent by contributing to our