## April 20, 2008

### Calgary @ San Jose

 S.J CGY # G EG S% G EG SV% Game 1: 2 3.3 93.9 3 4.8 94.1 Game 2: 2 7.8 100 0 1.3 97.5 Game 3: 3 2.3 72.0 4 1.4 87.2 Game 4: 3 1.8 75.5 2 0.8 83.7 Game 5: 4 2.9 89.9 3 2.9 86.5 Game 6: 0 1.0 95.9 2 4.8 100 Game 7: 5 4.7 82.7 3 1.7 89.6 Series [4-3] 19 23.8 90.6 17 17.7 92.2

Iginla and Thornton are the possibly the best players in the West (and basically the NHL). However, it takes more than 1 player to win a series. Kiprosoff has had what most would consider a poor year, if he can come up big Calgary can take this. That said, this is San Jose's series to lose.

 S.J CGY Winner Even Strength GF 2.17 2.52 EGF 2.88 2.57 GA 2.1 2.28 EGA 1.83 2.23 SV% 88.5% 89.8% Power Play GF 7.33 5.07 EGF 7.74 6.9 GA 0.96 1.02 EGA 0.59 0.89 SV% 91.3% 88.6%
 The winner column displays the dominant team in that category. The more pictures of the team's logo the more dominant the team is in that categoryAll the non-percentage numbers are scoring rates. For example on the first row, the San Jose Sharks have an even strength scoring rate of 2.17 goal for per hour. [GF = goals for, GA = goals against Exx = expected xx, SV% = shot quality neutral save percentage].In the power play section in order to calculate the expected scoring rates I multiplied the goals for rate of one team and the goals against rate of the other and divide by the league average in order to get the expected rate for these two teams combined. So for example, the San Jose Sharks have a power play goals for rate of 6.92 and the Calgary Flames have a penalty killing goals against rate of 6.88. So 6.92*6.88/6.5=7.33 [league average is 6.5].Outperforming expected goals for is a sign of a lucky team. Outperforming expected goals against is a sign of either a good goaltender or luck as well.Each category listed has a different importance to winning, so be careful how you read these. Being able to score short-handed isn't going to win a lot of hockey games.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I'm surprised to see that the Flames had more expected goals (4.8 vs 3.3) in game one.

Looking at the shot chart at espn.com, I wouldn't have assumed otherwise.

http://scores.espn.go.com/nhl/shotchart?gameId=280409018

Anonymous said...

There's a typo in my original comment.

JavaGeek said...

I could probably say many things in regards to this question and to explain the 4.8 EG on 23 shots vs. 3.3 EG on 39 shots takes.

First off the shots table on ESPN isn't the same as the play-by-play data.

Secondly the importance of different factors follows this order:
1. Rebounds
2. Power play?
3. Distance
4. Wrist/Slap shot...

Essentially what happened was that Calgary's rebound chances were from the better locations on the ice and therefor created huge percentages for just a couple of shots.