Game 47: Tampa Bay Lightning at Phoenix Coyotes
by Cassie McClellan on Jan 22, 2012 12:07 AM EST
in '11-'12 game recaps
Email
PrintThe Tampa Bay Lightning beat the Phoenix Coyotes 4-3.
That's right. The Lightning won their second road game in a row. Not only that, but they also won back-to-back games on the road. In the Western Conference.
Yes, we've officially hit the delirium stage of the season.
Okay, not really. The Lightning looked tired in this game - and for good reason - but they managed to eke out a win at the end. They've been playing much more as a team than they have for much of the season. And, in the end, that's what has been helping them into the win column.
It still hasn't been easy. Ryan Malone left the game early, and did not return. Steve Downie was playing with a stitched up mouth, and opted out of wearing a full cage for the game. And then, Steven Stamkos helped make things very interesting at the end of the game by taking two penalties; and on one penalty kill, that cost them a goal.
Dwayne Roloson had a very good night, facing 36 shots and letting in only three. And I can still say "very good" since one goal was on a shorthanded breakaway, and the other was a power play goal scored against him. Remember, this is a man who hasn't won a game since November, so anything is "very good" compared to losing.
Even still, late in the third, he was ran into and collapsed to the ice. He finished the game, but it wouldn't be surprising if he was held out of Tuesday's match due to a stiff neck. He lay sprawled on the ice for a few minutes before getting up, and was clearly flexing his neck after he did. This is pure speculation on my part, but I wouldn't be too surprised to see Dustin Tokarski backing up Mathieu Garon in the next game.
The defense didn't look as shaky as it had previously. And, in fact, both Eric Brewer and Pavel Kubina were a +3 on the night - even before the Coyotes started scoring. Of course, a shorty and a power play goal against doesn't count when it comes to +/- statistics, but it sure looks good, all the same. All four of the Lightning's goals were even-strength.
Faceoffs were not one of the good stories for the night. The overall team winning percentage was 47%, but for most of the night, it wasn't even that good. Vincent Lecavalier won 8 out of 18 faceoffs (44%), while Stamkos won 6 of 17 (35%). Frankly, the team needs their top two centers to be better than that.
The next game is Tuesday, 24 January, at home against the Columbus Blue Jackets. Game time is 7:30 pm ET. This is the last game for the Lightning before the NHL All-Star Break, and they will not play again until the following Tuesday, 31 January. If you're not attending the game, then please stop in and say hi. The Raw Charge game thread will be available at 7 pm ET.
28 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not sure who gets more credit for the first two Lightning goals: the Lightning offense, or the Coyotes’ poor defense leaving them both unmarked.
It was nice, though, for Mike Smith of old to gift Downie that goal.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
One minor question, though: doesn’t SHGA count as a minus for the team with the PP?
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Shorthanded goals happen during power plays – it’s a special teams situation – so they’re not counted into +/- statistics.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Jan 23, 2012 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, SHG count as a minus (and as a plus for the team scoring it).
When an even-strength or shorthanded goal is scored, every player on the ice for the team scoring the goal is credited with a “plus.” Every player on the ice for the team scored against gets a “minus.”
http://proicehockey.about.com/od/scoresandstat1/f/plus_minus.htm
Following the Lightning from Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Let's. Go. BOLTS!
by Rafael Amarante on Jan 23, 2012 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
That's what I thought.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
I think, although I’m not sure, that it doesn’t count as a shot on goal for the skater, which is how someone can have a goal without a having a shot. That may only work for PPGs and not for SHGs.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
Definition of SOG differs from stat-keeper to stat-keeper.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
I’m not talking about differences in counting shots. In 5×5 play if a guy gets a goal he gets a SOG. On the PP or PK, he doesn’t get a SOG.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
There is no definition of SOG—just a very general sense of what it is and isn’t. You could be right—I don’t know otherwise.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
There is a definition. A shot on goal is any shot that would go in the net if the goaltender didn’t stop it. The problem isn’t that it’s not defined. The problem is that it’s hard to see.
What I’m trying to find out is: “On a power play, does a skater who gets credited with a short-handed goal also get credited with a shot on goal?” On the power play, skaters don’t get credit for SOGs but they do get credit for PPGs (I thnk). Does the same apply to short-handed goals?
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
Why wouldn’t the players get credited with a shot on goal on those situations?
Following the Lightning from Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Let's. Go. BOLTS!
by Rafael Amarante on Jan 24, 2012 2:26 PM EST up reply actions
On the power play? Has something to do with it being an unusual situation. And I may be wrong, although I think I’m remembering it correctly. You’d have to either already know this strange facet of NHL stat keeping or you’d have to notice it during a game, since most players have way more shots than goals. But I’m pretty sure I’ve seen guys get a goal without a shot. The team may get credit for shots on the PP but I think that it doesn’t go on a skater’s personal stats.
It’s one of those things that I keep thinking I’ll pay attention to the next game, but I never do.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
Hmm. I don’t know, I think tha shot counts normally.
Following the Lightning from Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Let's. Go. BOLTS!
by Rafael Amarante on Jan 24, 2012 2:41 PM EST up reply actions
I'm pretty sure Cam Ward has a goal without a shot this season
If I cared more about my UNC side, I'd call myself "Tar Volon," and that'd be awesome.
Bolts, Canes, Preds (now in different conferences!). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity
Rocky Top Talk
by Incipient_Senescence on Jan 24, 2012 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
I do believe you are right. :)
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
No, there isn't.
The definition of what constitutes a SOG is left up to the individual stat keeper at each game.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
No it’s not. The determination of whether a particular shot meets the definition is up to the stat keeper. The definition is not.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
So I can understand, where is your source for the definition? It’s not in the NHL Rulebook, and it’s not in the CBA.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Tons of places
In ice hockey, a shot on goal is a shot that will enter the goal if it is not stopped by the goaltender. A shot on goal must result in either a goal or a save.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_on_goal_(ice_hockey)
shot on goal
n. pl. shots on goal
A shot, as in hockey or soccer, that enters the goal or that would have entered the goal had the goalkeeper not blocked it.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shot+on+goal
shot on goal
noun, plural shots on goal. Hockey and Soccer .
a shot that enters the goal or would have entered the goal if it had not been blocked by the goalkeeper or another defensive player.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shot+on+goal
The question of arena bias among the stat geeks isn’t that they don’t know what is technically supposed to be considered a shot on goal, but rather that in the middle of a game, different stat keepers make different decisions about whether that action right there met the criteria.
For instance,
skew shot totals by the determination of a Missed Shot (if the shot would have gone wide, but the home team goalie blocked it anyway, they might call it a Shot and a Save for the goalie, boosting his stats, rather than a Missed Shot).
http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2007/03/shot-is-shot-is-shot-right.html
Each shot on goal that results in a goal is necessarily a shot on goal — there is no room for the exercise of discretion on the part of the shot recorder. However, in the case of a shot on goal that does not result in a goal, the shot recorder is permitted a modicum of discretion, and what constitutes a shot for some may not constitute a shot for others.
http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-previous-posts-it-was-shown-how-some.html
One of the best examples of this is :
Now, um, have I gone batshit crazy, or is that basically the definition of a "shot", both at goal, and in this case, on goal? Yet, in this game it was officially classified as neither! The Play By Play feed goes from "Faceoff, 6:15" to "Stoppage of play, 5:51" with no record of anything in between. I also double checked the box score, and Trent Hunter has a big old zero in the shots column for the third period.
http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/12/brief-corroboration-of-new-jersey.html
http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/11/more-on-dubious-nhl-shot-counting.html is also pretty good.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
I saw all those, too. The Wikipedia one, in particular carries no weight: the reference is to the National Lacrosse League’s definition of a SOG.
Hence my insistence of an NHL-approved definition. None of the references you supplied (which again, most of which I have already seen) are NHL-official.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
Shot on goal
A shot on goal is a scoring attempt. …A scoring attempt in hockey (as opposed to soccer) is officially counted as a shot only when it is directed on goal, resulting in a goal or requiring the goaltender to make a save.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_(hockey)
Does that make you feel any better? I honestly don’t know how else you could define shot on goal other than a shot that is correctly aimed at the goal. Missed and blocked shots are counted separately.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
BTW...
I think you and I are saying the same thing, from different angles.
I’m saying SOG are skewed because there’s no concrete, league-wide approved definition of a SOG.
You’re saying SOG are skewed because of stat keepers’ different interpretations of actions leading to a SOG.
Either way, we’re both saying SOG are skewed. :-)
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
It doesn't affect this discussion, but there is a real--if subtle--difference between our positions.
SOGs are tracked at almost all levels of hockey. Unless you have some sort of evidence that the NHL actively rejects the common definition of a shot on goal, I see no reason to assume that they would.
And perhaps it is semantics at this point, but from the perspective of making stats more reliable, it matters whether the problem lies in poor training or personnel structure, environmental factors (i.e., people being affected by their environment), the nature of the game, or in an inadequate definition.
The assumption is that there is over- or under-counting of shots. Which assumes that there is a correct count. Which means there is a definition that works. If the objective doesn’t exist, then all the training or reform in the world won’t make stats keepers able to see it any better.
But for you and me, yes, it’s semantics.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
"You don’t motivate people; you activate something in them that already exists." -Guy Boucher
I don't think so
Clare’s definition is accurate. But it’s also valid for any situation. A shot on goal is a shot on goal no matter if it’s a PP or PK.
Following the Lightning from Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Let's. Go. BOLTS!
by Rafael Amarante on Jan 24, 2012 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed...
…but my challenge remains. Find me a NHL-approved definition of a SOG. I contend there isn’t one.
"Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two equals four. If that is granted all else will follow."
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
I don’t think there is one.
But it shouldn’t be that much of a controversy. If the goalie made a save, there was a shot. If the puck went in the goal, there was a shot. Everything else, no shot. Simple, hehe.
Following the Lightning from Rio Grande, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
Let's. Go. BOLTS!
by Rafael Amarante on Jan 24, 2012 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Raw Charge
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Pages
Raw Charge on the Web
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
SBNation.com Recent Stories
