Game Report - Calgary vs Vancouver 01/10/15

NOTE: SU stands for setup, and it's awarded to a player who sets up a shot attempt. In other words, SUs are Corsi assists. Why collect this data? Because the passing sequence leading up to a shot reveals so much about the shooting play as a whole, offering a rich and descriptive data set. See the Glossary for a complete list of terms and definitions this blog uses.

Game Breakdown - 5v5 Play

First Period

Vancouver vastly outplays Calgary in all shot and scoring chance breakdowns by at least a 2 to 1 margin. The SUSAs are a bit closer (14 to 8). This is to say that while the Canucks fire 26 shot attempts at the Flames' net, they only set up 14 of them. Calgary sets up 8 of their 10 shot attempts, and they convert on their one SC SUSOG (Scoring Chance SetUp Shot On Goal) of the period, which Gaudreau and Jones setup beautifully for Backlund.

Second Period

Vancouver still outshoots Calgary by a wide margin in all categories, although it's not as bad as in the first period (but still pretty bad).

Third Period 

Vancouver is still down 1-0 and they decide to throw everything at the net. Despite 24 shot attempts, only 3 of them are scoring chances, and only one of these is a scoring chance shot on goal (SC SOG). The shoot-from-anywhere-and-crash-the-net strategy doesn't work for the Canucks and they drop a 1-0 game to the Flames.

Player Breakdown

This data provides a picture of the players involved in shooting attempt plays, both as shooters and passers.

SACo is shot attempt contribution, which is the sum of a players shot attempts (SA) and setups (SU - both SU1s and SU2s are counted). This is different than other sites' definition of shot attempt contribution, which awards any players on the ice at the time of the shot. SOGCo (shot on goal contribution) only counts SU1s, because this is the pass that sets up the shot (in theory the SU2 pass has nothing to do with whether the SU1 pass sets up a shot).

SC Co - scoring chance contribution - sums a player's SC SA (scoring chance shot attempts) with his SC SU (scoring chance setups). Note that players are awarded with a SC SU only if their pass directly contributes to the shot being a scoring chance. In other words, a player can set up a shot attempt, that shot attempt can be a scoring chance, but the SU player will not be awarded with a SC SU if his pass doesn't directly lead to the shot being a scoring chance (i.e. the SC is the result of the shooter's efforts alone). Alright - on to the results!

The Calgary Flames

Mikael Backlund. No wonder he scored. He was the biggest offensive contributor on the night for the Flames. No other Flame contributed more shot attempts and shots on goal, and both he and Byron contributed to the most scoring chances at 3 each (all 5v5).

The Vancouver Canucks

The Canucks took a lot of shot attempts, Edler contributing the most at 15 (8 of which he took himself, setting up 7). Despite this, he was only involved in 2 shots on goal, and no scoring chances. Daniel Sedin and Burrows were the biggest contributors to scoring chances.

Glossary

SC - Scoring Chance. Any shot taken from the home plate scoring chance area.

SA - Shot Attempt. SAs branch into these mutually exclusive subsets:

1. SOG - Shot on Goal
2. MS - Missed Shot
3. BS - Blocked Shot
4. P - Post

SU - Setup. Awarded to players who pass the puck to a teammate who then takes a shot. SU is like an assist for a Shot Attempt (so naturally we also collect SU2s - the 2nd assist of a shot attempt).

Tr - Transition play. A shot in which the first or second setup pass comes from the defensive or neutral zones.

Cy - Cycle play. Shot attempts in which both the first and second setup passes come from the offensive zone.

Combinations

These acronyms are used in conjunction with one another to describe a play. For example, SC SA is a scoring chance shot attempt. SUSOG is a Setup Shot on Goal (I'm paying special attention to these because SUSOGs are about 50% more likely to go in than SOGs that aren't setup by a pass). 
You can get as crazy as you like with these - I read a Tr SC SUSOG as a transition scoring chance setup shot on goal.

Game Report - Florida vs. Calgary 01/09/2015

Glossary

SA - Shot Attempt. Any shot that is on goal, missed, or blocked. (Also included are non-shots - see Methods for a definition).
SOG - Shot on Goal.
SU - Setup. Awarded to players who pass the puck to a teammate who then takes a shot. In other words these are shot "assists." SUSA is a Setup Shot Attempt; SUSOG is a Setup Shot on Goal. I'm paying special attention to these because SUSOGs are about 50% more likely to go in than SOGs that aren't setup by a pass.
Tr - Transition. A shot in which the first or second setup pass comes from the defensive or neutral zones. TrSA is a shot attempt in transition.

Cy - Cycle. Any shot where both the first and second setup passes come from the offensive zone. CySOG is a shot on goal coming from the cycle.

SC - Scoring Chance. SC SA is a scoring chance shot attempt. SC SUSOG is a scoring chance setup by a teammate that results in a shot on goal.Goals

Breaking Down the 5v5 Shots

The first period may have been the worst period of hockey the Flames have played. Ever. Florida had more than twice as many shot attempts, and they setup 5 scoring chance shots on goal (all in the first 15 minutes of play). To put this in perspective, Calgary only allowed Detroit to setup one scoring chance shot on goal in the entirety of Wednesday's game.  

The Flames somehow came out of the first period with a 2-2 tie, thanks to a brutal giveaway by Ekblad and a weak powerplay goal by TJ Brodie (Al Montoya stopped the puck, then kicked it in. This was a 6-1 game if Luongo was in net.)

The rest of the game evened out, but the Flames got exactly what they deserved (no matter how bad Montoya is).

Goal Breakdown

First Period

0 - 1
Matt Stajan (EV) unassisted.
Ekblad is pressured and sends a blind pass from behind his net into the scoring chance area. Stajan says thank you and blasts the puck home. Tough one for the 18 year-old.

1-1
Jonathan Huberdeau (EV) assisted by B. Boyes.
Hiller goes behind the net to play a slow-moving puck. Not slow enough, apparently, and it goes right by Hiller to Brad Boyes. He whips it out front to Huberdeau who has a wide open net.

2-1
Brad Boyes (EV) assisted by J. Huberdeau.
Another giveaway by the Flames in their own zone, this time by Wideman. He gives Huberdeau a gentle pass up the sideboards, who fires a beautiful pass across to Boyes in front of the net. He tips it in past Hiller.

2-2
TJ Brodie (PP) assisted by M. Giordano and J. Colborne.
The Flames get set up in the offensive zone. A couple passes around the perimeter gets the puck to TJ Brodie. He's at the top of the circle against the boards, and fires a wrist shot on net (i.e. not a great shot). Montoya makes the save, then kicks the puck into his own net.

Second Period

2 - 3
Mikael Backlund (EV) assisted by L. Bouma and D. Wideman.
Bouma misses the net and the puck rings around the boards to Wideman. Wideman shoots the puck (surprise). The rebound goes to Backlund in the scoring chance area, and he backhands the puck in.

3 - 3
Sean Bergeinheim (EV) assisted by T. Fleischmann and D. Bolland.
This play was a microcosm of the game. Calgary gives the puck away twice in their own zone in a span of 3 seconds. Lo and behold, the puck ends up in the back of their net.

3 - 4
TJ Brodie (EV) assisted by L. Bouma and M. Backlund.
Brodie takes a slapshot from the blueline. There are a few bodies in front, and the puck squeaks through Montoya's leg.

4- 4
Jimmy Hayes (EV) assisted by J. Jokinen and E. Gudbranson
Florida wins a faceoff in the offensive zone and are quickly able to setup Hayes who takes a one-timer from the high slot. Not the hardest shot in the world, and a save Hiller needs to make, but a nice setup by Florida nonetheless.

Third Period

5 - 4 
Brian Campbell (EV) unassisted.
It's hard to believe that there could be a worse goaltending performance than the one by Montoya. Enter Jonas Hiller. The arc on Campbell's fanned point shot would make any basketball player proud.

5 - 5
Matt Stajan (EV) assisted by D. Jones and L. Bouma.
No matter what you say about Matt "franchise player" Stajan, he had a knack for going to the net in this game, which is never a bad idea, especially in a game like this. Jones gets a good opportunity, and Stajan finds the pin-balling puck in front of the net and pots it.

6 - 5
T. Fleischmann assisted by D. Bolland and S. Bergenheim.
After another breakdown, Calgary gets exactly what they deserve. Wideman mistakes Bergenheim for his figure skating partner behind the net, allowing Bergenheim to retrieve the puck. He sends it out front, and a few bounces later Fleishmann scores the game winning goal.


***
The raw data is available upon request.
***

DISCLAIMER: My data differs from other sources. I haven't compared my data against these other sources. But keep in mind the play-by-play is collected live. I watch, re-watch, and re-re-watch certain plays to make sure I record them correctly.

Game Report - Detroit vs Calgary 01/07/15

Glossary

SA - Shot Attempt. Any shot that is on goal, missed, or blocked. (Also included are non-shots - see Methods for a definition).
SOG - Shot on Goal.
SU - Setup. Awarded to players who pass the puck to a teammate who then takes a shot. In other words, these players "setup" a shot. SUSA is a Setup Shot Attempt; SUSOG is a Setup Shot on Goal. I'm paying special attention to these because SUSOGs are about 50% more likely to go in than non SUSOGs.
Tr - Transition. A shot in which the first or second setup pass comes from the defensive or neutral zones. TrSA is a shot attempt in transition.

Cy - Cycle. Any shot where both the first and second setup passes come from the offensive zone. CySOG is a shot on goal coming from the cycle.

SC - Scoring Chance. SC SA is a scoring chance shot attempt. SC SUSOG is a scoring chance setup by a teammate that results in a shot on goal.

Breaking Down the 5v5 Shots

All Shot Attempts

This was an incredibly even game across all shot categories. Detroit barely won the Corsi battle. Scoring Chance Shot Attempts were even.

Setup Shots

I'm keeping special tabs on SUSAs (Setup Shot Attempts) because it's been shown that shots that are the result of a pass (i.e. SUSOGs) are about 50% more likely to go in. Again, Detroit and Calgary were incredibly close in this respect. We can also see that 5v5 play wasn't the most exciting. Combined the teams were only able to setup 4 scoring chances (2 each).

Transition and Cycle Shots.

Transition shots are any shots in which either of the two setup passes come from the defensive or neutral zones. For cycle shots, both setup passes come from the offensive zone. This shows us how teams are generating their shots. Both teams generated more attempts from transition play. Sheahan's goal came from transition, and considering Engelland's gaffe on the play this looks like a good way to exploit bad defenseman. Raymond's goal came from a rebound off a transition shot.

The most glaring difference between the teams comes from the cycle. Detroit was able to setup 2 scoring chance shots on goal (SC CySOG), one of which resulted in Zetterberg's goal. Calgary generated 0 such plays. Zero. This, in conjunction with Engelland's error, was where the game was lost for the Flames.

Breaking Down the Goals

Mason Raymond (EV) assisted by M. Backlund and D. Jones.

A transition play that saw Raymond fire the puck at Mrazek from the sideboards. Not the best shot in and of itself, but it stunned Mrazek and gave Raymond the time to pick up the rebound and wrap the puck around the net and in. Great individual effort by Raymond.

Riley Sheahan (EV) assisted by D. Helm.

A transition setup that went from Sheahan to Helm, back to Sheahan in the neutral zone. Sheahan then skates the puck into the offensive zone in an innocuous looking one-on-one between him and Engelland. Engelland lets Sheahan in way too deep, and with one flick of the stick Sheahan is right in front of the net. He roofs the puck over Ramo. A beautiful individual effort by Sheahan, but a good defenseman does not let that happen. (I knew I'd have to rag on Engelland sooner or later, but I wasn't expecting it to be 8 minutes into the first game.)

Henrik Zetterberg (EV) assisted by J. Abdelkader and G. Nyquist.

A scoring chance setup from the cycle (sort of). Zetterberg floats in behind the defense, right in front of the net. Nyquist spots him from the boards and fires a pass his way. It was lucky that the puck found its way to Zetterberg after being tipped by Abdelkader, but Zetterberg cannot be allowed that much free ice directly in front of the net. Monahan needs to cover him.

Justin Abdelkader (PP) assisted by G. Nyquist and H. Zetterberg.

Detroit does exactly what any powerplay aims to do: setup a player in the scoring chance area. Nyquist sets up Abdelkader so beautifully that Abdelkader has the time to hit the post and bury the rebound before any defenders (goalie included) get back into position.

Mikael Backlund (SH) assisted by P. Byron and T. Brodie.

Detroit does exactly what any powerplay aims NOT to do: allow a shorthanded goal. A bad pass by Weiss gets blocked, leading to a 2-on-1 for Calgary. Byron is able to feed the puck to Backlund in the scoring chance area. With Mrazek sliding across, Backlund backhands the puck along the ice and in.

Game Summary

This was an incredibly even game, both teams generating similar shooting and scoring chance numbers. Detroit won the game by taking advantage of Engelland, setting up a scoring chance for Zetterberg, and converting on the powerplay.


***
The raw data is available upon request.
***

DISCLAIMER: My data differs from other sources. For example in this game I tracked 24 scoring chances (5v5), whereas war-on-ice has 30. I reviewed some of the plays where our data differs, and I'm sticking with my numbers (it's likely we define scoring chances differently). I'll conduct a more thorough comparison and update the results as necessary.

Appendix to Methods - Data Accuracy

Accurate data is the foundation of any research project. If the raw data is bad, resulting analyses suffer. This post isn't suggesting that data from the mainstream stats providers is useless, but it is not error-free. I've personally noticed errors in NHL play-by-play files, and rink bias is a well documented phenomenon. I'm unaware of the precise methodology used by these stats providers, but their data sets suggest they do not follow the scientific method.

This blog and the Passing Project as a whole are putting sound methodologies in place to ensure the accuracy of our data. Most importantly, we test for inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability is the process of making sure two or more "raters" collect the same data for the same games. While this is difficult to do with few data trackers, we test all games for which there are multiple trackers. The reliability of the data increases as the number of trackers increase (just one of the many reasons you should join the Passing Project! Hit us up on Twitter @cofstats / @RK_Stimp or send an email to hockeypassingstats@gmail.com.)

Inter-rater reliability testing is critical for several reasons:

1. It corrects for errors. We're human. We miss things, we make typos, you name it. 
2. It corrects for bias. I'm a Flames fan. I think I'm unbiased because I started this blog to gain a deeper understanding of the Calgary Flames, good or bad. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think.
3. Inter-rater reliability testing highlights data points in which there is disagreement among trackers. These specific plays can be reviewed to ensure trackers know how to appropriately code that type of play. Tracker disagreement can also suggest the need for improved data definitions.

It cannot be said enough: the accuracy of the data is critical. Without it, all else fails. We're paying our due diligence here at the Passing Project.

***

If you'd like to join the Passing Project and collect data for an NHL team, you can reach out to Ryan Stimson on Twitter @RK_Stimp / or by email hockeypassingstats@gmail.com
***

References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rater_reliability