GDT: It ain't me, it ain't me, Canes ain't no Senator's son

[The Faulker 27]

Stickpuckers thoughts of the game:
*koochie played well enough
*Ullmark played better
*the Canes have trouble with teams that keep them to the perimeter even if the team isn't good like CBJ or Phi
*The Sens sat back in a box in the zone and didn't chase. The only Canes to break their structure were Kokonut and Orlov by making a move to the middle.
*the rest of the Canes were content to cycle around the outside
*this also worked for Ott bc they did a good job slowing the Canes through the neutral zone so there wasn't much of a transition game.

If the Canes transition and speed is shut down and the cycle game isn't breaking down the d people need to get to the middle of the ice more than 2 times in 60 minutes. This is the type of game someone like Noesen is missed.

Pro scouting needs to find a player or two who can get to the middle of the ice and score greasy goals. That will open up the cycle and transition game.

The Canes actually got quite a few shots around the middle, and in close that required saves. They had 11 HD chances to Ottawa's 6. They also had a lot of misses. Ullmark played well. Rod even made a point to say so. I honestly think our forwards did fine last night. The puck just wasn't gonna drop without Ullmark giving up a soft goal, or some puck luck. OR of course a perfect shot.

 

[CanesUltimate11]

Well I do blame the goalie for the soft goal at a critical point in the game. I’m not saying he’s the only reason they lost but he didn't out perform Ullmark. Our forwards had more HD chances than Ottawa’s. Ottawa had a lot more blocked shots and Ullmark filled in the gap.

If they’d had scored one goal with the goalie pulled then that soft goal matters. Since they didn’t it’s pointless to even bring it up. If this team is mentally fragile enough to give up going down 2-0 then they have a lot more issues then a goalie and second line center.

 

[WreckingCrew]

View attachment 945106View attachment 945108


The Canes actually got quite a few shots around the middle, and in close that required saves. They had 11 HD chances to Ottawa's 6. They also had a lot of misses. Ullmark played well. Rod even made a point to say so. I honestly think our forwards did fine last night. The puck just wasn't gonna drop without Ullmark giving up a soft goal, or some puck luck. OR of course a perfect shot.

How is a "high danger" shot quantified? Is it just location? Because the Canes do get a fair amount of shots from "dangerous areas", but they're usually muffin shots, unscreened, right to the goalies chest after giving him plenty of time to get set in from of us

 

[The Faulker 27]

If they’d had scored one goal with the goalie pulled then that soft goal matters. Since they didn’t it’s pointless to even bring it up. If this team is mentally fragile enough to give up going down 2-0 then they have a lot more issues then a goalie and second line center.

I don't buy the mentally fragile argument. I've already presented data to prove that the Canes were in fact not mentally fragile at all. They had 49 shot attempts, more high danger chances than Ottawa, and plenty of shots within high danger areas. They had a barrage of shots on goal, and shot attempts that were blocked after the 2nd goal. They were pushing hard.

As far as the soft goal itself. At that point in the 3rd the canes were getting some looks, and getting shots on goal. The next goal in a 1-0 game is critical. Saying oh well he only allowed 2 goals so they should have won is glossing over a lot of variables IMO. In a game that's 3-2 where the other team is allowing goals, I agree a soft goal may not be as critical. If the tables are turned and Ullmark gives up a softy on the bazillion shots the canes threw at the net then we're probably not even having this discussion.

The forwards need to "find a way" I get it, but sometimes it's just how the cookie crumbles. It wasn't for lack of trying or them being mentally fragile IMO.

 

[The Faulker 27]

How is a "high danger" shot quantified? Is it just location? Because the Canes do get a fair amount of shots from "dangerous areas", but they're usually muffin shots, unscreened, right to the goalies chest after giving him plenty of time to get set in from of us

I think it depends on the site that publishes it from what I understand. I got that number from natural stattrick and they base it on the shot location, and give locations a score from 1-3. Here's more reading.

Natural Stat Trick - Glossary

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

How is a "high danger" shot quantified? Is it just location? Because the Canes do get a fair amount of shots from "dangerous areas", but they're usually muffin shots, unscreened, right to the goalies chest after giving him plenty of time to get set in from of us

I think this is a perception, but I'm not sure the data backs that up.

Over the past 2 seasons and this one, the Canes 5v5 SH% for High Danger shots is 17.34% which is about middle of the pack in the NHL. Some other teams with a similar SH%:

BOS: 17.98
WPG: 17.79
MIN: 17.73
COL: 17.61
LAK: 17.49
OTT: 16.98
EDM: 16.97
NYR: 16.96
FLA: 16.23

The top 5 teams?
VAN, SEA, WSH, TBL, AZ