It’s been a while since I posted the game-by-game scoring chance results (sorry, I’ll try get them out soon), I’ve still been recording the chances for all the games and I thought a chance summary was more interesting anyway.
The Flyers chance summary for games 1-11 can be found here.
Total team chances: Games 1-22
| Total CF | Total CA | Total Chance % | EV CF | EV CA | EV % | PP CF | PP CA | SH CF | SH CA | |
| 1 | 125 | 95 | 57% | 82 | 68 | 55% | 37 | 3 | 6 | 24 |
| 2 | 128 | 105 | 55% | 81 | 84 | 49% | 38 | 3 | 9 | 18 |
| 3 | 123 | 86 | 59% | 94 | 59 | 61% | 20 | 2 | 9 | 25 |
| 4 | 2 | 7 | 22% | 2 | 3 | 40% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Totals | 378 | 293 | 56% | 259 | 214 | 55% | 95 | 8 | 24 | 71 |
This table is shown from the Flyers perspective, so SH CF/CA indicates the totals while the opponent is on the powerplay.
- Through the first 11 games the Flyers were getting 58% total chances and 57% of chances at even-strength, which is really good. After 22 games they have managed to sustain this advantage in chances generating 56% of the total chances and 55% at even strength.
- The Flyers play an awful lot of the game with special teams, more than any other team in the league. I don’t know the total number of PP opportunities the Flyers had at 22 games, but their current rate is 4.6 PP for per game (145 PP for in 31 games). Given that, the Flyers get nearly one chance on every powerplay with 4.3 PP chances per game (95 chances in 22 games). I’m not sure how that compares to other teams, but it compares well with the Flyers opponents. The Flyers give 4.8 PP against per game and allows 3.2 PP chances per game. Not only does the Flyers PK allow a much lower number of chances than the teams PP generates, they also get a good number of short-handed chances with at least one per game. /
Jump for the team and individual summaries for games 12-22
Total team chances: Games 12-22
| Period | Total CF | Total CA | Total C% | EV CF | EV CA | EV C% | PP CF | PP CA | SH CF | SH CA |
| 1 | 54 | 50 | 52% | 40 | 38 | 51% | 11 | 2 | 3 | 10 |
| 2 | 64 | 49 | 57% | 35 | 34 | 51% | 24 | 3 | 5 | 12 |
| 3 | 56 | 43 | 57% | 42 | 33 | 56% | 8 | 2 | 6 | 8 |
| 4 | 2 | 4 | 33% | 2 | 3 | 40% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Totals | 176 | 146 | 55% | 119 | 108 | 52% | 43 | 7 | 14 | 31 |
- 55% of total chances and 52% of even-strength chances is still pretty good, but not as good as the first 11 games.
- On the penalty kill the Flyers get one chance for every two their opponents powerplay manages. That is nuts./
Indidual even-strength chances
| Player | ES TOI | ES CF | ES CA | Chance % | ES C/60 | ES CA/60 | SC +/- per 60 |
| K. MARSHALL | 14.18333 | 8 | 3 | 73% | 33.8 | 12.7 | 21.2 |
| J. SHELLEY | 16.93333 | 5 | 2 | 71% | 17.7 | 7.1 | 10.6 |
| E. WELLWOOD | 13.35 | 5 | 3 | 63% | 22.5 | 13.5 | 9.0 |
| J. VORACEK | 135.9 | 45 | 27 | 63% | 19.9 | 11.9 | 7.9 |
| H. ZOLNIERCZYK | 62.96667 | 14 | 7 | 67% | 13.3 | 6.7 | 6.7 |
| M. CARLE | 194.2833 | 58 | 41 | 59% | 17.9 | 12.7 | 5.3 |
| S. COUTURIER | 98.15 | 25 | 18 | 58% | 15.3 | 11.0 | 4.3 |
| M. TALBOT | 131.2833 | 37 | 28 | 57% | 16.9 | 12.8 | 4.1 |
| M. READ | 96.31667 | 25 | 20 | 56% | 15.6 | 12.5 | 3.1 |
| A. MESZAROS | 171.55 | 39 | 31 | 56% | 13.6 | 10.8 | 2.8 |
| A. LILJA | 131.65 | 32 | 26 | 55% | 14.6 | 11.8 | 2.7 |
| E. GUSTAFSSON | 53.21667 | 14 | 12 | 54% | 15.8 | 13.5 | 2.3 |
| S. HARTNELL | 163.9667 | 44 | 38 | 54% | 16.1 | 13.9 | 2.2 |
| I. BRYZGALOV | 287.4167 | 69 | 62 | 53% | 14.4 | 12.9 | 1.5 |
| S. BOBROVSKY | 208.5167 | 50 | 46 | 52% | 14.4 | 13.2 | 1.2 |
| J. JAGR | 85.1 | 19 | 18 | 51% | 13.4 | 12.7 | 0.7 |
| W. SIMMONDS | 128.4 | 27 | 26 | 51% | 12.6 | 12.1 | 0.5 |
| K. TIMONEN | 151.9333 | 32 | 31 | 51% | 12.6 | 12.2 | 0.4 |
| C. GIROUX | 168.7667 | 44 | 43 | 51% | 15.6 | 15.3 | 0.4 |
| A. NODL | 40.98333 | 6 | 7 | 46% | 8.8 | 10.2 | -1.5 |
| M. BOURDON | 40.91667 | 6 | 7 | 46% | 8.8 | 10.3 | -1.5 |
| J. VAN RIEMSDYK | 118.7667 | 22 | 26 | 46% | 11.1 | 13.1 | -2.0 |
| C. PRONGER | 74.1 | 15 | 19 | 44% | 12.1 | 15.4 | -3.2 |
| B. COBURN | 167.8 | 34 | 46 | 43% | 12.2 | 16.4 | -4.3 |
| D. BRIERE | 146.8333 | 21 | 37 | 36% | 8.6 | 15.1 | -6.5 |
| Z. RINALDO | 58.45 | 8 | 15 | 35% | 8.2 | 15.4 | -7.2 |
| B. HOLMSTROM | 4.033333 | 0 | 2 | 0% | 0.0 | 29.8 | -29.8 |
ES TOI, even-strength time on ice; ES CF/CA, total even-strength chances for/against; chance%, percentage of chances for when on the ice ES C/60, number of even-strength chances per 60 minutes of ice time; SC +/- per 60, chances for-chances against per 60 minutes of ice time.
- There are lots of sample size issues here, but I wanted to include every player.
- Ignoring those players with small sample sizes (unless you have to say something good about Shelley), Voracek, Zolnierczyk, Carle, Couturier and Talbot were impressive over this stretch.
Read, Meszaros, Lilja, Gustaffsson and Hartnell were pretty good too. - What’s interesting is Jagr, Simmonds, Timonen and Giroux all barely breaking even at even-strength.
- What’s even more interesting is how bad JVR, Pronger, Coburn and Briere were at even-strength. /
Powerplay individual scoring chances for
Note: For the special teams section, the goalies and players with low TOI have been removed
| Player | PP TOI | PP CF | PP CF/2min |
| J. VORACEK | 32.0 | 20 | 1.2 |
| C. GIROUX | 41.5 | 24 | 1.2 |
| S. HARTNELL | 37.3 | 21 | 1.1 |
| D. BRIERE | 38.4 | 21 | 1.1 |
| K. TIMONEN | 37.0 | 20 | 1.1 |
| J. VAN RIEMSDYK | 30.5 | 16 | 1.1 |
| W. SIMMONDS | 38.9 | 20 | 1.0 |
| Team average | 31.3 | 16.2 | 1.0 |
| C. PRONGER | 23.7 | 12 | 1.0 |
| A. MESZAROS | 14.1 | 7 | 1.0 |
| M. READ | 24.8 | 12 | 1.0 |
| J. JAGR | 28.4 | 12 | 0.8 |
| M. CARLE | 28.6 | 9 | 0.6 |
PP TOI, powerplay time on ice; PP CF, total chances for; PP CF/2min, powerplay chances for over 2 minutes
- Last time there was a clear distinction between the first and second powerplay unit, with players from the first unit all getting more chances than the second unit. That pattern isn’t shown as strongly here.
- There are no real stand-outs, with Jagr and Carle the only players below the one chance per powerplay threshold which is the team average and what I’d consider a reasonable expectation for a powerplay./
Penalty kill individual scoring chances against
| Player | SH TOI | SH CA | SH CA/2min |
| C. PRONGER | 23.02 | 5 | 0.43 |
| A. LILJA | 10.07 | 3 | 0.60 |
| C. GIROUX | 39.82 | 13 | 0.65 |
| S. COUTURIER | 32.97 | 11 | 0.67 |
| M. TALBOT | 44.83 | 15 | 0.67 |
| M. CARLE | 14.83 | 5 | 0.67 |
| A. MESZAROS | 38.22 | 13 | 0.68 |
| Team average | 31.79 | 11 | 0.69 |
| B. COBURN | 39.80 | 14 | 0.70 |
| M. READ | 29.88 | 13 | 0.87 |
| K. TIMONEN | 42.83 | 20 | 0.93 |
SH TOI, short-handed time on ice; SH CA, short-handed chances against, SH CA/2min, shorthanded chances against over 2 minutes
- Timonen and Coburn are once again on the wrong side of the team average. Behindthenet.ca has them playing weaker competition (looking at Corsi Rel QoC) but of course there are sample size issues here./
So the Flyers are still doing very well at winning the chance battle, both at even-strength and on special teams, a trend that will hopefully continue.
Once again, if anyone has any questions about these data or any ideas on how to better present it (not score effects), then I’m more than glad to hear it.
