Kovalev scores four as Senators win 7-4 over Flyers
The Ottawa Senators' 7-4 win over the Philadelphia Flyers had just about everything: Lots of goals, lots of shots, a couple goalie changes, a couple comebacks, penalties, a hat trick; just about the only thing it didn't have, and which continues to elude the Senators, is powerplay success. Even without it, though, the Senators came back from a 1-0 deficit to build a 4-1 lead, lost it, and then regained their three-goal lead, largely thanks to Alex Kovalev (with a special thanks to Brian Boucher and the Flyers' defence corps), and got two points in the end.
Sens heroes: Alex Kovalev, Anton Volchenkov, Mike Fisher, Ryan Shannon, the third line
Kovalev was on his best all night long: Four goals, an assist, six shots, and +5 in 18:47 TOI. It was a little surreal to see the reception he got, with some "KO-VEE" chants bursting out towards the end of the game, and he worked the crowd a bit with a 'moon-skate' celebration when given first-star honours (picture the moonwalk, but on skates). People are going to complain about his consistency, but it looks like there's an implicit understanding with Kovalev: You may not show up every night, but be there when you're needed. With Jason Spezza and Daniel Alfredsson out, he's needed, and he showed up tonight.
(Read more... )
Volchenkov was his usual shut-down self, and particularly strong tonight, but also added in three assists to the offensive outburst tonight. With his +5 on the game, Volchenkov's tied for the team-lead in +/- with Fisher and Nick Foligno at +11. Considering the opponents he typically sets up against, it's a pretty remarkable statistic.
Although he only had one assist in the seven-goal game, Fisher played a significant role in the win. He was +4 on the night, but his biggest contribution was in the faceoff circle: 14-for-19 in the faceoff circle, good for 74 per cent on the afternoon. He completely dismantled Mike Richards on the dot, and at one point was so strong on the puck that he lifted Richards right off his feet and onto his face. Herculean faceoff effort.
Whoo... lots of heroes tonight. Ryan Shannon played like he's been playing the last few games, using his speed to really pressure opponents, and when the Senators took control in the first period, that was due in large part to the hard and fast forechecking by guys like Shannon on the Flyers' defence. It's amazing to see Shannon, so often undersized against just about any NHL defenceman, force opponents into mistakes just with his speed and a push here or there, and causes a turnover. It's how he had success last season, and looks to have found that stride again.
The third line, with Jarkko Ruutu, Chris Neil, and Chris Kelly, each deserve Hero status for their work in the game. Call them the most overpaid line in the league, if you will, but they earned their paycheques tonight. Kelly had his first multi-goal game with two goals, including a snipe job in the first, plus an assist, Ruutu rounded out Ottawa's scoring and had an assist, while Neil assisted on Ruutu's goal with a sweet little dangle around Braydon Coburn, and had seven hits on the night, too. Kelly gave the puck away and was directly responsible for Arron Asham's goal, granted, but he did alright for the most part.
Sens zeros: Chris Campoli, Filip Kuba, Pascal Leclaire, Milan Michalek
Campoli... what can you say. He was -3 on the night, soft on the puck, of limited effectiveness offensively, and just looked like an easy mark for the Flyers forwards. He was benched plenty in the latter part of the game for his mistakes, and it'd be a good bet to suppose he'll be scratched to get Alex Picard back in the lineup for next game.
As for Kuba, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe I'm looking for too much. Maybe I'm just not seeing what he's contributing to the team. But, even with his assist, I didn't see Kuba contributing much against Philly, and I haven't seen much from him for a few games now. He's supposed to be the calming veteran supplementing Erik Karlsson on their pairing, but often he looks as lost as his rookie partner does--and sometimes moreso. He's been soft on the puck, soft on the man, and non-committal, slow, and unsure in his decision-making. Basically, not good enough.
It's never good when you're team is winning and you get pulled, and Leclaire didn't look happy to see Brian Elliott gearing up after Asham's goal, while the score was still 4-3 for the Senators. After allowing three goals on ten shots, though, none of which was unstoppable, will get you pulled any time. It wasn't solely reflective of his play, though; coach Cory Clouston was almost certainly making the change because Ottawa had stopped playing with the drive they had in the first, and the move also served to wake the Sens up again.
Finally, again, I'll rag on Michalek. Not just because he hasn't had a point in seven games, and has only one goal in the last 17 games. Not just because he had no points in a 7-4 victory. Not just because he had none of the 33 shots Ottawa fired at the Flyers' goalies. Not just because he was even in a 7-4 victory. But for all of those things. He hasn't been working the way he was at the start of the season: Driving the net, getting in shooting position, using his speed to victimize slow defencemen (plenty of them on Philadelphia), pissing people off by playing at the top of the crease, and playing the body when he wasn't scoring. He needs to do those things to get his success back.
Sens killers: Darroll Powe
For whatever reason, Powe seems to play well against the Senators. He's got 3G and 1A in 4GP all-time against the Senators, and his goal on Sunday turned the momentum in favour of Philadelphia to get them back into the game. He had a couple hits on the night, his line was pretty much the only one with good pressure on the Senators, and he was the Flyers' only centreman with a better than 50 per cent faceoff stat (he was 6-for-11, or 55 per cent).
Odd statistic: Intra-team +/- disparities
It's pretty amazing that, even though they're on the same team, Powe (+1) is a full eight +/- points ahead of team-worst Claude Giroux (-6) on the night. Just as amazing is the fact that there is a nine-point disparity between Kovalev (+5) and Campoli (-3). It's demonstrative of the differences of play between players on the same team that there can be such a huge difference in the same game.
Shot chart:
Game highlights:
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kelly's line has been the best two nights in a row now
That might be the most encouraging sign while Alfie and Spezza are out. Hopefully Clouston has found some chemistry and can build on that, though he’s big on in-game adjustments. Assuming no further injuries we’re probably looking at a lineup like this when everyone is healthy:
Michalek-Spezza-Alfredsson
Kovalev-Regin-Shannon
Foligno-Fisher-Cheechoo
Ruutu-Kelly-Neil
Scratch: Winchester, Donovan
That’s not a bad team at all, though neither Winchester or Donovan deserve to come out right now. Odds are some other injury will allow them playing time.
I love that Fisher completely showed up Richards after the Olympic snub. Richards was supposed to be on the team because he did the little things, yet Fish won the head to head battles. Can’t help but wonder if this game was before the Olympic announcement whether Fish would have beat out Richards.
I kind of think it would
Hard to believe that one game could be so influential, but the way Fisher just completely annihilated Richards all-around on the afternoon really makes you think that it would tilt the decision in Fisher’s favour.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Kovalev's moonwalk on skates was hilarious.
Silver Seven: the Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators blogs.
I invented that!
Or at least have done it before. But I can see why he’s often such a popular guy, despite his inconsistency. When he’s high we’re all really high, and when he’s low he doesn’t care what you say about him.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Hahaha I just heard about it.
No youtube at work :(….but keep posting those sweet highlights because I can get them here!!
Bobby "Canucnik" Johnson
What sort of math is that on the +/- differentials between players? How is +5 9 points better than -3? Ditto on +1 being 8 points better than -6…
Just let me know if they invented a new numeral that I’m missing…
I’m not getting it either. Three points from -3 gets you to zero, and then five more get you to +5. On a line there are nine total numbers between -3 and 5, but zero doesn’t have a value last I knew.
Zero has a value on the +/- scale
It’s called even.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
It’s the inclusion of zero, as well as the numbers at both ends of the range. You may only need to add eight to -3 in order to reach +5, but that only gets you to +5; it doesn’t include +5 as a value there.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
Count it up, big guy
Kovalev +5 +4 +3 +2 +1 [even] -1 -2 -3 Campol; count it, nine slots in there. Even, or zero, is a figure on the plus/minus scale.
Powe +1 [even] -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 Giroux; again, eight slots in between the two players.
A-thank you, a-thank you.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
Nah, you’ve got that wrong. “Slots” isn’t a mathematical term; if you include the number that you start at, and the number that you finish at, by that logic, the difference between “0” and “1” would be 2, which it obviously isn’t. You don’t include the starting number and the finishing number; you look at the difference between the two numbers.
This just requires basic subtraction; forget about putting things on a number line.
We’re not talking numbers, and we’re not talking basic subtraction, we’re talking values. Zero, when you’re discussing plus/minus, is a value. When you’re talking numbers, zero is the absence of any value. But we’re talking a statistical measurement involving numbers, which requires a different way of thinking.
You are right in saying that the difference between 0 and 1 is one. However, 0 and 1 are two discrete integers, just as there are nine discrete integers on the number line between +5 and -3, and there are eight discrete integers between +1 and -6.
Take this hypothetical situation: You are going on vacation, to Cuba, for instance. You leave on January 5. You come back on January 10. You are away for six days, because you are away on Jan. 5 and Jan.10, both of which are included. Basic math would indicate that you are only away for five days, but using reason, you conclude you are actually away for six days. It may seem confusing, but what I said was completely accurate.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 7:25 PM EST up reply actions
Peter, I kinda regret bringing all this up as it takes away from the otherwise great post that you made but again though, the “difference” between two numbers is a matter of subtraction, not some abstract statistical process. We’re comparing the +/- values possessed by two different players. The fact that the values happen to represent a statistical measure is irrelevant; they could represent anything.
Your calendar example doesn’t hold water. You will be traveling for portions of 6 calendar days, as you point out, but the length of your trip is still 5 days, and that is the difference between the departure date and the return date, not unlike the difference between the +/1 value of player 1 and that of player 2. If I leave for that communist enclave today and come back tomorrow, I’m only gone one day, even if the it involves two numbers on the calendar.
But just forget about the argument and go back to common sense for a minute, and consider two players with a +/- differing by 1. +5 (Kovy) and +4 (player 2). After considering that for a minute, do you really think the DIFFERENCE between their values is 2? And if you still think the difference would somehow be 2, then how could a difference between two values EVER be 1 using your reasoning?
Extending it further, we go from that hypothetical down to the difference between Kovy and Campoli…
Kovy Player 2 Difference
+5 +4 1
+5 +3 2
+5 +2 3
+5 +1 4
+5 0 5
+5 -1 6
+5 -2 7
+5 -3 8
I think we're both right
I was saying there is a spread of nine numbers; there are nine numbers there.
But you are right, in your supposition; the easiest way to make your point is to ask how many goals Campoli would have to be on the ice for (with Kovalev not on) for him to catch up. The answer to that question is eight.
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 4, 2010 8:22 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think you're right here, Peter
Because you can’t count even as a value, even on the +/- scale. If the amount of goals for Campoli to catch Kovalev in +/- is eight, then the difference between then is eight. The eighth goal makes Campoli a plus five. His plus five is the same plus five as Kovalev’s, even though there is a spread of nine numbers on the scale between minus three and plus five.
This is not unlike the missing dollar riddle, I think.
Interesting fact:
I went to the same middle school as Darroll, here in Kanata. I think he always plays well against Ottawa because his family comes to watch.
This doesn’t explain games in Philly, of course.
Maybe the Sens should acquire him
Another 50-goal scorer!
by Peter Raaymakers on Jan 5, 2010 3:20 PM EST up reply actions

by 





















