"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."

(The benefits of a classical education!). Actually, I doubt that A. Tanguay or any Flame is quite so self-satisfied today, and I'm sure they're glad to be home, but that was one hell of a road trip. The win last night was, as MG so wonderfully put it, "the cherry on top of a gold encrusted, stripper filled, 'Congratulations on Winning the Lottery, You Virile Bachelor of the Year!' cake". The case of Cristal that goes with it was that last two minutes, where the Flames had three shifts that were so dominant, Leclaire couldn't even look towards the bench, let alone skate there for a 6th attacker.

When things are going this well, it's time to look at what weakness are being papered over by luck or other factors, but I think I'll save that for a day or two. For now, the airing of a couple of grievances (it is only 4 days until Festivus, after all).

ONE. It remains astonishing to me how utterly shallow the "analysis" of paid hockey analysts can be. I had the misfortune of catching some of the radio pre-game yesterday, with Mike Rogers being asked why having Jarome Iginla on their wing has made such a difference for Langkow and Huselius the past number of games.

The first reason he brought up is that Iginla is such a hard worker, his linemates are essentially shamed into busting their asses. This is unsatisfying in itself, but then Rogers added, "even from the bench, players are inspired by his example". OK, so, never mind then?

And the second was that because he's physical, he creates more space for his linemates. I'm not exactly disagreeing here, although I don't really understand what he means, however: there are, what, 30 or 60 RWs in the who are as "physical" as Iginla? Owen Nolan and Eric Godard are. Any explanation that fails to distinguish between the contribution of #11 and #12 isn't much of an explanation at all, is it?

Maybe this is equally shallow, but I don't see why the explanation needs to be any more complicated than this: Jarome Iginla is a very, very good hockey player who is presently at the top of his game. He can finish, he can set up. He is as good a puck handler, in the non-dangling sense, as there is in the: when he has it, he keeps it in positions where it can't get taken away without a hell of a struggle. This isn't to detract from Jarome's work ethic in the slightest -- every good thing said about his effort and preparation is no doubt true -- but the biggest reason that he's a difference maker is that he's gifted, not that he's determined. Why dance around that fact?

Now, all that said, I have this idea that there is a factor that makes it easier for Iginla and his linemates to be productive beyond the plays they are making at the moment; I'd appreciate some feedback on it. The short version: I think it's likely that opposing lines/D "change their game" in a way that makes it less likely that they are burned in transition, but more likely that they give up more total chances.

We know that before Team X plays the Flames, their coach tells them to be aware when Iginla is on the ice, keep an eye on him, etc. and my hypothesis is, that compared to Owen Nolan's line:

• (A) It's easier for Iginla's line to break out of the Flames' zone, because opposing D are less willing to pinch (and they're less likely to have 3 forwards deep in an effort to maintain possession, etc.)
• (B) It's easier for Iginla's line to hold the attacking zone, because opposing forwards are less willing to take risks for a turnover near the point, AND because the Flames' D are more willing to pinch (simple risk-reward, knowing that good things may happen if they keep the puck in for Iginla)

Call it a bit of a positive feedback loop. Does this make sense?

TWO. This may be boring, but I'm going to keep hammering it as long as I keep hearing the myth. There is very little garbage time in hockey. Consequently:

• Nearly all goals are key goals at important times of the game
• Nearly all saves are key saves at important times of the game
• Nearly all power play goals are key power play goals at important times of the game
• Nearly all penalty kills are key penalty kills at important times of the game

Seriously. Pick out ten random box scores, and then go through them to try to identify things that were basically meaningless at the time. Goals that meant nothing more than stats-padding; a save that really didn't need to be made; a PK that could have failed without having an impact; etc. It's rare.

Peter Maher and Rob Kerr were having a discussion in November about this, because apparently Flames AC Rich Preston is a big believer in the importance of "when" vs. "how many". The Flames had allowed 23 PP goals against at the time, and says Maher, "of those 23, 20 either put the opponent in the lead, or in a tie, or brought them to within a goal, or put them up by two." This was then used as evidence that the Flames were allowing PP goals at bad times. Strictly speaking, true, and you know why? Because it's almost always a bad time!

The Flames have points in 9 straight games now, and over that stretch, they have allowed 5 PP goals. 4 of those tied the game, and the other put the opponent into the lead. Wow, 100% of the PP goals they've allowed were of the untimely variety! And yet they somehow managed to go 7-0-2, mainly because (pardon the technical jargon) they didn't allow so damn many.
Source