Officiating Review – Games 2 and 3 Sharks vs Kings

Last time we looked at the officiating review for game 1 of the San Jose/Los Angeles first round series.

The data showed that the Kings were far more likely to commit fouls by nearly a 2:1 ratio, but that the Kings and Sharks were penalized in equal measure so that San Jose was actually penalized more frequently for rule infractions than the Kings.

Today we are going to look at games 2 and 3 and see if we can spot a trend one way or another.

For those who missed it, my methodology is here and explains how I came to this information and for what purpose.

Game 2

Here again is the raw data I collected from the game.

The overall penalty review, missed and called (click on the images to enlarge).

Again we see what looks like the referees levelling out the penalties, although the Sharks appear to be committing fouls at a rate closer to even with the Kings in this game.

Now the technical fouls.

Here we see the Sharks take the lion’s share of penalties, 4 to the Kings’ 1, but overall the two teams appear to be committing them at an even rate.

And the physical fouls.

This is almost the exact reverse of the previous graph where the Sharks were being penalized more heavily, now the Kings are being called more aggressively for their physical fouls. However, if we look at the raw numbers we also see that the Kings more than doubled the Sharks’ numbers of physical fouls, so perhaps a more even-handed way to judge these numbers would be to take a look at the ratio of fouls committed to penalties called. For the Sharks it is 5:1, for the Kings it is 3:1.

The Sharks won this game 2-1 with the teams trading powerplay goals, but it does mark something of a departure from the previous game for the Sharks as they appeared to be more aggressive in committing fouls against the Kings. We can debate whether this was ultimately successful as they were also penalized two more times than in the first game and at the end both teams remained tied for special teams opportunities.

Game 3

Raw data.

Overall penalty review, missed and called (click on the images to enlarge).

We’re beginning to see a steady escalation in fouls committed by the Sharks, from 15 in the first game, 25 in the second and 31 in the third game. The Kings have remained more consistent, although they did spike in this game, going from 30 in the first game, 30 in the second and then 40 in the third. I am reluctant to push this point though as in the previous two games I was unable to record a total of fifteen minutes of playing time in the third periods, therefore we could very well have seen a more gradual trend. I do remain convinced that game 2 marked something of a shift in the series for the Sharks as they began to commit more infractions and thus made themselves vulnerable to being on the penalty kill more often.

Despite there being eleven penalties in this game, the rates of fouls being called actually dropped a bit going to 6:1 for the Sharks and almost 7:1 for the Kings.

Here are the technical fouls.

This shows a continuation from the previous game where the Sharks were penalized at a higher rate for their technical fouls, although the Kings appear to have committed a far greater number, more than twice those by the Sharks.

Now the physical fouls.

This is as close as we’ve seen yet to there being any kind of officiating in the Sharks’ favour. Both teams appear to have split the physical fouls evenly, yet the Kings were penalized four times to the Sharks’ once.

Between the technical and physical fouls we also see once again an inversion of the penalties as we did in game 2.

The Kings won this game 2-1 in overtime. I would suggest from what we have seen thus far that the Sharks’ decision, be it conscious or not, to try to match the Kings on a physical level did not have a sustainably positive effect. Or in other words, they stopped playing to their strengths and more towards those of the Kings in games 2 and 3 and the result was that the Kings came closest to winning the series at this point.

Once again, I’m more than happy to respond to questions regarding this exercise, either through the comments section or on twitter @CodexRex.

Thanks for reading. Next up we look at games 4 and 5.