clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Behind The Numbers - Advanced Stats Game #15 Canucks vs. Red Wings

A look at the scoring chance summary, on-ice scoring chances, team scoring chances, neutral zone stats, & expected score from the Canucks 2-1 loss to the Red Wings.

Rich Lam

TEAM SCORING CHANCE TOTALS

VAN

DET

ES

PP

SH

ES

PP

SH

1

7

2

0

3

3

0

2

4

0

0

5

0

0

3

2

1

0

8

0

0

0T

0

0

0

0

0

0

Totals

13

3

0

16

3

0

VAN

16

DET

19

  • Good News: The Canucks had a good start (by scoring chance metrics).
  • Vancouver's offense continued to create an above average number of chances.
  • Overall, the Canucks lost the possession battle by a small margin.
  • Bad News:
  • The Red Wings took over the third period shutting down the Canucks offense.
  • At the same time, the Canucks defense had tough final 20 minutes.
  • The Canucks Power Play generated a below average number of chances.
  • COMPLETE SCORING CHANCE SUMMARY

    Team Period Time Note Home Away State
    Away 1 16:28 Datsyuk - ms - pp 1 3 5 15 25 11 13 35 40 44 55 4v5
    Away 1 16:02 Bettuzzi - pp 1 3 5 22 33 11 13 35 40 44 55 4v5
    Away 1 16:00 Datsyuk rush pp 1 3 5 22 33 11 13 35 40 44 55 4v5
    Home 1 14:07 Burrows - deflection 1 3 13 14 18 49 8 20 27 35 41 65 5v5
    Home 1 12:54 Hanhuis - rush pass H. Sedin 1 2 5 17 22 33 4 13 35 40 44 65 5v5
    Home 1 11:15 Burrows - deflection pp 1 3 14 20 23 25 18 20 35 55 65 5v4
    Away 1 9:04 Zetterberg - ms 1 2 8 17 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Home 1 7:55 Higgins - won puck battle 1 5 14 20 23 25 11 27 35 65 71 90 5v5
    Away 1 7:25 Alferdson - rush, beat Edler 1 5 9 20 23 25 2 4 11 18 21 35 5v5
    Home 1 5:48 Daniel Sedin - rush pass H. Sedin 1 2 8 22 25 33 2 13 35 40 44 55 5v5
    Home 1 5:33 H. Sedin 2 on1 rush -ms 1 2 8 22 25 33 2 13 35 40 44 55 5v5
    Home 1 5:20 Tanev - pass by Santorelli 1 2 8 22 25 33 2 13 35 40 44 55 5v5
    Away 1 4:11 Bertuzzi - partial breakaway - turnover Edler 1 5 17 20 23 33 2 13 35 40 44 55 5v5
    Home 1 2:35 santorelli - rush 1 5 6 8 25 49 17 20 23 35 41 65 5v5
    Home 1 0:45 Kesler - pp 1 5 17 22 23 33 18 20 35 55 65 5v4
    Away 2 17:42 Abelkader - rebound 1 5 17 18 22 33 17 20 35 41 55 65 5v5
    Away 2 17:18 Datsyuk - rush 1 5 17 18 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Home 2 12:27 Burrows 1 3 14 18 20 25 2 27 35 44 71 90 5v5
    Away 2 10:24 Kindl - turnover Luongo 1 5 6 13 23 49 4 17 20 23 35 41 5v5
    Home 2 9:55 D. Sedin - rush - pass H. Sedin 1 2 8 17 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Home 2 9:49 D. Sedin - pass H. Sedin 1 2 8 17 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Away 2 8:23 Alfredsson - (Goal) rush , Bieksa error 1 5 9 13 15 23 4 8 18 21 23 35 5v5
    Away 2 7:36 Glending - rush 1 5 9 13 23 49 8 21 35 41 55 65 5v5
    Home 2 3:12 Higgins - ms - rush 1 5 14 20 23 25 4 11 23 35 71 90 5v5
    Away 3 19:27 Zetterberg - ms - Hamhuis error 1 2 3 14 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Away 3 19:15 Bertuzzi - deflection - puck battle lost Bieksa 1 2 3 14 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Home 3 17:39 D. Sedin 1 2 5 17 22 33 17 35 41 55 65 5v4
    Away 3 13:41 Abelkader - rush - Garrison error 1 5 17 20 23 25 2 8 18 21 27 35 5v5
    Home 3 12:21 Tanev - ms , pass D. Sedin 1 2 8 14 22 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Away 3 10:51 Kindl - off faceoff 1 3 9 18 25 49 4 11 20 23 35 90 5v5
    Away 3 6:18 Datsyuk - rush - beat Bieksa 1 3 15 18 29 33 4 11 13 23 35 71 5v5
    Away 3 6:08 Bertuzzi - rush, beat Edler 1 5 22 23 25 33 4 13 23 35 40 44 5v5
    Away 3 4:59 Abelkader - rush, Hamhuis pinch 1 2 8 14 17 20 2 8 18 21 27 35 5v5
    Away 3 3:40 Bertuzzi - Garrison error 1 2 5 22 25 33 13 35 40 44 55 65 5v5
    Home 3 0:09 Kesler - ms - off faceoff 3 5 14 17 33 18 20 27 35 65 4v4

    CANUCK ON-ICE SCORING CHANCES FOR AND AGAINST

    # Player EV PP SH
    1 LUONGO, ROBERTO 12 16 3 0 0 3
    2 HAMHUIS, DAN 18:44 7 5 02:09 1 0 00:04 0 0
    3 BIEKSA, KEVIN 18:03 3 4 02:37 1 0 02:35 0 3
    5 GARRISON, JASON 19:43 5 10 02:17 2 0 00:52 0 3
    6 WEBER, YANNICK 03:13 1 1 00:00 0 0 00:00 0 0
    8 TANEV, CHRISTOPHER 15:35 7 2 00:00 0 0 01:11 0 0
    9 KASSIAN, ZACK 09:34 0 4 00:04 0 0 00:00 0 0
    13 WELSH, JEREMY 08:21 1 3 00:04 0 0 00:00 0 0
    14 BURROWS, ALEXANDRE 15:59 6 3 02:30 1 0 00:48 0 0
    15 RICHARDSON, BRAD 08:59 0 2 00:04 0 0 00:29 0 1
    17 KESLER, RYAN 20:35 4 6 02:20 2 0 02:25 0 0
    18 STANTON, RYAN 12:21 2 4 00:07 0 0 00:00 0 0
    20 HIGGINS, CHRIS 15:38 3 4 02:11 1 0 01:47 0 0
    22 SEDIN, DANIEL 20:53 7 7 02:39 2 0 00:38 0 2
    23 EDLER, ALEXANDER 18:40 2 7 02:38 2 0 02:50 0 0
    25 SANTORELLI, MIKE 19:27 7 5 02:30 1 0 00:28 0 1
    29 SESTITO, TOM 02:28 0 1 00:00 0 0 00:00 0 0
    33 SEDIN, HENRIK 22:49 8 9 02:20 2 0 01:33 0 2
    49 ARCHIBALD, DARREN 04:53 2 3 00:00 0 0 00:00 0 0

  • The Canucks' Daniel Sedin, Henrik Sedin and Ryan Kesler were slightly below average.
  • The line, (known as "Ry and Ginger"), were a combined 19-22 in SCD at ES.
  • The trio also played head to head against Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg.
  • The two Red Wings stars players narrowly won the battle with a 15-14 SCD at ES.
  • It was encouraging to see Alexander Burrows strong play. He had an overall SCD of 7-3.
  • Christopher Tanev posted a 7-2 SCD playing mostly against Datsyuk and Zetterberg.
  • Of course, Tanev's foot was a factor in the Redwings 2nd goal?!
  • Dan Hamhuis also held his own against the Wings best with a 7-5 SCD.
  • Jasin Garrison had an unusally sub par performance with a 5-10 SCD at ES.
  • I also wonder if Garrison suffered an injury when he was wrestled awkwardly into the boards.
  • Jacob Kindl and Tomas Tatar were strong for Wings.Together they had a 11-2 SCD at ES.
  • Statistical Three Stars:

    1. Jacob Kindl

    2. Tomas Tatar

    3. Roberto Luongo (+1.3 EPA)

    OFFENSIVE ZONE ENTRY SUCCESS RATE (OZE%) (Even Strength)

    Most Advanced stat analysis centers around the idea that possession of the puck is huge key to long term success. {Accordingly, Offensive Zone Exit Success Rate (OZE%) attempts to identify the skill of gaining puck possession in the opponents defensive zone}. Offensive Zone Exit Success Rate (OZE%) is expressed as a percentage-{Successful Possessions Gained ('Carry-ins'+'Dump-wins') / Total Attempts at entry}.


    VANCOUVER


    DETROIT


    Period

    Successful

    Attempted

    %

    Successful

    Attempted

    %

    1

    13

    20

    65%


    12

    24

    50%

    2

    15

    24

    63%


    17

    28

    61%

    3

    10

    22

    45%


    21

    28

    75%









    Total

    38

    66

    58%


    50

    80

    63%

    • The Canucks won the first period, tied the second, and were obliterated in the third.
    • Defensively, this was the Canucks worst performance since playing the San Jose Sharks.
    • OZE% matches the scoring chances and the eye test or flow of the game quite accurately.
    • The Canucks had 29 successful 'carry ins', but only 5 in the 3rd period.
    • Detroit had a very high total of 38, including 33 in the final two periods.
    • It's clear the Canucks had no answer for the Red Wings attack over the final 40 min.
    • The Canucks had only 11 successful 'dump ins' out of 33 (33%).
    • The Wings had only 11 'dump in' wins out of 33 (33%).
    • The puck battles were not a deciding factor in the game.
    • Coach Torterella's aggressive forecheck system was not effective in this game.

    DEFENSIVE ZONE ENTRY SUCCESS RATE (DZE%) (Even Strength)

    Most Advanced stat analysis centers around the idea that possession of the puck is huge key to long term success. {Accordingly, Defensive Zone Exit Success Rate (DZE%) attempts to identify the skill of exiting the defensive zone successful with possession}. Defensive Zone Exit Success Rate (DZE%) is expressed as a percentage-{Successful Exits with possession / Total Exits Attempts}.


    VANCOUVER


    DETROIT


    Period

    Successful

    Attempted

    %

    Successful

    Attempted

    %

    1

    7

    29

    24%


    13

    22

    59%

    2

    14

    35

    40%


    19

    28

    68%

    3

    10

    40

    54%


    16

    31

    52%









    Total

    31

    104

    30%


    48

    81

    59%

    • The Red Wings were by far the better team moving the puck out of their own zone.
    • These numbers helped to explain the feeling that the Canucks were not 'on their game'.
    • The Canucks forechecking was completely ineffective.
    • The Red Wings neutral zone system appeared to suffocate the Canucks.
    • 'Mental fatigue' or sloppy play with the puck by the Canucks was also a factor.
    • The Canucks also were forced to have ~20% more DZone attempts.

    EXPECTED SCORE

    {Expected Score is calculated by assigning an approximate percentage value to each shot attempt. It's goal is to capture a truer picture of the game}


    VANCOUVER

    DETROIT


    ES (PP) {SH} = TOTAL EXP. SCORE

    ES (PP) {SH} = TOTAL EXP. SCORE


    2.4 (.4) {}= 2.8

    3.4 (.4) {.0} =3.8

    • Expected Score suggests: the Canucks should have lost the game 4 - 3.

    GOALTENDER RATING - EXPECTED GOALS AGAINST

    {Expected Goals Against is calculated by estimating an expected score value to every save made}.

    • Roberto Luongo had an Expected Goals Against {EPA} of ~ 3.3.
    • Jimmy Howard had an {EPA} of ~1.8
    • Luongo's rating was +1.3 goals.
    • Howard's rating was +.8 goals.
    • The Canucks won the goaltending battle by 1/2 a goal but lost the game.
    • Luongo performance was above average despite a questionable second goal.

    TURNOVERS (EvenStrength)

    • The Canucks lost the turnover battle decisively.
    • Vancouver had an above average total of 27 turnovers.
    • The Canucks were awful all night coughing up giveaways throughout the game.
    • Detroit had a below average total of 13 turnovers.

    THE DECIDING FACTORS

    • The Red Wings were able to leave their zone easily and carried the play.
    • Detroit also were able to force many Canuck turnovers with their positional play.
    • The Canucks goaltender Roberto Luongo kept it a one goal game.
    • The officals missed an obvious high stick and made two other clear errors.
    • These non-calls amounted to a ~.4 goal advantage for the Red Wings.

    Feel free to add comments and questions below!