/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/22786727/187322583.0.jpg)
TEAM SCORING CHANCE TOTALS
Period |
Totals |
EV |
PP |
SH |
||||
VAN |
SJS |
VAN |
SJS |
VAN |
SJS |
VAN |
SJS |
|
1 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
OVR |
8 |
9 |
7 |
7 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
COMPLETE SCORING CHANCE SUMMARY
Team | Period | Time | Note | Home | Away | State | ||||||||||
Away | 1 | 15:33 | Richardson off turnover, goal | 8 | 31 | 44 | 61 | 81 | 83 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 15 | 49 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 12:04 | Pavelski from Kennedy on 3on2, miss | 8 | 31 | 44 | 61 | 81 | 83 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 15 | 23 | 49 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 11:22 | Bieksa backhand from D. Sedin, save | 9 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 61 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 18 | 22 | 33 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 10:36 | Santorelli rebound from Higgins, goal | 5 | 19 | 31 | 48 | 57 | 61 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 9:45 | Hertl deflection from Demers, miss | 5 | 7 | 19 | 31 | 48 | 57 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 22 | 23 | 33 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 9:16 | Brown from Sheppard on 2on0, goal | 7 | 10 | 15 | 18 | 22 | 31 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 49 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 3:30 | Kesler wraparound from H. Sedin, save | 7 | 12 | 15 | 22 | 31 | 81 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 13 | 21 | 49 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 1:06 | Higgins off turnover, goal | 5 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 48 | 57 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 5v5 |
Home | 2 | 15:52 | Marleau from Braun, save | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 61 | 81 | 1 | 5 | 17 | 22 | 23 | 33 | 5v5 |
Away | 2 | 14:39 | Kassian deflection from Bieksa, goal | 7 | 8 | 9 | 22 | 31 | 83 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 49 | 5v5 |
Away | 2 | 12:16 | H. Sedin rebound from Bieksa, save | 12 | 32 | 39 | 44 | 61 | 81 | 1 | 3 | 17 | 18 | 22 | 33 | 5v5 |
Away | 2 | 5:42 | H. Sedin rebound from Hamhuis, miss (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 32 | 44 | 61 | 1 | 2 | 14 | 17 | 22 | 33 | 4v5 | |
Home | 2 | 4:45 | Desjardins from Vlasic on 2on1, save (4v5 SH) | 10 | 19 | 32 | 44 | 61 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 4v5 | |
Home | 3 | 16:02 | Thorton - pp , rebound | 8 | 12 | 19 | 22 | 32 | 39 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 25 | 5v4 | |
Home | 3 | 12:36 | Wingels from Pavelski, save | 8 | 32 | 44 | 48 | 57 | 61 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 49 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 11:46 | Couture from Havlat, save | 7 | 9 | 22 | 32 | 39 | 83 | 1 | 5 | 14 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 1:22 | Marleau - 5 on 4, Puck battle loss D. sedin | 8 | 12 | 19 | 22 | 39 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 22 | 33 | 4v4 |
CANUCK ON-ICE SCORING CHANCES FOR AND AGAINST
# | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
1 | LUONGO, ROBERTO | 7 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
2 | HAMHUIS, DAN | 17:30 | 4 | 1 | 03:43 | 1 | 0 | 03:17 | 0 | 1 |
3 | BIEKSA, KEVIN | 16:22 | 5 | 2 | 01:24 | 0 | 0 | 02:55 | 0 | 0 |
5 | GARRISON, JASON | 15:01 | 0 | 4 | 02:44 | 0 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
8 | TANEV, CHRISTOPHER | 16:25 | 2 | 1 | 00:06 | 0 | 0 | 03:17 | 0 | 1 |
9 | KASSIAN, ZACK | 11:51 | 2 | 3 | 01:32 | 0 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
13 | WELSH, JEREMY | 04:40 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
14 | BURROWS, ALEXANDRE | 12:44 | 2 | 1 | 03:19 | 1 | 0 | 00:34 | 0 | 0 |
15 | RICHARDSON, BRAD | 13:16 | 2 | 3 | 00:06 | 0 | 0 | 01:20 | 0 | 1 |
17 | KESLER, RYAN | 17:15 | 2 | 2 | 03:40 | 1 | 0 | 01:41 | 0 | 0 |
18 | STANTON, RYAN | 10:30 | 3 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
20 | HIGGINS, CHRIS | 14:35 | 2 | 1 | 02:23 | 0 | 1 | 01:55 | 0 | 0 |
21 | DALPE, ZAC | 03:46 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
22 | SEDIN, DANIEL | 17:00 | 2 | 3 | 03:31 | 1 | 0 | 02:15 | 0 | 0 |
23 | EDLER, ALEXANDER | 19:48 | 0 | 4 | 01:32 | 0 | 1 | 02:55 | 0 | 0 |
25 | SANTORELLI, MIKE | 13:52 | 2 | 1 | 02:04 | 0 | 1 | 02:20 | 0 | 1 |
33 | SEDIN, HENRIK | 17:35 | 2 | 3 | 03:50 | 1 | 0 | 02:19 | 0 | 0 |
49 | ARCHIBALD, DARREN | 10:37 | 3 | 3 | 00:06 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
Statistical Three Stars:
1. Dan Hamhuis (A 61% Pos. F. Close).
2. Mike Santorelli (He had some 'heavy lifting' - 36% O/D zone starts).
3. Coach Torterella - (He has complete buy-in from all players. ++ Grit ++Puck Battles).
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 |
|
|
SAN JOSE |
||||
Period |
Successful |
Attempted |
%
|
|
Successful |
Attempted |
% |
1 |
13 |
26 |
50% |
16 |
28 |
57% |
|
2 |
13 |
28 |
48% |
14 |
26 |
54% |
|
3 |
4 |
15 |
27% |
10 |
17 |
59% |
|
Total |
39 |
89 |
44% |
40 |
71 |
56% |
- OZE% shows that the Sharks were the stronger team in transition.
- This stats clearly shows why the Sharks are so dominant and so dangerous.
- In a game they 'lost badly'; they still clearly were better at OZE %.
- The Canucks did not 'shut-down' the Sharks as much as they neutralized their attack.
- The Canucks positional play in their own zone was extremely effective.
- Coach Torts' has changed the teams' defending system from man to man to zone def.
- The Canucks clearly sat back once they had the two goal lead.
- The Canucks had 18 successful 'carry ins', but only 3 in the final period.
- The Canucks had 16 successful 'dump ins' (out of 46) for an ave. rate of (35%).
- San Jose had a high total of 27 'carry ins'.
- As a result, the Sharks should have been the more dangerous team.
- And, the Sharks 'should' have created more scoring chances.
- The Sharks had 13 'dump in' wins out of 31 (42%).
DEFENSIVE ZONE EXIT 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 |
|
|
PHOENIX |
||||
Period |
Successful |
Attempted |
%
|
|
Successful |
Attempted |
% |
1 |
15 |
35 |
43% |
17 |
33 |
52% |
|
2 |
8 |
29 |
28% |
11 |
25 |
44% |
|
3 |
8 |
22 |
36% |
10 |
17 |
59% |
|
Total |
38 |
86 |
44% |
38 |
75 |
51% |
- The Sharks were also the better team in terms of DZE%
- The Canucks aggressive forecheck had average success.
- DZE% shows that the Canucks really sat back in the third period.
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 |
SAN JOSE
|
|
TOTAL EXP. SCORE= ES (PP) {SH} |
TOTAL EXP. SCORE= ES (PP) {SH} |
|
2.8 = 1.9 (9) {0} |
2.5 = 1.3 (1) {.2} |
- Expected Score suggests the most likely outcome was Vancouver 3 - 2.
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 {EGA} of ~ 2.
-
The Sharks Goaltenders' had an {EGA} of ~ 2.6.
- Luongo's rating was 0.
- The Sharks Goaltenders' rating was -1.4.
- Vancouver won the goaltending battle by nearly a goal and a half.
TURNOVERS (EvenStrength)
- Both teams were sloppy with the puck.
- Vancouver had another high total of 24 turnovers.
- The Sharks had an above average total of 17 turnovers.
THE DECIDING FACTORS
- The Canucks' play in their own zone was the key difference.
- The Canucks limited the Sharks' scoring chances, even though the team had many turnovers and the Sharks were better in neutral zone stats.
- Very poor goaltending by Antti Nemi was the other reason the Canucks won the game.
- The Canucks continued to create below average scoring chances against better teams.
- The Sharks were forced to flop and embellish trying desperately to get on the power play!
- It was a great win for the Canucks, However, they won't usually get such poor goaltending.
- The Sharks are currently ~+85 in scoring chance differential (~5/ gm.).
- The Canucks are ~+10 in scoring chance differential (~.5/gm.).
- There is still room for the Canucks to improve and close the gap between the two teams.
SHOTS ATTEMPTED CHART
Feel free to comment below!
Loading comments...