Behind The Numbers - Advanced Stats Game #18 Canucks vs. Sharks

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

Good News: It was another even game (in SCD) on the road versus a division rival.

The Canucks gave up a below average number of chances (5 on 5).

The Canucks held the Sharks to 5 less chances then their average of 12/gm. (at ES).

Bad News: The Canucks did not create enough high quality scoring chances.

The Canucks power play also failed to create any scoring chances.

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

No Canuck forward stood out in SCD.

Kevin Bieksa and Dan Hamhuis were the best D-men, they had a combined 9-3 SCD at ES.

Alexander Edler returned to his norm - He was 0- 4 in SCD at (ES) and is now -33 for the year.

Again, I ask: 'How low can Eddie go?'

No Shark player stood out in SCD.

This was a great credit to the Canucks' effort and defensive play.

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

(courtesy of extraskater.com)

Feel free to comment below!