Extra Point: Hockey At The Break, Part 2

There won’t be any conference points on the line when the hockey team takes the ice again in a week and a half, but we will be able to gauge whether any of the issues that emerged in the first half of the season have been smoothed out over the three-week break. The quick version of where the team currently stands, from the top of last week’s post:

In case your attention and time were siphoned by football and basketball, this year’s hockey team is in a similar place to last year’s at the same point. That squad limped into the GLI at 7-7-2, then lost in the first round of that tournament to Bowling Green. I remember thinking after that game that the season was more or less over, so of course they went on a Frozen Four run.

This year’s team has a fairly similar record (6-7-4) and has taken a step forward in its execution of Mel Pearson’s possession-oriented system. Though they’ve been adept at hanging onto the puck and generating attempts they haven’t been able to turn those attempts into high-quality scoring chances, and the roster composition is such that the list of candidates for a second-half breakout isn’t as long as it was last season.

We took a look at even-strength scoring and the potential for Michigan’s power play to carry their offense last week. This week, we’ll take stock of Michigan’s seeming inability to create or finish quality scoring chances, first with stats and then with some film.

Trouble Generating and Converting Scoring Chances

Here we have another category in which the stats don’t look that bad if you just take a cursory glance through the conference scoring leaders. Quinn Hughes is tied for fifth in the conference with 20 points, an average of 1.18 points per game. Josh Norris has 19 points and is tied for eighth, and Will Lockwood’s 15 points places him in a tie for 17th place among Big Ten skaters. It’s worth noting that eight of Hughes’s 20 points have come on the power play, as have seven of Norris’s 19 and seven of Lockwood’s 15.

They’re getting shots on goal, too. Looking just at the top line of Jake Slaker, Josh Norris, and Will Lockwood, we see three players that have been able to get multiple shots on net each and haven’t seen a big dropoff in their shots on net since conference play started. It’s important to keep in mind that we’re transitioning here from Corsi, which takes into account everything thrown toward the net (goals and saves and blocks and misses) and now looking just at traditional shot statistics, which only take into account shots that reach the goaltender (misses and blocks are out); we don’t have player-level shot data, but here’s hoping that the data revolution will someday shine its light on college hockey.

[Hit THE JUMP for a bunch of GIFs, some numbers, and an attempted explanation]

Anyway, 47 of Lockwood’s 66 shots have come in conference play for an average of 4.7 shots per game. This is actually better than his overall average of 3.9 shots per game largely thanks to eight- and nine-shot games against Wisconsin in which he did not record a point. His shooting percentage is just 7.6%, as his five goals are lowest among Michigan’s top-line skaters. If we look at just the 10 Big Ten games Lockwood has played, his shooting percentage dips to 6.4%.

Slaker’s an interesting case and could be considered to be slumping relative to his early-season form, at least. He’s been consistent in how many shots he gets on net—two or three from the Penn State series on until he went off for six in the rubber match with Minnesota on December 8th—but his numbers are low relative to his linemates. Just 24 of Slaker’s 53 shots have come in conference play, and he has recorded one point (a goal) outside of his four during the team’s offensive explosion against Penn State (a 6-4 win and 7-6 loss). Slaker’s averaging 2.4 shots per game against Big Ten opponents, yet he’s shooting 13.2% overall and 12.5% in conference play. Despite this, he hasn’t recorded a point in the last five games.

Norris has emerged as a force and has taken a big step forward as a sophomore. He’s the highest volume shooter on the top line with 69 shots on goal to date. Of 69 total shots, he has 43 shots on goal in conference play for a 4.3 shot/game average. Like Lockwood, his in-conference pace is better than his overall shots/game, but not by much (4.3 vs 4.1). Norris’s 14.5% overall shooting percentage is about right for a top-line talent, though that drops to just 9.3% when looking solely at Big Ten opponents.

The numbers currently available only allow the type of surface-level analyses above, so we turn to anecdotal evidence to try and figure out what’s really going on. Obviously it’s anecdotal, so there’s room here for interpretation. Two themes emerged as I looked back at film of the top line: clean, early, straightforward (for a goaltender) shots and, on better opportunities, some bad puck luck or shots that are just a hair off target.

Norris and Lockwood weave their way through the neutral zone and what appears at first to be dangerous is quickly neutralized by good defensive play from Michigan State. Their defensemen do a nice job with gap control, and as any lane ahead to Lockwood is shut down, Norris decides to trust his accuracy and throw a long bomb on net. Having confidence in your shot is great, but the aforementioned good gap control from State’s defenders comes into play here as the snap shot is deflected up and out of play thanks to the outstretched stick of the defenseman. The shot comes from just barely inside the top border of the home plate area, and even if it gets to the goaltender it’s a long shot with no interference and is highly likely to be saved and held.

Here Hughes draws in two defenders near the middle of the neutral zone and flips the puck ahead to Norris at the top corner of the offensive zone. Norris reads the ice and sees four Minneosta defenders more or less in a line a few feet from him with one defenseman back playing the equivalent of center field, and he takes advantage with a nice cross-ice pass to Lockwood. He throws a heavy wrist shot on net, but it’s from outside the home plate area. By the time the pass gets across and Lockwood loads up, Mat Robson, Minnesota’s goaltender, has squared himself to the shooter and is anticipating the shot. He drops his pads to the ice and gloves Lockwood’s shot with ease.

Hughes is again the catalyst for offensive-zone possession in the above GIF, intercepting Wisconsin’s clearing attempt and dropping the puck for Norris at the blue line as he’s being taken down. Norris surveys the zone and fires what from the angle we have appears to be a really nice no-look pass just before a Wisconsin defender gets close enough to where he could feasibly get a stick in the passing lane. The pass hits Slaker on the opposite wing and generates an instant 2-on-1 in the faceoff circle. Slaker has the defender closer to him and as such passes to Lockwood immediately. At this point Wisconsin’s goaltender has reset at the top of the crease. Lockwood stickhandles for a second, and that’s all the time the goaltender needs to reset once again and square to Lockwood. With no netfront presence, Lebedeff is able to read the shot and make the save with relative ease.

And here we have a shot attempt that's blocked that Lockwood doesn't need to take. He'd be better served if he just continued to skate.

To be clear, these issues aren’t isolated to the top line. Here we see an excellent stretch pass from Cecconi that could spring Van Wyhe, but he has trouble controlling the puck. That’s all the opportunity State’s defenders need to gap up, and a possible breakaway fizzles out into an easily-stopped sharp-angle backhander.

​

[James Coller]

As if you weren’t having enough fun already, we now move to the portion of the post where the stage is set for a goal, but no goal appears. Hooray, hockey gods!

I think the quality of each of these chances is blindingly obvious. Here Slaker has a rebound dropped on the doorstep of the goal and he pulls the shot just wide.

Robson makes a rare mistake here and drops the puck right to Slaker, who’s in deep on the forecheck. Lockwood gets in position to receive a pass, but he’s barely in the frame as Slaker picks up the puck. Slaker’s able to get away from the lone Minnesota defender and sweep the puck to Lockwood, but that defender shows good patience and hockey IQ in not chasing Slaker and instead staying where he was. This forces Lockwood away from a one-timer and into a spin. Even so, Robson’s moving and by virtue of that the five hole is still a small target and if he can lift the puck the corner is an option, but Lockwood’s probably in too tight to get much lift and the shot is smothered.

One final example shows Slaker flash some speed to stay a step ahead of the defender before sliding a nice pass in front for Lockwood to create a quality chance in front of the net, something that almost certainly would have been eliminated if he was forced to carry behind the net and out the other side. Lebedeff is moving as Lockwood releases, but there’s a defender in the net taking away the prime far-side real estate (corner included, naturally) and some wonky camera work makes it hard to tell exactly where the puck hits, but I think it’s safe to assume it’s Lebedeff’s chest.

The point of this section isn’t to drag guys through the mud. There are times where they’re getting good chances and the defenders are in the right place or the shot is just off. Additionally, I would expect first-line skaters to trust the accuracy of their shot, and sometimes all you can do is throw the puck on net and either pick a spot or hope for a rebound. Here, though, there seem to be a number of instances where the offense and possession might be better served if the long, open shot with no screen is bypassed and the skater instead moves to find an available pass or works the puck back to the defensemen.