Michigan Hockey Game #26: Minnesota 2, Michigan 1 (OT)
CLICK HERE for Game Recap from Kristy McNeil and other pertinent information and HERE for current Pairwise Rankings.
FINAL CORSI NUMBERS (www.collegehockeynews.com)
|
|
Total Attempts |
Even Strength |
Power Play |
Close (within 1) |
Even Strength % |
|
Minnesota |
58 |
38 |
20 |
36 |
45% |
|
Michigan |
59 |
46 |
13 |
46 |
55% |
Forward Notes.
-Michigan started rather slowly (granted they had to kill three penalties in the first period) only registering four shots in the first period, but they escaped. After that, they were the better team for most of the game. They took over the second period and started creating chances. Dylan Duke finished a great chance from the slot. Johnny Beecher deflected Pehrson’s shot into Mackie Samoskevich. Duke was around the net and was wide open thanks to Mike Koster getting lost. Duke also had a great feed to give Johnny Beecher a wide open net for a 2-0 lead, but somehow he shot it back across into Justen Close. The Wolverines did get some chances in the third, but that one was the best.
-Michigan split their top line back into pairs. They put Mark Estapa with Bordeleau and Brisson. That’s an interesting choice. Estapa is a super try-hard who can probably get some production from in front playing with skill like B&B. Brisson had a great chance from the slot, but missed the net.
-Minnesota really packed their slot once Michigan started to get going. Justen Close played well, but he had a lot of shot-blockers in front of him. It was a very intense playoff-esque game.
Defense Notes.
-That was just a horrendous penalty for Jacob Truscott to take. There have been a couple that have been unfair or 50/50 at best (Pehrson’s in State College), but a lot of the recent five minute majors have been legit. Truscott’s was bad. It was also very unnecessary. He was in good position and there was never a reason to take that chance. It didn’t cost them all three points, but it at least cost them one. This just needs to stop, now. Players in the locker room need to look around and decide that it is time to stop costing the team by making a hit that only ends up being a negative.
-Jack Summers didn’t play on Friday. I think that has been coming for a little while. Ethan Edwards again had a nice game. He made a few nice plays in the defensive end and jumped up at the right times in the offensive end.
Just don’t do it (James Coller)
SPECIAL TEAMS CHART
|
|
PP Opportunities |
PP Corsi For |
PP Shots/Minute |
|
Minnesota |
1/5 |
20 |
12/12 |
|
Michigan |
0/3 |
13 |
6/6 |
Power Play. Michigan actually had a decent night on the man advantage. Their last two power plays were pretty dangerous and held the zone for most of their time. They missed a few chances high and forced many blocks from the Gophers who were packing the House pretty tightly in front of Close. On another night they probably get a goal.
Penalty Kill. Michigan’s kill was pretty good all evening. Portillo made the requisite saves. Power, Edwards, and Blankenburg all had very nice plays to get the puck out of the zone. Beecher blocked a number of shots. Michigan did well down a man all evening…until an elongated 4v3 that will never go well. The problem was just taking too many penalties. They killed most of the minutes when they were down a man, but…stay out of the box.
S
ome ups and downs, but Portillo was good overall (JD Scott)
GOALTENDING CHART
|
|
Michigan Shots Faced (House) |
Minnesota Shots Faced (House) |
|
First Period |
9 |
4 |
|
Second Period |
5 |
16 |
|
Third Period |
9 |
7 |
|
Overtime |
2 |
0 |
|
TOTAL |
25 |
27 |
Notes. Erik Portillo started in net and had a pretty good night. He did have a few bobbles and rebounds that caused some squirming. On the other hand, he also made a handful of point-saving saves…including robbery on Ben Meyers on the power play. Erik also used the old “kick off the post when in trouble” move. He probably should have gotten a penalty…but it was also a bit entertaining. He lost the puck between his pads on the first Gopher goal, but it was such a great play from Matthew Knies. Perhaps he could have been down, but that kind of play is hard to anticipate. He had no chance on the 4-on-3 goal on OT. Overall, this was a winning effort from the Swede.
ODD MAN RUSH CHART
|
Defense |
Rushes |
Advs |
Escape% |
Offense |
Rushes |
Advs |
Scoring% |
|
1st Period |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
2nd Period |
1 |
3v2 |
100% |
|
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
3rd Period |
1 |
4v3 |
100% |
|
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
OT |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Total |
2 |
3v2, 4v3 |
100% |
|
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
Notes. Michigan gave up a couple of OMRs on Friday night. Minnesota probably should have scored on their 3v2 on the power play, but the shot attempt just missed the net. The Gophers also got a dangerous chance on a 4v3, but Portillo was able to get a piece of it.
Michigan did not get a chance in transition.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Michigan played pretty well, tonight, and controlled large portions of the game. Both teams missed great chances in the last period or two. The story of the game, unfortunately, became yet another bad major penalty by Michigan. They did save a point, but that penalty totally cost them at least one. This is the thing that needs to change, and it needs to stop now.
January 22nd, 2022 at 8:19 AM ^
Michigan seems to take a bad major penalty every weekend now. Not sure I’ve ever seen a M team take so many
January 22nd, 2022 at 8:48 AM ^
Personally I didn’t agree with the major there. Late in a tight game like that, you give the player the benefit of the doubt and give him 2 for boarding there unless it’s a completely egregious hit.
There wasn’t a ton of contact there and he shoved him (looked like he got his side mostly IIRC, not his back but I’d need to see a replay to be sure). The game situation and everything in the play taken into account, that’s a 2 in my eyes. You call a major at that point in the game and you’re essentially deciding the game.
January 22nd, 2022 at 10:02 AM ^
I didnt catch last nights game but it does seem like theres more penalties where normally I would've expected them to be 2's, but then they go review it and it's 5
January 22nd, 2022 at 12:39 PM ^
Honestly it was a call that could have gone either way. I’ve seen worse called a 2. It was definitely a penalty, but given the game situation it should have been 2 for boarding. 50/50 calls like that should give players the benefit of the doubt.
January 22nd, 2022 at 2:42 PM ^
The thing is that when you call that a penalty at all, it's a sure-thing review that criteria will require to be upgraded to a major. The only way to avoid a 5 there is to not call it as a penalty.
I don't like it, it was a pretty light bit of contact that was incidental and a matter of bad luck. But when I saw the replay I knew that they would review it and that they would call it a 5. There was no question; that's just how things roll this year.
January 22nd, 2022 at 2:52 PM ^
The issue, as we’ve seen, with review in hockey is that it’s entirely up to the discretion of the referee. We’ve seen Garrett Van Whye literally on his back, get cross checked in the face and his helmet break as a result. It goes to review, no major penalty for head contact.
So there’s no actual criteria that “requires” it be upgraded to a major. It’s still up to the referee to determine the penalty. There isn’t someone in the booth that gets to make the call and it doesn’t get sent to a 3rd party to make the call like the NHL. The refs go into the box, watch on a monitor, and make a ruling.
January 22nd, 2022 at 3:17 PM ^
So, the thing with the Van Whye travesty is that there isn't a specific emphasis on that, and so the ref could just hand-wave it if he wanted. What happened last night was an issue where there was some sort of visible contact with the back of the player, the player fell into the board, and his head made direct contact. The participation of the contact with the player's head hitting the boards is highly questionable, as is the severity of the hit. But the fact that the penalty was called means that the ref had already judged the contact to be a factor in the trajectory of the Minnesota player.
So when I saw the replay, I knew it would be called a 5. Told the guys around me, who were surprised.
I'm not saying it should be that way. I'm saying that in this case we've seen this call made over and over again in this way.
Whereas the Van Whye issue, while really bad, doesn't have the same sort of set logical progression. It's certainly unjust, but there isn't the same sort of logical progression that happens when the boards are involved. At least in games where Michigan has played the last two years, basically time a guy is touched from beside or behind by an opponent, and hits the board head-first, and a penalty is called, it gets upgraded to a major. Since the penalty is already called, the rest follows--the penalized player is already judged guilty of a hit, and since the effect of the hit is a head to the boards, it's over.
January 22nd, 2022 at 4:45 PM ^
Well that’s just blatantly false. There is absolutely a specific emphasis on head contact. Which, a cross-check to the head includes. The vast majority of our major penalties have been due to head contact. Many of which were reviewed in an instance where no penalty was called initially.
There is ZERO instance where a cross check to the head, not even including the player being defenseless, ISN’T a major penalty. But because penalties and reviews are at the discretion of the referees, the rule book itself doesn’t matter. Which is why the refs could have called 2 for boarding, as they should have, based on the game situation and the fact that there was very little actual contact.
January 22nd, 2022 at 5:58 PM ^
If the Gopher player's head did not bounce off the boards it is a 2 minute crosschecking penalty. Because the hit drove him into the boards head first it becomes a 5 minute Major. All about player safety. That play if he had hit him harder could have resulted in a serious head or neck injury.
I have no problem with the call. This was another where the hit did not have to happen, it was away from the play and after the puck had gone to the other side of the ice. Stupid decision and they will not go far in the post season making mistakes like that.
January 22nd, 2022 at 9:34 AM ^
I feel like they’re just calling a ton more majors this year (can’t say if that’s true throughout college hockey because I don’t watch non UM games), so it’s not the fact that we’re taking ‘dumb’ penalties as much as they’re calling the games much tighter. There have been several very soft ‘majors’ against us this season
January 22nd, 2022 at 10:05 AM ^
Thats my perception as well. Theres only a few this year where I thought it was ridiculous, but theres been a lot that I expected to be a minor suddenly be video reviewed and its a major. Not sure if this is a new point of emphasis in the whole NCAA or just the Big Ten but I cannot remember Michigan taking even half this many majors. Feels like we take one every series
January 22nd, 2022 at 11:56 AM ^
Was at the Saturday penn state game last week, and someone in front of us who seemed very knowledgable said we had already set the program record for most majors in a season - in mid-January no less.
January 22nd, 2022 at 11:35 AM ^
Minnesota may have "packed the slot" but they sure as hell didn't pack the stands based on the first picture. Sheesh.
January 22nd, 2022 at 11:47 AM ^
That’s a stock picture from 2020 at Yost (no fans due to COVID).
This game was at Minneapolis last night.
January 22nd, 2022 at 2:39 PM ^
Pretty typical attendance from the last few years at the actual game. Lots of seats open, a number unsold, still thousands of people.
Minnesota has always had a bit of an empty-seats problem at Mariucci, and it's worse now, so unremarkable. This was a matter of some significant conversation pre-pandemic. I went with a group from my church and we got 17 seats together without issue at the beginning of the week.
Had a good time, too, except for... well, the result.
January 22nd, 2022 at 1:08 PM ^
Any thoughts on how the bigger rink plays to either side's strengths/weaknesses?
Looking forward to another good one tonight
January 22nd, 2022 at 2:03 PM ^
“Bigger rink” means more room along the width of the ice, Which favors Michigan’s more wide open game with their speed and skill.
But Minnesota is also more accustomed to playing on a larger rink and isn’t short on speed/skill either. They did a very good job collapsing in the defensive zone and preventing Michigan from getting good looks from the house. Lots of blocked shots and cleared pucks.
I quotation marked “bigger ice,” because there’s also a caveat. The overall length of the ice is the same, but the width is 15 feet more. However, the offensive/defensive zones are shorter, with more room behind the goal lines and larger neutral zones.
Overall the bigger ice doesn’t change a whole lot. With the width of the ice balanced out by shorter offensive zones. Just takes some getting used to.
January 22nd, 2022 at 2:41 PM ^
@yostbuilt observed that the first period of the season on wider ice (usually at Wisconsin or at Minnesota, occasionally at Northern) is usually a bit rough as the team adjusts to the dimensions. And that held true here. They adjusted fine and were flying through the second period.
There are obviously some challenges with the proportions, as the angles can be different, but there are also benefits, particularly for the transition game this team can play. Mostly they looked fine to me.
January 22nd, 2022 at 2:44 PM ^
Meh. Got to go to the game, had a good time. Started slow, though Michigan created a fair number of chances that didn't register on the shot chart early. There were several great opportunities in the third that they didn't capitalize on, and that allowed Minnesota to get back in with a flukey goal. When you only score once, you can tie and/or lose games like this.
I was pretty delighted with the late goal being waved off, since that changed the cost of the loss pretty significantly.
Comments