Hangin' ANOTHER Banner (David Wilcomes)

Michigan Hockey Game #41: Michigan 7, Quinnipiac 4 Comment Count

David March 27th, 2022 at 10:20 PM

CLICK HERE for Game Recap from Kristy McNeil and other pertinent information.

 

FINAL CORSI NUMBERS (www.collegehockeynews.com)

 

Total Attempts

Even Strength

Power Play

Close (within 1)

Even Strength %

Quinnipiac

73

69

7

26

57%

Michigan

57

53

4

20

43%

Forward Notes.

-That was bonkers. Michigan coaxed Quinnipiac into a frenetic pace in the first period, turning Allentown, Pennsylvania into a Wild West Shootout. There were 28 evenly divided shots in the opening frame, alone. The difference was that Michigan was able to finish a couple of their early chances...albeit not their best ones. The worry coming into the game was that we'd be in for a 30 shot total slugfest that one team would win on a coin-flip bounce. While that did come into play during the second and early third period, it was mostly too late for Turtle/Siege Hockey at that point. Michigan won the game at 5v5 and on Special Teams before they almost gave it away...and had to win it again. 

-The Fourth Line. We talked all year about Michigan's speed and skill, draft picks and NHL talent. On Sunday night, near the famous Bethlehem Steel mill, it was Michigan's Blue Collar dudes getting it done. Nolan Moyle crashed the net 33 seconds into the game and put Michigan out front. Jimmy Lambert beat his man to the crease to finish Luke Hughes gorgeous move and pass. Garrett Van Whye outskated and outworked a Bobcat defenseman and then Yaniv Perets to tally a shorty right before the end of the second period. On a team with eight drafted forwards, the Blue Collar line ground out four of the team's seven goals. If the Wolverines are going to get depth scoring like this, they'll be tough to beat in Boston.

-One thing to be discussed more on the HockeyCast is the early goalie-pull by Quinnipiac with almost four minutes left. Alex thought it was a bit early. I was fine with it. The Bobcats were holding a decided advantage in ice position. They had scored three in just seven minutes. Analytics are on the side of pulling early...shoot your shot. It didn't work out, but I don't blame Rand Pecknold and his staff. They were trying to capitalize on a reeling defense and team psyche. In the end it took a nice play from Thomas Bordeleau to intercept a pass. Very nice for fifth year senior Mike Pastujov to get the empty-netter than sent his Wolverines back to the Frozen Four.

Defense Notes.

-Ugh. This was a roller coaster. Michigan's defensive play in the opening period was up there among the worst stretches of team defense this season. They struggled getting it out of their end, turned it over all over the ice, and gave up good looks consistently. But Portillo (spoiler alert). Then...they locked down the second period. Other than an OMR, Portillo had little to do. Michigan skated the puck and protected the lead. With around eleven minutes to play, everything came unglued again. Ethan Edwards had a horrendous DZTO (though Alex is arguing that the crappy ice lead to the jumpy puck). Nick Blankenburg got bodied off the puck behind the net that led to the third goal. It just looked like someone hit the panic button again. But Portillo.

-On the positive side, Luke Hughes skated brilliantly again, singlehandedly creating the second goal by losing his guy and dishing the puck to an open Jimmy Lambert in front. Nick Blankenburg created the fourth goal winning a race to a puck and throwing it to the crease where Van Whye poked in the short-handed tally. 

-Owen Power settled down more as the game progressed, but he struggled defensively too often. Thankfully, he moved the puck really, really well offensively. Owen tallied four assists on the evening, almost doubling his second half offensive output. The competition ratchets up another notch in a couple weeks. Getting Owen to...Full Power will be key.

 

A Blue Collar Goal for Garrett Van Whye (David Wilcomes)

SPECIAL TEAMS CHART

 

PP Opportunities

PP Corsi For

PP Shots/Minute

Quinnipiac

0/3

7

3/6

Michigan

2/2

4

3/1.5

Power Play. On the first entrance of the first shift of the first power play, Thomas Bordeleau gained the zone, dropped it to Power, and went to the slot. Owen Power hit Brendan Brisson on the boards, who whipped it back to Bordeleau, unchecked in the slot. Too easy. When Michigan got their second advantage, the game was over, but the scoring was not. Power to Bordeleau between his legs to Brisson on his dot...Money. Michigan went 2/2 against the best PK in the nation. 

Penalty Kill. Not only did Michigan stifle Q-Pac's power play advantages, Blankenburg and Van Whye won a 2v2 race through the neutral zone. Nick got to the puck, flung it across to Garrett, who poked it in for a shortie and 4-0 lead at the end of the second. The Wolverines also had a GREAT kill in the third when the game was unraveling. We've talked about it since December...this is now a strength!

 

A Brick Wall when it was close (David Wilcomes)

GOALTENDING CHART

 

Michigan Shots Faced (House)

Quinnipiac Shots Faced (House)

First Period

14

14

Second Period

6

9

Third Period

14

6

Overtime

n/a

n/a

TOTAL

34

29

Notes. Erik Portillo flashed his brilliance early and often. Hung out to dry too often, he stepped up and made save after save repeatedly to preserve Michigan's lead in the opening stanza. That was his best period of the season. Erik only faced six shots in the second, but two of those were on a 2v1. Just another outstanding play by the Swede. In the third...yikes, it got interesting. Still, it's hard to put too much on Portillo, despite letting in four. Two goals came as the result of terrible DZTOs where he was completely abandoned. Another goal went in off of Nick Blankenburg. The last one was with 20 seconds left and it went through a number of screeners. The biggest take away about Portillo is that he was a rock when they needed him. He dragged them through the Wild West early on, and steadied the ship, making numerous big saves from point blank range when the defense started crumbling. There's a case that he's been Michigan's best and most consistent player all season.

 

ODD MAN RUSH CHART

Defense

Rushes

Advs

Escape%

Offense

Rushes

Advs

Scoring%

1st Period

1

3v1

100%

 

4

1v0 x3, 3v2

0%

2nd Period

1

2v1

100%

 

1

3v1

0%

3rd Period

n/a

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

n/a

OT

n/a

n/a

n/a

 

n/a

n/a

n/a

Total

2

2v1, 3v1

n/a

 

5

1v0 x3, 3v2, 3v1

0%

Notes.

Quinnipiac got a 3v1 early, but shot the puck very early in the rush from distance. It was an easy save and hold from Portillo. On their second OMR, a 2v1, Portillo made a crazy double save, denying both chances for the Bobcats.

Michigan had oodles of chances in transition early, including three breakaways in the first period. While they didn't score on the initial 3v2, the shift ended with Nolan Moyle cutting the Wolverines to a lead just 33 seconds into the game.
 

As crazy as that third period was...there wasn't much in transition.

WE'RE GOING TO BOSTON (David Wilcomes)

FINAL THOUGHTS

Lol. Michigan won the game in the first two periods. They gave it away in seven minutes of the third period. Then, made a few plays down the stretch to win it again...and still pull away in the end. While this didn't go exactly according to plan -especially after being up by four- they made plays with their backs against the wall and saw it through. In Elimination Hockey, that's all that's necessary. See you in Boston.

 

Comments

lhglrkwg

March 27th, 2022 at 10:38 PM ^

I thought the defense was pretty bad end to end. Portillo really bailed us out in the 1st and 2nd on a number of occasions and then in the 3rd we just hung him out to try on all 3 of those consecutive goals if my memory is correct. The team was completely flustered in the 3rd / Quinnipiac was buzzing the whole time

Hard to say this was the team getting bored because they were giving up a lot of great looks when it was 1-0. Im afraid any of the 3 teams remaining will turn that into 5+ goals on us but too hard to say with every game being different. Just gotta find a way to shore up that D again over the next two weeks. Only two wins away

stephenrjking

March 27th, 2022 at 10:40 PM ^

This was a bizarre game. Not what was expected. Michigan’s periodic defensive insouciance was alarming, and the unexpected tightness in the third period that did not get relieved until the ENGs was unpleasant.

Narratives don’t win hockey games and don’t lose hockey games, so all that mattered was getting the W. Write this off and move on, mostly. But after three straight games like this, it’s fair to at least be a bit concerned that Michigan isn’t closing well in games with multi-goal leads.

And they can’t let any of the teams that are left scythe through the defensive zone like Quinnipiac did. Denver and the two Minnesota teams have great offensive talent and even in a track meet you need to be in the right place on D.

But it’s a win. This team is quite capable of shoring things up. In both games this weekend they came out aggressive and got lax with leads. Which is a lot better than some other options. But you can’t get lax in Boston.

Oh well. It’s the tournament. Nothing is for sure, and this delightful but occasionally perplexing team got the two wins it needed. Watch the film, take a shower, and spend the next two weeks preparing to play the best hockey they can play.

It’s the Frozen Four. This is where the whole year has been building, and they’ve made it.

Absolutely awesome.

 

sambora114

March 28th, 2022 at 12:06 PM ^

I am concerned but at least Michigan has had moments when they have played perfect hockey to close out games (Ohio State prior to before the disappointment in South Bend, Notre Dame in the big ten semifinals).

Michigan is what they have been all year; incredibly talented with sublime stretches but very capable of maddening play too. 

Let's go and see you all in Boston for a shot at eternal glory!

gbdub

March 27th, 2022 at 11:54 PM ^

I think I’m on the “goalie pulled too early” side. Quinnipiac was dominating play 5v5. On the one hand, hey, get the extra skater and really put the pressure on. On the other, Michigan had already shown how dangerous they were on the PK, getting one shorty and having a dangerous 2v1 on another. And ultimately, made a great play to get the ENG and effectively end it (although 3 more goals would get scored before the game ended!).

I’m actually on board with the “crappy ice” partial explanation. Seemed the puck was bouncing all game with Michigan having a harder than usual time making crisp passes - when they did, it was lights out. 

Ultimately, Michigan won on depth and goaltending - but also on top end skill. Q-pac skated great, but Michigan had the talent to finish their chances. And those PP goals were sick. 

InterM

March 28th, 2022 at 12:01 AM ^

Agreed that Q pulled the goalie too early, for exactly the reason you mentioned. They were doing well 5-on-5 in the third period, but had a lousy scheme for playing with an extra man - they just would pass the puck around the perimeter and eventually have someone blast away from the outside. Big surprise, Michigan intercepts one of the perimeter passes and puts it in the empty net. 

xgojim

March 28th, 2022 at 8:31 AM ^

Don't disagree with gbdub but think this strategy might have worked against most teams that Quinnipiac faces, so not that surprising.  Actually, you have to hand it to the Q coach to set up a "go for broke" opportunity for his players.  They had a chance to pull off an historic come-from-behind victory, so why not give it the best, albeit most risky, chance?

As crazy as anything is that the final margin of victory for M was as a result of two open net goals and one power play, all in the same period.  Not sure what that means but it was crazy.

Very glad I watched the third period instead of the Oscars!  Go Blue!

BlueTimesTwo

March 28th, 2022 at 9:39 AM ^

I also agree with the "too early" crowd.  Having an extra skater obviously helps, but it also changes how you have to move the puck.  They were buzzing and being very aggressive on the forecheck and were effective in dump/chip-and-chase, but pulling the goalie forces the team to be a little more cautious in their approach, which changes the dynamic on the ice.  Instead of outworking us and grinding out their goals, they were in more of a power play situation, where it was all about passing.  One bad pass, and it was all over.  If I was their coach, I would have given it another minute of pressure to see if we would make another bad mistake.

lhglrkwg

March 28th, 2022 at 10:35 AM ^

I think this game was a classic example of where analytics are useful but can't be treated as gospel. Quinnipiac had been totally dominating the 3rd at even strength. Compare that to their power play which was bad on a normal day (~15%) and in this game had done absolutely zilch - in fact less than zilch since we had a SHG.

This is one where we need to ignore the analytics and roll with what was working for a few more minutes

Blue In NC

March 28th, 2022 at 10:41 AM ^

Totally agree.  I would not necessarily be against pulling the goalie with 4 to play if Michigan was locking it down and Quinnipiac was not generating chances (in that case, the gamble may be worth it as you are not generating anything 5v5).  But Quinnipiac was buzzing and Michigan was in a shell with plenty of defensive mistakes.  Quinnipiac didn't need to pull the goalie to generate chances. The extra guy didn't really help them that much. Doing so gave Michigan an easy way to take the pressure off - just score into an empty net.  I feel like that was a huge mistake.

Blue Vet

March 28th, 2022 at 8:20 AM ^

"this didn't go exactly according to plan..."

Imagine if this WAS the plan: "Okay, here's what we'll do. First, we let Portillo shine, next we'll show off our speed & skill. Then, keep people watching in the third period, we'll almost give it away in what could be a historic collapse, but finish by coming to the rescue of ourselves."

BlueTimesTwo

March 28th, 2022 at 9:46 AM ^

It is possible that the bad ice contributed to him initially losing it in front of the net, but as the last guy back I would prefer that he not try to settle the puck and make a move, but rather chip it out or at least move it towards the boards.  I'll take a neutral zone TO with them having to clear the zone rather than an DZTO with two attacking and nobody in good defensive position.

Michigan Arrogance

March 28th, 2022 at 3:48 PM ^

I mean, IDK specifically, but I'd imagine it comes down to take the O-zone faceoff you know you have now with 6 men instead of the ??? you don't know you have later.

They (Qpac) were winning every faceoff it seemed all game and were buzzing at the time so I undertand the impulse to go all in. And they did win the draw clean and had posession for a bit. So it did work out initially.

That said, pulling at 4:30? IDK. I'd probably go with the momentum 5v5 they already had until it falls off and/or pulled at the next O-zone F/O under 4.

 

gpmurf

March 28th, 2022 at 2:50 PM ^

re: the Edwards bobble,

Having done ice maintenance for close to three decades, I'd say the humidity in the building was probably too high. It causes pucks to pick up fine bits of snow even when the ice appears completely dry. This makes pucks slow down and/or roll unpredictably. Edward's puck slowed down twice in the middle of his dribble. Most people think the Zam clears the snow to make the skaters faster. It mostly clears the snow to make the puck behave properly. Stadium ice is also notoriously soft in the first place, outside of the dead of winter, in all but a few buildings.

(But, yeah, he probably should have passed it sooner)