Michigan Hockey 17-18, Game #4: Michigan 3, Vermont 2

Michigan Hockey 17-18, Game #4: Michigan 3, Vermont 2

Submitted by NastyIsland on October 24th, 2017 at 10:03 PM

Pucks to the net, man (Bill Rapai)

OFFENSE

 

 

Corsi

House

Possession %

First Period

15

7

45%

Second Period

10

4

53%

Third Period

24

9

52%

Overtime

n/a

n/a

n/a

TOTAL

49

20

50%

 

Analysis: This was a bit of a downgrade from Friday night's performace. There were not the 'wide open' rush looks that Michigan generated in the previous game. Vermont sat back a little more in the third period, and the Wolverines were able to create a few flurries deeper in the House. It was tougher to see from my the angles that I was viewing from -who knew the scoreboard feed was a giant step down from the Press Box? So, I'm not going to make too many claims. The was about as 50/50 as you can get, even down to House Shots. Lekkas got a little leaky and let in a couple of soft goals. Michigan was fortunate to win this toss up game.

 

 

DEFENSE

 

 

Corsi

House

Possession %

First Period

18

7

55%

Second Period

9

6

47%

Third Period

22

6

48%

Overtime

n/a

n/a

n/a

TOTAL

49

19

50%

 

Analysis: As stated above, this was the definition of a 50/50 game. Michigan allowed more attempts than they did the previous night, but they did not get shelled by any means. They also did not give up an even strength goal. This is not as tight as would be ideally desired, but this is an acceptable performance. I think holding opponents under 40 attempts -like Friday- is not going to happen very consistently for many teams. Michigan's defense is probably a little crsiper than Saturday night's game, but I wouldn't think it is a ton better. They're going to have to win a few more games like this one...hopefully with a tad more offensive possession or some Special Teams contributions.

 

 

SPECIAL TEAMS

 

 

PP For

PP Against

PP Corsi For

PP Corsi Against

PP Shots/Min For

PP Shots/Min Against

First Period

0/2

n/a

6

n/a

.5

n/a

Second Period

0/1

1/3

1

7

.5

.5

Third Period

0/1

n/a

3

n/a

.5

n/a

Overtime

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

TOTAL

0/4

1/3

10

7

.5

.5

 

Analysis: Michigan's Special Teams units were not exactly stellar in their fourth outing. They gave up a short-handed goal in the first period (which I am apparently not charting). That was an awful turnover behind their net and Lavigne was hung out to dry. They also surrendured a power play goal in the second frame. That one was a big more unlucky as the puck bounced to an open area out of a scrum and the open man tucked it away. Those will happen. On the positive side, Michigan only took three penalties -actually four with the matching minors- on the entire night. That is also acceptable. I cannot comment on what they did on the power play because my view was not good enough to elaborate, unfortunately.

 

 

Lavigne spit out every 5v5 attempt (James Coller)

GOALTENDING

 

 

Shots Faced

Shots from House Faced

First Period

9

4

Second Period

9

6

Third Period

11

4

Overtime

n/a

n/a

TOTAL

29

14

 

Analysis: As promised by Mel Pearson, the goalie rotation continued through the second set of games and Hayden Lavigne got his second turn in net on Saturday. Both goals he gave up were not his fault by any means...and neither was of the even strength variety. Lavigne also had a bit more to do than his rotation partner did on Friday night. Michigan continues to have very fine netminding, and I've seen nothing to make me believe that shouldn't continue in the future, regardless of who starts in net.

 

 

ODD MAN RUSHES

 

 

Rushes

Advantages

Escape %

First Period

 

 

 

Second Period

 

 

 

Third Period

 

 

 

Overtime

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

 

 

Analysis: I was unable to track any of this, so I will leave it all blank. From what I could tell, though, it did not seem like there were many, at all.

 

 

FINAL CORSI NUMBERS

I had: Michigan 49(20), Vermont 49(19)

www.collegehockeynews.com had: Vermont 51, Michigan 48

 

The Return of GBGA, The Retirement of Corsi Charting, And Michigan Hockey's First B1G Win

The Return of GBGA, The Retirement of Corsi Charting, And Michigan Hockey's First B1G Win

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on November 30th, 2013 at 4:47 PM

If you’re looking for the weekly Corsi charts, you’ve come to the right place. Incidentally, they aren’t here, so you’re also in the wrong place. It’s not you, it’s me.

I’ve been busy finishing up work on my thesis, an additional research paper, and other assorted family things (hence the gap between posts), but I haven’t been completely ignoring hockey. I try to find as much to read about advanced hockey statistics as possible, and I ran across an article on the Maple Leafs’ SBN blog that caused something of a crisis of conscience.

The last two columns are the r-value for even strength Corsi and the R2 value as it relates to winning percentage. The first column to the right of 5v5CF% is the R^2 value over six years of statistics that the folks at Pension Plan Puppets collected. Their analysis indicated that Corsi is both highly replicable and relatively highly correlated with winning percentage.

Visualizing r^2, via BMG Lab Tech

Having said that, I’ve decided to shelve the Corsi project for now. It may be true that Corsi is related to winning percentage, but B1G hockey is starting and I wrote back in my first Corsi post that I’d start doing goal-by-goal analysis posts again at this point. I decided to stop tracking Corsi data because I only have a limited amount of free time to pour into this each week, and if I’m going to spend 5-8 hours a week analyzing Michigan hockey then I think most people would rather see GBGA than something that may be highly correlated with winning but has very little aesthetic appeal. If you’ve been using my Corsi posts in place of Ambien then I’m glad I had the opportunity to both inform you and put you to sleep. I’ll try and get back to Corsi at some point, but I can’t make any promises.

 

If you’re now wondering what GBGA is then I think I’d describe it as a Picture Pages/UFR hybrid. I break down every goal for and against, hoping to explain what happened in a sport where important things happen in tenths of seconds and add something entertaining/informative to the world of Michigan hockey.

1st Period

2:51- OSU 0 Michigan 1: Lynch from Kile & Allen

Michigan gets the puck in deep and Lynch goes to carry it behind the net. The two OSU defensemen should follow the routes drawn out on the screen shot; as one goes to cover Lynch on the wraparound, the other should go to the front of the net.

Instead, the right defenseman follows Lynch behind the net. This vacates the front of the net, which comes into play later. The left D has no choice but to leave Lynch and follow the pass to Kile.

A simple pass from Kile to Lynch puts the puck in a dangerous spot for OSU. Since the right D followed Lynch behind the net there’s no one to protect the net-front area. Lynch is going to get an easy wrap around shot. Look at how deep the OSU goaltender is in his net. He’ got the post locked down, but he’s still standing when Lynch gets the puck on his stick and you can see how open to five hole area is. Lynch puts this one away for Michigan’s first B1G conference goal.

15:46- OSU 1 Michigan 1: PPG Dzingel from McCormick & Szczechura

Michigan’s box is shifted far left. You can see that OSU has three players in the frame, which means that two are off screen and essentially undefended.

Motte makes a mistake and tries to block the shot in the slot. This really could fall to the defender in the front of the net, as Motte’s assignment is to cover the far right (where the arrow’s pointing, naturally).

Pretty obvious that this mistake leads to a really, really wide open shot. The goal itself was soft, as it just sort of rolls over Nagelvoort’s glove but the defensive breakdown is still key to this goal.

2nd Period

6:41- OSU 1 Michigan 2: PPG Compher from Moffatt & Guptill

The key here is that the top of OSU’s box has sagged down into the slot instead of staying high to cover the point. This allows Michigan to pass across the zone from the boards.

Moffatt takes the shot that’s there for him. It’s not a bad shot, but it’s not exactly a high percentage shot. The best case scenario is what happens, which is a big, uncleared rebound in front. The beauty of the power play is that Compher (circled above) is going to be undefended if the low defensemen doesn’t get there in time.

While it doesn’t quite work out the way I noted above, it still works out. The Michigan player essentially sets a pick, leaving Compher to backhand the puck into the really, really open half of the net. Also, OSU’s goalie Logan Davis is like whoa slow laterally.

HIGH FIVE METAL BARS I FEEL YOU

14:26- OSU 2 Michigan 2: PPG McCormick from Szczechura & Fritz

DeBlois takes away the passing lane to the blueline, so OSU works the puck down low.

Bennett tries to take away the pass to the slot but is about a half second too late, and the puck gets tipped through Nagelvoort’s legs.

19:43- OSU 2 Michigan 3: Guptill from Compher

Compher wins the faceoff, which is huge. Even more important, however, is that DeBlois is able to tie his man up. This allows a clean tap across from Compher to Guptill…

...and a very, very clean shot from Guptill. He lifts the puck perfectly, hitting the top corner before Davis knows what (didn’t) hit him.

3rd Period

16:47- OSU 3 Michigan 3: Greco from Fritz

Credit where credit’s due, OSU’s forechecking creates this goal. Michigan makes a bad decision to play the puck back, and there’s no Michigan skater to collect the weak pass. OSU gets there first and gains possession.

No one notices the skater in the slot until it’s too late; Downing was behind the net and doesn’t cover the front fast enough, Motte can’t catch him either, and Nagelvoort (who was locking down the post) can’t stop the wide-open slot.

Michigan’s offense-turned-defense on this play.

Overtime

3:38- OSU 3 Michigan 4: Copp from Bennett & De Jong

Mac Bennett, man. He sees a huge passing lane and puts a perfect pass….

…on the stick of Andrew Copp.

He gathers, shoots, scores, and then this.

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 5-8

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 5-8

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on November 5th, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Look, I'm not naive. This is a Michigan blog in the middle of football season, and I understand that the vast majority of you are here to read about football. That's ok, I come here for that too. Having said that, I'm guessing most of us feel a lot like this .gif (which Ace posted on Twitter Sunday night). Most of us probably have visions of the interior offensive line standing by, stationary, like cops by the side of the freeway (Hey, that guy's going by us way too fast. He's gonna cause an accid...see? See, that's what I was saying). 

Forget about all that for a minute and get lost in the glorious charts of a Michigan team ranked #2 in the latest USCHO poll. That's right, there's a Michigan team that's climbing up the polls! If they continue playing the way that they have (read: willing to battle for puck possession, realtively intelligent passing, good forechecking) then there are going to be a lot of people who find a more enjoyable way to spend their Saturday nights once football season is over.

Friday, October 25 vs. Boston University (W, 2-1)

1st Period

  Michigan BU
Goals 0 1
Shots 12 4
Missed 5 2
Blocked 7 1
Total 24 8
% 75.00 25.00

2nd Period

  Michigan BU
Goals 0 0
Shots 16 7
Missed 7 3
Blocked 5 2
Total 28 12
% 70.00 30.00

3rd Period

  Michigan BU
Goals 2 0
Shots 12 7
Missed 8 6
Blocked 8 3
Total 30 16
% 65.22 34.78

Overall

  Michigan BU
Goals 2 1
Shots 40 18
Missed 20 11
Blocked 20 6
Total 82 36
% 69.49 30.51

Saturday, October 26 vs. UMass Lowell (L, 1-2)

1st Period

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 0 0
Shots 12 12
Missed 0 7
Blocked 3 5
Total 15 24
% 38.46 61.54

2nd Period

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 1 1
Shots 18 14
Missed 7 6
Blocked 5 4
Total 31 25
% 55.36 44.64

3rd Period

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 0 1
Shots 8 10
Missed 4 4
Blocked 5 4
Total 17 19
% 47.22 52.78

Overall

  Michigan UMass Lowell
Goals 1 2
Shots 38 36
Missed 11 17
Blocked 13 13
Total 63 68
% 48.09 51.91

 

Friday, November 1 vs. Michigan Tech (W, 3-2 OT)

I am Mario and MGoBlueTV is the castle. Someday I shall breach those daunting castle walls, but last Friday was not that day. In other words, no charts.

Saturday, November 2 vs. Michigan Tech (W, 2-1)

1st Period

  Michigan Tech
Goals 1 0
Shots 10 6
Missed 5 1
Blocked 4 4
Total 20 11
% 64.52 35.48

2nd Period

  Michigan Tech
Goals 0 0
Shots 11 8
Missed 8 3
Blocked 5 5
Total 24 16
% 60.00 40.00

3rd Period

  Michigan Tech
Goals 1 1
Shots 8 10
Missed 0 3
Blocked 0 6
Total 9 20
% 31.03 68.97

Overall

  Michigan Tech
Goals 2 1
Shots 29 24
Missed 13 7
Blocked 9 15
Total 53 47
% 53.00 47.00

Assorted Thoughts

  • Winning the Corsi battle correlates with winning in the three games charted. It does not, however, correlate with scoring margin. The caveat is the small sample size, which is why I'm charting everything I possible can; we'll see how this plays out over the season.
  • Michigan has only won once (against Boston College) when they have had a worse possession percentage than their opponent in the first period. Maybe there's something to be said for starting strong.
  • Michigan has looked flat in the third period too often this year. It cost them against UMass Lowell and it could have cost them against Michigan Tech on Saturday. This "flatness" is reflected in the possession numbers above.
  • I'm collecting power play data too, but my plan is to publish that around the midseason point in a longer post.

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 3 & 4

Corsi Charts: Michigan Hockey Games 3 & 4

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on October 25th, 2013 at 5:21 AM

So I'm finishing up the chart for the first game of the series on Wednesday night. I had Fox Sports Detroit on before I started watching the game on my DVR, which I thought nothing of because it's pretty typical for me to have Fox Sports Detroit on. After I finish charting, however, I hit stop on the recording and the Red Wings game comes on and PRETTY MUCH BURNS MY RETINAS WHY IS THIS ICE SO BRIGHT. Hockey in high def is most definitely not what Fox Sports College Atlantic or whatever it was was broadcasting for these Michigan games. Like Brian said in his post, it was basically like watching a legal stream. That wandering anecdote was my way of saying that the Corsi charts have some values that may not be perfect. I'm not really concerned though, as there are things that I may have marked a shot that missed the net or vice versa that even each other out in the overall numbers. This is why I don't change numbers in the shots column to match the official score sheet; it should work itself out when considering all of the categories.

Friday, 10/18/13 at UNH

1st Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 0
Shots 8 8
Missed 10 6
Blocked 5 5
Total 24 19
% 55.81 44.19

2nd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 1
Shots 9 11
Missed 4 8
Blocked 4 2
Total 17 22
% 43.59 56.41

3rd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 0
Shots 2 16
Missed 4 6
Blocked 4 4
Total 10 26
% 27.77 72.23

Overtime

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 0
Shots 1 2
Missed 0 1
Blocked 0 3
Total 1 6
% 14.29 85.71

Overall

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 1
Shots 20 37
Missed 18 21
Blocked 13 14
Total 52 73
% 41.6 58.4

Assorted Thoughts

  • Things that are good: spending time not in the penalty box. Things that are bad: spending time in the penalty box. Of UNH's 37 shots 11 came on the power play. Of their misses, 7 of 21 came on the power play. Of UNH's blocked shots, 7 of 14 came on the power play. That's 29.7% of their shots, 33.3% of their misses, and 50% of their blocks. Worried about being outshot? Try to keep five guys on the ice.
  • Even though Michigan was handily defeated in terms of possession, the game was a little more open than the numbers indicate. A lot of this game was played in the neutral zone, with each team trying and failing to create an offensive zone presence. An argument could be made, however, for UNH carrying the play because whoa that third period was rough. Michigan was circling and circling and circling in the defensive zone and I had to keep pausing the recording so I could mark more stuff down for UNH.
  • UNH's numbers look pretty dominant in overtime but we're looking at a five minute sample. UNH had possession but I can't remember any part of OT where I thought Michigan dodged a bullet. 

Saturday, 10/19/13 at UNH

1st Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 1
Shots 7 3
Missed 7 2
Blocked 6 1
Total 21 7
% 75.00 25.00

2nd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 1
Shots 11 12
Missed 3 7
Blocked 2 5
Total 17 25
% 40.47 59.53

3rd Period

  Michigan UNH
Goals 0 0
Shots 9 8
Missed 3 6
Blocked 6 3
Total 18 17
% 51.43 48.57

Overtime

  Michigan UNH
Goals 1 0
Shots 1 1
Missed 1 0
Blocked 1 0
Total 4 1
% 80.00 20.00

Overall

  Michigan UNH
Goals 3 2
Shots 28 24
Missed 14 15
Blocked 15 9
Total 60 50
% 54.54 45.46

Assorted Thoughts

  • This was a game of extended periods of back-and-forth punctuated by furious bursts of offensive zone activity. Michigan looked like they were handily outplayed in the second period (especially the second half of the second period, where they couldn't clear the puck for anything) and the numbers bear this out. At one point UNH went on a tear of four consecutive shots on goal in what had to be under a minute. It looked like the tide of the game may have been turning, but the clock mercifully ran out.
  • UNH picked up where they left off and generated a number of chances early in the third period. Their offensive zone time came in smaller bursts, however, and the game transitioned back to an up-and-down affair. Michigan eventually got their own extended offensive zone time and ended up with a slight advantage overall in Corsi for the period.
  • Special teams were the theme of Friday night but weren't a factor after the first two periods on Saturday. In the first period 12 of Michigan's 21 shots (57.14%) came on the power play. In the second period 10 of UNH's 25 shots (40.00%) came on the power play. After that? Not even a power play opportunity for either team. 
  • I like Nagelvoort and his giant leg pads. They're like belly putters in golf; comedically oversized but effective in their own right.

The New Colossus: Michigan Hockey and Corsi, Game 2

The New Colossus: Michigan Hockey and Corsi, Game 2

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on October 16th, 2013 at 9:54 PM

“Bring me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…”

-Emma Lazarus

Look, we need to talk. I’m worried about you. I mean, look at you. There are bags under your eyes, you’re pale, I mean…look, something just isn’t right. It’s the loss to Penn State, isn’t it? I haven’t seen you this upset after a loss since…well, since that other guy (you know, the one who wore the red wrist band) was still in town.

Guess what? I’ve got something to soothe your chapped and chafed sports-soul. It’s Michigan hockey. Weren’t expecting that after last year, were ya? Frankly, neither was I. And yet here we are, just two games into the new season and last year seems like a memory that we might just be able to get rid of and finally move on from. Last year was a memory burr; it hung around longer than it should have and felt like it might be impossible to get rid of, but once it was gone there was such sweet relief. See, a win over a Boston College squad that’s one of the top five in the country isn’t enough to do it alone. It’s the combination of not only winning but also showing defensive acumen and energy and situational awareness that’s so reassuring.

The official scoring sheet says that Michigan outshot BC over the course of the game, but let’s dig a little deeper. Below you’ll find Corsi tables, and if you aren’t sure what Corsi is read this post from last week. 

1st Period

  Michigan BC
Goals 1 0
Shots 9 9
Missed 3 7
Blocked 3 2
Total 16 18
% 47.05 52.95

Things didn't look good early on. Michigan was keeping up with Boston College, but that's about it. Granted, they did get a nice power play snipe from Luke Moffatt (whose performance was the focal point of Brian's excellent post), but that's about it. It seemed as though Michigan was doing all they could just to hang on for 20 minutes; hanging around for 60 is an entirely different thing, and winning that next 40 minutes is a different animal entirely. 

2nd Period

  Michigan BC
Goals 1 1
Shots 14 9
Missed 7 8
Blocked 5 3
Total 27 21
% 56.25 43.75

Well, looks like the tables are starting to turn. Michigan and BC went back and forth this period, but Michigan looked better getting the puck out of their zone and moving it through the neutral zone. The shot totals above don't match the official scoring sheet, so it's worth noting the caveat that comes with this analysis; when the game is only available in standard def that's what I have to watch it in, and it can be hard to tell whether the puck hit the goalie or went just wide. Having said that, I do believe in what I saw and wrote down. We'll see how this takes shape over the course of the season.

3rd Period

  Michigan BC
Goals 1 0
Shots 8 5
Missed 8 3
Blocked 6 4
Total 23 12
% 65.71 34.29

The numbers end up looking like Michigan dominated the period, but that isn't how it began. BC carried the play in the first few minutes, and Michigan was allowing this to happen. They moved a forward high to defend and were dumping the puck in. Midway through the period this changed, and Michigan dropped the conservative schtick and started to move the puck again. One thing that went well: passing toa teammate on a zone entry and letting them carry the puck in instead of dumping it into the corner.

Overall

  Michigan BC
Goals 3 1
Shots 31 23
Missed 18 18
Blocked 14 9
Total 66 51
% 56.41 43.59

Michigan outplayed a higher ranked opponent by forechecking hard, backchecking hard, and making intelligent passes to keep the puck moving and away from the opponent. Michigan won. Read that again. Now do it again. Michigan (yes, that Michigan) beat an incredibly talented team and by game’s end made them look overmatched. Whether Michigan hockey is really back remains to be seen but this is certainly the only way to start. 

As for overall shot percentages, I’ll let Seth handle that. He had a cool table in last week’s Dear Diary post and I don’t want to step on his toes because intellectual property, man. A quick programming note: I read your comments on the last article and haven’t given up on goal-by-goal analysis posts. I’m going to continue with this (because I think collecting the data over a full season will be worthwhile) but also start GBGA’s when the B1G season starts. Also, I can only do Corsi analyses for games that I have in full, so there won’t be one for the RIT game. Should be a Corsi post for this weekend's games, though, so look for that next week.

Michigan Hockey and Corsi: An Experiment

Michigan Hockey and Corsi: An Experiment

Submitted by Adam Schnepp on October 10th, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Think back to when you started reading mgoblog. Remeber that feeling of validation that there were indeed people out there like you, people who wanted to write about football in way that was funny but also disarmingly analytical? A site that values both memes and knowing the average yards per play for every formation Michigan has run so far this season is my kind of place. It's the reason I've been reading this site since 2006. 

My objective for the coming hockey season is to add something empirical to the mix. I've always gravitated towards advanced stats in hockey, and for those of you who follow college hockey know all too well these types of statistics aren't readily available outside of the NHL. What I'm going to attempt to do is track Michigan's Corsi rating over the entire season. 

Of course, Corsi is just one statistic (even if I'll break it down into a number of different components). The "big idea" behind Corsi is that you have to hold on to the puck to score, and that the team who does a better job of this has a better chance of winning. At the end of the day it provides some interesting insight into puck possession and could be useful for gauging the strength or weakness of special teams play, but it isn't a be-all-end-all stat. There are score effect problems, most notably that even strengh Corsi or Corsi from within one goal in the first and second periods is correlated with winning but it gets dicey in other situations. More on this later.

If you're looking for a nice overview of the statistic you can find that here.

What I need to know from you guys is whether you find it interesting and useful enough to continue tracking. If the fine folks of the MGoCommunity don't like it then I'll go back to writing up goal-by-goal analysis posts like these.

That's cool and all but this post is really boring me. No pictures yet? Come on, do you at least have charts?

Charts? This is mgoblog, fergodsake. Of course I have charts! Let's start by looking at things by period before looking at the bigger picture.

1st Period

  Michigan Waterloo
Goals 0 1
Shots 18 6
Missed 14 5
Blocked 11 4
Total 43 16
% 72.9 27.1

You don't have to know much about Corsi to see that Michigan carried the play in the first period. 72.9% of shot attempts came from the Wolverines, yet Waterloo ended up with the lone first period goal. Michigan made one mistake in defensive coverage in front of their own net and Waterloo took advantage. It's worth noting, however, that Michigan's Corsi total was bolstered by time on the power play (Waterloo didn't have one in the 1st). UM recorded five shots, seven missed shots, and five blocked shots over their two power plays.

2nd Period

  Michigan Waterloo
Goals 1 1
Shots 9 11
Missed 5 4
Blocked 5 5
Total 20 21
% 48.8 51.2

Waterloo seemed to carry play in the second period and the Corsi numbers reflect that. Michigan's goal was something of a fluke, coming after Waterloo's goaltender badly misplayed the puck in front of his own net. Waterloo did get on the power play in the 2nd period, but they failed to register a shot. Their power play generated one missed shot and two blocked shots. Michigan's power play registered three shots, two missed shots, and two blocked shots.

3rd Period

  Michigan Waterloo
Goals 0 0
Shots 10 6
Missed 9 2
Blocked 5 2
Total 24 10
% 70.6 29.4

Here's where the score effect problem I mentioned earlier comes into play. Waterloo was content to carry the puck into the neutral zone and play dump-and-chase in order to burn clock, and when you're playing that style a byproduct is a reduction in the number of shots you take. As you can see, that's certainly reflected in the numbers above. 

Overall

  Michigan Waterloo
Goals 1 2
Shots 37 23
Missed 25 11
Blocked 21 11
Total 84 47
% 64.1 35.9

Michigan had the edge in every category tracked here, yet they couldn't convert opportunities into results. I think that the reason for this lies in the type of shots Michigan was taking; most were from the perimeter, and perimeter shots are much easier for a goaltender to stop than shots through traffic. It will be interesting to see how the possession game plays out against BC, a team with a notoriously stringent defense.

Don't you usually draw on screencaps or something? Why are there all these charts?

Yeah, I call the screencap thing goal-by-goal analysis. I'm not set on moving away from that completely, but I want to know if people find the info above interesting. Like it and I'll keep tracking it, hate it and I'll go back to GBGA.