
A look at the scoring chance summary, on-ice scoring chances, team scoring chances, neutral zone stats, & the expected score from the Canucks 2-1 ot loss to the Sharks .
TEAM SCORING CHANCE TOTALS
Period | Totals | EV | PP | SH | ||||
VAN | SJS | VAN | SJS | VAN | SJS | VAN | SJS | |
1 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
2 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
3 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
OVR | 19 | 13 | 16 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
COMPLETE SCORING CHANCE SUMMARY
Team | Period | Time | Note | Home | Away | State | ||||||||||
Home | 1 | 17:39 | Booth backhand from Kassian, miss | 1 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 27 | 31 | 83 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 14:57 | Tanev from Richardson, save | 1 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 15 | 5 | 8 | 9 | 27 | 31 | 83 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 14:19 | Richardson - ms deflection | 1 | 3 | 7 | 15 | 18 | 21 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 31 | 83 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 12:24 | Santorelli from Higgins, save | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 5 | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 81 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 11:09 | Sheppard deflection from Desjardins, save | 1 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 15 | 10 | 15 | 22 | 31 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 7:46 | Thornton one-timer from Marleau, goalpost (5v4 PP) | 1 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 25 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 22 | 31 | 39 | 4v5 | |
Away | 1 | 7:31 | Pavelski jam play, save (5v4 PP) | 1 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 25 | 8 | 12 | 19 | 22 | 31 | 39 | 4v5 | |
Home | 1 | 5:15 | H. Sedin from Burrows, save | 1 | 3 | 14 | 18 | 22 | 33 | 8 | 15 | 22 | 31 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 |
Home | 1 | 5:15 | H. Sedin - rush | 1 | 3 | 14 | 18 | 22 | 33 | 8 | 15 | 22 | 31 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 |
Away | 1 | 3:11 | Couture from Kennedy, save | 1 | 3 | 7 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 5 | 8 | 15 | 27 | 31 | 43 | 5v5 |
Home | 2 | 15:23 | Higgins from Burrows, miss | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 5 | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 81 | 5v5 |
Away | 2 | 12:15 | Thornton from Hertl, miss | 1 | 2 | 7 | 8 | 17 | 20 | 7 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 81 | 5v5 |
Home | 2 | 10:55 | Kesler from D. Sedin, save (5v4 PP) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 22 | 33 | 7 | 12 | 31 | 57 | 61 | 5v4 | |
Home | 2 | 9:12 | H. Sedin one-timer from Edler, miss | 1 | 5 | 14 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 12 | 22 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 81 | 5v5 |
Away | 2 | 7:34 | Vlasic from Thornton, save (4v4) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 17 | 20 | 5 | 9 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 4v4 | ||
Away | 2 | 6:55 | Couture off turnover, save (4v4) | 1 | 5 | 22 | 23 | 33 | 7 | 31 | 39 | 57 | 61 | 4v4 | ||
Home | 2 | 6:31 | Burrows one-timer from H. Sedin, miss (5v4 PP) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 22 | 33 | 7 | 12 | 31 | 61 | 83 | 5v4 | |
Home | 2 | 6:31 | Burrows - ms - pp | 1 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 22 | 33 | 7 | 12 | 31 | 61 | 83 | 5v4 | |
Home | 2 | 5:51 | Richardson | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 8 | 15 | 22 | 31 | 43 | 44 | 5v5 |
Home | 2 | 4:53 | Kesler from D. Sedin, save | 1 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 22 | 33 | 5 | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 81 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 18:48 | Higgins from Tanev, save | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 8 | 12 | 22 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 18:42 | Higgins | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 8 | 12 | 22 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 |
Away | 3 | 16:24 | Couture one-timer from Marleau, save | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 61 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 11:53 | Burrows from Higgins, save | 1 | 5 | 14 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 7 | 31 | 43 | 48 | 57 | 61 | 5v5 |
Away | 3 | 10:35 | Couture deflection from Marleau, miss | 1 | 2 | 8 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 8 | 12 | 22 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 9:44 | H. Sedin ms | 1 | 3 | 22 | 23 | 33 | 19 | 22 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 4v4 | ||
Away | 3 | 7:43 | Sheppard, save | 1 | 5 | 7 | 14 | 23 | 25 | 7 | 15 | 31 | 43 | 61 | 81 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 4:48 | Burrows - ms | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 5 | 8 | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 5v5 |
Home | 3 | 2:25 | Burrows backhand from Higgins, save | 1 | 2 | 8 | 14 | 20 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 61 | 5v5 |
Away | 3 | 1:05 | Hertl - (goal) | 1 | 5 | 14 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 61 | 5v5 |
Away | 3 | 0:23 | McCarthy | 1 | 2 | 8 | 17 | 22 | 33 | 15 | 22 | 31 | 43 | 44 | 81 | 5v5 |
Away | 4 | 2:22 | Boyle (4 on 3) | I | n | v | a | l | i | d | D | a | t | a |
CANUCK ON-ICE SCORING CHANCES FOR AND AGAINST
# | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
1 | LUONGO, ROBERTO | 16 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |||
2 | HAMHUIS, DAN | 20:27 | 8 | 6 | 02:05 | 3 | 0 | 03:08 | 0 | 2 |
3 | BIEKSA, KEVIN | 18:40 | 5 | 2 | 01:52 | 3 | 0 | 01:49 | 0 | 0 |
5 | GARRISON, JASON | 16:48 | 2 | 3 | 00:38 | 0 | 0 | 00:53 | 0 | 0 |
7 | BOOTH, DAVID | 12:04 | 4 | 4 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
8 | TANEV, CHRISTOPHER | 19:48 | 9 | 5 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 03:22 | 0 | 2 |
9 | KASSIAN, ZACK | 10:55 | 3 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
14 | BURROWS, ALEXANDRE | 15:50 | 10 | 3 | 00:51 | 2 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
15 | RICHARDSON, BRAD | 11:29 | 4 | 3 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 03:03 | 0 | 2 |
17 | KESLER, RYAN | 19:02 | 1 | 3 | 01:39 | 1 | 0 | 02:37 | 0 | 0 |
18 | STANTON, RYAN | 12:34 | 5 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
20 | HIGGINS, CHRIS | 18:33 | 8 | 5 | 00:21 | 0 | 0 | 01:38 | 0 | 0 |
21 | DALPE, ZAC | 04:16 | 1 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
22 | SEDIN, DANIEL | 21:24 | 4 | 2 | 02:09 | 3 | 0 | 00:30 | 0 | 0 |
23 | EDLER, ALEXANDER | 21:52 | 3 | 3 | 00:25 | 0 | 0 | 00:39 | 0 | 0 |
25 | SANTORELLI, MIKE | 15:51 | 8 | 4 | 00:21 | 0 | 0 | 02:04 | 0 | 2 |
33 | SEDIN, HENRIK | 21:32 | 4 | 2 | 02:09 | 3 | 0 | 00:30 | 0 | 0 |
Statistical Three Stars:
- Anti Neimi {+2. rating)
- Kevin Bieksa
- The Canucks 2nd Line (The trio had an 60% Pos. F)
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 | 15 | 30 | 50% | 13 | 29 | 45% | |
2 | 16 | 22 | 72% | 8 | 17 | 47% | |
3 | 11 | 21 | 45% | 16 | 33 | 48% | |
Total | 42 | 73 | 58% | 37 | 79 | 47% |
- The Canucks were the better team by OZE%.
- Holding the Sharks under 50% OZE in each period was a huge achievement.
- The Canucks sat back in the third period and allowed the Sharks to carry the play.
- The Canucks had a high total of 26 successful 'carry ins'. And, 13 in the 2nd period.
- The Canucks had 16 successful 'dump ins' (31 att.) for a season high rate of (52%).
- The Canucks aggressive forecheck was extremely effective .
- The Canucks won the puck battle game decisively!
- San Jose also had a very high total of 32 'carry ins' - 17 in the 3rd period.
- The Sharks had only 10 'dump in' wins out of 34 for only a rate of (29%).
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 | SAN JOSE | ||||||
Period | Successful | Attempted | % | Successful | Attempted | % | |
1 | 15 | 33 | 45% | 11 | 34 | 43% | |
2 | 14 | 28 | 50% | 8 | 28 | 26% | |
3 | 12 | 36 | 33% | 12 | 29 | 43% | |
Total | 41 | 97 | 42% | 31 | 101 | 30% |
- Neither team was above average in DZE%.
- The very high turnover totals (see below) confirms this fact.
- The Canucks were content to dump the puck out, when necessary, in the tird period.
- The Sharks had a pitiful night moving the puck out of their zone with possession.
- DZE% shows us that the Sharks are also vulnerable on the defence.
- The Canucks forecheck confounded the Sharks and cause numerous turnovers (see below).
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} | |
3.3 = 3.0 (.3) {0} | 2.5 = 1.9 (.6) {0} |
- Expected Score suggests the most likely outcome was Vancouver 3 - San Jose 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 ~ 2.3.
- Luongo's rating was +.3.
- Antti Neimi had an {EGA} of ~3.0.
- Niemi's rating was +2.0.
- The Sharks won the goaltending battle by nearly ~2 goals.
TURNOVERS (EvenStrength)
- Vancouver had a very high total of 27 turnovers.
- The Canucks turnover rates is the single most concerning statistic of this team.
- The Sharks had an even higher total of 33 turnovers.
THE DECIDING FACTORS
- The Sharks goaltending and luck were the key factors in the game.
- The Canucks won every stat battle in the game.
- Once again, the Canucks did not receive the penalty calls they deserved.
- The Canucks are now -20 in Power play differential versus the Sharks in the last 8 games.
- The Canucks rank 28th in power plays in the league with ~3/gm.
- The Sharks are 1st. The Kings are 3rd. The Coyotes 6th. The Ducks 11th.
- To put these numbers in perspective:
- The Sharks have had more than 3 powerplays 12 times this year.
- The Canucks only 4 times.
- The better team ought to draw more penalties- it isn't happening enough in Canuck games.
Finally, much has been said about how difficult the Canucks' division is. This is accurate. However, the Canucks are really improving as a team. In the last 5 games (4 on the road) they have bettered their Pacific Division rivals with ~57% Pos. F Close rating (103-79 in shot attempts).This is good news long term for Canuck fans, now it is time to get some calls and finish more scoring chances.
Feel free to comment below!
SHOTS ATTEMPTED CHART