Sunday, April 17, 2011

Game 2 Vs Boston 3-1 win April 16, 2011

Eller arrives with top grade in Game 2

The Montreal Canadiens posted a grade 3 points above the team's season average on route to a 3-1 win over the Boston Bruins. The win allowed the Habs to grab a 2-0 series lead heading home for game 3.

Lars Eller (75) along with Travis Moen (75) had the top team grade. The two forwards were followed closely by Roman Hamrlik (74) and David Desharnais (73). Brian Gionta (70) rounded out the top-5.

For the second-game in a row, the lowest grade went to Benoit Pouliot (56). Pouliot's grade was just slightly below Tomas Plekanec (58) and Scott Gomez (57).


6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
WINS 36 36 41 49 41 39 42 49 39 24 22 15 29 26 38 55 50 28 6 WINS 664
BATTLES 53 63 62 84 59 56 56 66 57 35 38 27 40 39 60 91 67 42 12 BATTLES 1007
GRADE 68 57 66 58 69 70 75 74 68 69 58 56 73 67 63 60 75 67 50 GRADE 66
PLAYER 6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM GR


Offensive-zone team-averages

The Habs won 59% of their offensive-zone puck-battles, while completing 65% of their offensive-zone passes; both metrics were below their season average. Montreal had a grade below their season average when attempting to dump the puck into the offensive zone, but made up for the low grade as they had an 82% success-rate when attempting to carry the puck into the offensive-zone; ten percentage-points above their season average.

METRIC TM WIN% METRIC SEASON AVERAGE
%OZPBW 59 %OZPBW 57
OZPASS% 65 OZPASS% 71
OZDEAK% 53 OZDEAK% 59
SKI% 82 SKI% 72
DI% 76 DI% 78
OZTA 9 OZTA
METRIC TM WIN% METRIC SEASON AVERAGE


Offensive-zone player-averages

Travis Moen and Ryan White were both successful with 100% of their offensive-zone puck-battles. Brian Gionta and David Desharnais were also successful in the o-zone, as they both won more than 70% of their OZPBs.

Mike Cammalleri (33%) had the lowest success rate for offensive-zone puck-battles among forwards, while both Jaroslav Spacek (33%) and James Wisniewski (25%) had the lowest marks among defensemen.

Puck distributors Tomas Plekanec (33%) and Scott Gomez (40%) had the lowest passing percentage among forwards in the offensive-zone, while Eller was successful with 80% of his offensive-zone pass attempts.

Cammalleri led the team with 4 offensive-zone takeaways, while 4 players were successful with 100% if their attempted dump-ins.

METRIC 6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31 METRIC TEAM TOT
%OZPBW 33 50 33 62 25 71 100
50 100 67 67 75 50 0 56 67
%OZPBW 59
OZPASS% 100 40 70 33 100 67 78 75 100 0 50 60 50 100 67 80 100
OZPASS% 65
OZDEAK%

100 50
50 0



0 0

100 67
OZDEAK% 53
SKI%
67 100 80 100 100 100
100

0 67
100 100 67
SKI% 82
DI% 50 75 100 67 100 75 71 71 75 100 80 100 67 67 67 0

DI% 76
OZTA 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 OZTA 9

6 11 13 1420 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31
TEAM TOT


Defensive-zone team averages

The Habs were below-average in all 3 defensive-zone metrics, but blocked 6 more shots during this game compared to game 1 against the Bruins.

METRIC TM WIN% METRIC SEASON AVERAGE
%DZPBW 54 %DZPBW 59
DZPASS% 63 DZPASS% 71
DZDEAK% 57 DZDEAK% 73
DZTA 36 DZTA
DZ-BL-SHOT 32 DZ-BL-SHOT
DZ-BL-PASS 4 DZ-BL-PASS
METRIC TM WIN% METRIC SEASON AVERAGE


Defensive-zone player averages

Cammalleri and Pouliot won the lowest-percentage of defensive-zone puck-battles among forwards, while Wisniewski had the lowest mark among d-men. In contrast Roman Hamrlik won 69% of his defensive-zone puck-battles, to lead the team.

Wisniewski completed 75% of his defensive-zone passes, while both Gionta, Moen and Pouliot completed all of their defensive-zone pass attempts. Usually solid defensively, Plekanec was only able to complete 33% of his defensive-zone pass-attempts.

Hal Gill led all players with 6 blocked shots. Followed closely by Hamrlik and Sopel with 4 blocked shots each. Hamrlik led all d-men with 7 defensive-zone takeaways, while Spacek took second-place with 6 d-zone takeaways.


6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31
TEAM TOT
%DZPBW 50 46 33 60 27 67 58 69 63 67 40 33 67 59 62 64 40 0 %DZPBW 54
DZPASS% 71 100 0 33 75 100 100 52 56 67 62 100 75 53 51 86 60 67 DZPASS% 63
DZDEAK%
100 50










100 33

DZDEAK% 57
DZTA 6 2 0 2 2 3 0 7 1 0 0 0 2 3 4 3 1 0 DZTA 36
DZ-BL-SHOT 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 4 2 0 4 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 DZ-BL-SHOT 32
DZ-BL-PASS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 DZ-BL-PASS 4

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31
TEAM TOT


Neutral-zone team averages

Montreal ended the game with marks below their season average in 2 of 3 neutral-zone categories. That said, the Habs 43% success-rate for neutral-zone puck-battles was actually 5 percentage points above their game 1 total.

METRIC TM WIN% METRIC SEASON AVERAGE
%NZPBW 43 %NZPBW 56
NZPASS% 72 NZPASS% 74
NZDEAK% 86 NZDEAK% 77
NZTA 12 NZTA
METRIC TM WIN% METRIC SEASON AVERAGE


Neutral-zone player averages

Travis Moen had a particular tough time in the neutral-zone. He won only 25% of his neutral-zone puck-battles, and was unable to complete any passes in the neutral-zone. Gionta had the most neutral-zone takeaways, while also completing 75% of his neutral-zone pass attempts. Seven players were able to complete 100% of their n-zone pass-attempts.


6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31
TEAM TOT
%NZPBW 100 50 29 0
33 25 67 33 80
100 100 0

60
%NZPBW 43
NZPASS% 0 100 67 100 100 75 0 100 0 0

100

100 100
NZPASS% 72
NZDEAK%
100
100






0

100 100 100
NZDEAK% 86
NZTA 0 2 1 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NZTA 12

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31
TEAM TOT


Player shots through / blocked / missed

SEASON AVERAGE
61


Montreal was only able to get 53% of their shots through to the net, with Gomez, Plekanec and Subban among players held off the scorecard for this metric.


6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 75 76 81 94 31
TEAM TOT
PSTHRU% 50 0 50 0 71 25 100
100


100 100 0 50 50
PSTHRU% 53























Team and player faceoff averages

The Habs struggled winning even-strength faceoffs in both the defensive and neutral-zones. That said, they were above average in special-team faceoffs.


11 13 14 32 53 57 58 81 94
TEAM TOT SEASON AVERAGE
DZFOW% 0
60
20
50 33
DZFOW% 33 50
DZPKFOW%

33 100




DZPKFOW% 50 48
OZPPFOW%
100 50





OZPPFOW% 67 56
OZFOW% 33
33
100 100 33 100 0 OZFOW% 50 46
NZFOW% 25
44



0
NZFOW% 33 51

11 13 14 32 53 57 58 81 94
TEAM TOT SEASON AVERAGE


Individual raw data


6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
OZPBW 1 2 3 8 1 5 7
5 2 2 6 3 2 1
5 6
OZPBW 59
OZPBL 2 2 6 5 3 2

5
1 3 1 1 1 2 4 3
OZPBL 41
OZPASS+ 2 2 7 4 3 2 7 3 3
1 3 1 4 1 2 4 2
OZPASS+ 51
OZPASS-
3 3 8
1 2 1
2 1 2 1 1
1 1

OZPASS- 27
OZDEAK+

2 1
1









2 2
OZDEAK+ 8
OZDEAK-


1
1 1



2 1



1
OZDEAK- 7
SKI +
2 3 4 1 4 2
3


2 1
1 3 2
SKI + 28
SKI-
1
1






1 1 1


1
SKI- 6
DI+ 1 3 5 4 3 3 5 5 6 5 4 2 2 3 4 4


DI+ 59
DI- 1 1
2
1 2 2 2
1
1 1 2 2 1

DI- 19
OZTA

4 1




2


1

1

OZTA 9

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
DZPBW 8 6 1 3 3 4 7 9 5 4 4 1 6 2 13 18 7 2
DZPBW 103
DZPBL 8 7 2 2 8 2 5 4 3 2 6 2 3 5 9 11 4 3 3 DZPBL 89
DZPASS+ 12 6
1 15 2 6 12 5 2 8 1 3 1 9 19 6 3 6 DZPASS+ 117
DZPASS- 5
1 2 5

11 4 1 5
1 1 8 18 1 2 3 DZPASS- 68
DZDEAK+
1 1











1 1

DZDEAK+ 4
DZDEAK-

1












2

DZDEAK- 3
DZTA 6 2
2 2 3
7 1


2
3 4 3 1
DZTA 36
DZ-BL-SHOT 2 3
1 1 1 2 4 2
4

2 6 2 2

DZ-BL-SHOT 32
DZ-BL-PASS


1



1 1




1


DZ-BL-PASS 4

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
NZPBW 1 2 2

2 1 2 1 4
2 1



3
NZPBW 21
NZPBL
2 5 4
4 3 1 2 1


2 2

2
NZPBL 28
NZPASS+
3 2 2 2 6
2



1


2 1
NZPASS+ 21
NZPASS- 1
1

2 1
1 1 1







NZPASS- 8
NZDEAK+
1
1










2 1 1
NZDEAK+ 6
NZDEAK-










1






NZDEAK- 1
NZTA
2 1 1 2 4
1




1




NZTA 12

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
DZFOW


3




1

1


2

DZFOW 7
DZFOL
3
2




4

1


4

DZFOL 14
DZPKFOW


1

1











DZPKFOW 2
DZPKFOL


2














DZPKFOL 2
OZPPFOW

1 1














OZPPFOW 2
OZPPFOL


1














OZPPFOL 1
OZFOW
1
1




2
1 1


1

OZFOW 7
OZFOL
2
2







2



1
OZFOL 7
NZFOW
1
4














NZFOW 5
NZFOL
3
5











2

NZFOL 10

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
PS THRU 1
2
5 1 1
3


2 3 1
2 2
PS THRU 23
OZ PS BL 1 2 2 2 2 3






2
2 2 2
OZ PS BL 20
POINTS X2

4
2

2 2



2

2

POINTS X2 14
+/- 1 -1 1 1
-1 1 2 -1
-1

1

1 1
+/- 5
SHOTS 1
3 1 1 2 3
3 1

3 3
1 2 2
SHOTS 26

6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM TOT
WINS 36 36 41 49 41 39 42 49 39 24 22 15 29 26 38 55 50 28 6 WINS 664
BATTLES 53 63 62 84 59 56 56 66 57 35 38 27 40 39 60 91 67 42 12 BATTLES 1007
GRADE 68 57 66 58 69 70 75 74 68 69 58 56 73 67 63 60 75 67 50 GRADE 66
PLAYER 6 11 13 14 20 21 32 44 52 53 55 57 58 68 75 76 81 94 31
TM GR


Average grades by line and defensive-duos

FORWARDS
LINE GRADE GAME
94 81 68 70 3-1 W
57 58 53 66 3-1 W
52 11 21 65 3-1 W
13 14 32 66 3-1 W


DEFENSEMAN
PAIR GRADE GAME
6 55 63 3-1 W
75 76 62 3-1 W
44 20 72 3-1 W


Why they won

-Solid support in all 3 zones
-Solid goaltending (again)
-blocked shots
-Opportunistic scoring

No comments:

Post a Comment