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	14	20	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