Scoring Chances
| Team | Period | Time | Note | Home | Away | State | ||||||||||
| Home | 1 | 12:53 | Maroon from Getzlaf, miss | 4 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 19 | 31 | 8 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 48 | 80 | 5v5 |
| Away | 1 | 7:45 | Hertl from Nieto, miss | 4 | 6 | 12 | 17 | 31 | 39 | 8 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 61 | 83 | 5v5 |
| Away | 1 | 7:04 | Couture from Marleau, save (5v4 PP) | 15 | 23 | 31 | 44 | 47 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 89 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 1 | 6:45 | Burns from Marleau, save (5v4 PP) | 3 | 31 | 33 | 44 | 45 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 89 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 1 | 6:32 | Marleau from Pavelski, save (5v4 PP) | 3 | 31 | 33 | 44 | 45 | 8 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 89 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 1 | 2:28 | Hertl from Sheppard, save (5v4 PP) | 7 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 47 | 15 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 57 | 61 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 1 | 2:25 | Sheppard from Hertl, save (5v4 PP) | 3 | 15 | 17 | 31 | 45 | 4 | 10 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 1 | 2:09 | Couture from Marleau, miss | 3 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 31 | 45 | 4 | 10 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 5v5 |
| Away | 1 | 0:39 | Tennyson from Sheppard, save (5v4 PP) | 15 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 47 | 15 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 57 | 80 | 4v5 | |
| Away | 1 | 0:03 | Couture from Braun, save | 4 | 6 | 15 | 17 | 31 | 45 | 15 | 31 | 44 | 48 | 57 | 80 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 15:28 | Perry from Kesler, save (5v4 PP) | 10 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 31 | 45 | 10 | 31 | 44 | 83 | 88 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 2 | 14:51 | Rakell from Vatanen, post (5v4 PP) | 12 | 15 | 31 | 39 | 45 | 67 | 12 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 2 | 13:44 | Silfverberg from Cogliano, miss | 3 | 7 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 44 | 4 | 15 | 31 | 68 | 88 | 89 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 12:39 | Hertl from Vlasic, save | 4 | 6 | 12 | 17 | 31 | 39 | 8 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 48 | 61 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 10:28 | Desjardins, save | 10 | 19 | 23 | 31 | 47 | 67 | 8 | 10 | 27 | 31 | 38 | 80 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 4:55 | Etem from Rakell, save | 12 | 16 | 23 | 31 | 47 | 67 | 4 | 8 | 31 | 48 | 83 | 88 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 4:54 | Etem, waived off goal | 12 | 16 | 23 | 31 | 47 | 67 | 4 | 8 | 31 | 48 | 83 | 88 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 3:23 | Marleau from Couture, miss | 3 | 12 | 17 | 31 | 39 | 45 | 4 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 57 | 88 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 2:55 | Wingels, save | 4 | 6 | 10 | 15 | 19 | 31 | 4 | 12 | 31 | 39 | 57 | 88 | 5v5 |
| Away | 3 | 19:09 | Burns, miss (5v3 PP) | 6 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 88 | 89 | 3v2 | |||||
| Away | 3 | 18:51 | Goodrow from Couture, miss (5v3 PP) | 6 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 88 | 89 | 3v2 | |||||
| Away | 3 | 18:41 | Marleau from Pavelski, save (5v3 PP) | 6 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 88 | 89 | 3v2 | |||||
| Away | 3 | 18:25 | Marleau from Couture, save (5v3 PP) | 6 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 88 | 89 | 3v2 | |||||
| Away | 3 | 18:09 | Couture from Pavelski, miss (5v3 PP) | 6 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 88 | 89 | 3v2 | |||||
| Away | 3 | 18:03 | Pavelski from Burns, goal (5v3 PP) | 6 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 8 | 88 | 89 | 3v2 | |||||
| Home | 3 | 15:09 | Perry from Kesler, save (5v4 PP) | 10 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 31 | 45 | 8 | 12 | 44 | 61 | 5v3 | ||
| Home | 3 | 12:13 | Perry from Getzlaf, miss | 3 | 10 | 15 | 31 | 39 | 45 | 12 | 39 | 44 | 57 | 61 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 3 | 6:49 | Getzlaf from Lindholm, save (4v4) | 10 | 15 | 23 | 31 | 47 | 4 | 15 | 83 | 88 | 4v3 | |||
| Away | 3 | 4:12 | Marleau from Pavelski, miss (5v4 PP) | 17 | 23 | 31 | 44 | 47 | 8 | 12 | 39 | 88 | 89 | 4v4 | ||
| Home | 3 | 2:20 | Lindholm, save | 10 | 15 | 19 | 23 | 31 | 47 | 4 | 12 | 39 | 61 | 68 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 3 | 0:19 | Cogliano from Beauchemin, miss | 7 | 23 | 31 | 33 | 47 | 67 | 4 | 15 | 68 | 80 | 89 | 5v4 | |
*Note: Obviously these numbers get very weird near the end, so ignore the game state and players on the ice given on the right from the start of the third period onward (refer instead to my notes for info on the game state).
Even strength: 7-8 Anaheim
Powerplay: 13-0
Penalty Kill: 0-3
Obviously score effects had a pretty big role in this game, not only on the shot clock (shots on goal were 22-13 through two periods, then 5-15 in the third period), but on scoring chances as well, as San Jose held a 7-4 even strength lead on scoring chances through two periods, before getting outchanced 0-4 at even strength in the third period.
Another thing that played a big role in this game was obviously special teams. Though they owe it largely to the egregiously undisciplined play of the Anaheim Ducks, the Sharks stacked up a ridiculous amount of scoring chances on the powerplay last night, turning a -1 scoring chance differential at evens into a +9 scoring chance differential overall.
Zone Entries
San Jose
| Player | # of successful entries | Shots generated from player’s entries | Shots per entry | # of controlled entries | Shots generated from player’s controlled entries | Shots per controlled entry | % of entries with control | Failed entries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 8 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 67% | 1 |
| 10 | 5 | 2 | 0.40 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 20% | 0 |
| 12 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 25% | 3 |
| 15 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 19 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | 0 |
| 27 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 38 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 39 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 100% | 0 |
| 44 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | 0 |
| 48 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 25% | 0 |
| 57 | 4 | 10 | 2.50 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 25% | 0 |
| 61 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 33% | 0 |
| 68 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 80 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 1 |
| 83 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 50% | 0 |
| 88 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | 0 |
| 89 | 9 | 3 | 0.33 | 4 | 2 | 0.50 | 44% | 0 |
| Team | 51 | 25 | 0.49 | 16 | 9 | 0.56 | 31% | 5 |
| Opp | 53 | 27 | 0.51 | 22 | 14 | 0.64 | 42% | 5 |
Anaheim
| Player | # of successful entries | Shots generated from player’s entries | Shots per entry | # of controlled entries | Shots generated from player’s controlled entries | Shots per controlled entry | % of entries with control | Failed entries | Percent of carry-ins that fail |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANA3 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA4 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 50% | 0 | 0.0% |
| ANA6 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA7 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 2 | 3 | 1.50 | 67% | 0 | 0.0% |
| ANA10 | 3 | 4 | 1.33 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 67% | 1 | 33.3% |
| ANA12 | 7 | 1 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA15 | 5 | 3 | 0.60 | 4 | 2 | 0.50 | 80% | 0 | 0.0% |
| ANA16 | 5 | 3 | 0.60 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 60% | 0 | 0.0% |
| ANA17 | 5 | 4 | 0.80 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 40% | 1 | 33.3% |
| ANA18 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA19 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA23 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA33 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 33% | 0 | 0.0% |
| ANA39 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 67% | 1 | 33.3% |
| ANA44 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 67% | 1 | 33.3% |
| ANA45 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 100% | 0 | 0.0% |
| ANA47 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 | #DIV/0! |
| ANA67 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 67% | 1 | 33.3% |
| Team | 53 | 27 | 0.51 | 22 | 14 | 0.64 | 42% | 5 | 18.5% |
Again, I’m taking a lot of this game with a grain of salt, due to the large role that both score effects and special teams played in it, but I must say I’m astounded by just how few of San Jose’s entries occurred with control of the puck. The Sharks generally average around a 40% carry-in rate, but their 30% this game has got to be the lowest I’ve ever seen. Wingels and Goodrow had good performances through the neutral zone, and Couture was fantastic, carrying the puck in three times on three entry attempts, as well as seeing the team average one Fenwick event per each of his entries.
On the Anaheim side of things, they honestly had so many players with good entry nights that it’s kinda impractical to name all of them. Team wide, they did a great job of creating shot attempts, with Perry and Cogliano being huge contributors to that.
Entry Targeting
San Jose
| Player # | # of entry attempts against | Carry-ins against | Failed entries against | Carry % against | Break up % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 45.45 | 18.18 |
| 5 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 12 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 19 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 25 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 27 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 60.00 | 0.00 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 38 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 39 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 41 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 43 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 44 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 25.00 | 0.00 |
| 48 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 52 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 57 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 33.33 | 0.00 |
| 61 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 25.00 | 12.50 |
| 68 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 75 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 76 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 80 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 66.67 | 0.00 |
| 81 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 83 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 88 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 33.33 | 11.11 |
| 89 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| Team | 53 | 21 | 4 | 39.62 | 7.55 |
Anaheim
| Player # | # of entry attempts against | Carry-ins against | Failed entries against | Carry % against | Break up % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 40.00 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 40.00 | 0.00 |
| 6 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 28.57 | 14.29 |
| 7 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 10 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 14 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 17 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 18 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 19 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 21 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 23 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 10.00 | 10.00 |
| 28 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 33 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 38 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 39 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 42 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 44 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 45 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 20.00 | 0.00 |
| 47 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 16.67 | 33.33 |
| 51 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 62 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 67 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| Team | 48 | 14 | 4 | 29.17 | 8.33 |
I’m almost convinced that New Year’s miracles exist now, as Burns finally had a good game defending against zone entries, being part of a good team wide effort of preventing Anaheim from carrying the puck into the zone too often. Once again, we see that the Sharks’ third pairing was their weakest at defending against zone entries, as they allowed seven carry-ins against on eleven Anaheim entry attempts. Arguably the only thing Hannan has done well this season is defend against zone entries. With his last two games though, he’s setting a downward trend there, making him a player that literally serves zero purpose for the Sharks while he’s in the lineup.
The Ducks as a whole did a great job of preventing San Jose carry-ins in this game, but I think Francois Beauchemin’s work is especially notable. I’m not sure he gets enough credit (largely due to age, I imagine) for the work he does, but the numbers here really show one of the ways he can make an impact on a game, stifling San Jose when they targeted him in the neutral zone.
Zone Exits
San Jose
| Player # | Touches | In-Zone Passes | Pass-Outs | Carry-Outs | Turnovers | Icings | Overall Success % | Exit Success % | Turnover % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 18 | 11 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 16.67 | 42.86 | 22.22 |
| 5 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 20.00 | 33.33 | 40.00 |
| 10 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 66.67 | 80.00 | 16.67 |
| 12 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 25.00 | 33.33 | 50.00 |
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 15 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 25.00 | 40.00 | 37.50 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 19 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 40.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 25 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 27 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 16.67 | 25.00 | 50.00 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 38 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 39 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 50.00 |
| 41 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 43 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 44 | 9 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 11.11 | 50.00 | 11.11 |
| 48 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 66.67 | 25.00 |
| 50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 52 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 57 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 37.50 | 50.00 | 37.50 |
| 61 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 14.29 | 25.00 | 42.86 |
| 68 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 30.00 | 42.86 | 40.00 |
| 75 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 76 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 80 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 11.11 | 33.33 | 22.22 |
| 81 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 83 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 80.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 88 | 21 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 42.86 |
| 89 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 33.33 | 50.00 | 33.33 |
| Totals: | 149 | 66 | 14 | 20 | 48 | 1 | 22.82 | 40.96 | 32.21 |
Anaheim
| Player # | Touches | In-Zone Passes | Pass-Outs | Carry-Outs | Turnovers | Icings | Overall Success % | Exit Success % | Turnover % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 40.00 | 50.00 | 40.00 |
| 4 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 30.00 | 60.00 | 20.00 |
| 6 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 25.00 | 40.00 | 37.50 |
| 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 12 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 66.67 | 25.00 |
| 14 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 15 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 40.00 | 50.00 | 40.00 |
| 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100.00 |
| 17 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 60.00 | 75.00 | 20.00 |
| 18 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 50.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 19 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 66.67 |
| 21 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 23 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 |
| 28 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 33 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 38 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 39 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 42.86 |
| 42 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 44 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | #DIV/0! | 0.00 |
| 45 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 45.45 |
| 47 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 20.00 | 50.00 | 20.00 |
| 51 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 62 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 67 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 50.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| Team | 88 | 38 | 10 | 11 | 28 | 1 | 23.86 | 42.00 | 31.82 |
The Sharks came extremely close to having every one of their defensemen manage a successful breakout last night, but Burns and his 43% turnover rate got in the way of that. That being said, the defense did a much better job at breaking the puck out in this game than they did against Vancouver, as they managed eight successful breakouts, compared to the measly three they managed against the Canucks.
The Ducks’ D also generally managed to do a good job on zone exits last night, with only Sami Vatanen not managing a successful breakout from their back end. Cogliano’s lack of success on zone exits also came as a surprise, as the two-way wizard turned the puck over three times on his three D-zone “touches.” On the opposite side of the scale, Getzlaf and Kesler did quite well, breaking the puck out of their zone with quite a bit of success.
As many of you know, Fear the Fin is an independent site run by Sharks fans for Sharks fans. Help keep Fear the Fin independent by contributing to our