By the numbers: Game 41 vs. Minnesota

Scoring Chances

Team	Period	Time	Note	Home						Away						State
Away	1	15:51	Irwin from Tennyson, save	6	21	22	26	35	46	8	32	39	52	68	80	5v5
Home	1	9:35	Vanek from Suter rebound, save (5v4 PP)	9	16	20	26	29	35	4	8	32	57	61		5v4
Home	1	9:14	Vanek from Pominville, miss (5v4 PP)	9	16	20	26	29	35	4	8	32	57	61		5v4
Away	1	8:45	Desjardins from Nieto, save (4v5 PK)	3	6	14	22	35	46	10	32	44	83	88		5v4
Away	1	7:15	Nieto from Hertl, miss	5	21	22	26	35	44	15	32	48	52	80	83	5v5
Away	1	7:06	Sheppard, save	5	21	22	26	35	44	15	32	48	52	80	83	5v5
Away	1	5:43	Tennyson from Pavelski, save	3	14	20	24	25	35	8	32	39	52	68	80	5v5
Away	1	5:05	Karlsson from Couture, save	18	20	25	27	35	56	8	32	39	44	68	88	5v5
Home	1	4:40	Zucker, goal	6	9	16	29	35	46	4	12	32	57	61	89	5v5
Home	2	19:36	Zucker from Pominville, save	9	16	29				8	32	39	44	68	88	2v5
Away	2	19:00	Goodrow from Braun, save	6	21	22	26	46		4	12	32	61	75	89	4v5
Home	2	15:56	Vanek from Suter rebound, save	9	16	20	26	46		10	12	32	44	80	88	4v5
Away	2	12:31	Goodrow from Burns rebound, miss	6	9	16	29	46		12	32	44	57	88	89	4v5
Away	2	9:07	Karlsson from Burns, goal	5	27	29	44	56		8	32	39	52	68	88	4v5
Away	2	8:05	Pavelski from Marleau, save (4v4)	6	16	22	46			4	8	12	32	44		3v4
Away	2	7:14	Pavelski from Wingels, miss (5v4 PP)	20	25	26	56			4	8	15	57	61		3v4
Away	3	12:26	Wingels from Sheppard, goal	14	20	21	24	25	35	4	12	32	57	61	89	5v5
Home	3	7:49	Zucker from Coyle, goal	3	16	20	25	29	35	4	10	15	32	61	83	5v5
Away	3	1:53	Wingels from Couture, miss (5v4 PP)	21	22	35	44	46		8	12	32	39	57	88	4v5
Home	4	3:18	Vanek from Suter, save (4v4)	20	26	29	35	46		32	52	68	80	83		4v4

*Apologies for the wonkiness of these numbers again. Game state is messed up for two of the scoring chances in the second period.

Even strength: 10-5

Powerplay: 2-0

Penalty kill: 1-2

SJ Even strength scoring chance save percentage: 60.0%

MIN Even strength scoring chance save percentage: 80.0%

Although the amount of scoring chances in this game saw a steady decline after the first period, the Sharks’ dominance stayed steady throughout. Scoring chances at evens were 6-3 in the first, and 4-2 the rest of the way,

Although Jason Zucker’s 17% shooting percentage is doing a lot to help him look good this season, it’s worth noting that it’s not just his goal totals that make him good. Playing on Minnesota’s top line likely helped quite a bit, but he was responsible for three of the Wild’s five scoring chances at evens on top of scoring two of their goals. Jeff Marek and Greg Wyshynski discussed it on their podcast recently, and I think it’s a very valid point that Vanek is really a redundancy on the Wild. If Parise is healthy, I think Zucker would be a great candidate to play in their top-6, but instead he’s being pushed down the lineup by a guy on pace for under twenty goals, a shade over fifty points, and who’s being paid well over $6 MIL each season for the next few years.

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	1	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
8	2	0	0.00	2	0	0.00	100%	0
10	1	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
12	3	1	0.33	2	1	0.50	67%	0
15	2	1	0.50	1	1	1.00	50%	0
20	1	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
39	6	1	0.17	1	0	0.00	17%	0
44	1	3	3.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
48	1	0	0.00	1	0	0.00	100%	1
52	3	3	1.00	1	1	1.00	33%	0
57	7	2	0.29	2	2	1.00	29%	0
61	2	2	1.00	2	2	1.00	100%	0
68	5	3	0.60	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	2
75	2	0	0.00	1	0	0.00	50%	1
80	1	3	3.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
83	3	1	0.33	2	1	0.50	67%	0
88	2	1	0.50	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
89	6	0	0.00	4	0	0.00	67%	0
Team	49	21	0.43	19	8	0.42	39%	4
Opp	55	22	0.40	24	15	0.63	44%	6

Minnesota

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
MIN3	7	3	0.43	3	2	0.67	43%	0
MIN5	1	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
MIN6	1	0	0.00	1	0	0.00	100%	0
MIN9	3	2	0.67	2	2	1.00	67%	0
MIN14	6	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
MIN16	7	6	0.86	4	3	0.75	57%	0
MIN18	0	0	#DIV/0!	0	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	1
MIN20	2	2	1.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
MIN21	2	1	0.50	2	1	0.50	100%	2
MIN22	10	2	0.20	3	1	0.33	30%	1
MIN24	2	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
MIN25	1	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
MIN26	3	2	0.67	3	2	0.67	100%	1
MIN27	2	1	0.50	2	1	0.50	100%	1
MIN29	5	2	0.40	3	2	0.67	60%	0
MIN44	1	1	1.00	1	1	1.00	100%	0
MIN46	2	0	0.00	0	0	#DIV/0!	0%	0
MIN56	0	0	#DIV/0!	0	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	0
Team	55	22	0.40	24	15	0.63	44%	6

This game was really an odd one, in terms of zone entries. In the first five minutes of this game, there were eleven entries between the two teams, and only one of those was a carry-in. This game was filled with dump-ins, and frankly, aside from Braun’s good performance, there aren’t really any all around notables for the Sharks (although Wingels’ seven entries definitely stands out as a big number).

Minnesota, on the other hand, had a few players with notable performances, as Pominville, Zucker, and Coyle did quite well. Vanek also did really well here, carrying the puck in three times on his three successful entries, though one has to wonder if he was the one to attempt any of the shots that Minnesota attempted off of his entries.

Entry Targeting

San Jose

Player #	# of entry attempts against	Carry-ins against	Failed entries against	Carry % against	Break up %
4	7	4	0	57.14	0.00
5				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
8	1	0	1	0.00	100.00
10				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
12	2	0	1	0.00	50.00
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				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
37				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
38				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
39				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
41				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
43				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
44	6	2	0	33.33	0.00
48				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
50				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
52	6	1	1	16.67	16.67
57				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
61	4	2	0	50.00	0.00
68	1	0	0	0.00	0.00
75	1	0	0	0.00	0.00
76				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
80	10	6	0	60.00	0.00
81				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
83	2	1	0	50.00	0.00
88	13	6	1	46.15	7.69
89	1	0		0.00	0.00
Team	55	22	4	40.00	7.27

Minnesota

Player #	# of entry attempts against	Carry-ins against	Failed entries against	Carry % against	Break up %
2				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
3				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
4				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
5	3	2	0	66.67	0.00
6	11	7	0	63.64	0.00
7				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
9	2	1	0	50.00	0.00
10				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
11				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
14	2	1	0	50.00	0.00
16				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
18	1	1	0	100.00	0.00
19				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
20	7	1	1	14.29	14.29
21	1	0	0	0.00	0.00
22	1	0	0	0.00	0.00
24				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
25	7	2	1	28.57	14.29
26				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
29	3	2	0	66.67	0.00
39				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
44	4	1	0	25.00	0.00
46	5	0	1	0.00	20.00
55				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
56	1	0	0	0.00	0.00
64				#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Team	48	18	3	37.50	6.25

It was something I pointed out last game, and it seems to have persisted into this one, the Picklesnake pairing did very well defending against zone entries. Vlasic’s numbers were second only to Matt Irwin–who had a surprisingly good game–and even though Burns’ numbers aren’t fantastic relative to the team’s overall numbers, any game where he ends up with a sub-50 carry-in against percentage is a good game for him, given the standards he’s set for himself through the rest of the season.

Speaking of numbers that aren’t great relative to the team’s numbers, Marco Scandella certainly had a bad night this game. Whereas the Wild as a whole only allowed the Sharks to carry the puck into the zone on 37.5% of their non-odd man rush entries, Scandella allowed the Sharks to carry the puck in on 64% of their entry attempts against him. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Suter-Brodin pairing was lights out defending against SJ’s entries. On the Sharks fourteen entry attempts against that pairing, they only carried the puck in successfully three times, and were rejected twice.

Zone Exits

San Jose

Player #	Touches	In-Zone Passes	Pass-Outs	Carry-Outs	Turnovers	Icings	Overall Success %	Exit Success %	Turnover %
4	14	13	0	0	1	0	0.00	0.00	7.14
5							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
8	6	2	0	1	3	0	16.67	25.00	50.00
10	1	1	0	0	0	0	0.00	#DIV/0!	0.00
12	11	2	1	3	5	0	36.36	44.44	45.45
13							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
15	6	1	1	1	3	0	33.33	40.00	50.00
18							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
19							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
20	1	0	0	0	1	0	0.00	0.00	100.00
25							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
27							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
37							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
38							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
39	8	2	1	2	3	0	37.50	50.00	37.50
41							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
43							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
44	11	6	2	0	3	0	18.18	40.00	27.27
48	5	1	1	0	3	0	20.00	25.00	60.00
50							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
52	15	7	0	1	6	1	6.67	12.50	40.00
57	6	3	0	1	2	0	16.67	33.33	33.33
61	15	6	3	0	5	1	20.00	33.33	33.33
68	2	1	0	1	0	0	50.00	100.00	0.00
75	2	2	0	0	0	0	0.00	#DIV/0!	0.00
76							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
80	8	6	0	0	2	0	0.00	0.00	25.00
81							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
83	3	1	0	0	2	0	0.00	0.00	66.67
88	18	11	2	0	5	0	11.11	28.57	27.78
89	13	1	1	5	6	0	46.15	50.00	46.15
Totals:	145	66	12	15	50	2	18.62	34.18	34.48

Minnesota

Player #	Touches	In-Zone Passes	Pass-Outs	Carry-Outs	Turnovers	Icings	Overall Success %	Exit Success %	Turnover %
2							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
3	2	0	0	1	1	0	50.00	50.00	50.00
4							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
5	7	3	1	0	3	0	14.29	25.00	42.86
6	8	1	2	1	4	0	37.50	42.86	50.00
7							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
9	7	3	2	1	1	0	42.86	75.00	14.29
10							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
11							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
14	3	0	0	2	1	0	66.67	66.67	33.33
16	4	1	0	3	0	0	75.00	100.00	0.00
18	3	1	0	0	2	0	0.00	0.00	66.67
19							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
20	5	3	1	0	1	0	20.00	50.00	20.00
21	5	3	1	1	0	0	40.00	100.00	0.00
22	6	2	1	1	1	1	33.33	50.00	16.67
24	4	0	1	1	2	0	50.00	50.00	50.00
25	10	4	0	0	5	1	0.00	0.00	50.00
26	0	0	0	0	0	0	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
29	6	2	1	1	2	0	33.33	50.00	33.33
39							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
44	9	3	0	0	6	0	0.00	0.00	66.67
46	14	7	3	0	4	0	21.43	42.86	28.57
55							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
56	1	0	0	0	1	0	0.00	0.00	100.00
64							#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!	#DIV/0!
Team	94	33	13	12	34	2	26.60	40.98	36.17

Pretty funny here that the Sharks’ forwards who were the most successful at exiting the zone were also some of the ones who turned the puck over the most, with Goodrow, Marleau, and Couture managing pretty high numbers in all three percentages. The defense didn’t have a great game advancing the puck out of the zone, though Braun’s three pass-outs on fifteen touches does do some work to balance out Dillon’s zero successful zone exits on fourteen touches (though only a 7% turnover rate!).

Scandella was pretty bad defending against zone entries, but once the Sharks were in the Minnesota end of the ice, no defensemen did better than he and his D partner Spurgeon at exiting the zone, as those D-men managed three successful zone exits each. Koivu managed some pretty good numbers here, as did Zucker, who turned the puck over zero times, and who showed that his value does indeed go beyond his goal scoring abilities.