Scoring Chances
| Team | Period | Time | Note | Home | Away | State | ||||||||||
| Away | 1 | 17:29 | Shaw from Rundblad, miss | 10 | 20 | 25 | 31 | 44 | 88 | 5 | 27 | 29 | 31 | 65 | 86 | 5v5 |
| Home | 1 | 14:54 | Karlsson from Irwin reound, goal | 8 | 19 | 31 | 52 | 68 | 88 | 2 | 10 | 31 | 32 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Home | 1 | 14:52 | Karlsson, goal | 8 | 19 | 31 | 52 | 68 | 88 | 2 | 10 | 31 | 32 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Away | 1 | 9:29 | Shaw, save | 10 | 20 | 25 | 27 | 31 | 52 | 4 | 7 | 29 | 31 | 65 | 86 | 5v5 |
| Away | 1 | 8:53 | Krueger from Nordstrom, save | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 68 | 80 | 4 | 7 | 16 | 28 | 31 | 42 | 5v5 |
| Home | 1 | 6:28 | Pavelski from Burns rebound, save (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 7 | 19 | 20 | 27 | 31 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 2 | 19:46 | Kane from Keith, save (4v4) | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 88 | 2 | 7 | 19 | 31 | 88 | 4v4 | ||
| Away | 2 | 19:44 | Toews from Kane rebound, save (4v4) | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 88 | 2 | 7 | 19 | 31 | 88 | 4v4 | ||
| Away | 2 | 18:39 | Shaw from Saad, save | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 68 | 80 | 2 | 7 | 20 | 31 | 65 | 81 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 15:41 | Couture from Marleau, save (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 28 | 31 | 5v4 | |
| Home | 2 | 15:29 | Marleau from Burns, miss (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 28 | 31 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 2 | 12:26 | Richards from Kane, save | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 83 | 88 | 10 | 27 | 31 | 32 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 10:41 | Hossa from Rundblad, save | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 68 | 80 | 2 | 4 | 19 | 20 | 31 | 81 | 5v5 |
| Home | 2 | 6:43 | Pavelski from Thornton, save (5v4 PP) | 8 | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 88 | 2 | 4 | 16 | 28 | 31 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 2 | 5:36 | Toews from Hossa, save (4v5 PK) | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 80 | 88 | 7 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 81 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 2 | 5:32 | Toews, save (45 PK) | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 80 | 88 | 7 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 81 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 2 | 5:31 | Toews, save (4v5 PK) | 12 | 19 | 31 | 39 | 80 | 88 | 7 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 81 | 5v4 | |
| Away | 2 | 3:59 | Rundbland from Bickell, save | 4 | 10 | 31 | 52 | 83 | 89 | 5 | 10 | 27 | 31 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Away | 2 | 1:50 | Kane from RIchards, save | 8 | 19 | 27 | 31 | 52 | 68 | 4 | 7 | 10 | 31 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 18:10 | Goodrow from Sheppard, save | 15 | 27 | 31 | 48 | 88 | 89 | 2 | 5 | 29 | 31 | 65 | 86 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 15:25 | Hertl from Sheppard, save | 15 | 27 | 31 | 48 | 52 | 89 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 31 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 15:07 | Sheppard, miss | 15 | 27 | 31 | 48 | 52 | 89 | 2 | 5 | 28 | 31 | 42 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 14:11 | Nieto from Couture, save | 12 | 31 | 39 | 44 | 83 | 88 | 7 | 27 | 29 | 31 | 65 | 88 | 5v5 |
| Away | 3 | 13:43 | Saad from Keith, save | 8 | 19 | 31 | 44 | 68 | 88 | 2 | 19 | 20 | 31 | 32 | 81 | 5v5 |
| Away | 3 | 12:52 | Richards from Sharp, save | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 68 | 80 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 31 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Away | 3 | 10:27 | Oduya from Rozsival, save | 10 | 20 | 27 | 31 | 39 | 52 | 16 | 27 | 28 | 31 | 32 | 42 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 10:15 | Thornton from Pavelski, miss | 4 | 8 | 19 | 31 | 68 | 80 | 2 | 5 | 10 | 31 | 88 | 91 | 5v5 |
| Home | 3 | 8:41 | Sheppard, miss | 15 | 27 | 31 | 48 | 52 | 89 | 4 | 7 | 29 | 31 | 65 | 86 | 5v5 |
| Away | 3 | 7:49 | Nordstrom from Krueger, miss | 4 | 10 | 20 | 31 | 80 | 83 | 16 | 27 | 28 | 31 | 32 | 42 | 5v5 |
San Jose
Even Strength Scoring Chance Save Percentage: 100.0%
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 4 | DILLON, BRENDEN | 18:15 | 1 | 6 | 00:03 | 0 | 0 | 00:28 | 0 | 0 |
| 8 | PAVELSKI, JOE | 15:25 | 3 | 6 | 03:32 | 4 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 10 | DESJARDINS, ANDREW | 07:44 | 0 | 5 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | MARLEAU, PATRICK | 18:58 | 1 | 3 | 03:39 | 4 | 3 | 01:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 15 | SHEPPARD, JAMES | 10:41 | 4 | 0 | 02:18 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | THORNTON, JOE | 14:25 | 3 | 6 | 03:42 | 4 | 3 | 00:27 | 0 | 0 |
| 20 | SCOTT, JOHN | 07:30 | 0 | 4 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 25 | MCGINN, TYE | 04:16 | 0 | 2 | 00:03 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 27 | HANNAN, SCOTT | 12:48 | 4 | 3 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:28 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | NIEMI, ANTTI | 8 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 39 | COUTURE, LOGAN | 19:03 | 1 | 4 | 03:39 | 4 | 3 | 00:28 | 0 | 0 |
| 44 | VLASIC, MARC-EDOUARD | 20:35 | 1 | 5 | 01:54 | 0 | 0 | 01:32 | 0 | 0 |
| 48 | HERTL, TOMAS | 10:05 | 4 | 0 | 02:18 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 52 | IRWIN, MATT | 13:29 | 5 | 4 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 68 | KARLSSON, MELKER | 15:07 | 3 | 6 | 02:18 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 80 | TENNYSON, MATT | 18:07 | 1 | 5 | 02:31 | 0 | 3 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 83 | NIETO, MATT | 20:22 | 1 | 3 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 01:05 | 0 | 0 |
| 88 | BURNS, BRENT | 20:53 | 4 | 5 | 04:03 | 4 | 3 | 01:32 | 0 | 0 |
| 89 | GOODROW, BARCLAY | 10:17 | 4 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:28 | 0 | 0 |
| EVS | PP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | Scoring chances | Chances Assists | Chances “Points” | Scoring chances | Chances Assists | Chances “Points” | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 5 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 10 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
| 13 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 15 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |||
| 18 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 20 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 25 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 27 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 37 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 38 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 39 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 41 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 43 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 44 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 48 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 52 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 57 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 61 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 68 | 2 | 2 | 0 | ||||
| 75 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 76 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 80 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 81 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 83 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 88 | 0 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| 89 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Chicago
Even Strength Scoring Chance Save Percentage: 87.5%
| # | Player | EV | PP | SH | ||||||
| 2 | KEITH, DUNCAN | 21:13 | 5 | 6 | 01:21 | 0 | 0 | 03:16 | 0 | 3 |
| 4 | HJALMARSSON, NIKLAS | 16:00 | 5 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 03:16 | 0 | 3 |
| 5 | RUNDBLAD, DAVID | 10:39 | 3 | 4 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | SEABROOK, BRENT | 20:03 | 6 | 2 | 00:39 | 0 | 0 | 02:44 | 3 | 1 |
| 10 | SHARP, PATRICK | 16:30 | 4 | 4 | 01:21 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 16 | KRUGER, MARCUS | 06:42 | 3 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 03:34 | 0 | 3 |
| 19 | TOEWS, JONATHAN | 17:57 | 4 | 0 | 01:21 | 0 | 0 | 02:09 | 3 | 1 |
| 20 | SAAD, BRANDON | 17:19 | 3 | 0 | 00:39 | 0 | 0 | 01:04 | 0 | 1 |
| 27 | ODUYA, JOHNNY | 15:28 | 5 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 02:44 | 3 | 1 |
| 28 | SMITH, BEN | 06:23 | 3 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 03:29 | 0 | 3 |
| 29 | BICKELL, BRYAN | 11:04 | 2 | 3 | 00:39 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 31 | RAANTA, ANTTI | 14 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 32 | ROZSIVAL, MICHAL | 19:33 | 4 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 42 | NORDSTROM, JOAKIM | 07:25 | 3 | 1 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 65 | SHAW, ANDREW | 11:50 | 3 | 3 | 01:35 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 81 | HOSSA, MARIAN | 17:14 | 3 | 0 | 00:39 | 0 | 0 | 01:44 | 3 | 0 |
| 86 | TERAVAINEN, TEUVO | 06:54 | 2 | 2 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 88 | KANE, PATRICK | 20:20 | 6 | 5 | 01:21 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| 91 | RICHARDS, BRAD | 16:02 | 4 | 5 | 00:25 | 0 | 0 | 00:00 | 0 | 0 |
| EVS | SH | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | Scoring chances | Chances Assists | Chances “Points” | Scoring chances | Chances Assists | Chances “Points” | |
| 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | ||||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 6 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 7 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 11 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 12 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 13 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||
| 20 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 23 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 24 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 27 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 28 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 29 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 32 | 1 | 1 | 0 | ||||
| 34 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 42 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 44 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 57 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 65 | 3 | 3 | 0 | ||||
| 81 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 86 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| 88 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |||
| 91 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
Period-by-Period Summary
| Period | Totals | EV | PP | 5v3 PP | SH | 5v3 SH | ||||||
| 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
After a relatively even first period, Chicago absolutely dominated the second period, managing seven even strength scoring chances to San Jose’s zero, and three shorthanded scoring chances (all during the Toews net front scramble) to San Jose’s three powerplay scoring chances. Luckily, an excellent outing by Sheppard’s line in the third period helped turn the tides, as they generated four scoring chances in the third, and San Jose managed a +2 scoring chance differential in that period.
I think it was pretty clear while watching the game last night that Shep’s line was the Sharks’ best line by far, and the numbers here back that up excellently. Two members of that line were on the ice for zero scoring chances against, and all the members of that line finished with +3 or better scoring chance differentials. Sheppard especially had a fantastic game, setting up two scoring chances for his linemates, and taking two of his own. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Desi’s line, which got absolutely crushed by a clearly-superior Blackhawk fourth line en route to finishing the night with zero scoring chances for. The Sharks fourth line obviously did alright the last couple of games, but against elite, healthy teams like the Blackhawks (let’s not kid ourselves and say the Sharks would’ve had quite the same game against LA had Toffoli and Pearson been healthy), you simply cannot afford to ice McGinn-Desjardins-Scott as your fourth line. Here’s to hoping next time the Sharks face the Blackhawks they have a bit less of John Scott on the fourth line, and a bit more of Raffi Torres or Barclay Goodrow.
While select Blackhawks (Duncan Keith!) finished their nights with negative scoring chance differentials, the team as a whole did fantastic, with the Hawks’ first line really leading the way for them, allowing zero scoring chances against. Despite not putting up good differentials, Keith, Shaw, Kane and Richards did very good jobs generating scoring chances, as Keith set up three, Shaw took three, and both Kane and Richards took two more. The defensive side of those players’ games wasn’t fantastic, but they did quite well generating offense in the Sharks’ end.
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 | 7 | 2 | 0.29 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 43% | 0 |
| 10 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 12 | 5 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | 60% | 0 |
| 15 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 19 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 25% | 0 |
| 20 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 1 | 2 | 2.00 | 33% | 1 |
| 25 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 |
| 27 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | 0 |
| 39 | 9 | 2 | 0.22 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 44% | 0 |
| 44 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 48 | 3 | 4 | 1.33 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 33% | 0 |
| 52 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 68 | 5 | 3 | 0.60 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 60% | 4 |
| 80 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| 83 | 9 | 1 | 0.11 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 44% | 0 |
| 88 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 |
| 89 | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 33% | 0 |
| Team | 58 | 21 | 0.36 | 24 | 9 | 0.38 | 41% | 5 |
| Opp | 69 | 27 | 0.39 | 38 | 15 | 0.39 | 55% | 8 |
Chicago
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHI2 | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 67% | 0 |
| CHI4 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CHI5 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CHI7 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CHI10 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 |
| CHI16 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CHI19 | 4 | 1 | 0.25 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 75% | 0 |
| CHI20 | 7 | 1 | 0.14 | 5 | 1 | 0.20 | 71% | 1 |
| CHI27 | 5 | 1 | 0.20 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CHI28 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 100% | 1 |
| CHI29 | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 67% | 0 |
| CHI32 | 2 | 1 | 0.50 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 0 |
| CHI42 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | 0% | 1 |
| CHI65 | 8 | 6 | 0.75 | 5 | 5 | 1.00 | 63% | 0 |
| CHI81 | 10 | 4 | 0.40 | 6 | 3 | 0.50 | 60% | 1 |
| CHI86 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 100% | 2 |
| CHI88 | 7 | 3 | 0.43 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 57% | 2 |
| CHI91 | 8 | 3 | 0.38 | 6 | 1 | 0.17 | 75% | 0 |
| Team | 69 | 27 | 0.39 | 38 | 15 | 0.39 | 55% | 8 |
Despite the fact that Chicago carried the puck into the offensive zone more often, and generated more entries overall than SJ, zone entries were not where Chicago’s dominance in this game stemmed from. San Jose and Chicago attempted nearly the same amount of shots per entry, with the discrepancy being even smaller on shots per carry-in. If anything, I’d say that very little offense was generated off of entries in this game as a whole, as the shots attempts per entry numbers are actually surprisingly low for this game.
A byproduct of the overall entry numbers being somewhat “meh” in this game is that not many players put up fantastic numbers. Karlsson complimented his game winning goal with good zone entry numbers, but aside from him, no Shark really did that well. Goodrow’s entries led to a good amount of shot attempts for the Sharks, but he only carried the puck in once, Pavelski and Nieto generated a lot of entries, but didn’t carry the puck in that much or generate much shot attempts off of those entries, etc.
This pattern carried over to the Hawks who saw Shaw, Keith, Hossa and Smith put up good numbers while players like Saad and Toews generated a lot of entries but didn’t generate many shot attempts. Richards put up some pretty good numbers in a few respects, as he generated eight entries, six of which were carry-ins, but the Hawks just weren’t able to generate much offense off of his carry-ins, and that prevents his numbers from being all-around good.
Entry Targeting
San Jose
| Player # | # of entry attempts against | Carry-ins against | Failed entries against | Carry % against | Break up % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 60.00 | 20.00 |
| 5 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 19 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0.00 | 66.67 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 25 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 27 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 71.43 | 14.29 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 38 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 39 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 41 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 43 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 44 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 57.14 | 0.00 |
| 48 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 52 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 57 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 61 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 68 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 75 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 76 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 80 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 57.14 | 14.29 |
| 81 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 83 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 88 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 80.00 | 0.00 |
| 89 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 | 50.00 |
| Team | 65 | 35 | 6 | 53.85 | 9.23 |
Chicago
| Player # | # of entry attempts against | Carry-ins against | Failed entries against | Carry % against | Break up % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 28.57 | 0.00 |
| 4 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 57.14 | 14.29 |
| 5 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 62.50 | 0.00 |
| 6 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 12.50 | 12.50 |
| 10 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 11 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 12 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 16 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 23 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 24 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 27 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| 28 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 29 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 32 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 57.14 | 14.29 |
| 42 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 44 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 57 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 65 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 81 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 86 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | |||
| 88 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 91 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 50.00 | 0.00 |
| Team | 47 | 20 | 3 | 42.55 | 6.38 |
Although the Sharks’ forwards did a pretty good job of forcing Chicago dump-ins (Thornton led the way by allowing zero carry-ins, and foiling two of the Hawks’ entry attempts against him), the D had one of its worst games in a while, as every single D-man allowed the Hawks to carry the puck in on over 50% of their entry attempts. Despite putting up the best scoring chance differentials of the Sharks’ defense, Irwin and Hannan had a brutal time defending against Chicago’s entry attempts, as that D pairing combined to allow ten carry-ins against on twelve entry attempts against.
On the Chicago side of things, Rozsival, Rundblad and Hjalmarsson didn’t have the best of games, but their sub-par efforts were covered up by the rest of Chicago’s D corps only allowing five combined carry-ins against on nineteen combined entry attempts against. On a related note, Toews managed a 100% carry-in against rate while Jumbo managed a 0% carry-in against rate, so I think it’s clear who the superior #19 in last night’s game was.*
*This is mostly a joke. Please don’t yell at me.
Zone Exits
San Jose
| Player # | Touches | In-Zone Passes | Pass-Outs | Carry-Outs | Turnovers | Icings | Overall Success % | Exit Success % | Turnover % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 17 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 17.65 | 42.86 | 23.53 |
| 5 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 8 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 25.00 | 33.33 | 50.00 |
| 10 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 40.00 | 66.67 | 20.00 |
| 12 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 25.00 | 33.33 | 50.00 |
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 15 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 60.00 |
| 18 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 19 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 37.50 | 75.00 | 12.50 |
| 20 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 14.29 | 33.33 | 28.57 |
| 25 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 33.33 | 33.33 | 66.67 |
| 27 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 16.67 | 20.00 | 66.67 |
| 37 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 38 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 39 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 57.14 |
| 41 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 43 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 44 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 14.29 | 25.00 | 42.86 |
| 48 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 20.00 | 50.00 | 20.00 |
| 50 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 52 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 14.29 | 25.00 | 42.86 |
| 57 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 61 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 68 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 12.50 | 16.67 | 62.50 |
| 75 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 76 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 80 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 55.56 |
| 81 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 83 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 66.67 | 85.71 | 11.11 |
| 88 | 18 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 11.11 | 25.00 | 33.33 |
| 89 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 25.00 | 25.00 | 75.00 |
| Totals: | 137 | 54 | 18 | 11 | 54 | 0 | 21.17 | 34.94 | 39.42 |
Chicago
| Player # | Touches | In-Zone Passes | Pass-Outs | Carry-Outs | Turnovers | Icings | Overall Success % | Exit Success % | Turnover % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 17 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 23.53 | 50.00 | 23.53 |
| 4 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 55.56 |
| 5 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33.33 | 66.67 | 16.67 |
| 6 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 7 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 33.33 | 50.00 | 33.33 |
| 10 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 28.57 | 50.00 | 28.57 |
| 11 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 12 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 13 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 16 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | #DIV/0! | 0.00 |
| 19 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 60.00 |
| 20 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 66.67 | 80.00 | 16.67 |
| 23 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 24 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 27 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | #DIV/0! | 0.00 |
| 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! |
| 29 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 66.67 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 32 | 14 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 7.14 | 16.67 | 35.71 |
| 42 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 66.67 | 66.67 | 33.33 |
| 44 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 57 | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | #DIV/0! | ||||||
| 65 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 40.00 | 50.00 | 40.00 |
| 81 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 28.57 | 40.00 | 42.86 |
| 86 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 50.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 |
| 88 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 42.86 | 60.00 | 28.57 |
| 91 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 66.67 |
| Team | 107 | 43 | 15 | 15 | 34 | 0 | 28.04 | 46.88 | 31.78 |
Although a few Sharks like Thornton and Desi had strong games exiting the defensive zone, performances like those of Karlsson, Tennyson and Irwin really dragged down the team’s numbers, making this one of the worst game the Sharks have had on zone exits in a while. Still, despite this, I think it’s definitely worthwhile to acknowledge the fact that Dillon had one of his better games on zone exits, managing a 43% exit success rate, and that Nieto absolutely rocked zone exits last night, only turning the puck over once on his nine touches, and managing successful zone exits on six of the other eight. As we recapped on Friday, zone exits haven’t been one of Nieto’s overwhelming strengths this season, but if he keeps putting up numbers like these, they’ll be a strength of his in no time at all.
Hjalmarsson apparently still wishes he could play for the Sharks, as he was passing to them a bunch last night when he was in the defensive zone and he was easily the Hawks’ weakest defenseman on zone exits. Rozsival also had a pretty weak game, but aside from he and Hjalmarsson (and Oduya, who barely handled the puck in the defensive zone), Chiacgo’s defensemen did a pretty good job on zone exits, managing a combined 26% overall success rate. The Hawks’ D weren’t the only ones who did well exiting the zone though, as Kane, Teravainen, Nordstrom, and Saad put up fantastic zone exit numbers.
Notes:
-Shep’s line had a great outing on scoring chances, as Shep had a hand in four SJ scoring chances, and two members of that line were on the ice for zero scoring chances against
-Chiacgo’s top pair somehow didn’t manage to have a positive scoring chance differential in this game, but their fourth line went to town on SJ’s
-Karlsson had a good night on entries, but no other Shark had good all around numbers
-Keith, Shaw, Hossa and Smith put up good numbers on entries for the Hawks, while other players put up good numbers in select areas but not all around good ones
-Every Shark defenseman had a 50+ carry-in against percentage
-Although Hjalmarsson and Rozsival put up below-average numbers defending against San Jose’s entry attempts, the rest of Chicago’s D did very well, managing a combined carry-in against percentage just north of 25%
-Nieto and Dillon put up pretty good zone exit numbers, but players like Karlsson and Irwin really dragged down the team’s numbers
-Saad highlights the list of Chicago forwards who did well at exiting the zone, while Keith highlights the list of Chicago D-men who excelled at zone exits
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