Notre Dame SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. MichiganOff. Efficiency28.8%26.1%Shooting Pct35%31%Faceoff %50.5%83.3%Turnover%37%35%T.O.P.49%51%Possession Length40.540.0Time to First Shot32.234.0Shots/Possession0.850.85
I don’t generally start with the season comparison in these recap posts, but I think that when you talk about Notre Dame, the face-off play is front and center. Charles Leonard had another big game in this one, putting up an 83% mark at X.Compare that against the Irish’s season average (50.5%) and it’s clear that he’s stepped up his play significantly. If he’s able to continue at this pace, that is going to take away one of the challenges the Irish have had to overcome in previous years.
Tale of the Tape
Stat CategoryMichiganNotre DameGoals912Shots2939Shots on Goal1225Possessions3746Groundballs2019Saves133Save%52%25%Shooting Pct31%31%Faceoffs420Faceoff %16.7%83.3%Turnovers1416Turnover%38%35%
Digging into the summary stats, it seems like there were really 3 factors here: Michigan goaltending, ND defense, and Leonard. Tommy Heidt really kept the Wolverins in this one with his 13 saves. The Irish took 39 shots (a full 10 more than Michigan). Impressively, 25 of those shots were on goal. If not for those 13 saves, this would not have been a close game.Unfortunately for Michigan, the other two factors both went to the Domers. We have already discussed Leonard, but the ND defense was on point as well. Michigan did score 9 goals, but that was on 12 shots-on-goal. Matt Schmidt only recorded 3 saves, but by and large, the ND defense took the brunt of the Michigan attack.
Advanced Metrics
Stat CategoryMichiganNotre DameOff. Efficiency24.3%26.1%T.O.P.49%51%Possession Length47.540.0Time to First Shot46.834.0Shots/Possession0.780.85
Season Comparison
Michigan SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. Notre DameOff. Efficiency30.3%24.3%Shooting Pct34%31%Faceoff %42.3%16.7%Turnover%34%38%T.O.P.49%49%Possession Length40.547.5Time to First Shot36.646.8Shots/Possession0.910.78
It seems like Michigan may have tried to make up for their face-off disadvantage by slowing it down on offense. Didn’t work out.They did manage to maintain their time-of-possession average (49%), but their offensive efficiency dropped from 30.3% to 24.3%. Turnover rate jumped a bit, up to 38%.As I’ve said a million times, offensive efficiency tends to suffer when teams slow down more than their natural offensive pace. To the extent that this is what happened, it’s not surprising that Michigan’s offense suffered.
Season-To-Datevs. MichiganOff. Efficiency28.8%26.1%Shooting Pct35%31%Faceoff %50.5%83.3%Turnover%37%35%T.O.P.49%51%Possession Length40.540.0Time to First Shot32.234.0Shots/Possession0.850.85
I don’t generally start with the season comparison in these recap posts, but I think that when you talk about Notre Dame, the face-off play is front and center. Charles Leonard had another big game in this one, putting up an 83% mark at X.Compare that against the Irish’s season average (50.5%) and it’s clear that he’s stepped up his play significantly. If he’s able to continue at this pace, that is going to take away one of the challenges the Irish have had to overcome in previous years.
Tale of the Tape
MichiganNotre DameGoals912Shots2939Shots on Goal1225Possessions3746Groundballs2019Saves133Save%52%25%Shooting Pct31%31%Faceoffs420Faceoff %16.7%83.3%Turnovers1416Turnover%38%35%
Digging into the summary stats, it seems like there were really 3 factors here: Michigan goaltending, ND defense, and Leonard. Tommy Heidt really kept the Wolverins in this one with his 13 saves. The Irish took 39 shots (a full 10 more than Michigan). Impressively, 25 of those shots were on goal. If not for those 13 saves, this would not have been a close game.Unfortunately for Michigan, the other two factors both went to the Domers. We have already discussed Leonard, but the ND defense was on point as well. Michigan did score 9 goals, but that was on 12 shots-on-goal. Matt Schmidt only recorded 3 saves, but by and large, the ND defense took the brunt of the Michigan attack.
Advanced metrics
MichiganNotre DameOff. Efficiency24.3%26.1%T.O.P.49%51%Possession Length47.540.0Time to First Shot46.834.0Shots/Possession0.780.85
Season Comparison
Season-To-Datevs. Notre DameOff. Efficiency30.3%24.3%Shooting Pct34%31%Faceoff %42.3%16.7%Turnover%34%38%T.O.P.49%49%Possession Length40.547.5Time to First Shot36.646.8Shots/Possession0.910.78
It seems like Michigan may have tried to make up for their face-off disadvantage by slowing it down on offense. Didn’t work out.They did manage to maintain their time-of-possession average (49%), but their offensive efficiency dropped from 30.3% to 24.3%. Turnover rate jumped a bit, up to 38%.As I’ve said a million times, offensive efficiency tends to suffer when teams slow down more than their natural offensive pace. To the extent that this is what happened, it’s not surprising that Michigan’s offense suffered.
