Notre Dame vs Syracuse
Notre Dame vs Syracuse
March 30, 2019
Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalNotre Dame650213Syracuse123410
Tale of the Tape
Stat CategoryNotre DameSyracuseGoals1310Shots3345Shots on Goal2417Possessions4041Groundballs2325Saves711Save%41%46%Shooting Pct39%22%Faceoffs1016Faceoff %38.5%61.5%Turnovers1523Turnover%38%56%
For a few minutes in the 4th quarter, it looked like this game was finally going to script. I’m sure Irish fans were sweating a bit after they gave up back to back goals there. And Cuse fans were probably thinking: “Ok, I’ve seen this show before.”Unfortunately for the upstaters, it was not to be. Notre Dame held off the charge to snag a big ACC win.Contrary to previous games, ND did not ride a big possession advantage to victory (they won 10 out of 26 at x). In this one, it was the Irish defense that stepped up, holding Syracuse to only 17 shots-on-goal (this is becoming a theme for the Blue & Gold).
Advanced Metrics
Stat CategoryNotre DameSyracuseOff. Efficiency32.5%24.4%T.O.P.44%56%Possession Length39.448.5Time to First Shot28.332.9Shots/Possession0.821.10
The other thing that stood out was the Irish offense, shooting 39% in this one. They had one less possession than Cuse, and took 12 fewer shots, but because they were so on point with their shooting, they ended up with a 7-goal advantage in shots-on-goal and of course, that all important 3-goal margin.This is not your father’s Irish offense. Case in point, their average possession lasted only 39 seconds and they launched a first shot, on average, after 28 seconds.
Season Comparison
Notre Dame SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. SyracuseOff. Efficiency28.2%32.5%Shooting Pct33%39%Faceoff %55.4%38.5%Turnover%37%38%T.O.P.50%44%Possession Length41.839.4Time to First Shot33.528.3Shots/Possession0.870.82
And looking at the Irish season comparison, it’s clear that they hit on something. Turnover rate was almost exactly the same, pace was slightly faster, but roughly equivalent. This tells me that there was not a significant change in approach for Notre Dame.Instead, it appears that the execution was just better this time out. We’ve been digging into the shots/possession stat a bit, and in general more is better (shots/possession tends to rise along with winning percentage). The exception is that fewer shots/possession can dramatically increase winning percentage (like by 10 points), when it comes from an increase in efficiency (i.e. fewer shots/possession because your first one goes in). And that appears to be exactly what the Irish enjoyed today.
Season Comparison
Syracuse SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. Notre DameOff. Efficiency30.5%24.4%Shooting Pct28%22%Faceoff %60.6%61.5%Turnover%30%56%T.O.P.53%56%Possession Length47.648.5Time to First Shot37.032.9Shots/Possession1.101.10
On the Syracuse side, you can add this one to the long list of offenses to have trouble against a Corrigan/Byrne defensive unit.Syracuse had the ball a ton, but they weren’t able to consistently use those possessions to generate quality looks. A 37% shots-on-goal percentage tells me that the ND defense really bothered the attack. Specifically, they really struggled in their intermediate possessions (those lasting between 30 and 60 seconds).For starts, they ended up in these situations more than normal (41.5% of possession vs 34.4% coming in). On the surface, this is not a bad thing; intermediate possessions have seen the highest Cuse offensive efficiencies. The problem here is that they performed much worse in those situations today (17.6% efficiency vs 37.6% for the year). With the number of intermediate possessions they had, if they’d managed their season avg efficiency, they’d have scored a full 2 extra goals.Digging into the why, during their intermediate possessions, they turned it over more than usual (53% vs 23%), they shot it worse (20% vs 30%), and they put far fewer shots on net (47% vs 71%). This is a team that tends to score best when they’ve probed the defense a bit; today that just meant more time for the Irish to force a turnover or a wayward shot.
Let’s talk about Bryan Costabile
Stats: Bryan CostabileQ1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals21025Assists00000Shots42028Shots on Goal31026Shooting Pct50%50%N/A100%62%Groundballs01001Turnovers00112EGA2.310.91-0.140.924.00
The Irish have had more offensive pieces contribute than they normally do it seems. This week it was Costabile’s turn. 4.00 EGA led the way for the Irish courtesy of his 5 goals on 8 shots.He might want to forget that 3rd quarter, but when the Irish had to fight off the Cuse comeback, he played his part with 2 4th quarter goals.
Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalNotre Dame650213Syracuse123410
Tale of the Tape
Notre DameSyracuseGoals1310Shots3345Shots on Goal2417Possessions4041Groundballs2325Saves711Save%41%46%Shooting Pct39%22%Faceoffs1016Faceoff %38.5%61.5%Turnovers1523Turnover%38%56%
For a few minutes in the 4th quarter, it looked like this game was finally going to script. I’m sure Irish fans were sweating a bit after they gave up back to back goals there. And Cuse fans were probably thinking: “Ok, I’ve seen this show before.”Unfortunately for the upstaters, it was not to be. Notre Dame held off the charge to snag a big ACC win.Contrary to previous games, ND did not ride a big possession advantage to victory (they won 10 out of 26 at x). In this one, it was the Irish defense that stepped up, holding Syracuse to only 17 shots-on-goal (this is becoming a theme for the Blue & Gold).
Advanced metrics
Notre DameSyracuseOff. Efficiency32.5%24.4%T.O.P.44%56%Possession Length39.448.5Time to First Shot28.332.9Shots/Possession0.821.10
The other thing that stood out was the Irish offense, shooting 39% in this one. They had one less possession than Cuse, and took 12 fewer shots, but because they were so on point with their shooting, they ended up with a 7-goal advantage in shots-on-goal and of course, that all important 3-goal margin.This is not your father’s Irish offense. Case in point, their average possession lasted only 39 seconds and they launched a first shot, on average, after 28 seconds.
Season Comparison
Season-To-Datevs. SyracuseOff. Efficiency28.2%32.5%Shooting Pct33%39%Faceoff %55.4%38.5%Turnover%37%38%T.O.P.50%44%Possession Length41.839.4Time to First Shot33.528.3Shots/Possession0.870.82
And looking at the Irish season comparison, it’s clear that they hit on something. Turnover rate was almost exactly the same, pace was slightly faster, but roughly equivalent. This tells me that there was not a significant change in approach for Notre Dame.Instead, it appears that the execution was just better this time out. We’ve been digging into the shots/possession stat a bit, and in general more is better (shots/possession tends to rise along with winning percentage). The exception is that fewer shots/possession can dramatically increase winning percentage (like by 10 points), when it comes from an increase in efficiency (i.e. fewer shots/possession because your first one goes in). And that appears to be exactly what the Irish enjoyed today.
Season Comparison
Season-To-Datevs. Notre DameOff. Efficiency30.5%24.4%Shooting Pct28%22%Faceoff %60.6%61.5%Turnover%30%56%T.O.P.53%56%Possession Length47.648.5Time to First Shot37.032.9Shots/Possession1.101.10
On the Syracuse side, you can add this one to the long list of offenses to have trouble against a Corrigan/Byrne defensive unit.Syracuse had the ball a ton, but they weren’t able to consistently use those possessions to generate quality looks. A 37% shots-on-goal percentage tells me that the ND defense really bothered the attack. Specifically, they really struggled in their intermediate possessions (those lasting between 30 and 60 seconds).For starts, they ended up in these situations more than normal (41.5% of possession vs 34.4% coming in). On the surface, this is not a bad thing; intermediate possessions have seen the highest Cuse offensive efficiencies. The problem here is that they performed much worse in those situations today (17.6% efficiency vs 37.6% for the year). With the number of intermediate possessions they had, if they’d managed their season avg efficiency, they’d have scored a full 2 extra goals.Digging into the why, during their intermediate possessions, they turned it over more than usual (53% vs 23%), they shot it worse (20% vs 30%), and they put far fewer shots on net (47% vs 71%). This is a team that tends to score best when they’ve probed the defense a bit; today that just meant more time for the Irish to force a turnover or a wayward shot.
Let’s talk about Bryan Costabile
Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals21025Assists00000Shots42028Shots on Goal31026Shooting Pct50%50%N/A100%62%Groundballs01001Turnovers00112EGA2.310.91-0.140.924.00
The Irish have had more offensive pieces contribute than they normally do it seems. This week it was Costabile’s turn. 4.00 EGA led the way for the Irish courtesy of his 5 goals on 8 shots.He might want to forget that 3rd quarter, but when the Irish had to fight off the Cuse comeback, he played his part with 2 4th quarter goals.