0 Comment


Penn State vs Maryland
Penn State vs Maryland
March 31, 2019
 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalPenn State802313Maryland124310
In-Game WP PagePenn State Team PageMaryland Team Page

Tale of the Tape

Stat CategoryPenn StateMarylandGoals1310Shots3135Shots on Goal2017Possessions5041Groundballs1921Saves77Save%41%35%Shooting Pct42%29%Faceoffs188Faceoff %69.2%30.8%Turnovers1514Turnover%30%34%

What a rollercoaster of a game. Penn State looked like they were going to force a running clock after their 1st quarter explosion. Once the Terps cut it to 2 goals in the 3rd, you’d have been excused for writing off Tillman’s crew. But the comeback ended with a whimper and the result was a fairly comfortable 4th quarter finish for the Nittany Lions.

You can point to 2 summary stats that were the difference in this one: faceoffs and shooting. You will win a lot of games when you win those two stats, as Penn State did tonight.

The Terps actually got off more shots in this game than Penn State did (35 to 31), but only 17 of those 35 reached the net. But Penn State made more of their possessions, shooting 42% overall. And the fact that Gerard Arceri spotted them a 10-possession advantage made the hill that much steeper for Maryland.

Season Comparison

Penn State SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. MarylandOff. Efficiency38.7%26.0%Shooting Pct43%42%Faceoff %56.7%69.2%Turnover%34%30%T.O.P.53%53%Possession Length36.236.1Time to First Shot35.943.3Shots/Possession0.920.62

If there is one thing for the Terps to hang their hat on, it’s that giving up 13 goals to this Penn State offense is kind of a huge victory. Penn State came into this game with a 38.7% offensive efficiency mark. They were actually fairly pedestrian overall on offense against Maryland (26% efficiency).

It’s not that they shot worse than normal, and they actually turned it over less than normal. The key for Maryland is that they avoided 2 things: quick chances and 2nd chances. Penn State only recorded .62 shots per possession, which is a very low number (much lower than their season average). Our research shows that shots/possession rises in line with winning percentage and offensive efficiency.

Could be a blue-print for other teams to slow down Tambroni’s bunch.

Season Comparison

Maryland SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. Penn StateOff. Efficiency33.1%24.4%Shooting Pct35%29%Faceoff %61.8%30.8%Turnover%33%34%T.O.P.58%47%Possession Length51.339.2Time to First Shot42.536.0Shots/Possession0.960.85

The offensive side of the ledger is less kind to Maryland. Their offensive possessions were a full 12 seconds shorter against Penn State than against their previous opponents. The net result was that their offense sputtered to a 29% total efficiency mark. Not bad, but not nearly to the level they brought in to the game.

Shorter possessions cause a time-of-possession gap when you combine them with the possession disadvantage that the Terps faced. Hard to blame the offense for trying to catch lightning with some shorter possessions to even things up, but when it doesn’t work, you leave the defense hanging a bit.

Who knows whether they could have completed the comeback with some fresher legs on the back line in the 4th quarter.

 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalPenn State802313Maryland124310
Win Prob.Penn StateMaryland

Tale of the Tape

Penn StateMarylandGoals1310Shots3135Shots on Goal2017Possessions5041Groundballs1921Saves77Save%41%35%Shooting Pct42%29%Faceoffs188Faceoff %69.2%30.8%Turnovers1514Turnover%30%34%

What a rollercoaster of a game. Penn State looked like they were going to force a running clock after their 1st quarter explosion. Once the Terps cut it to 2 goals in the 3rd, you’d have been excused for writing off Tillman’s crew. But the comeback ended with a whimper and the result was a fairly comfortable 4th quarter finish for the Nittany Lions.

You can point to 2 summary stats that were the difference in this one: faceoffs and shooting. You will win a lot of games when you win those two stats, as Penn State did tonight.

The Terps actually got off more shots in this game than Penn State did (35 to 31), but only 17 of those 35 reached the net. But Penn State made more of their possessions, shooting 42% overall. And the fact that Gerard Arceri spotted them a 10-possession advantage made the hill that much steeper for Maryland.

Season Comparison

Season-To-Datevs. MarylandOff. Efficiency38.7%26.0%Shooting Pct43%42%Faceoff %56.7%69.2%Turnover%34%30%T.O.P.53%53%Possession Length36.236.1Time to First Shot35.943.3Shots/Possession0.920.62

If there is one thing for the Terps to hang their hat on, it’s that giving up 13 goals to this Penn State offense is kind of a huge victory. Penn State came into this game with a 38.7% offensive efficiency mark. They were actually fairly pedestrian overall on offense against Maryland (26% efficiency).

It’s not that they shot worse than normal, and they actually turned it over less than normal. The key for Maryland is that they avoided 2 things: quick chances and 2nd chances. Penn State only recorded .62 shots per possession, which is a very low number (much lower than their season average). Our research shows that shots/possession rises in line with winning percentage and offensive efficiency.

Could be a blue-print for other teams to slow down Tambroni’s bunch.

Season Comparison

Season-To-Datevs. Penn StateOff. Efficiency33.1%24.4%Shooting Pct35%29%Faceoff %61.8%30.8%Turnover%33%34%T.O.P.58%47%Possession Length51.339.2Time to First Shot42.536.0Shots/Possession0.960.85

The offensive side of the ledger is less kind to Maryland. Their offensive possessions were a full 12 seconds shorter against Penn State than against their previous opponents. The net result was that their offense sputtered to a 29% total efficiency mark. Not bad, but not nearly to the level they brought in to the game.

Shorter possessions cause a time-of-possession gap when you combine them with the possession disadvantage that the Terps faced. Hard to blame the offense for trying to catch lightning with some shorter possessions to even things up, but when it doesn’t work, you leave the defense hanging a bit.

Who knows whether they could have completed the comeback with some fresher legs on the back line in the 4th quarter.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply