0 Comment


Loyola vs Lehigh
Loyola vs Lehigh
April 06, 2019
 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalLoyola643215Lehigh03339
In-Game WP PageLoyola Team PageLehigh Team Page

Splits

Loyola SplitsPre Q2 15:00Post Q2 15:00Possessions1133Off. Efficiency54.5%27.3%Shooting Pct40%28%Faceoff %28.6%70.0%Turnover%0%33%T.O.P.55%51%Possession Length44.540.5Time to First Shot22.633.5Shots/Possession1.360.97

I don’t use the term “intellectual integrity” on this site very much, but I think a recap that didn’t start by pointing out that this game was more or less over after 15 minutes would be a bit lacking on that front. The final 6-goal margin doesn’t look that bad, but when you consider that it was 6-0 after the first quarter, you have to wonder what the final score would have been if Loyola had really pushed it for 4 quarters.

To get a glimpse, we can peer into the first quarter stats to see how the Greyhounds built that 6-0 lead. First of all, Chick and Co allowed 6 goals while Loyola turned the ball over 0 times. Zero. Loyola didn’t even win many faceoffs (2 of 7).

What they did do was score 6 goals in 11 possessions, while shooting 40%. Those are absolute video-game numbers for a team that was going up against a Lehigh squad that came in with the 6th ranked defense in D1.

Tale of the Tape

Stat CategoryLoyolaLehighGoals159Shots4739Shots on Goal2824Possessions4439Groundballs2120Saves1513Save%62%46%Shooting Pct32%23%Faceoffs1611Faceoff %59.3%40.7%Turnovers1114Turnover%25%36%

Don’t be fooled by the final score. Loyola scored on 6 of 11 first quarter possessions while shooting 40% and committing zero turnovers. They led 6-0 after the first 15 minutes. A final margin of 6 goals doesn’t look that bad. Make no mistake, this was a beat-down.

And to contextualize this, Lehigh came into this game with the #6 defense in D1. Spencer and Co. didn’t do this against a bunch of scrubs.

Advanced Metrics

Stat CategoryLoyolaLehighOff. Efficiency34.1%23.1%T.O.P.52%48%Possession Length39.541.9Time to First Shot30.937.6Shots/Possession1.071.00

Digging in a bit, it’s not as if Lehigh’s offense was anything less than normal; they came in with a 24% efficiency mark and during this one: 23%. Granted, a lot of their goals were garbage time goals, so it’s a bit unfair to leave them blameless.

At the end of the day, the question of the game was whether the vaunted Lehigh defense could match-up with Pat Spencer and the rest of the Loyola offense. Clearly, they could not.

Season Comparison

Loyola SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. LehighOff. Efficiency34.5%34.1%Shooting Pct38%32%Faceoff %50.1%59.3%Turnover%36%25%T.O.P.50%52%Possession Length40.739.5Time to First Shot32.130.9Shots/Possession0.901.07

It is a bit tough to compare a game like this, when Loyola built such a big lead, with their season averages. The offensive approach just changes too much when you build a cushion. But by and large, Loyola was Loyola. It’s not as if Lehigh let them run above-and-beyond their season averages.

Efficiency was almost exactly the same. I think if anything is surprising, it’s the lack of turnovers forced by Lehigh AND/OR committed by the Greyhounds. That was the one area where you would have thought maybe the Mountain Hawks might have a leg-up over the other defense that Loyola has run all over.

Let’s talk about Pat Spencer

Stats: Pat SpencerQ1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals22105Assists21115Shots322310Shots on Goal22228Shooting Pct67%100%50%0%50%Groundballs11013Turnovers00011EGA3.432.721.570.838.55

What is there left to say. 10 points (again), 50%-plus shooting (again), evenly split between assists and goals (again). Probably going to be at the top of our weekly individual player rankings (again). It’s all becoming quite tedious really.

In all seriousness, another great game for Pat Spencer.

 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalLoyola643215Lehigh03339
Win Prob.LoyolaLehigh

Splits

Pre Q2 15:00Post Q2 15:00Possessions1133Off. Efficiency54.5%27.3%Shooting Pct40%28%Faceoff %28.6%70.0%Turnover%0%33%T.O.P.55%51%Possession Length44.540.5Time to First Shot22.633.5Shots/Possession1.360.97

I don’t use the term “intellectual integrity” on this site very much, but I think a recap that didn’t start by pointing out that this game was more or less over after 15 minutes would be a bit lacking on that front. The final 6-goal margin doesn’t look that bad, but when you consider that it was 6-0 after the first quarter, you have to wonder what the final score would have been if Loyola had really pushed it for 4 quarters.

To get a glimpse, we can peer into the first quarter stats to see how the Greyhounds built that 6-0 lead. First of all, Chick and Co allowed 6 goals while Loyola turned the ball over 0 times. Zero. Loyola didn’t even win many faceoffs (2 of 7).

What they did do was score 6 goals in 11 possessions, while shooting 40%. Those are absolute video-game numbers for a team that was going up against a Lehigh squad that came in with the 6th ranked defense in D1.

Tale of the Tape

LoyolaLehighGoals159Shots4739Shots on Goal2824Possessions4439Groundballs2120Saves1513Save%62%46%Shooting Pct32%23%Faceoffs1611Faceoff %59.3%40.7%Turnovers1114Turnover%25%36%

Don’t be fooled by the final score. Loyola scored on 6 of 11 first quarter possessions while shooting 40% and committing zero turnovers. They led 6-0 after the first 15 minutes. A final margin of 6 goals doesn’t look that bad. Make no mistake, this was a beat-down.

And to contextualize this, Lehigh came into this game with the #6 defense in D1. Spencer and Co. didn’t do this against a bunch of scrubs.

Advanced metrics

LoyolaLehighOff. Efficiency34.1%23.1%T.O.P.52%48%Possession Length39.541.9Time to First Shot30.937.6Shots/Possession1.071.00

Digging in a bit, it’s not as if Lehigh’s offense was anything less than normal; they came in with a 24% efficiency mark and during this one: 23%. Granted, a lot of their goals were garbage time goals, so it’s a bit unfair to leave them blameless.

At the end of the day, the question of the game was whether the vaunted Lehigh defense could match-up with Pat Spencer and the rest of the Loyola offense. Clearly, they could not.

Season Comparison

Season-To-Datevs. LehighOff. Efficiency34.5%34.1%Shooting Pct38%32%Faceoff %50.1%59.3%Turnover%36%25%T.O.P.50%52%Possession Length40.739.5Time to First Shot32.130.9Shots/Possession0.901.07

It is a bit tough to compare a game like this, when Loyola built such a big lead, with their season averages. The offensive approach just changes too much when you build a cushion. But by and large, Loyola was Loyola. It’s not as if Lehigh let them run above-and-beyond their season averages.

Efficiency was almost exactly the same. I think if anything is surprising, it’s the lack of turnovers forced by Lehigh AND/OR committed by the Greyhounds. That was the one area where you would have thought maybe the Mountain Hawks might have a leg-up over the other defense that Loyola has run all over.

Let’s talk about Pat Spencer

 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals22105Assists21115Shots322310Shots on Goal22228Shooting Pct67%100%50%0%50%Groundballs11013Turnovers00011EGA3.432.721.570.838.55

What is there left to say. 10 points (again), 50%-plus shooting (again), evenly split between assists and goals (again). Probably going to be at the top of our weekly individual player rankings (again). It’s all becoming quite tedious really.

In all seriousness, another great game for Pat Spencer.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply