0 Comment


Duke vs Notre Dame
Duke vs Notre Dame
April 06, 2019
 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalDuke163414Notre Dame32128
In-Game WP PageDuke Team PageNotre Dame Team Page

Splits

Notre Dame SplitsPre Q2 15:00Post Q2 15:00Goals35Possessions928Off. Efficiency33.3%17.9%Shooting Pct30%28%Faceoff %20.0%66.7%Turnover%22%50%T.O.P.58%49%Possession Length54.646.1Time to First Shot31.035.0Shots/Possession1.110.64

Notre Dame fans had to be feeling good after the first quarter. Their team was on the road, in a hostile environment, against a long-time nemesis…and they were up 3-1. Huzzah!

Things more or less fell apart after that. With the exception of faceoffs, everything got worse for the Irish. Turnovers clearly played a big role in the melt-down. They went from getting 1.11 shots/possession in the first quarter to only .64 the rest of the game, helped, no doubt, by an increase in their turnover rate from just 2 in 9 possessions during the first 15 to an even 50% for the remainder of the game.

They shot just about as well in the last 3 quarters as the first, so again, it really came down to turnovers preventing them from even getting shots.

Tale of the Tape

Stat CategoryDukeNotre DameGoals148Shots3628Shots on Goal2716Possessions4137Groundballs2214Saves813Save%50%48%Shooting Pct39%29%Faceoffs1115Faceoff %42.3%57.7%Turnovers1116Turnover%27%43%

Zooming out a bit, we had noted pre-game that Duke’s face-off game had fallen off over their past 3 games. In this one, they rebounded a bit, winning 42% of the draws (they’d been at 30% over their previous games).

Duke was also very impressive with their shooting percentage. They put 27 of 36 shots on cage, forcing 13 saves from the Irish keeper. 14 of those shots found the net for a 39% shooting percentage. Danowski will take that any day.

Season Comparison

Notre Dame SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. DukeOff. Efficiency28.8%21.6%Shooting Pct34%29%Faceoff %53.3%57.7%Turnover%37%43%T.O.P.49%50%Possession Length41.748.1Time to First Shot32.933.7Shots/Possession0.860.76

The Irish offense has at times, looked like they might be capable of pulling the Irish to championship weekend. At other times, they’ve looked like Irish offenses of old. Today was more the latter.

If we dig into the numbers, a few things stand out relative to the Irish averages. First, they continued the positive trend at x, winning 58% albeit against a Duke team that has struggled in that area. So that was probably a wash.

As we mentioned above, turnovers were key for Notre Dame in this one. But their shooting was not as crisp as it has been (29% vs 34% coming in). The Irish did do a decent job of generating second chances via rebounds and back-ups. You can tell because their average possession length was higher than normal despite getting off a first shot at the same point as always (33.7s vs 32.9 seconds coming in).

The problem for Corrigan’s bunch is that those second chances tended to result in turnovers, which negated the benefit. You can weather a bad shooting day by generating second chances. A bad shooting percentage doesn’t have to mean a bad efficiency mark. But not when you are turning those second chances into turnovers.

Let’s talk about Joe Robertson

Stats: Joe RobertsonQ1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals11103Assists01102Shots135110Shots on Goal11316Shooting Pct100%33%20%0%30%Groundballs10203Turnovers10102EGA1.051.951.760.044.81

Robertson regained some of his early-season magic in this one. He was especially impactful in the 2nd quarter, when the Blue Deviles took back the lead for good. Not a super shooting day for him, but you’ll take 5 points from one of your top offensive players in a game that by all accounts, Duke had to have.

Splits

Duke SplitsPre Q2 15:00Post Q2 15:00Goals113Possessions1031Off. Efficiency10.0%41.9%Shooting Pct25%41%Faceoff %80.0%33.3%Turnover%50%19%T.O.P.42%51%Possession Length35.442.8Time to First Shot26.730.0Shots/Possession0.401.03

As much as the ND offense let Duke back into this once, it ended up being somewhat of a blow-out thanks to the Duke offense’s resurgence after Q1. No team is going to sustain a 41.9% efficiency mark for multiple games, but for Duke, it came at the right time.

And as much as the Irish fell into the turnover trap, Duke climbed their way out of it after Q1. When you are getting more chances because you stop turning it over AND you start shooting better, that is a great recipe for an offense to catch fire.

41.9% efficiency vs 10% in Q1 is the proverbial proof in the pudding.

 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalDuke163414Notre Dame32128
Win Prob.DukeNotre Dame

Splits

Pre Q2 15:00Post Q2 15:00Goals35Possessions928Off. Efficiency33.3%17.9%Shooting Pct30%28%Faceoff %20.0%66.7%Turnover%22%50%T.O.P.58%49%Possession Length54.646.1Time to First Shot31.035.0Shots/Possession1.110.64

Notre Dame fans had to be feeling good after the first quarter. Their team was on the road, in a hostile environment, against a long-time nemesis…and they were up 3-1. Huzzah!

Things more or less fell apart after that. With the exception of faceoffs, everything got worse for the Irish. Turnovers clearly played a big role in the melt-down. They went from getting 1.11 shots/possession in the first quarter to only .64 the rest of the game, helped, no doubt, by an increase in their turnover rate from just 2 in 9 possessions during the first 15 to an even 50% for the remainder of the game.

They shot just about as well in the last 3 quarters as the first, so again, it really came down to turnovers preventing them from even getting shots.

Tale of the Tape

DukeNotre DameGoals148Shots3628Shots on Goal2716Possessions4137Groundballs2214Saves813Save%50%48%Shooting Pct39%29%Faceoffs1115Faceoff %42.3%57.7%Turnovers1116Turnover%27%43%

Zooming out a bit, we had noted pre-game that Duke’s face-off game had fallen off over their past 3 games. In this one, they rebounded a bit, winning 42% of the draws (they’d been at 30% over their previous games).

Duke was also very impressive with their shooting percentage. They put 27 of 36 shots on cage, forcing 13 saves from the Irish keeper. 14 of those shots found the net for a 39% shooting percentage. Danowski will take that any day.

Season Comparison

Season-To-Datevs. DukeOff. Efficiency28.8%21.6%Shooting Pct34%29%Faceoff %53.3%57.7%Turnover%37%43%T.O.P.49%50%Possession Length41.748.1Time to First Shot32.933.7Shots/Possession0.860.76

The Irish offense has at times, looked like they might be capable of pulling the Irish to championship weekend. At other times, they’ve looked like Irish offenses of old. Today was more the latter.

If we dig into the numbers, a few things stand out relative to the Irish averages. First, they continued the positive trend at x, winning 58% albeit against a Duke team that has struggled in that area. So that was probably a wash.

As we mentioned above, turnovers were key for Notre Dame in this one. But their shooting was not as crisp as it has been (29% vs 34% coming in). The Irish did do a decent job of generating second chances via rebounds and back-ups. You can tell because their average possession length was higher than normal despite getting off a first shot at the same point as always (33.7s vs 32.9 seconds coming in).

The problem for Corrigan’s bunch is that those second chances tended to result in turnovers, which negated the benefit. You can weather a bad shooting day by generating second chances. A bad shooting percentage doesn’t have to mean a bad efficiency mark. But not when you are turning those second chances into turnovers.

Let’s talk about Joe Robertson

 Q1Q2Q3Q4TotalGoals11103Assists01102Shots135110Shots on Goal11316Shooting Pct100%33%20%0%30%Groundballs10203Turnovers10102EGA1.051.951.760.044.81

Robertson regained some of his early-season magic in this one. He was especially impactful in the 2nd quarter, when the Blue Deviles took back the lead for good. Not a super shooting day for him, but you’ll take 5 points from one of your top offensive players in a game that by all accounts, Duke had to have.

Splits

Pre Q2 15:00Post Q2 15:00Goals113Possessions1031Off. Efficiency10.0%41.9%Shooting Pct25%41%Faceoff %80.0%33.3%Turnover%50%19%T.O.P.42%51%Possession Length35.442.8Time to First Shot26.730.0Shots/Possession0.401.03

As much as the ND offense let Duke back into this once, it ended up being somewhat of a blow-out thanks to the Duke offense’s resurgence after Q1. No team is going to sustain a 41.9% efficiency mark for multiple games, but for Duke, it came at the right time.

And as much as the Irish fell into the turnover trap, Duke climbed their way out of it after Q1. When you are getting more chances because you stop turning it over AND you start shooting better, that is a great recipe for an offense to catch fire.

41.9% efficiency vs 10% in Q1 is the proverbial proof in the pudding.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply