Tale of the Tape
Stat CategoryYalePenn StateGoals2117Shots5138Shots on Goal3022Possessions5345Groundballs1822Saves59Save%23%30%Shooting Pct41%45%Faceoffs2814Faceoff %66.7%33.3%Turnovers1716Turnover%32%36%
With just 14 total saves against 38 goals, Yale and Penn State gave us the type of offensive fireworks that you don’t see very often, especially in the tense atmosphere of Championship Weekend.
But at the end of the day, the offenses more or less cancelled each other out, leaving Yale’s possession advantage as the difference. On to the title game for the Elis.
Season Comparison
Penn State SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. YaleSave%53%30%Off. Efficiency38.7%37.8%Shooting Pct43%45%Faceoff %60.0%33.3%Turnover%32%36%T.O.P.53%43%Possession Length38.933.0Time to First Shot36.430.0Shots/Possession0.900.84
It is hard to look at the Nittany Lions stats and chalk this this up to any kind of underperformance though. They were a touch off their season efficiency, but they actually shot better in this game than even their otherworldly heights coming in.
Even turnovers, which were slightly up, would have cost them only a couple possessions over the course of the game. In the end, they just ran into a team that played them to a draw and earned a possession advantage thanks to strong play from Ierlan at x.
Season Comparison
Yale SeasonSeason-To-Datevs. Penn StateSave%49%23%Off. Efficiency31.7%39.6%Shooting Pct29%41%Faceoff %76.0%66.7%Turnover%29%32%T.O.P.56%57%Possession Length36.437.2Time to First Shot33.233.4Shots/Possession1.100.96
Where Penn State largely played to their profile in this one, the bad news for Tambroni’s squad is that for some reason, the Yale offense looked a lot like Penn State in this game. Their shooting percentage was way up, resulting in an efficiency improvement of roughly 8 percentage points. Across a game with 50 possessions, that works out to…4 extra goals. Interesting.
Note the shots/possession number too; Yale’s went down for the right reason. They made a lot of shots, which is naturally going too bring down the shots/poss figure. As we have noted, more is generally better in this metric, but when your figure is slightly below your average because of a higher shooting percentage, that is when teams see the largest winning percentage boost.
An interesting nugget: Yale’s time-to-first-shot duration was 33.4 seconds, compared to a season average of 33.2. Eerie. That tells me that despite the appearance of a shock-and-awe campaign in the first half, Yale largely played their same style. It just worked better in this game.
Quarter Breakdown
Yale: Quarter BreakdownQ1Q2Q3Q4Goals10245Shots14151012Possessions1791116Offensive Efficiency58.8%22.2%36.4%31.2%Shooting %71%13%40%42%Turnover Rate11.8%44.4%27.3%50.0%Shots-on-Goal %93%33%60%50%Time-of-Possession69%67%44%50%Faceoff Win Rate77%70%56%60%Time/Possession36.0s57.0s37.3s27.1sTime to First Shot37.3s37.8s32.4s26.1sShots per Possession0.821.670.910.75Defensive Efficiency20.0%70.0%40.0%26.7%Save Pct33.3%0.0%33.3%33.3%
But if you are someone who believes in the advantages of having experienced Championship Weekend before, this is your proof. You don’t put 93% of your shots on goal unless the defense is failing to prevent good looks. 12% is an absurdly low turnover rate in such a high pressure situation. The fact that Yale’s final 3 quarters largely reverted back to a more ordinary profile suggests that something unique was afoot in the first 15 minutes.
It may have been that the experience of last year gave the Elis a boost that Penn State could not match.
Tale of the Tape
YalePenn StateGoals2117Shots5138Shots on Goal3022Possessions5345Groundballs1822Saves59Save%23%30%Shooting Pct41%45%Faceoffs2814Faceoff %66.7%33.3%Turnovers1716Turnover%32%36%
With just 14 total saves against 38 goals, Yale and Penn State gave us the type of offensive fireworks that you don’t see very often, especially in the tense atmosphere of Championship Weekend.
But at the end of the day, the offenses more or less cancelled each other out, leaving Yale’s possession advantage as the difference. On to the title game for the Elis.
Season Comparison
Season-To-Datevs. YaleSave%53%30%Off. Efficiency38.7%37.8%Shooting Pct43%45%Faceoff %60.0%33.3%Turnover%32%36%T.O.P.53%43%Possession Length38.933.0Time to First Shot36.430.0Shots/Possession0.900.84
It is hard to look at the Nittany Lions stats and chalk this this up to any kind of underperformance though. They were a touch off their season efficiency, but they actually shot better in this game than even their otherworldly heights coming in.
Even turnovers, which were slightly up, would have cost them only a couple possessions over the course of the game. In the end, they just ran into a team that played them to a draw and earned a possession advantage thanks to strong play from Ierlan at x.
Season Comparison
Season-To-Datevs. Penn StateSave%49%23%Off. Efficiency31.7%39.6%Shooting Pct29%41%Faceoff %76.0%66.7%Turnover%29%32%T.O.P.56%57%Possession Length36.437.2Time to First Shot33.233.4Shots/Possession1.100.96
Where Penn State largely played to their profile in this one, the bad news for Tambroni’s squad is that for some reason, the Yale offense looked a lot like Penn State in this game. Their shooting percentage was way up, resulting in an efficiency improvement of roughly 8 percentage points. Across a game with 50 possessions, that works out to…4 extra goals. Interesting.
Note the shots/possession number too; Yale’s went down for the right reason. They made a lot of shots, which is naturally going too bring down the shots/poss figure. As we have noted, more is generally better in this metric, but when your figure is slightly below your average because of a higher shooting percentage, that is when teams see the largest winning percentage boost.
An interesting nugget: Yale’s time-to-first-shot duration was 33.4 seconds, compared to a season average of 33.2. Eerie. That tells me that despite the appearance of a shock-and-awe campaign in the first half, Yale largely played their same style. It just worked better in this game.
Quarter Breakdown
Yale: Quarter BreakdownQ1Q2Q3Q4Goals10245Shots14151012Possessions1791116Offensive Efficiency58.8%22.2%36.4%31.2%Shooting %71%13%40%42%Turnover Rate11.8%44.4%27.3%50.0%Shots-on-Goal %93%33%60%50%Time-of-Possession69%67%44%50%Faceoff Win Rate77%70%56%60%Time/Possession36.0s57.0s37.3s27.1sTime to First Shot37.3s37.8s32.4s26.1sShots per Possession0.821.670.910.75Defensive Efficiency20.0%70.0%40.0%26.7%Save Pct33.3%0.0%33.3%33.3%
But if you are someone who believes in the advantages of having experienced Championship Weekend before, this is your proof. You don’t put 93% of your shots on goal unless the defense is failing to prevent good looks. 12% is an absurdly low turnover rate in such a high pressure situation. The fact that Yale’s final 3 quarters largely reverted back to a more ordinary profile suggests that something unique was afoot in the first 15 minutes.
It may have been that the experience of last year gave the Elis a boost that Penn State could not match.