Neither Matthews nor Bunting really got much going in the NZ. He had a game-high 11 entries and was ridiculously efficient, entering with control 8 times. The big line had a big night, and they can thank Marner for that.That’s a staple of this team and we should expect it to be like this going forward. Otherwise, the Leafs got strong nights from both their forwards and their D. It’s never a real good sign when that ratio (controlled exits to turnovers) is below 1. That group was under pressure all night, and had just 7 controlled exits to 13 turnovers. The major difference between this game and the Montreal game is that the Leafs were able to forecheck much more effectively and force the Caps D to make a few more turnovers. If this continues to be an issue I’ll start to look into which defensive pairings are most at fault. You’d like to see that number a little lower. One issue for the Leafs is the Recovery% for the Capitals. In addition, the controlled entries after that point were tied 5-5.
Much of the advantage came from the D, and we’ll see exactly who was responsible when we get into the individual numbers.įollowing the 3-2 goal, when you’d expect Washington to control much more of the play, the Caps held a 13-8 zone entry advantage, which isn’t particularly dominant. That, however, was offset by the fact that the Leafs were much more efficient than Washington was, entering with control 33 times to the Caps 24. Unlike in Montreal, where the Leafs had a pretty strong, +16 advantage in entries, it was much closer in Toronto, with the Leafs holding a meagre +4 advantage over the Caps. As always, the first thing I look at is entry differential, since that helps me gauge which way the camera was facing over the course of the game.
0 kommentar(er)
