Before going into the details, I missed out on a photo gallery from Carthage, who was one of the teams that scrimmaged Detroit last Saturday (HT: 412 Lax). Check them out if you're interested.
A reminder from the Michigan version of this same feature:
- Possessions = Faceoff wins + clearing attempts + opponent failed clears.
- Efficiency = Goals/Possessions.
| Bellarmine | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Bellarmine | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 16 | Faceoff Wins | 8 |
| Clearing | 8-10 | Clearing | 10-12 |
| Possessions | 28 | Possessions | 22 |
| Goals | 12 | Goals | 8 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .423 | Offensive Efficiency | .364 |
Bellarmine owned the faceoff 'x,' leading to many more possessions than the Titans had. They were also more efficient, and came away with a comfortable win.
| Ohio State | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ohio State | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 11 | Faceoff Wins | 13 |
| Clearing | 20-24 | Clearing | 19-29 |
| Possessions | 45 | Possessions | 46 |
| Goals | 16 | Goals | 7 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .356 | Offensive Efficiency | .152 |
The Buckeyes didn't have nearly as many clearing opportunities, but had much more success on them, to draw just below even in number of possessions. There, they also made much more of their opportunities, more than doubling efficiency and score.
| Quinnipiac | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Quinnipiac | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 14 | Faceoff Wins | 10 |
| Clearing | 11-13 | Clearing | 10-11 |
| Possessions | 28 | Possessions | 23 |
| Goals | 13 | Goals | 8 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .464 | Offensive Efficiency | .348 |
The Titans had a rather efficient day, but their struggles on faceoffs led to fewer possessions, and Quinnipiac took advantage of porous defense to come away with the comfortable win.
| Robert Morris | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Robert Morris | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 9 | Faceoff Wins | 16 |
| Clearing | 26-35 | Clearing | 19-25 |
| Possessions | 50 | Possessions | 50 |
| Goals | 15 | Goals | 6 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .300 | Offensive Efficiency | .120 |
In their fastest game to-date, the Titans had a dismal day offensively (this is a theme, you'll see), scoring on a mere 12% of possessions. Robert Morris emerged with the easy win.
| Lehigh | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Lehigh | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 23 | Faceoff Wins | 9 |
| Clearing | 14-17 | Clearing | 10-20 |
| Possessions | 50 | Possessions | 32 |
| Goals | 21 | Goals | 9 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .420 | Offensive Efficiency | .281 |
Bad defense? Check. Bad offense? Check. The anomaly here is that UDM got absolutely crushed in number of possessions, due to both a horrible day clearing the ball, and similarly-epic struggles on faceoffs.
| Manhattan | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Manhattan | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 12 | Faceoff Wins | 11 |
| Clearing | 22-24 | Clearing | 18-23 |
| Possessions | 41 | Possessions | 36 |
| Goals | 11 | Goals | 8 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .268 | Offensive Efficiency | .222 |
The Titans were sliiightly worse on faceoffs, a decent amount worse on clears, and less efficient. It's no surprise, then (necessary, given the definitions of the stats), that they were handed a loss by Manhattan.
| Presbyterian | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Presbyterian | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 14 | Faceoff Wins | 19 |
| Clearing | 16-21 | Clearing | 18-22 |
| Possessions | 39 | Possessions | 46 |
| Goals | 12 | Goals | 16 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .308 | Offensive Efficiency | .348 |
Ladies and gentlemen, are you sitting down? The University of Detroit-Mercy, for the first time in program history, left the field victorious - albeit over 1st-year program Presbyterian. A better day on faceoffs and a slightly better clear/ride game gave the Titans a handful more possessions, and they used them more efficiently than the opponent (for the first time all year) to get UDM's first-ever W.
| VMI | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| VMI | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 15 | Faceoff Wins | 8 |
| Clearing | 13-16 | Clearing | 13-18 |
| Possessions | 36 | Possessions | 29 |
| Goals | 8 | Goals | 11 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .222 | Offensive Efficiency | .379 |
Can you say... win streak? Despite getting crushed on faceoffs, and having a worse clear/ride than the Cadets, Detroit turned in their most efficient offensive game of the year AND their second-best defensive game of the year en route to program victory #2.
| Siena | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Siena | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 12 | Faceoff Wins | 8 |
| Clearing | 19-20 | Clearing | 18-20 |
| Possessions | 34 | Possessions | 29 |
| Goals | 9 | Goals | 8 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .265 | Offensive Efficiency | .276 |
The Titans fell juuuust short of their third win, as they were more efficient than Siena, but were once again done in by struggles on the faceoff (and a clear/ride game that was slightly worse).
| Yale | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yale | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 13 | Faceoff Wins | 10 |
| Clearing | 20-25 | Clearing | 19-21 |
| Possessions | 40 | Possessions | 36 |
| Goals | 12 | Goals | 8 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .300 | Offensive Efficiency | .222 |
Detroit lost the faceoff battle yet again, but performed better in the clearing game to stay close in number of possessions. The Bulldogs were more efficient though, and were able to get a comfortable win.
| Mount St. Mary's | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Mount St. Mary's | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 16 | Faceoff Wins | 8 |
| Clearing | 11-15 | Clearing | 15-21 |
| Possessions | 37 | Possessions | 33 |
| Goals | 12 | Goals | 9 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .324 | Offensive Efficiency | .273 |
Being on the wrong side of a domination at the faceoff X again contributed to a loss for the Titans. They also had a worse ride/clear game and were less efficient.
| St. Joseph's | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| St. Joseph's | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 7 | Faceoff Wins | 13 |
| Clearing | 17-22 | Clearing | 10-18 |
| Possessions | 37 | Possessions | 36 |
| Goals | 10 | Goals | 7 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .270 | Offensive Efficiency | .194 |
The complete lack of consistency on faceoffs over the course of the season is such a question mark to me (and I'll have to do a bit more research writing the preview to figure out why). On this day, Detroit was on the good side of a domination. Their ride/clear game was bad, though, and their offensive efficiency was just pitiful.
| Canisius | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Canisius | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 11 | Faceoff Wins | 8 |
| Clearing | 17-20 | Clearing | 15-20 |
| Possessions | 36 | Possessions | 31 |
| Goals | 9 | Goals | 8 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .250 | Offensive Efficiency | .258 |
Detroit was slightly more efficient than Canisius, but still managed to lose based on having fewer opportunities. That's due to (say it with me now) slight struggles on faceoffs and a worse ride/clear game.
| Marist | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Marist | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 12 | Faceoff Wins | 11 |
| Clearing | 17-22 | Clearing | 19-22 |
| Possessions | 37 | Possessions | 38 |
| Goals | 13 | Goals | 6 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .351 | Offensive Efficiency | .158 |
A horrible day in efficiency both offensively and defensively led to a blowout loss on a day that Detroit actually had more possessions than the opponent.
| Wagner | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Wagner | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 13 | Faceoff Wins | 11 |
| Clearing | 20-28 | Clearing | 26-29 |
| Possessions | 44 | Possessions | 48 |
| Goals | 7 | Goals | 14 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .159 | Offensive Efficiency | .292 |
In their most dominant game in program history, Detroit overcame a worse faceoff percentage by riding Wagner to a 71.4% success rate on clears, while nearing 90% success on their own. With more possessions, they nearly doubled up in terms of efficiency, for a big win.
What it all Means
The Titans rotated between being horrible, merely bad, and decent. They had varying amounts of success in all three factors of efficiency, with good and bad days on faceoffs, ride/clears, and efficiency. Let's take a look at the season totals.
| Season Totals | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Opponents | Detroit | ||
| Faceoff Wins | 198 (.548) | Faceoff Wins | 163 (.451) |
| Clearing | 251-312 (.804) | Clearing | 239-311 (.768) |
| Possessions | 582 | Possessions | 535 |
| Goals | 180 | Goals | 133 |
| Offensive Efficiency | .309 | Offensive Efficiency | .249 |
| Final Efficiency Margin | |||
| -0.060 | |||
Aside from overall offensive efficiency, Detroit's most consistent struggle (despite occasional flashes of brilliance) was on faceoffs. That's also a much more discrete issue to fix than "hey put the ball in the goal when you have it," (though putting the ball ON the goal might be a good start - Detroit was in the bottom third of Division 1 in shot percentage) so improving on faceoffs is a simpler fix for improvement - if not necessarily an easy one.
The ride/clear game was fairly even throughout the year, though opponents got the best of the Titans there as well. You can't score on a possession if you can't bring it into the offensive restraining box (INCISIVE ANALYSIS!).
The overall story is... Detroit can improve all over. As a young program entering just its third year of existence, there's definitely a possibility that it can happen.
Coming Soon
Now that I have some baseline numbers to work with, I'll try incorporate this stuff into a season preview of the Titans. Look for that tomorrow, in advance of their regular season opener on Saturday at Delaware.
No comments:
Post a Comment