UND vs. Michigan: A statistical analysis

Understandably, most North Dakota hockey fans don't have much interest in dwelling on the painful 2-0 loss to Michigan April 7 at the NCAA Frozen Four in St. Paul. It's still difficult for me to comprehend that the opportunity for the Fighting Sioux to win an eighth national championship has come and gone.

After watching the game again and reading some of the analysis that's been done, I decided to delve into the game statistics and shot charts provided by the NCAA. My apologies to those who aren't stats geeks, but I think the value of studying shot charts and statistics serves to debunk some of the statements made about how the Sioux performed and were coached against Michigan.

One area in which I was most interested was shots on goal by each team from the prime scoring area (PSA). I defined the PSA as the area from the goal line out to the top of the faceoff circles with the faceoff dots forming the left and right edges of the box. I was also interested in the shots from beyond the blue line because the chances of scoring on them is probably less than 1 percent.

Here are some interesting facts:

• 35% (7) of Michigan's 20 shots on goal were from the prime scoring area
• 50% (20) of UND's 40 shots on goal were from the prime scoring area
• Michigan blocked 23% (16) of UND's 70 shot attempts
• UND blocked 31% (15) of Michigan's 40 shot attempts
• 35% (7) of Michigan's 20 shots on goal were from outside UND's blue line
• 5% (2) of UND's 40 shots of goal were from outside Michigan's blue line
• 18 of UND's 20 shots on goal (90%) from the prime scoring area were taken by the team's top 10 scorers
• 4 of Michigan's 7 shots on goal (57%) from the prime scoring area were taken by the team's top 10 scorers
• In the third period, UND had 4 shots from the prime scoring area that missed the net (wide or high) and 3 that were blocked
• UND had 8 scoring opportunities from just outside the crease
• Michigan had 1 scoring opportunity from just outside the crease
• UND's top line had 10 shots on goal from the prime scoring area
• Michigan's top line had 2 shots on goal from the prime scoring area

Overall, UND had it's top-end players in prime scoring position throughout the game and was generating quality scoring opportunities. UND did an excellent job of shutting down Michigan's highest-scoring players, blocking shots and nearly eliminating any second chances on rebounds.

Based on these statistics, UND played an excellent defensive game against Michigan, effectively bottling up the Wolverines' top scorers. The Sioux were also very disciplined in giving Michigan just one power play. Much was made afterwards about Michigan's shot blocking, but UND's defense was better at not only limiting the Wolverines' shot attempts, but also at blocking a higher percentage of shots and limiting scoring opportunities from just outside the paint.

Offensively, with the exception of the power play, UND did everything well but put the puck in the net. Throughout the game, the top Sioux scorers had the puck on their sticks in prime scoring territory. But, as Michigan coach Red Berenson said, goalie Shawn Hunwick played the game of his life. If he hadn't, the Sioux would have lit up Michigan like a Christmas tree. Hunwick -- not Berenson's game plan or Michigan's defense -- deserves full credit for shutting down and shutting out UND.

There's no question in my mind that UND dominated the game. Without Hunwick's performance, Michigan would have been sunk.

First Period

UND shots on goal = 14 (1 from outside the blue line)
Michigan shots on goal = 10 (3 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 7
Brad Malone 2; Matt Frattin 2; Danny Kristo 1; Brock Nelson 1; Derrick LaPoint 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 3 (30%)
Ben Winnett 1 (scored); Jeff Rohrkemper 1; Carl Hagelin 1

Second Period
UND shots on goal = 11 (1 outside the blue line)
Michigan shots on goal = 3 (1 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 6
Evan Trupp 2; Jason Gregoire 1; Andrew MacWilliam 1; Danny Kristo 1; Chay Genoway 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 0

Third Period
UND shots on goal = 15
Michigan shots on goal = 7 (3 from outside the blue line)

UND prime scoring area shots = 7
Brad Malone 2; Evan Trupp 3; Matt Frattin 1; Danny Kristo 1

Michigan prime scoring area shots = 4
Scooter Vaughn 2 (scored empty net goal*); Luke Moffatt 1; Louie Caporusso 1

Game Totals
Michigan shot attempts = 48
42% shots on goal
31% blocked by UND

UND shot attempts = 70
57% shots on goal
23% blocked by Michigan

*Note: Vaughn's empty netter was actually from outside the prime scoring area, but with UND's goalie pulled, I decided the area should expanded.

The funny game

Last Thursday afternoon at the Xcel Energy Center, the Minneapolis Star Tribune’s Roman Augustoviz asked me: "Do you see any way North Dakota loses this?"

It was an interesting question because after the Fighting Sioux beat the University of Denver to become the only No. 1 seed to make the Frozen Four, everything seemed to be lining up for UND to win its eighth national championship.

None of the teams that ousted the Sioux from the NCAA playoffs during the Dave Hakstol era – DU and Boston College in particular – were still playing. The location of the Frozen Four in St. Paul assured an atmosphere at the Xcel Energy Center that heavily favored UND.

Hakstol had a 2-0 record against Red Berenson’s teams the two times they’d met in the NCAA playoffs. Most believed that this year’s Wolverines weren’t as deep or as talented as some previous Michigan teams. Also, during the regular season, UND went 2-1 against Minnesota-Duluth and 1-0-1 against Notre Dame.

Going into the Frozen Four, UND appeared rested and relatively healthy, which meant that Hakstol would be able to play his best lineup and roll all four lines. And most importantly, the Sioux were peaking at exactly the right moment and playing their best hockey of the season. The players and coaches were more focused than any Sioux team I'd ever seen. Their goaltending was solid, every line was producing, the defensive corps was outstanding and the special teams were excellent. So there was every reason to be positive.

However, while driving to St. Paul the night before the Frozen Four started, I began thinking about the ways in which many great Sioux teams had fallen short since I began following UND hockey in 1996. Dean Blais’ teams of 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 2003-2004 were highly regarded, but never made it out of the NCAA regionals. The four previous times Hakstol’s teams had made it do the big dance, hopes for a national championship were high, but the expectations were never realized.

So when I pondered Roman’s question, the realist in me recalled what had happened the past 11 times UND had been in a position to win a national championship, only to fall short of the ultimate goal.

I remembered poor goaltending, untimely penalties, flat performances, unlucky bounces, badly executed line changes, leads that evaporated, last-second goals in regulation, costly turnovers, goals in overtime and – most of all – opposing goalies who play the best games of their lives. (Do the names Adam Berkhoel and Peter Mannino ring a bell?)

And nobody should forget that the other team always gets a vote in determining the outcome. Any team still playing in April has a great deal going for it. 

As much as I hoped UND would take advantage of the opportunity to win its eighth championship, if there’s one lesson I’ve learned from the past 15 years of following the Fighting Sioux, it’s that in hockey, there’s no such thing as a sure thing.

The 2-0 loss to Michigan reminded me of something former UND player Jason Notermann once said (which I’ll paraphrase because I can’t find the exact quote):  Hockey is a funny game. Sometimes you score five goals on 10 shots, and other times you can’t score one goal on 50 shots.

Against Michigan, UND fell victim to one of those funny games at the worst time of the season. There were so many times that the top Sioux scorers had the puck on their sticks in prime scoring territory, only to be denied by goalie Shawn Hunwick. As Corban Knight put it, "The plays we were looking for weren't there. When they were, the goalie stood on his head."

What's become apparent over the 10 seasons I've been covering Fighting Sioux hockey for US College Hockey Online is that the team that looks like the favorite to win a national championship often isn't the one that prevails.  And that's one reason college hockey fans return again and again to watch this funny game.

A good example of a bad precedent

Perhaps I shouldn't attempt to paraphrase from memory what UND hockey coach Dave Hakstol said on Wednesday night's Fighting Sioux coaches show, but he made some good points worth examining. He noted that it wasn't up to him to determine what should happen to Denver University coach George Gwozdecky after last Saturday's game. Therefore, he wouldn't address that issue.

However, Hakstol was concerned about what happened during the game and how the officials handled it. He said that Gwozdecky's actions were calculated to fire up his team. Gwozdecky also admitted that he wanted "to get the attention of our officials."

Hakstol understood why Gwozdecky did this, but he believes that the in-game consequences should have been more severe than they were. Hakstol said that at a minimum, DU should have received a delay of game penalty for Gwozdecky's stroll across the ice, which would have resulted in a UND 5-on-3 power play.

Hakstol believes that when a coach resorts to such drastic action, his team should suffer the consequences. He didn't think the penalties assessed matched the level of the offenses committed by Gwozdecky, and I agree.

Of course, this begs the question as to whether UND could have capitalized on the two-man advantage. As bad as the Sioux power play was that game, I have my doubts. But if UND had scored at that point, it would have been a momentum swing in their favor and might have had a demoralizing effect on DU's bench. On the other hand, if DU had killed the penalties, the momentum might well have gone completely in the Pioneers' direction. Perhaps they would have won the game rather than settling for a 2-2 tie.

From my perspective, it's clear that the officiating crew was intimidated by Gwozdecky's actions. After he was tossed from the game, they refused to call the penalty on him that he richly deserved when he failed to comply with the ejection. The officials then proceeded to call five straight penalties on UND and none on DU. It was a shameful performance on many levels. Both coaches are justified in believing that they were shortchanged by the officiating.

During the post-game session with Gwozdecky, it became obvious that going into the series, there were issues between him and referee Todd Anderson related to the Mike Prpich-Geoff Paukovich incident in Denver a few seasons ago. In retrospect, having Anderson work this important series was an unwise decision.

What troubles me most is that Gwozdecky not only received no penalty for going out on to the ice to confront officials during the game, but that he also received no further discipline from Denver University or the WCHA (now known as the Wandering Coach Hockey Association) for this particular action. (He was later suspended a game by DU for communicating with the team during the game following his ejection.) Is this an appropriate message to send?

In hockey, as with all athletic contests, scarcely a game goes by in which a coach either disputes an official's call against his/her team or objects to a penalty or foul not being called. While coaches frequently display anger with officials, there must be limits on how far they go in acting on it. UND wasted no time in setting that standard when Hakstol made an obscene gesture toward officials during a game in Minnesota last season.

If neither DU nor the WCHA nor the NCAA will discipline Gwozdecky for his temper tantrum, his failure to obey a referee's decision, his willful interruption of a game attended by 11,800 paying fans or his display of poor sportsmanship witnessed by thousands of TV viewers across the Upper Midwest, who will?

A disturbing precedent is set when a league doesn't respond effectively to the intimidation of its officials during an athletic event and then refuses to discipline the coach who purposely engaged in the intimidation tactic. Does this mean that any WCHA coach who disagrees with an official's call during a game is now free to go berserk and storm on to the ice to debate the matter? Because that's exactly what happened here – and it worked. So why shouldn’t other WCHA coaches feel free to emulate Gwozdecky’s example?

In the end, it goes back to inconsistent, low-quality officiating in the WCHA and the inability of the organization's leadership to make prudent decisions. Until those issues are addressed, embarrassing episodes such as this will continue to happen and player safety will continue to suffer. Unfortunately, I fear that it will take a catastrophic event for any of this to change. Sadly, Robbie Bina’s broken neck wasn’t enough to transform the manner in which the WCHA operates.