IceCaps vs. Comets Breakdown: IceCaps Need to Improve Offence to Bolster Defence

A pair of wins earlier this week against the Utica Comets brought the St. John’s IceCaps back to the .500 mark, but greater problems were exposed.

The IceCaps high-powered offence scored 10 goals in the two-game series, raising their season average to 3.6/GP. However, the IceCaps are just as porous as they are lethal, giving up just one less score than they score.

There are severe problems that could cripple the IceCaps going forward and dry up the offence. The IceCaps are backed by a 11.81 SH%, a rate so high that the IceCaps’ PDO is an unsustainable 101.9 despite a .901 SV%. This is particularly problematic given that Charlie Lindgren has all five of the IceCaps wins, while sporting a .932 SV%. So considering just the games Lindgren has started, the IceCaps PDO is a ridiculous 112.9. That certainly isn’t encouraging.

If you want to read happier stuff, CTRL+F -> “Surging Scherbak”.

Take a look at the underlying numbers during the Utica-St. John’s series:

Basically, the IceCaps were outplayed against Utica, yet managed a pair of wins. So, what is wrong with the IceCaps?

I believe it begins with the (poor) transition game, particularly regarding controlled exits and entries. The second major problem is a lack of offensive creativity.

Let’s start with zone exits.

Defensive Zone Exits

Given the offensive firepower, featuring names like Andrighetto, Terry, Carr, Hudon, Scherbak, McCarron, Barberio, and some strong puck movers in Samuelsson, Johnston, Eisenschmid, and MacMillan, it’s not surprising the IceCaps excelled at controlled exits. In fact, the IceCaps controlled exit success rate is 91.80%, a highly impressive number.

However, for all the good the team did when attempting controlled exits, they opted for the better option only 57.14% of the time.

Instead, the IceCaps relied heavily on uncontrolled exits, which either failed entirely at a rate of 23%, or directly returned possession to the Comets outside the defensive zone 85.19% of the time.

% of Exits with Control Controlled Exit Success Rate Uncontrolled Exit Success Rate Uncontrolled Exit Success Rate, but Turnover IceCaps Average 57.14% 91.80% 72.97% 85.19% Andrighetto 100% 100% N/A N/A Carr 83.33% 100% 100% 100% Hudon 71.43% 100% 100% 50% Barberio 63.64% 87.50% 100% 66.67% Johnston 54.55% 85.71% 75% 75% Lernout 46.67% 87.50% 57.14% 42.86%

The usual names–Andrighetto, Carr, Hudon, Barberio, Johnston–were the best at zone exits against the Comets. Lernout opted for uncontrolled exits more often than the aforementioned five, but when he exited with control his puck carrying and improved breakout pass impressed.

The idea appears to be a fast play up the boards to a stationary winger, who then moves the puck to the centre in motion. However, this play is prone to being intercepted before it reaches the winger, or putting the winger in a vulnerable position where an uncontrolled exit is the only option. Even when passing options exist, defenders still dump the puck out at alarming rate.

The top forwards (Namely: Andrighetto, Carr, Hudon, Scherbak, McCarron) do a great job exiting the zone with control, as they had 21 of IceCaps forwards 30 controlled exits. Otherwise, the defenders are forced to orchestrate the entire breakout with either a pass or uncontrolled exit (50-50 split).

Offensive Zone Entries

Zone entries echo the trend found in zone exits: The IceCaps more successful with controlled zone entries, but instead opt uncontrolled entries far too often.

A 70.83% controlled entry success rate is dampened by merely half of all zone entries attempted with control. Meanwhile, the uncontrolled entry success rate is a mere 22.92%.

Once again, Andrighetto and Hudon are amongst the team leaders; the dynamic Scherbak is as well. Markus Eisenschmid, who only appeared in one game, finished third in successful controlled entries.

The IceCaps do not exhibit much variety in their attack, beginning with their over-reliance on dump-ins. This leads to extended back-and-forth action, needlessly wearing players out and limiting puck possession and shot attempts. Even skilled players like McCarron and Carr dumped the puck in more than they carried it, despite having the ability to make controlled entries.

The lack of adjustment is frustrating. Uncontrolled entries worked just 17.64% of the time on Nov. 1st, which should be an obvious sign to adjust tactics and increase controlled entries. However, the exact opposite occurred. The following night, the IceCaps increased their dump-ins from 17 to 31, despite the controlled options being vastly superior in success rate.

Offensive Zone Contributions

This is one area where the IceCaps do quite well, albeit with room for improvement.

Carr, Andrighetto, Scherbak, Hudon, and Terry are the top-five forwards by offensive contributions. Hudon strictly generated offence through shots on goal, racking up six in total, whereas Scherbak was playmaking-dominant, getting five primary shot assists.

The top defender was not Mark Barberio, or even the slippery Ryan Johnston–it was Brett Lernout. This series against Utica marked probably the best the smooth-skating defender has looked in the offensive zone since junior. Lernout was getting pucks through traffic, which is an important step forward.

The room for improvement is in two areas: Volume and variety. Breaking the data into per-game makes the contributions seem underwhelming: Carr averaged 4.5 OZ contributions over two games, Hudon averaged 3, and so on. Increasing OZ activity will help offset the lack of goals that is coming when the team’s SH% inevitably plummets.

The IceCaps made just seven passes that crossed the royal road and zero passes from down low into the slot. This means two things: (1) The IceCaps were primarily kept to the outside, at least when it came to puck distribution, and (2) The IceCaps were primarily attacking off the rush, but not utilizing the width of the ice.

Creativity has been a major problem with the Habs’ affiliate for years. Even with higher scoring players the IceCaps struggle consistently create a diversified attack–which is key for deadly offence. East-west puck movement not only causes goalies to move, but defenders, too. This creates a greater number of both shooting and passing lanes, which in turn could increase shot generation.

Anyways, I promised happier stuff. (It ties in, trust me.)

The Surging Scherbak

Nikita Scherbak was the star of the two-game series. He scored three goals and added an assist, extending his point-streak to five games and propelling his points-per-game to 0.9.

It has always been a struggle for Scherbak to balance his driven, north-south power moves with his dazzling, east-west stickhandling. When that balance was struck in junior, few players were as dominant.

Last season, Scherbak relied too heavily on his individual east-west moves.

This season, Scherbak is playing direct, skillful, and explosive. He’s aggressively taking the puck to the net in an unpredictable and flashy manner. Instead of just dangling, Scherbak is combining his explosive skating with soft hands to cleanly and efficiently beat defenders. The results?

Remember when I said the IceCaps have two major problems: Controlled exits/entries and offensive creativity? Well, Scherbak could be the answer.

Controlled entries?

Scherbak finished third in controlled entries and first in controlled entry attempt success rate.

Creativity?

Scherbak led the IceCaps with two successful royal road-crossing passes and five primary shot assists.

To make Scherbak’s series even more impressive, he led the team in pass completion rate (91.30%), and had the fewest turnovers (zero). Only McCarron’s 61.54 CF% was higher than Scherbak’s 57.14% among IceCaps forwards. And only Hudon had more defensive zone touches among IceCaps forwards, but Scherbak’s touches were more successful.

Essentially, when Scherbak is playing good offence, he’s playing good defence, too. But this isn’t just applicable to Scherbak–it’s applicable to all players.

And perhaps it’s time the IceCaps to follow Scherbak’s lead: Make more possession-maintaining and -driving plays, which could the improve the sustainability of offensive output and cure the porous defence.