Timberwoof's
Hockey Goalie Page		 On the
Road

Games

1: Southern Califormia Blades
2: Team Seattle/Amsterdam
3: DC Nationals
4: Boston Pride

Game Statistics

Team           Players Goals Final SOG     =  Saves  Penalties
SoCal Blades   14      2+2   4     12+10   22 13 81% 1
Earthquakes    12      3+0   3     10+6    16 18 81% 1

Seattle/Amst.  11      3+2   5     16+22   38 9  75% 1
Earthquakes    12      2+1   3     7+5     12 33 87% 3  

DC Nationals   14      2+0   2     9+5     14 11 79% 3
Earthquakes    12      1+2   3     8+6     14 12 86% 4

Boston Pride   14      9+2   11    15+17   32 11 79% 0 
Earthquakes    12      2+1   3     5+9     14 21 66% 0

No Boston Totals
Opponents                    11            74 33 79%
Earthquakes                  9             42 63 85%

All Totals
Opponents                    22           106 44 79%
Earthquakes                  12            56 84 79%

Player Statistics

#  
Player    Goals Assists Penalties
00 Weinstein 5            
 8 Tranchida 4     2       2
13 Murty     1     1
39 Hogan     1     1
   Burnfield 1
11 Keihl           1            
   Coupland                1
25 Benesh                  3

Goalie Statistics

31 Roeder
Goals Against Average: 5.5
Shots on Goal: 106
Save Average: 73%

Definitions

Players
The number of players on the roster for that game.
Goals
number of goals that team scored during each period.
Final
final score for the game.
Points
tournament points for that game.
SOG
Shots on Goal for each period.
=
Total Shots on Goal for the game.
Saves
the goalie's save average: (SOG - Goals) / Goals * 100%.
Penalties
the number of penalties against the team.

Moving Forward

(Several people commented that Boston Pride should have been playing in the Open division rather than the Recreational. Since their game against us was a blowout, I will present in parentheses numbers calculated without the Boston game.)

We had consistently fewer shots on goal than our opponents. We were less effective at scoring once we shot on goal -- 11% (11%) of shots scored -- than at Seattle. Our forwards need to create and take more opportunities toshoot on goal, and need to set up better shots.

We suffered consistently more shots on than our opponents and our opponents were more effective at scoring -- 27% (15%) of their shots scored. Our defenders need to prevent more opposing scoring opportunities and our goalie needs to block more shots. Defenders should look for their open man and intercept the pass. The goalie had a consistently better view of the puck than at Seattle. Except for the Boston game, our goalie had a better save average than the other goalies. (Even with the Boston game, his save average was the same as the other goalies.)

Winning games is a team effort. Forwards and defenders and goalie must do their parts.
Let's say our forwards got off 106 (74) shots on goal, as our opponents did. With the other teams' save average of 79%, we would have scored 22 (16) points instead of only 12 (9).
Let's say our defenders were as effective as the other teams' and we suffered only 56 (42) shots on goal. With our goalie's save average of 79% (85%) we would have suffered only 12 (6) goals instead of 22 (11).
And let's say our goalie had a save average of 79% (79%), the same as the other goalies we faced: Then with 106 (74) shots on goal we would have suffered 22 (15) goals instead of 22 (11).

These scenarios give mixed results. Improving our shots on goal to match the other teams, we would tie 22-22 (win 16-11). Improving our defense to match the other teams we would tie 12-12 (win 9-6). Let's not reduce our goalie's effetciveness ... we would have lost 22-12 (lost 15-9). (Compare these numbers to 22-12 (11-9) for the tournament).

If we all work to improve our skills to match our opponents, then we will, by definition, have more even games.