What are the takeaways from the Maine series?

RPI starts the season with two tough losses to an underrated Maine team

Photo by Anthony DelMonaco

There’s a quote I like that goes: “Nothing is ever as good, or bad, as it seems.”

I think it applies to the games from this past weekend. All of the following statements can be simultaneously true:

• RPI did not play particularly well in either game.

• Maine is an underrated team that had real good underlying numbers last year. And that was without a top line of Nadeau² and Breen, a line that might be one of the best in college hockey this season.

• Even excluding their top-line, Maine just has more high-end players than RPI at the moment. It was never going to be a surprise for them to win both games.

• Playing really good teams (even if you are outmatched) is a good way to get better at beating really good teams.

• RPI started last season 4-0 and finished 14-20-1. Opponents matter and the first few games don’t make or break a season.

So yeah, a disappointing start to the season. But it’s also not the end of the world. Let’s get into the games:

Game 1

RPI actually started strong on Thursday night, getting a goal on the powerplay early (even though it was probably offside), and springing both Hotson and Tinling through for 1v1s in with the goalie.

Game 1 Breakdown. Stats courtesy of Instat Hockey Scout.

But by the end of the first period, Maine really took over the game. And they didn’t really let off until the middle of the third period.

The top two lines (B. Nadeau/Breen/J. Nadeau and Poisson/Renwick/Villeneuve-Houle) got a ton of ice time both at even strength and on the powerplay, and they were able to pretty much keep the puck in RPI’s zone.

To stress just how good those top-two lines for Maine were, I separated their contributions out from the rest of the team (for both games):

Maine’s game plan against us worked very well. They used a super aggressive forechecking, often sending two forwards down low to go after the two defensemen. If RPI didn’t break this line of pressure quickly (they often did not), Maine won the puck back nearly every time. The puck possession numbers (Corsi/Fenwick) really show just how effective this was.

Spending all this time in our defensive zone led to a tired legs, bad turnovers and quite a few penalties. Maine took those opportunities against tired legs and the several powerplays, sent out their top-two lines, and just created loads of scoring chances. Watson made some highlight-reel saves to keep them at just 4 goals.

Game 2

Friday’s game was a little better from a puck possession point of view (i.e. RPI didn’t get hemmed in their own zone for a whole period like they did on Thursday), but Maine were still able to generate just a ton of good looks, especially on the powerplay:

Game 2 Breakdown. Stats courtesy of Instat Hockey Scout.

You’re just not going to win many games if you are give up as many scoring chances as RPI did in their time on the penalty kill. Between these two games, RPI was giving up about twice as many chances on the penalty kill as they did on average last season. The result was nearly half of the goals that Maine scored this weekend coming on the man-advantage.

A Quick Look at Time-on-Ice

Here’s a quick snapshot of everyone’s ice time from the two games.

As we've shown above, RPI spent a lot of time on the penalty kill, so that spreads out the ice time between the four forward lines especially. It’s in contrast to Maine’s top two lines who were all getting closer to 20 minutes of ice-time and the bottom two which both averaging under 10.

Interestingly enough, Strom and Smolinski had some of the fewest minutes in both games. Matta/Agnew became the clear second-pair as the weekend progressed, with Ardanaz getting a good share of minutes both at even strength and on the powerplay.

Early Snapshot at Underlying Metrics

I’m not going to add much to these, just because we are only 120 minutes into the season, and these metrics are semi-meaningless for such small sample sizes. But, I did just want to include them here at the end. Don’t draw too many conclusions based off these.

First, we have our “On-Ice xG” numbers. Higher number mean you’re on ice (helping) create more scoring chances than ones you give up to the other team. The overall numbers are bad, because the team gave up a lot of chances to Maine, but the right-most column “Rel xGF%,” gives a little indication to who is adding the most value.

Stats courtesy of Instat Hockey Scout.

Second, we have shot attempts (Corsi). This one is less complex than it’s made out to be. Are you on ice for more shots for or more shots against? Again the right-most column gives an indication of who is “driving play” the most.

Stats courtesy of Instat Hockey Scout.

Finally, we have individual xG. Basically which players created the most offense:

Stats courtesy of Instat Hockey Scout.

Again, take these with a grain of salt for now, but I always think they are interesting as a sidepiece to watching the game to see how certain players contribute.

With all that said, next weekend doesn’t get any easier for RPI. Two teams coming up that were both ranked it the top-10 in the USCHO poll Monday. Keep an eye out for our previews coming in the next couple of days!