Yes, teams that go to the net and compete in those tough areas get 2nd and 3rd chances. Sometimes. And sometimes the opponent has a defensive system in place to limit access to those areas. Lowell has been one of those teams, and for several seasons now.
The idea that this all happens "regularly" or that it's something you can impose upon a static, boilerplate opponent is laughable. Like all other aspects of the game, this is all subject to strategy and systems. And some teams are better at their systems than others.
Before we get too far off point, please understand that I'm near (if not at) the front of the line of folks on here who think UNH forwards have tended to have a history of playing *soft* in the hard areas. So I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you that UNH can benefit from getting more active in the dirty/greasy areas of the opponent's defensive zone. I just don't buy into your small sample snapshot serving as some kind of revelation. In fact, it is EXACTLY what I'd expect to see when a highly organized defensive team that pays a premium on effort in the middle of the ice comes up against a fast/young/inexperienced team getting their feet wet in D-1 hockey at a program that traditionally has had *soft* tendencies in their offensive zone play.
Not every team has a Tomas Holmstrom to stand in front of an opposing goalie consistently, willing to take the punishment from pucks, sticks and opponents' hits. But even a guy like Holmstrom needed to have talented guys around him to get the puck to the net so he could do his thing. And I'm pretty sure that Pesce, Boyd and Quast
or Downing, Willows and Eiserman aren't going to be confused with Lidstrom, Kronwall, Chelios and Rafalski (and others) - not to mention Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Yzerman, Fedorov, etc. - anytime soon.
You do realize that deflections and redirections don't all necessarily end up going on goal, correct? And you do realize that a team like Lowell puts a premium on clearing out obstacles in front of their goal, and gives their goalies a better look at pucks from the perimeter, which is - you know - what their overall defensive system is trying to accomplish, right?
As much as I'd like to embrace that argument, I think it's WAY too easy to regurgitate a box score, pluck out a couple of numbers, and then try to make it fit into a general conclusion. If this same pattern continues against a less defensively proficient program than UML in the coming weeks - say, for example, Northeastern - then I'll be happy to join into your conclusions. e-cat points out that UNH got some greasy goals against a defensively weak Colorado College squad. And he is correct. No two opponents are identical, and looking at the system Lowell has used these last few seasons, in comparison to how CC is playing this year, those are two polar opposites, no?
Speaking of good ol' e.cat ... this brings us back to our never-ending and always enlightening
SOG debate ...
Depends on what the score was (or would have been) at the time, at least to my thinking, e.cat. Wasn't that on Friday?
That's an easy question, e.cat. Meaningful SOG's are the ones that actually go IN, and those count on the only part of the scoreboard that really, truly matters.
You guys know I'm a "get the lead, and then impose your system" kind of guy in this debate. Both games last weekend fell into that pattern, but the Saturday game was the most striking due to the exaggerated score, and the SOG disconnect:
* Game was tied for the first 9 minutes (I'm rounding here, folks);
* Lowell took a one goal lead, and then had it up to a two goal lead within a minute;
* UNH cut the lead to a single goal a few minutes later, but Lowell answered 34 seconds later;
* Lowell would spend the final 46+ minutes ahead by more than one goal;
* Lowell would spend the final 42+ minutes ahead by at least three goals;
* Lowell would spend all but a single minute of the final 22+ minutes ahead by at least four goals
Nevertheless, UNH would outshoot Lowell 29-21 over the course of the entire game, and by 23-12 over the final two periods - you know, when they were down by at least 3 goals - all while Lowell outscored them 4-1 during all that UNH *dominance*.
But to you committed devotees of the SOG, I do have some excellent news for you. I have found another stat that approaches the true irrelevance of the SOG ... and ironically enough, it may be the GWG
, at least as it is awarded in most hockey leagues. Some 4th line freshman forward scores their first career goal midway into the
first period to give Lowell a 3-1 lead ... and THAT becomes a GWG just because UNH manages to score a garbage goal in the 3rd period??
Does EVERY game have to have a GWG, and if so, why? Is this something that offers insight, as currently constituted??
Tell me about the guys who score postseason OT goals, or who score go-ahead goals late in a game, and MAYBE it tells me something.
Hockey talk used to be a LOT more fun (and insightful) until the Moneyball brigade arrived (not you guys BTW).
Now git off ma lawn, you whippahsnappahs!!!
JMHO.
Love it! Now you are getting me all nostalgic, what, with my 1.5 seasons behind my belt, talking about that NU series! 
.