Midweek Roundup 5.3.23
What went differently in Michigan’s B1G Semi win over OSU from the regular season, a word on what to expect from another season of Dylan Duke, and Bill Muckalt departs
We write to you today from a week in which, to be blunt, not much has happened within the world of Michigan hockey. Committed forward Charlie Cerrato appears bound for a move from the NTDP for an extra season in the USHL with the Youngstown Phantoms before making his way to Ann Arbor; beyond that, there’s not much to discuss. So to fill the void in a temporarily college hockey-less world, we open this week by turning back the clock to a pleasant memory from not so long ago.
On March 11th, Michigan steamrolled Ohio State 7-3 at Yost to return to the Big Ten Championship Game a weekend later. Reviewing the game two days later, Brandon Naurato noted that the Wolverines (who won just once in four tries against OSU in the regular season) had excelled on their objective sheet—dwarfing the season average figures against the Buckeyes in categories like slot shots, offensive zone possession time, and faceoff percentage.
So what changed? How did Michigan go from struggling with Ohio State all season to playing what I would contend was its best game of the year against the Buckeyes in the Big Ten semis? To answer that question, let’s return to the amateur film room.
There are a few credible contenders for Michigan’s best game of the year (that semifinal against OSU, the Colgate game in the first round of the NCAA Tournament for pure domination, or the Duel in the D for last-second drama to name a few), but the worst performance of the year is obvious: A 7-2 home loss to Ohio State on January 13th, the first game of the second half. Let’s start there to get a sense of where Michigan had struggled against the Buckeyes.
Not even a minute into the game, we get a preview of where things will go wrong for Michigan—along the offensive blue line. Luke Hughes slithers from below his own goal line to just past the red line, before dishing wide for Mackie Samoskevich. Samoskevich is able to gain the offensive zone, but the moment he does, Ohio State’s Tyler Duke (now a Wolverine of course) dislodges the puck from his blade, setting up the Buckeyes to exit their end with control.
It’s a simple play and an unspectacular one, but it would become Michigan’s central problem on the evening. Buckeye coach Steve Rohlik was committed to denying the Wolverines the ability to gain the zone cleanly. Against the run of play, Michigan managed to score first, and the game was 1-1 at intermission, but a 23-7 Buckeye edge in shots foretold a second period that OSU would win 5-1.
As the second wore on, Michigan’s defensemen seemed to move toward solving the problem of the neutral zone by foregoing clean exits with possession for high flips and stretch passes. This shift only fed the Buckeye counterattack.
Perhaps somewhat paradoxically, Michigan’s struggles only served to illustrate the purpose of its system. As we’ve discussed at length, under Naurato, Michigan emphasizes puck possession. The most basic reason for this is that the only team that can score is the one that has the puck; thus, being in possession means being dangerous to your opponent and in control over the flow of play.
An essential component of this process is building from the back, where the Wolverines exit their defensive end by stringing together quick, short passes rather than simply lobbing the puck to neutral ice. The latter method might offer quicker relief, but the former promotes game control.
As Michigan’s struggles mounted, the Wolverines seemed to lose sight of this philosophical pillar, and the consequence was an even more intense Buckeye onslaught. On this play, Ethan Edwards—late in a shift and seeking a line change—lofts the puck to the OSU end of the rink. It’s a pragmatic play—trading temporary relief and a necessary line change for puck possession—that you will see a dozen times a game.
However, the play also illustrates the fundamental benefit of playing out from the back: When you move the puck up ice fast, it is liable to come back at you even faster. On this occasion, Michigan manages to change out four of five skaters, but as it does so, Ohio State finds a high quality chance in transition. Erik Portillo makes the save, but the point holds. The temporary relief of lobbing a puck to neutral ice is just that, temporary; it invites counterattacking pressure against a defense that hasn’t had a chance to reset its structure and is therefore vulnerable.
As Ohio State turned this game from one in which it dominated play but not the scoreboard into an out-and-out blowout, Michigan’s struggle or reluctance to build from the back did it in.
Take a look at this goal from Tyler Duke:
The sequence begins with an aggressive Luke Hughes stretch pass to Jackson Hallum, with the sophomore defenseman snapping a pass from below his own goal line to just shy of the offensive blue line. For most players, this is a high-risk pass to the point of near impossibility. Hughes has the skill to pull it off (and he does), but the play still creates a Buckeye advantage.
Though Hughes’ feed bypasses the thorny OSU neutral zone, it also leaves the Michigan attack spread thin and without quality support options available. Hallum can sneak a pass to T.J. Hughes, only for Hughes to be swarmed by three Buckeyes and play to move in the opposite direction.
What we see once again is that when the puck goes up ice fast, it returns even faster. OSU has an easy entry available—another byproduct of Michigan being spread thin by the initial Hughes stretch pass. From there, Ohio State does good work on the cycle to eventually create a quality one-time look for Duke with a netfront presence in place. (Incidentally, the play offers a nice illustration of the skill Duke can bring to Michigan’s blue line next season.)
So what were Michigan’s biggest issues? An inability to get clean zone entries, which evolved into an inability to play out from the back and a humbling 7-2 defeat.
Now, let’s fast forward to the good part: the Big Ten Semifinal. It didn’t take Michigan long to make clear that this game would look much different. Gavin Brindley scored the opener just twenty-three seconds in. That he did so in transition hinted that the neutral zone would look different this time around.
The sequence begins with Luke Hughes picking up a loose puck (procured by Rutger McGroarty’s defensive effort). Maximizing a transition opportunity tends to happen in three steps: Getting off the wall, switching sides, and attacking middle ice.
Here, Hughes gets off the wall by playing a pass on for Adam Fantilli to carry into the neutral zone. Because Michigan is operating in transition, OSU hasn’t had time to restructure its neutral zone, which is to say that there is more space available than had been the case for much of the four prior meetings.
Michigan doesn’t truly switch sides until it gains the offensive blue line, but Fantilli’s movement—attacking middle ice—is nonetheless effective. He targets Mason Lohrei, OSU’s left defenseman in this situation, while driving middle ice. This movement occupies Lohrei, while Brindley has set himself up along the right wing—well wide of both Fantilli and Lohrei.
Fantilli’s route (mostly central, but directed at Lohrei) demands the Buckeye defender’s attention; if Lohrei doesn’t step to Fantilli, there will be a wide open path to Jakub Dobes’ net. Because he’s initially attacked wide along the wing, Brindley can then work from the outside in once he gets a pass from Fantilli. Lohrei is now in an untenable position—defending two of the best attackers in college hockey by himself in oceans of space. Brindley uses a toe drag to draw Lohrei out of the play entirely, then rips a wrister past Dobes. 1-0 Michigan.
In addition to vaulting the Wolverines into a lead, the goal provides a path toward more effective offense. Michigan doesn’t force the puck up ice via a hope play like a long-range stretch pass; instead, the Wolverines sense that they have an opportunity to attack the Buckeyes in an unstructured situation, so they take advantage. Fantilli and Brindley also show keen chemistry to manipulate the space available to them.
Seamus Casey would make it 2-0 minutes later on an innocuous looking wrister, but Michigan’s third goal (from Mackie Samoskevich) shows a similar dynamic: Michigan catching the Buckeyes before they can establish their neutral zone structure. The goal itself comes from Michigan’s O-Zone play, but the chance comes from Samoskevich’s work in transition.
Samoskevich skates the puck from his own end all the way up the right wing to the offensive blue line and beyond. This is not the sort of thing you are supposed to be able to do against a sound defensive team, but Samoskevich makes it work for two reasons. First, once again, he catches the Buckeyes before they can establish their structure, and second, once he gains the line, he has a plan in place to get the puck from a low danger area (wide in the offensive zone off an entry) to a high danger one (the net mouth, where he will deflect it in).
Part of the reason you aren’t looking for a single player to take the puck up ice on their own is that it tends to leave them isolated once they get to the offensive zone. Even if you manage to skate through neutral ice, you are unlikely to find productive supporting options once you make it to the offensive third. Samoskevich continues his rush by arcing below the goal line and playing a pass back for Keaton Pehrson at the point, rather than attempting to attack on his own.
From there, Pehrson makes a D-to-D pass to Luke Hughes, who fires a shot inviting a redirect toward heavy netfront traffic. Samoskevich executes the tip past Dobes, but his linemates (Dylan Duke and T.J. Hughes) were also in position to make that play. We are talking about in-zone creativity to produce the goal, but it was Samoskevich’s alertness and speed in transition that created the opportunity.
Even against a team like Ohio State, there will be some chances to attack an unstructured defense in transition. No opponent will ever clog the neutral zone 100% of the time, unless they completely sacrifice their own offensive game. As such, Michigan takes advantage of one of the rare occasions when the Buckeyes are out of NZ structure, and Samoskevich gets the kind of easy zone entry that Michigan never seemed to find in the two sides’ prior meetings. In this regard, success in transition hinges on picking the right spots to commit to attacking, and for Michigan, that meant a 3-0 lead.
This sequence from the second period (with Michigan still up 3-0) illustrates a different strength of the Wolverines’ game in that B1G semifinal.
The play begins with the Buckeyes breaking up an OZ chance for Michigan. As the play heads back toward Erik Portillo’s net, the Wolverines are vulnerable. Ethan Edwards has stepped up at the offensive blue line to try to stymy OSU’s exit attempt, but he is unsuccessful. Danger is close at hand whenever a defenseman pinches but doesn’t come up with the puck.
Instead, Seamus Casey rolls from his customary spot on the right over to his left to ensure that the Buckeyes won’t have a wide open transition chances, and it’s Edwards who recovers to come up with the ensuing Buckeye dump-in.
Two OSU forwards engage on the forecheck, and that is where we can plainly see Michigan’s commitment to building from the back. Casey and Edwards exchange passes back and forth while absorbing OSU pressure—clearly prioritizing keeping possession over getting out of the zone quickly via a high flip or rim around the boards.
In so doing, the pair eludes both Buckeye forecheckers, and Edwards emerges into a neutral zone that is vulnerable to the Wolverine attack. Once again, OSU’s neutral zone structure is not in place, this time because of committing two forwards to the forecheck.
Edwards finds Dylan Duke, who then sends in T.J. Hughes for a shot on Dobes. It’s not the highest quality chance, but it reflects Michigan’s success in working through the Buckeye neutral zone via steadiness and skill in building play out of its own end.
Meanwhile, when the puck is traveling toward Michigan’s net, the Wolverines proved remarkably adept at killing plays early and thereby denying the chance for OSU to create chaos or force races and battles that it might win.
For an example, take a look at this sequence from the second period.
As you can see, there is space for Tyler Duke to skate into as he works up ice and into the offensive zone, but it’s space that Michigan controls. As Duke pushes up ice, that space begins to collapse, with Mark Estapa keeping the play outside the dots and Jay Keranen eventually intervening to block a shot and allow Estapa and Nolan Moyle to reclaim the puck. On the ensuing rush, Michigan gains the zone and sets about creating chaos with its cycle game. Once again, this is a small play but a winning one: Controlling space to work quickly from defense to offense.
In early January, Brandon Naurato explained that, to him, playing good defense means being a playmaker on defense rather than purely reactive: “Everything offensively that I see, it’s not defensive breakdowns. When we score, it’s guys making plays. So defensively, making a play is killing the play, stealing the puck, finishing your guy.” You can see those instincts from all three of Keranen, Estapa, and Moyle as they cut out the Buckeye opportunity and convert it to stable Michigan possession.
Throughout the season, Michigan delivered some inconsistent performances with regard to protecting leads. On this occasion, the Wolverines were phenomenal at maintaining control with winning plays like Estapa and Keranen’s efforts to rebuff an OSU rush. However, winning hockey is not just sitting back to defend; it’s also controlling possession and creating offense of your own to maximize the pressure on your opponent.
In reviewing the Wolverines’ first and third goals, we looked at examples of Michigan creating offense by seizing opportunities to attack an unstructured neutral zone. Even if that was how Michigan built its lead on this occasion, preserving that lead inevitably meant sacrificing controlled entries into the offensive zone.
As we saw in that first clip from the January thirteenth iteration of this fixture, an established Ohio State made clean zone entries (i.e. arriving in the offensive zone with possession) next to impossible. The Wolverines could find some seams when capitalizing on quick transitions, but sustaining offense against Rohlik’s Buckeyes required conceding clean entry into the offensive zone.
In this clip, you’ll see Ohio State’s neutral zone somewhere between structured and chaotic. OSU gets a temporary clearance and has bodies back in sound position to defend.
However, a combination of Seamus Casey, Gavin Brindley, and Ethan Edwards do great work to regain control and earn entry into the offensive zone. However, upon doing so, Edwards finds himself in a situation similar to Samoskevich in that very first clip: with minimal passing options having arrived in the final third.
Edwards instead plays a cross-ice banked pass to Fantilli, who is streaking down the half-wall on the weak side. Edwards cedes some level of control, secure in the knowledge that Fantilli will win the race for the puck. Hard work along the boards from Brindley and McGroarty, along with Fantilli’s scintillating hands, eventually create a great chance and draw a penalty.
This was not a situation in which skating the puck into the zone was advantageous, so Ethan Edwards switched sides with a dump to the corner. However, this was no forgoing possession but instead improving its state, with Fantilli winning the initial puck and setting the stage for a quality offensive chance.
So how did Michigan solve the puzzle of Ohio State to dominate in their final of five meetings this year? There’s no one easy answer, but there are a few trends we can pick up on. First, we saw the value of choosing the right moments to attack versus play for possession. We also saw Michigan’s efficiency and commitment to playing out from the back to stay in control. We also watched Michigan’s haste in killing Buckeye chances before they can amount to much. If there’s one ingredient to the win we didn’t discuss, it was playing the game at even strength (the Wolverines outscored OSU 5-0 at five-on-five).
Looking Forward: Dylan Duke in 2023-24
We’ll pick up our “Looking Forward to Next Season” series today with a discussion of rising junior forward and Tampa Bay Lightning draft pick Dylan Duke. For the sake of simplicity, let’s use a three part structure to talk about what Duke can bring to Team 102: The Things We Always About with Duke, What We Leave Out, and then a comparison.
The conversation around Duke tends to revolve around three central pillars: His aptitude at the netfront, his reliability, and the way he complements his teammates. As a sophomore, Dylan Duke took a major step forward in production—capitalizing on an uptick in ice time by practicing his familiar arts around the net. By the end of the season, Duke scored eighteen goals to go along with fourteen assists in forty-one games (a 0.78 points-per-game pace, up from 0.46 as a freshman). At Michigan’s pre-Frozen Four presser from Tampa, Brandon Naurato described him as one of the best netfront power play forwards in the history of Michigan hockey.
In theory, there would be some cause for concern about regression in shooting percentage, given that Duke was at 18.4% as a sophomore, but the fact that he managed a 14.2% as a freshman and that he tends to shoot from premium locations suggests to me that he can continue to convert at a rate that is comfortably above average (even if it’s not quite pushing 20%). In his final year with the NTDP, Duke put up forty-nine points in fifty games, so it’s not as though he is some stranger to outsized production.
The dependability of the offense Duke creates manifests in the fact that he always seemed to produce, even when Michigan was at its worst. In the aforementioned 7-2 rout against Ohio State, Duke scored both goals. When Michigan was simultaneously battling adenovirus and Minnesota, Duke scored four times in two games. Deadlocked at three in a hostile environment against the number one team in the country? Duke tucked in a forehand-backhand move, while straddling the conference’s defensive player of the year.
Dylan Duke GWG vs. Minnesota, B1G Title Game
Meanwhile, Duke has shown himself to be a dream linemate. As Mackie Samoskevich said of his longtime linemate: “I think he’s a guy that likes to get dirty in the corners, and I’m a guy that likes to, you know, have him get the puck, give it to me, and shoot it.” By winning pucks, causing problems for opposing defenses around the crease, and finishing plays at the net, Duke has perfected the art of making life easier for his teammates.
If these are the familiar aspects of the Ohioan winger’s game, what have we left under-discussed in his two years in Ann Arbor so far?
The first thing that springs to mind in this category is Duke’s capacity as a passer and possession player. A key part of his success at the net front is that he doesn’t just stand there for an entire shift. Instead, Duke knows when to intervene below the goal line to keep plays alive, and he is a highly capable playmaker in small areas around the net. He also contributes more to Michigan’s build-up play and transition game than the “net front guy” label would suggest and has proven that he is capable of taking on more than the traditional defensive responsibility of a winger.
As he transitions from underclassmen to upperclassmen, Duke’s leadership qualities also deserve a mention. Within a half hour of Michigan’s season-ending defeat to Quinnipiac, Duke’s mind was already on what came next: “Going into my junior year, being an upperclassman, that’s something I definitely want to lean on—how [the team’s outgoing seniors] left Michigan and the culture those guys created.”
To start thinking about what to expect from Duke next year, I want to offer an ambitious comparison. The idea here is not to come up with a one-for-one parallel but rather to reframe the conversation around Duke’s potential value.
The breakout star of the 2023 Stanley Cup Playoffs to date has been Panthers forward Matthew Tkachuk. It’s not as though this postseason has provided the hockey world with the first insight into Tkachuk’s prodigious talent. There is a reason Florida felt comfortable trading the most productive and popular player in the history of its franchise (winger Jonathan Huberdeau) for Tkachuk last summer. However, as respected as the Scottsdale-born winger was for his unique blend of snarl and skill, I don’t think many people anticipated that Tkachuk would be the best player on the ice in a series against a team that set the all-time regular season wins record.
Why did the Panthers decide to swap Huberdeau (and defenseman Mackenzie Weegar) for Tkachuk? At its core, the trade was a reactionary response to being humiliated by the Tampa Bay Lightning in last year’s second round. The thinking went that Huberdeau’s style (dependent on power play and transition creativity) was not as conducive to postseason success as Tkachuk’s (characterized by skill around the crease, playmaking from the goal line and below, and forechecking).
I’m often skeptical of narratives that center “playoff-style hockey,” but with Tkachuk, the results are unarguable. Last season’s (Tkachuk-less) Panthers were among the most fun and productive offensive teams in NHL regular season history. They went on to labor over a first-round victory against a mediocre Capitals team before being swept by the Lightning. This year, the Panthers overcame a 3-1 deficit to knock off the top-seeded Bruins. In last night’s second round Game 1 against Toronto, Tkachuk was once again the best player on the ice in a Panther victory. These Panthers are built in Tkachuk’s image—relentless on the forecheck, irascible, and decisive at the net.
When we talk about driving play, we tend to revert to thinking of centers and defensemen, players who touch the puck a lot and set their teammates up with quality opportunities. Meanwhile, a netfront role is one that feels fundamentally dependent; after all, not even an artisan around the crease as adroit as Duke can tip their own shot past a goaltender, so there is a basic need for competent running mates. However, like Tkachuck, Duke finds a way to drive offense without having to have the puck on his tape all game long. By moving into and out of high leverage ice around the crease, Duke creates space for his linemates and puts himself in a position to take maximal advantage of their successes. It’s not the McDavid-style dazzling solo rush completed with a slipped pass across the crease to a teammate, but, in its own way, it is a vital means
Just like his jump from freshman year to being a sophomore, Dylan Duke will be in for added responsibilities as he embarks on his junior campaign. He’s already made the leap to top-line caliber forward and elite power play weapon, but in his third year in Ann Arbor, the Ohioan winger will once again have to take on an increased role. For the first time in his collegiate career, Dylan Duke will be a veteran leader within the Wolverine dressing room, and his familiar running mate Samoskevich won’t be joining him this go round. Still, playing a style that embodies winning hockey to the benefit of whoever has the good fortune to play with him leads me to believe that Dylan Duke will have no trouble driving positive results for the Michigan Wolverines in 2023-24.
Bill Muckalt and Michigan “mutually agree to part ways”
Per reporting from College Hockey News and the Michigan Daily, Bill Muckalt will not return for a seventh season as a Michigan assistant. The Daily’s Connor Earegood points out that Muckalt’s contract runs through the upcoming season, but the two parties jointly decided to go their separate ways.
I would think (which is to say this isn’t reporting) that Muckalt’s leaving early suggests something is in the works for his next destination, whether that’s in the NCAA, AHL, or even the NHL.
Muckalt of course was a two-time national champion under Red Berenson in the 1990s, scoring 225 points in 162 over his four years as a player. In six seasons with Muckalt as an assistant, Michigan was 125-77-19. Muckalt managed a series of defense corps that featured myriad NHL stars like Quinn Hughes, Owen Power, Nick Blankenburg, and Luke Hughes.
It would be impossible to thoroughly address his departure without touching on the fact that Muckalt was not chosen to be Michigan’s interim coach last summer (a fact that would seem difficult to disentangle from his choice to pursue other opportunities now). In a vacuum, Muckalt was the logical choice for the interim job, based on his résumé (the same résumé that makes him an attractive potential candidate to head or assistant jobs throughout collegiate and professional hockey).
Experience alone would seem to have made him the logical choice for the role after Mel Pearson was fired last August. However, Muckalt’s close relationship with Pearson and comments in the WilmerHale report downplaying the notion of a toxic culture within the program made him an untenable candidate.
That Muckalt was chosen to stay on as an assistant shows a fundamental comfort with him remaining part of the program, and he provided a degree of institutional knowledge and credibility to Naurato’s staff as it simultaneously auditioned for and settled into its new roles.
In practical terms, Muckalt’s exit means that Naurato will be looking to hire two new coaches this offseason—one assistant in the traditional sense and another once the NCAA enables a third paid coach over the summer (which will more than likely be a goaltending coach). Though there will remain holdovers from the previous staff in the likes of Evan Hall and Bryan Brewster, Muckalt’s departure also means that Naurato will be joined on the bench by two assistants he hired in his first season as a full-time head coach.
Thanks to @umichhockey on Twitter for this preview image. You can support our work further by subscribing or by giving us a tip for our troubles at https://ko-fi.com/gulogulohockey.