2008-09 Scores

[MNHockeyFan]

Edina 2, BSM 1 (SO)

This was a defensive battle because both teams were having difficulties scoring. Goalies played well. It ended up going to a shoot out.

This one goes into the record as a 1-1 tie, as the MSHSL does not recognize shoot out wins/losses. Shots were 27-21 Edina, each team had 4 minor penalties.

Blake 3, Breck 2

Breck led 2-0 with about 3 minutes left in the game. Blake scored 2 goals in the final 3 minutes to tie it and about 5 minutes into the OT Alyssa Veil top shelved a shot from the mid slot. It appeared that stellar play by Breck's ninth grade goalie kept Breck in the game. I only saw the 3rd period but during the 3rd period Blake controlled the puck and kept the puck in the Breck defensive zone most of the period. Shots on goal were 33-16 in favor of Blake.

This was a great game featuring a tremendous last minute comeback by Blake. Here is the writeup and box score from today's Star Tribune:

BLAKE 3, BRECK 2: Alyssa Veil knocked in a loose puck in front of the Breck goal at 4:52 over overttime to lift No. 1, Class 1A Blake to a victory over No. 3, 1A Breck in the first round of the Edina Cake Eater Classic. Blake trailed 2-0 after two periods but rallied in the last 2:33 of the third period to tie the score on goals by Dani Cameranesi and Sally Komarek to send it to overtime.

Blake 3, Breck 2, OT

Breck...........1-1-0-0-2

Blake...........0-0-2-1-3

First: BR-Mork (Berens), 13:30. Second: BR-McMillen, 7:31, pp. Third: BL-Cameranesi (Crowe), 14:27; BL-Komarek (Cameranesi, Foss), 16:08. Overtime: BL-Veil (Cameranesi, Cole), 4:52. Saves: BR-Neisen 4-6-5-0-15; BL-Billadeau 11-10-6-3-30.

[MNhockey24]

You must have been viewing the game through "Rose"ville tinted glasses. Roseville was on the power play for a lot of the 3rd and added to their shot total. Roseville had VERY few shots in the 2nd (Dominated by Hopkins). Roseville plays an interesting break out and Hopkins just needed to get used to it. This is why Roseville had the better start. I'm pretty sure Hopkins would win again in a rematch (hopefully will happen) now that they know how Roseville plays. Did you see the whole game?

I was back and forth between the MG/Burnsville game and this one. I was there for the entire third period which may have swayed my impression of the game because Roseville had Hopkins bottled up for most of it. I think the game was a lot closer than the 3-0 score appears...

[Joethehockeydad]

It WAS a great game, and now I understand your opinion since the third period was a bit strange with all the power plays for Roseville. The game was a VERY close game no doubt about it.

You must have been viewing the game through "Rose"ville tinted glasses. Roseville was on the power play for a lot of the 3rd and added to their shot total. Roseville had VERY few shots in the 2nd (Dominated by Hopkins). Roseville plays an interesting break out and Hopkins just needed to get used to it. This is why Roseville had the better start. I'm pretty sure Hopkins would win again in a rematch (hopefully will happen) now that they know how Roseville plays. Did you see the whole game?

I was back and forth between the MG/Burnsville game and this one. I was there for the entire third period which may have swayed my impression of the game because Roseville had Hopkins bottled up for most of it. I think the game was a lot closer than the 3-0 score appears...

[OntheEdge]

Hopkins 3 Roseville 0 (Goalie win for Billadeau....Roseville outshot Hopkins like 50 to 17)

I was at the Hopkins/Roseville game. It was awesome. But I will correct a previous posting......shots were 33-22 in favor of Roseville.

Sure seemed like the shots were more in favor of Roseville, especially during the third period. There were quite a few penalties on Hopkins during that period, but most of them were good calls with one that I thought was questionable. Roseville poured on the shots, but many were blocked in front. In the end, they couldn't find a way to get one past Billadeau. Hopkins did a good job of containing Roseville and only allowing shots from the outside. In my opinion, Roseville had the better team, but Hopkins had the better goalie...

I've seen both teams play MNHockey24 and I have the same opinion that Roseville has the better skaters and Hopkins has the better goalie. Not that Hopkins' skaters are slouches, they are pretty good too but Hopkins doesn't have the same depth as the Roseville team and Hopkins defenders aren't as good as Roseville. I think Hopkins' goalie is so good that with just a little offense she can take them to the promise land.

[MNHockeyFan]

Saturday, November 29
Alexandria 3, Hibbing/Chisholm 1
Anoka 5, Rochester Mayo 3
Austin 5, Sartell-Sauk Rapids 5 Tie
Benilde-St. Margaret's 4, Breck 1
Blake 5, Edina 0
Buffalo 4, Faribault 1
Cloquet/Esko/Carlton 3, North Metro 2
Coon Rapids 5, Forest Lake 2
Crookston 6, Marshall 1
Duluth Northern Stars 7, Dodge County 0
Eagan 6, Lakeville North 3
Eastview 4, Rosemount 1
Eveleth-Gilbert 4, Princeton 1
Grand Rapids/Greenway 5, Blaine 1
Henry Sibley 3, St. Cloud Tech 1
Holy Angels 5, Elk River 2
Hopkins 5, Maple Grove 1
Lakeville South 2, Bloomington Jefferson 1
Litchfield/Dassel-Cokato 7, Mankato East 5
Minnehaha Academy 2, Mahtomedi 1
Mound-Westonka 7, Holy Family / Waconia 1
Mounds View 4, Spring Lake Park 3
North Wright County 8, Brainerd/Little Falls 1
Orono 5, Thief River Falls 3
Proctor/Hermantown/Duluth Marshall 7, Wayzata 5
Red Wing 14, Waseca 0
Richfield 5, Bloomington Kennedy 1
River Lakes 4, Rogers/Zimmerman 1
Robbinsdale Armstrong 9, Tartan 2
Roseville 5, Burnsville 4
Shakopee 10, East Range Knights 1
Silver Bay 4, Park Rapids 1
St. Cloud Icebreakers 2, St. Francis 1 OT
Visitation/SPA 3, South St. Paul 0
Warroad 8, Fergus Falls 0
White Bear Lake 4, North St. Paul 2

[MNhockey24]

Saturday, November 29
Hopkins 6, Maple Grove 1 (tentative)

This game was actually 5-1. Maple Grove stayed with Hopkins through 2 periods, but couldn't keep up in the third. Maple Grove scored first, but Hopkins countered quickly. Then in a skirmish in front, a MG player was trying to clear the puck, but ended up putting it in her own net. The score was 2-1 Hopkins going into the third. The thing that really killed MG was that they failed to score on a 4-minute 5x3 power play at the end of the period. It was all Hopkins in the third as they scored two PP goals and another that was basically a PP goal as the MG girl had gotten out of the box about 2 seconds before they scored. This one could have been a lot closer had the MG offense not disappeared...

Pretty sure Hopkins is your new #1 after Edina was blanked by Blake...

[Joethehockeydad]

Hopkins won 5-1 over Maple Grove and Hopkins played poorly. I feared a "let-down" after beating Roseville last night and that is exactly what happened. Maple Grove scored first and Hopkins didn't even wake up. It was 2-1 after 2 periods as Hopkins continued to snooze. Vin finally woke them up a little in the 3rd. Hopkins killed 4 minutes of 5-3 in the second period and only gave up 4 shots during that span. The Hopkins D is under-rated and we like it like that. Hopkins, with any enthusiasm should have won by a margin of 6 or 7. Roseville dominated Burnsville but the score does not show as Roseville leading 5-1 after two, gave up three in the 3rd to win a final of 5-4.

Saturday, November 29
Alexandria 3, Hibbing/Chisholm 1
Anoka 5, Rochester Mayo 3
Austin 5, Sartell-Sauk Rapids 5 Tie
Benilde-St. Margaret's 4, Breck 1
Blake 5, Edina 0
Buffalo 4, Faribault 1
Crookston 6, Marshall 1
Duluth Northern Stars 7, Dodge County 0
Eagan 6, Lakeville North 3
Eastview 4, Rosemount 1
Eveleth-Gilbert 4, Princeton 1
Grand Rapids/Greenway 5, Blaine 1
Henry Sibley 3, St. Cloud Tech 1
Hopkins 6, Maple Grove 1 (tentative)
Lakeville South 2, Bloomington Jefferson 1
Minnehaha Academy 2, Mahtomedi 1
Mound-Westonka 7, Holy Family / Waconia 1
Mounds View 4, Spring Lake Park 3
North Wright County 8, Brainerd/Little Falls 1
Orono 5, Thief River Falls 3
Red Wing 14, Waseca 0
River Lakes 4, Rogers/Zimmerman 1
Robbinsdale Armstrong 9, Tartan 2
Shakopee 10, East Range Knights 1
Silver Bay 4, Park Rapids 1
St. Cloud Icebreakers 2, St. Francis 1 OT
Visitation/SPA 3, South St. Paul 0
Warroad 8, Fergus Falls 0
White Bear Lake 4, North St. Paul 2

[Bensonmum]

It WAS a great game, and now I understand your opinion since the third period was a bit strange with all the power plays for Roseville. The game was a VERY close game no doubt about it.

You must have been viewing the game through "Rose"ville tinted glasses. Roseville was on the power play for a lot of the 3rd and added to their shot total. Roseville had VERY few shots in the 2nd (Dominated by Hopkins). Roseville plays an interesting break out and Hopkins just needed to get used to it. This is why Roseville had the better start. I'm pretty sure Hopkins would win again in a rematch (hopefully will happen) now that they know how Roseville plays. Did you see the whole game?

I was back and forth between the MG/Burnsville game and this one. I was there for the entire third period which may have swayed my impression of the game because Roseville had Hopkins bottled up for most of it. I think the game was a lot closer than the 3-0 score appears...

Mr HockeyDad, I think you saw things like only a DAD could.
My take, for what it's worth:
Not that it matters even a little, but whoever counted the shots (as 33 to 22) was smoking something, and Hopkins never 'dominated' anything. The 2nd was sloppy and disorganized. Hopkins' superstar created 5 scoring chances, they scored on 3 of them, and Roseville pounded the state's best goalie for 3/4 of the game to no avail. Just my opinion.

[Joethehockeydad]

I guess the attacks are coming since Hopkins is now in the top spot!

It WAS a great game, and now I understand your opinion since the third period was a bit strange with all the power plays for Roseville. The game was a VERY close game no doubt about it.

I was back and forth between the MG/Burnsville game and this one. I was there for the entire third period which may have swayed my impression of the game because Roseville had Hopkins bottled up for most of it. I think the game was a lot closer than the 3-0 score appears...

Mr HockeyDad, I think you saw things like only a DAD could.
My take, for what it's worth:
Not that it matters even a little, but whoever counted the shots (as 33 to 22) was smoking something, and Hopkins never 'dominated' anything. The 2nd was sloppy and disorganized. Hopkins' superstar created 5 scoring chances, they scored on 3 of them, and Roseville pounded the state's best goalie for 3/4 of the game to no avail. Just my opinion.

[ghshockeyfan]

With EP reloading not sure which team has the "#1" target on their back any given night... It should be interesting now with 4-5+ teams that could be considered #1 depending on how the season plays out...

[MNhockey24]

Hopkins won 5-1 over Maple Grove and Hopkins played poorly. I feared a "let-down" after beating Roseville last night and that is exactly what happened. Maple Grove scored first and Hopkins didn't even wake up. It was 2-1 after 2 periods as Hopkins continued to snooze. Vin finally woke them up a little in the 3rd. Hopkins killed 4 minutes of 5-3 in the second period and only gave up 4 shots during that span. The Hopkins D is under-rated and we like it like that. Hopkins, with any enthusiasm should have won by a margin of 6 or 7. Roseville dominated Burnsville but the score does not show as Roseville leading 5-1 after two, gave up three in the 3rd to win a final of 5-4

I hardly think the only reason this game was close was because Hopkins played poorly. I think Maple Grove came out a lot stronger than anyone expected and had Hopkins running around for most of the first 2 periods. Hopkins got lucky that MG put it in their own net on a fluke play trying to clear in front. Take that away and it was a 1-1 game going into the third. Then MG just ran out of gas and having failed to convert on the 5x3 really took a lot of wind out of their sails.

Also, I would like to point out that if Roseville "dominated" Burnsville by winning 5-4, I guess MG put on a pretty good performance the night before by beating Burnsville 4-1. I think if anyone is "under-rated", it is the MG squad...

[Joethehockeydad]

You are WAY off track and time will prove it out. MG goalie kicked out rebounds all game and Hopkins wasn't crashing the net or following their shots for easy put backs. This game wasn't nearly as close as the score indicated.

Hopkins won 5-1 over Maple Grove and Hopkins played poorly. I feared a "let-down" after beating Roseville last night and that is exactly what happened. Maple Grove scored first and Hopkins didn't even wake up. It was 2-1 after 2 periods as Hopkins continued to snooze. Vin finally woke them up a little in the 3rd. Hopkins killed 4 minutes of 5-3 in the second period and only gave up 4 shots during that span. The Hopkins D is under-rated and we like it like that. Hopkins, with any enthusiasm should have won by a margin of 6 or 7. Roseville dominated Burnsville but the score does not show as Roseville leading 5-1 after two, gave up three in the 3rd to win a final of 5-4

I hardly think the only reason this game was close was because Hopkins played poorly. I think Maple Grove came out a lot stronger than anyone expected and had Hopkins running around for most of the first 2 periods. Hopkins got lucky that MG put it in their own net on a fluke play trying to clear in front. Take that away and it was a 1-1 game going into the third. Then MG just ran out of gas and having failed to convert on the 5x3 really took a lot of wind out of their sails.

Also, I would like to point out that if Roseville "dominated" Burnsville by winning 5-4, I guess MG put on a pretty good performance the night before by beating Burnsville 4-1. I think if anyone is "under-rated", it is the MG squad...

[rwb1351]

You are WAY off track and time will prove it out. MG goalie kicked out rebounds all game and Hopkins wasn't crashing the net or following their shots for easy put backs. This game wasn't nearly as close as the score indicated.

Hopkins won 5-1 over Maple Grove and Hopkins played poorly. I feared a "let-down" after beating Roseville last night and that is exactly what happened. Maple Grove scored first and Hopkins didn't even wake up. It was 2-1 after 2 periods as Hopkins continued to snooze. Vin finally woke them up a little in the 3rd. Hopkins killed 4 minutes of 5-3 in the second period and only gave up 4 shots during that span. The Hopkins D is under-rated and we like it like that. Hopkins, with any enthusiasm should have won by a margin of 6 or 7. Roseville dominated Burnsville but the score does not show as Roseville leading 5-1 after two, gave up three in the 3rd to win a final of 5-4

I hardly think the only reason this game was close was because Hopkins played poorly. I think Maple Grove came out a lot stronger than anyone expected and had Hopkins running around for most of the first 2 periods. Hopkins got lucky that MG put it in their own net on a fluke play trying to clear in front. Take that away and it was a 1-1 game going into the third. Then MG just ran out of gas and having failed to convert on the 5x3 really took a lot of wind out of their sails.

Also, I would like to point out that if Roseville "dominated" Burnsville by winning 5-4, I guess MG put on a pretty good performance the night before by beating Burnsville 4-1. I think if anyone is "under-rated", it is the MG squad...

What you are saying about Hopkins play leads me to believe that the game was in fact close. If the superior team is not playing up to their ability, the game is bound to play closer. Yes, the talent levels may not have been different, but on any given day in any given game it can be close if the talent is not capatilizing on chances or doing the little things right.

[ghshockeyfan]

You are WAY off track and time will prove it out. MG goalie kicked out rebounds all game and Hopkins wasn't crashing the net or following their shots for easy put backs. This game wasn't nearly as close as the score indicated.

I hardly think the only reason this game was close was because Hopkins played poorly. I think Maple Grove came out a lot stronger than anyone expected and had Hopkins running around for most of the first 2 periods. Hopkins got lucky that MG put it in their own net on a fluke play trying to clear in front. Take that away and it was a 1-1 game going into the third. Then MG just ran out of gas and having failed to convert on the 5x3 really took a lot of wind out of their sails.

Also, I would like to point out that if Roseville "dominated" Burnsville by winning 5-4, I guess MG put on a pretty good performance the night before by beating Burnsville 4-1. I think if anyone is "under-rated", it is the MG squad...

What you are saying about Hopkins play leads me to believe that the game was in fact close. If the superior team is not playing up to their ability, the game is bound to play closer. Yes, the talent levels may not have been different, but on any given day in any given game it can be close if the talent is not capatilizing on chances or doing the little things right.

I would agree... Close game, but maybe not two teams of equal talent based on playing up to ability. Top teams play at or near their full potential consistently regardless of the opponent faced. Also though score isn't always a sign of disparity between talent of two teams, nor even do shots tell the story always (PP/PK impact), and even with special teams considerations then what about quality scoring chances vs. just shots from the red line? I've seen some very good teams put up 50-60+ shots to only see a handful of true quality scoring chances because the (weaker?) team simply only gives up these long range chances (maybe by choice???)... I have no idea of if any of this played into the game in question but it's worth a thought... Also - very early in season, teams adapting to losses & additons relative to last year, new systems with or without new coaches, etc.

[Thunderbird77]

ghshockeyfan wrote:
... score isn't always a sign of disparity between talent of two teams, nor even do shots tell the story always (PP/PK impact), and even with special teams considerations then what about quality scoring chances vs. just shots from the red line? I've seen some very good teams put up 50-60+ shots to only see a handful of true quality scoring chances

0nce again, ghshockeyfan has it right. Much has been posted this weekend about the relative strength of teams based on the number of shots. What should be considered is the number of quality scoring chances. Roseville does produce a lot of shots. The Roseville goalie faced a lot more quality scoring chances, despite how even (or one sided to some) the play seemed. It was the play by Roseville's goalie which has been most underrated this weekend. She may have been Roseville's top player in the Hopkins game.

That being said, Roseville is a well coached team. One would expect to see more and more shots convert to quality scoring chances as the season progresses.

What does this say about who is the #1 team??? Ghshockeyfan is probably right again. It is very early in the season. This round goes to Hopkins, however.

[joehockey]

Who won the Roseville vs. Mounds View game on Monday night?

[livin' in the 651]

Who won the Roseville vs. Mounds View game on Monday night?

RV 5, MV 1

Sloppy penalty filled game.

[joehockey]

Final Stillwater 2 - Edina 1

Edina took to many penalties.....story of the game. Edina tried to take game over in the third but couldn't beat Sobczek.

Period 1
Stillwater 1 Edina 0 (Lisa Tuuri scored her team leading 6th goal of season late in the first period 15:53 from Lauren Charpentier and Kristi King)

Period 2
Stillwater 1 Edina 1 (Christy Brower 4th of season, from Corinne Buie & Ellie Gleason)

Period 3 -
Stillwater 2 Edina 1
GAME WINNER 8:35 mark Lauren Charpentier 2nd of season PP from Kristi King & Callie Dahl on Edina's 5th penalty of the night)


Shots
Edina 3 - 9 - 19 - 31 Total
Stillwater 7 - 11 - 7 - 25 Total

[Joethehockeydad]

Thanks for all the updates. Looks like it was a fairly evenly matched game.

Final Stillwater 2 - Edina 1

Edina took to many penalties.....story of the game. Edina tried to take game over in the third but couldn't beat Sobczek.

Period 1
Stillwater 1 Edina 0 (Lisa Tuuri scored her team leading 6th goal of season late in the first period 15:53 from Lauren Charpentier and Kristi King)

Period 2
Stillwater 1 Edina 1 (Christy Brower 4th of season, from Corinne Buie & Ellie Gleason)

Period 3 -
Stillwater 2 Edina 1
GAME WINNER 8:35 mark Lauren Charpentier 2nd of season PP from Kristi King & Callie Dahl on Edina's 5th penalty of the night)


Shots
Edina 3 - 9 - 19 - 31 Total
Stillwater 7 - 11 - 7 - 25 Total

[DmanDad1980]

Rochester Mayo 5 - Lakeville North 0

[MNHockeyFan]

Tuesday, December 02
Anoka 5, Champlin Park 2
Benilde-St. Margaret’s 1, Wayzata 1
Blaine 3, Maple Grove 1
Blake 10, Henry Sibley 2
Buffalo 3, Rogers/Zimmerman 0
Cambridge-Isanti 4, Orono 3
Centennial 2, Andover 1
Coon Rapids 2, North Metro 2
Crookston 6, East Grand Forks 0
Detroit Lakes 4, Wadena-Deer Creek 4
Duluth Northern Stars 2, Hibbing/Chisholm 0
Eveleth-Gilbert 8, Moose Lake-Willow River 2
Farmington 4, Lakeville South 1
Fergus Falls 3, St. Cloud Tech 3
Forest Lake 3, Cretin-Derham Hall 2
Grand Rapids/Greenway 2, Cloquet 1 OT
Hastings 3, Woodbury 0
Holy Angels 3, Shakopee 0
Hutchinson 4, Prior Lake 0
International Falls 6, East Range Knights 3
Luverne 8, Fairmont 5
Mankato West 9, Rochester Century 1
Marshall 6, Worthington 1
Minnetonka 3, Totino-Grace 0
Mound-Westonka 8, St. Louis Park 1
New Prague 6, Le Sueur/St. Peter: 1
Northfield 4, Red Wing 3
North St. Paul 3, River Falls 3
Owatonna 7, Austin 1
Proctor/Hermantown/Marshall 11, Superior, Wisconsin 1
Richfield 6, Holy Family 0
River Lakes 3, Alexandria 2, OT
Robbinsdale Cooper 3, Bloomington Kennedy 2
Rochester Mayo 5, Lakeville North 0
Roseau 10, Thief River Falls 1
Sartell-Sauk Rapids 2, Brainerd/Little Falls 1
Simley 3, Visitation-SPA 3
Stillwater 2, Edina 1
White Bear Lake 1, Park of Cottage Grove 0
Winona 4, Rochester John Marshall/Lourdes 1

[northshore guy]

Holy Angels- Shakopee game was actually 3-0 with the 3rd goal for HA an empty netter. Even game- shots were 32-32 but Westall made some key saves and Shakopee plunked a few off the pipes late-

[OntheEdge]

Final Stillwater 2 - Edina 1

Edina took to many penalties.....story of the game. Edina tried to take game over in the third but couldn't beat Sobczek.

Period 1
Stillwater 1 Edina 0 (Lisa Tuuri scored her team leading 6th goal of season late in the first period 15:53 from Lauren Charpentier and Kristi King)

Period 2
Stillwater 1 Edina 1 (Christy Brower 4th of season, from Corinne Buie & Ellie Gleason)

Period 3 -
Stillwater 2 Edina 1
GAME WINNER 8:35 mark Lauren Charpentier 2nd of season PP from Kristi King & Callie Dahl on Edina's 5th penalty of the night)


Shots
Edina 3 - 9 - 19 - 31 Total
Stillwater 7 - 11 - 7 - 25 Total

[hockeywild7]

I would say there were missed calls against both Edina and Stillwater. The officials overall did a good job and let the girls play. Stillwater was the faster team and at times Edina tried to get physical to slow them down which cost them some penalties. A great game overall, I thought Stillwater controlled play especially in the first period but then Edina fought back and had some good scoring chances. Good crowd also.

[joehockey]

Breck and HM scrimmaged today. I think it was 4-2 HM but I was impressed with Breck they have lots of talent and speed.

It was the first time I had been in their rink - first class. They were great hosts and fed all the players dinner after the scrimmage - all the girls got to mix and enjoy each other very nice.