Series Reports
Generals vs Kings
Wranglers vs Colts
Cubs vs Bisons
Vipers vs Thunder
Cannex Cochrane Generals vs Agra Risk Wheatland Kings
2025–26 Regular Season Series Total Games: 5 Series Result: Cochrane wins series 3–21. Narrative Series Summary
The 2025–26 series between the Cannex Cochrane Generals and the Agra Risk Wheatland Kings was tight, physical, and momentum‑driven. Cochrane took control early with a 4–1 win in Game 26, but Strathmore answered with structured, opportunistic efforts in Games 102 and 173. The Generals’ depth and special teams ultimately swung the series, highlighted by a dominant 6–1 win in Game 140 and an overtime victory in Game 203 that sealed a 3–2 edge in the season series.2. Series Overview
- Series Record: Cochrane 3–2–0
- Total Goals: Cochrane 16 — Wheatland 12
- Total Shots: Cochrane 162 — Wheatland 162
- Average Score: CCG 3.2 — AWK 2.4
- Special Teams: CCG 5/20 (25.0%), AWK 2/21 (9.5%)
- Goaltending: Cochrane SV% .932 — Wheatland SV% .907
3. Game‑by‑Game Results
| Game | Date | Result | Shots | Power Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 26 | Sept 27, 2025 | Cochrane 4 — Wheatland 1 | CCG 38 — AWK 40 | CCG 1/1 — AWK 0/6 |
| 102 | Nov 8, 2025 | Wheatland 3 — Cochrane 1 | CCG 24 — AWK 29 | CCG 0/5 — AWK 0/4 |
| 140 | Dec 5, 2025 | Cochrane 6 — Wheatland 1 | CCG 33 — AWK 27 | CCG 2/5 — AWK 0/1 |
| 173 | Jan 3, 2026 | Wheatland 5 — Cochrane 2 | CCG 33 — AWK 37 | CCG 0/4 — AWK 1/4 |
| 203 | Jan 23, 2026 | Cochrane 3 — Wheatland 2 (OT) | CCG 34 — AWK 29 | CCG 2/5 — AWK 1/6 |
4. Statistical Summary
- Total Goals: CCG 16 — AWK 12
- Total Shots: CCG 162 — AWK 162
- Average Shots/Game: 32.4 each
- Goal Differential: +4 Cochrane
- Shot Differential: Even (0)
- Special Teams Differential: +3 PP goals Cochrane
5. Special Teams Comparison
- Cochrane Power Play: 5/20 (25.0%)
- Wheatland Power Play: 2/21 (9.5%)
- Cochrane Penalty Kill: 19/21 (90.5%)
- Wheatland Penalty Kill: 15/20 (75.0%)
6. Goaltending Comparison
- Cochrane Goalies: 161 shots, 150 saves — .932 SV%
- Wheatland Goalies: 161 shots, 146 saves — .907 SV%
- Trend: Maddigan anchored three wins with consistent high‑leverage saves.
7. Discipline & Penalties
- Series Tone: Increasingly physical, especially in Games 140, 173, and 203.
- Major/Misconduct Incidents: Multiple in Game 140 and Game 203 involving both teams.
- Impact: Wheatland’s discipline issues often handed Cochrane key power‑play moments.
8. Charts
Goals Per Game
Game 26 — CCG 4 vs AWK 1
Game 102 — CCG 1 vs AWK 3
Game 140 — CCG 6 vs AWK 1
Game 173 — CCG 2 vs AWK 5
Game 203 — CCG 3 vs AWK 2 (OT)
Shots Per Game
Game 26 — CCG 38 vs AWK 40
Game 102 — CCG 24 vs AWK 29
Game 140 — CCG 33 vs AWK 27
Game 173 — CCG 33 vs AWK 37
Game 203 — CCG 34 vs AWK 29
Power Play Efficiency (Series)
Cochrane — 25.0% (5/20)
Wheatland — 9.5% (2/21)
9. Player‑Impact Summaries
- Cochrane MVP: Judge — multiple goals in key wins, including OT‑clinching production.
- Wheatland MVP: Tweit — consistent scoring presence with impact in Games 140 and 173.
- Special Teams Catalyst: Coelho — key PP and OT moments, especially in Game 203.
- Goaltending Standout: Maddigan — .932 SV% across four starts.
- Physical Tone‑Setter: Sine — involved in momentum‑shifting sequences throughout the series.
analyze the data from www.hjhl.ca and build a similar webpage to the one pasted below using the carstar okotoks bisons versus the medicine hat cubs
Sylvan Lake Wranglers vs Mountainview Colts
2025–26 Regular Season Series Total Games: 5 Series Result: Sylvan Lake wins series 3–21. Narrative Series Summary
The 2025–26 season series between the Sylvan Lake Wranglers and the Mountainview Colts was defined by Sylvan Lake’s shot volume, structured forecheck, and elite goaltending. The Wranglers opened the series with two shutouts and a dominant 7–0 win in Game 69, but the Colts battled back with an overtime victory in Game 80 and a strong 4–2 win in Game 207. Ultimately, Sylvan Lake’s depth scoring and consistent defensive play secured a 3–2 series win.2. Series Overview
- Series Record: Sylvan Lake 3–2–0
- Total Goals: Sylvan Lake 19 — Mountainview 8
- Total Shots: Sylvan Lake 220 — Mountainview 158
- Average Score: SLW 3.8 — MVC 1.6
- Special Teams: SLW 3/12 (25.0%), MVC 1/17 (5.9%)
- Goaltending: Sylvan Lake SV% .926 — Mountainview SV% .914
3. Game‑by‑Game Results
| Game | Date | Result | Shots | Power Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 | Sept 26, 2025 | Sylvan Lake 3 — Mountainview 0 | SLW 49 — MVC 34 | SLW 1/3 — MVC 0/2 |
| 69 | Oct 24, 2025 | Sylvan Lake 7 — Mountainview 0 | SLW 38 — MVC 31 | SLW 2/4 — MVC 0/3 |
| 80 | Oct 31, 2025 | Mountainview 4 — Sylvan Lake 3 (OT) | SLW 51 — MVC 34 | SLW 0/3 — MVC 0/3 |
| 127 | Nov 28, 2025 | Sylvan Lake 4 — Mountainview 0 | SLW 51 — MVC 34 | SLW 0/2 — MVC 0/5 |
| 207 | Jan 24, 2026 | Mountainview 4 — Sylvan Lake 2 | SLW 31 — MVC 25 | SLW 0/0 — MVC 1/4 |
4. Statistical Summary
- Total Goals: SLW 19 — MVC 8
- Total Shots: SLW 220 — MVC 158
- Average Shots/Game: SLW 44.0 — MVC 31.6
- Goal Differential: +11 Sylvan Lake
- Shot Differential: +62 Sylvan Lake
- Special Teams Differential: +2 PP goals Sylvan Lake
5. Special Teams Comparison
- Sylvan Lake Power Play: 3/12 (25.0%)
- Mountainview Power Play: 1/17 (5.9%)
- Sylvan Lake Penalty Kill: 16/17 (94.1%)
- Mountainview Penalty Kill: 9/12 (75.0%)
6. Goaltending Comparison
- Sylvan Lake Goalies: 158 shots, 146 saves — .924 SV%
- Mountainview Goalies: 220 shots, 201 saves — .914 SV%
- Trend: Lott delivered two shutouts and a .926 SV% across the series.
7. Discipline & Penalties
- Most Physical Games: Game 80 and Game 207
- Major/Misconduct Incidents: Multiple in Game 69 and Game 80
- Impact: Colts’ penalties frequently gave Sylvan Lake momentum, especially early in the series.
8. Charts
Goals Per Game
Game 18 — SLW 3 vs MVC 0
Game 69 — SLW 7 vs MVC 0
Game 80 — SLW 3 vs MVC 4 (OT)
Game 127 — SLW 4 vs MVC 0
Game 207 — SLW 2 vs MVC 4
Shots Per Game
Game 18 — SLW 49 vs MVC 34
Game 69 — SLW 38 vs MVC 31
Game 80 — SLW 51 vs MVC 34
Game 127 — SLW 51 vs MVC 34
Game 207 — SLW 31 vs MVC 25
Power Play Efficiency (Series)
Sylvan Lake — 25.0% (3/12)
Mountainview — 5.9% (1/17)
9. Player‑Impact Summaries
- Sylvan Lake MVP: Bignell — consistent scoring across all five games.
- Mountainview MVP: Saunders — clutch goals in Games 80 and 207.
- Breakout Player: Teulon — high‑impact playmaking and PP contributions.
- Goaltending Standout: Lott — two shutouts and .926 SV% across the series.
- Clutch Performer: Campbell (MVC) — key goals in comeback efforts.
Carstar Okotoks Bisons vs Medicine Hat Cubs
2025–26 Regular Season Series Total Games: 5 Series Result: Medicine Hat wins series 3–21. Narrative Series Summary
Okotoks started fast at home—4–2 on Oct 10 buoyed by two shorthanded goals and sturdy goaltending against 40 shots, then 6–1 on Oct 31 with a 53–32 shot edge. Medicine Hat then seized momentum: on Nov 22 the Cubs delivered three power‑play goals on 52 shots, followed by a 9–2 statement in Medicine Hat on Dec 20 powered by captain Kyle Woolridge’s five‑goal night, and closed the set 4–3 on Jan 30 at the Kinplex. Over five games, Medicine Hat carried the goal and shot shares, while Okotoks’ goaltending kept the series tight.2. Series Overview
- Series Record: Okotoks 2–3–0 — Medicine Hat 3–2–0
- Total Goals: Okotoks 17 — Medicine Hat 20
- Total Shots: Okotoks 174 — Medicine Hat 207
- Average Score: COB 3.4 — MHC 4.0
- Special Teams: COB 3/29 (10.3%), MHC 5/22 (22.7%)
- Goaltending: Okotoks SV% .905 (187/207) — Medicine Hat SV% .902 (157/174)
3. Game‑by‑Game Results
| Game | Date | Result | Shots | Power Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45 | Oct 10, 2025 | Okotoks 4 — Medicine Hat 2 | COB 26 — MHC 40 | COB 1/6 — MHC 0/6 |
| 83 | Oct 31, 2025 | Okotoks 6 — Medicine Hat 1 | COB 53 — MHC 32 | COB 1/6 — MHC 1/3 |
| 121 | Nov 22, 2025 | Medicine Hat 4 — Okotoks 2 | MHC 52 — COB 33 | MHC 3/6 — COB 0/4 |
| 163 | Dec 20, 2025 | Medicine Hat 9 — Okotoks 2 | MHC 43 — COB 29 | MHC 1/3 — COB 0/7 |
| 215 | Jan 30, 2026 | Medicine Hat 4 — Okotoks 3 | MHC 40 — COB 33 | MHC 0/4 — COB 1/6 |
4. Statistical Summary
- Total Goals: Okotoks 17 — Medicine Hat 20
- Total Shots: Okotoks 174 — Medicine Hat 207
- Average Shots/Game: Okotoks 34.8 — Medicine Hat 41.4
- Goal Differential: +3 Medicine Hat
- Shot Differential: +33 Medicine Hat
- Special Teams Differential: +2 PP goals Medicine Hat
- Shorthanded Goals: Okotoks 3 (2 on Oct 10; 1 on Oct 31) — Medicine Hat 0
5. Special Teams Comparison
- Okotoks Power Play: 3/29 (10.3%)
- Medicine Hat Power Play: 5/22 (22.7%)
- Okotoks Penalty Kill: 77.3% (17/22)
- Medicine Hat Penalty Kill: 89.7% (26/29)
6. Goaltending Comparison
- Okotoks Goalies: 207 shots against, 187 saves — .905 SV%
- Medicine Hat Goalies: 174 shots against, 157 saves — .902 SV%
- Trend: DeRosa (MHC) posted .939 on Nov 22 (31/33), .931 on Dec 20 (27/29), .909 on Jan 30 (30/33); Ford (COB) turned in .950 on Oct 10 (38/40) and .969 on Oct 31 (31/32).
7. Discipline & Penalties
- Most Physical Games: Oct 10 (multiple hits‑to‑the‑head misconducts) and Dec 20 (fighting & game misconducts); Jan 30 featured heavy roughing/misconduct clusters in the third.
- Impact: Special teams swing MHC’s way in key wins—3 PPG on Nov 22 and a PPG on Dec 20; COB’s late PPG on Jan 30 narrowed the gap.
8. Charts
Goals Per Game
Game 45 — COB 4 vs MHC 2
Game 83 — COB 6 vs MHC 1
Game 121 — COB 2 vs MHC 4
Game 163 — COB 2 vs MHC 9
Game 215 — COB 3 vs MHC 4
Shots Per Game
Game 45 — COB 26 vs MHC 40
Game 83 — COB 53 vs MHC 32
Game 121 — COB 33 vs MHC 52
Game 163 — COB 29 vs MHC 43
Game 215 — COB 33 vs MHC 40
Power Play Efficiency (Series)
Okotoks — 10.3% (3/29)
Medicine Hat — 22.7% (5/22)
9. Player‑Impact Summaries
- Medicine Hat MVP: Kyle Woolridge — five goals (and an assist) on Dec 20; contributed to the Jan 30 clincher.
- Playmakers (MHC): Connor Chapman (multi‑assist nights Nov 22 & Dec 20), Nolen Sutherland (primary‑assist driver).
- Okotoks Standouts: Zephyr Laplante (PP & EN goals Oct 10; SH goal Oct 31; PPG Jan 30), Steen Brown (2G Oct 31).
- Goaltending: DeRosa (MHC) around .926 across Nov 22/Dec 20/Jan 30; Ford (COB) stellar in the two October wins.
Red Deer Vipers vs Airdrie Techmation Thunder
2025–26 Regular Season Series Total Games: 4 Series Result: Red Deer wins series 4–01. Narrative Series Summary
Red Deer controlled this matchup end‑to‑end. The Vipers set the tone with back‑to‑back one‑goal road wins in Airdrie—each decided by timely scoring from the Hastings–Ringdahl tandem and disciplined five‑on‑five play. Back at Servus Arena, Red Deer doubled down with two more victories, driving play through relentless shot volume and quick‑strike offense early in periods. Across the four games, Red Deer built advantages in goals (16–9) and shots (176–121), rode steady netminding, and added a shorthanded dagger in the second meeting. Airdrie’s workhorse goaltending kept scores respectable under heavy pressure, and the Thunder generated third‑period pushbacks, but inconsistent special teams and penalty clusters undercut their momentum. In short, Red Deer’s pace, forecheck, and depth scoring carried the series while Airdrie’s resilience showed up late in games rather than dictating them.2. Series Overview
- Series Record: Red Deer 4–0–0
- Total Goals: Red Deer 16 — Airdrie 9
- Total Shots: Red Deer 176 — Airdrie 121
- Average Score: RDV 4.0 — ATT 2.3
- Special Teams: RDV 1/14 (7.1%), ATT 1/10 (10.0%)
- Goaltending: Red Deer SV% .926 — Airdrie SV% .909
3. Game‑by‑Game Results
| Game | Date | Result | Shots | Power Play |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 68 | Oct 24, 2025 | Red Deer 3 — Airdrie 2 | RDV 43 — ATT 29 | RDV 0/4 — ATT 0/0 |
| 79 | Oct 31, 2025 | Red Deer 3 — Airdrie 2 | RDV 48 — ATT 25 | RDV 0/2 — ATT 0/2 |
| 132 | Nov 29, 2025 | Red Deer 5 — Airdrie 3 | RDV 49 — ATT 32 | RDV 0/5 — ATT 1/4 |
| 176 | Jan 7, 2026 | Red Deer 5 — Airdrie 2 | RDV 36 — ATT 35 | RDV 1/3 — ATT 0/4 |
4. Statistical Summary
- Total Goals: Red Deer 16 — Airdrie 9
- Total Shots: Red Deer 176 — Airdrie 121
- Average Shots/Game: Red Deer 44.0 — Airdrie 30.3
- Goal Differential: +7 Red Deer
- Shot Differential: +55 Red Deer
- Special Teams Differential: Even (PP goals 1–1)
- Shorthanded Goals: Red Deer 1 — Airdrie 0
5. Special Teams Comparison
- Red Deer Power Play: 1/14 (7.1%)
- Airdrie Power Play: 1/10 (10.0%)
- Red Deer Penalty Kill: 90.0% (9/10)
- Airdrie Penalty Kill: 92.9% (13/14)
6. Goaltending Comparison
- Red Deer Goalies: 121 shots against, 112 saves — .926 SV%
- Airdrie Goalies: 176 shots against, 160 saves — .909 SV%
- Trend: Red Deer’s Gaume was consistently sharp behind a heavy‑press forecheck; Airdrie’s White faced extreme volume and kept games within reach.
7. Discipline & Penalties
- Most Physical Games: Oct 31 (fights & multiple misconducts) and Nov 29 (fighting majors at 13:30) marked the series’ peak intensity.
- Impact: Despite bursts of rough stuff, special‑teams output stayed low overall; Red Deer’s five‑on‑five control was the separator.
8. Charts
Goals Per Game
Game 68 — RDV 3 vs ATT 2
Game 79 — RDV 3 vs ATT 2
Game 132 — RDV 5 vs ATT 3
Game 176 — RDV 5 vs ATT 2
Shots Per Game
Game 68 — RDV 43 vs ATT 29
Game 79 — RDV 48 vs ATT 25
Game 132 — RDV 49 vs ATT 32
Game 176 — RDV 36 vs ATT 35
Power Play Efficiency (Series)
Red Deer — 7.1% (1/14)
Airdrie — 10.0% (1/10)
9. Player‑Impact Summaries
- Red Deer MVP: Hastings — goals in each game and a shorthanded strike; constant driver of offense.
- Red Deer Difference‑Makers: Ringdahl’s timely finishes; Lemke’s multi‑point impact; Gaume’s steady series in net.
- Airdrie MVP: Austin White — heavy workload with strong save totals in all four games.
- Airdrie Contributors: Campbell and Kaelan Weisbeck with crucial third‑period goals; Hunter Sellers active on the forecheck and scoresheet.













