But, as usual, there are those ready to say “Da Hawks are back, baby,” “Anything can happen,” etc.

(Insert heavy sigh and eye roll here)

Let’s be clear: As a Hawks fan, and definitely as a member of the Blackhawks organization, your ultimate goal for the team should be regular contention for the Cup, i.e. being in the top 6–8 teams in the league every year.

One thing that probably needs to be agreed upon, at minimum, is that the current team is at least a couple of years away from that level, and could be more like 3–5 years away from it. So what needs to happen? What are the necessary next steps the team needs to take to reach that level?

There is a very simple, yet not widely understood issue that General Manager Stan Bowman and his staff desperately need to address going forward, and that is improving 5-on-5 play. More specifically, this means acquiring more of a certain type of prospects and players—that the organization currently does not have—who can make this happen.

Chicago is “succeeding” right now entirely due to goaltending, power play and 3-on-3 overtime

Again, it is fun to watch.

The problem is, aside from the improved power play, the Hawks have iced bad overall teams—with mostly very good goaltending and 3-on-3 overtime play—since 2018.

Since 2017–18, the Hawks are -29 at 5-on-5, and much of that was with very good 5-on-5 players like Jonathan Toews and Brandon Saad.

This year, so far, the Hawks are -9 at 5-on-5—by far the worst out of the eight teams comprising their current division. So, one might ask, why are they in “first place” then?

Well, first off, they are really not in “first.” At 18 games, the Hawks have played four more games than Florida (also with 22 points), Tampa Bay (21 points) and tonight’s opponent, Carolina (21), and six more than Dallas (14 points).

And it should be noted, all those teams, who are better at 5-on-5 play than the Hawks, were playoff teams last year, as was Columbus, who, also at 18 games played, is just two points behind Chicago.

Why does 5-on-5 matter so much? The Hawks are winning, right?

Most hockey is played at 5-on-5—which is especially true in the playoffs, where less penalties are called and overtime is played at 5-on-5 for as long as necessary to determine a winner. Hence, why a great 3-on-3, but bad 5-on-5 team can make the playoffs, like the Hawks did last year (sort of), and then get crushed (ditto).

And as pointed out above, good 5-on-5 play is a typical hallmark, if not a necessity, of a playoff team, let alone a successful one.

The best 5-on-5 teams are able to score and defend when there are 10 skaters on the ice—makes sense, right—as opposed to when there are nine (5-on-4), eight (4-on-4), seven (4-on-3) or six (3-on-3) skaters total.

The more players there are on the ice—at even strength—the harder it is to get the puck into scoring position and get shots off. There are more bodies, and thus more traffic and more contact. Also, more loose pucks, stacked blue lines and blocked shots. Alternately, there is less wide-open ice and pretty plays. There are also far more loose or “50-50” pucks. In this setting, more physical players tend to become more valuable.

And, I am not talking about “fighting.”

I am not talking really even talking about hitting (although that factors in some here).

I am talking about winning loose pucks, occupying your opponent’s crease and defending your own, winning battles around the nets and winning the blue lines at both ends of the ice.

And why are the Hawks not a good 5-on-5 team?

Before you say: “Here you go again, JJ. The game has changed, move on,” let me say this: The rules of the NHL, in fact, have not really changed. And facts are facts.

Four of the Hawks’ 22 points at present have come in 3-on-3 overtime (most in the league). They are third in the league in power play percentage at 32.7%. And yes, they are getting crazy good goaltending from rookie Kevin Lankinen. At present, Lankinen’s 2.29 goals against average and .931 save percentage rank fifth and third respectively among goalies with 10 games or more played.

These are the reasons why they are 9–5–4 (which is, by the way, essentially 9–9) at 18 games. That, and maybe more than a little luck. Let’s break that down.

And we will even assume that Chicago’s league lead in 3-on-3 goals will carry through the rest of the season. After all, they have been a good to very good 3-on-3 team for the last few seasons.

The Hawks’ power play improvement is legitimate, without question. There is more player movement, resulting in more and better opportunities versus years’ past. But, the question is how much difference it will make going forward this year, and, more importantly, in future seasons.

For example, even if Chicago ends up leading the league in power play percentage this year, they would still fall likely to around 25–27% (a typical league-leading power play percentage) by season’s end.

So, even in a best-case scenario going forward, the amount of power play goals per game they will be able to rely on is going to go down, and by somewhere between 20 and 25% from their current level—best case. So, they have had some meaningful improvement—and measurable luck so far on the power play.

Can Lankinen continue on his torrid pace for the rest of his season and throughout his career in Chicago? Eh, maybe?

But, that would also make him arguably one of the greatest rookie netminders of all time, and a surefire Hall of Famer (even with some rebound control issues, at minimum).

No, Lankinen may emerge from this season as a top 10–15 netminder for Chicago for the next decade—which would be great—but he is also very likely going to regress and settle in somewhere among mortal goalies at some point this year and going forward.

Point being, the Hawks have been lucky in net so far this year, too, probably very lucky. And like their 3-on-3 performance, good goaltending has been something the team has been able to rely on year after year, regardless.

The big point here is, these three factors are, for now, masking a big problem the Blackhawks have had for going on four seasons: Bad 5-on-5 play. And, if they are going to return to being a playoff team, much less a consistent Cup contender, that will have to change.

But what about Dach, Boqvist, Suter, Kurashev, Kubalik, Mitchell, Beaudin and The Cat?

Let me answer that this way: What about Nick Foligno and Boone Jenner, for example?

(What?!)

Right, the Hawks have a lot to be encouraged by as far as their future—but let me caveat that. They seem to have, with the exception of Dach, a raft of talented young players who weigh in well below 200 pounds, and are best described—and more importantly projected—as skilled, more perimeter-style players.

This is not an “either/or” issue. It is not whether smaller skilled players are better or worse than bigger players, so please do not go there.

But, here is another important statistic: Presently, the average weight of players on the Hawks’ roster is 6–10 pounds less than every team in their division.

Most or all of those young players—that everyone (myself included) is enjoying the bloody hell out of watching this year—may end up being “plus” players for the Blackhawks for years. But, that would probably still leave a problem when it comes to “big boy” hockey, or more specifically, 5-on-5 play.

Because, for all the reasons already discussed, there is a logical, demonstrable correlation between physicality, willingness to go into and win in the dirty areas and style of play—if not sheer size—and 5-on-5 play.

Here is some recent evidence: Late in the broadcast of a third period of a recent 3–2 overtime win against Columbus, Eddie Olczyk touched on something I was noticing as well (because I also watch Columbus play a lot).

Leading 2–1 with the clock ticking down in the third, Columbus—mostly Foligno and Jenner—were winning every 50-50 puck, and thereby keeping the biscuit away from the less-physical Hawks. The game was slipping away.

But, with under two minutes left, Carl Soderberg, not coincidentally one of the Hawks’ biggest and more physical players, found himself with the puck on his blade in the slot, and used a Columbus defenseman as a screen, putting a puck past Joonas Korpisalo (who had been excellent most of the night)—forcing the game to overtime, where Chicago promptly picked up one of their four overtime wins.

Five-on-five play matters, and this is just one case where the Hawks suffered and then later benefited—or maybe just got a bit lucky. By forcing the game to overtime, when it easily could have ended in a 2–1 loss, what might have been a weekend that gave Columbus four points and the Hawks none, ended up 3–2 for Columbus instead.

Hockey is still a contact sport. And the “unsexy” things that do not make the scoresheet but contribute hugely to winning hockey games, like 50-50 pucks, blocking shots, winning special teams face offs and just being a pain to play against, matter as much as ever, over the course of a season and especially in the playoffs.

The difference between 2009–15 and now—and maybe the future

A lot of fans mistakenly assume the Hawks won three Cups from 2010–15 due simply to an obscenely high talent, speed and skill level. But, those teams also delivered the lumber and excelled at 5-on-5 play, especially at the top 6–9 forward positions.

2010: Brouwer, Byfuglien, Hossa, Ladd, Toews

2013: Bickell, Frolik, Handzus, Hossa, Saad, Toews

2015: Bickell, Hossa, Saad, Toews

And, those 5-on-5 numbers were supported by smaller players who nonetheless over-indexed on willingness, like Dave Bolland and Marcus Kruger.

What about Dach and Toews?

Without giving any credence to rumors, the fact is, Toews’ lingering, mysterious health issue, at minimum, raises a question on when—or if—he will be back on the ice, in what condition and for how long.

And what about the “heir apparent?” Again, a lot of people seem to be getting way out over their skis with the “Dach is the next Toews” stuff.

We really do not know yet—even though some have made a massive leap to this conclusion—if Dach is going end up as a “power player” or even a full-time center in his NHL career.

Just because he was drafted by the same team Toews was—even though the Hawks will need a No. 1 center as well as more all-terrain forwards at minimum—does not mean that is the player Dach will be.

A couple of the knocks on Dach in his draft scouting (just 18 months ago) were that he was pretty unphysical for his size, and might be better at wing than center in the NHL.

The point is, he may end up being a different style of player than Toews was—more along the lines a “better” Jason Spezza (for example)—than “the next Toews.” But, maybe he will become another Toews. Hard to say right now.

But, either outcome is at least “good,” and Dach should become more a part of the 5-on-5 solution than the problem, regardless.

More broadly, the problem is this: The Hawks’ NHL roster, and even their pipeline, is overall fairly bereft of those all-terrain forwards who come up bigger (no pun intended) in 5-on-5 play. And again, let me be clear, the kinds of players we are talking about here can also score some goals and make plays, like Toews, Hossa, Saad, Mark Scheifele, Alex Tuch, Pierre-Luc Dubois, Josh Anderson, Anze Kopitar, Jamie Benn, Nathan MacKinnon and there are many more.

Dach, if he continues to work and mature, is a start. But after him?

(Crickets)

Yet, with the lone recent exception of Tampa Bay, typically, Stanley Cup winners and most contenders have at least 3–4 of these players in top-nine roles. And let’s not forget how, before winning the Cup—in a shortened season—last year, Tampa Bay failed spectacularly more than once in the playoffs, despite annual lofty expectations, including getting swept in round one two years ago by exceedingly unsexy, but nasty as you-know-what Columbus.

“So is this it? Are you just trying to poop everyone’s party again, JJ?”

The intent of this article is to place the Hawks’ “unlikely” success so far this year in a real-world context, and also help readers maintain the right perspective and expectations going forward.

The last couple of off-seasons, Bowman seemed to finally get the memo. He had drafted “small, yet skilled” for almost a decade, and needed an upgrade on size in the pipeline (hence the picks of Dach and Alex Vlasic in 2019). But, a couple of draft picks is not nearly enough when you have almost literally ignored the need for a certain profile or style of player for so long.

Big, physical and skilled players do not grow on trees. You can always get a Ryan Carpenter or Zack Smith in free agency, or trade for a banged-up retread in Andrew Shaw—but the need is not fourth-line, 12-minute-a-night bangers.

What’s going on with the Hawks over this season’s first 18 games is traceable to a certain extent to luck and 3-on-3 overtime points—hiding (for now) some bad tendencies that are continuing from the last few seasons: Poor team defense and, more broadly, really weak 5-on-5 play.

Bowman still has a lot of work cut out for him. Although this year has been fun so far, fans are going to need to be patient in waiting for the next parade or more long runs of playoff hockey in Chicago.

The post ANALYSIS: The big missing piece in the Hawks’ rebuild appeared first on The Rink.

“This is the future of the NHL—all the teams with small forwards and slick forwards are gone, the big bullies are now playing, the guys that are 6’3, 6’4 . . . those are the guys scoring the goals, those are the guys that are checking.”

—Barry Melrose (on the 2019 Stanley Cup Finals)

This quote, pulled from a recent episode of ESPN’s Pardon The Interruption, started a bit of a twitter spat the last couple of days, reigniting the philosophical war over building an NHL roster based on size versus finesse/speed.

It’s a valid argument—and one that really needs to be broken down and discussed objectively—especially during the Stanley Cup Finals and with the draft and free agency right around the corner.

First of all, it’s kind of dumb to say it’s simply about size. There are good and bad big players and the same applies to small players.

Another quote to consider here (author unknown): “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight. It’s the size of the fight in the dog.” Hold that thought. We’ll come back to it.

The responses to the Melrose quote, in the twitter thread I read, were quick to point out how Alex DeBrincat and Cam Atkinson, both small players, scored 40 goals a piece last year. But then someone else chimed in that they amassed those totals in the regular season—a different brand of hockey versus the playoffs.

This is an important distinction, especially for Hawks fans who, in 2016 and 2017, had all kinds of confidence about their team’s playoff chances based on regular season performance, and then watched them get beaten in the first round by the Blues in 2016, and absolutely flattened by the Predators in 2017.

There’s the rub: is it about how many points you amass, or how many goals you score in the regular season, or about how far you go in the playoffs and winning a Cup?

Let’s work with the assumption that the “goal” is to win in the playoffs. If you disagree, you should probably stop reading.

In the NHL, regular season hockey and playoff hockey are different styles of hockey, without question. Setting aside the more subjective things like how the game is officiated before and after April 10, there are some hard facts that can’t be denied:

First, regular season games don’t start to become really meaningful until after, say, Christmas. The St. Louis Blues, for example, were one of the league’s worst teams before Christmas this past season—and its best after that point. And it’s turned out well for them. Point is, in the playoffs, there’s simply a lot more at stake game to game. And game after game. You can’t stink for the first half of the playoffs, then win the Cup. Doesn’t work that way.

Add to that the fairly widely accepted “fact” that the refs tend to swallow the whistles in the playoffs.

So then you have a lot at stake in each game, along with much more permissive officiating—and what you end up with are much more physical games. Again, game after game.

But that’s not all. There’s no 3-on-3 overtime in the playoffs, or a shootout. Games are decided by 5-on-5 hockey. Sometimes, in a given game, or over the course of a series, a lot of 5-on-5 hockey.

That last bit doesn’t necessarily favor big players over small players, or vice versa. It becomes more about endurance and will.

And all that said, because the style of play is so much more physical, the frequency of injury in the playoffs is higher game to game. Yet players tend to play through injuries in the playoffs (or try to). Because, unlike the regular season, where you can take a few weeks off and come back and help your team—in the playoffs, they might be eliminated by then.

Pretty passing and stickhandling plays and players moving the puck uninterrupted through the neutral zone—while not totally uncommon in the playoffs—seem to happen less. And a relatively higher percentage of the goals are of the “greasy” variety.

And this is where things like size—without dismissing compete level (regardless of size)—become very important.

The net conclusion here is fairly obvious, and proven by the teams that actually win the Cup year after year: teams that have players with the will to play physical hockey, and the talent to produce while playing that brand of hockey, win the Cup year after year.

Last year, it was the Washington Capitals. This year, either of the teams in the finals fits that description.

Going back over the years, you can point at the Penguins’ Cup teams and those of the Blackhawks’ since 2009 as examples of highly talented teams that won Cups. But those were teams that could and did match up physically, and dealt out as much or more punishment than they took. Go back to just 2015, when the Hawks could roll a “fourth line” of Andrew Shaw, Marcus Kruger and Andrew Desjardins. They didn’t score (much), but they dominated offensive zone possession and drove opponents nuts. And it’s important to point out, none of those players are what you’d call “big.” But all of them “played big.”

Conversely, remember when the Vancouver Canucks won the Cup in 2011? Wait, no, that’s right, a “high finesse” team that was the presumptive favorite to win the Cup that year, the Canucks ran into the brick wall known as the Boston Bruins, got epicly “bi— slapped” and took a physical and humiliating Cup Final loss.

Just this year, the “electric” Tampa Bay Lightning were on the high-flying express train to the Finals when they got destroyed in the first round by a Columbus team that outhit them and outworked them. Then, Columbus ran into a team that upped the stakes on physicality and intimidation, and now Boston finds themselves in yet another Cup Final.

Fact is, although interwebz experts keep proclaiming that “the game has changed,” typically as part of a rationale for drafting 165 pound defensemen, or in support of teams that get a disproportionate amount of regular season production in 3-on-3 OT and on the perimeter at 5-on-5 (like the Hawks of the last few years), the Stanley Cup playoffs keep proving, year in and year out, that the games played in May and June really haven’t changed that much.

Again, it’s not just about the size of the player, as proven by the likes of Brad Marchand, but it really is about how willing and able your players are to go in between the circles and to the front of the net, win along the wall, and take and deliver punishment every other night for a couple of months.

Size, skill and speed—especially when a player has all three—check important boxes. But definitely, what seems just as (if not more) important is the size of the heart and willingness to pay a physical price to win.

All I have for now. Comment below.

The post The age-old debate: size versus finesse in the NHL appeared first on The Rink.

Just perusing Twitter this morning, man, there is a lot of silliness out there. #loseforhughes and #anythingcanhappen are both unrealistic extremes (albeit, one more so than the other), and the ridiculous back and forth is all about right now—not enough about what can be done this year as a first step to restore this franchise to greatness. So let’s break it down objectively.

The streak feels great, but it’s sort of like cotton candy—little long-term value.

Hey, fine, whatever, everyone is allowed to get a little wacky over a 7-game win streak after what has been mostly a 2004-level garbage season. It’s entertaining. It’s probably good for the younger players in terms of confidence and learning how to win in the NHL. Great.

But after that, it’s (sort of) a mirage that just masks the remaining huge holes and questions on the Blackhawks roster and in the organization.

And, worse still, it only kicks the can further down the road in terms of the hard work that desperately needs to be done if this team is going to beat Winnipeg or Nashville in a 7-game series in May 2020 or 2021—as opposed to bumslaying Detroit on a Sunday afternoon in February 2019.

“Buyers” at the deadline? Buyers?! Just. Stop.

Some, including Team President John McDonough, are even talking about being “buyers” at the deadline.

Really?

That logic would seem to imply that the Hawks would go out and get a meaningfully helpful piece at the deadline—like a 3-4 defenseman who can actually defend, for example.

Having closely covered the last 10 NHL in-season trade deadlines, I can say with some assurance, the price (from the Hawks) to acquire said player is: a solid roster player + a solid prospect + a pick. None of which the Hawks could afford to give up—if it’s about either making or advancing in the playoffs, or, especially building for the future.

Markus Kruger (or Artem Anisimov), a 3^rd round pick, and Tyler Sikura won’t get you that player at the deadline—which is always a seller’s market. And the Hawks can’t afford to trade Brandon Saad for that player—if they intend to contend this year. It’s subtracting in order to add.

So stop. It’s stupid.

McDonough is just doing the same thing he has all year, talking out of his nether regions in order to prop up weak ticket sales. That’s all. This is the same guy who raved about Drew Leblanc’s “youtubes” and gets snickered at by players when he shows up to practice in a team warmup. Caveat emptor.

And that mentality clearly implies you’re going to then hold on to the four players currently occupying nearly $23 million in cap space who are all getting older, less competent, less healthy, or no longer (realistically) able to play—Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Corey Crawford and Anisimov. When the trade deadline is the best opportunity to move perhaps 1-2 of those deals for some meaningful, quality assets for the future.

Also, not smart.

The reality of “making the playoffs.”

As of this morning, the Hawks have to catch either St. Louis or Minnesota to make the playoffs—both of which, if I had to bet the mortgage, are unlikely. Especially not St. Louis who have won 6 straight themselves, their last three against Tampa on the road and in a home and home versus Nashville. As much as it pains me to say this, hockey objectivity forces me to: St. Louis is a better team right now than the Hawks. Deeper, more balanced, bigger.

With 3-point games and the Hawks’ eventual return to earth (which is going to happen, probably soon), I wouldn’t bet the house (not yet anyway) on the Hawks making the postseason. Let’s talk more after two road games in Boston and New Jersey this week.

Either way, “anything can happen” isn’t happening.

But say the Hawks do make the playoffs.

I think some people are forgetting, or perhaps never fully understood, how hard it is to win a series in the playoffs, much less a Stanley Cup.

Definitely, some don’t understand that this Hawk team is not the 2012 Kings (a subject Gatekeeper will explore further here in the next couple of days)—a team that, although it squeaked into the playoffs, was built for the playoffs: strong on defense, big, mean.

Like the last three Hawk teams (two of which bowed out in the first round of the playoffs, the other didn’t make it), this year’s model is on the small side and terrible defensively, gets by on flash and dash and wins a lot in 3-on-3 overtime—which doesn’t exist in the playoffs.

Yeah, anything can happen. So go buy a Power Ball ticket. Otherwise, let’s get real.

The “positive” side of the argument.

The team is definitely playing better and responding to Jeremy Colliton.  How much better is debatable. You’re not going to win a lot of games giving up 40+ shots per. You may get lucky with hot goaltending for a while, like this team has.

But winning is contagious and certainly the mentality of this team, especially with all the young players, is vastly improved.

Further, getting the first or second pick (Jack Hughes or Kappo Kakko) in the draft was never likely. So I won’t be upset (at all) if, after a more positive conclusion to a mostly God-awful season, the Hawks settle in somewhere around 10^th or 11^th, and fill an organizational need with a well-considered draft pick.

An even better outcome.

Add to all I just laid out—improvement on the ice, and a reasonably high draft pick—moving a couple of veteran contracts out at the deadline for more picks and/or quality prospects, and the future shapes up nicely. Plus, more cap space this summer to add “right away” veteran help, and maybe making the playoffs or even, more importantly, advancing in the playoffs becomes a very real and exciting possibility next season, and for successive ones.

But the current mania, especially were it to sway the front office, potentially justifies the “easier” choice of foregoing the tough choices at the trade deadline, or the “crack high” (and inevitable crash) of a first round playoff loss.

Keep your eye on next year and beyond. Don’t fall for the ridiculous clickbait or ticket come-ons that are out there right now. The future is not now, but it may yet be bright.

All I have for now. Follow @jaeckel

The post Analysis: Can we get back to sanity about the Blackhawks? appeared first on The Rink.

Worse still, last night’s opponent was Eastern Conference powerhouse Tampa Bay, sporting a 15-6-1 record. Pretender meet contender.

Oddly enough, this was the game where new Chicago head coach Jeremy Colliton chose to draw human traffic cone Brandon Manning back in to the lineup, supplanting Henri Jokiharju. But perhaps, in the face of a fast, relentless Lightning attack, Colliton saw a benefit in experience over youth and talent.

Well, perhaps, in theory.

The Blackhawks lines and pairing were as follows:

Saad-Toews-Kane

Schmaltz-Anisimov-DeBrincat

Fortin-Kampf-Kahun

Kunitz- Johnson-Kruger

Keith-Seabrook

Gustafsson-Forsling

Manning-Rutta

Corey Crawford got the net for Chicago, while, if there was any good news for Chicago coming in, lefty goaler Louis Domingue was between the pipes for the Lightning, replacing the injured Andrei Vasilevskiy.

FIRST PERIOD

It took the Lightning all of 29 seconds to get Tyler Johnson inexplicably wide open in the slot and a 1-0 lead at 19:31.

Johnson was set up again by linemate Nikita Kucherov at 12:45, making the score 2-0.

By midway through the period, the Lightning held a 12-4 shot advantage. Only a brilliant glove save by Corey Crawford at 10:17 prevented Johnson from getting the unlikely first period hat trick.

But, have no fear, the Lightning’s Brayden Point would beat a helpless Crawford at 9:55, making the score 3-0—all tallied against the Hawks’ top line.

To this point, the Hawks were consistently behind the play and the Lightning up and down the ice.

About a minute later, Alex DeBrincat found Artem Anisimov wide open in front of the Lightning net, giving Chicago a bit of life, 3-1 Lightning at 8:50.

Perhaps emblematic of the Hawks’ fortunes, Alex Fortin got free for a long stretch pass and clean breakaway on Domingue at 6:45—only to have his stick shatter when he tried to launch a wrister. And just to make the sequence complete, Ryan Callahan undressed defensive stalwart Erik Gustafsson between the circles in the Chicago zone and put his own wrister past Crawford, making it 4-1 with 5:08 left in the frame.

The Lightning ended the period on a power play, taking a 19-11 shots advantage into the dressing room. For those keeping score at home, that’s a 57-shot pace.

But sure, “accountable” hockey genius John McDonough assured the fanbase that the roster was better than its record when it was 6-6-3, and replacing the Hall of Fame coach was just the thing needed to turn it around.

Right.

SECOND PERIOD.

The Hawks killed the remainder of the penalty to start the period. But found themselves back on the penalty kill at 16:21 after a too many men call, which Chicago eventually killed. And, within 2 minutes, the Lightning were back on the man advantage, following a Jan Rutta penalty. If there was a positive for the Hawks to this point in the game, it was penalty killing—as the Hawks executed their third straight kill against the Tampa power play.

Bright spot: Jonathan Toews scooped up a Domingue rebound and outworked Point for a late second period goal, making it 4-2 at 1:11 left in the second.

And that was how the period would end. Shots were 7-6 Chicago for the period, and certainly Corey Crawford needed the rest. The Hawks had a little life going into the last 20 minutes.

THIRD PERIOD.

Action was fairly even for the first seven-plus minutes, with the Hawks getting a few nice chances on Domingue.

The Hawks got a power play at 11:44 and generated a decent amount  of pressure, but no goals, before Steve Stamkos took a tripping penalty with ten seconds left on the first penalty. The short 5-on-3 failed to convert.

On the ensuing 5-on-4, the Hawks first shot was, you guessed it, Patrick Kane from the right halfboard right into Domingue’s crest, after the puck had been pushed around, you got it, the perimeter for thirty-odd seconds. Penalty killed.

Crawford was pulled at 2:50 of the third, in a desperate ploy to even up the game. With the extra attacker, the Hawks were able to generate quite a few fruitless chances in close at around 1:45-1:35.

After that, pfffffffffft. Final score, 4-2. The Hawks did finish the game with a 32-29 shot advantage, for what that’s worth.

THE GOOD.

A few Hawks came to play and compete in this game. Unfortunately, most of them were lower line players like Marcus Kruger, Fortin and Dominik Kahun. The Anisimov line was OK and got a few nice chances, including one of the goals. You’d like to say more for Toews with an effort goal and 73% in the dot, but he and the rest of his line were all -2 and sleepwalked through the first period. Crawford was also OK, in spite of the first period barrage and terrible defense in front of him.

THE BAD

The team as a whole showed up and played like it was hungover or just ready to mail it in. It is almost unfair really to criticize the inexperienced Colliton as one normally would in this circumstance—but without question, this lack of preparation and drive cannot be laid at Joel Quenneville’s feet either, can it?

THE UGLY

Erik Gustafsson continues to be a really bad defensive player, at the defense position no less. Enough said there.

The Hawks are 8-10-5 and head across Florida to face the Panthers tomorrow night. We’ll have the Rink.com preview Saturday AM. Comment on this one below.

The post Recap: Lightning down Blackhawks, 4-2 appeared first on The Rink.

This has been stated in the context of pushing a Nick Schmaltz is “out of position at wing” narrative, in part because his faceoff percentage is typically close to 40% overall—which is abysmal and untenable for an NHL center.

But I digress. This article in only indirectly about Schmaltz (and the rest of the Hawk centers). It’s really about the under-appreciated (apparently) importance of faceoffs to winning hockey.

Let’s begin this with a basic—and highly ironic—premise. Because so often the “interwebz experts” who proclaim that faceoffs don’t matter, are also those who spout Corsi as the underpinning of every trivial tit for tat (or tweet for tat, whatever).

Here goes: if you want to be a possession team—ie, fuel the ongoing Corsi frenzy of so many would-be analytics gurus—and direct more shots at your opponent’s net than they direct at yours—you have to first possess the puck.

 Let that sink in.

Sure, hockey is a fluid game, which is in part why it’s so difficult to quantify the importance of one particular aspect of play—like faceoffs. And there are other ways to gain possession of the puck.

But, faceoffs are clearly one of the ways, if not the most obvious way, you gain possession.

I will grant, neutral zone faceoffs are probably somewhat less important. But, offensive and defensive zone faceoffs are highly important, especially in power play and penalty kill situations. 

Win a clean draw to your defenseman on the penalty kill in your zone, and 9 times out of 10 that puck is going hard around the boards and out. Win the draw to your defenseman in the offensive zone on the power play and you have a good chance of setting up and initiating a play.

It’s not brain surgery.

But to this point, this is all somewhat theoretical. And I will dive into some supportive numbers here in a minute.

But first, let’s climb into the Wayback Machine and set the dial for June 2015, the third periods of Games 5 and 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals between the Hawks and the Lightning, when Jonathan Toews, Marcus Kruger, Andrew Shaw and (especially) Antoine Vermette essentially stymied the Lightning’s comeback hopes in one goal games by winning draw after critical draw. And if you don’t recall, I suggest you go back and watch those latter stages of those games, or read Tampa coach Jon Cooper’s post-game comments.

To possess the puck, you have to win the puck.

So let’s look at some numbers. In those playoffs, where the Hawks won the Stanley Cup.

Vermette ranked third in the playoffs among centers at a dominant 58.9%. Toews was ninth among centers at 56.1%. Kruger and Shaw were both 50%. As a team, the Hawks were third in the playoffs that year in all situations at 53.1%, and they had to go through some of the league’s best faceoff men: Mikko Koivu, Ryan Kesler, Nate Thompson, Val Filippula.

More specifically, the Hawks were 59-52 in the dot on the power play, and even at 49-49 shorthanded.

The following year, when the Hawks lost in the first round in 7 games to the Blues, overall, they were 49.9% for the series, and a terrible 13-26 shorthanded.

The year after, 2016-17, they were swept in the first round by the Predators, and their faceoff% was just 47.2.

Certainly, other factors contributed to that postseason decline. But again, the maxim applies: possessing (shooting) the puck requires winning the puck.

And, despite what they tell you, faceoffs matter  . . . in actual hockey.

All I have for now. Comment below.

Follow @jaeckel 

The post Despite what some “experts” say, face-offs really matter appeared first on The Rink.

From the top:

WASHINGTON AND/OR TAMPA BAY

The Hawks had two pro scouts present for the game between these two teams last night, including Dir. of Pro Scouting Ryan Stewart. No players mentioned.

PHILADELPHIA

This could be a significant deal.

From Chicago: Artem Anisimov and Ryan Hartman for SOME COMBINATION, BUT LIKELY NOT ALL OF Val Fillipula, Michael Raffl and either Samuel Morin OR Travis Sanheim. The Hawks might also have to retain some of Anisimov’s salary. No idea whether AA has been asked to waive, but his NMC expires 7/1 anyway.

I’ll be checking in and posting as things break.

The post Rumors: Wednesday update, PHL, WSH, TB appeared first on The Rink.

Coach Joel Quenneville announced a few lineup changes after their embarrassing effort against the very beatable Islanders. Artem Anisimov was activated from injured reserve and inserted back into the lineup. Anisimov had been out since leaving the game early on 12/28 against Vancouver. Tomas Jurco made his season debut as well, after sitting in the press box since being recalled January 8th.

With Gustav Forsling being sent to Rockford, Erik Gustafsson was in the lineup for his second consecutive game, paired up with Brent Seabrook again. Michal Kempny was also in the lineup with a returning Connor Murphy. Since this was also the 25th anniversary of WWE RAW, as well, I thought I would make this game better than it actually was by telling this sad story with some animated gifs.

These were the Blackhawks starting lines:
_{Subject to the Q-Blender at any moment}
Patrick Sharp – Nick Schmaltz – Patrick Kane
Brandon Saad – Jonathan Toews – Anthony Duclair
Alex DeBrincat – Artem Anisimov – Ryan Hartman
Tomas Jurco – David Kampf – Vince Hinostroza

Duncan Keith – Jordan Oesterle
Erik Gustafsson – Brent Seabrook
Michal Kempny – Connor Murphy

The Blackhawks waste much time rolling the red carpet out for the Lightning forwards, which led to an early Hawks penalty. While the Bolts did not take a lead, it was a free for all to open the first period. Jeff Glass was fighting for his life, for almost the entire first five minutes of the game.

With five chaotic minutes off the clock, the Blackhawks finally woke up and tested the Lightning goalie with a Kane/Sharp 2-on-1, and a Vince Hinostroza breakaway. The best the Blackhawks could manage out of that situation was a power play, and we all know how threatening that is to their opponents.

The home team looked like they had a little more life in the opening half of the second period, but that still yielded them no goals. The Blackhawks still seemed to be passing up far too many open shot opportunities which was simply baffling since they do not have the luxury of passing up any opportunities.

Pluses

• • • The Hawks threw 40 shots on net which, I suppose, is a plus. Forty shots, though, mean nothing when you get shut out.
    • The narrative has been that the Blackhawks are bad at faceoffs, but they have been over 50% in a majority of their games in the last month.  Individually, some of the centers have been bad but, as a team, they are actually alright lately.
    • Jeff Glass played well enough, AGAIN, to win this game but you can’t win if your team doesn’t score.  He is going to start suffering from PTSD and night terrors after what this team puts him though.
      

  Minuses

  • • Tomas Jurco pulling the between the legs, fancy pants Jordan Tootoo shot attempt in his first Hawks game this season is not going to win over his old school coach.
    • Anthony Duclair had a third period breakaway, but completely telegraphed his move and his attempt was basically shut down before it started by the slick Bolts goaltender.
    • Officially, the Blackhawks were 0-6 on the power play.  Officially, if you throw out the Sens game, they are still 0-fer in 2018.
      

  Here are the game highlights:

The post Recap: Blackhawks vs Lightning 2-0 Shutout Loss appeared first on The Rink.

Tampa Bay Lightning (31-12-3) at Chicago Blackhawks (22-18-6)

8:30PM Eastern/7:30 Central

RADIO: WGN 720

TV: WGN/NBC Sports

PROJECTED GOALIES:

Tampa Bay:

Andrei Vasilevskiy (27-9-2, 2.27 GAA, .927 save%)

Chicago:

Jeff Glass (3-2-1, 3.34 GAA, .905 save%)

PROJECTED LINES/PAIRINGS:

Tampa Bay

Namestnikov-Stamkos-Kucherov

Palat-Point-Johnson

Killorn-Gourde-Conacher

Kunitz-Paquette-Callahan

Koekkoek-Stralman

Sergachev-Girardi

Coburn-Dotchin

Chicago

Saad-Toews-Duclair

Sharp-Schmaltz-Kane

DeBrincat-Anisimov-Hartman

Jurco-Kampf-Hinostroza

Keith-Oesterle

Gustafsson-Seabrook

Kempny-Murphy

STATISTICAL COMPARISONS:

Power play:

Tampa Bay 24.4% (4rd)

Chicago 15.4% (28^th)

Penalty kill:

Tampa Bay 79.3% (21st)

Chicago 82.3% (10th)

Corsi For % (5-on-5):

Tampa Bay 52.3% (6th)

Chicago 53.4% (2nd)

Faceoffs:

Tampa Bay 46.9% (30th)

Chicago 49.7% (15^th)

SUMMARY:

Artem Anisimov returns to the lineup tonight after missing several games due to injury—and it comes at an especially good time for a Hawk team that has been absolutely dreadful defensively, giving up 11 goals in the last two games.

AA’s reinsertion has had a ripple effect on the lineup. He’ll start the game tonight centering the third line, with Patrick Sharp jumping up to join Nick Schmaltz and Patrick Kane. Tomas “6 Weeks” Jurco makes his season debut on a new fourth line, with Tommy Wingels and Lance Bouma sitting this one out.

Michal Kempny and Connor Murphy are back in tonight, with Gustav Forsling off to Rockford yesterday and Jan Rutta sharing the shrimp cocktail in the press box with Bouma and Wingels.

I had the opportunity to see the Lightning in person 3 weeks ago. They are a deep, fast, yet highly disciplined team up and down the ice that reminds me a lot of the great Detroit teams of about ten years ago.

All Everything Lightning defenseman Viktor Hedman went on IR yesterday (lower body).

We’ll recap tonight or tomorrow AM. Join the game thread below for real-time conversation on the action with JJ, Gatekeeper and the rest of the RinkRats.

Follow: @jaeckel

The post Preview & Game Thread: Lightning-Blackhawks appeared first on The Rink.

The Blackhawks lost a tough game in OT to the Lightning last night in Amalie, Florida. But if a game qualifies as a more victory, this contest might be it.

Back in the day—I mean, when a shootout was just something that happened on a nightly basis at Lawrence and Broadway—a tie was a tie in the NHL.

For what it’s worth, I love 3-on-3 OT, but I don’t put too much stock in whether you win one or lose one. The last couple of Hawk teams, in my opinion, tended to fatten up their point totals by winning OT’s at 3-on-3, a style of hockey that is entirely irrelevant when the games really matter—in April, May and June.

And we know what happened to those teams at that time of year.

So, the fact that the Hawks lost in OT last night, to a very good team in their building, is not ruining my Thanksgiving. Further, it suggests that for the last three games at least, this team has been playing pretty well: 5 points out of a possible 6 against good teams, 2 of those games on the road.

Sure, I wish Nick Schmaltz didn’t take what was pretty much a lazy stick penalty, that led to a Tampa Bay power play in OT. And that Jonathan Toews didn’t get caught over on the wall, leaving a hapless Jan Rutta to defend three Tampa players on the game-winning goal.

But stuff like that is going to happen.

On a positive note, early returns suggest Connor Murphy is finding his game on his off side, playing with The Official Hawk Whipping Boy^TM of 2017, Brent Seabrook. Full marks to Ulf Samuelsson or Joel Quenneville or whoever cooked that idea up, because it appears to be working: for the pair, for Seabrook, and for Murphy.

Alex DeBrincat and Gustav Forsling had the bad games I told you they would yet still have—but both also continue to look more comfortable now than they did even ten games ago.

The Patrick Kane-Artem Anisimov-Schmaltz line continues to look like a winner. Toews, Richard Panik and Brandon Saad have gone a little cold on the scoresheet, but continue to get chances and pressure.

Overall, the team is playing better. A sure bet to even make the playoffs, much less advance? Not yet. But better.

As I reported on Twitter last night, for the second straight game, at least one Buffalo scout was in attendance in Rockford, advancing trade speculation around the Sabres. But as I reminded a few followers also, that’s what scouts do—they go to games and watch players. Could a deal be in the offing? In my opinion, if Stan Bowman is really serious about the old One Goal Mantra this year, he and his staff better be working on some things.

But Bowman’s bargaining position, not to mention the performance of his team, appear to have improved somewhat of late. And all that is good.

More to come. Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

The post Meditations On A Tough Road Point appeared first on The Rink.

The Blackhawks had a goaltender in the top 10 of all major goaltending stat categories, as well. Corey Crawford came into the game in the top 5 overall for goals against average, save percentage and shutouts. Artem Anisimov was one of the hottest players in the NHL, also, with 7 goals in 8 games. Not too shabby, but the big money players needed to start producing. One of them actually did step up in this one.

These are the starting lines:
Brandon Saad – Jonathan Toews – Richard Panik
Nick Schmaltz – Artem Anisimov – Patrick Kane
Patrick Sharp – Ryan Hartman – Alex DeBrincat
Lance Bouma – Tommy Wingels – John Hayden

Duncan Keith – Cody Franson
Connor Murphy – Brent Seabrook
Gustav Forsling – Jan Rutta

The Blackhawks wasted little time taking a lead in this game. Just four minutes into the first period, red-hot Artem Anisimov sent Patrick Kane and Nick Schmaltz on the Blackhawks second odd man break of the period. Kane didn’t even bother with trying to force a pass over to Schmaltz and beat the goalie, Vasilevskiy, who was very deep in his net.

As will happen with this frustrating team, the Blackhawks quickly ended up killing a John Hayden double minor for high sticking JT Brown. This was really not the opportunity that you wanted to hand the Lightning. Even worse, Blackhawks captain Jonathan Toews took another penalty while killing the first double minor, which put the Blackhawks down two players. Luckily enough, the Blackhawks killed off all three penalties pretty impressively.

Not only did they kill off multiple penalties, but the Hawks picked right up where’s they left off, eventually earning a 5-on-3 power play of their own. This time, though, the Blackhawks 5-on-3 produced a goal. They finally looked like the team we all thought they were, passing quickly and opening up lanes. Defenseman Cody Franson eventually found Patrick Kane across the slot, at a tight angle, and hit Kane with a perfect pass. Kane used his pinpoint accuracy to beat Vasilevskiy, who had bitten on the Franson pass and was way out of position. This sent the Hawks into the intermission up 2-0 and leading the shocked Lightning team in shots 13-11.

The second period opened with the Blackhawks killing off the remainder of a carry-over penalty from the first period and then, once again, got another power play of their own. This time, though, a failed 3-on-1 for the Blackhawks ended up turning into a shorthanded chance for the Lightning that ended up being their first goal of the game. Defenseman Viktor Hedman led the rush 1-on-2 and amazingly dropped the puck back to Ryan Callahan, who quickly fed Ondrej Palat. Palat had a wide open net and the Lightning were back in the game.

The game settled down for the remainder of the middle frame. Once the penalties stopped coming, the goals and major chances slowed down quite a bit. That peace only lasted until the final two minutes of the period when Jan Rutta put the Blackhawks down a man, and the Bolts laid the pressure on pretty thick. Corey Crawford was up to the challenge, again, though.

Thirty one seconds into the third period, the Lightning tied the game up after a blocked shot ended up on the tape of Chris Kunitz. Kunitz was able to power a shot through the Hawks goalie and, just that quick, the Blackhawks solid play only earned them a tie game.

Tampa Bay’s pressure certainly didn’t stop there, though. Most of the third period was played in the Blackhawks end, which produced a 12-10 Bolts shot advantage. This isn’t to say the Blackhawks had no chances, because Andrei Vasilevskiy had to make a couple of highlight reel saves to keep the game tied.

In the overtime the goaltending mastery continued, with both goalies making huge saves in their own end. Patrick Kane was even stopped on a long breakaway chance by the Bolts goaltender. Unfortunately, Nick Schmaltz took a questionable penalty with just under two minutes remaining in the extra period. It only took the Lightning a matter of seconds before they caught the Blackhawks running around and slammed home the game winner.

Pluses

• I think we’re all aware that hits are one of the most overrated stats in the entire sport, but I have been very happy with Lance Bouma. He goes out, plays his physical game, and doesn’t generally take stupid penalties. He’s pretty quick on his feet, and has some decent hands for a ham thrower.
• I might be Cody Franson’s biggest fan, but he went from 7th rotation defenseman to first pair power play, and he has done very well there.
• The aforementioned power play has finally started passing quicker and, magically, started producing several very dangerous chances. Go figure! You would think it was quantum physics.
• On a night where Scott Darling let a floater in from the center line, Corey Crawford was on top of his game. What more do people need Crawford to do? The guy is as dialed in as he can be. This is beginning to sound like a broken record, but without Crawford this game could have easily been ugly for the Blackhawks.
• After being pretty quiet as of late, Patrick Kane had a good game; in the first period that is. The rest of the game he kind of disappeared.

Minuses

• I know he was playing very well lately, but this was not one of Alex Debrincat’s best. He had a horrible turnover in the third period that almost tied the game just seconds in.
• Sure the Hawks started off really well, but then the offense went missing. That kind of production against the league’s top team will get you these kind of results, or possibly worse.
• Jan Rutta and Gustav Forsling had a brutal possession night, but they weren’t alone. Everyone but Connor Murphy, Nick Schmaltz and Patrick Kane were under water in possession.

The post Recap: Blackhawks at Tampa Bay 3-2 OT Loss appeared first on The Rink.

The Blackhawks take a two-game win streak into Tampa tonight—facing arguably the NHL’s best team this season, the Lightning. Is Chicago up to the challenge?

Chicago Blackhawks (10-8-2) at Tampa Bay Lightning (15-3-2)

7:30 PM Eastern/6:30 PM Central

RADIO: WGN 720

TV: NBC Sports

PROJECTED GOALIES:

Chicago:

Corey Crawford (9-7-0, 2.19 GAA, .933 save%)

Tampa Bay:

Andrei Vasilevskiy (14-2-1, 2.34 GAA, .928 save%)

PROJECTED LINES/PAIRINGS:

Chicago

Saad-Toews-Panik

Schmaltz-Anisimov-Kane

Sharp-Hartman-DeBrincat

Bouma-Wingels-Hayden

Keith-Franson

Murphy-Seabrook

Forsling-Rutta

Tampa Bay

Namestnikov-Stamkos-Kucherov

Palat-Pointe-Gourde

Killorn-Johnson-Sustr

Kunitz-Brown-Callahan

Hedman-Dotchin

Sergachev-Stralman

Coburn-Girardi

STATISTICAL COMPARISONS:

(through Tuesday)

Power play:

Chicago 16.1% (28^th)

Tampa Bay 28% (1st)

Penalty kill:

Chicago 84.9% (4^th)

Tampa Bay 83.8% (9^th)

Corsi For % (5-on-5)

Chicago 51.2% (10^th)

Tampa Bay 50.2% (15th)

Faceoffs:

Chicago 48% (25^th)

Tampa Bay 47.7% (26th)

MATCHUP SUMMARY:

It’s one thing to beat the New York Ranger 6-3 on home ice. It’s another to beat the defending Stanley Cup Champion Penguins in their building, 2-1. But the Blackhawks face arguably their toughest test, and perhaps best measuring stick. tonight in Amalie, Florida, versus a deep and rolling Tampa Bay Lightning club.

Some things have been going right for the Hawks of late—they are outshooting opponents (finally), and getting consistent production up and down the lineup. Still, trouble spots remain defensively.

This is the kind of game, in recent seasons, where the Hawks, no matter how poorly they may have been playing of late, tend to rise up and play well.

For a team with a psyche as fragile as this year’s model seems to possess at present, it is very important to play well, almost regardless of the final score.

Look for a recap here later tonight or tomorrow, as well as analysis.

Follow: @jaeckel

The post Preview: Blackhawks at Lightning appeared first on The Rink.

After 20 games, and coming off a huge road win against the Penguins, what have we learned about the re-engineered, younger, less proven 2017-18 Blackhawks? 

The mood in Blackhawk Nation this morning can likely best be described as “cautious, but jaded optimism.” This team—this year’s team—has teased us before with periods of brilliance, followed by stretches of inexplicably bad play, and the taste of two first round exits (after successful regular seasons) from the playoffs hasn’t faded.

You want to trust what’s you’ve seen the last two outings against good Eastern Conference teams. But you are wary of the next one—versus arguably the league’s best team, the Tampa Bay Lightning.

If you just look at the numbers and the trends, you can say that the Hawks were carried through the first 1/4 of the season by outstanding goaltending. Of late, Corey Crawford‘s stellar play has been complemented by Artem Anisimov arguably playing the best hockey of his career. Anisimov has not only reclaimed his second line center job, he’s become the Hawks most reliable scorer and net-front presence. As a result, thel ast couple of games, the hawks have also started to score on the power play—which had previously been about as common as Halley’s Comet.

Another important factor: the recent emergence of Gustav Forsling and Alex DeBrincat. Not only have both reduced their mistakes—which at one point were a real, possession-killing problem—but both have stepped up and contributed in their roles as scorers and playing over 200 feet. It’s way too early to say either has fully “arrived>” It’s likely there will be more mistakes. But both seem to now belong, and Forsling especially seems to be improving dramatically under the tutelage of assistant coach Ulf Samuelsson, himself a Swede (like Forsling) and longtime NHL defenseman.

For now, former camp PTO Cody Franson (who Hawk broadcasters still seem to have confused with former Detroit forward Johan Franzen) looks like a relatively stable fixture alongside Duncan Keith. And the much-maligned Connor Murphy has had a couple of decent outings on his off side, playing with Brent Seabrook.

The Jonathan Toews line seems a bit snakebit of late in terms of scoring, but still seems to be putting a lot of pressure on opponents, while the Anisimov, Patrick Kane (who has also been quiet lately), Nick Schmaltz line is getting some points. A two-line threat—something the last couple of Hawk teams weren’t.

As a result, the shot totals of games have tilted back toward Chicago’s favor of late.

All positive signs. Cause for jubilation? No.

There are still nightly clown car acts as the Hawks try to get out of their own end, missed coverages, still some ill-advised pinches without back-rotation to cover, creating odd-man rushes for opponents.

And although he’s had brilliant periods and games, we’re still not entirely sure how much new backup goalie Anton Forsberg can be relied upon, should Crawford go down with injury.

But the trends of late are positive and suggest improvement form the complementary pieces—like Anisimov, Forsling, DeBrincat and others—not just Crawford or Kane loading the team on his back for a night or two.

We’ll have a full recap of last night’s game later this morning—AND a new RinkCast posting later tonight, with special guests Pappy and Zo from Sports Mockery/the 312 podcast.

All for now.

Follow @jaeckel

The post Analysis: Blackhawks At The Quarter Pole appeared first on The Rink.