|
The Red Wings faceoff dominance of the Penguins was both complete and puzzling, and does not portend well for Pittsburgh for the rest of the series. Detroit not only won a stunning 71% of the faceoffs –where 55% is dominant over the long run– but every single Red Wing faceoff man had at least a 50% success rate while every single Penguin faceoff man had less than a 50% success rate.
Faceoff percentages, Game 1
Player Wins-Faceoffs Faceoff % Regular season Faceoff%
Henrik Zetterberg 15-20 75% 53.3%
Darren Helm 11-15 73% 56.1%
Valtteri Filppula 6-11 55% 52.1%
Justin Abdelkader 4-5 80% 57.1%
Johan Franzen 1-2 50% 56.0%
Jiri Hudler 1-1 100% 44.8%
Tomas Holmstrom 1-1 100% 37.5%
Total - Detroit 39-55 71% 55.1%
Player Wins-Faceoffs Faceoff % Regular season Faceoff%
Sidney Crosby 6-20 30% 51.8%
Jordan Staal 6-19 32% 47.0%
Evgeni Malkin 4-9 44% 42.4%
Maxime Talbot 0-4 0% 51.1%
Craig Adams 0-2 0% 38.1%
Tyler Kennedy 0-1 0% 53.8%
Total - Pittsburgh 16-55 29% 49.1%
Some Red Wings fans wondered if faceoff specialist Kris Draper was needed, even given his below replacement level play otherwise. We have our answer. Sit back and enjoy a cold one, Kris.
The marquis matchup of the game was Sidney Crosby against Henrik Zetterberg. The battle was waged on many fronts, one of them being the faceoff battle. The Swede dominated the Canadian on draws, as well as all other comers:
Henrik Zetterberg – Faceoff percentages against individual opponents, Game 1
Opponent Wins-Faceoffs Faceoff %
Sidney Crosby 11-16 69%
Jordan Staal 1-1 100%
Maxime Talbot 1-1 100%
Craig Adams 1-1 100%
Evgeni Malkin 1-1 100%
Total 15-20 75%
Whatever the solution, Dan Bylsma better find it quickly. While faceoff advantages can sometimes be overblown, this kind of dominance can turn a series. As faceoffs are particularly important on the power play, Detroit’s advantage may nullify many Pittsburgh opportunities during the series.
--
Coming into the series, Pittsburgh was scoring on 19.3% of man advantage situations during the playoffs, while Detroit was allowing goals on a surprising 26.4% of them. Looking at the numbers, you would have figured that the Penguins could really make hay on the power play. As the saying goes, “That’s why you play the games”. Pittsburgh looked unbelievably inept, with major difficulties even getting the puck into the offensive zone. On the other side of the puck, the Red Wings looked like the classic Devils teams of the late 90’s, absolutely stifling the Penguins’ attack.
The Penguins had zero shots on goal over 4 minutes of man advantage, with 6 Giveaways (including the Cleary takeaway as a Pittsburgh giveaway) allowing 1 shorthanded SOG and 3 attempts on goal for good measure. Puck movement on the power play was a disaster; the Penguins were constantly stood up at the blue line. They also lost all three faceoffs on the man advantage. If you can’t win a faceoff or carry the puck into the offensive zone, you’re not going to get a lot of shots on the power play, are you? Another major problem for Bylsma to address during the quick turnaround.
--
The hitting was frequent and vicious, especially in the 1st period. Obviously, messages were being sent, and injuries being tested. Even Sidney Crosby got into the action, as a good captain should, with a teeth-rattling “hello again” to Henrik Zetterberg. Both teams did more hitting than they have been doing previously in the playoffs, exceeding baselines by 10-12 hits each:
Player Pos GP Hits Hits/GP Hits (Gm 1)
Darren Helm C 17 86 5.1 8
Justin Abdelkader L 8 25 3.1 2
Dan Cleary R 17 52 3.1 5
Brad Stuart D 17 46 2.7 5
Niklas Kronwall D 17 42 2.5 1
Marian Hossa R 17 40 2.4 2
Jonathan Ericsson D 16 36 2.3 3
Tomas Holmstrom L 17 32 1.9 3
Tomas Kopecky R 8 15 1.9 DNP
Pavel Datsyuk C 13 23 1.8 DNP
Johan Franzen C 17 29 1.7 3
Henrik Zetterberg L 17 29 1.7 3
Mikael Samuelsson R 17 28 1.6 3
Kris Draper C 4 5 1.3 DNP
Kirk Maltby L 14 16 1.1 3
Valtteri Filppula C 17 17 1.0 2
Brett Lebda D 17 16 0.9 0
Nicklas Lidstrom D 15 12 0.8 0
Brian Rafalski D 12 8 0.7 0
Chris Chelios D 6 3 0.5 DNP
Jiri Hudler C 17 7 0.4 0
Ville Leino L 4 1 0.3 0
Derek Meech D 2 0 0.0 DNP
Totals - Detroit 17 568 33.4 43
Player Pos GP Hits Hits/GP Hits (Gm 1)
Brooks Orpik D 18 80 4.4 3
Matt Cooke L 18 62 3.4 6
Chris Kunitz L 18 51 2.8 3
Ruslan Fedotenko L 18 48 2.7 3
Jordan Staal C 18 33 1.8 4
Craig Adams R 18 25 1.4 1
Evgeni Malkin C 18 25 1.4 4
Pascal Dupuis L 10 12 1.2 DNP
Kris Letang D 17 20 1.2 1
Maxime Talbot C 18 20 1.1 1
Bill Guerin R 18 19 1.1 2
Alex Goligoski D 2 2 1.0 DNP
Tyler Kennedy C 18 18 1.0 4
Sidney Crosby C 18 17 0.9 4
Philippe Boucher D 9 8 0.9 0
Hal Gill D 18 15 0.8 1
Rob Scuderi D 18 12 0.7 0
Mark Eaton D 18 8 0.4 0
Sergei Gonchar D 16 6 0.4 2
Miroslav Satan R 12 4 0.3 0
Petr Sykora R 6 2 0.3 DNP
Totals - Detroit 18 487 27.1 39
For Detroit, Darren Helm ramped up his team leading pace of 5.1 hits per game by registering 8 hits. On the Pittsburgh side, forwards Matt Cooke, Jordan Staal, Evgeni Malkin, Tyler Kennedy and Sidney Crosby followed the game plan, and focused on taking the body frequently; each registered at least 4 hits and exceeded their personal rates by at least 2 hits. After the physical series that the Red Wings have had against the Ducks and Blackhawks, inflicting some “body blows” seems like a sound strategy for Pittsburgh success in the long run, but there hasn’t been a visible effect on the Red Wings’ play yet.
--
Quote of the night:
Mike Millbury, during the first intermission, regarding Evgeni Malkin’s development: "This guy has come leap years ahead". Now we know that he’s not going to get work as an English teacher, either.
--
Why can’t scoring summaries read like this?
Period Time Strength Team Goal Scorer Assist Assist
1 13:38 EV DET Fleury’s rear end* “Superball” boards Stuart
1 18:37 EV PIT Fedotenko Osgood‘s rebound Malkin
2 19:02 EV DET Fleury’s left foot Franzen Rafalski
3 2:46 EV DET Abdelkader Leino None
*2nd career goal in Stanley Cup Finals
So much for the Penguins having adequate Stanley Cup finals experience. While the team as a whole kept their cool, Marc-Andre Fleury more or less repeated an embarrassing goal from last year’s finals by both not anticipating the springy boards of Joe Louis Arena as well as by overreacting to a potential wraparound possibility. Compared to most other netminders, Fleury rarely seems set for a shot, flopping around frenetically to recover; what makes him entertaining to watch is also his undoing. We will never call a goal off of Fleury’s backside a “freak goal” ever again.
Without these unfortunate goals where Fleury beat himself, the game would be 1-1, going into overtime. With that in mind, the series still sizes up to be a competitive one.
Timo Seppa is an author of Hockey Prospectus.
You can contact Timo by clicking here or click here to see Timo's other articles.
| 
0 comments have been left for this article. 
Conn Smythe Watch: Lundqvist Leads