2-4-T's Game 3 Assessment and Keys for Game 4

Well that Tuukka Rask kid sure is OK. Just OK though. I mean he has only had 3 shutouts in his last 7 games, 1 of those 7 is a loss, and only let in 1 goal in each of 3 out of 4 of those non-shutouts. What's a Tim Thomas, amirite?

After Boston won Game 2 of their series against the Penguins by a 6-1 decision I was highly inclined to write a "Can Boston Be Stopped?" post and basically outline how either Chicago or Los Angeles (at the time, Chicago was up 2-0 in their series) would have their work cut out for them entering the final. The reason I didn't was that was my first week venturing into the blogosphere and I didn't want to get ahead of myself and over-post at the outset.

But back to things people actually care about, after a promising first game this Stanley Cup Final is becoming more and more lopsided. And if we extrapolate it out three seasons before this current one maybe we are seeing a trend which I am sure the NHL is going to hate: Defense wins championships. Yes, after all the rule changes that have been happening post-('04-05)-lockout to increase scoring, speed the game up, and draw the casual fan into the hockey world, defense is the reason we are seeing hockey televised on a large scale deep into June.

Go back to New Jersey and Los Angeles, with Jonathan Quick's stellar numbers and Conn Smythe winning performance. And the year before between Vancouver and Boston, with an offensive juggernaut facing a defensive stalwart and Tim Thomas of the latter ilk taking home the Conn Smythe and a Cup Ring. And one year prior, where Chicago, though not the pinnacle of a defensive team, bests Philadelphia, who actually employed Michael Leighton as their number one goaltender, in six games and Jonathan Toews takes the Conn Smythe and 3 years later also wins the Selke Trophy for best defensive forward. Regardless of which team wins the Stanley Cup, how strong are the arguments for Rask or defenseman Zdeno Chara to win the Conn Smythe this year?

I guess the point here is that we might want to promote the offensive aspects of the game but the evidence is piling up that when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, the immovable object not only comes out on top but it garners attention.

To speak of the game at hand well I was at work so I only saw the 3rd period. From that one period though, it seemed that Chicago was the disinterested party this time around. At five-on-five they couldn't maintain any meaningful zone time and on the power play they neglected to, you know, shoot the puck. As for Boston, they basically existed to uphold their two goal lead and stifle Chicago's ability to get anything started which they succeeded in doing.

Chicago managed 10 of their 28 shots on net in the 3rd, though most of those probably occurred in their mad scramble in the final minutes of the game. Justin Bourne of Backhand Shelf wrote a great article, found here, yesterday before the game about the psychology of a team facing a hot goaltender. His argument is that the team is less likely to attempt shots with a low success rate and instead tend to hold onto the puck and try to create different looks which tends to result in turnovers. The Hawks are clearly over-thinking to the point where Tuukka Rask is even stopping the shots Chicago is not taking.

To Boston's credit, they are playing aggressive on the forecheck which is limiting Chicago's chances and, whether at even strength or short-handed, they are not giving Chicago any space on offense which is taking away Chicago's options to move the puck. And to top it off, even when the Blackhawks are gifted with glowing chances they either hold onto the puck for moments longer than they should or miss the net entirely.

In Chicago’s defense, the final score was only 2-0 against their favour and they are down in the series by a margin of 2-1. Possibly because these games are for all the biscuits we talk about how they played like the score was 20-0 and Boston is already circling the floats around. The kind of loss they actually incurred offers them the opportunity to pick themselves up, dust off, and get back in the saddle one foot at a time. The product on the ice may not inspire confidence in us as viewers but all it takes is for them to refocus for the next game and show us why they got here in the first place.

For Game 4, Chicago needs to simplify their game and shake the hesitance of putting shots on net. I said after Game 1 that they cannot rely on winning games off of deflections, and they shouldn’t because those chances net results based off of luck, but they shouldn’t be tentative about at least trying. One thing these opportunities can create are rebounds and rebounds create second opportunities if you fight to collect them. This is one big difference between the two teams I noticed in my 20 minutes of watching Game 3 where Boston maintained possession on offense while Chicago only had one-and-done trips to the other end of the ice. Chicago is a skilled team but maybe by scaling back to a more “meat and potatoes” brand of hockey they will find ways to capitalize on their chances. They also need to be considerably more active on the power play and this comes back to holding onto the puck far longer than they should. The defense doesn’t move if the puck doesn’t move and lanes won’t open up as a result. Finally, don’t give Boston so much time and space in your own end. The reason forechecking exists is to force the opponent to move the puck because if they have the time to allow the play to develop they can make calculated passes on the tape of a teammate as opposed to chipping the puck in and digging it out of the corners. They have the tools to skate with this team, they just need to stop using hammers to screw in their bolts.

I can’t say I have too many things to criticize Boston for. They are playing well in all three zones and they are winning games by as much as they need to. Their top line could see some more scoring, especially since Krejci, Horton, and Lucic are respectively one, two, and three in point leaders for the playoffs. Crawford is playing exceptionally well for his caliber but if Boston is owning Chicago as much as it seems why take your foot off the pedal? Tyler Seguin is putting helpers on the scoresheet in his new home on the 3^rd line, Jaromir Jagr is hitting posts, and Patrice Bergeron is destroying the Blackhawks down the middle in the faceoff dot but their two wins have only been by one and two goals. Then again, if my best suggestion is to win by larger goal differentials they must be doing something right.

Do you think Chicago can right the ship going forward or does Boston blow things out of the water?