NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Would the Penguins increase their chances of taking Game 3 of the Stanley Cup Final tonight by shooting more often?
Probably.
But, risking the wrath of the small but vocal hockey analytics community, I'll argue yet again -- as I have for years -- that this sport suffers from a lack of data compared to baseball, football, basketball, soccer, you name it. And by data, I mean the information that goes into the equation before something emerges at the other end.
There just isn't much information. Not now. That's why almost all of hockey's analytics are based on simple shots on goal. Oh, there are shots from certain areas, even shot types that are recorded, now that the NHL's fossils have finally begun to catch on to the passion for more and better numbers. There are also trackings of faceoff placements, zone entries and other facets.
All of it helps. It's getting better. It isn't there yet.
And these Penguins are proving that decisively in these playoffs.
They're 13th of the 16 qualifying teams in average shots per game at 29.2. They're 11th in shots allowed at 31.6. Their differential of minus-3.4 is third-worst of the field, with only the Blues and Maple Leafs lower.
Per the root of the most commonly cited hockey analytics, they should be watching this Final from a golf clubhouse somewhere.
But they aren't: They've outscored opponents, 67-48. They've averaged 3.19 goals per game, while no other team is higher than the Ducks' 2.94. Their 2.29 goals-against average is the fifth-best, not all that far from the 2.11 of the Predators, who have been praised up, down and sideways for their team defense.
Anyone care to guess why?
Well, yeah: The Penguins are pretty good at preventing shots from entering the net, their goaltenders' .930 save percentage second only to the Blues' .932. And, more important from my view, they're outrageous at putting pucks behind the other teams' goaltenders, leading all teams with an 11.6 shooting percentage.
This is called high-end skill. And the cold-water-splash of these playoffs is that there still isn't a way to accurately measure that via any meaningful advanced metric that's based on shot volume or location rather than quality.
Like this beauty from Evgeni Malkin in Game 2:
The big man didn't need three or four rushes that night to go bar-down in undressing Pekka Rinne. He needed one. A single two-on-one.
Would it have helped his chances if he had more such rushes?
Again, probably.
But did he need more than one?
Wow, no. Because he can shoot like that.
Go back to Game 1, when the Penguins had a five-on-three power play that was so ugly you wouldn't wish it on the Flyers. But then, with the very first chance, Malkin ripped this one-timer right through Rinne's glove:
One was pinpoint precision, the other overpowering. Both involved elite skill.
These samples look random and, to an extent, they are. I could also point to Pontus Aberg's amazing one-on-one goal in Game 2 and say the same for the other guys. Except that the Predators don't have the personnel to do that consistently, certainly not en masse, definitely not up front. They've got Filip Forsberg and James Neal capable of that sort of thing, and that's about it.
And none of those three players, to state the glaringly obvious, match up with those couple guys atop the Penguins' roster or, for that matter, Phil Kessel and maybe even Jake Guentzel, the latter if we're confined to the context of these playoffs.
The voice of reason spoke on the subject Friday after the Penguins' practice in Cranberry Township.
"I think all these advanced analytics or statistics, they're interesting," Mike Sullivan said. "I think it's still a new frontier for our league. I think we're all trying to figure out what's relevant as far as, you know, how we can react to those types of things that help our team moving forward. I do think that shot attempts can be an indication of where the game is being played. Although having said that, in the last game, we had more offensive zone time than defensive zone time, and we were out-shot-attempted. There are outliers. But certainly, I think common sense would suggest you don't want to be outshot over the course of the big picture. For obvious reasons."
No argument there.
But can we please, please finally dispense with this Pavlovian analysis that a team is being outplayed if it's being outshot?
How is a skilled finish not worth more to the math when we've all watched a team take down the Blue Jackets, Capitals and Senators primarily through that specific means?
Think about it like basketball: The team that's shooting the best is the one getting all the praise. It's seen as the single most important measure of efficiency and productivity. No one cares how many shots are taken, and it doesn't matter all that much from where they're taken, at least not compared to if they make it.
Hockey's got its differences, clearly, especially since goaltending in basketball is, you know, a foul. But shooting accuracy is a very real part of hockey, and it has been since the sport's inception. It's well past time for the advanced stats community to push for firmer data to support this, then incorporate that.
More scattershot thoughts as this series is about to take over Music City:
• High-end skill wins. Not always, but very consistently throughout hockey history. Go up and down the list of champions and the accompanying runners-up, and that's the difference. The last time a lesser-skilled team won the Cup, by my reckoning, was way back in 2003, when the trapping, soul-sapping Devils shut down Paul Kariya's Mighty Ducks. One could argue that the 2008 and 2009 Penguins weren't an even depth match with the Red Wings in both of those Finals, but there's no question those Penguins had high-end skill.
• I hope Nick Bonino doesn't play Game 3.
He was supported Friday by crutches and a walking boot on that left ankle damaged by P.K. Subban slap shot Wednesday, though that could have been simply to keep from aggravating the injury. That's bad enough. What's worse, from the team standpoint, is that there's no conceivable way he'll take the ice at anywhere near 100 percent. And that won't help anyone.
Carl Hagelin is healthy, fresh, he looked terrific in killing penalties late in the Ottawa series -- Bonino's forte -- and shifting Carter Rowney to center should make up for the loss of Bonino on draws.
Once he mends, ideally by Monday, he should be in better shape.
• Hagelin described finding out he'd be a healthy scratch for Game 1 as "disappointing, frustrating ... you're [ticked] off," and that's exactly what you'd expect to hear from a competitor of his caliber.
Yet another reason I'd like to see him play. Imagine someone with Hagelin's speed skating as if he's shot out of a cannon.
• Wait, Subban guaranteed something?
Honestly, why is this sort of nonsense ever taken seriously?
Joe Namath did it once, legitimately put his reputation on the line because it was so daring, then backed it up with the Jets' stunning Super Bowl upset of the Colts. This was clear back in 1969. And that's where is should have ended.
An athlete proclaiming anything resembling a guarantee is guaranteeing nothing. There's no bet. There's no personal loss. There's only the bet that he'll either be hailed as some weird hero if he's right or that he'll be wrong and a bit embarrassed. And the latter fades away much more quickly than it might have for Beaver Falls Joe.
But Subban? Before a Game 3?
Come on.
• Also not to be taken seriously are Peter Laviolette's remarks about not wanting to announce his Game 3 goaltender in advance. It'll be Rinne. He's got no choice, and he knows it. He can't have his team take the ice for the first Final game played in Nashville with Juuse Saros, a 22-year-old who's faced two playoff shots in his life.
Now, if Rinne pulls off a natural hat trick of lousy performances, then Laviolette will again have no choice but to bench him.
That isn't now.
Listen to Rinne after practice Friday, and it couldn't be clearer he'll start: "You go through the games and different situations, and you try to be better and learn from it and be ready for the next one. That's the mindset. I think you think about this as an opportunity to regroup and get back to playing at the level where I feel I'm able to play."
• Here's a meaningful remark, this from Sidney Crosby on what the Penguins need to do better, and he pointed immediately to the power play that went 0 for 7 and often couldn't even set up: ""It probably starts with me. I've got to win a few more faceoffs. That will go a long way as far as getting possession. They pressure a lot. They're trying to force mistakes. I think once you make a little mistake, they're jumping and make it difficult on you."
The team was 3 for 10 on power-play faceoffs. Crosby was 10-19 overall, 3-6 in the attacking zone.
Otherwise, he added of the power play, "It really comes down to execution. We have guys out there that can make plays and are capable of, when there is a mistake, finding a way to make a play that we get a chance out of. Just being patient … it's not always going to be pretty."
• The power play has been frustrated, in particular, by Nashville's pressure on the points. They've been right in the faces of Malkin and Justin Schultz, and those two have occasionally forced plays that weren't there. Same with Kessel on the left half-wall.
In practice Friday, Crosby was placed in a high-slot position, presumably to suck some of those defenders inward and away from the points. I'm not wild about this. The Penguins don't need to adjust to the Predators as much as they need to independently work the puck low.
• I don't care about catfish, Carrie Underwood or any country music other than Johnny Cash. I do care about great hockey, and I don't believe we've seen anything of the kind so far in this series.
That'll change in Game 3, and that's as close as I'll come to a call.
Enjoy it ... if you can!
MATT SUNDAY GALLERY
