The Penguins went into Sunday's practice with the same lines and combinations as Game 1 -- which included Egor Chinakhov on Sidney Crosby's wing opposite Bryan Rust, and Rickard Rakell centering Tommy Novak and Evgeni Malkin.
The Penguins struggled to get much going at all in terms of offense in Saturday's loss, but those are the lines they're sticking with.
Should a change have been in order based on regular-season combinations? Here's what different lines generated and allowed at five-on-five in the regular season, presented in a rate stat per 60 minutes. And for easier viewing, I'll bold the best line's result for each stat, and italicize the worst results for each stat:
What are the takeaways? Putting Chinakhov with Crosby's line and Rakell on the second line leads toward more low-event hockey in either direction for the first line and some pretty high-event hockey for the second line. The second line sees a huge bump in chances for under the current setup, though that doesn't always translate into goals. The top line sees a dip in chances for, but those chances translate into goals more often. In either case, the current configurations in nearly every stat result in the Penguins getting more for than against.
I asked Dan Muse why he's sticking with these lines after practice. And he said that aside from last night's loss, one has to look at how those lines were playing late in the season.
"I thought we had good offensive depth throughout the lineup, that we had good balance," Muse said of that time. "I thought all lines were chipping in and creating in different ways. Anytime that you mix the lines up, each guy has personal strengths that they can bring. And some of those strengths are a little bit different than others. With Chinakhov, his speed and his ability to push a defense back and create space underneath. He's also a guy that on the defensive side, he does a really good job in terms of his ability to track and bring pucks back in the offensive zone or keep it on the offensive side of the ice. And then, the obvious there, just with his shot and his ability to find those open pockets both off the rush and in zone. I think he'll bring that with whoever he's playing with."
I asked Chinakhov if anything changes for him depending on which line he's on, and he said it's "pretty similar, I try to use my best."
So -- is it crazy to stick with the current lines? Maybe not, there's precedent for why they are what they are. But if they don't start producing in Game 2, there still could be some balance found if they're reverted to what they once were.
THE ASYLUM
Why not swap Chinakhov and Rakell?
The Penguins went into Sunday's practice with the same lines and combinations as Game 1 -- which included Egor Chinakhov on Sidney Crosby's wing opposite Bryan Rust, and Rickard Rakell centering Tommy Novak and Evgeni Malkin.
The Penguins struggled to get much going at all in terms of offense in Saturday's loss, but those are the lines they're sticking with.
Should a change have been in order based on regular-season combinations? Here's what different lines generated and allowed at five-on-five in the regular season, presented in a rate stat per 60 minutes. And for easier viewing, I'll bold the best line's result for each stat, and italicize the worst results for each stat:
CHINAKHOV-CROSBY-RUST
Shot attempts for: 50.89
Shot attempts against: 61.06
Shots on goal for: 26.83
Shots on goal against: 24.06
Expected goals for: 3.04
Expected goals against: 2.55
Goals for: 6.48
Goals against: 3.7
RAKELL-CROSBY-RUST
Shot attempts for: 63.2
Shot attempts against: 61.04
Shots on goal for: 28.91
Shots on goal against: 26.6
Expected goals for: 3.3
Expected goals against: 3.04
Goals for: 3.54
Goals against: 2.61
CHINAKHOV-NOVAK-MALKIN
Shot attempts for: 58.67
Shot attempts against: 60.56
Shots on goal for: 30.41
Shots on goal against: 26.38
Expected goals for: 3.61
Expected goals against: 3.35
Goals for: 4.04
Goals against: 2.69
NOVAK-RAKELL-MALKIN
Shot attempts for: 80.71
Shot attempts against: 52.29
Shots on goal for: 43.2
Shots on goal against: 29.55
Expected goals for: 5.55
Expected goals against: 4.05
Goals for: 5.68
Goals against: 3.41
What are the takeaways? Putting Chinakhov with Crosby's line and Rakell on the second line leads toward more low-event hockey in either direction for the first line and some pretty high-event hockey for the second line. The second line sees a huge bump in chances for under the current setup, though that doesn't always translate into goals. The top line sees a dip in chances for, but those chances translate into goals more often. In either case, the current configurations in nearly every stat result in the Penguins getting more for than against.
I asked Dan Muse why he's sticking with these lines after practice. And he said that aside from last night's loss, one has to look at how those lines were playing late in the season.
"I thought we had good offensive depth throughout the lineup, that we had good balance," Muse said of that time. "I thought all lines were chipping in and creating in different ways. Anytime that you mix the lines up, each guy has personal strengths that they can bring. And some of those strengths are a little bit different than others. With Chinakhov, his speed and his ability to push a defense back and create space underneath. He's also a guy that on the defensive side, he does a really good job in terms of his ability to track and bring pucks back in the offensive zone or keep it on the offensive side of the ice. And then, the obvious there, just with his shot and his ability to find those open pockets both off the rush and in zone. I think he'll bring that with whoever he's playing with."
I asked Chinakhov if anything changes for him depending on which line he's on, and he said it's "pretty similar, I try to use my best."
So -- is it crazy to stick with the current lines? Maybe not, there's precedent for why they are what they are. But if they don't start producing in Game 2, there still could be some balance found if they're reverted to what they once were.
Want to participate in our comments?
Want an ad-free experience?
Become a member, and enjoy premium benefits!
We’d love to have you!