January 20, 2010

The Blackhawks' Fatal Flaw

Note: For the second time in 85 posts, I am writing about hockey. I'd change my name to Mr. Hockey Know-It-All, except I'd have no idea how to pronounce "Mr. HKIA". Actually, it'd probably sound like 'hockey-ah', which I suppose would be pretty badass.

The Blackhawks are a seriously good hockey team. As the NHL's points-leader (as of right now, they're actually tied with San Jose, but whatever) there's really no denying that. But the Hawks will not win the Stanley Cup -- and won't really have much of a shot at it either -- if they don't start getting some better goaltending.

The shocking thing is, from looking at the stats, goaltending would seem to be among the least of the Hawks' problems -- right up there with finding a way to sell the 17 standing room tickets they have left for the rest of the freaking season (seriously, try getting a ticket to a Hawks game right now) -- as their 114 goals allowed are the third fewest in the league. But that's only because they play great defense. They allow just 24.0 shots per game, by far the top mark in the league; the second-best Kings are at 27.6. To give you an idea how big of a gap that is, a team that had allowed 3.6 shots/game more than the Kings would rank 23rd in the league.

So -- duh -- the Hawks don't allow very many shots. In fact, they've only been out-shot eight times all season. And yet, the Hawks have 16 losses (I'm including shootout losses here); of those 16 losses, they actually out-shot their opponents 13 times. These numbers don't even seem possible, especially when the actual shot differential in these games is taken into account. Take a look at this dirty dozen (minus a deuce):

Score Shots
Panthers 4, Hawks 3 (SO) Hawks 55, Panthers 24
Red Wings 3, Hawks 2 Hawks 34, Red Wings 23
Coyotes 3, Hawks 1 Hawks 32, Coyotes 23
Avalanche 4, Hawks 3 (SO) Hawks 32, Avalanche 22
Kings 2, Hawks 1 (SO) Hawks 33, Kings 22
Predators 4, Hawks 1 Hawks 35, Predators 23
Sharks 3, Hawks 2 Hawks 47, Sharks 14
Stars 5, Hawks 4 Hawks 37, Stars 24
Ducks 3, Hawks 1 Hawks 43, Ducks 12
Senators 4, Hawks 1 Hawks 30, Senators 18
Record: 0-10 Total goals: Opponents 32, Blackhawks 19

Total shots: Blackhawks 378, Opponents 205

Save %: Opponents .950, Blackhawks .844

And the problem has been especially glaring of late -- in the Hawks last four losses combined, they've been outscored 15-8 while outshoooting their opponents 157 to 68. That's a save percentage of .949 for the teams they're playing, and a piss-poor .779 for the Hawks.

The problem, primarily, is Cristobal Huet. Though Crystal Balls is 6th in the league with a 2.24 goals against average, he's just 30th in save percentage at .904. And that's among qualified goaltenders. If you take every goalie in the league, Huet drops to 44th, and I don't think you can win the Cup with the 44th-best goalie in the league.

So what can the Hawks do? Huet clearly does not appear capable of being the #1 goaltender on a legitimate contender, and the Hawks (and since-dispatched Dale Tallon) clearly erred when signing him. But beyond reanimating the corpse(s) of Eddie Belfour and/or Dominik Hasek, their only option, really, is to make Antti Niemi their primary goaltender. Niemi, whose .921 save percentage is the same as Martin Brodeur's, has looked much better than Huet in his 16 games. In fact, Niemi's four shutouts equal Huet's -- tying him for fifth in the league -- and every other player with three or more has made at least twice as many starts as Niemi.

However, three of the above-listed games were Niemi starts, so he's not a cure-all, although there's a chance that his occasionally poor performance is due to a lack of regular playing time. But because Niemi is just 26 with a minor-league track record that doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence, there are definitely questions as to whether he can handle the every day rigors of being the man between the pipes for a Stanley Cup contender. But since it would definitely appear that Huet can't, what have they got to lose by finding out?

UPDATE: Apparently, Jeremy Roenick agrees with me.

4 comments:

  1. Dan,

    Great post. Agree for the most part. Huet can be stellar at times, but his main problem is his inconsistency. It isn't a bad game every 10-15 or so, like elite goalies such as Brodeur, Loungo, or Ryan Miller (Buffalo), etc., it's a bad game every 5-6. That may not seem like much, but it adds up. Niemi, I feel, has been outstanding considering how hard it is to be consistent w/o regular playing time. Most backups are just asked to spell the starter and not "lose" the game.

    I heard the JR interview, and agree w/him for the most part. However, it is unrealistic to expect the hawks to deal for a "top-of-the-line" starting goalie, for a couple of reasons: 1) There aren't enough out there, and any teams that do have them would not be looking to trade them, unless they are under-performing, the team has a reliable second option and wants to clear money for cap reasons. 2) I do have a lot of faith in Niemi. Several teams, including Detroit, were going after him when the hawks signed him. The primary reason his AHL record isn't that great was that last year was his first (and only) year in the AHL, and he split time w/our other prospect Corey Crawford. 3) Just like in the NFL, the NHL is now in the salary-cap era, and teams simply can't field an entire team of all-stars, regardless if they are willing to spend the money or not. Because of this, overall skill and depth levels are very important.

    The Hawks have clearly been following Detroit's model of the past decade, and while in an ideal world we would have a franchise goalie (because it is the most important position on the team) they have been able to acquire amazing talent (mostly via the draft) at defense and forward before they developed their own goalie. That being the case, the Hawks realize (and fans should as well) that the team is good enough to not need an elite goalie, much like Detroit all these years w/Osgood. No one would claim he is an elite goalie, but he has 3-4 Stanley Cup rings, because they were able to used whatever $ they saved from not having that elite goalie and spent it on having a team 4 lines and 6 defensemen deep.

    So while it may seem an unsatisfying answer, the truth is that, for this year anyway, Huet and Niemi will be the Hawks tandem. I won't rule out Niemi taking over permanently if Huet remains inconsistent as we approach the playoffs, but it is highly unlikely that a deal for another goalie is made, because Huet and his contract would have to be involved for it to work financially.

    I'd much rather see the Hawks trade for a bruising, stay-at-home defenseman (Mike Green from the LA Kings has been mentioned), since, while our defensemen are highly skilled, we don't have that type of dman here. In any such deal, which would most likely include Cam Barker or Patrick Sharp, we'd be trading skill for muscle, but it shouldn't be an issue w/Keith, Seabrook, Campbell and Hjalmarsson back there.

    The off-season is going to lead to a lot of moves, so a lot of guys , including Huet, could be moved then to save money under the cap, and give an opportunity to the other rookies we have at Rockford. Because our corp group of players have been locked up, we'd still be able to field a high-quality team, although it might not be as deep next year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elias--

    Definitely agree that the Hawks will have to make due with the goalies they have on hand. I hope that despite his shaky outing the other night, Niemi will continue to get a shot at being their #1.

    As for the Osgood thing, I think that they're treading on very dangerous ground. While he has won two Cups as the Red Wings starter, those were exceptionally good teams. Not that the Hawks can't be, but winning without a top-flight goaltender becomes a much more difficult proposition. Additionally, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that while Osgood was never an elite goalie, he's still a class or two above Huet.

    Finally, who is this "Dan" you addressed? My name is SKIA. Mr. SKIA.

    ReplyDelete
  3. LOL oh yeah, right...Mr. SKIA. Sorry about that, don't follow/comment on blogs very often.

    ReplyDelete