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.

Me and the Blackhawks, together at last?

I've never been a big NHL fan. I think most of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of longtime Blackhawks' owner Bill Wirtz, a notorious tightwad who refused to allow their home games to be televised because he worried it would cut into attendance. Which as we know has been a HUGE problem for the Cubs. And every other team throughout the history of televised sports that naively thinks that TV can be used to reach hordes of new fans -- people who might later, you know, attend a game -- as opposed to just slicing into the gate receipts. Additionally, unlike the Cubs -- and Bulls and Bears, for that matter -- the Hawks had no games of any kind on free TV, and instead were exclusively on SportsVision/SportsChannel/Fox Sports/Comcast Sports until very recently. And as a kid, we didn't have cable TV; first it wasn't available in our "unincorporated" neighborhood, and then later my parents insisted we didn't need it.* So while I tried to follow those Denis Savard/Steve Larmer/Al Secord/Doug Wilson teams in the early-to-mid 80s, without the ability to actually see the games, I never really got hooked.

* In high school, I decided that I could no longer tolerate living in an ESPN-free world and paid for cable and its installation. Soon after, as I admonished my parents for watching shows on my cable, they conceded that it really didn't seem fair and said they'd start paying me for it -- just as soon as I began giving them some money for the use of their TVs.

Well played, mom and dad.

A few years ago, however, the Blackhawks began moving in a new direction when Wirtz passed away and his son Rocky took over the franchise. The younger Wirtz announced pretty much immediately that home games would be televised, and quickly hired long-time Cubs' marketing guru John McDonough to be the team's president. Add in the organization's stable of good young players -- cultivated by years of high-position drafting due to perennial playoff absenteeism -- and I soon was willing to give the Hawks another look. With Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, among others, the team is really hard not to like, and I do follow them with some interest. Still I wouldn't consider myself much of a hockey fan, and my overall knowledge of the NHL is pretty limited. Relatively speaking, of course.

Which brings us to a few weeks ago. Having been treated to theater tickets by my wife -- and with "treated" I'm not being facetious; the play was actually really good -- I decided to return the favor by bringing her to a sporting event. My options were limited by her hatred of basketball, as its excess of scoring really enrages her for some reason. The upshot is that she prefers games where points are at a premium, so that left us with hockey. I got nosebleed tickets to the Blackhawks-Blues, and managed to keep it more or less a surprise until we pulled up to the United Center last Wednesday.**

** A secret largely ruined by Stubhub.com appearing on our credit card bill. Perhaps not the most well-thought-out plan on my part. But my wife was nice enough to play along as if she hadn't figured it out.

I've always said that hockey is much better in person than on TV, where it translates worse than the other major American team sports.*** And yet I had been to but one NHL game; my theory about hockey being great in person was based almost entirely on my experience as a diehard spectator at my high school team's games. I won't stray off-topic too badly, but man those games were a ton of fun. Even better than high school football, in a lot of ways.

** My rankings, by television-friendliness:
4. NHL The puck at times being hard to follow is just part of it; a lot of the best hits happen after the puck has left a zone, and therefore occur off-screen when the game is on TV.
3. MLB The evolution of baseball broadcasting has pretty much ruined it. Baseball is largely about tension and the anticipation of specific moments. The constant cutaways we have now have almost entirely eliminated that sensation for the at-home viewer. Watch an old game on ESPN Classic, and try to tell me it isn't infinitely better. Seriously, try. When a broadcast doesn't move off the centerfield camera without the ball being contacted, the suspense returns and the game experience improves dramatically.
2. NBA Really, very good on TV. Only quibble is the occasional missed replay when there is no immediate stoppage of play. Not much at all, and yet the NBA just can't compare to #1.
1. NFL Anyone beg to differ? I would rather watch an NFL game on TV than see one in person, and there's no way I'd say that about any of the other three sports. There's a lot of downtime in football, and on television most of it is packed with replays, so that 99% of the time you get to see everything you'd ever want to see, and more.

So as we made our way to our seats in the upper tier of the UC, I was expecting to have a good time. What I wasn't expecting was how good of a time I had. I loved every minute of it. The excitement each time the puck gets near the crease, the power plays, the breakaways, all of it. The Hawks won 3-1 -- losing the shutout on a where-the-hell-did-that-come-from goal with 1.5 seconds remaining -- but completely dominated the contest. They allowed just seven shots in the first two periods combined, and led 2-0 most of the way. Still, the two-goal margin was close enough to keep it interesting, and when St. Louis got a power play with about six minutes to go, the Chicken Little sports fan that lurks inside of me was already envisioning the lead shrinking to 2-1, and then disappearing entirely. The whole game, I had been praying for one more goal, just to cut some of my internal tension, and now I was sensing the Blackhawks' margin slipping away. So imagine my elation when Colin Fraser, with the Hawks a man down, somehow got a breakaway and scored a short-handed goal to completely seal the game. It was so shockingly unexpected, I pretty much lost it, cheering wildly with an open-mouthed, shit-eating grin that must have lasted a full five minutes.

Afterwards it was clear my wife enjoyed the game as much as I did, saying (more than once) that we had to go back again. I know why she enjoyed it: it was entertaining and exciting, and she doesn't think we get out enough. But why, exactly, did I love it so much? As I was thinking, That was a lot of fun. I really should become a bigger hockey fan, it hit me. Becoming a bigger fan would be the worst thing I could do; I relished the game so much precisely because I'm not that big a fan, and I don't know nearly everything there is to know about hockey.

When I watch a baseball, basketball, or football game, my enjoyment is marred by too much knowledge. I see players doing boneheaded things and coaches making terrible calls or playing atrocious lineups, and it infuriates me. It's difficult to enjoy whatever sport I'm watching because I'm so preoccupied with how badly everyone is screwing everything up. All my familiarity has bred nothing but contempt, and if I could, I think I'd erase all the existing sports expertise from my accursed brain. That way, all my sporting experiences would be like my hockey one.

So I will not become a bigger hockey fan. I will instead keep a safe distance, thereby maintaining a greater level of enjoyment when we actually do go to our next game. All of which gives me a new appreciation for a certain previously-vilified character: Bill Wirtz. I am sorry, sir; truly you were a misunderstood miser-genius. Your ridiculously archaic policies created a sanctuary for hockey, and to this day the sport is free from the wretched clutches of my knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Wirtz, I owe you one. And from what I understand, you'll probably find a way to collect.