The Chicago Blackhawks raised a lot of eyebrows (and the blood pressure of many people in Vancouver) with their 5-0 win against the Canucks in Game 5.People aren’t buzzing about Chicago’s two wins as much as they are shocked by just how dominant those two games have been. It’s the kind of turnaround/collapse that underscores how fragile athletes can be.
So the question is: can they repeat the 2009-10 Philadelphia Flyers’ magic act against the Boston Bruins by coming back from a 3-0 series deficit? Let’s take a look.
History stands against Chicago.
Realists would point out that the odds are still against the Blackhawks considering the fact that only three teams in NHL history have ever come back from a 3-0 deficit. (Whowins.com points out that teams up 3-0 are 159-3 all-time, although I think that the Detroit Red Wings became No. 160 last night.) On the other hand, optimists will point out that the Blackhawks merely need to match what the 2009-10 Philadelphia Flyers did against the Boston Bruins in last year’s playoffs.
Ultimately, the Blackhawks can look at the 3-2 odds alone, though. Teams up 3-2 are 250-64 all-time, which means Chicago has improved their odds of winning this series from about two percent to about 20.
If you’re getting bored with obtuse numbers, I have a more fun exercise for you: let’s compare this Chicago-Vancouver series to that 2010 Philadelphia-Boston series.
How the two series are similar
In both series, the Blackhawks and Flyers fell behind 3-0 despite some close games. The Canucks earned two one-goal wins and one two-goal victory; the Bruins dominated Game 3 4-1 but needed an overtime win and another one-goal win to take a deceptively large lead. This is my long way of saying that the series were much closer than their 3-0 margins.
A major injury might be the turning point. In the Flyers-Bruins series, Brian Boucher’s injury allowed Michael Leighton to step back in and save the day. Brent Seabrook missed the last two games because of the Raffi Torres hit, but that injury might be part of the reason Duncan Keith is on fire.
Survival instincts: Both the Flyers and Blackhawks were fighting up until the last day of their respective regular seasons, making them quite familiar with must-win situations. (Sure, Chicago lost their last game, but they won plenty during the stretch drive.)
How they are different.
History: The Bruins and Flyers didn’t really have short-term baggage in their series, while the Canucks and Blackhawks have met three years in a row. Of course, this point actually works in Chicago’s favor, though.
Disparity: Despite their recent showings, the 2011 Canucks are (in my opinion) a much better team than the 2010 Bruins. They’re shaken up at the moment, but I still think that Vancouver is the team to beat.
Depth: The Flyers had a deep pool of offensive options while the Blackhawks must rely on a small handful of scorers. If Chicago’s going to keep it going, they’ll probably need their best players to keep carrying them along the way.
Canucks under pressure: Any team with a 3-0 lead is under the gun, but Vancouver is the Presidents’ Trophy team trying to win its first-ever Cup in its 40th season. They’re trying to shake a considerable monkey off their backs. Yup, that’s a ton of pressure, something that plays into Chicago’s hands.
So what’s the takeaway from all this? The Blackhawks certainly have a chance to do this. History is against them, but psychology might be on their side considering all of Vancouver’s baggage. If they win Game 6, then the Canucks would have the weight of the world on their shoulders in Game 7.
Does that mean that it’ll happen? I’d still bet against it, but who even saw these last two games coming?
Red Wings rally by Bruins in another game that evokes the Eighties
Things looked pretty grim for the Detroit Red Wings after the Boston Bruins chased Jared Coreau from the net with a quick 3-0 lead. Maybe the Red Wings took note that this has been a weird, high-scoring week in the NHL, because they rallied back and eventually won 6-5 via a shootout.
To recap the zaniest games of each day from this odd few days of hockey:
(That’s the coach’s answer to slamming a video game controller in a frustrating loss.)
Fitting in with this week’s other wilder contests, there were flurries of goals even beyond the trio that quickly gave Coreau the boot. The Red Wings warped a 4-1 Bruins lead to a 4-4 tie with three goals in a little more than 10 minutes of time.
Adam McQuaid then regained Boston’s lead 21 seconds after it was tied, but the Red Wings didn’t give up. Instead, they applied a ton of pressure in the third period until Gustav Nyquist tied it up with about three minutes left.
Detroit still has a long way to go to protect its remarkable playoff streak, especially when teams like the Bruins can at least salvage “charity points” with losses. If the Red Wings want to make an unlikely push, they’ll need to show the kind of resolve that was on display on yet another wild night in the NHL.
#RedWings win a game after allowing 4 first-period goals for the first time since November 1, 1991 vs Hartford
PHT brings you the hard-hitting math, as you know, so here’s the latest burst: Connor McDavid is more than a point-per-game player.
You see, he scored the 100th point of his promising NHL career, and he did so in just his 92nd career game on Wednesday. Let us remind you that he’s just 20 years old (and he turned 20 on Jan. 13). Yeah.
Point 100 came on via an assist on a Zack Kassian goal as the Edmonton Oilers went up 1-0 against the Florida Panthers.
Here’s the clip:
Considering how quickly McDavid got to 100 and how young he is, it tempts you to do all sorts of speculative math. Maybe you’ll even wonder where No. 97 will finish on all-time lists:
In case you're wondering, it took Jagr 118 games to get to 100 points. Of course, he's only 5 shy if 1,900 right now
In the video above, you can see Bob McKenzie lay out the Detroit Red Wings’ status as the trade deadline begins to look like more of a consideration.
Considering their playoff streak, it’s not that shocking that they’re at least struggling with the idea of being sellers. More than a few people probably did a double-take (or spit-take?) when McKenzie noted that management might opt to re-sign forward/remarkable reclamation project Thomas Vanek instead of moving him for assets.
It’s reasonable to question that logic, but then you see what he’s doing lately, particularly the chemistry he seems to be building with Andreas Athanasiou.
Wednesday’s gorgeous assist to Athanasiou illustrates some of that brilliance, if stats bore you:
If stats tell some of the story, well, they’re impressive. Vanek now has a seven-game point streak with the assist; if he doesn’t score another point, he’ll have 10 points during that span. He also has at least a point in 11 of his last 12 contests.
Athanasiou’s really “feeling it” lately, too. If he stays at a goal tonight, he’ll have five goals and eight points in his last seven games, only failing to generate a point in two of those contests. His speed and skill really seem to be coming to the surface, a great sign for the 22-year-old.
Still, Vanek is 32, and the Red Wings would need a heck of a run to even make the playoffs. So that’s where the discussion gets a little sticky.
There’s still time to sort that out, though. In the meantime, fans should enjoy what those two have been accomplishing, even if many want the window to close on that combo soon.