We looked at the team in the last installment, now it’s time to look at individuals. First, the forwards:
First ten games: 6-4-10, -3
Second ten games: 7-6-13, +2
It is a measure of the player that his first ten games could be considered a “slow” start (he was 6-5-11, +1 in his first ten last year). The trouble with that first ten games is the first game in that stretch. Putting Richard Zednik on that line might have looked like a good idea on paper, but in real time . . . ugh. One might note that in Ovechkin’s second ten games last year he was “only” 9-1-10, -4. The point we are torturing before getting to it is that that youngster is remarkable consistent . . . wind him up, watch him get 10-15 points every ten games. He did it last year, he’s up to the same hijinks this year. But here is the money number – three. He’s had the game winning goal in three of the Caps’ five wins in the second ten games (he has four game-winners overall). His goals aren’t the stat-padding kind.
First ten games: 5-3-8, -2
Second ten games: 7-3-10, +1
The Peerless isn’t sure if this is a matter of his really finding a comfort zone with Ovechkin or if it’s a matter of “contract year.” He was 8-14-22 in his last 20 games last year, so compare that with his 12-6-18 in his first 20 this year. Maybe “late bloomer” is the term we’re looking for. There is one statistic for Zubrus that causes some head-scratching, even given the subjectivity of it – hits. He was credited with 17 in his first ten games (15 in his first five), six in the last ten. There is also his faceoff percentage – 50.3 percent in his first ten, 48.3 in his last ten. Given that his style is to use his size and strength as leverage in many situations, these hit and faceoff numbers might serve as an indicator that he’s been playing nicked – that he’s got some lingering knee problems that he’s been trying to play through.
First ten games: 2-2-4, +2
Second ten games: 0-3-3, 0
Here is your odd stat for Bradley . . . two goals on nine shots in the first ten games (actually eight, he missed the first two), none on 20 shots in the last ten.
First ten games: 0-0-0, -1
Second ten games: 1-3-4, +2
OK, he played only one of the first ten games. While his scoring doesn’t jump off the sheet, he is winning 53.8 percent of his draws. He has been remarkably disciplined with the puck, too . . . he’s been credited with nine takeaways and only two giveaways. He doesn’t get a ton of ice time – about eleven and a half minutes a game – and the puck probably doesn’t spend much time on his stick when he is out there, but anytime you can point to a ratio like this, it’s a plus.
First ten games: 1-3-4, +3
Second ten games: 0-2-2, -2
He centers the line that will face the opponents’ top line more often than not, so you’d think he would be a good bellweather indicator of how the club is going. So, if the Caps are better in the second ten than the first ten, what’s up with his numbers? Well, if you look at them with Bradley’s, the third line hasn’t chipped in as much offense in the last ten games (only Ben Clymer’s two goals in his first game back as a forward).
First ten games: 3-6-9, +3
Second ten games: 2-5-7, +5
OK, he’s not the prototypical right wing. He is not a pure scorer. But the Caps are very much a “left-handed” team with Ovechkin and Alexander Semin on the left side to assume a heavy scoring role. His role has been to go get the puck and let Zubrus and Ovechkin do what they do. But he’s on a pace for 23-59-72. After 18 games last year (he’s missed the last two this year), he was 3-4-7. 5-11-16 looks a lot better. Now, you’re odd number . . . 41.3. That’s his faceoff winning percentage – he’s taken 30 draws in 18 games. That strikes The Peerless as a rather high number for a winger to be taking.
First ten games: 0-2-2, +1
Second ten games: 4-1-5, -2
Another one who missed substantial time to start the year (seven games). Since then, he’s been scoring goals at a 25-a-year rate. He’s getting second line minutes (about 18 a game over the last ten games), and he’s settled into a pace that could have him eclipse last year’s goal totals, even with the early time he missed.
First ten games: 0-3-3, -5
Second ten games: 3-4-7, +1
His timing was awful. First, he gets out to a rocky start, raising questions of whether he was worth the effort to sign. Then, he gets a couple of goals and a couple of assists over a couple of games and gets hurt. He seems to be picking up where he left off, though, going 1-2-2 in his last two games since coming back. That second ten game line comes with only four games having been played.
First ten games: 0-0-0, -4
Second ten games: 0-0-0, -3
I don’t know that there is a more disappointing player in the early going, which is really a shame given that he had a pretty decent season last year (7-14-21 in 73 games). The Peerless though he might be in a position to have a season similar to (if not of the magnitude of) Matt Pettinger last year – a substantial jump up in production. Instead, he’s taken a seat in the stands for eight of the last 12 games. Being -7 and winning less than 40 percent of his draws isn’t helping matters, either. One clings to the fact that last year after he played 12 games, he was a similar 2-1-3, -7 and hadn’t had a plus game yet. Perhaps it’s a slow start . . . that’s the branch we’ll cling to for the moment.
First ten games: 1-1-2, +3
Second ten games: gone
Fata did not play poorly in his ten games. Neither did he play especially well. What he did was give little evidence that he was going to be more than he had been – a player who can skate really, really fast and really, really can’t finish. No points in his last eight games probably sealed the evaluation.
First ten games: 1-5-6, +3
Second ten games: 0-1-1, even
The second line center position was there for the taking for someone willing to grab it by the throat and make it theirs. Beech was the favorite in a weak field, and he didn’t really do much to cement that role as his. The one area in which he shined – faceoffs – took a dip as time went on as well. After going 50-percent or better in draws in his first seven games, he’s been 50-percent or better in three of his last six. What else has tapered off is hits – a subjective measure, but perhaps an indicator of the urgency with which he does (and needs) to play. 12 credited in the first seven games, five in the last six. His game just doesn’t seem to have the sense of urgency it needs.
First ten games: 0-0-0, 0 (he was playing defense)
Second ten games: 2-1-3, -2 (in eight games at forward)
Well, this is the kind of club you can have an experiment of playing a former defenseman, then turned forward, back on defense. You wouldn’t be as tempted to do it with a Cup contender. The experiment didn’t work, but it really can’t be pegged as a major reason for any Caps shortcomings early. Now that Clymer has been reunited with Bradley and Sutherby on the CBS line, things have a more normal look to them. He’s not getting the minutes he has as a defenseman (less than 14 minutes as as forward versus 19 a game as a defenseman), but he’s been more aggressive (14 hits versus five, 12 PIMs versus six).
First ten games: 8-4-12, +1
Second ten games: 0-5-5, -1
Goal scorers are streaky. Peter Bondra certainly was that way for more than a decade with the Caps. Semin likely will be little different. But to dry up entirely in his last 12 games played . . . now he’s on IR. Here is your odd Semin number – six. He scored goals in six games, in which he also recorded six of his total ten hits. In 13 other games, he has a total of four hits. Chicken . . . egg?
First ten games: 0-0-0, even
Second ten games: 1-1-2, even
OK, if Beech won’t grab the second line center job by the throat, will Klepis? Well, not on the basis of the evidence so far. Klepis has the advantage of les history than Beech (conversely, he can be viewed as having more upside – he is less a finished product). Still, there is that gaping hole there. Klepis has a predilection for taking the lazy penalty – 16 minutes in 15 games (Peter Bondra spent an early season a few years back piling up minor penalties like manure in a cow pasture, but he had all those goals, too). The Peerless doesn’t look at Klepis as a lazy player as much as a “tentative” one. He still looks very often like a player who is trying to survive, more than play, a shift.
First ten games: 0-0-0, -1
Second ten games: 0-1-1, even
He had only one game in the first ten, seven in the last ten. He gives evidence of having skills with the puck, but he’s very much feeling his way out there. An offensive player with only nine shots on goal in eight games isn’t showing signs that he’s entirely comfortable out there.
First ten games: 0-1-1, +2
Second ten games: 0-1-1, -2
The Peerless has seen a lot of comments along the lines of, “geez, who knew he’d look that good out there?” Brashear has skills that are confined within the rule book; he is not a liability out there in his limited minutes (which might be the key – he gets about seven and a half a game). That he’s had one fight is perhaps the most surprising number on his record thus far.
The Caps are getting decent production from their top line of Ovechkin-Zubrus-Clark (30-27-57, +6 overall). But from there, on offense, the bottom drops out. If you look at the various second line possibilities . . .
Semin-Beech-Zednik: 12-22-34, -1 (total 46 man-games)
Semin-Klepis-Zednik: 12-17-29, -4 (48 man-games)
Semin-Beech-Pettinger: 13-18-31, +2 (45 man-games played)
Semin-Klepis-Pettinger: 13-13-26, -1 (47 man-games played)
Fleischmann-Beech-Pettinger: 5-10-15, +1 (34 man-games played)
Fleischmann-Beech-Zednik: 4-14-18, -2 (35 man-games played)
Fleischmann-Klepis-Pettinger: 5-5-10, -2 (36 man-games played)
Fleischmann-Klepis-Zednik: 4-9-13, -5 (37 man-games played)
. . . things don’t look so good. It looks a lot like a half-point a game coming out of the second line. If you look at all the players in these combinations – Semin, Beech, Zednik, Klepis, Pettinger, and Fleischmann – that’s a grand total of 17 goals, almost half of them from a player who had his last one a month ago today and is now injured. The club is getting nothing out of its second line, and thus makes the Caps that much easier to defend.
The first line gets an A- for its work thus far. It wouldn’t necessarily be the first line you’d have if the Caps were a contender, but it has done everything it could reasonably be asked to do. The others – especially the second line – have come up short . . . far short in some cases. The overall grade for the forwards: