Questions: Deal or No Deal?

There is a lot of talk in Caps Nation these days over whether or not a shakeup is needed on the roster to shake off the spell of early playoff round failures that have beset the Caps the past four years. Much of the talk centers on whether it is a good idea to trade defenseman Mike Green.

It is hard to come to a clear answer to the question, “deal or no deal?” Some point to his age (he will turn 26 early in the 2011-2012 season) and position, and wonder if there is still an untapped level of performance for a player who mans a position that usually requires a longer lead time to maturity. Others point to his early-career production and conclude that he has peaked in his offensive production, that he will skate along the path of others before him – a drop in production followed by some increase later, but not to the heights of his early years  – making a long term, high-dollar contract of limited value, thus suggesting that trading him now is the best bet for the Caps.

Well, the Caps themselves have been down a similar road before. An “offensive,” puck-moving defenseman accused of having some issues in his own end, who might not be as physical a defensive presence as fans might like, who had some playoff performance issues.

Yeah, we’ve been here before. So let’s take a look at two Caps – one former, one present. Player A spent parts of six seasons with Washington early in his career (he was not drafted by Washington), playing 453 regular season games between the ages of 22 and 27. Player B (who is Mike Green), has spent parts of six seasons with the Caps, playing in 366 regular season games between the ages of 20 and 25. Let’s compare their numbers in the regular season (data courtesy of hockey-reference.com):

Spooky, isn’t it? Well, it gets better when you compare the playoff performance of these two players over that same relative span:

We will stipulate to all the questions about this kind of comparison – players of different eras, different styles played in those eras, comparing a current player to only one other player, even different contract circumstances (Green will be a restricted free agent after next season; Player A played before the onset of broad free agency rights).

But the age and productivity of the two players are reasonably similar, the big difference being the concern over Green’s durability (he missed 54 games over the past three regular seasons). Still, we do not see the matter of trading Green as a slam dunk in favor of the proposition. And his playing a position that is a virtual requirement for post-season success (solid-top-four defensemen being almost a prerequisite these days) leads us to believe that, all other things equal, keeping Green is the way to go. Of course, the matter of the next contract past next season will weigh heavily in any decision, and that has to be a factor. A Mike Green at a $5.2 million cap hit is one thing. A Mike Green at a $6.5 million cap hit is another matter.

Still, we think the comparison useful, if only to point out the perils of letting a player go – especially at this position – too early. For you see, “Player B” is indeed Mike Green.

“Player A” is Larry Murphy…yes, that Larry Murphy, the one "whooped" out of town, who went on to play with four Stanley Cup winners and who has a bust in the Hall of Fame.

Whoop at your peril.

Everyone's Doin' It: Realignment

A couple of years ago, we came up with this scribble on realignment, but with the Thrashers now looking like the second team from that city to head off to western Canada, well...

Oh, yeah...we're thinking Phoenix is a goner, too, but that comes later.  Just planning ahead.  And just like last time...you got a beef?  Blame Cheerless or Fearless.

But for the life of me...how does a group calling itself the "Atlanta Spirit" merit the name when it seems to expend more energy trying to rid itself of the Thrashers than making them a contender?

Questions: Who Are They?

Last year, we asked “now what?”

This year, we are left to ask “who are they?”

In 2010, the Washington Capitals lost in the first round of the playoffs to a club that finished 33 points behind them in the standings. This year, they lost to an upstart that had not made the playoffs since 2007 and that they defeated four times in six tries in the regular season. In any one year you might say that a playoff loss is a product of slumps at the wrong time, hot goaltenders, injuries, or blind luck. If, over four years, you last one, two, one, and two rounds of the playoffs, we are of a mind bad “luck” isn’t the problem.

This was the year that the Capitals were righting the wrongs of their three previous playoff failures, eschewing the offense-oriented style in favor of playing the “right way,” of using a defense-first philosophy to advance deep into the playoffs. Well, that didn’t work, either.

Or did it?

The Caps started the 2010-2011 season pretty much where they left off in the 2009-2010 regular season, slicing through opponents’ defenses like hot knives through butter. In their first 26 games they averaged 3.38 goals per game. Not quite the offensive juggernaut that they were in 2009-2010 (3.82 goals per game), but certainly capable of giving goaltenders nightmares. In those first 26 games the Caps scored more than four goals seven times.

Trouble was, the defense was pretty much where they left it in 2009-2010, too. In that season the Caps allowed an average of 2.77 goals per game. The started the 2010-2011 season allowing an average of 2.62 goals a game in those first 26 contests. An improvement, but no one was going to confuse them with being the New Jersey Devils (when they were still the New Jersey Devils).

Then came that eight game losing streak in December and the famous makeover in which the Caps did a 180 and became a defense-first club that shut down opponents instead of rolling over them with offense. In the last 56 games of the season (including the losing streak), the Caps scored an average of only 2.34 goals per game, more than a goal-a-game drop off from their average before the makeover.

But the turnaround did have the desired effect on defense, the Caps allowing an average of only 2.20 goals per game in the last 56 contests of the regular season. So, this was a success, right? Well, not if you look at the playoffs, and not when you drill a little bit into those before and after numbers.

The Caps rode this pinball offense sort of theme for the 2009-2010 season and the first 26 games of the 2010-2011 season. In those 108 games they scored 274 goals at even strength. That average of 2.54 goals per game at even strength needs some perspective. For the entire 2010-2011 season, the Devils scored an average of 2.08 total goals per game. The Boston Bruins averaged only 2.39 total goals per game in 2009-2010. After having transitioned to a defense first philosophy, the Caps averaged 1.79 even strength goals per game. It was a significant drop off from what they posted in the year-plus preceding it (0.79 goal per game reduction). One might expect that the even strength offense would be less prolific, but a 31 percent drop in production from the previous 108 games?

If you are going to rationalize this away, you might do it by thinking it is the price one pays for tearing out one system and installing a new one more or less on the fly. That the players would adopt it and achieve the results they did (a drop from 2.73 goals allowed per game in the year-plus leading up to the changeover to 2.20 after) is a reflection of the players’ talent and their coachability. But there are limits. And the drop in even strength scoring might be a reflection of them.

But the power play…ugh.

It’s hard to see a way toward an clear explanation of how the power play disintegrated in the last 56 games of the season. In the 108 games covering the 2009-2010 season and the first 26 games of the 2010-2011 season the Capitals averaged 0.94 power play goals per game (on a 25.1 percent conversion rate). Even in the first 26 games of the 2010-2011 season they averaged 0.85 power play goals per game (24.4 percent conversion). Not a bad drop off considering that the Caps led the NHL in power play conversions in 2009-2010.

But in those last 56 games the Caps scored a total of 24 power play goals – 0.43 per game (13.9 percent). That was more than a 50 percent drop off from their power play goals scored per game in the year-plus before that. Part of the problem was getting opportunities in the first place. In the 108-game block the Caps averaged 3.73 power play opportunities a game. In the last 56 games of the regular season, when the Caps transitioned to that more defensive style, they averaged only 3.09 power play chances a game. A product of playing safer in the offensive end?

But safe as a team might play in the offensive end at even strength, even if in doing so they end up with fewer penalties drawn, that 13.9 percent conversion rate on the power play in the last 56 games sticks out. That and the fact that the Caps went 43 consecutive games without registering more than one power play goal in a game and only had four multi-power play goal games in the last 56 of the season (they had 20 such games in the 2009-2010 season).

Adopting a more defensive posture resulted in the Caps dropping their even strength goals allowed per game from 1.82 a game in the 108 games (the 2009-2010 season plus the first 26 games of the 2010-2011 season) to 1.64 a game. On the other hand, the offense took a bigger dip, from 2.54 even strength goals per game to 1.75. That might have been a good tradeoff; certainly the Caps’ regular season record after the transition (30-11-7 after the eight-game losing streak) suggests it was. But that was the regular season, and what was perhaps an unexpected result was that the power play went almost silent. And even if it improved late in the season, it let the Caps down in the playoffs (2-for-19 against Tampa Bay).

So it begs the question, “who are they?” Are the Caps an “either-or” team that can do the offense or the defense (but not both with consistency), or was 2010-2011 something of a learning year, where a team that steamrolled teams with offense almost since this coaching staff took over had to learn to play a different game at the other end of the ice. The hopeful fan will be thinking the latter. After all, a high-octane offense and a stingy defense are not mutually exclusive styles. They certainly were not in Vancouver, where the Canucks led the NHL in offense in 2010-2011 (3.15 goals-per-game) and in defense (2.20 goals-per-game).

But there remains the mystery of the power play and how a team with as much offensive talent to deploy on the man advantage that the Capitals had could be frustrated so often. In the end, despite the improvements in defense the Caps made, despite their ability to win close games (26 one-goal wins, second in the league), despite their ability to come from behind (second in wins when trailing after two periods, first in wins when allowing the first goal), the power play and its troubles was the weak link during the latter two-thirds of the regular season, and it never really did come around in the playoffs.

Perhaps “who they are” next year will be a team that learned its lessons in defensive hockey and can apply them without sacrificing so much offense. But if “who they are” is a team that plays a style closer to the margin – a lot of one-goal games and a defense-first philosophy, then that power play is going to have to be more effective than it was this season. Or you can count on the same kind of finish.

Questions: Is The Whole Less Than The Sum Of Its Parts?

The next question…”Is the whole less than the sum of the parts?”

The subject of this question is the “Young Guns” – Alex Ovechkin, Alexander Semin, Nicklas Backstrom, and Mike Green. And if the answer to the question is “yes,” then it begs the next question, “should they be broken up?”

The Young Guns do not have a parallel anywhere in the history of the Washington Capitals. For 30 years, the Caps were seen by most as a sort of “little engine that could” sort of hockey team. Although the club could boast of the occasional high end talent – Bobby (before he became just “Bob”) Carpenter and Mike Gartner in the 1980’s, Peter Bondra in the 1990’s – never did the Caps have a quartet of such offensive talent as these four. Ovechkin is the most prolific goal scorer of this generation. Semin might have more innate talent as a scorer and puck handler. Backstrom is among the top five (or better) playmakers in the NHL today. Green is (or at least, was) the best offensive defenseman in the league.

Why, then, has this unprecedented collection of talent on a Capitals roster failed to do what only two clubs have done in 36 seasons – advance to at least a conference final in the playoffs? Well, individually this foursome has been impressive in the post season. In 37 games they have combined for 54 goals, 137 points, and are a plus-23. By now you are really wondering what is up with these guys and the lack of team success. I know it, I can see you scratching your head.

Well, let’s decompose this a bit. The Caps have played in six post season series over the last four years, winning two and losing four. In the two series they won, the Caps played in a total of 12 games (eight wins, four losses). In the series that they lost, a total of 25 games (nine wins, 16 losses). Now how do things break down?

Well, this is where things start to turn strange. In the 12 games played in series that the Caps won, the Young Guns are 16-27-43 and a plus-20. More than three-and-a-half points per game is pretty impressive. But wait… in the 25 games in series the Caps lost, this group is 38-56-94 and a plus-3. As a group, they actually scored more per game in series they lost (both goals and points-wise) than they did in games in series that they won.

Strange as that outcome is, it starts to clear up a bit if we drill down just a little more. This foursome becomes two twosomes in the post-season. For instance, in 37 playoff games Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom are a combined 37-45-82, plus-26. Alexander Semin and Mike Green are a combined 17-38-55, minus-3. Yes, yes…Ovechkin and Backstrom generally play alongside one another, usually without Semin on that line. And Semin and Green play different positions (Green’s, despite his prolific output as a defenseman, not generally associated with big offensive numbers). So let’s drill a little more.

In series in which the Caps have won, Ovechkin and Backstrom are a combined 6-15-21, plus-8 in 12 games. Meanwhile, Semin and Green are 10-12-22, plus-12 in those same games. The difference – and perhaps the problem – lies in the games in series in which the Caps lost. In those 25 games, the Ovechkin-Backstrom pair is 31-30-61 and plus-18. Their respective levels of play have not – at the series level – diminished in series the Caps lost. But for the Semin-Green pair the numbers are 7-26-33, minus-15 in those 25 games. What is more, Semin and Green were a combined 6-9-15, even in the seven-game loss to the Flyers in 2008. In three series losses since then (covering 18 games) they are a combined 1-17-18, minus-15. It isn’t quite “not showing up,” but that is a significant drop off in production, especially in the Pittsburgh, Montreal, and Tampa Bay series losses, and they were getting killed at even strength.

Mike Green has, if not an excuse, an explanation. In two of the last three series the Caps lost, he was perhaps not physically well. In the Pittsburgh series in 2009, when he was pounded mercilessly by Penguin forecheckers, and in the Tampa Bay series this year, when he might have been suffering the effects of a shot taken to the head (and perhaps a leg injury that sidelined him for Game 4), injuries might have factored into a 0-5-5, minus-8 performance in those two series.

Semin’s production is more of a mystery. In the last three series the Caps lost, his production looks like this:

Pittsburgh (2009): seven games; 0-6-6, minus-6
Montreal (2010): seven games; 0-2-2, even
Tampa Bay (2011): four games; 1-1-2, minus-2

In those last three series, 1-9-10, minus-8 in 18 games. He is one of the purest offensive talents in the game and frankly is an underrated defender, when motivated. In a perverse way, his importance to the team might be reflected in those poor numbers in those three series the Caps lost. If he had anything approaching his numbers in series when the Caps win, well, the Caps probably win there, too.

And therein lies the conundrum. The answer to the question posed at the top of this essay is obviously, “yes.” The whole is less than the sum of its parts. And too much of that problem is related to the irregular production of Alexander Semin. If he could find it within himself, or if a coach could pull it out of him, to be more consistent in the post season, the Caps almost certainly would have been more successful. He has that kind of talent. But for whatever reason, that talent has not expressed itself on a consistent basis, at least not as consistently as his partners in the Young Guns foursome.

And that raises the reasonable question of whether the Capitals might add by subtraction. Neither Ovechkin nor Backstrom can be traded (owing to their contracts), nor should they be. Both have shown up, win or lose (except for Backstrom’s curious absence for much of the 2011 playoffs). Semin and Green, less so. But Mike Green is a commodity one does not find in large supply in the NHL. A defenseman who can skate, score, and even (honest) defend, at least more so than his reputation suggests. Alexander Semin, while a sublime talent with the puck, is not as essential to this club’s success, not if his post-season consistency is going to continue to be problematic. If Semin was to be moved, the Caps would almost certainly receive something less than equal value in return. If a blogger can figure out there are consistency issues here, people who are paid to evaluate talent have their own, more detailed dossiers of his weaknesses. And there is the matter of that contract for next season. A $6.7 million deal for Semin might be worth it to the Capitals, but it is hard to see how it will be of similar value to another team, one that will expect him to be the go-to scorer on a night-to-night – and post-season – basis.

We are not here to bash Alexander Semin, to lay at his feet all the ills the Caps have suffered in the post season the last four years. If blame is your thing, there is more than enough to go around. The point of this is to consider whether the Caps have a reasonable expectation to crack through that second round and win a Cup with the Young Guns intact, or whether the “Young Guns” are more sizzle than steak. If you think the latter, then the question becomes which one to move. And on that score, Semin seems to be the candidate.

It is hard to see a way clear to thinking that Semin will find his inner consistency in the post season. It hasn’t appeared yet in four seasons, and he is arguably in his productive prime at age 27. Will the Caps pull the trigger on a deal to shake things up, to challenge the comfort level of other players, and to try to find that unexplainable mix that winners seem to put together? Hard to say, although frankly, we doubt such a deal is in the offing this summer. What it means is that the Caps will choose to grant Semin – and the other Young Guns – one more chance…a statement that probably applies to other Caps as well.

We just do not think it is necessarily the right choice.

Questions: Does He Have What It Takes II

The next question is the same question…”Does he have what it takes?”

Different subject this time, though – Alex Ovechkin. But this one is more complex, because it can be applied to a variety of situations concerning Ovechkin and his role on this team. Does he have what it takes to be captain going forward? Does he have what it takes to be “the best player on the planet” once more? Does he have what it takes to be a winner?

The 2010-2010 season for Alex Ovechkin might not have been as obviously disappointing as the 2009-2010 season (when he was suspended twice, skated in an embarrassing performance by Team Russia in the Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, and captained a team that was ushered out of the Stanley Cup playoffs when it lost the last three games of its opening round series). But it was disappointing, nonetheless. Personal numbers dropped significantly, nagging injuries, another one-and-done playoff performance. Not all of blame, then or now, could be laid at the feet of Ovechkin, but when you are mentioned in the same sentence that starts, “the best players in all of hockey are…,” then yours is the name that is mentioned most when it comes to underachieving.

Let’s take the parts of the question in turn. Whether by example or by personality, the captain of a hockey team occupies a unique leadership position among team sports. No doubt one can find instances in which one team or another might look to a player who is not captain for leadership (the Flyers and Chris Pronger comes to mind at the moment), but generally the captain is that team’s leader. And looking at successful clubs over the past several years (that is, Stanley Cup champions), there seems to be little doubt that the captain was that team's leader – Rod Brind’Amour in Carolina, Scott Niedermayer in Anaheim, Nicklas Lidstrom in Detroit, Sidney Crosby in Pittsburgh, Jonathan Toews in Chicago. Young or old, whether by example or by personality, there was not much dispute over their being the leaders as well as captains on those champions.

Does Ovechkin measure up in this regard? Well, we are not sure. We cannot know what goes on in the locker room or in private conversations and meetings among teammates. His performance example certainly seems of “leadership” quality, but does he have the presence at this point in his career to lead by personality or by example that does not involve prolific scoring? Again, knowing for sure whether or not that is true is difficult, but inferences can be drawn. In recent years the Caps have brought in Sergei Fedorov, Mike Knuble (both before Ovechkin’s ascension to captain), and Jason Arnott. All were on the back half of their careers as productive hockey players, but all were veterans with championship pedigree and/or demonstrated leadership characteristics. It is not a knock on Ovechkin to say that bringing in a Jason Arnott this season filled a leadership void. Ovechkin might not have been (and might still not be) ready to shoulder those responsibilities. It begs that question, “does he have what it takes?” And the best answer we can come up with is that in retrospect, perhaps “not yet.”

What of the “best player on the planet” level of performance? Well, we are six years into Ovechkin’s career. It is an impressive regular season resume he has built. In 475 career games he has averaged 52-54-106, plus-15, per-82 games. His playoff record isn’t too shabby, either; better in fact than his regular season numbers (on a per-82 game basis) – 55-55-110, plus 29. But you could argue that being the “best player on the planet” means bringing his teammates along as well as putting up his own big numbers. And his teams have not matched his performance. Why? Two things come to mind. First, even with his prodigious numbers, the very nature of his position works against him. Among forwards, wingers are not as likely to impact teammates’ performances as a center. Even a prolific scorer such as Ovechkin has limits in the degree to which he can influence results through his teammates. Second, despite the numbers, there is an odd character to his performance. In 17 playoff wins in his career he is 15-12-27, plus-15. In 20 losses he is 10-13-23. No surprise that his production drops off a bit in losses, but the lingering question there is whether that is a product of better defense by opponents or his trying to do too much when the Caps fall behind, taking too much on his own.

The big question, though, is “does he have what it takes to be a winner.” We have made the point before that to be mentioned in the same breath as the all-time greats in the game, you have to win the sport’s ultimate prize, and with all due respect to the folks who sponsor the World hockey championships, that’s not it. Not even Olympic gold qualifies (mainly because most of the game’s all-time greats were not eligible for participation in that tournament in the past given their professional status). The Stanley Cup is the measuring stick, and among the all-time greats, they won that prize for the first time at a comparatively early age (most of them younger than Ovechkin will be next season when he tries for the seventh time to win that prize). This is, to date, the unfulfilled aspect of his career, and the fact of the matter is Ovechkin has two championships on his resume to date – one of them won at the 2003 World Junior Championships, the other at the 2008 World Championships. He has not gotten past the second round in any of the four NHL playoff tournaments in which he has participated.

Hockey is enough of a team sport so that one could say the lack of NHL post-season is not his doing alone, but neither is hockey (or any sport) fair in this regard. Ovechkin is the face of this franchise over the past six seasons and for many to come. If he has not won, or will not win a Cup, he is not going to be mentioned in quite the same breath as a Gretzky, an Orr, a Richard, a Howe, or a Lemieux. He will not, by definition, be a winner.

When the puck drops on Opening Night for the 2011-2012 season, Alex Ovechkin will be 26 years old and entering his seventh season in the NHL. He has accomplished much in his first six seasons in the NHL – the Calder Trophy, an Art Ross Trophy, twice a Maurice Richard Trophy winner, twice a Hart Trophy winner, three times a Ted Lindsay Award winner. But these are individual awards. Ovechkin has expressed an opinion that such things matter less than winning a Stanley Cup, and there is no reason to doubt his sincerity.

But there is a darker side to this question that does not generally attach itself to the greats in the game. In 2009-2010, Ovechkin had a difficult season, reflected in suspensions for overly aggressive play, disappointing tournaments in the Olympics and the Stanley Cup playoffs, and what some might have perceived as a surlier attitude. These things happen to players. But this past season, there were questions about his preparation. Was he in shape? Was he partying too much? True or not, and we (and you, too, dear reader) don’t know, it is in the questions themselves that a problem exists. Would such questions have been asked of those other legends mentioned? Would they be asked of many of his contemporaries who are considered elite players?

We are still left with the question, “does he have what it takes?” To lead a team to success, to lead that team to a championship. Not only have the hoped-for results failed to materialize, but the performance of the team he is leading has been especially disappointing. It would not be unreasonable to ask whether the club should revisit the matter of who serves as captain.  Putting a kinder spin on things, at 26 next season he will still be a work in progress as a leader, that progress hopefully leading to becoming a winner at the sport’s highest level.

But given how the greatest in the game achieved their championships, how they became winners (more often than not before they reached his age), the clock is ticking.

Questions: Does He Have What It Takes?

We’re going to get to the season by “the tens,” but before that we are going to ask a number of questions about this team. We do not claim to have the ultimate answers to those questions (as if that would stop our writing about it), but we do hope they inspire some conversation. The first one (actually, the same question we will pose in the second installment) asks…

"Does he have what it takes?"

Let’s start with a premise. Bruce Boudreau forgot more about hockey over his morning coffee than I am ever going to know if I live to the next millennium. But I can read a box score, and unless the laws of arithmetic have changed, four is greater than three (or two, or one, or zero) in all instances. And the Caps do not get to four often, in the playoffs that is.

But first things first. When a team was as ghastly as the Caps were from 2003-2004 through 2006-2007 – a period over which the Caps won only 80 of 246 games – no one but the deluded could expect or demand that such a team contend for a Stanley Cup. That is what made the 2007-2008 season so special. The Caps started slowly that season under head coach Glen Hanlon and were given up for dead before Santa received his wish lists from kids all over the world (Caps fans asked for sanity). Enter Bruce Boudreau, who oozed hockey from every pore of his being, a true lifer who loved the game and picked up nuggets of knowledge from just about every rink from Mississippi to Medicine Hat.

The run that followed had to be among the best times of a Caps fan’s life. “Improbable” doesn’t begin to capture what unfolded, culminating with an 11-1-0 finish that allowed the Caps to squeak past the Carolina Hurricanes into the playoffs. That the Caps would lose to the Philadelphia Flyers in the first round of the playoffs in 2008 could not even be considered much of a disappointment, such was the exhilaration of the climb through the standings that got them there.

But three more post seasons later we find that in four times in six attempts, the Capitals failed to reach the number “four” in games won before their competition in a playoff round. The only times they were able to get to “four” first were against the offensively challenged New York Rangers, which makes one wonder why head coach John Tortorella was given a contract extension.

Each playoff loss has been more frustrating than the last. The Caps came back from a three games to one deficit to force a Game 7 against the Flyers in 2008, only to lose that Game 7 on home ice on an overtime power play goal. They lost in 2009 after forcing a Game 7 with an overtime winner of their own on the road against Pittsburgh, only to lay an egg in Game 7 on home ice in a 6-2 loss. In 2010 it was gagging on a three games to one lead against Montreal, falling in Game 7 (again, at home) by a 2-1 margin. This year, there was no Game 7, the Caps being swept by Tampa Bay in four games.

Over the past four seasons, the Caps have been a case of two entirely separate concepts that neatly divide into the regular season and playoffs, but reflect a division between strategy and tactics. In the fall of 2007 the Caps were a team shackled to a play-it-safe approach under head coach Glen Hanlon that was ultimately a poor fit for the talent the Caps had collected on their roster. Bruce Boudreau replaced Hanlon in that fall of 2007, and it was a better fit of philosophy to talent. The Caps finished the season on a 37-17-7 run under Boudreau and an unexpected playoff berth. A large part of that success was that recognition of the talent on the roster and matching a philosophy to it. The Caps averaged almost a full goal more per game (3.13) under Boudreau in that season than they did under Hanlon (2.24).

It was a philosophy that was refined and improved – one that emphasized a pressure offense that took the heat off a green defense and uncertain goaltending. The Caps improved their scoring to 3.27 goals per game the following season and to 3.82 goals per game in 2009-2010. That the Caps were not an especially adept defensive team (2.67 goals per game in the last 61 games of the 2007-2008 season, 2.93 goals per game in 2008-2009, 2.77 in 2009-2010) did not seem to matter – they were 141-56-28 under Boudreau coming into the 2010-2011 season.

But three seasons of early playoff exits and an eight-game losing streak in December led to some re-thinking of the strategy. The Capitals had to play better defense to succeed in the long run, and the team adopted a more defense-oriented approach to their game. The results were stunning. After going 18-12-4 in their first 34 games (ending on that eight-game losing streak), averaging 2.91 goals a game while giving up 2.79 goals, the Caps finished the year 30-11-7, limiting opponents to 2.00 goals a game – a 28 percent reduction in average goals allowed.

In matching a style to talent and reworking that style to meet the realities of successful hockey in the contemporary era, Boudreau proved himself a superior coach in terms of developing and implementing a strategy. And that brings us to the post-season. The Caps have played in six playoff series over the past four years, and the only series wins they have to show for it are against the offensively challenged New York Rangers. Of the other four series, the first of them – the seven game loss to Philadelphia in 2008 – could be said to be a loss to a slightly superior club (the Flyers did finish with more points in the regular season than the Caps, despite the Caps furious rush to the finish). The other three playoff series losses revealed aspects that call into question the coach’s tactical acumen.

The three clubs to whom the Caps lost in those playoffs were, at first glance, quite different. The Pittsburgh Penguins, who beat the Caps in seven games in 2009, were a club that had high end talent in Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, but that displayed a tenacity up and down their roster that made them a difficult team to play against. The Montreal Canadiens, to whom the Caps lost in 2010, were a team of modest talent but that had a veteran defense, a solid goaltender, and that knew how to play responsibly in their own end, ingredients that allowed them to employ an offense that was more opportunistic (a fine power play, for example) than talented. This year, the Tampa Bay Lightning had talented veterans with Stanley Cup winning experience and made up for a lack of defensive skill with schemes matched to the skill level they had.

But the three teams had something in common in playing the Caps. All of them deployed tactics aimed at striking the Caps at their weak points. In 2009 the Penguins used a withering forecheck to create turnovers and unleash a barrage of shots at rookie goaltender Semyon Varlamov. The Caps won Games 1 and 2, but allowed 36 shots on goal in each. The barrage never stopped – or more to the point, the Caps never had an answer for it. The Penguins sent 154 shots on goal in Games 3-6, winning three of them and losing the other in overtime, scoring 17 goals along the way. By Game 7, Varlamov and the Capitals showed cracks, and in Game 7 the walls came tumbling down in a 6-2 loss in which Varlamov was chased and the competitive portion of the game was over before the second period was three minutes old.

In 2010, the Canadiens could not match the Caps’ firepower, so they employed something of a rope-a-dope strategy, packing the middle of the ice in their own end and blocking shots in bunches. The Capitals attempted an astounding 576 shots in the seven games (more than 82 per game). Almost a third of them were blocked. What is more, in the last three games of the series – all losses – the Caps attempted even more shots (more than 85 a game) with the same results, almost a third of them blocked. It was as if more of the same would create a different result. Montreal deployed a tactic for which the Caps had no answer, any more than they had one for the Penguins’ tactic the year before of punishing the Caps in their own end.

This year, "1-3-1" were not the winning numbers in the DC-3 lottery drawing, but the defense the Tampa Bay Lightning was using to stymie the Capitals. It was hardly a new wrinkle. And it wasn’t a decisive impediment to the Caps, who went 4-1-1 against the Lightning during the regular season. But once more, an opponent deployed a tactic in a short series for which the Caps had no ready answer.

But what was perhaps worse was that what the Caps had spent almost 50 games honing and perfecting was not there. The emphasis on defense, the improved penalty killing...where was it? Tampa Bay scored 16 goals in four games, and the Caps killed only 14 of 18 shorthanded situations (77.8 percent). It was almost a photo-negative of the previous spring, when it was the almost unstoppable offense that averaged 3.82 goals per game in the regular season that produced 22 goals in seven games, but only three in the last three contests on 134 shots on goal.

In the last three seasons the Capitals have had similarly disappointing post seasons in that the strengths displayed in the regular season were nowhere to be found in the playoffs. In 2009 the Caps were 3-0-1 against the Penguins in the regular season, holding the Penguins to 110 shots in the four games (27.5 per game). But come the playoffs, the Caps didn’t have an answer for the Penguins’ ability to forecheck the Caps into mistakes and bombard them with 256 shots (36.6 per game). In 2010 the Caps won the regular season series against the Canadiens with a 2-1-1 record, but succumbed to a goaltender they did not face in the regular season – Jaroslav Halak (Carey Price was the goaltender of record in all four regular season games) – for whom they could not find an answer, and they couldn’t find an answer to Montreal packing in their defense. In 2011, the numbers “1-3-1” presented an unsolvable problem in arithmetic as the Tampa Bay Lightning swept the Caps.

What it suggests is an ability to compose the broad contours of success – taking advantage of the gifted offensive talents on the roster, being able to retool to adopt a generally defense-oriented posture. But the lack of success in a short series, even against opponents against which the Caps had regular season success, point to a lack of nimbleness, an inability to adjust tactics on the fly, to react when the other guys act. When the Caps had 50 games or so to install and refine a new strategy, they did so effectively – in 2008 when the Caps abandoned the play-it-safe model under Glen Hanlon and again in 2011 when it became apparent that the Caps needed to shore up their own end of the ice. But when the Caps have had a week to act and react? In this year’s instance one might argue that injuries played a role, an argument that seems more convincing with every revelation since the season ended. However, there is a body of work here now spanning four seasons. And the result has been that unless the other team plays its home games in Manhattan, the job hasn’t gotten done in the playoffs.

And that brings us to one question that perhaps brings the matter into focus. If the Caps are now a team for which only the playoffs matter, is it reasonable to conclude that Bruce Boudreau has what it takes in the short series format to succeed?

He might not be the problem for the Capitals, but it seems that neither is he the solution. The results speak for themselves.

What can you say...

The Caps went quick and quiet in Game 4 of their Eastern Conference semifinal against the Tampa Bay Lightning, bringing another season to an early end. The Caps fell behind, again, and when the Lightning opened a 3-1 lead in the second period, you could probably rest easily that there would be no “Miracle on 34th Street” comeback. Tampa shut things down, added to their lead in the third, eventually getting a late goal that would make the margin 5-2 before a late window dressing goal for the Caps made a 5-3 final seem closer than it was.

And so, the Capitals’ summer starts early once more. One gets the feeling that a moment has passed, the best opportunity for the Caps to win a championship, at least for the near future. They had a mix of players in their prime and enough veteran leadership to give fans real hope that this, finally, would be the year.

But in the end, this Caps team was no different than any other you might compare it to over the 36 years of this franchise’s history – underachievers or unhealthy, unimaginative or unable to beat a team it should have beaten. It is early, perhaps too early to render a fitting judgment on this squad and its place in Caps history, but we cannot help thinking that this franchise is all sizzle and no steak. Thirty-six seasons of this will leave that impression. The current edition has the great videos, big web presence, and is steeped – marinated, in fact – in the whole idea of the “experience.” But the hockey? Twice in 36 years the Caps have moved past the second round. This year’s team was just another team that didn’t, indistinguishable from the 2009 team, the 1994 team, the 1991 team… 1988… 1986… 1984.

Oh, the players will say all the right things in all the right tones about how disappointing this is to them personally and how they let down the fans. Coaches will talk of what went right and what didn’t. Management will try to spin this as just another step on the road to success.

Heard it. Year after year after year.

No, the Caps are what they are. Swap out the names Carpenter and Gartner for Ovechkin and Backstrom. Switch out Larry Murphy for Mike Green. Scorer for scorer, grinder for grinder, goalie for goalie. This club is, in the end, no different than any of those teams in the 1980’s that should have won, and didn’t. You can talk about luck, or bounces, or health (and this club did – before this post season even got started), but in the end it isn’t any different from the teams of the 1980’s or 1990’s or the early 2000’s that should have done better, and didn’t. Over all those years, the players have seemed like genuinely good guys, guys who wanted to win and who took it hard when they didn’t. Coaches were earnest folks who probably spent a lot of time trying to figure out what they had to do to squeeze out the last bit of effort that would get their teams over the hump. Management was diligent in trying to assemble rosters that could make deep playoff runs.

But in the end, two of them did. Two. This team wasn’t one of them. And we are left to wonder, “OK, now what?” As a fan, we were angry last year over what happened to the Caps in losing to the Canadiens after building a 3-1 series lead in the first round, saying that “the season stands as a failure. Period, and point blank.” This year, it is more a resigned sigh. This is what Caps teams do. They tease, they have flashes of brilliance when snow is on the ground. But when push comes to shove, they do not push enough and do not shove enough. They sputter, they make mistakes in the simplest parts of the game, they lack the killer instinct. They go quietly when the trees blossom.

Somewhere, someone is going to be tempted to say, “it was a hard lesson to learn.” Wrong cliché. The same lesson of beating back adversity has been pounded into the Capitals for the past four seasons, but they just don’t seem capable of learning it. Teams out work, out-scheme, out-whatever the Caps. Whether it is the Islanders or the Rangers, the Penguins or the Flyers, or last year’s Canadiens or this year’s Lightning, for 36 seasons it has been a case of the Caps not so much being beaten by better teams as much as they are losers to teams they should have cast aside.

It isn’t even anger-inducing. It does not seem to be worth that kind of emotional investment. It might not even be disappointing any more. It is expected. And even if the Caps make changes – on the ice, behind the bench, or in the front office – it hardly seems to matter. The Caps have had hall of famers skate for them and hall of famers in waiting. They have been coached by a pair of Murrays, a Wilson, a Boudreau. They have had a Poile and a McPhee making personnel decisions. It hardly seems to matter. The pieces change, the results are the same.

We’ll look forward to the draft, to development camp, to training camp. We’ll be at games, and we’ll probably be writing about them. But purely as a fan, making an emotional investment in the Caps looks more and more over time like a fool’s errand. There is no romance in being a fan of a lovable loser. Losers are lovable only to fans who do not follow that particular team. We doubt Cubs fans think of their team as “lovable” losers, and we are quite sure that New England wasn’t in a loving mood watching the Red Sox come up short year after year.

In the 1980’s the Caps disappointed their fans with early playoff exits, but looking back they probably got about as much out of their talent as they could. This edition of the Caps – the one that now has two playoff series wins in six tries over the last four years (both over the offensively incompetent Rangers) – looks more like a club that has squandered both opportunity and talent. They were passed by in 2009 by the Penguins, passed by in 2010 by the Blackhawks, and passed by this year by their own division rival in the Lightning. That is pretty much the definition of the phrase, “moving backward.” The Caps would appear to have the talent to be a reliable playoff contender for years to come, and we have the uneasy feeling that this is quite good enough for club management in that it will keep the turnstiles turning. But a championship contender? When we read that “anything can happen in the playoffs” or that such and such a team is “hard to play against,” we’re not put in the mind that it is a championship level team doing the talking. Those kinds of teams aren’t victims of bad luck. They make their luck. They are the teams that others find it difficult to play against. Teams like the Caps – who can be quoted as saying results are as much the product of luck and the initiative of the opponent – don’t win.

The best chances of that seem to be in the rear view mirror. It is hard to envision this club being given any serious consideration as a genuine Stanley Cup contender next season with its having failed to meet expectations in the past few years. Oh, they’ll make the playoffs, but they seem to be settling into that “also ran” status in which they will reach the playoffs, perhaps win a round, but who will inevitably run into a “hot goalie” or a coach with a better scheme, or plain bad luck.

These aren’t evil people; they haven’t been over the last 36 seasons. They care – we do not dispute that. No one gets up in the morning and ponders, “how can I screw up on the ice tonight?” Or “what mediocre talent can I get for this team?” Or “How can I make fans more miserable??” But after 36 years of relentless disappointment, made more bitter over the last few years precisely because of the talent on the ice, we’re left with asking “Why?”

Because they are the Caps. It’s what they do. It’s what they’ve done for 36 seasons.

What can you say…

The Peerless Prognosticator is ON THE AIR!!! -- Eastern Conference Semifinals: Capitals vs. Lightning, Game 3

The Peerless Prognosticator is ON THE AIR!!!

The saying in the ads goes, “History will be made,” but for the Washington Capitals the question is, “will history be repeated?” The Caps go into Game 3 tonight against the Tampa Bay Lightning down two games to none, having lost both games at home. It is not unlike the situation the Caps faced two years ago, having dropped Games 1 and 2 to the New York Rangers at home. Then, like now, things looked bleak. More so then, because the Caps had never come back from an 0-2 deficit, not in four tries, never having so much as extended a series to a sixth game in any of the four instances.

But in 2009, the Caps went to Madison Square Garden down two games to none under similar circumstances as what face them now. They lost two one-goal games (Game 1 of the 2011 series being essentially a one-goal game, Tampa getting an empty netter late), an indication that there was not much difference between the teams. One of those games, like one of the game in the pair at Verizon Center this year, was settled in overtime. The Caps struggled to score (three goals in two games then, four in two games now). They were facing a goaltender who looked capable of stealing a series.

Then the Caps went on the road. Maybe there is something in that Game 3 from two years ago that can offer up some hints on what to look for as the Caps try to crawl back into the series…

Shoot early, shoot often…

Four shots on goal in the first 2:39, 14 in the first period of that 2009 Game 3 against the Rangers. The Caps actually did this in Games 1 and 2 (14 and 13 shots, respectively, in this first period of those games). But they did a better job of getting in close. In Games 1 and 2, shots came from an average of 36 feet and 40 feet in the first period, respectively. In Game 1, only three of 14 shots came from inside of 30 feet. In Game 2, it was better – seven of 13. But in Game 3, the Caps unleashed 14 shots at goalie Henrik Lundqvist in the first 12:30 of the game, those shots coming from an average of 23 feet – only two shots came from outside of 30 feet. More important, both goals the Caps scored in that period (both by Alexander Semin) came from inside of 20 feet. Shoot early, shoot often…and by all means, get shots on goal from in close.

Big time players play big…

The Young Guns – Alex Ovechkin, Alexander Semin, Nicklas Backstrom, and Mike Green – were a combined 1-5-6, minus-1 in Games 1 and 2 of that Rangers series. Not bad, certainly, but not quite good enough, either, especially in Game 2 when the Caps were shutout (no points, minus-3). In Game 3, though, the four went a combined 2-6-8, plus-6. So far in the Tampa Bay series they are a combined 2-1-3, minus-4. The Caps have to get these guys going.

There is another thread of history that might have some bearing on this game. Three Capitals have some recent and vivid memories of losing Games 1 and 2, and coming back to win a series. Eleven months ago, Michal Neuvirth, John Carlson, and Karl Alzner skated for the Hershey Bears in the AHL Calder Cup final against the Texas Stars. The Stars shocked the Bears on Giant Center ice, 2-1, in Game 1 behind a 26-save performance by Matt Climie, a backup goaltender manning the nets because of an injury to Brent Krahn. Like the Caps in Game 1 of the Tampa Bay series, the Bears were rusty after a long layoff (12 days) after winning their previous round and looked it with only two shots on goal in the first period of that Game 1. They never got untracked.

Texas duplicated the feat in Game 2, winning by another one-goal margin, 4-3, getting the winner in the last minute. And at that point it looked bleak as the Bears headed south for the next three games (the AHL playing a 2-3-2 seven game format). It got worse at the start of Game 3 as Texas scored a power play, an even strength, and a shorthanded goal in the first period of the game to take a 3-1 lead and threaten to blow the Bears out of the building and the series. But Hershey crawled back into it with a pair of second period goals to tie the game, then three third period markers made the comeback complete in a 6-3 win.

The Bears ended up sweeping the Stars in Texas, punishing the Stars with their power play (4-for-12) and getting good goaltending from Neuvirth, who stopped 80 of the last 83 shots he saw (.964 save percentage) in the last eight periods plus overtime in Game 5 in Texas. What is more, in outscoring Texas by 11-3 in those last eight-plus periods in Texas, the Bears got production from the guys who had to produce. Alexandre Giroux had two goals and an two assists. Mathieu Perreault had a pair of goals and a pair of assists. John Carlson was 1-2-3. Keith Aucoin had a goal and four assists.

And that is what the Caps need now. We made a point of it before Game 2, and it is no less true now that the Caps are on the road down 0-2. The guys who are expected to produce offensively have to do just that. Two goals among the Young Guns (Ovechkin, Semin) in two games is probably not going to be enough. The Caps have to remember a little bit of their own history and rip a page out of the Hershey history book to scratch their way back into this series. They can do this…they have done this.

It can be done, just by winning one game at a time.

Caps 3 - Lightning 1

Programming Note: We are going to be away for a few days. You can catch up with the usual suspects by clicking on the links to the right. We hope to be back before the Caps head off to the third round.

Eastern Conference Semifinals, Game 2: Lightning 3 - Capitals 2 (OT)

There is not so much as a sliver of daylight separating the backs of the Washington Capitals and the proverbial “wall.” They are up against it now, heading to Tampa down two-games-to-none after dropping tonight’s Game 2 at Verizon Center, 3-2 in overtime.

Vincent Lecavalier sent the Lightning home happy at 6:19 of the extra session when he buried a feed from Teddy Purcell behind goalie Michal Neuvirth after the Caps got caught with too many men too far from the play (the result of a line change that was painful to watch), Mike Green being the only Cap in the defensive zone as the play unfolded.

It was Lecavalier opening and closing the scoring, his first goal of the game coming in the last minute of the first period, one-timing from the right wing circle a feed from Martin St. Louis. Brooks Laich got it back in the fifth minute of the second period, the play being a product of something the Caps just haven’t seemed to do quite enough of – pass bodies in front of goaltender Dwayne Roloson. Nicklas Backstrom skated the puck into the Tampa Bay zone leading a 3-on-2 rush. He crossed behind Brooks Laich and Alexander Semin as the latter two headed to the net. Backstrom wristed the puck on goal, and with the Caps enjoying an advantage of numbers low, Laich steered the puck past Roloson to tie the game.

Martin St. Louis gave the Lightning the lead once more early in the third period when a snap shot he took from the left wing circle looked to deflect off the skate of Mike Green and behind Neuvirth. Roloson almost made the one-goal lead stand up, but with goalie pulled and the Caps having six attackers on the ice, Alex Ovechkin converted a feed from Jason Arnott at the goal mouth with 68 seconds left to tie the game and send it into overtime. The Caps could not find that last goal on any of the five shots in overtime, and it took just one defensive breakdown to send the Caps’ backs hard by that proverbial wall.

Other stuff…

-- Tampa Bay has six goals in regulation in this series, three of them scored in the last minute of a period (one an empty netter)

-- 2-for-9…0-for-11. Eight shots… 17 shots. Tampa power play… Caps power play. How utterly fitting that what held the Caps back on offense all year (which, frankly has virtually nothing to do with their “defense-first” approach to five-on-five play), killed them in the first two games in this series. Tonight it was 0-for-6 and 12 unproductive shots on goal for the Caps power play.

-- We are going to live a long time and never figure out why the most dangerous goal scoring machine since the lockout is sitting 60 feet from the net at the point on the power play…it didn’t work in the regular season, and it hasn’t worked in this series.

-- We focused on the “Young Guns” in the pregame, so what did they do? Eighteen shots on goal (34 attempts), one goal, one assist. That’s two goals, one assist, and a combined minus-4 in two games. We’ll leave it to you, dear reader to conclude whether that is good enough.

-- Meanwhile, the Lightning big guns – Lecavalier, St. Louis, and Steven Stamkos… 4-3-7, even, in the two games.

-- 89 games into the season, and the simplest of things – a line change – was all the break the Lightning needed to spring a two on one in overtime. Yes, it was the “long” change, but that’s part of the game.

-- Tough night for Jeff Schultz. He was on the ice for all three Lightning goals, although he was on for all of five seconds for the last one.

-- The irony of it… it was the substitute for the injured Pavel Kubina – Randy Jones – who got the last play started from deep in the Tampa Bay end with the quick up to Purcell at the Caps’ blue line. Jones played a grand total of 6:25 in the game.

-- Trip down Memory Lane…the Caps won Games 1 and 2 in Tampa in 2003 rather handily (3-0 and 6-3). They then went on to lose Games 3-6 and the series. On the other hand, the Caps were 3-for-9 on the power play in Games 1 and 2 in that year (all the goals in Game 2). They were 2-for 18 in Games 3-6.

-- There is a disturbing theme emerging in this series, one that has nothing to do with numbers and everything to do with attitude. Entirely too much attention – bordering on fear, in fact – is being paid to the “intimidating” 1-3-1 defense of the Lightning. When did the Tampa Bay Lightning become the NHL version of the Steel Curtain defense of the Pittsburgh Steelers. The concept seems to have gotten into the minds of fans, if not those of the team. The fact is, the Caps are a more talented, deeper team than the Lightning, but they seem to lack the “swagger” gene that imposes that knowledge on their opponent.

In the end, there are two elements of this series that are intertwined, neither of which is good news for the Caps. First, there is the matter of the Caps Young Guns getting out produced by the Tampa Bay big guns. Backstrom might still be injured or re-injured, Green isn’t long back from injury and has had an interesting playoff so far (if taking a puck off the side of your helmet in an earlier playoff game confirms your notion of “interesting”).

The other is that the Caps don’t seem to have an answer, or at least a push-back for the style Tampa Bay is playing, and more than the execution of it, the notion of it seems to be in the Caps’ heads. But keep this fact in mind. The Caps scored 154 goals at even strength during the season (145 at 5-on-5, nine at 4-on-4). That is an average of 1.88 even strength goals per game. Thus far, the Caps have scored four even strength goals in two games – an average of 2.00 a game (6-on-5 goals, for purpose of league statistics, are even strength goals). This notion of the 1-3-1 being the be all and end all of the Lightning success is overstated. This series is turning on special teams. Tampa has two one-goal wins (yes, there was the empty netter in Game 1, but it did not influence the decision). They have two power play goals, the Caps have none. If that doesn’t change in Games 3 and 4 in Tampa, well…

This series marked the 17th time that the Caps opened a seven-game series with Games 1 and 2 at home. It is only the second time that the Caps dropped both home games to open the series. Let’s hope things end as happily as the first time it happened (in 2009 against the Rangers), although at the moment it is hard not to think upon the fact that tonight’s game might have been the last game at Verizon Center this season, and if it was, it will be a very, very unpleasant summer ahead.

The Peerless Prognosticator is ON THE AIR!!! -- Eastern Conference Semifinals: Capitals vs. Lightning, Game 2

The Peerless Prognosticator is ON THE AIR!!!

Every team has to deal with adversity on their journey to a championship, and the ones that deal with it best are the ones that win. The Caps might be at one of those moments as they prepare to play Game 2 in their Eastern Conference semifinal against the Tampa Bay Lightning. Losing Game 1 at home is not a common occurrence in Caps history, and it would be hasty to presume that it predicts misfortune. Some Game 1 history is in order. Here are the Caps when they lose Game 1 at home...

1986: Rangers 4 – Caps 3 (OT); Caps lost the series, 4-2
1988: Flyers 4 – Capitals 2; Caps won the series, 4-3
1998: Sabres 2 – Capitals 0; Caps won the series, 4-2
2000: Penguins 7 – Capitals 0; Caps lost the series, 4-1
2009: Rangers 4 – Capitals 3; Caps won the series, 4-3
2010: Canadiens 3 – Capitals 2 (OT); Caps lost the series, 4-3

A 3-3 record isn’t a lot to go on, but that means the jumping to conclusions that the Caps are doomed (as no doubt more than a few Caps fans believe at the moment) is an unreasonable leap. But some things have to happen going forward for the Caps to turn this around.

-- Game 1 was the first time this season in which the Caps lost a game in regulation when Alexander Semin scored a goal (he scored on in a 3-2 Gimmick loss to Carolina in the penultimate game of the regular season. Semin did not have much help, though.

-- Alex Ovechkin was shut out as far as goals are concerned. In 48 wins for the Capitals this season Ovechkin had at least one goal in 20 of them, at least one point in 40 of them.

-- Nicklas Backstrom… shut out. In 48 wins Backstrom had a goal in nine of them. He had at least one point in 26 of them.

-- Mike Green… shut out. In 48 wins (26 in which he participated), he had goals in seven of them, points in 12 of them.

-- If you look at the “Young Guns” and the Caps’ wins this season, the Caps got at least one goal from this quartet in 33 of the 48 wins, and at least one point in 46 of the wins.

One can speak of secondary scoring, and it is important to get guys like Eric Fehr (who scored a goal in Game 1) contributing. But the Caps have to get the big guns firing.

In Game 1, the Young Guns had a total of 32 shot attempts (Nine each from Ovechkin, Green, and Backstrom, five from Semin), nine shots on goal… one went in. As a group, one goal on nine shots is not much different from the group’s aggregate shooting percentage for the season (9.8 percent). But a total of nine shots on goal is a bit light, given their combined average per game for the season (12.6).

This quartet has played in each and every one of the 34 post season games for the Capitals over the past three-plus seasons. The Capitals are 17-17 in those games, and as a group the Young Guns are 52-78-130 in those games. In all 17 wins the group recorded at least one point, and in 15 of the wins at least one of them recorded a goal. It is worth noting that the quartet notched at least one point in 15 of the 17 playoff losses, and in 13 of them recorded at least one goal. The difference is volume. In 17 wins they are 34-48-82, while in the 17 losses they are 18-30-48. When these guys click, good things happen for the Caps – Ovechkin has goals in 11 of the 17 wins, points in 14 of them. For Backstrom it is goals in four of the wins, points in 13 of the wins. For Green, goals in three of the wins, points in 12 of them. For Semin, goals in eight of the wins, points in 13 of them.

Backstrom’s drought brings this into focus. It’s not so much the goal scoring as it is the playmaking that the Caps need. He has assists in nine of the 17 playoff wins the Caps have over the past three-plus post seasons. But it is not only on him, by any means. These four are the core of the Caps and the straws that stir the drinks.

This is hardly a mind-shattering revelation, but nevertheless, it is this group that is going to have to be heard from – loudly – if the Caps are to advance from this round. They certainly have it in them. In the six game series with the Lightning this season, the Young Guns accounted for 11 of the 18 goals scored by the Caps and either scored or assisted on 13 of them. Announcing their presence in the series will be the Game 2 difference.

Caps 4 – Lightning 2

Eastern Conference Semifinals, Game 1: Lightning 4 - Capitals 2

Seen a lot of those games over the years, Caps fans.

A lot of ‘em…too many, in fact.

Team comes out hesitant, finds their legs, but can’t stuff a loose puck in to save their lives. Dominates play for long stretches, but an own-goal and a power play goal at the end of a period later, find themselves behind. Then things get away from them as they try to catch up. Too much freelancing, too much individual play, too much forcing things. And their own power play stinks.

Yup…seen that kind of game too many times with the Caps on the short end of things.

And that’s how it unfolded last night as the Caps dropped Game 1 of the Eastern Conference seminfinal to the Tampa Bay Lightning, 4-2, last night at Verizon Center. The Caps came out tentative, trying to find holes in the Lightning 1-3-1 defense, and their tentative play cost them an early goal, Sean Bergenheim getting on the board in the third minute. Alexander Semin got it back when Marco Sturm tipped an attempted exit pass out of the Lightning zone by Brett Clark. Semin scooped up the loose puck and wristed to toward the Tampa cage. Goalie Dwayne Roloson could not get the wickets closed in time, and the puck snuck through his pads to tie the game.

It stayed that way until the second minute of the second period. Off a faceoff in the Tampa end, Jason Chimera won a short dash to the end boards for a loose puck and centered it to Eric Fehr, who wasted no time wristing it over Roloson’s glove to give the Caps their only lead of the night.

The lead, and the game, fell apart in the last four minutes of the second period. Tampa tied the game on an own goal by the Caps. Michal Neuvirth played the puck along the boards, but no Cap could corral it. That left it for Teddy Purcell to gather it along the right wing boards, whereupon he fed it to Vincent Lecavalier in the middle. Lecavalier poked it to Steve Downie, and Downie, trying to lay it off for a teammate, backhanded the puck off Scott Hannan’s stick and past Neuvith.

Three minutes later, with Chimera in the box for a roughing call, Eric Brewer circled down from the left wing and threw the puck at the net. Neuvirth made the first save, but left a loose puck at the near post. Steven Stamkos banged in the puck with barely a half-minute left in the period.

That goal seemed to take the discipline out of the Caps, who spent the third period more or less playing into the Tampa Bay defense and failing to convert power plays. The Lightning got an empty netter from Dominic Moore with 40 seconds left, and that was that…the kind of game that made Caps fans the way they are.

Other stuff…

-- A disallowed goal, an own goal, terrible luck on those chances that were pinballing around the crease, and the Caps still lost by a goal (empty netter notwithstanding). If the glass is half full, you say that the Caps played badly and still almost pulled out a win. In the glass half empty perspective, the Caps blew an opportunity to shove the Lightning in a hole early with poor play that will come back to haunt them as the series goes on.

-- Something certainly seems wrong with Nicklas Backstrom. Offensively there is just nothing to his game right now. Whether it is just a long run of bad luck or an injury, he just doesn’t look anything close to right out there.

-- With all those pucks pinballing around the Lightning crease last night, you can see that the Caps miss Mike Knuble desperately. His game is tailor-made for the sort of “throw pucks at Roloson’s feet” strategy. Anything springs loose, he’d have a chance.

-- Caps had 23 shots blocked in the game… 14 of them came in the third period.

-- Wouldn’t attach too much importance to a loss here. The Caps are 3-3 all time in series when they lose Game 1 at home.

-- Five power plays…the Caps have to convert when they get that many chances.

-- But it’s hard to do when you get only five shots on those five power plays in 8:45 of power play time, and none of those shots coming from Alex Ovechkin. If the Lightning are going to cheat to cover Ovechkin, other Caps have to make them pay.

-- John Carlson skated 36 seconds (two shifts) in the last 25:23. He is “day-to-day.” His absence, along with those of Tom Poti and Dennis Wideman, would put the Caps in a considerable hole, obviously.

-- 48 shot attempts for Tampa isn’t bad defense by the Caps; the goals were a bit fluky. On the other hand, 61 attempts isn’t bad, but getting 23 of them blocked is a problem.

-- Can’t even say that Neuvirth was “outplayed” by Roloson. One has to respect that Roloson doesn’t give up on a play, but he left a lot of loose pucks lying around and wasn’t doing a very good job of finding them. The Caps have to do a much better job of finishing. Brooks Laich (one shot on goal, three attempts) is important here with Knuble out.

In the end, it’s hard to get worked up over this loss with this team. In years past, this is the kind of loss that could set the tone for a series against a playoff opponent. Missed chances, fluky goals, usually Penguin uniforms. This Caps team is a different team. The Caps did not play especially well last night, but then again, neither did Tampa Bay. And before Tampa fans get all fat and happy about taking home ice away, it’s first to “four,” not first to “one.”

But it would be nice to stop the marches to the locker room because of injuries, not to mention lighting the lamp on a power play.

"Rolo"dex Day Planner

(click for larger image)

The Peerless Prognosticator Brings You: Your Round Two Prognostos

We have the Caps-Lightning prognosto up, but what about the other three conference semifinal series? Well, let’s take a look…

Eastern Conference Semifinal: Philadelphia (2) vs. Boston (3)

Theme: Familiarity breeds contempt

Why Philly will win: Depth. Oh, sure, Danny Briere had those six goals in the first round, but James van Riemsdyk had something of a coming out party with four goals (including a power play goal and a game-winner), and Ville Leino had three of his own. For heaven’s sake, Daniel Carcillo had a pair. That kind of depth grinds a team down, even with a top-notch goalie. They did it to Ryan Miller; they can do it to Tim Thomas.

Why Philly Won’t Win: The Flyers got off lucky in the first round, using three goaltenders against a team without a lot of firepower and that doesn’t make a lot of noise in front of netminders. Boston might not be explosive, but they can do a better job than did Buffalo in crowding the crease. Brian Boucher, who for the moment appears to be “the man,” is going to have to work harder for his saves. And there, the Flyers’ biggest weakness can be exposed.

Flyer on the Hot Seat: Chris Pronger. He played in only two games of the opening round, coming back from a broken hand. Pronger is going to be key in policing the area in front of Boucher to be able to give the goalie a good look at shots. If Pronger does his job, it hides a lot of problems in goal.

Why Boston will win: Tim Thomas. He is the best player in this series. It could come down to how many bad games each goalie has, and Thomas is almost a betting lock to have fewer of them than Brian Boucher (or whoever ends up tending goal for the Flyers). In any player-to-player matchup in this series, the Bruins have an overwhelming advantage in goal.

Why Boston won’t win: That vague whiff of decay you smell? OK, that wall of stink hitting you in the face? It’s not week old clam chowder, but the Bruin power play. It was 0-for-21 against the Canadiens in round one, but truth be told, that’s not all that much an aberration. It wasn’t that hot in the regular season, either (16.2 percent; 21st in the league).

Bruin on the hot seat: David Krejci. One point in the opening round. Oh, that won’t do, not against the Flyers. Krejci had rather productive playoff appearances in the three post-seasons he had coming into this one (27 games, 7-14-21, plus-10). The Bruins will need that production in this round.

In the end, Boston’s power play isn’t as bad as it was in the opening round (mainly because Philly’s penalty kill is rather ordinary), and the Flyers still do not have an answer in goal.

Boston in six.


Western Conference Semifinal: Vancouver (1) vs. Nashville (5)

Theme: If the Sedins are keen, the Preds are dead.

Why Vancouver will win: We can talk about how Vancouver is simply better on both sides of the puck (and they are, with the possible exception of goaltending), but it might be the intangible here. Every team has their dark night of the soul moment in the playoffs, and for Vancouver it came at the end of Game 6 when they found themselves poised to blow a 3-0 lead in games as Presidents Trophy winner. They would have spent the summer cleaning the egg off their faces had they lost Game 7 to Chicago, but the Canucks stared into the face of adversity, and adversity blinked. Like Jim Lovell said in the movie Apollo 13, “looks like we’ve had out glitch for this mission.”

Why Vancouver won’t win: The Canucks scored 16 goals in their first round series with Chicago, eight of them coming from Daniel Sedin and Alex Burrows. Eight came from the other 19 skaters who dressed. If the Canucks don’t get some more production from down the roster, they could be had...their season exploding like the Apollo 13 service module did after their supposed "glitch."

Canuck on the hot seat: Henrik Sedin. The defending Hart Trophy winner is the “assist” half of the Sedin twins, and he had five of them in round one. But no goals and a minus-4? That’s not a long term formula for Vancouver success.

Why Nashville will win: They are the little engine that could. Pekka Rinne stops pucks, and the Predators put them in from all over the place. Twelve different Predators had goals for Nashville in round one. No one is as recognizable as a Jonathan Toews or a Patrick Kane, but they have the kind of balance that can make up for the lack of star power. And they are a very sturdy 5-on-5 team (fourth in ratio of goals scored to goals allowed in round one).

Why Nashville won’t win: Penalty killing. The Predators had a good regular season killing penalties (84.9 percent; 5th in the league), but Anaheim saw or found something in it to exploit. The Ducks scored eight times in 27 man advantages (a 70.4 percent kill rate). The Canucks have more fire power – best power play in the league in the regular season. If Vancouver can exploit whatrever flaw the Ducks found, this will be a short series.

Predator on the hot seat: Sergei Kostitsyn. In his first post-season in 2008 Sergei Kostitsyn scored three goals in 12 games. In 12 games since, covering three post-seasons, he has no gosals. He had none in the first round against Anaheim. If the Predators are to have a chance in this series, he needs to break the string.

In the end, this is will versus skill. A lot of times, “will” wins out, but Vancouver simply has too much skill and might have dodged their bullet in the opening round.

Vancouver in 6


Western Conference Semifinal: San Jose (2) vs. Detroit (3)

Theme: You have learned well, my young padawan...

Why San Jose will win: Isn’t it about time? This might be the most talented team never to play in a Stanley Cup final. In six years leading up to this one the Sharks played in 13 playoff rounds and won seven of them. Not a good batting average. What makes this year different, perhaps, is that Joe Thornton and Dany Heatley don’t have to be “Joe Thornton” and “Dany Heatley.” The Sharks got meaningful production from Joe Pavelski (20 goals), Ryan Clowe (24 goals), and got a big season out of rookie Logan Couture (32 goals), freeing up Thornton to be “Thornton,” and Heatley to be “Heatley.” They have a better mix.

Why San Jose won’t win: goaltending. Detroit can make a good goalie look average and an average goalie look bad. Antti Niemi has his moments, but few of them came in round one. He was fine in Game 1 of the series against the Los Angeles Kings, allowing two goals on 35 shots in a 3-2 overtime win. However, he allowed 17 goals on 104 shots in five other appearances in the series. A .837 save percentage kind of performance is going to be a Christmas ham to a starvin’ man for the Red Wings.

Shark on the hot seat: Dan Boyle. He is their minutes leader (by miles, more than five minutes a game more than Marc-Eduoard Vlasic), the leading scorer for the defense (50 points), the triggerman on the power play (27 points). The extent to which his production matches that of the Red Wings’ Nicklas Lidstrom and Brian Rafalski will go a long way to determining who wins this series.

Why the Red Wings will win: It is the natural order of things. Whereas the Sharks have a history of disappointment, the Red Wings are quite the opposite. Starting in 1995, when they went to the Stanley Cup finals for the first time since 1966, the Red Wings have gone past the second round eight times in 15 post-seasons, including three of the last four. The Wings bring many of the players who led them past the second round three times in the last four seasons into this game. Nothing is going to upset the likes of Lidstrom, Henrik Zetterberg, Pavel Datsyuk, and all the other Red Wings that have become so well known.

Why the Red Wings won’t win: If you watched them in the Phoenix series, you might be tempted to say, “uh…nothing to see here.” They looked that good. But there is a soft underbelly here that the Sharks might be able to exploit. Defensemen Brad Stuart was on ice for seven goals against in four games, Niklas Kronwall for five. It could be the tiniest sliver of weakness the Sharks can exploit.

Red Wing on the hot seat: Jimmy Howard. The Red Wings don’t ask their goalie to win games often. They are a veteran enough team among the skaters to be able to keep their goalie from seeing a lot of scoring chances, and they are skilled enough at puck possession to keep the heat on at the other end of the ice. Howard was good enough in round one – 2.50 GAA and .915 save percentage. He will probably have to play better to match those numbers in the second round. San Jose poses a larger offensive threat than did Phoenix.

In the end, there might be a tipping point being reached with this series. San Jose has served a long apprenticeship in the art of winning, coming up short often and painfully. The Red Wings have made a habit of winning. But while the Red Wings are still very talented and experienced, and the Sharks are still capable of lifting the hearts of fans into their throats, this is the year when the guard is changed. It is San Jose’s time.

Sharks in seven

The Peerless Prognosticator is ON THE AIR!!! -- Eastern Conference Semifinal, Capitals vs. Lightning

The Peerless Prognosticator is ON THE AIR!!!

Round two! Let’s set the stage for what we are talking about here. Including this season: thirty six seasons… 22 times in the playoffs… nine times making the second round. Winning the second round…

Twice.

We’re getting into the thin air of Capitals history here, and if there is a theme to be had in the second round series about to unfold with the Tampa Bay Lightning, it would be, “The Right Stuff.” To borrow from the narrator in the film by that name…

"There was a demon that lived in the playoffs. They said if the Caps challenged him, they would die. Their sticks would freeze up, their skates would wobble wildly, and they would disintegrate. The demon lived at about May 15th on the calendar, four weeks into the post season, where the bad thoughts about seasons past and underachieving could no longer move out of the way. He lived behind a barrier through which they said no Cap could ever pass. They called it the second round of the playoffs."

In Round Two we are going to get a clearer picture if this collection of players has “the right stuff” to achieve what no other Capitals team has accomplished. And in facing the test, the Capitals will be challenged by a familiar foe.

The View from 30,000 Feet

The Capitals and Lightning finished the regular season with similar results – wins (Caps 48/Lightning 46), points (Caps 107/Lightning 103), finishes (Caps 7-2-1/Lightning 7-3-0), home record (both with 25 wins), road record (Caps with two more wins). But how they got there represent two very different sets of numbers (click for larger version):

In the Lightning the Caps might be looking at a combination of a mirror and a time machine. Tampa Bay is clearly – in the season-long numbers (and hold that thought) – an offensive-oriented team. Fourteen times this season the Lightning scored five or more goals (the Caps had 13 such games, but seven of them came in the first 24 games of the year). They were an explosive team. And they could be exploded upon; 15 times they allowed five or more goals (it happened five times to the Caps, none in their last 30 games).

You would get the impression that the Lightning were a run-and-gun team of the sort that would look more than a bit like the Caps from last year. You would not be entirely correct in that conclusion, not in looking at the latter stages of the regular season. It would be easy to say that the Lightning changed their approach with the arrival of goaltender Dwayne Roloson from the New York Islanders (in trade for defenseman Ty Wishart in early January). In fact, Roloson won his first game with the Lightning, a 1-0 overtime shutout of Washington on January 4th. But an 8-1 pasting at the hands of the Penguins the following night and a six goal hemorrhage in a 6-1 loss to New Jersey four days later suggested that a “defense-first” mind-set had not quite yet arrived.

The epiphany might have come with consecutive losses by a combined 11-6 margin in mid-January to New Jersey (again) and Carolina. Those losses left the Lightning deadlocked with the Caps with 57 standings points, but it could not have looked good the way they got there. The Lightning followed that up with three consecutive Gimmick wins in which they allowed a total of only five goals. It propelled them to a six-game winning streak (their longest of the season) in which they allowed a total of only six goals, Roloson recording two shutouts along the way. Over the last 35 games of the season the Lightning allowed only 2.51 goals per game. Not the Caps, perhaps, but certainly an improvement over how they started the season.

But having said that, the Lightning have been a team that seems to have their focus wander, for whatever reason. They are a formidable club early in games – 51 times they scored the game’s first goal this season, and they outscored their opponents by almost one-third goal per game in the first two periods. But the Lightning didn’t finish games well, ending the season with the 24th best record when scoring first, a product of their giving almost all of the advantage earned in the first two periods of games in the third (a minus-0.29 goals per game in the third period).

Special Teams

The fault line on which this series might be settled is special teams, specifically the Tampa Bay power play. The Lightning are efficient on the power play (sixth in the league), but only one team has had more opportunities with the man-advantage this year than the 336 chances bestowed upon the Lightning. And only one team had more power play goals than the 69 scored by the Lightning. The flip side of this is that no team in the league allowed more shorthanded goals than did Tampa Bay – 16. The next highest number among teams surviving in the second round is the seven shorties allowed by Detroit and San Jose. It is worth noting that the Caps were 23-for-26 in penalty killing against the Lightning in the regular season (88.5 percent). If the Caps can whittle the chances per game down and keep that kind of efficiency, the Lightning will be in a world of hurt.

The Series

Washington and Tampa played head-to-head six times this season with the Caps winning four of the contests and getting shut out in the two losses (note: Caps score, Caps win). It was an interesting season series, sort of the season in microcosm…

Game 1: November 11, Capitals 6 – Lightning 3. If you looked at the first period alone, you might have thought is was a goaltender’s battle. Tampa’s Teddy Purcell had the only goal in the first period. Washington grabbed the lead in the second on goals by Tom Poti and Mike Knuble, but Tampa tied things up early in the third on a power play goal by Ryan Malone. After that, it was the Alexander Semin show. Semin scored three goals in 15 minutes (including an empty netter), and Alex Ovechkin added another to give the Caps the win going away.

Game 2: November 26th, Capitals 6 – Lightning 0. It was another case of little scoring early; John Carlson had the only goal of the first period, beating Tampa Bay’s Mike Smith barely three minutes into the contest. But there was that Semin fellow again, recording a natural hat trick in the second period to end the competitive portion of the evening. At the other end, Semyon Varlamov had a relatively easy time of it, seeing only 17 Lightning shots, stopping them all for his first shutout of the season. The Caps had two power play goals in the game, the last time they would have more than one in a game in almost three months.

Game 3: January 4th, Lightning 1 – Capitals 0 (OT). In the first game after the Winter Classic in Pittsburgh, the Caps came out flat and ended the night flatter. Dwayne Roloson jumped between the pipes for the first time in a Lightning jersey, and he was the story, stopping all 34 shots he saw, 21 of them in the second period. Semyon Varlamov almost matched him save for save, but allowed a goal to Martin St. Louis in the third minute of the extra session. The Caps were outshot in that overtime, 5-0.

Game 4: January 12th, Lightning 3 – Capitals 0. Roloson made it two in a row in shutouts over the Caps but had a much easier time of it in Tampa. He faced only 23 shots for the contest, only five of them coming in the third period. He even chipped in an assist on the first, game-winning goal by Dominic Moore. Sean Bergenheim and Simon Gagne had the other goals for Tampa Bay.

Game 5: February 4th, Capitals 5 – Lightning 2

This one looked an awful lot like Game 1. Teddy Purcell – just as in Game 1 – got the game’s first goal in the game’s fourth minute. But Nicklas Backstrom put an end to that fun when he scored midway through the period to send the teams off tied at one for the first intermission. Brooks Laich and Alex Ovechkin scored less than two minutes apart in the second period, and although Brett Clark got one back on a power play before the second intermission, it was Backstrom one more time at 12:22 of the third to provide insurance and Jason Chimera to drive the stake through the heart of the Lightning with an empty netter in the last minute.

Game 6, March 7th: Capitals 2 - Lightning 1 (OT/SO)

It was a case of not how you start, but how you finish for the Caps in this one. Sean Bergenheim scored at 12:30 of the first period, and goalie Dwayne Roloson almost made it stand up, although the Caps were not exactly peppering him with shots – 17 over the first two periods. But Alexander Semin scored a goal – his seventh against the Lightning for the season – at 14:28 to tie the game and send it to overtime. The Caps did a better job of pressuring Roloson in the extra session, firing ten shots on goal. But none got through, and it was left to the Gimmick to settle this one, Alex Ovechkin netting the game winner and ending the season series… well, until now.

Competition

Against the other seven teams making the playoff eight in the Eastern Conference, the Caps went 17-6-7, including 4-1-1 against Tampa Bay. The Lightning went 16-11-3 against the other seven teams in the Eastern eight, including 2-3-1 against the Caps.

Goaltending

This is something of an unknown in this respect. Michal Neuvirth had only two appearances against the Lightning this season and only one decision, that coming in the teams’ first meeting back on Veterans Day (a 6-3 Caps win). He has four appearances against the Lightning in his career, winning both decisions on his record, but not with what you’d call sterling numbers – 3.38 GAA and a .905 save percentage.

On the other hand, Dwayne Roloson is an open book. This year he appeared four times against the Caps in a Lightning jersey and went 2-1-1 with a 1.23 GAA and .959 save percentage. That was fueled by two shutouts eight days apart in January. His performance was hardly a fluke. In 17 career appearances against the Caps he is 8-5-4, with a 2.11 GAA, a .923 save percentage, and four shutouts.

Coaching

They have vaguely similar backgrounds, but Bruce Boudreau and Guy Boucher came through the coaching ranks at very different speeds. The journey of the Caps’ Bruce Boudreau is no secret to Caps fans. Four seasons in the IHL, primarily with Fort Wayne, three with the Mississippi Sea Wolves of the ECHL (where he won a title), nine seasons with three teams in the AHL, the last three in Hershey where he won a Calder Cup in his first year behind the bench and went to the finals in the following year. In his third year in Hershey he was called up to the Caps on Thanksgiving, where he led the Caps on an amazing ascent through the standings and into the 2008 playoffs, winning the Jack Adams Award in the process. Three more seasons, three more playoff appearances, although the results did not match the promise of that first season when the Caps looked poised to make a series of deep playoff runs.

Boucher climb through the coaching ranks was much quicker. From his beginnings as an assistant at McGill University in 1996, he moved to Rouyn-Nornada in the QMJHL, then to Rimouski in the Q in 2003. In 2006 he moved to Drummondville in the QMJHL, then made the leap to the Hamilton Bulldogs in 2009. In the 2009-2010 season at Hamilton he coached the Bulldogs to a 115-point finish and won the AHL coach of the year award. It was impressive enough to earn not one, but two NHL job offers. He declined the offer from the Columbus Blue Jackets to take the helm in Tampa this past season. And at age 39 he led the Lightning to their first playoff berth since 2007.

Both coaches are likely to get some Adams consideration this season, and both appear to have a very good feel for the talent they have and the ability to push the right buttons. Boudreau got Alex Ovechkin to buy into a defense-first concept 35 games into the season. Boucher got Vincent Lecavalier to be something of a goal scorer again, the former 50-goal scorer potting pucks at a 32-goal scoring rate for the season.

If there are questions about either, they would be Boudreau’s ability to adjust on the fly to adversity (a problem in the Montreal series last year), while for Boucher it is whether or not he is ready for prime time, this being only his second season behind the bench of a professional hockey team.

Players you expect to do well…and had better

Washington: Nicklas Backstrom

The Caps were able to cope with Nicklas Backstrom’s lack of offensive production in round one, given that the Rangers were so offensively challenged. Backstrom had a pretty good series in other aspect of the game, but one point in this series is not likely to cut it. He is 5-23-28, plus-11 in 26 career games against the Lightning. The offensive drought might have been an aberration. In 28 career playoff games coming into this post season, Backstrom was 12-18-30.

Tampa Bay: Steven Stamkos

Steven Stamkos had 38 goals by the end of January, then went the last three months and 31 games with a total of seven. He did not exactly come alive in the first round series against the Penguins, recording a pair of goals in seven games. He is likely going to have to do better if the Lightning are to upset the Caps. It is certainly possible; he is 8-4-12 (but a minus-10) in 18 career games against Washington.

Players you might not think of as possible heroes…

Washington: Karl Alzner

If the Capitals are going to shut down the Lightning, especially on the power play, Alzner is likely to play a role. Of the eight goals scored by the Rangers in round one, Alzner was on the ice for five of them. But consider that Alzner also spent an average of 23:35 of ice time a game, and there were 48 defensemen who were on the ice for more goals in round one.

Tampa Bay: Sean Bergenheim

Sean Bergenheim scored the series-clinching goal for Tampa Bay in the first round against Pittsburgh, and it was his third goal of the series. Only Martin St. Louis had more (four). If the Lightning can get secondary production out of Bergenheim in this series, things could get very uncomfortable for the Caps.

In the end, we have the same feeling about this series as we did about the first round series against the Rangers. The Lightning have improved on defense over their first 50 games or so, but no one is going to confuse them with being impenetrable. And the Caps are not the Crosby-less, Malkin-less Penguins when it comes to scoring. We think this series is going to come down to how well the Caps can contain the Tampa Bay power play. The Caps were 19 of 20 (95.0 percent) in killing Ranger penalties in round one, but Washington moves up in weight class with the Lightning power play. The Lightning had a fat and happy time of it on the power play in the first round, going 8-for-27 (29.6 percent) against Pittsburgh. As much as the conversion rate was the 27 chances in seven games. If the Caps can hold down chances, their own chances improve significantly.

The Caps beat a team in the first round that finished rather well to end the season (11-7-1 in their last 19 games). Tampa didn’t finish as well and struggled against a team that couldn’t score. The Caps will not have that problem, even with Caps-killer Dwayne Roloson in goal. This series goes about as long as the last one.

Caps in five