We hear it a lot, only it was actually true two nights ago. Two nights ago, we outshot the Thrashers 48-27 and outplayed them for most of the game. It took a shootout (the poster child of the NHL's refusal to allow hockey in their hockey games) for the Thrashers to steal a second point from us (yes, it feels as good as you think it does to say that). Let me be clear about something: this is bullshit. To look at the game and take away "well, Gaborik needs to be better in the shootout" is like being one of those people who thinks all the big wars this century could have been prevented if only Archduke Franz Ferdinand hadn't gone out in Sarajevo that day. Pragmatically, we would have taken away another point had we performed better in the shootout, but wow are you ever missing the point.
Sorry, that's kind of a bullshit analogy to whip out. Let's move on.
So, yes, there were good things to take away from the game. We certainly dominated most of play. We just couldn't seal the deal. "Stuck at two" is now the common mantra. We're stuck at two goals a game. Since November 12 (November 12, people), we beat the Jackets 7-4 that one time, and other than that, we've only scored over 2 goals in a game one time, when we scored 3 and gave up 8 to Pittsburgh. In our best effort in weeks, we proved we can outplay a team top to bottom, but we still can't seal the deal. Does this sound familiar?
There were good things to take away from the game. We worked hard on 5 consecutive power plays, putting 13 PP shots on net and scoring two PPG. We killed off two late third period minors which overlapped for 1:26 to keep the game tied, and we got a lot of excellent chances in overtime. But we didn't capitalize on a third power play, or score an even strength goal, or match the Thrashers' shorthanded tally, to turn that puck possession advantage into a win.
At even strength, there were also good things to take away. We outshot them 34-19 in 48:41 of 5-on-5 hockey. We even stood up for ourselves a bunch. But, zero of those 34 shots (some of which were admittedly of good quality) made their way past "Moose" and across that elusive red line. Let's be clear about even strength hockey here for a minute. Since losing 8-3 to the Penguins on November 28, we have scored a total of five even strength goals. All of these but Callahan's goal against the Sabres were first period goals. And other than that Sabres game, we haven't scored two even strength goals in the same game in that stretch.
Brandon Dubinsky was back, and he brought some good take-aways. He was a lot of the reason we played so hard. But let's not pretend he, or anyone else not named Marian, is scoring the difference-makers. The Rangers have scored 88 goals this season, putting them tied for 23rd in a league of 30. Without Gaborik's league-leading 23 goals, we'd be at 65, dead last in the league and 13 goals behind our closest competition.
So, maybe there are also some bad things to take away from our situation. We're down to 1-5-2 in our last eight now, and 7-14-3 since we opened the season 7-1. Only one team in the league, the dreadful 7-19-6 Carolina Hurricanes, has fewer points than we do.
And our personnel movement is...curious, at best. When Tortorella said he was a guy that believed firmly in leaning on his top guys, I said I didn't love it. I prefer a style that rolls 4 lines. But I never thought he'd mean it this extremely. According to Larry Brooks (I haven't bothered verifying the calculation, but it certainly seems right), our top six (Higgins, Dubi, Gaborik, Prospal, Drury, Cally) combined for 75.3% of total ice time for forwards. Over three quarters of the game. The other two lines combined for less than a quarter of the game. I'm excited about a few weeks from now, when he's pointing at the low numbers all the other guys have as a reason for keeping them off the ice.
Look, I'm under no illusions about Erik Christensen being the savior here. But you need to give some of these other guys a chance. Assuming Anisimov and Avery are mainstays on the third line (which seems to be the case), we are currently carrying Boyle, Brashear, Christensen, Kotalik, Lisin, Parenteau, and Voros -- seven forwards -- to fill those last four slots, to get a combined 24 minutes a game. You have to assume at least a couple of those guys are going to have some skill, right?
I mean, you'd better. Even if we take Kotalik out of the picture as a semi-permanent third-line winger, we have 6 men whose salaries total $5,065,000 under the cap rotating to play on the fourth line, which sees less than 5 minutes a game. Hey, I'm no coach, but maybe if you played these guys a little more, you could see which ones were in any way worthwhile, and then maybe you wouldn't have to keep this many on the roster?
The thinking is somehow similar with our defensemen. Michal Rozsival is a defensive abomination. Whatever slight offensive threat he adds is more than accounted for by his total lack of liability for covering anyone defensively, ever. And yet, he's one of Torts's "top guys." So, he saw 25:39 last night, only 6 seconds less than team leader Marc Staal. Meanwhile, Ilkka Heikkinen saw only 7:24 of ice time (the other 5 D-men averaged 22:59).
Look, the theme here has consistently been to take the path of least resistance. We send down the young people that don't have to clear waivers instead of the old ones that deserve it. It's why Donald Brashear, who has not done anything dynamic for the Rangers since he broke Blair Betts's face, and Michal Rozsival keep finding their way into the lineup, Voros never gets to dress but stays on the roster, and Heikkinen and Sangunetti play ping-pong with the Wolfpack.
And I don't hate that idea: it's a lot easier to make moves with your AHL affiliate when you don't have to play the waivers game all the time. It's not unreasonable to assume that if we tried to assign Rozsival to the Wolfpack, some team with a solid D-line and some cap room would pick him up on waivers, knowing they'd only have to pay $2.5 million a year for him for the next two and a half seasons, leaving us burdened with an identical amount under the cap going literally nowhere. I understand the desire to keep him on the Rangers roster for now and hope for a trade.
But there are options here. There are things we can do that aren't this. Did you know, for example, that many NHL teams carry more than the bare minimum of defensemen on their rosters? The official roster size cap is 23, and 20 dress each night. Many teams don't use all three of those extra spots for 4th-liners who never rotate in.
Here's what I'm saying: leave Gilroy in Hartford, improving his game. Whenever he and Messier decide he's ready to come back, bring him back. Leave Heikkinen in the lineup. Send down whatever never-played forwards you need to be able to afford this under the cap. Rotate our defensemen. Rozsival doesn't run the risk of being picked up on waivers if he sits for a night but stays on the roster. You know, like Aaron Voros. Remember him? Why aren't we doing that to Rozsival?
And this brings me to the bad thing we can take away from the Thrashers game. Ice time. If we were at all interested in doing what I suggest, in sending some 4th-liners to Hartford and rotating 7 guys, it would show in the ice time these six are receiving. Instead, I see a pattern that absolutely says "these are the five defensemen that matter right now." That doesn't mean "I know Rozsival has some issue, but we can't send him to Hartford, so we're working through it." It says "these are my five best defensemen, period."
Starting tonight, we have a home-and-home against the Islanders in consecutive nights, followed by one night off, and then a 1:00 game in Philadelphia. Anyone know how we plan to handle that with only 6 forwards and 5 defensemen?
No comments:
Post a Comment