Five thoughts before the two semifinals games tomorrow in Sochi. Finland and Sweden drop first at 7:00 AM ET, and Canada and the United States follow it up at 12:00 PM ET.
(1) Sweden/Finland is a delightful appetizer for the main course. I submit this in good faith; I think most people had them ranked three and four, respectively, entering the tournament.
It's kind of weird to me, but both teams have went through stretches where they've looked brilliant, and other stretches where they've looked out of sync. The Swedes, who pride themselves on puck possession and the cycle game, seem to fall off a touch when their first group is on the ice. Unlike a lot of the other teams (I note specifically the Russians and the States here), they really do benefit from having an elite first-pairing; I argued early on that Erik Karlsson and Oliver Ekman-Larsson are probably the best duo the Olympics have to offer, and I haven't changed my mind much on the matter. Away from their first line and first pairing though, they strike me as fairly vulnerable.
The Finns are sort of being bandied about as a team that's proving doubters wrong, but I've sort of been underwhelmed by them, too. They really didn't out-play the Russians, and they more or less resorted to boxing it in and closing up shop to keep the score close with the Canadians.
Both teams I give a ton of wiggle room too on the mere injury principle. A full depth chart, and these teams are definitively more formidable.
With respect to this particular game, I think I like the Swedes to advance fairly comfortably. The Swedes really do have more talent top-to-bottom, and there's a rare match-up thing here where the Finns actually do not hold the goaltending advantage. Rare as it may be, I don't think Tuukka Rask is the best guy on the ice tomorrow.
(2) On to the bigger game, and to address a larger point that's being talked about quite a bit: are the Canadians struggling relative to expectations, or are the Canadians simply getting the wrong side of bounces in a short tournament?
Now, far be it from me to sit on the fence of a debate often, but it strikes me as likely that there's a little bit of both at play. Territorially, the Canadians have just massively overwhelmed their competition, and the shots and scoring chances tracked from whatever outlet you glance at sort of reflect that. While the team's shooting percentages are almost inexplicably sitting below 8%, they're also yielding somewhere between a few and no scoring chances against. Defense matters. Canada has the best defense in the world. It's not particularly close. So, you can get away with shooting < 8% against a lot of teams on the mere fact that you're going to concede next to nothing.
I think if this Canada team played another hundred games, they'd shoot double-digits. Easily. The States are pulling around 15%, and while that's probably a touch high, I'd like to believe that's around the area Canada could consistently touch against a fair balance of the international haves and have-nots.
So, where is my concern that this team has, at least to date, underperformed? I think you can objectively argue that they're not getting the right side of the puck luck and still express a bit of concern that they went through a trio of Finland, Norway, and Latvia and emerged 7-3 on aggregate. Tyler Dellow wrote at length about this, and it's well worth the read. Largely, it's mathematically possible that Canada's just shooting woefully below their norm over a small four-game stretch. But, this isn't an NHL team shooting two points below the league mean against comparable NHL competition. This is thirteen forwards and seven defensemen, many considered the best in the world, failing to find the back of the net against miserable competition.
And, I think that's the exclamation point you're looking for if you're a United States fan looking for some hope. The format of these Olympics can leave any team staring down a brutal road, and conversely, can walk a team into the semifinals. To date, I estimate Canada's played all of sixteen NHL'ers through the first four games. That's insanely low.
Canada's going to have to earn their medal, whatever it may be. All four teams left are legitimately good, and though the Canadians are the odds-on favorites to bring home gold, there's no guarantee. I think that's rather obvious, though.
(3) The biggest disparity between Canada and the States, and this is a point I touched on earlier, is defensively. If you're concerned about the States, I think your worry is with the defense. First off, their talent is woefully sagging behind their forward corps. Second, Dan Bylsma continues to inexplicably deploy Brooks Orpik for regular shifts, and he's just looked god awful on the back-end for most of the tournament.
Canada's in a position where they're regularly scratching defending Norris Trophy winner P.K. Subban, who would probably be the USA's best defender if he defected, playing on pairing one with Ryan Suter. I think one can be curious about how Subban's being scratched behind the likes of Jay Bouwmeester (i.e., I'd consider playing Subban or someone else away from their natural side), but nevertheless, I don't think the two sides are comparatively close on the back-end.
(I also note here that I think Ryan Miller should be the starting goaltender for this team, but I digress.)
(4) Here's a fun numbers thing. The United States, entering the gold medal game in 2010, was a +145 underdog (risk $100 to win $145) against Canada. Pretty fair price, in my opinion. You'll recall that the gold medal game was a rematch of an earlier tilt, one in which the States emerged victorious. So, if there was any reason for the sportsbook odds to skew in the direction of the States, there's a good one.
Looking at the odds for tomorrow, the United States and Canada are virtually at pick 'em -- the Olympic events are heavily juiced, but depending on what sportsbook you're looking at, you can get the United States anywhere between -110 and -120. Now, you have to risk $110 or $120 to win $100.
Shooting percentages are playing a big role in the odds here; I think the bookmakers are sort of falling in love with a United States team that finishes one of every six shots, which even for a super-talented team like the Americans have, seems a bit high. And, when you have a Canadian team towing brutally low percentages -- well, you have a game designed as pick 'em.
Is that a fair price? If I was a betting man, I think Canada's easily the play here.
But, I think there's also something to be said about the ground the United States has made up on Canada in these last four years, too. No longer are the United States a scrappy lot of second-tier players who are staring uphill at a vastly superior hockey club to the north. Phil Kessel is one of the best players in the world -- I think that debate has been officially put to bed. And, we were already talking about Patrick Kane in the same breath a year or two ago.
While the defenses might be miles or kilometers apart, I think the forwards are more comparable. Don't get me wrong, they still favor Canada quite a bit -- especially down the middle, where the disparity is great. But, on the wing, it's beginning to get tough to discern who has the better options. It's clear the United States went for speed on the outside, and so far, it's terrorized a few teams. We'll see if it gives Canada any problems.
(5) Interesting match-up note here that I think is worth finishing on, mostly because I haven't seen anyone bring it up prior to right now. The United States, by virtue of Canada's overtime winner against Finland and poorer goal-differential, finished one spot higher than Canada in group-play. Consequently, the United States has last change.
Coming into the tournament, I thought we'd see scoring spread out in the forward ranks amongst the Americans. That hasn't really been the case. A couple of lines have really underperformed (players like Zach Parise and Patrick Kane, in particular, have been missing in action for most of the tournament), but the United States first line of Phil Kessel, Joe Pavelski, and James van Riemsdyk has been far and away the best trio in the tournament. It hasn't been close, either.
With how great they've been (and how, perhaps, mediocre the other lines have been), Canada would probably have liked to get out the Bergeron line against them. The only problem is, the United States will earn deployment rights on every face-off.
That won't stop Canada from trying to get the group of guys they want out against Kessel's line, but it does make things a bit trickier for Mike Babcock. One could comfortably argue that all four Canadian lines are good enough to slow down Kessel, et al., and I wouldn't dispute it much. Still, best practice matters, and there are certain guys you would prefer to have out there, and maybe other guys you wouldn't.
I also note that Dan Bylsma -- who evidently adores the Dustin Brown, David Backes, and Ryan Callahan trio -- can deploy his checking line against Canada's best. I'm guessing they get a healthy serving of Sidney Crosby's group.
Fun twenty-four hours ahead. Enjoy the games.
Thanks for reading!