The Rangers played their third of four straight home games Tuesday, losing 2-1 to the Lightning, who improved to 5-1-1 this season in the second of back-to-back games. The main differences in the game were: a questionable penalty call leading to a goal, a blown defensive assignment resulting in two goals in nine seconds and a brick wall between the pipes for Tampa. The Rangers didn't play a bad game, though I also don’t think they were as good as they had been in other contests in the current hot streak. But, that said, if not for the stellar netminding by Ben Bishop - who as you, I felt should have been Team USA's third goalie - the Blueshirts likely would have gotten a victory. Game Lowlights:
The penalty on Ryan Callahan we know now was a blown call. After play had stopped, Eric Brewer, who admitted to Callahan that he did it, lifted Callahan’s stick into the mask of Bishop, who went down like he was shot and maybe should have gotten time for embellishing, but the official didn't see the lifting of the stick, only the end result. This is another instance where you could say video would be beneficial, but then, where would you draw the line? That call definitely turned the game around, because if no goal there, then no center ice faceoff and no blow assignment etc. I said Tuesday how much of a difference the power play and penalty killing has made in the 7-2-1 stretch, well on the flip side, last night, NY went 0-for-2 on the man advantage against a Tampa squad that had allowed a PPG in five straight ending their streak of five games with a PPG and allowed that power play goal to Hedman. Give credit to Martin St. Louis for creating space, widening the PK box, opening a shot for Victor Hedman that ticked off Brian Boyle and into the net.
The second goal was the killer, not just because it game Tampa a lead they didn’t relinquish but the reason for the goal occurring. Off the faceoff that Derick Brassard lost to Tom Pyatt, prior to which the Rangers were 10-2 on draws, Benoit Pouliot got caught too far up ice opening the middle of the ice (mistake #1). Then the bigger mistakes were that Michael Del Zotto and John Moore each went to the outside of the dots towards the boards, enabling Nikita Kucherov, after he deked towards the boards, to have a wide-open lane down the center of the ice and beat Henrik Lundqvist through the pads after a nice deke (boy has Hank struggled on breakaways and shootouts lately).
The damning parts are that the Rangers worked on this in practice because it is a set play Tampa runs and the Lightning had just tried it unsuccessfully earlier. Coach Alain Vigneault described the breakdown:“The second goal is a little bit disappointing, not to say frustrating, because it’s something we talked about this morning. It’s shown on video. They had done that exact same play a couple of seconds before, three shifts before, a matter of fact. So we went through it this morning, it just happened a couple of minutes before then for them to get the breakaway off of that was certainly very disappointing. We had enough chances to come back and at the end of the day you’ve got to find ways to score more goals. Those are two mistakes: One is the forward going out to their D and giving them that time and our D not picking up their forward. Two simple reads.… The bigger mistake was made by Del Zotto. Moore could have been more inside to offer assistance, but Del Zotto going wide and allowing Kucherov to get inside position should never have happened. It's easy to say that cost them the game because it was the GWG, but there was slightly less than 39 minutes left, which should have been enough time to catch up. Daniel Carcillo hit a crossbar, Ryan McDonagh a post, the power play had a ton of chances with good movement but couldn't convert. The Rangers outshot the Lightning, 34-25, including an 11-6 advantage in the third period, so they did generate chances but Bishop was just that good. We can argue that the chance quality wasn't anything special but Bishop was a brick wall between the pipes, and given how much room he occupies in the net, it's hard not to think you have to be perfect and start shooting that way.
Great conversation on the blog today as to Stepan, but more precisely, what constitutes a #1 center? Thanks to all who weighed in, including Glen, jackburton73, mdw7413, rangerdanger94, and I think we all have somewhat similar views, but here is mine again and have included some of the more interesting conversation below.
"Stepan hasn't played well, that's clear, but given how well Richards has played, you can view him as the 1 and Stepan as the #2 center. If you want, with Brassard and that line playing well, consider Stepan the #3 playing with two 1 or 1a wingers. So while I agree he hasn't played well or met his current salary, I am not ready to try and upgrade there, possibly surrendering him, or shift trios that are working. That happened last year with Gaborik and look at the end result." Stepan has struggled offensively, whether it's because his SHT% has regressed (see below, though that can go both ways, positive and negatively and may depend on shot quality), his lack of hands, speed, size and skill, the early-season holdout, Nash's difficulties until recently - choose one from each column if you will - it has not been a good year. It's also possible that we extrapolated too much and said, well look at what he did as a rookie, scoring 45 points, then as a sophomore with 51 and last year with 44 in 48 games and just carry that close to PPG performance into this year and we are set. As we have seen, it's not that easy. I will admit, as written below by the criteria that many believe is required for a #1 center, Stepan doesn't pass the smell test. But to me, that's fine, if as pointed out by me above and by others below (see bolded), the talent around him, either on his line or the other pivotman help pick up that slack, freeing Stepan to contribute across the board and do what he does best. Of course, he also must provide offense and step up (sorry) in key situations, which really has been the bigger issue, since we could live with a decline in output as long as that output came at critical moments. I can understand the concept of benching him, as was done with Zucc, but to call up Miller and give him a game or two then likely send him back down could create more problems than they solve. If the team hits another slump and Stepan isn't pulling his weight, maybe, but if the team wins, despite his struggles, then you probably won't make a move like that."
Glen wrote: "Since we have this interesting discussion on #1 Centers, let me ask what constitutes a #1 Center to you? Is it scoring 70+ points? If that is the case then just 17 pivots currently are scoring at the pace to reach that benchmark with 80 games played (0.88 Pts/Game). Does that mean 13 teams (or more) lack a #1 Center?
Is it reasonable to conclude since only 17 centers will reach that arbitrary figure and because there are 30 teams in the league, in order to be considered a #1 center you should have a scoring rate among the top 30 pivots in the league? In that event we are down to 0.77 pts/Game, or an 80 game total of about 62, which ironically isn't much higher than Brad Richards territory (0.73).
When I say #1 center I mean a guy who can contribute offensively but also be used in any situation and has the ability to excel. I don't know that I would put Step in that category but I will say this: Stepan does play in all situations (PP, PK, ES) and has excelled. He may not be doing it now but he has in the past.
Two guys I consider #1's, though not necessarily elite #1's, are Patrice Bergeron and David Backes. Backes' career high in points is 62 while Bergeron has twice reached the 70-point plateau, though not since 2006 - 2007. But they contribute offensively and play effectively in all situations. On a team with a Sidney Crosby or Ryan Getzlaf, etc., those guys are #2's but on their current teams they are #1's and both St. Louis and Boston are damn good teams.
Two things I am getting at: One, there aren't enough actual #1 centers to go around to all 30 NHL teams. And two, you can succeed without a truly elite #1 as long as you have quality depth down the middle as Boston and St. Louis do. Despite his overall struggles in the faceoff circle, he has actually won 54.9% (84 of 153) of his PP faceoffs. That means the Rangers often get to start their man-advantage with puck possession because Step is winning those draws.
According to Relative Corsi, Step faces the toughest competition of any Rangers center. Something else in Step's defense: He's second on the team in shots with 120 and actually ranks 21st among centers in the NHL in that category. In fact, if Stepan was simply converting his shots into goals at his career rate prior to this season of 12.6% he would have 15 goals right now instead of seven. He's getting his shots, they just aren't going in like they have during the first three seasons of his NHL career"
Rangerdanger94: "I don't think you can just look at numbers to say whether a center is a bonafide #1 or not. you can just tell from watching them play. it's a combination of skill, skating, speed, strength, vision, passing ability, shooting ability...#1 centers take over a game and dictate the play every time they're on the ice. the offense runs through them and they're dangerous not just sometimes but literally 99% of the time they're on the ice...
He has 4 assists in his last 10 games, just 1 in his last 5. and that's playing with nash when nash has seemingly woken up and has scored like 5 or 6 goals in the past 8 or 9 games. and of his 4 points (the 4 assists, he has 0 goals), i'm not sure how many, if any, are primary assists. he has these 4 points in 10 games in a span where the rangers are playing their best hockey and scoring more goals than they have in a long time, and playing on one of the best PPs in the league. he's just not cutting it right now offensively at all, and that's his role."
The debate will rage for as long as Stepan continues to struggle and likely well beyond. The term #1 center is subjective, and while Stepan may not fit the definition of one, he has to be a lot better that what he's produced to date.