San Jose Sharks-Chicago Blackhawks: Second City No Second Fiddle

It has not been a good series for the San Jose Sharks.

In both games, the supposedly more physical team was bullied in their supposedly inhospitable home—voted the toughest building to play in on the road, where they were 5-1 through two rounds of the playoffs—by rude guests,  who scored twice as often as their hosts.

Perhaps the most difficult thing is this year's team is not lacking in effort, failing to do the little things, and playing apprehensively or nervously as teams past have.

They are just being beaten by a better team, and this is apparent from the stats behind the scoreboard:

San Jose might have won more faceoffs (67-50) but have not taken care of the puck once they have it.

Chicago has just 15 giveaways to 17 takeaways; meanwhile, the Sharks have had 20 giveaways in each game and just 22 takeaways total, giving the Blackhawks a plus-20 edge in puck management.

True, when one factors in the faceoff advantage of the Sharks, it results in only three more possessions over two series for Chicago.

But giveaways often happen in the neutral or defensive zone, and rarely is a defence set as it is on a faceoff—i.e. the extra possessions for the Hawks tend to be more dangerous than those for the Sharks.

The series has not been all bad thus far for San Jose.

They have had two more power plays, taken five more shots in each game, and been competitive in the other categories that usually favour the team with fewer shots: 65-64 in hits, 41-42 in blocked shots, and 26-25 in missed shots (25-26).

But there are elements to a game that do not appear on the statsheet, and a chief problem in this series is traffic in front of the net. Chicago has just been better about screening Evgeni Nabokov and their blueline has been better about getting pucks through their teammates.

This seems to be a skill the Sharks consistently do not have enough of come playoff time.

This was why I said the Sharks were not the best team in the West and needed to upgrade at the deadline.

My proposal had one forward (Torrey Mitchell) off the team who thus far has two points and is a minus-four, and a defenceman (Kent Huskins) who has no points and is a minus-four—i.e. neither is performing well on either end of the ice.

In their stead, the team would have Marek Zidlicky, a puck-moving defenceman who is one of the best at getting pucks through, averaging more shots per game for his career than anyone but Rob Blake and Dan Boyle are getting so far in the playoffs.

He also averages over a point per two games and has three times scored over 10 goals in a season.

In other words, San Jose would have a blueline that would compete with Chicago's in generating pressure in exchange for two players who have had no impact on the series thus far.

And yes, I know impact can come outside of points and plus-minus can be misleading, but you can see the performance of both players in the first two series in my report cards for forwards and defence for each to see they are not getting it done.

Does this mean it is over? Not exactly. There are still reasons to believe the Sharks can win this series.

But while "The Reaper" is not yet at the door, he has already crossed the River Styx to get there.

With the situation this desperate, there are several changes I will suggest in my next article that the team try to change their fortunes, because the status quo is obviously not working.