Ottawa went to the first intermission with a 2-1 lead. On the heels of their dramatic win in Game 3, there was every reason to see the Sens as having the momentum. But Pittsburgh answered with a two-goal period that gave them control of the game even before the third-period fireworks.

We have to praise Penguins ‘goalie Tomas Vokoun. It wasn’t as though Ottawa didn’t get chances to score in the second period. They hit Vokoun with 11 shots and he turned them all back. It was the latest example of why Pittsburgh should not mess with a good thing and avoid any temptation to get Marc-Andre Fleury on the ice.

But ultimately Pittsburgh wins because of the sheer depth of their offense. The two goals in the second period came without any contribution—scoring or passing—from Sidney Crosby. There was no involvement from last year’s Hart Trophy recipient Evgeni Malkin. Pascal Dupuis, who lit it up in the team’s first-round win over the New York Islanders, was only in for an assist.

By contrast, look at the contributions of defenseman Kris Letang, not just last night, but for this entire postseason. Letang assisted on both goals, giving him 11 for the playoffs. Letang’s 13 points for the postseason are just one behind Crosby.

Pittsburgh is already loaded, from Crosby to Malkin to Dupuis to Jarome Iginla, who scored one of the two key second period goals. The offensive contributions they get from Letang are just one more jewel in a treasure chest of offensive weapons, and that shone through last night in Ottawa.

Vancouver played tremendous offensive hockey through most of Vigneault’s tenure, led by the skilled skating and passing of the Sedin brothers, Henrik and Daniel. But the goaltending, while never an obvious sore spot, was just inconsistent enough to get this team bounced from the playoffs year after year.

Vigneault kept sticking with Luongo throughout the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals and the first round of the 2012 playoffs, even though both series made it plainly apparent that backup Cory Schneider was a better choice. In spite of that, Vigneault went to the well one more time with Luongo this spring and paid for it with his job.

This past season, it seemed like the Canucks had finally made the break with the highly paid and highly regarded and highly overrated Luongo. Schneider started 30 of the 48 regular season games and with a 92.7% save rate, he was fourth-best in the NHL. Luongo ranked 31st, in spite of just 18 starts, which should have made it easier for him to compile a high save percentage.

The way, for example, that Schneider had done the previous year. In 2012, the backup got 28 starts, and his 93.7% save rate ranked him 2nd among NHL goalies with enough starts to qualify. Where was Luongo in 2012? Not bad, but at 91.9% he was 12th in the league—decent, but not championship-level.

In a first-round series last year against the Los Angeles Kings, Luongo’s flaws were apparent, as the Canucks lost the first three games. Schneider was inserted and promptly played a brilliant game to keep the Canucks alive in Game 4. He was very good again in Game 5, but this time came up a bit short against Jonathan Quick. Had Schneider been able to start that entire series and let the close games balance out, Vancouver—with much more offensive talent than Los Angeles—might well have won. And even though it was just the first round, since the Kings went on to win the Cup, it’s well possible that Vancouver might have done the same with Schneider in net.

Losing a Stanley Cup because Schneider was on the bench was nothing new for Vancouver. Luongo had been wildly inconsistent in the 2011 Finals against Boston. In Games 1, 2 & 5 at home he was outstanding. Then in Games 3,4 & 6 on the road he was a train wreck. The message that he was vulnerable to pressure should have been obvious, but Vigneault went back to Luongo for Game 7, and as a partisan Boston fan, I’d like to thank the Vancouver coaching staff for that decision.

Finally, it seemed, the organization had made the clean break and committed to Schneider. Then in the first round against San Jose, Luongo suddenly appeared in the net. The reports were that Schneider was injured, but the organization refused to say what it was. A partisan Vancouver fan I speak to regularly told me he believed it was a very minor injury that a head coach, in love with Luongo, was using as a pretext to get his favorite goalie in the lineup. Luongo was a disaster in two starts, and Schneider couldn’t get the series turned back around.

Vigneault is a good coach and should get another opportunity. Vancouver wasn’t an organization with a rich winning history, nor were they at high tide when Vigneault took over after the 2007 season. But he fell in love with a goalie who was bad for him, refused to change course, and that constitutes reason enough to let him go and for both sides to rebuild.

San Jose’s 2-1 win was about defense, and not just the goaltenders. It was just tough for anyone on either side to get a clean look and neither team even made the minimal 25 threshold for shots on goal. But San Jose’s four best offensive players—Patrick Marleau, Logan Couture, Joe Thornton and Joe Pavelski—combined for more than half of those shots. The Sharks got the most out of their minimal opportunities and they won the game.

This fits a pattern of success for San Jose in this postseason, where they have won six of eight games. While teams like Washington have stars like Alex Ovechkin do disappearing acts (just one shot in a Game 7!), the Sharks get the puck to their Core Four. The quartet of players listed above have taken 40.7% of the team’s shots throughout the playoffs, with last night being high point in terms of percentage, if not raw volume.

There were two notable exceptions to this general pattern for San Jose. In the first two games of their current series against Los Angeles, the Sharks got 66 shots, but only 18 were by the key players. They instead had to try and beat Jonathan Quick with shots coming off the sticks of Matt Irwin, Scott Gomez and Brent Burns. Does it come as a huge shock to you that those are the two games San Jose lost? If you eliminate those two games from the equation, San Jose’s core four has taken 45 percent of the total shots in both playoff rounds.

San Jose got a good volume shots in Games 1 & 2 against Los Angeles and lost. They got a low volume in Game 4 and won. Looking at the distribution of those shots, rather than the raw total isn’t the sole explanation, but it’s a good place to start.

Rask supplanted 2011 Conn Smythe Award winner Tim Thomas in goalie, after the veteran netminder retired. But Rask’s potential was not new to Boston fans. When Thomas was hurt in 2010, Rask took over and posted a 93.1% save rate in 39 starts—the best save percentage in the league among goalies with enough games to qualify. 2010 ended in a bad way, as Boston blew a three games to none lead to the Philadelphia Flyers, and 3-0 lead in Game 7 itself. But to watch those games, especially the finale, was to know that the Bruins were being outplayed in open ice and Rask was not blamed for the catastrophic collapse.

The ensuing two years saw Thomas get healthy and lead the team to a Stanley Cup. But before the Cup victory made Thomas untouchable, I recall a conversation with a fan as we sat in Boston Garden’s Suite 604 during the Montreal-Boston playoff series that began the 2011 Cup run. Both of us were ready to go to Rask. It wasn’t anti-Thomas sentiment by any means, just a reflection of the fact that we felt Rask was the future. Thomas’ subsequent heroics showed we were both jumping the gun, but it shows the regard the backup was held by Boston fans.

Rask spent this year’s shortened regular season backing up our confidence, ranking sixth among NHL goalies in save percentage. His play in the Toronto series was shaky at times though, and I’ll admit to having some doubts. When it looked like Boston was finished in Game 7 of that series, I did think that whether you blamed or not for 2010, it was indisputable that the Bruins would have lost seven consecutive playoff games where they had a chance to clinch a series with Rask in net. The epic comeback the Bruins launched at least got that monkey off Rask’s back.

Now there’s no doubt who’s carrying this team. Rask has saved 91 of 96 shots against New York. The fact the Rangers are rarely whistled for a penalty means that the goalie rarely gets a respite where he knows the puck will be on the other end for a couple minutes. His saves have ranged from the sublime to the spectacular. Now Rask-led Boston is again up three games to none in a second-round series. It’s time for the 26-year-old Finnish goalie to spin one more masterpiece and put his team in the conference finals.

The smart-aleck cynic in me wants to say that unless Roy plans to play himself in net, this isn’t going to work, but the better side of my nature does look at the problems this Colorado team currently has and thinks a defensive-minded approach could turn them around.

Colorado didn’t do much well this past season, and goalie Jean-Sebastian Giguere was awful, ranking 29th among NHL goalies in save percentage. However, during the 2012 season, Giguere was in the upper half of the league at stopping shots. With this past season being an anomaly, with the late start and the shortened schedule, the goalie deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Where some coaching can help is a change in approach that will reduce the exposure that Giguere faces on a nightly basis. Colorado was one of the worst in the league at stopping shots. On the flip side, they are an offense that does a reasonably decent job at getting opportunities, but a very poor one at cashing them in. They might be better served by a strategy that’s very conservative and works for an overall reduction of shots.

The other thing Colorado can do well is get back to executing on special teams. After a 2012 season where they did a good job on both the penalty kill and with the man advantage, the lockout-shortened 2013 season saw them fall into the NHL’s bottom third in both categories. Here again, I have to believe coaching and a normal season cycle can get them back on track.

For the long haul, Colorado needs some more offensive talent. Matt Duchene and P.A. Parenteau are solid threats, but there’s a big dropoff after those two. In the short-term that suggests an approach that focuses on defense, and in the long term, a focus on getting some players who can light the lamp. Maybe it’s a stereotype to assume that a former goalie like Roy would emphasize defense first, but it seems a reasonable guess.

I hope the rumors pan out and the former champion and Conn Smythe Award winner comes back home as the head coach. Colorado’s missed the playoffs three straight years, and five of the last seven. At the very least, they need someone who can at least remind the fan base of better days, and then get to work on bringing them back.

Goaltending was Chicago’s bugaboo a year ago, and why I was not surprised when they lost to a vastly inferior Phoenix team in the first round of the playoffs. At this time of year in any sport, the ability to prevent scoring takes on heightened importance over flash and dash, and the Blackhawks of 2012 seemed like an obviously vulnerable team. Crawford had saved just 90.3% of the shots he faced in that regular season, a stat that ranked him 36th among NHL goalies.

This year looked to be different. Crawford had a sterling regular season, with a 92.6% save rate, placing him sixth in the league. With an improved goalie and “regular” talent that could be matched only by Pittsburgh, the Blackhawks deserved their status as a heavy favorite to at least reach the Cup Finals.

But in any sport there’s always a difference between getting it done in the regular season and doing it when all eyes are watching and the intensity dials up in the playoffs. Crawford played well in the first round, but I think even the most sympathetic observer would probably allow the Minnesota Wild, with Jason Pominville banged up, were not the best test.

Now over the last two games of the Detroit series, Crawford has faced sixty shots—thirty apiece in each game—and the Red Wings have produced seven goals. Keep in mind this is a Detroit team that had difficulty scoring during the regular season, and again in their first-round win over Anaheim.

By contrast, Detroit goalie Jimmy Howard has been locked in. Howard had an up-and-down regular season and finished on a good note to get to 10th in save percentage. He was up-and-down again in the Anaheim series but finished on a good note. Now he’s just staying up. Over Games 2 & 3 against Chicago, he’s faced the same sixty shots as Crawford—from vastly better offensive players—and turned back 58.

So is this a case of Crawford showing his true colors at crunch time, or is it just a rough couple games, which will get turned around with a big Game 4 performance? The Stanley Cup hopes of the nation’s third-largest city—ride on the answer.

THE FAVORITES
Pittsburgh: 2-1,
Chicago: 5-2

THE DEFENDING CHAMP
Los Angeles: 9-2

THE DARK HORSES
Boston: 8-1,
NY Rangers: 9-1,
San Jose: 10-1

THE LONGSHOTS
Detroit: 15-1,
Ottawa: 25-1

My first thought on looking at these odds is to wonder why Pittsburgh is favored over Chicago. You could argue, that since these odds adjust on the fly, the betting markets might be reacting to the fact the Penguins have a 2-1 series lead, while the Blackhawks are even, and that the minor edge Pittsburgh has is reflective of that. I might buy that if not for the fact that this has been the landscape more or less throughout the playoffs. I like Chicago’s goaltending situation much more than Pittsburgh’s and the Blackhawks are the one team who can match the Pens for offensive talent.

I understand why Los Angeles is getting heavy respect, with their status as defending champs. But do you really think it’s almost twice as likely they’ll win the Cup as will Boston? The defending champs thing only goes so far, particularly given the Bruins just won it in 2011. I suspect this disparity is driven by the fact Boston’s goalie, Tuuka Raask, is still an unproven commodity in the playoffs. And if the smart money likes Pittsburgh more than Chicago, it also follows that they feel Los Angeles’ path might be marginally smoother than Boston’s.

But no league sees longshots win it all like the NHL does, and that’s why I believe you’ve got to give a serious look at Detroit and Ottawa. Look, I don’t think the Red Wings will build off their Game 2 upset of Chicago and win this series. But if they do, would you bet against them the rest of the way? If there’s even an inkling that you like Detroit grab them now. With Ottawa I could see waiting to see if they can win Game 4 at home. The Senators aren’t respected enough to see that result in any kind of significant change in the odds, and you can at least get a handle on whether they have a chance to shock Pittsburgh.

No player—rookie or otherwise—has impacted the first two games of this series as much as Krug. He was an undrafted free agent who played college hockey at Michigan State, and later with the Indiana Ice. All he’s done for Boston is score the tying goal of Game 1, setting the team up to win in overtime. Then Krug rolled it right over to Game 2 in scoring the game’s first goal.

Hamilton has been a key complementary part of this team all year, electrifying New England with some good games in January when the regular season began after the lockout. He’s had an assist in each game of the current series. The ninth overall pick in the 2011 draft, this 19-year-old from Ontario has a bright future ahead of him.

The least heralded of the trio is Matt Bartkowski, but he’s also the one who waited the longest to get here. Bartkowski was drafted by the Florida Panthers out of high school in 2008, but took the long route to the NHL. He played a couple years at Ohio State, and Boston acquired his rights from Florida in 2010.

Bartkowski has played two full seasons with the Providence Bruins, and has been on the parent club’s roster at least long enough to participate in the 2011 Stanley Cup celebration. But he’s still officially a rookie and now becoming a key part of what the region hopes will be a Cup run. For Bartkowski, a native of suburban Pittsburgh, he’d surely love a chance to meet up with his old hometown team in the conference finals. Though I suppose whether he’d love defending Sidney Crosby, Jarome Iginla or Pascal Dupuis would be another question.

We do know Boston fans love having this trio on their side. It’s a case of some good fortune bringing about the contributions of Krug, Hamilton and Bartkowski. Boston has two veteran defensemen—Andrew Ference and Dennis Seidenberg banged up—and Wade Redden is also injured. The Bruins rely on their depth to wear teams down, so every man counts. The team’s trio of rookies has counted more than anyone thought possible when the postseason began.

The Rangers’ head coach minced no words about why forward Carl Hagelin is not on the power play, saying “he stinks”, and then jamming the point home several times over. I’m not here to defend Hagelin’s play on special teams, but two things are apparent—that New York’s power play problems run much deeper than that, and Tortorella himself should have better things to do besides throw his players under the bus with the media.

Let’s begin by pointing out that New York’s power play was 23rd in the NHL during the regular season, and it’s the second-worst of all playoff teams during the postseason (only Minnesota was more inept with the man advantage). Pinning that all on Hagelin is more than a stretch.

A defender of Tortorella might say that he wasn’t blaming everything—or even most of the problems—on Hagelin, just answering a question of why the forward wasn’t seen as part of the solution. In theory, I’m okay with that. My objection isn’t regarding the sitting of Hagelin in these spots, it isn’t regarding Tortorella’s opinion of Hagelin’s play, nor would it even apply if Tortorella had done what most coaches do and just gripe at the player in these very words behind closed doors.

But when you make a statement as publicly as the Ranger boss did, the actual content of your words is going to be obscured by the media effect, and that will result in Hagelin getting a greater share of the blame than he really deserves. Furthermore, anyone who coaches in New York City should know exactly that, and I believe Tortorella did.

What makes it worse is that New York looked like a poorly coached team in Game 2. They had five power play chances against Boston and not once did it look like they had the foggiest clue about what they were doing. The team’s only goals came on superb one-on-one moves, once by Ryan Callahan and once by Rick Nash. Never did New York run an offense where it looked like they knew what they were trying to achieve, be it effective screening of the goaltender, playing for the rebound, etc.

Tortorella seems to be building a media narrative that suggests if his team wins, it’s all about the coaching, and if they lose it’s all about the players. From what I see, and the statistical data I look at, it seems to me to be the other way around.