Bad penalties sink Sharks in 3-0 loss

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 7:27 PM PST in Sharks Game Recaps

It's rather fitting that the Sharks' final opportunity to mount any sort of offensive pressure in an attempt to tie tonight's game against the St. Louis Blues late in the third period was squashed by an ill-advised tripping penalty. While the Sharks have every right to be angry about a soft call on Brad Winchester that gave the Blues their third 5-on-3 advantage of the night in the second period, lazy and undisciplined penalties by Dan Boyle and Brent Burns coupled with a mental error by Andrew Desjardins gave the Blues three overlapping power plays in the first period that they predictably were able to squeeze a goal out of. And when you gift the best defensive team in the NHL a 1-0 lead, the odds are stacked against you.

Perhaps even more important than the barrage of Sharks penalties early in the game was the fact that San Jose's own power play was unable to perform at anywhere near the level of the Blues' when the calls began to even up in the game's latter half. In eight minutes of power play time, the Sharks generated one measly scoring chance while surrendering two shorthanded chances to the Blues. Meanwhile, St. Louis created six chances in just under seven minutes of time with the man-advantage. Although the Blues' totals are inflated by the multiple 5-on-3s, getting outchanced on your own power play in a game that featured a heavy dose of special teams play is no way to win.

We've spilled a fair amount of virtual ink about the Sharks' puck possession struggles against the Western Conference's elite, a group that might be led by the Blues; they've been the best possession team in the league with the score tied and rank second behind the Wings with the score close. And that's what makes the result of this game all the more frustrating as the Sharks were far from steamrolled by the Blues at even strength, earning a greater share of possession and tying St. Louis with 8 EV scoring chances (Full scoring chance summary after the jump). Although the Sharks did go 22 minutes without recording a chance (largely due to spending time killing penalties) and a chunk of their opportunities came late in the second period with the Blues already up 2-0, there's a good chance San Jose could have earned their first win against the Blues of the season had they either played more disciplined hockey or generated anything at all on their own opportunities to skate with the extra man. They did neither and as a result are now 0-3 against a Blues team that they're liable to butt heads with in the postseason if Stanley Cup aspirations are on their minds.

Period	Totals		EV		PP		5v3 PP		SH		5v3 SH
1	2	5	2	2	0	0	0	0	0	3	0	0
2	5	7	4	5	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
3	3	6	2	1	1	2	0	0	0	3	0	0
4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Totals	10	18	8	8	1	2	0	0	1	6	0	2

Team	Period	Time	Note	SJS						Opponent
SJS	1	16:38	Couture	22	29	31	39	44	78	10	28	41	42	46	74	5v5
SJS	1	16:29	Clowe	22	29	31	39	44	78	10	28	41	42	46	74	5v5
STL	1	13:10	Oshie	17	22	26	31	44	64	27	28	41	42	57	74	5v5
STL	1	7:34	Stewart PP	5	31	39	44	69		10	15	21	25	28	41	4v5
STL	1	6:41	Perron PP	3	19	26	31	88		21	22	27	42	57	74	4v5
STL	1	3:37	Backes PP	3	19	31	39	88		15	27	41	42	57	74	4v5
STL	1	3:27	Perron	3	19	31	39	69	88	15	27	41	42	57	74	5v5
STL	2	19:37	Stewart	3	29	31	39	78	88	5	10	21	22	25	41	5v5
STL	2	17:57	Langenbrunner	8	12	19	31	44	61	15	17	27	28	32	41	5v5
STL	2	15:22	McDonald	2	22	29	31	69	88	10	21	22	25	41	46	5v5
STL	2	15:06	Stewart	2	22	29	31	69	88	10	21	22	25	41	46	5v5
STL	2	12:04	Crombeen	22	29	31	39	78	88	4	21	26	41	46	75	5v5
SJS	2	6:37	Vlasic	17	22	26	29	31	44	5	15	22	32	41	42	5v5
STL	2	3:17	McDonald PP	3	8	31	88			10	27	41	42	57	74	3v5
STL	2	2:46	Backes PP	3	8	31	88			10	27	41	42	57	74	3v5
SJS	2	2:27	Couture SH	22	31	39	44	69		15	21	22	25	28	41	4v5
SJS	2	1:02	Marleau	12	19	22	29	31	88	5	41	42	46	57	74	5v5
SJS	2	0:58	Vandermeer	2	3	8	31	44	78	15	26	27	28	32	41	5v5
SJS	2	0:31	Pavelski	2	3	8	31	44	78	15	26	27	28	32	41	5v5
STL	3	18:11	Sobotka	5	17	26	31	61	64	4	15	17	32	41	46	5v5
SJS	3	11:45	Boyle	3	8	12	19	22	31	27	28	41	42	57	74	5v5
STL	3	9:49	Sobotka SH	8	12	19	22	31	39	17	21	22	41	46		5v4
STL	3	9:28	Perron SH	8	12	19	22	31	39	5	12	27	41	57		5v4
SJS	3	8:11	Mitchell	3	5	17	31	69	78	4	10	17	25	41	46	5v5
SJS	3	7:33	Pavelski PP	8	12	19	31	39	61	5	15	21	27	41		5v4
STL	3	2:11	Backes PP	3	17	26	31	88		22	27	41	42	57	74	4v5
STL	3	2:10	Backes PP	3	17	26	31	88		22	27	41	42	57	74	4v5
STL	3	0:53	Berglund PP	5	8	12	22	31		4	21	25	27	41	74	4v5

#	Player	EV			PP			SH
2	J. VANDERMEER	5:07	2	2	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
3	D. MURRAY	14:38	4	2	0:00	0	0	3:48	0	4
5	C. WHITE	9:24	1	1	0:00	0	0	2:22	0	2
8	J. PAVELSKI	13:36	3	1	3:40	1	2	1:46	0	1
10	B. WINCHESTER	7:59	0	0	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
12	P. MARLEAU	13:59	2	1	4:38	1	2	2:28	0	1
17	T. MITCHELL	9:16	2	2	0:00	0	0	1:03	0	2
19	J. THORNTON	14:00	2	2	4:48	1	2	2:35	0	2
22	D. BOYLE	17:00	5	4	5:39	0	2	2:00	1	1
26	M. HANDZUS	9:38	1	2	3:12	0	0	2:02	0	3
29	R. CLOWE	14:52	4	4	3:43	0	0	0:00	0	0
31	A. NIEMI	42:49	8	8	8:00	1	2	6:40	1	6
39	L. COUTURE	11:50	2	3	4:17	1	2	2:14	1	2
44	M. VLASIC	18:17	5	2	0:00	0	0	1:38	1	1
61	J. BRAUN	11:59	0	2	3:16	1	0	0:29	0	0
64	J. MCGINN	10:33	0	2	3:22	0	0	0:00	0	0
69	A. DESJARDINS	7:39	1	3	0:00	0	0	1:15	1	1
78	B. FERRIERO	10:21	5	2	0:00	0	0	0:00	0	0
88	B. BURNS	15:03	1	5	3:25	0	0	3:20	0	4

Head-to-head scoring chances:

As he usually does, Ken Hitchcock went power versus power in matching the David Backes line against Joe Thornton's. The Sharks trio came out slightly ahead while the Marc-Edouard Vlasic and Dan Boyle pairing had a solid night playing against a mix of the Blues' top two lines.

Patrick Berglund had a terrific night for St. Louis, on the ice for 4 Blues EV chances and no EV chances against while facing the Logan Couture line, the highest scoring chance +/- on either team. He and Langenbrunner were also the only Blues forwards to register positive Corsi ratings. Berglund has had a solid year in terms of moving the play forward while facing the second-toughs but has been bitten hard by the percentages. When those turn, he's going to be a guy to look out for in the playoffs.

More stats from the game: Corsi/Fenwick, Shift Charts, H2H Ice Time, Zonestarts, Play-By-Play, Box Score

Tweet Comment 77 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Lets just hope we don't meet the Blues in the playoffs

They are clearly a better coached team.

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 7:49 PM PST reply actions

They do seem to buy into their coach's strategy completely.

It’d be nice to see us execute was TMac and the assistants are saying instead of hearing TMac talk after the game how the players aren’t executing.

by bezzerkker on Feb 12, 2012 7:54 PM PST up reply actions

replace "was" with "what" and suddenly I make more sense.

by bezzerkker on Feb 12, 2012 7:55 PM PST up reply actions

Better coaching would have prevented Desi from lifting the puck over the glass obvs.

by Briceratops on Feb 12, 2012 7:54 PM PST up reply actions

That

And better coaching would’ve not called that non-existent elbow on Winchester.
Damn McLellan!!

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 7:57 PM PST up reply actions

Hey now

TMac can kill a penalty without even lacing up his skates. We’ve seen it before.

by bezzerkker on Feb 12, 2012 7:59 PM PST up reply actions

Haha... no it wouldn't have

But better coaching would demand your players to play more like the Blues and less like the Sharks.

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 8:00 PM PST up reply actions

The Sharks aren’t built to play like the Blues…and I’m pretty happy about that as Hitchcock hockey is horrible to watch.

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 8:03 PM PST up reply actions

True, horrible to watch

I’d to to watch ugly hockey like that. But, that is the only way that they can be successful, I guess.

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 8:06 PM PST up reply actions

Are the Sharks not successful? What Hitchcock has done this year is impressive… but c’mon now

"Logan Couture is a dirty, filthy man. Tell all your friends" - Mr. Plank

Welcome to the NHL, Atlanta Thrashers of Winnipeg.

by Bockerz on Feb 12, 2012 8:14 PM PST up reply actions

Exactly, a couple losses that weren’t dominating games are not the definitions of success.

Their system simply clashed with what the Sharks were doing. Execution was off tonight because what the Sharks were executing was simply being countered by the Blues’ positional play.

The Sharks lost because unlike other nights/games, the Sharks coaches and players were unable to change how they played in the course of the game.

In a 7 game series against the Blues, strategies can be adapted to and change the landscape of how the teams play each other.

If this wasn’t true, then the #6-8 seeds would never beat the #1-3 seeds.

by VVhirlwind on Feb 13, 2012 2:19 AM PST up reply actions

I don't think it has anything to do with coaching.

The Blues just have better forward depth than the Sharks. Line after line of guys capable of tilting the ice in their favor. Meanwhile, the lineup the Sharks iced tonight has one great line, 2/3 of another and then a mix of AHL players and mediocrity.

Of course none of that is relevant to what happened in this game – it was all about special teams. The Sharks played the Blues pretty evenly 5-on-5.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 7:59 PM PST up reply actions

If the Blue had better forwards they would have scored more goals.

They have a better system.

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 8:01 PM PST up reply actions

They did score more goals...

Leslie Knope: "...but it has a lot of heart."
April Ludgate: "That's what people always say when something sucks."
Fear The Fin's Fifth-String Moderator and Recap Specialist !!

by idunno723 on Feb 12, 2012 8:08 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Not necessarily. The system contributes to their lack of offense somewhat as Hitchcock aims to limit chances at both ends of the ice but they wouldn’t be able to play that brand of hockey this effectively if they didn’t have such a wealth of very responsible two-way forwards with a track record of winning territorial battles.

Also it’s not like the group is incapable of scoring – they were 5th in the league in 5-on-5 goals last season and didn’t subtract anyone significant from that team, only added to it.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:08 PM PST up reply actions

I’m going to say that it has a LOT to do with the system and coaching, and the proof of this was also talked about by Drew and Randy during the broadcast.

Davis Payne was the old coach for the Blues for ~1 1/2 seasons. from 09-10 and 10-11 seasons he was 51-48-15 out of 144 games. To open this season he coached to 6-7-0 before being replaced by Hitchcock.

Since Ken Hitchcock was brought on, with the same group of players, turned it around with a new system to a 21-5-6 record.

You look at their numbers for this season and their goals for number in total is 139. Of every team currently in the top 8 of both conferences, the only team that has less goals scored is LA in the 7th spot. The reason they are winning is not because they’re scoring 155-180 goals like the other teams, they are winning because they’ve only allowed 111 goals. You can score 20+ less goals than other teams and still be a winning team because they’re ALSO allowing 20+ less goals than other teams.

These numbers show they don’t necessarily have greater line depth if you’re talking offensively, what they have is consistency.

by VVhirlwind on Feb 13, 2012 2:39 AM PST up reply actions

The 6-7 record under Payne earlier in the season was a bit of a mirage. In those 13 games, the Blues were doing a phenomenal job controlling the play at even strength with a 0.553 Fenwick Tied ratio which was top 3 in the league at the time. They’ve improved to first in the league at 0.574 under Hitchcock but it’s more or less diminishing returns in terms of controlling possession at above a 55% rate – anything in that range is phenomenal and means you’re one of the best teams in the NHL.

The issue was that under Payne the Blues’ goaltending was atrocious. Halak and Elliott combined for an 0.892 score-tied SV% at even strength in those games. Obviously no goalie in the NHL is anywhere near that bad (well, maybe Steve Mason) and that’s a number that was going to come up regardless of who was coaching the team but Payne was unfortunately canned as a result of something he really can’t control. Sure enough, that score-tied SV% has been at 0.949 under Hitchcock. You could certainly make the argument that Hitchcock’s system contributes to it being so high but no one’s really been able to prove that coaches can significantly drive save percentage and it certainly doesn’t stand to reason that Hitchcock’s impact alone is responsible for anything near a significant chunk of that improvement.

It is, however, a terrific way for a GM to look good – fire the coach when the percentages are working against you and then receive praise when your new guy benefits from regression.

by The Neutral on Feb 13, 2012 11:21 AM PST up reply actions

The Sharks despately need Havlat to get healthy!!!

I also think, if they can, they need to add 2 forwards…I don’t think they’ll move Zus to the 4th line and really, Winchester and Desi have been good, so I think they need an upgrade to the 3rd line wing and an upgrade on the 4th line wing.

It would be nice if that 3rd liner could play on the 2nd line and not slow them down.

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 8:34 PM PST up reply actions

with havlat healthy

he could play on the third to make a good line with McGinn and Zeus

Then the sharks would need a second and fourth line winger

Patty/Joe/Pavelski
Clowe/Couture/ (new player,right handed )
McGinn/Zeus/ Havlat
(new player, or maybe McCarthy )/Desi/Winchester

by Mob Figaz on Feb 13, 2012 12:49 AM PST up reply actions

When you have Vandermeer playing forward I think one can realize how banged up the team is right now.

by SanFranciscoKnights on Feb 12, 2012 8:41 PM PST up reply actions

To be fair, they're only missing one forward.

And as much as they could use Havlat, he wasn’t doing a whole lot even when he was in the lineup.

The Vandermeer at forward experiment really is bizarre though.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:46 PM PST up reply actions

You don't think Wingels would be playing if healthy?

by SanFranciscoKnights on Feb 12, 2012 8:49 PM PST up reply actions

Maybe, but I don’t know how much better he is than Vandy or McCarthy.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:56 PM PST up reply actions

I thought he was looking pretty darn solid until his injury.

by SanFranciscoKnights on Feb 12, 2012 9:02 PM PST up reply actions

I liked what I saw from him too, I just don’t think the Sharks are all that banged up when their second-biggest injury is to Tommy Wingels.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 9:11 PM PST up reply actions

Really wish Wilson would make a move to add some forward depth… Moen, Whitney, Gaustad, hell even Selanne depending on which made up rumor site you read, any would be a boost.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Tweet Tweet

by Evilducks on Feb 13, 2012 12:45 AM PST up reply actions

It's possible

that he and another GM have a trade in the works, but are waiting to get closer to the deadline for it to workout cap-hit-wise.
Maybe.

If you mention ending your life, or show signs of self-harm, I will take you seriously!
"Take a deep breath sometimes, a break, and play some hockey. Hockey is a great way to take a pause from day-to-day hard work." -- Lt Gen. D.H. Huntoon Jr. (paraphrased)
"He doesn't miss many of those!" --Randy Hahn
"Something's gotta give." --Drew Remenda (mumbled under breath on the air)
How's Your NHL Team Really Doing?

by Soloact on Feb 13, 2012 3:06 AM PST up reply actions

Not nearly as fun as Semenov at forward!

Leslie Knope: "...but it has a lot of heart."
April Ludgate: "That's what people always say when something sucks."
Fear The Fin's Fifth-String Moderator and Recap Specialist !!

by idunno723 on Feb 12, 2012 8:50 PM PST up reply actions

“the best defensive team in the NHL”

Wouldn’t that be the Rangers?

"Logan Couture is a dirty, filthy man. Tell all your friends" - Mr. Plank

Welcome to the NHL, Atlanta Thrashers of Winnipeg.

by Bockerz on Feb 12, 2012 8:11 PM PST reply actions

How so?

The Blues are #1 in the league in shots against and goals against at even strength.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:14 PM PST up reply actions

I think they’re #1 in those categories overall…

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 8:17 PM PST up reply actions

Yup, you’re right, but I usually just look at a team’s play at even strength to determine how good they are at offense, defense and overall possession since special teams are a whole different ball game.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:20 PM PST up reply actions

Considering their special teams, the fact that they are still top in the NHL is impressive.

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 8:23 PM PST up reply actions

Definitely. Although their PK impressed the hell out of me tonight and it’s actually 6th-best in the league at preventing shots. They’ve just had one of the worst PK save percentages in the league. Even lower than the Sharks!

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:28 PM PST up reply actions

He means

the best defensive team in the NHL as per the Winter Classic coverage and the sports general focus on eastern teams.

He doesn’t, in fact, mean anything to do with actual stats.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Tweet Tweet

by Evilducks on Feb 13, 2012 12:47 AM PST up reply actions

Simple and level headed...

The San Jose Sharks of this year do not have what it takes to go anywhere. Forward depth is a joke, the defense is turning downward (goaltender included).

Time and time again San Jose has shown how easily they can be shutdown by the teams they will eventually face in the playoffs.

Without any over-emotional reaction, I am saying the organization better prepare itself to rebuild after this year.

This is going to be an ugly road trip, and an uglier playoffs if the Sharks even manage to make it.

This game was a joke.

We have been swimming these wintry depths for years, succeeding at survival by feeding only upon perennial minnows of sustenance... will we ever get to sink our great white teeth into this so-called Stanely's feast, so that we may finally slay our insatiable hunger in frenzied celebration?

by Deep Waters on Feb 12, 2012 8:35 PM PST reply actions

This is pretty funny. Knee-jerk reaction much?

by SanFranciscoKnights on Feb 12, 2012 8:39 PM PST up reply actions

This was very much not level headed.

This game was a series of awful awful penalties. Ya they didnt generate anything but its sort of a tough thing when you are down a man for so much of the game.
The blues have the number 1 defense in the leauge as the neutral pointed out earlier. when there are injuries as the sharks have right now and you are playing against that game its going to happen.
The sharks have almost the same team that they did last year with an improved defense and they managed to get to the western conference for the 2nd time in two years, not saying that they will get there with how they played tonight, but i believe that how they played tonight is not indicative of this team and how they can play.
I respect your opinion about this team but I would like to point out that I respectfully disagree

by slotownsharksfan on Feb 12, 2012 8:44 PM PST up reply actions

lol then jump ship

could we be better ? definitely, but we are currently the 8th highest scoring team and the 5th best in goals against, and this is without havlat for half the season, and we are mostly making an upgrade at the deadline. But yeah sounds like we better just pack it up right and blow it all up and rebuild like Columbus.

by RZ39 on Feb 12, 2012 9:06 PM PST up reply actions

Okay, not 'rebuild'

Okay perhaps out-and-out ‘rebuilding’ is a stretch… but perhaps ‘build’ more profusely around the parts of the team that do work with the players that are worth it.

I just see so many missing elements, but of course I do not know what to do – that is up to Doug Wilson.

by Deep Waters on Feb 12, 2012 9:13 PM PST up reply actions

Sure you do

See one bad game and assume it’s impossible for this team to win.

Like when the Red Wings got shelled by the Blue Jackets in an absolute blow out, so they can’t possibly win.
Or the Bruins got shelled by a bad Buffalo team so they won’t repeat (despite being the same team as last year)
Or the Blackhawks went on an 8 game and counting losing skid, so they’re hosed.
Vancouver has plenty of shitty losses, as do the Blues and anybody else in the West or East.

It’s an 82 game series, and this nonsense after a game where we lost to a team that seems only capable of scoring on us when they have 2 more guys on the ice than we do. You really need to find a different sport.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda
Tweet Tweet

by Evilducks on Feb 13, 2012 12:51 AM PST up reply actions

Okay, knee-jerk reactions and all that...

The Sharks have won, what, one in their last four games? That win coming (only just!) against a team that is actually struggling worse than San Jose.

I want to be wrong, of course I do, I am a fan of the San Jose Sharks. However, seriously, I have not seen one shred of evidence this year that places the Sharks in a serious contender consideration. Now, St. Louis, Detroit, Rangers, etc., these are teams that are obviously a step above us in depth and skill. If the Sharks are to win the Cup, are they not going to have to play one or more of these teams during the playoffs in a best of seven series to get there?
You seriously think the Sharks team you have seen play over the last couple of weeks is even in the same universe as these teams of late?

At any rate, I promise to write another funny knee-jerk post after tomorrow’s game… as the reality of this situation continues to present itself during this nine game road trip.

Finally, as I said – I would love to be wrong about the condition of the Sharks, and since I am apparently wrong after all, I guess we have nothing to worry about! Now hopefully I am right about that, right?

by Deep Waters on Feb 12, 2012 9:09 PM PST up reply actions

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

No team is flawless. Every sport has momentum, and every game is a different game. I didn’t see this game as one in which the Sharks were dominated, or one which proved they were not a contender. The way I look at it is that I am a fan of a very good hockey team and organization, that is in contention on a year to year basis. I tend to enjoy the ride and try to not take for granted the success of this Sharks franchise. I think I would regret it later if I didn’t.

by SanFranciscoKnights on Feb 12, 2012 9:35 PM PST up reply actions

So because the Sharks have had a down swing for the last couple games, they’re no longer capable of doing anything in the post season if they make it all. By your logic, the Hawks are going to miss the playoffs too. Are you kidding me?

There are certainly problems with consistency, effort, emotion, etc etc, whatever you want to call it that prevent the Sharks from rising to the occasion, but the capabilities are there as shown by the bright spots this season.

You also have to remember that there is a large difference in the tone of games in the regular season and the post season, for many reasons, but a primary reason why you can’t judge a series by the regular season is because of how much a team can tailor their game to counter the opposing team’s strategies.

While they seem scary now, I don’t think it would be a super large problem to face them in the playoffs because the offensive strategy can be adapted to. Remember the series against the Kings last year. They were a defensive team that just shut down Sharks opportunities, but as the series went through there was a shift in how the Sharks played against them and things opened up.

If you looked at the game tonight, you see exactly what Tmac was saying about lack of execution. But the thing you have to take note of is that lack of execution requires a specific perspective. The Sharks execution was exactly how it was against Chicago and some of the past teams etc, and the “lack of” was only that the Blues were countering what the Sharks were trying. Yes there was bad ice that was hurting a lot of the finesse plays, but the things like the dump and chase moves, and the neutral zone north south passes that got blocked/intercepted; those things were working for the Sharks last week. It’s just that they weren’t working against the Blues and the Sharks couldn’t adapt in this game, where in a playoff series they would.

by VVhirlwind on Feb 12, 2012 9:42 PM PST up reply actions

“I am a fan of the San Jose Sharks.”
Really? Because I’ve never seen you post ANYTHING positive about them, only about how much they suck.

by JBarrow on Feb 12, 2012 10:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

He must be Ray Ratto.

by VVhirlwind on Feb 13, 2012 2:40 AM PST up reply actions

or

Buttercrunch-lite

by Soloact on Feb 13, 2012 3:07 AM PST up reply actions

Give him a break guys.

He’s actually on to something, which is why I’m praying for Doug Wilson magic before the deadline. The team is one injury to the top 6 away from being mediocre in my eyes, and I WRITE about how good I think this team is all the time.

This year…
vs. STL 0 – 3
vs VAN 1 – 3
vs LA 2 -1
vs DET 2 – 0 (God bless Detroit)
vs. CHI 2 – 2 (first win we were outplayed, I was there)
vs. PHO 1 – 2
vs NSH 1 -1

1 winning record out of what looks like the current playoffs teams. Yeah, I’m a little worried too. But there IS good news. I don’t think this team has turned the corner yet like they did last season when they caught fire, and I still think it’s on the way.

The real question is, will havlat and a pickup be able to spring this team forward? Only time will tell.

by Dermal Denticles on Feb 13, 2012 10:26 AM PST up reply actions

2 winning records. ****

by Dermal Denticles on Feb 13, 2012 10:27 AM PST up reply actions

Put me down as someone who isn’t particularly worried about regular season records when it comes to the playoffs. If the Sharks are capable of elevating their play and getting contributions from everyone, we’ve got a good shot at making a run. Sloppy hockey worries me a lot more.

Picklesnakebit since 2011.
@shampeon

by ievans on Feb 13, 2012 10:41 AM PST up reply actions

Actually

They are 2-1-1 against Chi and 1-0-1 against Nashville…those are both winning records (more points than their opponent in the season series).

They are also 1-2-1 against Vancouver, though their only win was a SO.

You’re making them out to be worse than they actually are against these teams.

by milanahalek on Feb 13, 2012 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

There is this awesome iPhone app

Called GyroLeveler. I use it for leveling whenever I hang out new paintings. I would download it and try it on your head ;)

Sarcastic joke aside I wouldn’t be too worried about tonight’s game. The Blues do play well against us, but the Sharks have shown that on a good night we can take any team in the NHL this season. Our forward depth is actually pretty solid. Having Zus and a revitalized McGinn on our third line has been deadly.

In a format where HALF OF THE LEAGUE makes playoffs I don’t think you need to REALLY worry about the Sharks making it. Sharks will get healthy and will be able to take it to em. So no more bad mojo, k?

"Everybody had a part in this. As you can see, our fans love this. And we love them. And bring on the next team." -Joe Thornton
"I'm not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The... tactleneck!"-Sterling Archer

by waive kent huskins on Feb 12, 2012 9:45 PM PST up reply actions

For those bashing the Sharks on this thread

You realize the Blues haven’t lost at home in over 2 months, right? Just wanted to throw that out there.

by SanFranciscoKnights on Feb 12, 2012 8:37 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

good point.

I want to vent through “art”, so here we go.

Waffles, Digimon, SETOGUCHI

STALOCK GET A ROBOT LEG OR SOMETHING AND COME BACK~WE NEED SOME LOCK STOCK STALOCK HERE!!

Like manga, sci fi, webcomics, and Metaphorical Bazookas? Check out http://firework.the-comic.org!

Defense wins games, championships, and my heart, as in the case of Avery Bradley, Jr., Boston Celtics guard #0

by YeahTommyB4ZGermansGetThere on Feb 12, 2012 8:45 PM PST up reply actions

Yes, I do realize that...

and that is the point – that is called a contender.

by Deep Waters on Feb 12, 2012 9:14 PM PST up reply actions

And yet

They are 10-11-3 on the road…every team has it’s issues.

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 9:17 PM PST up reply actions

How quickly people forget that funk Detroit seemed incapable of escaping earlier in the year. And didn’t the Bruins lose like 19 of their first 20 before winning the next 30?

Winter. Time to eat fat and watch hockey. -- Margaret Atwood

by Timorous Me on Feb 12, 2012 9:20 PM PST up reply actions

Come on guys, this isn't the end of the world here.

Honestly, give the Blues credit on this win. I mean two 5on3’s, that’s a discipline thing, and really one of them shouldn’t have been a minor at all(Winchester). As Drew said, the bounces were not going their way. They’ll bounce back, eventually. I don’t think we’ve seen how spirited these Sharks are yet, I think most of it will come out in the latter part of the roadies and in March/April.

by Rockflpn on Feb 12, 2012 8:46 PM PST reply actions

Game 53, plus a few extra stats

Sharks need to start winning those “games in hand”. Seemed like a lot of hugging of the Sharks by StL players. Disappointing loss, poor PP play. A good game by Nemo kept it from being a blowout.

Game 53 this season: loss 0-3 at StL (1-day-off-game)
Game 53 last season: Win 2-0 at Bos
at 53 games this season: 30-17-6 / 66 pts, 153 GF – 127 GA
at 53 games last season: 28-19-6 / 62 pts, 150 GF – 144 GA
Next 10 games, games 54-63 last season: 8-2-0
Going: W, W, L, L, OTW, W, W, W, OTW, SOW

Sharks in 1-day-off-games this season: 13-10-4, 70 GF – 68 GA
and 5-2-1, 21 GF – 17 GA in 2nd-half of back-to-backs this season.
This is important that the Sharks do better in these 1-day-offers, as they are the majority of the schedule:
0-day-off-games remaining: 5
1-day-off-games remaining: 21
2-day-off-games remaining: 3
3+ -day-off-games remaining: 0

It’s all about who gets the most goals. Sharks need to score more on a consistant basis. Passing tends to be a continuing problem, but if they work on the fast passing game, things will work out. Sharks are getting someone in the opposing goalie’s eyes a bit more as the season plays on, resulting in better scoring when they do so.

Due to the excellent run in the 2nd half of last season, the Sharks are going to have to keep pace with that to prevent falling behind. If the Sharks end up with fewer standings points than last season, it will be a decline for TMC in each of his seasons since his first with the Sharks (117, 113, 105. and projecting 102).

Sharks remain in 4th in the West, and on top of the Pacific in the Magic/Tragic/Potential Points Standings.

These, and the rest of the February Sharkstistics have been updated.

Sharks, tough road trip, and a crowded schedule the rest of the way, so get to it and Win! We know you can!

by Soloact on Feb 12, 2012 8:53 PM PST reply actions

I really appreciate the tragic numbers post. Awesome work.

by The Neutral on Feb 12, 2012 8:58 PM PST up reply actions

Thx

by Soloact on Feb 12, 2012 9:20 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks for the numbers....

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 9:49 PM PST up reply actions

It was frustrating.

Shots being blocked, pucks entering the zone and landing on a Blues’ stick then rocketing back out, the power play was defunct and we were stuck with two 5 on 3’s. But even with all of those negatives, the Sharks played a tight 5-5 / 5-4 game giving little to no opportunities to the Blues. Niemi was solid tonight and kept us in the game. Somehow, some way, the Blues just make the game sloppy for their opponents. I pray that we won’t face them in the first round (or 2nd or 3rd), though a 7 game series could go either way between these two teams. I can only hope that this game helped the Sharks realize that zone entries need to be cleaned up as well as a consistent forecheck.

I’ll be looking for a strong rebound game tomorrow against the Caps, who don’t exactly play stingy defense. Hopefully the Sharks will play hard and win the board battles while getting some pucks in the net! I hear that pucks in the net is a good thing.

Hockey is like a box of choclates. But not really, hockey is way better.
"Who throws an umbrella!?" - Randy Hahn.

by Pavsisaninja on Feb 12, 2012 9:09 PM PST reply actions

The ice was shit tonight, it seemed

And while of course both teams had to play on the same ice, I think it particularly affects a Sharks team that’s built more around skill than grinding. Combine that with the way the Blues shut down the neutral and their own zone, and it’s no surprise this game was such a bummer.

And yeah, the Caps have become more serious about defense, but the contrast between them and the Blues should make tomorrow night seem heavenly for the Sharks.

Winter. Time to eat fat and watch hockey. -- Margaret Atwood

by Timorous Me on Feb 12, 2012 9:15 PM PST up reply actions

Ice

The ice was horrible…I wasn’t, um, sober for the 1st game in St. Louis so I don’t know if it was bad then too and in watching them play other teams at home, I haven’t noticed it either – but it was causing all sorts of problems tonight.

by milanahalek on Feb 12, 2012 9:22 PM PST up reply actions

Best way to get through one of these games, I’m thinking.

I haven’t noticed the bad ice really, either, and I’ve watched a good amount of Blues games this year on GCL—but then again, it’s easy to confuse their style with bad ice. And of course the home announcers aren’t likely to prattle on about it in the home rink.

Winter. Time to eat fat and watch hockey. -- Margaret Atwood

by Timorous Me on Feb 12, 2012 10:03 PM PST up reply actions

I was like “What!? No way…” when Randy and Drew commented on the ice after the 1st intermission and commented that there were puddles in the deeper gouges….

by VVhirlwind on Feb 13, 2012 2:43 AM PST up reply actions

It's called home field. That crappy ice sure suites the blues game.

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 9:45 PM PST up reply actions

It reminded

me of what defensive soccer teams do against good offensive teams. They’ll let the grass grow and not water it on purpose to mess up the flow. Drew even said players were falling on their own before the game had even started. But that aside I hope the Sharks learned a hard lesson on how to grind a game out. Especially since the Blues were able to play non stop on a back to back. I’m waiting for the trade deadline since it seems like the team always needs something drastic to happen to get them consistently working in the right direction. They’re still an elite team and are gonna keep winning most of their games. I just want the team to put their heads down and play hard for the rest of the year without having to wonder which team is gonna show up. The team that plays with something to prove or the team that just kind of knows they have 60 minutes in a game and don’t really seem to worry about it since there’s plenty of chances to change the game. Sharks still have to shake the rep of somewhat being a pushover

"Not to sound like a complete homer but, that was a bad call." -Drew Remenda
"You tee em up and I'll knock them out." -Randy Hahn

by raphelo on Feb 13, 2012 12:23 AM PST via mobile up reply actions

Mind Games

Maybe the Sharks are just toying with the Blues. The Sharks have seen the Blues at their best, while the Sharks haven’t shown their best yet.

Go Big or Go Home

by ChangoT on Feb 12, 2012 9:37 PM PST reply actions

we are not going to win every single game ...........on to the next one >.>

but there were some horrible penalties called against the sharks.

Haters Gonna Hate

by Wreckonized on Feb 12, 2012 9:41 PM PST reply actions

Thanks

Now, lets hope that once he comes back that he is properly utilized. He is not a third liner.

by Tiberon07 on Feb 12, 2012 10:21 PM PST up reply actions

I'd be okay with him on the 3rd line

as long as TMac gives the 3rd line decent ice-time. Still, I want to know what this’ll do to the power play when he gets back. The 1st power-play unit really got going when Pavelski was moved to the point, and Burnzie was swapped for Logan Couture into the 2nd unit. With Marty back, who does he replace? Clowe isn’t going anywhere. Handzus is the only center in the unit, and McGinn has been doing pretty well. The most easily moveable would be McGinn, despite the great chemistry he and Handzus have had. Or, TMac could reshuffle the whole unit set-up to move Logan Couture to center the 2nd unit with Clowe and Havlat on his wings, and another forward gets slotted into the 1st unit as a net-presence person so Boyle, Pavs, Jumbo and Marleau can play their cycle game with someone screening. And this isn’t even getting into what will happen if Doug Wilson uses those phones of his and nabs us another top-9 forward.
I’m glad I’m not TMac.

by bezzerkker on Feb 12, 2012 11:17 PM PST up reply actions

I think

He could replace Braun ? I believe I read that havlat also used to play on the point for the Wild PP, at the end of the day having too many options is a good thing, injuries will sadly happen, players will go cold, that is just how the game works so having more options to swap in and out is a good thing.

by RZ39 on Feb 13, 2012 8:30 AM PST reply actions