Share This Page

Starkey: Osgood star of series

DETROIT — If a vote were taken today, it wouldn't be close.

At least, it shouldn't be close: Detroit Red Wings goaltender Chris Osgood would be your Conn Smythe Trophy winner as playoff MVP.

"Ozzie saved us again," Red Wings center Henrik Zetterberg said after Detroit's 3-1 victory Sunday night, the one that put the Penguins in a deadly 0-2 hole.

NBC had a "Star Cam" trained on Penguins centers Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby in the first two games of the Stanley Cup final. Maybe it should have had one trained on Osgood, who has stopped 62 of 64 shots.

Sure, "Ozzie" got some help from his posts. Bill Guerin hit two and Crosby hit one. He didn't have to make a dozen spectacular saves, but that's the thing: Osgood never looks all that pretty; he just wins.

That is especially true at playoff time. Only seven goalies in the history of the league have more playoff victories than Osgood's 73. He consistently stops the first shot and rarely allows a bad goal. His counterpart, Marc-Andre Fleury, has allowed three bad goals in the series, including a long-range knuckleball from Red Wings rookie Justin Abdelkader last night.

Make no mistake, this is Osgood's time of year. There are games where he faces very few quality chances, but the first two games of this series were different.

"Every year, I look forward to the playoffs," Osgood said. "The regular season is long and monotonous sometimes, which is why you look forward to going to the playoffs. This is why you go to training camp, to get to this point. They're fun games to play in."

For the Penguins, these games against Detroit have become incredibly frustrating to play in. Unlike the first two games of last year's final, they have carried the play for large chunks of each game, but what's the difference, really, between getting outscored 7-0 one year and 6-2 the next?

Teams almost never recover after losing the first two games of the Stanley Cup final. They are 3-41. The most recent team to overcome a 2-0 deficit was the 1971 Montreal Canadiens, who beat the Chicago Blackhawks in seven games.

It's not that the Penguins are incapable of such a feat. They have already come back from a 2-0 deficit in this year's playoffs, winning in seven games against Washington. But let's be honest, winning four of five against a team as talented and experienced and accomplished as the Red Wings seems more than a little unlikely.

The Penguins jumped to a 1-0 lead when Detroit defenseman Brad Stuart knocked the puck into his own net — see, the Penguins didn't even beat Osgood on their lone goal of the night — but could not score the all-important second one.

Detroit came back using a familiar recipe: Get pucks to the net and crash hard. Defenseman Jonathan Ericsson scored the first at 4:21 of the second period on a long slap shot through a screen from Darren Helm. That came after Penguins coach Dan Bylsma neglected to use a timeout after his second line had been pinned in its end before icing the puck.

Helm started the play by winning a faceoff against Max Talbot, making for the third time in the series a lost faceoff led to a Detroit goal. Valtteri Filppula got the second one on a goal-mouth scramble at 10:29 of the second period.

After Abdelkader's goal, the Penguins fought back furiously. Osgood kept it 3-1 when kicked away Crosby's point-blank attempt in the waning minutes.

So, the Red Wings come out of the weekend not feeling all that good about the way they played in either game, but feeling real good about winning both.

Ozzie saved them.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.