Share This Page

Penguins looking to fix their faceoff

DETROIT - The Penguins' chances in the Stanley Cup Final aren't as simple as winning or losing the draw, but there is cause for concern after the Detroit Red Wings scored their go-ahead goal in Game 1 and their game-tying goal of Game 2 just moments after faceoffs.

The Penguins are nearly splitting their draws for the playoffs. However, since winning 55.7 percent in the first-round series against Philadelphia, they have won only 45.9 percent in the past 13 playoffs games. Worse yet, the Penguins went from plus-44 to minus-19 on faceoffs this post-season, a 63-point swing in margin of victories on the draw.

"We've done a good job, I thought, in the faceoff circle besides (Saturday) night," said Penguins center and captain Sidney Crosby, noting that the home team typically has an edge because its players put their stick down second. "We've got to improve there. They've got some good centermen, but we've got to find ways to get pucks in our possession a bit more. That's an important part of the game, an area we'll work on.

"We can't lose that many. We have to find a way to be better."

The Penguins' struggles in the circle reached a low in Game 1, when Detroit won an eye-popping 39-of-55 draws (71 percent). The Penguins showed signs of improvement in Game 2, when they won 27 of 51 (53 percent) of the faceoffs, including 9 of 16 (56 percent) in the first period.

That the Red Wings have an edge in the faceoff battle should come as no surprise. They won the draws in five of the six games of the Cup Final last year, as well as both meetings during this past regular season.

Just never by such a wide margin.

"We try to focus on it because we think having the puck is way more fun than chasing the puck," Detroit coach Mike Babcock said. "In this series, in particular, with the skill (the Penguins) have, you don't want them to have the puck."

What's worse, the Red Wings have scored a pair of pivotal goals after winning draws in their offensive zone following icing calls.

The first came in Game 1 after Penguins defenseman Hal Gill missed Chris Kunitz with a pass, prompting Penguins coach Dan Bylsma to call a timeout. The Wings won the draw, and Johan Franzen scored for a 2-1 lead. The second came in Game 2, after Detroit's Darren Helm won a faceoff against Maxime Talbot, setting up defenseman Jonathan Ericsson's goal to tie the game at 1-1.

Helm, a checking-line center, understands the importance of winning the faceoff and has done his share to help Detroit by winning 73 percent (11 of 15) of his draws in Game 1 and 65 percent (11 of 17) in Game 2.

"We take that kind of angle on every team, that we want to be dominant in the faceoff circle and hold onto the puck," Helm said. "It's such a key area of the game. It's so important to win the faceoff and have the puck instead of chasing. It's always an advantage when you win draws."

Playing for the draw

How the Penguins have fared on faceoffs in the playoffs:

Opponent — Faceoffs/Pct.

Philadelphia — 216-17 255.7

Washington — 187-23 344.5

Carolina — 124-12 150.6

Detroit — 43-6 340.6

Totals — 570-589/49.2

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.