LOS ANGELES — Marian Hossa scored the tiebreaking goal early in the third period, and the Chicago Blackhawks moved to the brink of the Stanley Cup finals with a 3-2 victory over the Los Angeles Kings on Thursday night in Game 4 of the Western Conference final.
Patrick Kane tapped home the tying goal as Chicago rallied from a second-period deficit to snap the defending Stanley Cup champions' 15-game home winning streak since March.
Bryan Bickell had a goal and an assist for the top-seeded Blackhawks, who took a 3-1 lead in the best-of-seven series.
Slava Voynov and Dustin Penner scored for the Kings, who had won their first eight playoff games at Staples Center. The champs are in trouble after Jonathan Quick failed to match Corey Crawford, who made 19 saves.
Game 5 is Saturday night in Chicago.
The Blackhawks won without top defenseman Duncan Keith, who served a one-game suspension for high-sticking Jeff Carter in the face during the second period of Game 3. Sheldon Brookbank filled in while Chicago played strong team defense in front of Crawford.
“You miss a defenseman like Duncan Keith, he is the guy who plays the most on the blue line,” Hossa said. “When you miss him, someone else has to step up, and our guys did.”
Los Angeles hadn't lost a playoff game at home since Game 4 of the Stanley Cup finals last season, winning nine straight overall.
The Kings had been outstanding when playing with a lead in front of Quick, who stopped 25 shots, but Los Angeles uncharacteristically surrendered a 2-1 lead late in the second period.
The high-scoring Kane ending his seven-game goal drought in a quiet postseason.
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.