Penguins have never been better on power play
With Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin chasing the Art Ross Trophy and James Neal healthy, the Penguins once again rank among the game's scoring elite (3.1 goals per game entering Saturday's games, fifth in the NHL).
The Penguins are even deadlier when they get the man advantage, cashing in on a league-best 26.5 percent of their power-play chances.
Chris Kunitz (seven power-play goals), Crosby (five), Neal and Kris Letang (four apiece) place in the top 20 league-wide in power-play goals, helping the Penguins easily to eclipse the 18.3 percent power-play league average.
In fact, the 2013-14 Penguins are taking advantage of opponents' penalties at the best clip in franchise history as measured by Power Play Plus (PP+), which compares a team's power-play conversion rate to the league average and places it on a scale where 100 is average.
Kunitz and Crosby are holding court with the likes of Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr from the mid-1990s Penguins, surpassing the league average power-play rate by 45 percent this season.
Pens power surge
Although Kunitz trails just Washington's Alex Ovechkin (eight) in power-play goals, he'll be hard-pressed to crack the Penguins' single-season top five. Lemieux twice netted 31 power-play goals, ranking third on the NHL's all-time single-season list behind Tim Kerr (34 in 1985-86) and Dave Andreychuk (32 in 1992-93).
Player Year PP goals
Mario Lemieux 1995-96 31
Lemieux 1988-89 31
Kevin Stevens 1992-93 26
Rob Brown 1988-89 24
Lemieux 1987-88 22
David Golebiewski is a freelance writer.
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 â 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.