ShareThis Page

NHL Insider: Special teams still a concern for Penguins

| Tuesday, April 29, 2014, 10:06 p.m.

The Penguins were betrayed by their greatest strength in the first round of the Stanley Cup playoffs.

If they're interested in advancing to the Eastern Conference final, considerable improvement is necessary.

During the regular season, the Penguins were the NHL's best special teams operation, finishing with the league's best power play and the fifth-ranked penalty killing unit.

However, Columbus got the better of the Penguins' special teams in the first round, finishing with a plus-three mark in overall special teams play.

The Penguins' power play converted 23.4 percent of the time in the regular season. Columbus held the Penguins to a 20.6 percent conversion rate while scoring three short-handed goals.

The Penguins permitted only six short-handed goals in 82 regular-season games.

“We're happy to be moving on,” left wing Jussi Jokinen said. “But obviously there are plenty of things that we need to be working on.”

Although the incidence of short-handed goals is a concern, perhaps a bigger problem for the Penguins is their penalty killing unit. It has failed them before.

Philadelphia, one of two potential second-round matchups for the Penguins, scored 12 power play goals in 23 opportunities during the first round of the 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs — and currently looks shaky.

Columbus scored on 26 percent of its power play chances in the opening round.

The Penguins have not killed penalties well since the Olympic break. They have allowed 20 power play goals in their past 25 games, including the postseason.

“We know we need to be better,” defenseman Matt Niskanen said.

Right wing Craig Adams called the penalty killing issues “a concern” before the Columbus series. Special teams, in general, should be a concern for the Penguins entering the second round.

Should the Penguins play the Flyers, they'll take on the team that scored a goal in 40 percent of its power plays in the teams' four meetings this season.

A series against the Rangers could highlight special teams for different reasons. New York outscored the Penguins, 10-7, in 5-on-5 play this season.

The Penguins were 2-1-1 against the Rangers because of outstanding special teams play, scoring on 35.7 percent of their power plays while killing a respectable 81.3 percent of New York's power plays.

Whether because of the Flyers' historical power play dominance or the reality that the Rangers outplayed them in five-on-five play this season, it is clear the Penguins need to improve their special teams play.

Josh Yohe is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @JoshYohe_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.