ShareThis Page

Penguins down Rangers to take 3-1 series lead

| Wednesday, May 7, 2014, 10:18 p.m.
Penguins goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury makes a save on the Rangers' Chris Kreider during the second period of Game 4 of their second-round Stanley Cup playoff series Wednesday, May 7, 2014, in New York.
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Penguins goaltender Marc-Andre Fleury makes a save on the Rangers' Chris Kreider during the second period of Game 4 of their second-round Stanley Cup playoff series Wednesday, May 7, 2014, in New York.

NEW YORK — Marc-Andre Fleury has known Stanley Cup playoff pain. So have many of his Penguins teammates.

“It doesn't always have to be good experience to learn,” Fleury said Wednesday night after the Penguins pushed to within a win of ending Round 2 with a 4-2 victory over the New York Rangers in Game 4 at Madison Square Garden.

They lead the best-of-seven series 3-1 and will take to their home ice at Consol Energy Center on Friday night with a chance to return to the Eastern Conference final.

“I don't know if we've looked at it that way,” captain Sidney Crosby said. “We've just tried to improve as the playoffs have gone along. … I don't think we've even looked that far ahead. You can't do that. You'll find out pretty quickly that it doesn't work like that.”

It has not worked for the Penguins in previous postseasons, at least not like it did in Game 4 against the Rangers.

They won despite playing with only five defensemen after the first period, despite failing to score again on the power play and despite dominating defensively for a long stretch but suddenly finding themselves clinging to a one-goal lead late in regulation.

Every challenging situation was met with resolve and a response.

Defenseman Brooks Orpik didn't return after the opening 20 minutes, so Paul Martin played about that many in the second and third periods.

The power play went 0 for 3, so center Brandon Sutter scored a short-handed goal to break a 1-1 tie late in the second.

The Rangers pulled to within a goal on only their second shot of the third period, which came about seven minutes in, so center Evgeni Malkin set up winger Chris Kunitz's insurance marker 57 seconds later.

Coach Dan Bylsma adjusted in the second period to clog up a neutral zone that the Rangers were flooding with stretch passes.

James Neal — a former 40-goal sniper — stripped Rangers defenseman Marc Staal to set up fellow winger Jussi Jokinen's goal in the third.

Malkin and Crosby produced multiple points in the same game for the first time in this postseason.

Contrast all of that to what happened at the same series' point in Round 1, when the Penguins failed to take command by giving away Game 4 at Columbus.

Or the Game 2 home meltdown against Boston in the East final last postseason.

Or the overall flameout against Philadelphia in Round 1 of 2012.

Or the blown 3-1 series lead against Tampa Bay in 2011.

Or the Game 7 loss that closed the Cup defense (and Mellon Arena) in 2010.

Sutter was around for only the Bruins' sweep last playoffs, but …

“It's almost the same group, and you learn as you go,” he said.

Pain often only is healed by time, and these Penguins are trying to make the most of theirs this postseason.

“We learned some things last year,” Sutter said, “but we've still got to get one more win to get to the next round.”

Rob Rossi is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @RobRossi_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.