ShareThis Page
Penguins in hole they’ve never climbed out of in Crosby-Malkin era | TribLIVE.com
Penguins/NHL

Penguins in hole they’ve never climbed out of in Crosby-Malkin era

Jonathan Bombulie

For the third time since Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin joined the Pittsburgh Penguins, the team has lost the first three games of a playoff series.

The first time, they made it a series. The second time, they were swept.

Which path they take this time will be determined in Game 4 Tuesday night at PPG Paints Arena.

In a first-round series with Philadelphia in 2012, an emotionally volatile Penguins team dropped the first three games before rallying for a pair of wins and bowing out in Game 6 on the road.

In the 2013 Eastern Conference finals against Boston, the Penguins scored a grand total of two goals in three losses, then fell in a 1-0 shutout in Game 4.

This year, a mistake-prone Penguins team has fed the opportunistic Islanders routinely in dropping the first three games, including in a 4-1 loss Sunday afternoon.

“Obviously you don’t want to be down 3-0. You guys know that,” winger Phil Kessel said. “It’s not good now.”

In NHL history, only four teams have overcome a 3-0 deficit to win a best-of-seven series.

Toronto did it in the 1942 Stanley Cup Final. The Islanders did it to the Penguins in a second-round series in 1975. Philadelphia (2010) and Los Angeles (2014) have accomplished the feat this decade.

“We’ve just got to worry about one game,” captain Sidney Crosby said. “We’ve just got to focus on winning Game 4. We haven’t left ourselves a lot of room for error, but all we can control is coming in with the right mindset for Game 4 and finding a way to get a win.”

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all season long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan by email at jbombulie@tribweb.com or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
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.