The all-or-nothing nature of the playoffs rewards organizations that manage to catch lightning in a bottle, while consistently excellent clubs that don’t win Stanley Cups are labeled chokers.
Entering this season, only Detroit (111) had played more than San Jose’s 90 playoff games since the Joe Thornton era began in 2005-06. Pittsburgh (90), Boston (85) and Chicago (75) round out the top five, with all but San Jose having won a Cup. With a 3-0 lead over the Kings and the fact that a much weaker team than L.A. awaits in the second round, there’s reason to think (again) that it’s San Jose’s year. It’s not just the great start to the playoffs that bodes well for the Sharks though, there are some positive signs suggesting they might finally get their Cup.
While Thornton’s taken the bulk of the blame for the Sharks’ playoff failures over the years, he really hasn’t performed that badly. His scoring is down from his regular-season numbers, but a lot of that is due to the more defensive nature of the Western Conference. Thornton’s 0.88 pts/gm in the playoffs since 2005-06 is higher than all but four Western Conference players who’ve played at least 20 playoff games: Henrik Zetterberg, Jarome Iginla, Patrick Kane and Pavel Datsyuk. Fine company for a supposed playoff choker.
This year’s Sharks received better production when Thornton wasn’t on the ice at 5-on-5 than they have since the 2009 to 2011 period, when they had back-to-back appearances in the conference final.
It’s interesting to note that the Sharks’ numbers both with and without Thornton on the ice this year took a big leap forward. Unless he improved significantly at age 34 (as a fellow 1979 baby, that strikes me as unlikely), he must have benefitted from a better supporting cast, both when he was on the ice and when he was on the bench. It also bears mentioning that with Tomas Hertl (missed 45 games due to injury) and Raffi Torres (missed 77 games due to injury) healthy and playing regularly, San Jose’s current roster is likely better than the one they iced for much of the season.
In addition to depth, the other interesting thing about this San Jose team is that it wase able to succeed despite not getting anything near the level of power-play production to which it’s accustomed. From 2008 to 2013, only the Washington Capitals were better at scoring 5-on-4 goals than San Jose. Washington scored 8.0 5v4 goals per 60 minutes of 5v4 play; San Jose came in at 7.9.
Things went sour on the power play for the Sharks this season, as they scored just 6.2 5v4 GF/60. It may not seem like a huge difference but it adds up. San Jose played 455:20 at 5v4 and the difference between 6.2 GF/60 and 7.9 GF/60 at that amount of time works out to 13 extra goals. That’s worth about four or five points in the standings. You can make a plausible argument that the Sharks’ bad power play cost them home ice through at least the Western Conference half of the playoffs.
It’s the way in which the power play failed that’s interesting and bodes well. Goals are a product of shots for and shooting percentage. From 2008 to 2013, San Jose’s power play was built on generating an overwhelming volume of shots—62.8 per 60 minutes of 5v4 play. The next best team, Anaheim, was nearly five shots back of that. But San Jose was nothing special in terms of 5v4 shooting percentage—12.5 percent, the 13th best figure. This season those trends continued. The Sharks again led the NHL in SF/60 at 5v4, and their shooting percentage was even worse, just a 9.7 percent, 26th overall.
Having a middling power play is no fun, but the specific way in which the Sharks were average—high shot rate, low shooting percentage—is promising. In April of 2011, Gabe Desjardins explored what predicts future power play success. His conclusion was simple: “The rate at which teams shoot on the PP is a better indicator of their future power-play efficiency than their past power-play efficiency.” Sometimes pucks go in, sometimes they don’t. Despite a year in which its power play didn’t score like it has in the past, San Jose still excelled in terms of the best predictor we have of future power play success: shot rates.
If you value consistent excellence in a hockey team and think it’s a little unfair that people are unwilling to recognize that in a team that hasn’t won a Cup, it’s hard not to cheer for the Sharks. It might even be a good bet, with a genuine superstar in Joe Thornton (even if It’s Logan’s Team Now, as the pundits tell us), better depth than they’ve had since their past runs to the conference final and a power play that could erupt at any time. If the hockey gods are just and benevolent, it really should be San Jose’s year.