Penguins/Sharks, Tuukka Rask, Henrik Lundqvist, Seth Jones, Ekblad/Hedman

****

A wild start to this game led to a furious pace by the Penguins for most of the game, but San Jose was able to hang on and take Game 5 by a score of 4-2, extending the series. 

It didn’t take long for the Sharks to get on the board as Brent Burns wheeled around the net to Matt Murray’s right and fired one in short side about a minute into the game. It was exactly the start San Jose needed to this one.

Burns gets the Sharks off to a quick start in Game 5 pic.twitter.com/rimEQGLPmU

— Pete Blackburn (@PeteBlackburn) June 10, 2016

Two minutes later, it was a 2-0 lead for San Jose. A point shot from Justin Braun was deflected by Logan Couture before the three-minute mark of the first period. Couture can’t be left alone like this:

Couture with the redirect makes it 2-0 Sharks early pic.twitter.com/XmOAmupdxk

— Pete Blackburn (@PeteBlackburn) June 10, 2016

The good feelings for the Sharks wouldn’t last long, as Evgeni Malkin banked a shot (pass?) in off of a Sharks defender on the power play to cut it to 2-1 under two minutes after the Couture goal. About twenty seconds after that, Carl Hagelin took advantage of a Sharks turnover and fired one past Jones. Just over five minutes into the game, it was 2-2, and was about the craziest start to a playoff game I can remember.

The goals slowed down for about ten minutes, but Melker Karlsson gave the Sharks the lead back as he finished a nice backhand tap pass from Couture. It was a really pretty play:

Great feed from Couture to Karlsson and Sharks reclaim the lead pic.twitter.com/xw5qQEg4HV

— Pete Blackburn (@PeteBlackburn) June 10, 2016

The assist on Karlsson’s goal gave Couture three assists in the period. Not too shabby, I think.

Despite an onslaught for the majority of the game that saw the Penguins put up over 40 shots, the Sharks would take Game 5 and extend the series. 

The story in this game was really Jones. He made a couple of ten-bell saves, including a miraculous toe save on Bonino in the second period. For as shaky as Murray looked at times, Jones was equally stellar. 

****

In Tuesday’s Ramblings, I wrote about on-ice shooting percentage rebound, and how Evander Kane could be a candidate for a solid year next year. There is an Eastern Conference defenceman I will be looking for a jump in points as well.

Seth Jones

After being traded by Nashville to Columbus, the biggest thing to note is that the ice time jump for Seth Jones was nearly five full minutes. That is a massive leap for any defenceman, and probably goes a long way in explaining way he managed a 40-point/82-game pace during his half season with the Blue Jackets.

Mr. Jones’s season could have been even more productive after taking that big yellow taxi from Nashville to Columbus, though. His on-ice shooting percentage once suiting up in a Jackets uniform was hanging around 7-percent, and that was among the worst for Jackets defencemen. Considering he led Jackets d-men in both individual shots per 60 minutes, and team shot attempts per 60 minutes, though, it would stand to reason that Jones should not have been among the worst on the team in that on-ice shot rate. Knowing this, it would make sense for fantasy owners to fall accidentally in love with Jones’s fantasy prospects for next year.

Assuming there is a rebound (maybe jump is the better word here) in production next year, the question is, how much?

The first thing to look at is his shooting percentage. We already went over how he should rebound in his on-ice shooting rate, but his personal shooting rates should jump as well. Jones scored just three goals last year, half of his previous career-low. That was despite a career-high in shots per game, and shots per minute. It seems unlikely he repeats his 1.9-percent from last year. If he can get back to the 6-percent mark, Jones could see double-digit goals next year.

This is just ballparking – I have not started my projections for next year yet, that’ll be at least another month or so – but if the Jackets can score 2.4 goals per 60 minutes at five-on-five, at about a 35-percent assist rate on goals scored in a full season, that’s about 19-20 assists at five-on-five for Jones. With 15 power play assists, and 10 goals scored, now we’re looking at Jones being a 45-point defenceman next year.

I think the big issue for Jones will be power play time. As long as he can be one of their top two d-men in terms of ice time, 15 assists and a handful of goals is a good mark. Should he slide down in that regard for any reason, his production will obviously take a hit.

Given that none of his seasons have been eye-popping yet, Jones should be a good value at the draft table. If he can be drafted as a third, even fourth, defenceman on fantasy teams next year, that’s a great spot to take him.

****

It’s pretty clear that Tuukka Rask is no longer an elite fantasy goalie. I say this with the caveat that in any given season, almost any goalie can have an elite year. Just look at Devan Dubnyk or Semyon Varlamov for recent examples. But saying a goalie can have an elite year is a stretch from saying it’s likely a goalie will have an elite year, and that’s where figuring out where Rask slots in is important.

The Boston defence is a mess. An absolute mess. Torey Krug probably slots in best as a top pair number-2, and then I struggle to see any other defenceman on their roster that can be relied upon to play consistent top-four minutes. Zdeno Chara could have some sort of resurgence I guess, but that’s hoping against hope at this point.

The Bruins were mid-pack in high-danger chances allowed at five-on-five, and in the bottom-third of the NHL in shot attempts allowed per minute. Keep in mind, they have probably the best two-way centre alive on their team. Does any of this get better next year? To quote Boris Grishenko, I think not.  

We have to make a few assumptions to get at Rask’s fantasy value for next year:

1. Boston will be a bubble playoff team again.
2. Boston’s defence will probably only maintain the status quo, at best.
3. Rask will personally be a middle-of-the-pack goalie as he’s been the last two years.

Knowing all this, at most, Rask’s upside is about what Henrik Lundqvist was last year. About a .920 goalie with around a 2.50 GAA and 35 wins. That’s not horrific, but that’s fringe top-12 status in standard roto leagues. And that’s his realistic upside. (Realistic meaning not an anomaly year, as pointed out earlier.)

There is no chance I’m taking Rask as a top-15 goalie next year. If there are about 20 goalies off the board and I can grab him as a back-end second goalie in 10- or 12-team leagues, that’s where I’d consider striking. But without any hope that the team will improve defensively, and may actually get worse, I cannot imagine taking Rask anywhere in the top-15.

****

There was a good read on Yahoo yesterday about Boston’s defence. I recommend giving it a read.

****

As a little aside, now that I wrote that about Rask, it also makes me wonder about Lundqvist.

There are rumours – and please, please remember that everything right now about trades/buyouts/signings that teams will do are rumours – that the Rangers are willing to trade Marc Staal and eat some of the cap hit. Whether there is truth to that or not, the Rangers defence corps does need an overhaul.

This was a poor team defensively last year. By both shot attempts allowed, and high-danger scoring chances allowed, this team was in the bottom-10 of the league. Considering that Keith Yandle seems likely to move on given the cap constraints of the team (barring other big money players being shipped), and packaging picks is unlikely because this team is without a first or second round pick this year as it is, any significant upgrade to this blue line is unlikely.

So where does this leave Lundqvist next year? If that defence doesn’t improve, Yandle leaves, and Girardi/Staal are still around, how good can Lundqvist’s numbers possibly be? I suppose they could get a bit better from last year, but expecting more in 2016-2017 than what Lundqvist gave in 2015-2016 is probably misguided.

****

Twitter is my soundboard. Even better, it’s my kitchen wall. My brain is a pot of spaghetti, and Twitter is where I throw my ideas. Whatever sticks usually ends up in my writing.

Wondering aloud the other day led me down a rabbit hole of this train of thought: Aaron Ekblad’s career trajectory is really starting to resemble that of Victor Hedman.

I don’t mean this in raw point totals; Ekblad has 75 in his first two seasons, Hedman had 89 in his first four (which included the lockout-shortened season). The big difference in the raw point totals is that Ekblad has been getting a lot of power play time – he had 22 power play points in his first two years – whereas Hedman had 24 PPP in his first five seasons. It wasn’t until Hedman’s fifth year where the points started accumulating.

There are similarities between the two, through their first two seasons in the NHL. Some food for thought:

• From Hockey Analysis, Hedman’s points per 60 minutes at five-on-five over his first two seasons? 0.99. The same for Ekblad over his first two seasons.
• Their CorsiFor relative to their team? For Hedman, it was 3.6-percent above the team average. Ekblad’s has been 3.2.
• Ekblad only played about 250 more total minutes than Hedman, but about 220 of those came on the power play.

There are two main differences so far, which is that Hedman played a bit more up-tempo with regards to total shot attempts (for and against) per minute, while Ekblad has been anchored mainly to one defence partner, and that’s Brian Campbell.

While the parallels aren’t identical – Ekblad playing with Campbell mostly is a big one – I thought it was uncanny how similar their outputs had been in their first two years. Not to mention Ekblad was a first overall pick, and the only reason Hedman wasn’t was he had some guy named John Tavares in his draft class.

This all makes me wonder about Ekblad’s fantasy value, especially because it’s no guarantee that Campbell comes back to the Panthers. Does Ekblad’s point production increase meaningfully next year? I’m not so sure. Will it in the next few years? Undoubtedly.

If I were in a dynasty/keeper league with a decent defence corps, I would be testing the waters to see what the return could be on Ekblad. I don’t have any doubt that he will be very productive a few years down the road, but for right now, I don’t think he’s a game-breaker in fantasy. I’m sure a lot of people think he is, and expect a natural progression next year. Adding pieces to help win now would be a shrewd move. Just a thought.

*Some stats from Hockey Reference, Hockey Analysis, and War On Ice. Cap information from Cap Friendly.