There's a bit of a debate that's raged here and elsewhere about the Hawks: how "good" are they?
The answer is simple and not good news as far as serious Stanley Cup aspirations; they are very good offensively and not good defensively (at all).
Ever year, there are more blogs and more youtube breakdowns of what happens on this play or that, offered up by individuals who often want to vindicate or blame one player in particular.
But, in the end, statistics tend to tell the larger story. From there, you look at the relative skills of the players involved, their track records, injuries, etc., and you get a fairly complete picture of what's going on.
Let's start at 40,000 feet— the Hawks have scored 79 goals, which is good. They are 3rd in the league in goals per game. They are 20th in the league in goals against per game, which is not good. Their penalty kill is 30th in the league.
Generally speaking, serious Stanley Cup contenders are highly ranked in both, or at least tending toward defense over offense.
Who or what is to blame?
A lot of fans and even media types want to blame Duncan Keith. Keith has had games where he's been terrible—and some where he's been terrific. But as I've stated here previously, one defenseman can't stop five opposing players.
The real problem has been a team breakdown, from the forwards back to the defense.
First, consider that the "shutdown line" that everyone loved from last year's playoffs (Dave Bolland, Bryan Bickell and Michal Frolik) are all -5 or worse.
Bickell is -8.
Andrew Brunette is -5.
Now, I am not a huge believer in +/- as a metric for forwards, but let's face it, it doesn't take Al Arbour or Scotty Bowman to see that Brunette and Bickell have been disappointing in their roles.
Then look at the defense, where +/- does matter more: Sean O'Donnell is -4. John Scott, in limited games, is -2.
Nik Hjalmarsson, another favorite target of the scatter-gunners, leads all Hawk defensemen by a wide margin at +7. Keith is +1. Sami Lepisto, the mysterious forgotten man, is +4. Nick Leddy, Brent Seabrook and even Steve Montador are in positive territory.
Essentially, while Lepisto sits, the third pairing has been a pronounced and obvious problem.
Finally in net, there's a problem.
While the Hawks are 20th in Goals Against Average, they are 9th in Shots Against Per Game.
As Al Cimaglia said to me recently, and I've remarked to myself, you just wish Corey Crawford could make a few more big saves when the defense breaks down. The problem is, he hasn't. Nor really has Ray Emery.
Some will look at the stats and say Emery has just been terrible. Not really. Take out 7 GAA against Edmonton, where horrible forward and blueline defense left both Emery and Crawford exposed, and Emery's stats are essentially the same as Crawford's. Take out the Tampa game, where the defense was also dreadful, and Emery's numbers are better than Crawford's.
Here's the other thing: Crawford is the starter. He's the go-to guy, the stopper. He needs to be better. Maybe a lot better.
I do believe there is a bit of a synergistic link between goaltending and defense: generally, when one gets better, so does the other.
For the Hawks to seriously contend for a Cup this year, one or the other, or both, is going to need to get better.
Perhaps, continuity and more experience together will help overcome some of this. But you need look no further than the number of games that Scott has played defense to see that the Hawks are simply short 1-2 NHL defensemen—especially while Lepisto, for whatever reason, sits.
Just my opinion, but I base it on statistics and proven track records, O'Donnell should be a reserve/7th defenseman, Scott is better (or less of a liability) at forward. And whatever this issue is with Lepisto, it needs to be resolved. And even then, the Hawks could likely use one more physical defenseman.
Could the Hawks also use an upgrade in net? Maybe. But this is a more complicated issue. If Crawford is going to play 3 games out of every 4, then the answer begins and ends with him. And the likelihood of finding a better #1 in season is not high. What might be an option is finding a 1B option to supplant Emery (and please, let's dispense with the "play the kids" crowd's inevitable push for Alexander Salak and his mediocre AHL numbers). But this 1B likely needs to be good enough to perhaps push Crawford, or it's a wasted move—as Emery has really been no worse than Crawford.
There's your diagnosis and your prescription for what ails the Hawks. And let's all remember that in hockey, like other sports, defense wins championships.
Thanks for reading. I'll try to post a Phoenix preview blog later today.
JJ
Chicago Blackhawks Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»