With a couple of days between games and nothing in particular to write about, I thought I’d compare the Penguins’ stats under new coach Mike Sullivan to those compiled under former skipper Mike Johnston.
While the impromptu analysis didn’t expose anything earth-shattering, it did reveal a few surprises.
First, the expected. Based on the numbers, the stars clearly have benefited from the switch. Especially Sidney Crosby (12 points in a dozen games) and Kris Letang (11 points in seven games). Patric Hornqvist, too, has enjoyed a significant jump, while Evgeni Malkin maintained his near point-per-game clip.
The spike in output from the black-and-gold elite can—to a degree—be attributed to a rejuvenated power play. A chronic sore spot under Johnston, the power play is clicking at an impressive 26.1% (11 for 42) since the coaching change, including a piping-hot 34.3% over the past 10 contests.
Still, the perception that the Pens have been more offensive under Sullivan is just that. Goals per game are down slightly (2.3 vs. 2.35) since the switch. Toss out Sully’s first four games (all losses)? The team trends up to a more potent 2.88 goals per game.
Now for the surprise. Although he’s regarded as a player’s coach, Sullivan’s promotion hasn’t been a tonic for all. Several of the Pens’ foot soldiers—most notably veterans Eric Fehr and Chris Kunitz—have experienced a dip in production. Russian rookie Sergei Plotnikov appears lost. He’s a minus-5 with declining possession numbers in his past 10 games. Likewise, the defensive duo of Brian Dumoulin and Ben Lovejoy has been less effective since the change (a combined minus-7).
Indeed, there’s lots of room for improvement at even strength. A collective plus-3 under Johnston, the Pens are an unsightly minus-36 in 13 games with Sullivan at the helm. Possibly a by-product of the more wide-open style employed by the Massachusetts native.
Between the pipes? Marc-Andre Fleury and Co. have held firm. Excluding shootouts, goals against per game are up, but only slightly (2.3 vs. 2.24).
| SCORING | |||||||
| Player | Coach | GP | G | A | PTS | PPG* | +/- |
| Malkin | Johnston | 28 | 13 | 14 | 27 | 0.96 | 0 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 6 | 6 | 12 | 0.92 | -5 | |
| Crosby | Johnston | 28 | 6 | 13 | 19 | 0.68 | -6 |
| Sullivan | 12 | 6 | 6 | 12 | 1.00 | 2 | |
| Letang | Johnston | 25 | 1 | 13 | 14 | 0.56 | -14 |
| Sullivan | 7 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 1.57 | 2 | |
| Kessel | Johnston | 28 | 9 | 8 | 17 | 0.61 | -1 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 0.54 | -1 | |
| Hornqvist | Johnston | 28 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 0.36 | -3 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 0.54 | -2 | |
| Perron | Johnston | 28 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 0.39 | -6 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 0.38 | -6 | |
| Kunitz | Johnston | 28 | 4 | 7 | 11 | 0.39 | 8 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.15 | 3 | |
| Cullen | Johnston | 28 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 0.29 | 7 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0.31 | -2 | |
| Bennett | Johnston | 23 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 0.42 | -3 |
| Sullivan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | -1 | |
| Maatta | Johnston | 22 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 0.36 | 9 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.15 | 5 | |
| Bonino | Johnston | 27 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 0.26 | 1 |
| Sullivan | 12 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0.33 | 3 | |
| Dumoulin | Johnston | 28 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 0.25 | 4 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.23 | -4 | |
| Fehr | Johnston | 18 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 0.28 | 3 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.15 | -2 | |
| Lovejoy | Johnston | 28 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0.18 | 8 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.08 | -3 | |
| Dupuis | Johnston | 18 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0.22 | -1 |
| Cole | Johnston | 28 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0.14 | -12 |
| Sullivan | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | -6 | |
| Scuderi | Johnston | 25 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0.16 | 4 |
| Daley | Sullivan | 12 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0.25 | -2 |
| Sprong | Johnston | 16 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0.13 | 0 |
| Sullivan | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | -1 | |
| Sheary | Sullivan | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.20 | -5 |
| Plotnikov | Johnston | 22 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0.09 | 2 |
| Sullivan | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | -5 | |
| Porter | Johnston | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.13 | 0 |
| Sullivan | 12 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.08 | -3 | |
| Rust | Johnston | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 2 |
| Sullivan | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.00 | 1 | |
| Warsofsky | Johnston | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | -2 |
| Sullivan | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.17 | -5 | |
| Clendening | Johnston | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.14 | 3 |
| Sullivan | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | |
| Fleury | Johnston | 24 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.04 | 0 |
| Sullivan | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | |
| Wilson | Sullivan | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.25 | 0 |
| Farnham | Johnston | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 0 |
| Kuhnhackl | Sullivan | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — | 1 |
| Total | Johnston | 28 | 66 | 111 | 177 | 6.32 | 3 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 30 | 51 | 81 | 6.23 | -36 | |
| * PPG indicates points per game | |||||||
| GOALTENDING | |||||||
| Player | Coach | GP | MINS | GA | SH | GAA | W-L-OT |
| Murray | Sullivan | 5 | 244 | 7 | 0 | 1.72 | 2-1-1 |
| Fleury | Johnston | 24 | 1437 | 53 | 2 | 2.21 | 13-9-2 |
| Sullivan | 5 | 302 | 12 | 0 | 2.39 | 2-2-1 | |
| Zatkoff | Johnston | 5 | 247 | 10 | 0 | 2.43 | 2-1-1 |
| Sullivan | 4 | 238 | 11 | 0 | 2.78 | 1-3-0 | |
| Total | Johnston | 28 | 1684 | 63 | 2 | 2.24 | 15-10-3 |
| Sullivan | 13 | 784 | 30 | 0 | 2.30 | 5-6-2 | |
Hi Rick,
Good piece, as always. There is a marked, and visible improvement, especially on special teams, with Sullivan at the helm. They’re steps in the right direction, but likely too little, too late to salvage this season.
I also don’t see them making the playoffs. They’re simply not good enough to consistently win within their division, last night’s game with the Hurricanes being the latest example. Prone to slow, lackadaisical starts, stunted by considered depth that didn’t materialize, an inability to consistently play a 60-minute game, a chronic inability to score, especially secondary scoring, and still hovering near cap hell, they don’t have many options except, perhaps, to go on out there and play better hockey, WBS call ups notwithstanding.
I like this coach. I wish they’d brought him on board sooner. But, I don’t envy him. He’s fighting a high expectation, low output culture that’s been embedded in this team by several years of organizational failure, as well as all the other typical coaching challenges. Those challenges are ever more compressed and magnified by his mid-season arrival. I think failure this year is to be expected and anything more than that appreciated as a job well done. And, as we said last year, and, it seems, every year of late, “It’s shaping up to be an interesting off season.”
Hey 55 on point. Great thoughts and insights, as always … 🙂
I like Sullivan, too, and am pulling for him (and the team). But no matter how badly I want to see the Pens do well and make the playoffs, they don’t quite seem to be able to turn the corner. Like the other night against Carolina.
For many of the reasons you suggest …
Sullivan is winning PP clicking all the numbers I need
Hey Rick,
Great stuff. Very Interesting.
I think one of the big differences I’ve noticed is that Sullivan has Lovejoy & Dumoulin paired up against other teams #1 lines especially at home games. This is one of the main reasons Letang’s numbers are way up also.
I know the numbers aren’t there yet, but if you figure in the learning curve games, the poor shape the team was in from Johnston’s system, 9 out of the 13 games Sullivan had to use backup goaltenders and the Winnipeg game that the Pens got hosed on scheduling wise having to fly twice in 24 hours and through customs. I think you will see the numbers improving very fast.
The slower out of shape older guys will slowly weed themselves out as Sullivan’s system will start leaning towards bringing up younger talent. Things should really start to pick up as the team learns more of his plays and have better conditioning.
As someone has watched hockey for years I knew Johnston was done. Almost every other coach figured out how to beat Johnston’s slow plodding system. He said he was a coach that changed stuff up yet he never did.
Hey Phil,
Great insight on Dumoulin and Lovejoy being matched against opponents top lines. That sure won’t help the old plus/minus any.
And certainly there’s been a transition from the Johnston era. In his defense, I think MJ felt an enormous amount of pressure to win at any costs. Even if it meant swapping goals for defensive structure. While his “New Jersey on the Mon” approach probably helped earn a few extra Ws, it sure didn’t do anything to help the players develop any creativity or flow.
I do like Sullivan’s approach. But I question—as I mentioned in my response to Jim—whether he has the horses to pull it off. For all JR’s effort to upgrade to bottom six, secondary scoring remains a huge issue. And I’m not sure if the defense—most notably Cole and Lovejoy—is equipped to provide the offensive support that’s needed for his system.
I still think we need a couple of “momentum” guys–players who can spark the team with a big hit or a fight if need be. The Pens just look so flat sometimes.
As you said, we’re very much a work in progress …
a very good change much better coaching
Hi Rick
Good job on the research. There is a lot of great info in your article.
Sullivan is trying to make the Pens a more “aggressive” team to
play against. I find it interesting how some players,ie: Letang and Crosby
seem to be playing much better offensively under the new Coach, while as your research shows, several players are struggling. Could this be that some of the Pens players you mentioned are getting older and slower,( past their prime) and can not keep pace anymore with an up tempo style of game ? or Some of our third and fourth line forwards and the bottom half of the d corps
are not really suited to play the style of game that Sullivan wants ?
But one thing for sure is the increase in the Power Play efficiency has benefited everyone. I could never fully understand why the PP was so disorganized….no a better word is so predictable under Rick Tochett, or
should we say Mike Johnston. The PP is playing with more desire now and as a result they have more goals. Team feels better too.
I did a little research on the Conference at the half way point of the season.
There are six teams that are probably going to be ahead of us come this April. The Caps,Panthers,Wings,Rangers,Islanders, Montreal,when Price returns.
Currently Boston and New Jersey are in the 7th and 8 th positions. That leaves Tampa,Ottawa,Pens and the Flyers going for the last two spots. Based on the past experience and on paper, Tampa is a better team than Boston and New Jersey. Tampa will be there come play off time.( they have lots of talent )
So that leaves Boston, New Jersey,Ottawa,Pens and the Flyers playing for the last number 8 play off position. It is not going to be easy for the Pens ! There are a lot of good teams with more depth in players than we have on that list above. Plus they have cap space to make trades.We do not.
If we lose Letang, or Crosby or Fleury for any length of time. ??????
The next 40 + games will be really interesting as a fan.
Cheers
Hey Jim,
I agree with your assessment of the playoff picture. While I wish I didn’t feel this way, when all is said and done I don’t think the Penguins are going to make the playoffs.
Mind you, I like what Sullivan’s trying to do–play an intense, up-tempo game. And, my goodness, Sid and Letang are shining under him. But I don’t think he has the horses–or at least enough of them–to pull it off. They’ve got to get more production out of guys like Fehr, Kunitz and Perron. Perron, in particular, has just fallen off the face of the earth (again).
Hopefully, the Pens will prove me wrong … 🙂