The LA Kings would be best advised to secure all future wins early, because if they’ve proved one thing in the first five games in their series with the Edmonton Oilers, it’s that they are not capable of securing much of anything late. Even forgetting the two third-period debacles otherwise known as why they lost games three and four, this started early. Game one looked out of reach for Edmonton, until they tied it late. Sure, the Kings pulled that one out with a late goal, but nobody was all that convinced that this would continue.
Why is it that the Kings now face a 3-2 deficit in games won in a series that seemed to promise them redemption for losing to these same Oilers three years straight? Further, what can they do to stop it, and did any such strategy work in game five, played Tuesday in Los Angeles? Those indeed are the questions that motivate interest in this team just now.
First, the why. Why does a team that looked so rejuvenated—ie. able to score goals—late in the NHL season, with a power play that almost couldn’t miss, now seem unable to get out of its own way, particularly in the later reaches of games?
Most people believe that Coach Hiller is working too few players too hard. Ice-time is mostly split between nine forwards, not twelve, and four defensemen, not six. And you thought the team working their elite horses to a ridiculous extent was the Edmonton Oilers!
This might change your mind on that: I know the three stars are a subjective call, but in games three and four, McDavid was not seen amongst them. Draisaitl was third star on both nights, and the first star was Evan Bouchard, hardly the guy you would think to beat you.
Other onlookers say no, a professional athlete can’t be easily tired, even when you’re talking forwards playing over 20 minutes. One thing they might be forgetting is that there are no games off in a series. You have to be ready to go in 44 hours from when the last game ended. It’s not the three days until the next one that the Kings have been experiencing. It’s game day/day off/game day etc.
And the games are intense, though having watched this series live in LA and on TV in Edmonton, and comparing them to other series happening, I would say it’s nowhere as nasty as Montreal-Washington (though how many are?) and not nearly as hyped up on caffeine as Toronto-Ottawa.
So what’s going on? Is it too simple to say that the Kings just stop playing in the third in cases when they have the lead? They did it in game one, but really just got “McDavided,” albeit in a game they eventually won. Games three and four were just games that they sat back and watched while other players, not even those wearing 29 of 97 as sweater numbers, did good things and stole victories. And game five—what a mess, on which more below.
Here’s how things got to this point: Entering period three of game three, the Kings were ahead 4-3. They were scored on four times (two into empty nets) in the third to lose 7-4.
To start period three of game four, they were up 3-1, but they allowed Edmonton to tie the game and then win it in OT. For the Kings, losing late is becoming, or has become, a habit.
Next question: What can the Kings do to stop this trend? Not start standing around watching, mesmerized, while the Oilers do their magic. That must be difficult while two of the greatest players ever are dangling. But watch it once and then figure out how to counter their moves.
And that brings us to game five, played in opposite order to what is normally done. What? It seemed like the Kings started by playing period three, so behind the play were they. The trouble was, things never got any better. A game with three third periods in a row, perhaps.
Consider a few things about the first 20 minutes, starting with the shots: 19-4 in favor of the Oilers. Think that’s bad? At one point, the tally was ten to nothing for the Oilers.
Right from the start the Oilers parked someone on the edge of the Kings’ crease and got him the puck. All period long, Draisaitl grabbed pucks at the right boards and then wheeled around one arm shielding, describing an arc in the slot and distributing from there.
On the penalty kill, they out-shot the Kings 2-1 shorthanded, both clears from distance, sure, but nonetheless technically more offense than the Kings generated. That single shot came, btw, with less than thirty seconds left in the man advantage.
The Kings’ one savior, and he had to be with shots totals like these and the score staying low, was Darcy Kuemper in the Kings’ net. His highlight stop was to come flying across an empty goalmouth with his catching hand outstretched and to snatch a sure goal out of the air. The shooter? The same Evan Bouchard who had already done so much damage against LA in prior games.
LA got some havoc created by the Byfield line late in period one, and put on a push that went about three minutes long. Then the Oilers took it back over for about the last five minutes. The period ended with no score. The Kings should have been thrilled with that outcome.
Period two was a bit more relaxed, but only, perhaps, because the Oilers were now picking and choosing when to attack. In fact, the Kings scored the first goal, around three minutes in, and the Oilers got it back three minutes later. The shots were still wildly lopsided in aggregate, 33-12 for Edmonton. The Kings had eight in this period, and Edmonton 14.
LA’s Adrian Kempe had the best chance for his team, down the left side, cutting across to the right and going for a backhand shot. Calvin Pickard held his position for the save. This was matched by the Oilers heading to the crease to follow in off-speed wristers from distance or carries and dumps that were turned over to them by the Kings.
The game was to end, eventually, with Edmonton ahead 3-1 and the final goal into an empty net. Third-period highlights included early mixing of lines by LA, and better control of the puck defensively, but then leaving a man unmarked in the form of Janmark, who slammed home a rebound.
Other semi-bright spots: The Kings saw McDavid pass to Draisaitl right off a faceoff and Kuemper make a nice save, but then they couldn’t do anything with the puck offensively, getting it only to center.
And finally, they played Adrian Kempe at left defense for a three-minute shift, to no avail.
The Kings were never close, and Mattias Janmark wasn’t afraid to say just that. “I felt like we started something in the second half of the third period of the last [fourth] game. We found something in our game, found the upper hand, and we weren’t about to let go of that. We executed for sixty minutes.” What they found, LA had lost.
Speaking again of the fourth game, he said, “We were rolling four lines and pressuring them, and they didn’t push back.” He might have added, “Nor did they do that tonight.” Why not? (PS Nobody can answer that, least of all, the Kings.)
Zach Hyman said, “I don’t remember the last time we played quite as complete a game as that. And it was a nail-biter still, since it was the playoffs.” He commented on how tough it is to win in LA’s building, but then said, “Obviously, we found something in that last game, and we carried it over to this game. We were able to throw out any combination of lines and … have a balanced attack.”
History is written by the victors, right? Say what Hyman did in the opposite way, and it would sound more like the Kings describing their failures rather than the Oilers their success.
Will the Oilers win out in six? That was the sentiment after the game. The Kings showed no sign of being able to stop this snowball rolling downhill. In fact, you could say, opposite the Oilers, that they are getting worse game by game and not better.
