Hurricanes’ Second Line’s Playoff Dominance Raises Sustainability Questions

Despite having a proportionally high xGF/60, their expected goals percentage was just 58% (xG% is a share of the expected goals when you’re on the ice), which highlighted their defensive issues. The Stankoven line could create, but they also had a 2.65 expected goals against per 60 (xGA/60), by far the highest of any line on the Hurricanes that played 300 minutes or more. That, combined with the struggle to convert dominant chances into goals, was why they were not played more frequently.

What Caused the Second Line’s Offensive Outburst?

In the playoffs, that second line became a monster. Stankoven’s 11 goals in 19 games led the team, Hall reverted to Hart Trophy form, and Blake delivered an iconic moment in Game 4 against the Philadelphia Flyers in Round 2 with the “HeartBlaker” in overtime to send the Hurricanes through to the Eastern Conference Final.

Blake’s 20 points led the team, as he became just the third Hurricane to ever reach the 20-point plateau in a postseason, joining Cory Stillman and Eric Staal from 2005-06. So, why did they burst into life?

Well, let’s turn to the analytics. MoneyPuck says the Hurricanes’ second line had an xGF/60 in the playoffs of 4.29. When the number starts with a three, it’s good. When it starts with a four, it’s ridiculous. They got slightly better defensively, with an xGA/60 of 2.17, which was still the second-worst of all the team’s lines. They began to generate for fun. It got to a point where the other three lines just had to shut the game down, and the Hall-Stankoven-Blake trio would break the game open.

What changed? Luck. In the regular season, this line was slightly unlucky. Stankoven had a PDO (or puck luck, a metric that combines on-ice save percentage with shooting percentage) of .993, Blake had a PDO of .991, and Hall had a PDO of .988, according to Natural Stat Trick. Above one, you’re benefiting from luck. Below one, you’re unlucky. The further from one, the luckier or unluckier you are. That’s the logic, though there is no “perfect” way to define luck. In the playoffs, Hall’s PDO jumped to 1.035, Blake’s to 1.021, and Stankoven’s to 1.001.

This shouldn’t be interpreted as “oh, they were only good because they got lucky”. Mark Jankowski had a PDO of 1.038, and he was good, but no one is talking about him in the same way. You have to be good to be lucky, and you have to be lucky to be good.

Hall, Stankoven and Blake benefited from both, as every Stanley Cup champion does. One complements the other, and, again, it’s not a perfect measurement. They also had a shot conversion percentage of 14.29% in the playoffs and 11.33% in the regular season. They became more clinical.

Is Hall-Stankoven-Blake Success Sustainable?

That is the question. The answer is complicated. Their playoff dominance is probably a bit better than what we can realistically expect during the regular season, meaning their playoff performance isn’t sustainable. They outperformed their expected goals, and few Hurricanes lines under Brind’Amour can say that.

However, they’re likely better overall than what we saw in the regular season. Does this mean they can be pillars of the Hurricanes roster moving forward? Analytically, this should be the case, but analytics are not perfect and not an accurate measure of the future. They’re analytically closer to the line that torched the postseason than the ho-hum regular season they endured. This trio had a 70.6% goals share in the playoffs, meaning 70.6% of the goals that were scored with them on the ice belonged to this line; that does not happen, especially in the playoffs. They will learn from this, and maybe find another gear to become even better than they were.

The other thing to consider here is age. While Hall, 34, was considered the driving force, and he was excellent, Stankoven and Blake are just 23 years old. They’re still maturing. If those two can pick up the slack as Father Time begins to catch up with Hall on their line, they could repeat their success.

With everything these three have achieved, they’re always going to be thought of as a trio. They won and will walk together forever, to paraphrase the great Fred Shero. They’ve earned their legacy, sustainable or not. Nothing will change that.