1. The Shot Total
In many ways, Game 1 of the Caps’ second-round series against the ‘Canes was exactly what we expected, one in which quality-over-quantity Carolina outshot Washington by a significant margin, but the game (on the scoreboard, at least) was tight throughout thanks to the Caps’ edge in goal and/or finishing talent and a brutal Caps defensive-zone turnover, and ultimately ended with some low-danger horseshit sneaking under Logan Thompson’s right pad.
It was as unsurprising as any Caps playoff game this season, even if the shot totals were a caricature of the two teams’ preferences for how to generate offense. As you drill down to the things that create meaningful offensive opportunity, the game gets closer and closer. Per NatStatTrick, Carolina had a whopping 73.4 percent of all-situation shot attempts (Corsi), 70.2 percent of shots on goal, 66.7 percent of scoring chances, and 59.4 percent of high-danger scoring chances; per SportLogic, the ‘Canes had 53.8 percent of the inner slot shots.
Per MoneyPuck, here’s what the goalies dealt with in terms of unblocked shot attempts (Fenwick):
Because of that low-danger volume, Carolina had 1.4 expected goals on low-danger shots, and scored the one that mattered that way (their first goal was categorized as medium-danger; Aliaksei Protas’s tally was low-danger, FYI).
That’s not to say that the Caps were “good” or even “good enough,” and if not for Logan Thompson (and his 2.2 goals saved above expectation, per MoneyPuck), this game almost certainly wouldn’t have even made it to overtime.
Only positive feedback from Spencer Carbery was on Logan Thompson.
— Sammi Silber 🏒 (@sammisilber) May 7, 2025
“I thought he was fantastic.”
Rather it’s to say that the game was exactly what was expected, tactically; the Caps just didn’t execute anywhere outside of their own crease:
And for as good as Thompson was, the Caps had just over two expected goals from medium- and high-danger chances and scored none on Freddie Andersen.
The optimist would say that the Caps played just about their worse conceivable game and lost on a low-percentage shot in overtime; the pessimist would say that the game shouldn’t have been nearly as close as the score, despite Carolina doing precisely what Washington expected them to do.
Either way, the ‘Canes dominated the Caps in the one stat that matters: they had 66.7 percent of the game’s actual goals.
2. The Turnover(s)
Puck management. What more can we say about the importance of clean exits from the defensive zone? The Caps weren’t nearly as good with the puck as they needed to be, but it didn’t cost them for most of the night… until it did:
With just over ten minutes left, and clinging to a one-goal lead, Aliaksei Protas tries to play the puck to Alexander Alexeyev in the middle of the defensive zone. The puck takes a bit of a deflection, but Alexeyev can’t handle the hand grenade and it’s 1-1 in the blink of an eye (friend of the blog Jack Han has a bit more on the play).
Protas took accountability for his play that led to the Carolina goal:
— Sammi Silber 🏒 (@sammisilber) May 7, 2025
“One mistake from me and it cost us, like, cost us a win basically. We got to be better and me personally."
Pro’s self-assessment is a bit harsh – a ‘Canes goal felt inevitable – but it certainly was a mistake and a costly one. And, again, exactly what you expect from Carolina – a tenacious forecheck forcing a turnover and a chance. Eventually, pucks start ending up in the net. (On a housekeeping sidenote, that play wasn’t considered a giveaway by Protas or Alexeyev or a takeaway for Carolina by the official scorekeeper.)
Thanks to Thompson and some defensive recoveries, the Caps weren’t burned as badly as they could’ve been for their puck mismanagement (and let’s be very clear – this goal was far from the only ugly turnover the Caps committed on the night). But it was very similar to Game 3 of the Montreal series and needs to be cleaned up ASAP. As we said at that time, it’s about poise: “The Caps – who were a great third period team all year and never panicked regardless of the situation – need to find that mental fortitude and that’s going to be a big test for their presumptive Jack Adams winner-in-waiting and his squad.”
3. The Draws
We touched on the importance (and/or lack thereof) of faceoffs, generally, and in this series, and it’s worth revisiting in the wake of Game 1, especially on a night that turned into a bit of a Linesman Show (if anyone keeps stats on centers getting warned and/or thrown out of draws…).
Overall, the ‘Canes won 35 of the game’s 63 faceoffs, or 55.6 percent. Not a huge advantage or anything that would be considered particularly noteworthy overall. But take a closer look and there are some red flags, specifically regarding faceoffs in the Caps’ defensive zone, where Carolina won 21 of 34 (61.8 percent).
To begin with 34 defensive-zone draws is way too many and a big contributor to those shot discrepancies discussed above. That’s the most (by 10; Game 3) that the Caps have had in the playoffs, and a number higher than any regular-season game they played except one (38 against Vegas in November). In fact, since the NHL started tracking the stat in 2009-10, the Caps have only had 34 defensive-zone faceoffs in six regular-season games and five playoff games (three games with 35, two with 34). League-wide, two games in this year’s playoffs have had a team take more defensive-zone draws: Los Angeles in an overtime loss had 39 and St. Louis had 36 in their Game 7 double-overtime loss (each team won at least half of those faceoffs).
So that establishes the “where” of it all, and the “why” is a combination of icings (a half-dozen), puck-freezes by Thompson (nine), and other miscellany. Which brings us back to the “what next?” and that 13-for-34 for Caps pivots in their own end. Although maybe we shouldn’t say “pivots,” since wingers Ryan Leonard, Aliaksei Protas, Connor McMihcael and Andrew Mangiapane each had a defensive-zone draw on the night. That quartet actually went 2-for-4 (McMichael and Mangiapane with the wins), leaving the Caps’ actual centers with the following splits in their own end:
Those numbers actually improved over the course of the game – Nic Dowd started out 0-for-6 in his own end.
Individually, Dowd struggled against Sebastian Aho (2-for-7) and Logan Stankhoven (1-for-4), and Dubois was just 1-for-6 against Aho (but 2-for-2 in the offensive zone; Dubois is now 3-for-15 against Aho in his own zone and 3-for-3 at the Carolina end of the rink). (This is the part of this bullet where we mention that faceoffs aren’t entirely about one player, and wingers often need to help their centers out.)
These are, of course, tiny samples, and serve more as a partial explanation for the ‘Canes numerical dominance in Game 1 than actionable intelligence to be employed in Game 2. But it’s something to keep an eye on and yet another area that the Caps will want to improve upon going forward.