History Lesson: Blackhawks At The Break

The Blackhawks limped into the All-Star break again this year, and fans are concerned. But history shows us that the Hawks have coasted into the break almost annually.

Here’s how the Hawks finished the “first half” of each season since the lockout-shortened 2012-13 campaign:

    • 2013-14 – Olympics
      Blackhawks record: 35-11-14 (84 points in 60 games)
      Blackhawks went 3-3-2 going into the break. Regulation losses @ Minnesota, vs Winnipeg and @ Arizona.
      Season Result: 5th seed in Western Conference, lost in Conference Final.
    • 2014-15 – All-Star Break
      Blackhawks record: 30-15-2 (62 points in 47 games)
      Blackhawks went 5-5-0 going into the break. Losses @ Washington, vs Colorado, @ Edmonton, vs Winnipeg, vs Dallas.
      Season Result: 4th seed in Western Conference, Stanley Cup Champions.
    • 2015-16 – All-Star Break
      Blackhawks record: 33-16-4 (67 points in 53 games)
      Blackhawks went 1-3-0 after a 12-game winning streak. Losses @ Tampa, @ Florida and @ Carolina.
      Season Result: 3rd in Western Conference, lost in first round.
    • 2016-17 – All-Star Break
      Blackhawks record: 30-16-5 (65 points in 51 games)
      Blackhawks went 3-4-0 into the break. Losses @ Washington, vs Minnesota, vs Tampa, vs Winnipeg.
      Season Result: TBD

Because people are poking holes in Corey Crawford’s performance this season – with his play having dipped since his appendectomy – here’s a look at his pre-All-Star Break numbers over the last four years.

  • 2013-14: 22-9-10, 2.35 GAA, .916 sv pct
  • 2014-15: 18-10-2, 2.26 GAA, .921 sv pct
  • 2015-16: 28-12-2, 2.14 GAA, .931 sv pct
  • 2016-17: 18-11-3, 2.57 GAA, .918 sv pct

How about scoring depth?

  • 2013-14: Four players with 50+ points in 60 games (Kane, Sharp, Toews, Hossa)
  • 2014-15: Four players with 30+ points in 41 games (Kane, Toews, Hossa, Saad)
  • 2015-16: Five players with 30+ points in 53 games (Kane, Panarin, Toews, Seabrook, Keith)
  • 2016-17: Five players with 30+ points in 51 games (Kane, Panarin, Anisimov, Keith, Hossa)

How much are the Hawks relying on Patrick Kane?

  • 2013-14: 63 points in 59 games, 19:41 ATOI
  • 2014-15: 51 points in 47 games, 19:54 ATOI
  • 2015-16: 73 points in 53 games, 20:40 ATOI
  • 2016-17: 49 points in 51 games, 21:49 ATOI

25 thoughts on “History Lesson: Blackhawks At The Break

  • January 27, 2017 at 3:38 pm

    Jeez looks an awful a lot like 2015 (moar then 2011 or 2012, Rufus).

    A reload after having a deep roster, not a play short handed with 6 ahl guys because we didnt have a good farm yet).

  • January 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm

    The play of 2, 7, 19, 81 and 50 will be the difference. Like the kids, the steadiness of the Hammer, the play of Panik and the Kane line but the vets will determine the path.
    A tough 6 game stretch after the break. They need to chisel out some points.

  • January 27, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    D. Sikura w/ 3 goals in last 8 min.- including game winner with 17 seconds left in game… kid has having big year… never seen him play… anyone with eyes on him?

    Hayden w/ 2 more goals tonite…

  • January 27, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    Hawks are still a very Good team and they are not at their best since the beginning of the season …Toews ,Kane are Getting better Lately ….wish i could see a bit more from Motte this season ….
    Duchesne will be available iff the Hawks are interested. …6 millions Cap …

  • January 28, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    2010…..I say no to Duchesne. Too expensive and has not done a lot to improve what was supposed to be the next great team a few years ago. Duchesne is a very good player. Hawks would have to give up a ton to get him. Lastly, his playoff exp……6 games in 09-10 and 2 games in 13-14…..6 assists, -3.

  • January 28, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    re: Matt Duchene – I get the fit and love the player. But sincerely – how the hell does the money work after this season? really? the easy answer is Colorado retains salary, but if Sakic did that INSIDE HIS OWN DIVISION to extend a dynasty, he shouldn’t work another day as a front office person in the NHL. there is nothing available – key word: available – in the Hawks organization that is worth Colorado retaining money to move a star to a rival who is already on top.

  • January 28, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    Only way could work if a big contract goes other way like wall gets his wish and crawford goes and packard comes back as your insurance. Maybe that with some retained salary for this year and moving kruger nexr year it might be doable but not to sure putting your eggs in that goaltender basket be a wise move or not. Your big contracts for next year would be 59.3 m including duschene and the rest of your skaters 7 more forwards to make 13 and4 more dmen to make 7 d could be done for 10m or a little less at the 69m range and leave you about 6m for pushed bonuses and goalies if one was packard thats 1 m leaving 5m for a 75m cap for bonuses and darling.

  • January 28, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Duchene would cost a lot – possibly a couple roster players, a prospect and a draft pick or two. It would seem likely that Kruger would be one of the roster players so that would be around $2.3M less cap space needed after replacing Kruger in the lineup with someone making less than $1M. But that still leaves another $3.7M in cap space needed to fit in Duchene’s $6M next season (and the next after that). The Hawks were already in the position of probably having to trade someone just to fit in Panarin’s new $6M cap space next season, so adding Duchene makes that even more of a requirement.

    So, it probably isn’t going to happen, but just dream of the Hawks having this top-6 heading into the playoffs:


    WOW! That could arguably the best top-6 in the league.

  • January 28, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    re: Ian – wtf would Colorado want Crawford for if they already have Varlamov? So they can have 2 expensive goaltenders next year?

    Again, thinking about any potential Duchene deal has to consider beyond 2016-17. It’s relatively easy to conceptualize making him fit financially during this season. But beyond this year it’s nearly impossible to see a scenario that makes sense.

  • January 28, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Tab- I have to agree… does it make sense for Avs??? Unless complete 3-4 Year Cubbie rebuild… then Sakic is gonna want youngest Hawks w/ promise… so Forsling + Schmaltz + Jr. (Debrincat?)… and Gifting/eating $$$ for Duchene… Seems like a stretch… Unless they see the next McDavid in draft 2-3 years from now… and are tanking to get him

  • January 28, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Wall – 3 kids doesn’t make financial sense for the Blackhawks after this season. It would have to be one of Anisimov/Seabrook/Kruger plus a kid or two plus a pick or two PLUS Colorado eating money… Seabrook doesn’t work in the rebuild narrative, Anisimov is probably a downgrade as a 2C, and a package including Kruger’s salary would have to include at least 2 prospects (not named McNeill, either).

    Again, Sakic would be unemployed if he traded Duchene a) for an older player, b) inside his division, c) and retained salary.

  • January 28, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    Agree with every statement. What about having another team involved in the trades. So it makes sense for each team.

    The only way I would want to add a core player at deadline is to not trade one of ours until draft. That way we would have the option of which core player (new core add included). I like we have the option with having 33 and think even if he goes to expansion draft he can come back (wants to be here more then anywhere else) would understand cap shit and know he can come back when he wants.

  • January 28, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    Hawk fan who lives in Denver and has watched a lot of avalanche hockey, the Hawks should stay far away from duchene. He is not worth the money, disappears for long stretches of time, is very about himself on the ice. There have also been rumors for years in Denver that he is a bad teammate and “me first guy.”

    If they hawks are looking to trade for an av it should be landeskog who would fix the lw problem, only makes 5.5 (yea half a million is splitting hairs but it is somewhat helpful), and he is still young.

    It’s a fantasy to think of getting either player but landeskog would be a better get.

  • January 29, 2017 at 7:59 am

    i am starting to think the hawks would be better of selling at the deadline to better position themselves over the next few years. Maybe its time for the hawks to move an old veteran for top prospects and picks so as to have an impact before the window on toews and kane closes. Trading teravanen (and then signing old soupy)when they were not going to win anyway killed the upside on this team. Neither I nor the majority of hawks fans are over that move. Because of that trade its time to restock the organization with young talent.

  • January 29, 2017 at 8:22 am

    We can all agree the Hawks have not played their best. Yet they are still up among the top teams in the standings. Look at other teams that needed to go on huge winning streaks to be among the top.

    The season is a marathon, the playoffs are the final sprint. The best teams save their best for the sprint.

  • January 29, 2017 at 10:20 am

    Pete give your head a shake. This team is and has been (for a while) built to win now. Panarin is under control for the next two full seasons. The goal of this organization over that time should be nothing but cups. Factor in the aging core and you can throw out the window the idea of a retool – which is basically what you’re suggesting.

  • January 29, 2017 at 10:47 am

    Pete… I agree- especially if it means dumping that Seabrook deal… if they add – it will only be a “non-difference maker”…

    If SB waits til summer… going to be dealing – from weak position- of Having to dump salary (again)… another Sharp/Oduya type move… getting little in return

    Good news- I think Hawks have a bunch of guys- Who MIGHT be decent NHL players in near future… Hayden, Forsling, D-Cat, Fortin, Bondra, From… I think 1-2 these guys can make the team/Contribute in less than 12 months

  • January 29, 2017 at 11:55 am

    I would like to know how much better the return would be by trading at deadline compaired to draft. I cant imagine its really any difference. Maybe a top 10-20 pick instead of a 20-30 pick and a couple more mid round picks. Why nutter yourself when you can make team/roster better (even if its a non-difference maker).

    I agree its better to load up better for coming yrs but I still think were going to do that anyways. The difference in the return is not worth sacrificing a/any yr with the current core. When Hossa is 41 and retires (and if we trade 7 caphit) that’s when we can sign (or trade for if available) for a top ufa FW and D. Then all of a sudden our oldest core players are Dunks at 35 and Crow at 37.

    We have a few good young guys and more coming. I know we donot want to have farm thin but draft picks are 2or3 yrs from being on roster contributing (4 if they play 4 yrs in college). So were getting in that area of when Hossa would be 41.

    Like to get a list of every guy whos going to bet 27 /28/29 as possible ufa (FW and D) during the yrs Hossas 41 and who we might be looking at then to have join the band.

    You know our organization is going to what ever it takes to keep roster at the top for 19/88 entire careers. This is just not a prime of prime yrs window but during those yrs you do what ever it takes every yr.

  • January 29, 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Advocating the Blackhawks sell at the deadline is a clear indication that a) you haven’t paid attention over the last 6 years, and b) you haven’t spent 10 seconds considering realistic replacements in the Blackhawks’ cap situation.

    wall likes to pick players to dump on an annual basis, which is fine. last year he was 100% on the “Marian Hossa is done” bandwagon. Now, with a healthy, productive 38-year-old Hossa having a tremendous bounce back season, we’re advocating an in-season sell? Please…

    As long as 2, 4, 7, 19, 81 & 88 are healthy, Stan Bowman is going for it. Wall’s comments about waiting until summer compromising Bowman’s bargaining position indicates zero understanding of the current NHL landscape, so I won’t waste time reminding him that there’s an expansion draft this summer that will have more pieces moving league-wide than in previous summers, so waiting is actually more advantageous. We’ll continue with the cliche “Seabrook sucks” and “Crawford is a replacement level player” arguments because they’re easy….

  • January 29, 2017 at 1:16 pm

    Tab whether you want to admit it or not there is a “malaise” setting in amongst hawks fans and it started with the trading of a previously untouchable star in the making for basically nothing. People on this board are reluctant to comment because they dont want to be accused of being ungrateful for past successes. I pay lots of money for season tickets so im commenting whether other people like it or not. i think hawks fans are entitled to an objective analysis of that trade from you 6 months after the fact

  • January 29, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    pete – no “untouchable star” has been traded.

    If you’re telling me Teravainen was untouchable, I have some lovely ocean front property in Nevada to sell you… he was FAR from an untouchable player, and the Blackhawks had to include something of significance to get Bickell’s paper off the books. I have also on multiple occasions noted that Teravainen would have been at the top of the list of players who Vegas would be taking off the Blackhawks’ roster. Is trading him for something – the returned pieces and cap space – worth more than the nothing the Hawks would have received this summer?

    I never said anyone was ungrateful for past success. I asked that we use some common sense when making trade demands. If the Blackhawks trade Brent Seabrook, are you prepared to get in a bidding war for Karl Alzner? because that’s reality. You aren’t signing Kevin Shattenkirk for under $7M, so let’s forget he’ll be on the market this summer.

    if you’re inside of your championship window, you don’t unload core pieces without the ability to immediately replace at equal or greater value for comparable dollars. If you honestly want to dump Carl Dahlstrom into the Blackhawks’ lineup skating 22 minutes/night next year and think that doesn’t set the franchise back further than keeping Seabrook, you’re wrong. Sorry.

    Hawks fans are absolutely entitled to their opinions – myself included. Some of us choose to educate ourselves before commenting, however.

  • January 29, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    Tab i said star in the making. And the fact that you are so sure he was certain to be plucked off the hawks roster year end supports his value. Also wasnt bickell on the last year of his deal and what was done with that money for this year? campbell? And if your trying to win now why remove a high end talent in tt from the roster even for 1 year. i never said you called people ungrateful but other posters on this site have done so for anyone questioning this trade. The most uncomfortable thing about the whole situation is bickells medical condition that later came to light. How that impacted things is total hindsight and clearly way more important than hockey. I think this trade was the decisive event for this season and its not being discussed. Could they have kept tt and still signed panarin?

  • January 29, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    first, re: Teuvo – he’s 9 days older than Hartman. Hartman has 10-10-20 in 46 games this season. “emerging star” Teravainen has 10-14-24 in 47 games this season.

    As I have pointed out countless times, the Blackhawks are in their championship window and are using the same model Detroit used for 2 decades. That model is this: identify the core players you cannot live without. Lock them up for life. In Chicago, that core appears to be Toews, Kane, Panarin, Hossa, Keith, Seabrook. Hjalmarsson is on an incredibly team-friendly deal. We’ll see where things go when his deal is up.

    After the core, everything is a job description – NOT an individual. In 2010, fans said “OMG we’ll never win again without Andrew Ladd! Why did they trade him?” fast forward 2 Cups later, and the same fans are screaming “OMG we’ll never win again without Brandon Saad! Why did they trade him?” The ONLY way to have a so-called dynasty in the hard cap era is consistently turning around high caliber prospects to replace anyone and everyone – except that core. Which is why Hartman, Kero, Hinostroza, Motte, etc are important now and over the next couple years. There are more prospects coming, and Bowman’s team has done a great job of finding talent in Europe (Panarin, Kempny, Rasmussen) and college free agents – all to supplement their draft picks.

    You’re right, Pete, that the unknown reality of Bickell’s health is incredibly unfortunate – more for the Bickell family than fans who get pissed about cap space. But Teravainen is RFA in 2017. if you’re in it to win it every single year, and if you believe you can replace Teravainen’s role internally, you move him because that extra $4M in cap space created means the Hawks aren’t forced to skate 7 rookies every night.

  • January 29, 2017 at 2:09 pm

    Thanks for the response tab. I guess it does in a way come down to comparing tt to some of the other younger players like hartman. I continue to believe it was a tough trade for hawks fans to stomach. Trading Saad didn’t bother me because they got good value back and saad forced their hands in contract negotiations. Bottom line its water under the bridge. I will try to get over it. Go hawks

  • January 29, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    moving on from young players isn’t easy, pete. I’ve written on a number of occasions about how teams moving on from young players prematurely – Sharp in PHI, Ladd in CAR – helped get the Blackhawks their first Cup. And, in a hard cap era, there are more young players getting moved “prematurely” than at any other time in league history (see Tyler Seguin shipped out of Boston, Taylor Hall dealt out of Edmonton). The pressure is on the front office to adequately replace guys they cannot afford to keep.

    Trading Jeremy Morin for Richard Panik and Adam Clendening for Gustav Forsling helps, too…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *