The Oilers may have an even-strength problem

The Edmonton Oilers may have an even-strength problem.

Before Game 1, I wrote why I was concerned about this matchup for the Oilers. Edmonton has every reason to be Stanley Cup-minded considering the personnel across the roster, but Vegas figured to be a big challenge for an Edmonton team that still shows imperfections, especially at even strength.

That’s a problem against a Vegas team that’s famous – or infamous – for showing exceptional breadth across their lineup. In many ways they are the antithesis of the Oilers: much lighter on individual gamebreakers, but more reliability across the lineup.

It was a wild 6-4 victory for Bruce Cassidy’s team, but at times the game felt a bit one-sided. Absent Leon Draisaitl’s supernova performance, the Oilers struggled against an unrelenting and oppressive Vegas forecheck, turning the puck over at higher rates than we have been accustomed to since the turn of the calendar year. Unlike Los Angeles’ more conservative approach, Vegas dialled up the pressure and held it at maximum velocity, and by and large it worked.

I was curious to see how Cassidy would matchup against the Oilers, with a particular focus on dealing with Connor McDavid’s line (winged by Draisaitl and Zach Hyman). No team has the personnel to do much more than contain this group of playmakers, but I figured we would see the Mark Stone and Chandler Stephenson tandem hard-matched against them – Stone the reputed two-way player, Stephenson providing the speed and counterattacking ability that can put any unit on their heels.

The matchup data from Game 1 is shown below, and was well in line with what I suspected:

The McDavid line played staggering minutes while chasing deficits most of the night, so not only did the Stone line see a heavy dose of Edmonton’s stars, so too did Vegas’ third line of Michael Amadio, William Karlsson, and Reilly Smith.

That put Jack Eichel’s line head-to-head with Ryan Nugent-Hopkins’ line. With Edmonton dressing seven defencemen and losing Mattias Janmark early due to injury, the fourth line played sparingly.

Knowing the matchup rates, we can look at which lines carried advantage play against one another:

The Eichel line went to work on Edmonton’s middle six, burying them shift after shift in the defensive zone. And though the McDavid line had plenty of opportunities against the Stone line, that matchup was a draw in terms of real goals – Stephenson’s one-timer cancelling a Draisaitl goal for Edmonton.

So, there are two issues here. Edmonton wins most of their games because its top line can’t be contained for meaningful periods. And even when you fight the McDavid line to a draw, there’s a good chance they are going to find their way on the power play if given the opportunity. But in Game 1, Vegas’ power play found two goals of their own, erasing Edmonton’s usual advantage.

Vegas won’t be able to produce that every game in this series. Edmonton’s top line is just too good. But this series is close enough that it could be decided on the margins. Every goal advantage Edmonton is not realizing at the top of the lineup becomes added pressure for their second, third, and fourth lines to win their respective battles.

That’s what Jay Woodcroft and the Oilers coaching staff need to chew on when considering any lineup changes for Game 2 and beyond. Vegas may not have the offensive firepower that Edmonton does, but the aggression and competency throughout the lineup is something the Oilers are going to have to combat.

That was the difference in Game 1. We’ll see what changes Edmonton brings to the table Saturday night.

Data via Natural Stat Trick, NHL.com, Evolving Hockey, Hockey Reference