Skip to content

Could home ice advantage tilt things in the Boston Bruins’ favor?

Jun 6, 2011, 5:36 PM EST

Comments Off
Tampa Bay Lightning v Boston Bruins - Game Five Getty Images

When it comes to professional sports, it’s often difficult to accurately gauge the impact of home field advantage. That’s true to some extent with the NHL, but there are some tangible advantages to go with superficial or imaginary ones (such as loud fans cheering you on … and maybe intimidating officials into making calls they wouldn’t normally make?).

The biggest advantage is that the home coach receives the last line change. That might be exceedingly relevant in the face of Alex Burrows‘ overtime game-winner in Game 2; as the Vancouver Province points out, Andrew Ference probably wouldn’t have been on the ice if Claude Julien was certain he would get the matchup he wanted. The Boston Bruins can get the matchups they want more often in Games 3 and 4, which might be a big difference-maker in a series that has been skin-tight so far.

Home team centers also have an advantage in the faceoff circle (and not just because coaches can pick and choose which centers face off against each other). The away center must place his stick on the ice first before the puck drops, giving the home center a slightly better chance to win. Take a quick look at how the major faceoff men on both teams have done in home and away games during the playoffs.

Boston’s faceoff guys (minimum 150 FO’s taken)

Patrice Bergeron at home: 130-62 (67.7 percent); away: 123-92 (57.2 percent)
David Krejci at home: 91-80 (53.2 percent); away: 75-75 (50 percent)
Chris Kelly at home: 48-53 (47.5 percent); away: 34-48 (41.5 percent)
Note: Of the Bruins who took at least 100 faceoffs in the playoffs, Rich Peverley is the only center with a better road winning percentage (54.2) than at home (52.5).

Vancouver’s faceoff guys (minimum 150 FO’s taken)

Ryan Kesler at home: 159-125 (56 percent); away: 117-104 (52.9 percent)
Henrik Sedin at home: 110-142 (43.6 percent); away: 78-84 (48.2 percent)
Maxim Lapierre at home: 53-62 (46.1 percent); away: 48-41 (53.9 percent)

As you can see, Boston centers see a dramatic improvement in their faceoff winning abilities … yet the Canucks are inexplicably better in the faceoff circle on the road. It’s probably worth mentioning that Vancouver has played five more home than road games so far, so that sample size difference might explain the discrepancy a bit.

Either way, home ice advantage might help the Bruins gain more puck control and thus alleviate some (but not all) of their decision-making ills.

Home and road records in regular season and playoffs

Boston in the regular season: Home: 22-13-6; Road: 24-12-5
Boston in the playoffs: Home: 7-3; Road: 5-5

Vancouver in the regular season: Home: 27-9-5; Road: 27-10-4
Vancouver in the playoffs: Home: 9-3; Road: 5-3

As you can see, both teams were pretty balanced at home and on the road in the regular season but have been significantly stronger at home in the postseason. (The Bruins came into the finals with a 5-3 road record while the Canucks came in 7-3 at home, obviously.)

It makes sense that each squad leans on the advantages of playing at home a bit more in the playoffs. With more concern for matchups (and time to break down video to exploit those matchups) in a best-of-seven series, the last change and faceoff advantages make a difference. Perhaps the teams are also a little less nervous about putting on a good show in front of their fans in the postseason as well, realizing that crowds are delighted by wins more than anything else during this time of year.

***

So, will these advantages add up to a win or two for Boston in the next two contests? The games have been awfully close so far, but if the Bruins fall behind in Game 3, they might worry about their fans turning on them. Either way, you can find out what happens by watching the game tonight on Versus at 8 p.m. ET.

Featured video

Coaches in and out of the hot seat

Sign up for Fantasy hockey

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Datsyuk (2782)
  2. V. Hedman (2697)
  3. P. Sharp (2540)
  4. B. Marchand (2319)
  5. S. Crosby (2100)
  1. D. Krejci (1981)
  2. Z. Chara (1904)
  3. P. Dupuis (1881)
  4. B. Dubinsky (1841)
  5. S. Varlamov (1630)