Con: Penalties
Say what you will about the veracity of the penalties, but it was more the timing of them. St. Louis had a lead or the game was tied and you almost threw it all away by taking penalties.
You have an opportunity to go into intermission with a lead and the Blues go shorthanded in the final minute of the first. They are up by a goal in the third and take two consecutive penalties, almost right after one another, giving Utah a chance to tie the game.
You don't want to put your team in that situation anyway, but definitely not with a lead and how poorly your PK has been.
Pro: Penalty kill
Springboarding off the last topic, you have to give credit where it is due. The penalty kill got the job done.
You kill off half the penalty at the end of the first when it would be crucial to keep Utah off the board instead of getting all that momentum going into the locker room. Then you kill off the second minute with fresh ice in the second period. Very key to maintaining things.
Honestly, I thought the penalty to Mathieu Joseph was weak, but you have to kill it. You just had a big kill on the Ryan Suter penalty, so you can't allow Utah to come right back and score just because the refs put you back in the box.
It doesn't matter if it was pretty and it doesn't matter if Utah missed any chances. Binnington made the saves he needed to and the defense did well enough to keep Utah off the board on three power plays.
Considering the Blues had allowed eight goals in their last 16 penalty kills, having any result where you don't allow one was big.