I watched last night's Caps game fully in mind of the Caps long (and terrible) history of finishing series' where they lead by two games. It was certainly exciting when OV scored early, to give the Caps the lead.
On that one, and beautiful MarJo backhand found OV alone in the high slot. OV's shot actually found Lundqvist leaning the right way, covering the angle, but also found the top corner. No way in hell was that shot getting blocked.
From there, it was good to see the Caps not turtle down into a defensive shell, but they still gave up a late goal to tie the game up (yeah, I just elided more than two-thirds of the game). That pushed the game into overtime, where the Caps looked very good (several seriously dominant shifts that forced some really good saves, but didn't find the back of the net).
But then they iced it and lost the resulting draw. The puck went back to the point for a long shot, whose rebound went right to an uncovered Stepan for an easy goal. Such an anticlimactic way to end.
Such a familiar ending for the Caps.
Only two positives, here. One, I think the Caps will be better next year (especially if Trotz finds it in him to trust Bura more). And two, at least they didn't go further into OT. Another quadruple OT loss would have had me losing my mind.
I'm now going to try to forget about the Caps for the next several months.
Showing posts with label game 7. Show all posts
Showing posts with label game 7. Show all posts
20150514
20140602
Kings win the Cup! Kings win the Cup!
Well, I saw most of last night's Kings/Hawks finale, and it was quite the barn-burner. I turned it on in the first, with the Hawks ahead 1-0, just seconds before the Kings took a tripping penalty that led to Hawks' second goal. And boy, did it get chaotic after that.
Well, it was quiet for almost eight more minutes, but then it went crazy with the Kings scoring twice and the Hawks once in a sixty-three second span. That saw the Kings tie it, then the Hawks retake the lead on a very freaky skip off the ice.
The second period was much quieter, with matching goals (Chicago's goal being on the power play again, where they spent much of the first two periods).
The third period had no power plays at all (and as a side note: Olczyk is an ass for advocating non-calls for infractions, as he did between the second and third periods. The rules are what define the game as hockey; if you throw those out, you've just got muggings on skates. Ignoring penalties is not "keeping the refs out of the game", it's favoring a particular style of play that isn't terribly fun to watch. Basically, it favors the bigger team that's willing to push the boundaries further, which greatly increases the odds of injuries), and saw the Kings solidly dominate possession and eventually get it past Crawford. But that only tied the game; being Game Seven wasn't dramatic enough. Apparently, overtime was needed.
Well, first Quick needed to make a couple of tough saves with only a few seconds left, but he managed to do that.
Although both teams got chances, the Kings definitely had the better of the play in overtime. With both teams just throwing the puck at the net at just about every opportunity, eventually the Kings got a break when a wrister from the point went off Leddy's arm and past Crawford to seal the win.
Despite my provocative headline, while the Kings have a large edge going into the series, beating the Rangers is not a fait accompli. The biggest reason for that, of course, is Lundqvist, but they're far from talentless in the skating department.
What'll be really amusing is if it goes to Game Seven. Will the universe explode when Williams (7-0 all-time in Game Sevens, 14pts in those games) faces Lundqvist (6-1, .940-ish SV%)? Let's hope we get to find out.
Oh, one other factor; LA will be a bit more tired, after having to play the maximum of 21 games already. Not sure if that'll factor in; getting a couple days rest before Game One certainly helps.
Well, it was quiet for almost eight more minutes, but then it went crazy with the Kings scoring twice and the Hawks once in a sixty-three second span. That saw the Kings tie it, then the Hawks retake the lead on a very freaky skip off the ice.
The second period was much quieter, with matching goals (Chicago's goal being on the power play again, where they spent much of the first two periods).
The third period had no power plays at all (and as a side note: Olczyk is an ass for advocating non-calls for infractions, as he did between the second and third periods. The rules are what define the game as hockey; if you throw those out, you've just got muggings on skates. Ignoring penalties is not "keeping the refs out of the game", it's favoring a particular style of play that isn't terribly fun to watch. Basically, it favors the bigger team that's willing to push the boundaries further, which greatly increases the odds of injuries), and saw the Kings solidly dominate possession and eventually get it past Crawford. But that only tied the game; being Game Seven wasn't dramatic enough. Apparently, overtime was needed.
Well, first Quick needed to make a couple of tough saves with only a few seconds left, but he managed to do that.
Although both teams got chances, the Kings definitely had the better of the play in overtime. With both teams just throwing the puck at the net at just about every opportunity, eventually the Kings got a break when a wrister from the point went off Leddy's arm and past Crawford to seal the win.
Despite my provocative headline, while the Kings have a large edge going into the series, beating the Rangers is not a fait accompli. The biggest reason for that, of course, is Lundqvist, but they're far from talentless in the skating department.
What'll be really amusing is if it goes to Game Seven. Will the universe explode when Williams (7-0 all-time in Game Sevens, 14pts in those games) faces Lundqvist (6-1, .940-ish SV%)? Let's hope we get to find out.
Oh, one other factor; LA will be a bit more tired, after having to play the maximum of 21 games already. Not sure if that'll factor in; getting a couple days rest before Game One certainly helps.
20140501
First round finishes
I didn't get to watch as much as I'd've liked, last night. I watched the second and third periods of the Flyers and Rangers, and most of the first period of the Avs and Wild.
So I saw everything that mattered of the former game, and very little of the latter. And missed all of the Kings and Sharks, which was actually the series I most wanted to watch.
The Rangers got off to a quick start (well, relative to my watching) as they got a power play in less than forty seconds. They didn't score on it, but did threaten quite a bit, and managed to score shortly after it ended. Zuccarello tossed the puck toward the front of the net from the half wall, and found Carcillo's stick as he deflected it into the net.
The Rangers kept the upper hand through the rest of the period (including an impressive flurry right before time expired), but only managed one more goal, eight and a half minutes after the first.
In the third, it was clear that the Rangers were in lead-protect mode, and were mostly focused on keeping the Flyers out. I'm not at all a fan of that kind of "prevent defense" mentality; it focuses on preventing very small percentage plays, and concedes a lot of larger percentage plays (larger in aggregate, not individually). And overall, it works out much worse.
But it worked out ok, as the Rangers were able to keep the Flyers to only one goal in the third.
So the Rangers will face the Pens, which should be an interesting series.
The timing worked out pretty well, as I flipped over to the Wild/Avs game just at the opening faceoff. And it started out very well for the Avs, as they got a power play goal in the third minute. Things were looking pretty good for them until a mystery tripping penalty call was made on Wilson a minute later.
Minnesota didn't score, but they definitely seized the better of the play for the next several minutes, and Koivu put one in about five minutes later. Things looked up again for the Avs when, several minutes later, McGinn got it past Kuemper to restore their lead.
Unfortunately, that was about when I had to turn the game off, so I missed the Wild coming back and winning in overtime. Very disappointing.
I've already seen some people blaming Varly for "failing to hold the lead", but that's some terrible "analysis". It isn't any easier to hold a lead (from a goalie's perspective, anyway) than it is to build one. It's frustrating, but no goalie will ever be so predictable as to not give up a lead. Sometimes he'll make the save, sometimes he won't; whether the team is ahead, tied, or behind has no bearing on that question.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the better team won. Possessionally, the Wild were much better than the Avs this season, despite their respective records. So the Wild should have been favored (I don't really know if they were, generally), coming in. Much of the difference in records comes from Varly playing considerably over his head (ie: more than an entire percentage point better than his career average), to the tune of twenty goals over the season. And there was no reason to expect that to continue in the playoffs (it was possible, but equally possible that he'd play significantly worse than his career numbers).
Oh, and on another goalie note, I was amused to see that a) another goalie was pulled (I believe that makes twelve for the playoffs, so far), and that b) the team pulling the goalie actually won (I think that's a first for the season). It's a bit of a sign that, in the thirteen minutes and change that Bryz played, he only needed to stop one shot on goal. That's some domination.
Anyway, I was a little disappointed, both because I like Varly (domestic violence aside) and because I used to enjoy watching the Avs play (haven't had that opportunity in a long time).
Which brings us to the last game, the Kings/Sharks game that I entirely missed. I saw a bunch of tweets yesterday that the Sharks were going to fold like a cheap suit, and it would be easy to say that that's what happened. But possession numbers show that the game was very close from start to finish, and the difference really comes down to goaltending.
Quick stopped 39 of 40, while Niemi only stopped 25 of 28 (two empty net goals gave the final score).
That actually makes it look like the Sharks had a big edge in possession, but they really didn't, as their lead in Fenwick only came in the last five minutes or so, with LA focused on maintaining their lead (which is to say that you'd expect a large shot lead in that situation). In fact, 5v5 close Fenwick was dead even in the game.
I wonder how extreme the overreaction will be from Sharks fans and management. Well, actually, given the ages of the key players, there might not be such a thing as an overreaction. But if you were just to evaluate expectations, without accounting for age-related decline, you'd say they were merely unlucky (or "Caps West").
Anyway, all of that leaves us with an all-LA series and a very North-South (Chicago/Minnesota) series in the West. And a small grundge match (Rangers/Penguins) and a large one (Bruins/Habs) in the East. I feel pretty comfortable picking Chicago, LA, and Boston to win their series; I'd give a small edge to the Pens in theirs, but wouldn't go so far as to say I'm comfortable picking them to win (especially given the odds of Fleury remembering that he's a pretty terrible playoff goalie).
So I saw everything that mattered of the former game, and very little of the latter. And missed all of the Kings and Sharks, which was actually the series I most wanted to watch.
The Rangers got off to a quick start (well, relative to my watching) as they got a power play in less than forty seconds. They didn't score on it, but did threaten quite a bit, and managed to score shortly after it ended. Zuccarello tossed the puck toward the front of the net from the half wall, and found Carcillo's stick as he deflected it into the net.
The Rangers kept the upper hand through the rest of the period (including an impressive flurry right before time expired), but only managed one more goal, eight and a half minutes after the first.
In the third, it was clear that the Rangers were in lead-protect mode, and were mostly focused on keeping the Flyers out. I'm not at all a fan of that kind of "prevent defense" mentality; it focuses on preventing very small percentage plays, and concedes a lot of larger percentage plays (larger in aggregate, not individually). And overall, it works out much worse.
But it worked out ok, as the Rangers were able to keep the Flyers to only one goal in the third.
So the Rangers will face the Pens, which should be an interesting series.
The timing worked out pretty well, as I flipped over to the Wild/Avs game just at the opening faceoff. And it started out very well for the Avs, as they got a power play goal in the third minute. Things were looking pretty good for them until a mystery tripping penalty call was made on Wilson a minute later.
Minnesota didn't score, but they definitely seized the better of the play for the next several minutes, and Koivu put one in about five minutes later. Things looked up again for the Avs when, several minutes later, McGinn got it past Kuemper to restore their lead.
Unfortunately, that was about when I had to turn the game off, so I missed the Wild coming back and winning in overtime. Very disappointing.
I've already seen some people blaming Varly for "failing to hold the lead", but that's some terrible "analysis". It isn't any easier to hold a lead (from a goalie's perspective, anyway) than it is to build one. It's frustrating, but no goalie will ever be so predictable as to not give up a lead. Sometimes he'll make the save, sometimes he won't; whether the team is ahead, tied, or behind has no bearing on that question.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the better team won. Possessionally, the Wild were much better than the Avs this season, despite their respective records. So the Wild should have been favored (I don't really know if they were, generally), coming in. Much of the difference in records comes from Varly playing considerably over his head (ie: more than an entire percentage point better than his career average), to the tune of twenty goals over the season. And there was no reason to expect that to continue in the playoffs (it was possible, but equally possible that he'd play significantly worse than his career numbers).
Oh, and on another goalie note, I was amused to see that a) another goalie was pulled (I believe that makes twelve for the playoffs, so far), and that b) the team pulling the goalie actually won (I think that's a first for the season). It's a bit of a sign that, in the thirteen minutes and change that Bryz played, he only needed to stop one shot on goal. That's some domination.
Anyway, I was a little disappointed, both because I like Varly (domestic violence aside) and because I used to enjoy watching the Avs play (haven't had that opportunity in a long time).
Which brings us to the last game, the Kings/Sharks game that I entirely missed. I saw a bunch of tweets yesterday that the Sharks were going to fold like a cheap suit, and it would be easy to say that that's what happened. But possession numbers show that the game was very close from start to finish, and the difference really comes down to goaltending.
Quick stopped 39 of 40, while Niemi only stopped 25 of 28 (two empty net goals gave the final score).
That actually makes it look like the Sharks had a big edge in possession, but they really didn't, as their lead in Fenwick only came in the last five minutes or so, with LA focused on maintaining their lead (which is to say that you'd expect a large shot lead in that situation). In fact, 5v5 close Fenwick was dead even in the game.
I wonder how extreme the overreaction will be from Sharks fans and management. Well, actually, given the ages of the key players, there might not be such a thing as an overreaction. But if you were just to evaluate expectations, without accounting for age-related decline, you'd say they were merely unlucky (or "Caps West").
Anyway, all of that leaves us with an all-LA series and a very North-South (Chicago/Minnesota) series in the West. And a small grundge match (Rangers/Penguins) and a large one (Bruins/Habs) in the East. I feel pretty comfortable picking Chicago, LA, and Boston to win their series; I'd give a small edge to the Pens in theirs, but wouldn't go so far as to say I'm comfortable picking them to win (especially given the odds of Fleury remembering that he's a pretty terrible playoff goalie).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)