|
This needs to go to seven so the Kings can play the full compliment of games possible to them and be too exhausted to compete in the 2014/15 season.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Pleads posted:Good Riddance Bob Cole He's confirmed as coming back next year.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I feel like it's a little easier to get off work early and catch the 5pm game than it is to stay up until 1am watching a game but that's just me I had a good employer in 2011 and was allowed to leave just after 3:30PST each day so I could get downtown for the games I went to, but it was a nightmare. Anyone who has a rigid 9-5 would be in trouble. As someone who has spent larger portions of his life in both time zones, I've always felt that 8:30EST/5:30PST would be an acceptable compromise, but I guess that clashes with a lot of TV programming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
So who are the leading Conn Smythe candidates for each team? LAK: Kopitar, Doughty, Williams NYR: Lundqvist, McDonaugh, St. Louis Something like that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
Buane posted:Unless MSL scores the OT game-winner in three Finals games or something, there's no realistic scenario in which the Rangers win the cup and Lundqvist does not with the Conn Smythe. Question is, does he lift the cup if they win or will one or all of the alternate captains do that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Has there ever been a situation where a team without a captain has competed for the Stanley Cup before? e: Wikipedia says the last team to do so was the 72/73 Blackhawks.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ Why does New York winning make Vancouver look worse? I'm a devoted Canucks fan, and I can tell you that I'm pulling for the Rangers. There is little to no love for the Kings in Vancouver. People are over 94. 2011 and 2012 are the new man baby rage inducing incidents in team history. Overwined posted:"A few more" he says. poo poo if you dropped a Cup in Columbus right now and never let them have another for 40 loving years, they'd still be sold out from here to eternity. LA Fans are well beyond jaded about hockey and that's unlikely to change in our lifetimes. Yeah, look what one cup did for Pittsburgh and Chicago. They're two of the biggest markets in hockey and don't look to be cooling off any time soon. If LA couldn't develop a fan base after 2012, I don't think another one will change things substantially. New York is largely in the same situation. There was a spike of interest in 94, but it faded quickly. Tickets might be expensive, but as I understand it the hype in the city is still fairly muted. All it will take is the Jets to sign a new running back or the Yankees to go on a 5 game winning streak for everyone to forget about hockey again. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Jun 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
Mr. Kite posted:Is Anze still not a top 5 center? Yes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Possession stats suggest that Richards and Moore have been equally terrible this playoffs. Conversely, Stepan and Brassard have been as good as the other two have been bad so I guess that balances things out. You can sorta excuse Moore because he's started 30% of his shifts in the attacking zone, but Richards has no excuse considering he's begun 57.8% of his shifts there. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:Please win Rangers!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
LA are a good possession team, but they've been fortunate making it to the finals so far. They've been wildly inconsistent throughout the playoffs, and you can't say that winning 3 straight game 7s on the road is anything more than blind luck.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
All that conference championship stuff is going to be super depressing to own if the Rangers don't win the cup.Aye Doc posted:most posters on this forums will say "teams who make the stanley cup finals have to get extraordinarily lucky, in that they need to keep their core players healthy, they need to not run into poor matchups, they need to blahblahblahblah" but now the kings are TOO lucky to have stayed healthy and beaten their tough matchups and won their game 7s and blahblahblah. I'd consider most teams fortunate to win a series that goes to seven games. It doesn't exactly show that a team has been consistent or vastly outplayed their opponent. It's perfectly reasonable to assume the better team will lose a game or two games in a series, but a series going seven games usually indicates that both sides were pretty evenly matched. To do that three times in one year tells me that they were more lucky than effective. ThinkTank fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Rangers are just as lucky to be where they are, and I fully expect LA to win the cup in 5 or 6 games (I predicted 5 in the prediction thread). However, that doesn't mean that LA aren't fortunate to be in the finals as well. In 2012 the Kings were perhaps the most dominant playoff team I can recall, this year that isn't the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Since when have the internal workings of the NHL even made the slightest bit of sense?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2014 14:08
|
|
|
Mr. Kite posted:I expect a sweep from the Kings now. For that statement alone I hope the Kings lose in 5.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
It's one game where for stretches the Kings were vastly outplayed and won in overtime. It's way too early to say the Rangers are done, let alone that a sweep is inevitable. Rein it in bucko.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
Overwined posted:Somehow I expect your imperative will have about as much success as his prediction. No doubt, but going 1-0 up in a series after an OT win is no time to be cocky. It just reminds me of all those lovely Canucks fans saying there was no way they could lose after being up 2-0 on the Bruins and hoping they lost one game in Boston so the cup could be won at home.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Furious Lobster posted:Still really new about hockey so foot-in-mouth statements otherwise, if the subject is avoidable goals, wouldn't the two goals by the Rangers also fall into that category? Doughty made a turnover that shouldn't have happened and the other goal was a misfortunate bounce/deflection? off of Voynov's skate that would have been a save otherwise. Looking back at the game, it seemed like the Rangers' goals were by chance or a rare mistake from a fairly good player and nothing really happened because of their skills or abilities. Capitalizing on turnovers is how a large portion of goals are scored in the NHL. Defences and goaltenders are so good that, unless you can pounce on a mistake, you're not going to do too well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Voynov may have kicked it into his own net, but he really shouldn't have been in a position where he was forced to desperately race back to stop an attacker while on the PP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Duck Rodgers posted:This is kind of funny: https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/my-life-and-times/stanley-cup-preview/ That was great quote:Jonathan Quick, Los Angeles, #32
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
The trick here is to not use empty epithets like 'elite' and to judge a player entirely on their individual merits and how they fit in with their team. Even if everyone suddenly agreed that Nash was in fact 'elite' would it change anyone's perception of him at all? He'd still be the same player.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Holla Forth posted:Rick Nash is super elite based purely on that one highlight from a decade ago where he goes And-1 Mixtape all over Phoenix. That goal is seriously overrated. He loses control of it at the end, and it fortuitously ends up back on his stick at the last second. It was a cool attempt, but he didn't exactly execute it to perfection.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Zybl0re posted:Make NHL refs give post-game pressers so they can explain to everyone why they made whatever controversial call. I'm sure it would clear up a lot of things. Refs are going to start demanding a hell of a lot more money if this turns into a thing. They aren't paid to be PR guys at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Emetic Hustler posted:If it means some accountability on their part it's well worth the money. As it is now, it's a joke. They're human and make mistakes, but I've read reports that say they're usually pretty drat good at making the correct decision. I don't think it's fair putting a particular referee under the microscope for a bad call, they have a million things to pay attention to at any given time and calling them out for one thing they get a split second to look is pretty cruel. I'm alright with expanded video review for things like goaltender interference so long as it doesn't slow the game down (I think giving the coaches one challenge each per game is a decent middle ground), but reviewing every scoring play for things that are essentially subjective will be just as controversial if not more so (see how much debate the King goal thing has caused here, how is the ref supposed to decide one way or another even if he's watching the replay?). Refs do a tough job, but that's part of the game. I wouldn't want hockey called by perfect referee robots, because that would take some of the human element out of the game. If a team can't recover from one unfortunate instance going against them, it's their failing not the refs. In the long run these things balance out anyways.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:If the review is conclusively against you, you get a delay of game penalty. If the replay is inconclusive or goes your way, you do not. Perfect, I like that idea. Care to submit it to the competition committee for consideration?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Mr. Kite posted:I remember when r-lam posted here and had his twolinepass blog. Whenever somebody made an interesting point here, it would end up in his blog, unattributed. He still liberally steals opinions from other people and posts them as his own, however this time his audience is much bigger. He's the definition of a hack.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Wamsutta posted:I'm already ill thinking about the game tonight. If you didn't wake up and immediately vomit pure bile out of nervousness, you're not a real fan.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
Overwined posted:If you slept, you're not a real fan. Do alcohol induced comas count as sleep?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
e: dammit
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Haha one of Zuccarello's favourite players growing up was Patrick Kane, a guy over a year younger than him!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
The Kings had 15 shots. That is all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:Didnt they still have more possession time than the Rags too, despite the shot difference? quote:Dave Davis @DaveDavisHockey 2m
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
ThinkTank on 23 April 2014 posted:So when do we start calling Jon Quick a one season wonder? I am so sorry. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Gio posted:has there been a team in the modern era to win a cup in front of a goalie with a sub .910 sv% I think I saw a stat this morning that the only worse cup winning goaltender in recent years was Tom Barrasso in 92.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Players have bad series, Dan Girardi is still a good player from everything I've seen. Three weeks ago no one was concerned with him, and hopefully this doesn't colour everyone's perception of him from here on out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
I don't think you can really judge any of the Rangers based on this series alone. No one has been all that good aside from maybe Hagelin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:a slow defenceman known for blocking shots instead of [good hockey skills] yeah i wouldn't want people to think too negatively of him Except Dan Girardi isn't Hal Gill  While I much prefer smooth skating puck moving defencemen, it's not like other types of players can't be effective. Being solid positionally with a good breakout pass and the ability to angle guys off plays can be very useful too. Neither Weber or Chara are really any good at skating, but they make up for it by being perfect positionally. Girardi isn't either of them, but he's hardly garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Verviticus posted:I think girardi was a decent player a couple years ago at his best, and is OK now. and next year he's going to be bad, and then awful, and people will be lamenting the colossal sum of money he didn't really earn I don't disagree to be honest. His possession stats have been trending down since 11/12, and except for a few instances most stay at home defencemen seem to fade quickly after 30. Then again, people are acting like because of this series he's suddenly transformed into Andrew Alberts c. whistle chasing days and that's just not the case. He'll still be an effective player for a number of years, but yes probably at a premium price wise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
bewbies posted:On the one hand I shouldn't ask this but on the other hand I'm really curious why anyone would hate Doughty. He's really really good and fun to watch. Whiny player, dives, seems like a dick, plays for an unpopular team. I liked Doughty c. 2010 but he's slowly become someone I detest and not just in a "he's really good and keeps beating my team" kinda way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
I think the real question is whether or not Doughty is ELITE
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2014 23:40
|
|