The 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Tim Thomas the Train, Cup-Champion Boston, and Historical Stats

For as much energy as I try to put into promoting the game of hockey, it stings to say that I have spent the day after the conclusion of the National Hockey League’s Stanley Cup Final shrouded in disappointment. For starters, it’s not been able to decide all day if it’s going to keep raining or not, which means the entire day has been gray, chilly, and wet since before I got out of bed. Small beans, I know, but it sets a tone, like it or not.

Actually, you know what sets a tone? Roberto Luongo, for one, but we’ll get to him.

What sets a tone, though, is absorbing every possible ounce of post-season hockey, then missing well over half of the final round due to other commitments. The details to that end aren’t important, but suffice to say that the scheduling -- i.e. adult-league games of my own for games four and seven –- of the round just wasn’t in my favor. No, I don’t DVR, and no, I wouldn’t have wanted to watch any of these games after the fact. In the moment is in the moment. Anything else falls short.

But, my teammates and I hustled to get out of our locker room as fast as possible to maybe, fingers-crossed, catch the last bit of the third period, and if luck was on our side, we’d have overtime. I knew the Canucks were down 1-0 when I got to the rink, which left me pessimistic about the odds, given Vancouver’s lack of resiliency when they get down early.

When the round began, though, I was pulling for 1) a great round, 2) seven games, 3) good television ratings, and a 4) Vancouver victory, in that order. Batting .500 is supposed to feel good, right? Today, it doesn’t. Today feels real Mendoza Line-y. This was far from a great round. Through six games the visiting team was winless, and across the board, it was quite the dud of a series. Trust me, I know the value of tough, grind-it-out, old-school hockey, and I’m never going to say that one-nothing wins are always lame. But what do we like best about our sports?

Scoring. You can see significant differences if you compare one-goal games. For example, the Boston/Tampa Bay game seven in the Eastern Conference Finals was magical. Games one and five –- both Canuck victories -– in this round, though, were relative snoozers. Game two had the makings for an epic clash, coming off of the biting incident, the dogfight to score first in the first contest. It wound up being the only overtime contest of the series, though, and it was over in 11 seconds. Games three and four in Boston were ridiculous blowouts, and game six only had fleeting moments wherein one thought Vancouver might participate in the competition. So, while there were a significant number of pucks finding twine in this final round, it was not near as even keel between the teams as one would’ve liked.

Anyway, great for Boston fans to finally see their team hoist another Cup, and shame on the Vancouver fans for rioting and destroying their city after the loss. There were a number of other angles that disappointed me about this series, and those came from a handful of writers that offered their post-series thoughts. Two in particular were:

Chris Jones, who offered this bit from the new Grantland project. I get that Canadians don’t have a laundry list – beyond hockey – about which to be proud, but – again -- for someone who invests a significant amount of pride into trying to grow the game at the U.S. level, I felt that his angle of you’ll-never-know-hurt-like-we-know-it was a bit of a mail-in, especially considering that many Canadian fan bases pretend, or actually believe, that Vancouver is the country’s red-headed stepchild when it comes to unity, and of course, hockey. Second was a guy by the name of Ryan Lambert, who writes for a couple of sites, and does so in a sense that would appear –- I’ve only read two pieces and seen a slew of tweets -– so sophomoric that Andrew “Dice” Clay thinks his gig is a silly one. His angle anchors on the notion that anyone that disagrees with his takes is an imbecile, and in this round, in specific the decision –- or lack of necessity of one –- that hung around Alaine Vigneault’s neck heading into game seven: whether or not to start Roberto Luongo.

Nobody knows better than the head coach whether or not Schneider had recovered from standpoints mental and physical regarding his round-one injury. I, however, am of the opinion that Schneider was the go-to-guy for game seven. Far too many times in this post-season and in the previous two, did the fragile psyche of Luongo cost his club a W. Take the game-seven gamble and start Schneider. If it works you’re a hero; if it doesn’t, you take your lumps, maybe learn from your mistake. Vancouver going out and dropping a four-goal shutout loss, though, in game seven, in a series in which the home team was undefeated, redefined pathetic.

Yes. It was a team loss, and yes, the quick-fire Canuck offense could have and should have generated at least one tally, but existent is still the argument that, with Schneider in net, perhaps Vancouver takes a scoreless tie into overtime, a situation in which the home team could have had an edge. As the league says, though, history has been made, and congratulations are in order to the Bruins for their sixth National Hockey League championship. To the numbers…

If you’re new to this series, we’ve been compiling some post-season numbers. What follows is a collection of the previous 10 Stanley Cup Finals, and a look at this past one:

PREVIOUS TEN FINALS:

1999-2000, Cup champion, New Jersey Devils
Goals: 24
Shots: 349
(major) Penalites in Minutes: 0
Overtime Periods: 5
Home vs. Visitor: H
Games Per Series: 6

2000-2001, Cup champion, Colorado Avalanche
G: 30
S: 324
PIMs: 40
OTs: 0
H vs. V: H
GpS: 7

2001-2002, Cup champion, Detroit Redwings
G: 21
S: 281
PIMs: 0
OTs: 4
H vs. V: H
GpS: 5

2002-2003, Cup champion, New Jersey Devils
G: 31
S: 363
PIMs: 0
OTs: 2
H vs. V: H
GpS: 7

2003-2004, Cup champion, Tampa Bay Lightning
G: 27
S: 341
PIMs: 130
OTs: 3
H vs. V: H
GpS: 7

2005-2006, Cup champion, Carolina Hurricanes
G: 35
S: 359
PIMs: 15
OTs: 1
H vs. V: H
GpS: 7

2006-2007, Cup champion, Anaheim Ducks
G: 27
S: 226
PIMs: 0
OTs: 0
H vs. V: H
GpS: 5

2007-2008, Cup champion, Pittsburgh Penguins
G: 27
S: 374
PIMs: 20
OTs: 3
H vs. V: H
GpS: 6

2008-2009, Cup champion, Detroit Redwings
G: 31
S: 389
PIMs: 60
OTs: 0
H vs. V: V
GpS: 7

2009-2010, Cup champion Chicago Blackhawks
G: 47
S: 363
PIMs: 20
OTs: 2
H vs. V: H
GpS: 6

How this year's Finals stacked up against the previous 10:

Previous 10 Finals (by average)
Goals: 30
Shots: 336.9
Major PIMs: 28.5
OTs: 2
H vs. V: 9/1, in favor of the home team
Games per Series: 6.3

2010-2011 Finals
Goals: 31
Shots: 465
Major PIMs: 190
OTs: 1
H vs. V: H
Games per Series: 7

As evident, a tiny increase on the average in goals, coupled with a moderate increase in shots on goal, a huge spike in PIMs, a slight drop in overtime periods, a continued trend in home-ice advantage, and a bump in games per series.

How this post-season compared with the previous 10:

Previous 10 Playoffs (by average)
Goals: 441
Shots: 4972
PIMs: 414
OTs: 24
H vs. V: 120/82 (59 percent), in favor of the home team
GpS: 5.8

2010-2011 Playoffs
Goals: 505
Shots: 5640
PIMs: 745
OTs: 28
H vs. V: 11/4 (73 percent), in favor of the home team
GpS: 6.1

Looking at those stats, we see this post-season generating a huge spike in average number of playoff goals scored, and shots registered. Major-penalty minutes nearly doubled, and noteworthy increases in overtime periods, home-ice advantage trends, and games per series, which all in all, is a great thing for the game. Unless of course you subscribe to the less-is-more philosophy, in which case, you should probably be watching golf.

Until October, the hockey books have been closed.