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.
Read more

FJMing Bill "SportsGuy" Simmons' Grantland NHL Piece

Bill Simmons launched grantland.com this week, and it looks to be a promising source of great writing. The cast of authors he has recruited for this project is spectacular, and I, for one, will be checking in in search of new content as often as the Twitters tell me that such content has been added. I have never been a frequenter of the sports guy’s ESPN Page2 column, but on the occasions in which it was suggested to me that I read a specific piece, I have always enjoyed those selections, and have been thankful for the recommendations. For my tastes, however, there is always a little too much baseball, a little too much basketball, and a lot too much Boston-area sports. I don’t have a beef with Boston-area sports, and I admire his upfront admission of fandom, but I want my Kansas City Chiefs to beat his New England Patriots and my Kansas City Royals to beat his Boston Red Sox every time they play one another, not because I dislike those franchises, but because that means my clubs are doing something right and, in those moments, possess the ability to beat good teams.

In my youth, when the NBA was a different animal, I always pulled for the Celtics (pronounced with a hard ‘C’) over the Lakers, and in my years as a hockey fan, I’ve been of the opinion that it would be great for the Boston Bruins to return to excellence, because I imagine that a super-strong market for that particular club would be good for Boston sports, and more importantly, facilitate the growth of the game in the States, which has almost always been hard to do, and become even harder to do given that a lot of the more-popular sports blogs ridicule the game with headlines like, “Hockey Happened,” or they do nothing but post YouTube clips of fights. Therefore, I was already anticipating the launch of Grantland, but when it did, and I discovered that SportsGuy had crafted a hockey post, I was salivating. I didn’t get very far into the piece before feeling like the Geico caveman, a Disservice Done stamp, if you will, blotted across my forehead, and the forehead of the National Hockey League seasons of 1994-2007 (ish). If I stick closely to his post, that end date should be 2011, but somewhere in there, he’s got a link to a post he wrote in 2008 that centered on the idea that he’d been flipping to Versus during the post-season, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, I read his post, and I was a little ticked off by it. No, really. Just a little. He makes some salient points, but he also pretends that the NHL product during the aforementioned years was less than good, and that’s a kite I just can’t let him fly. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because the growth of the game today and tomorrow and the day after that is what’s at stake. But my reaction was to put together a little Fire Joe Morgan action on his debut piece. That is, a breakdown of his breakdown, only one that scales back the harsh, and tries to refrain from too much cliff-pushing. Said breakdown, is just past the jump, and I won’t make any promises about redundancy, congruency, or brevity. It simply is.

My father had three things left on his Sports Bucket List: seeing a Stanley Cup finals game in Boston, going to the Masters, and going to the Kentucky Derby. After last night, we're two away from him creating a new list or me putting a pillow over his face. I flew home so we could attend Game 4 of the Bruins-Canucks series together. It was the least I could do after he brought me to about 4,500 Celtics games over the years.

The Canucks were favored in the finals because of stars such as Ryan Kesler (who broke out for Team USA in the 2010 Olympics), Alex Burrows (we'll get to him), and the creepy Sedin twins (created in a lab by some evil Swedish scientist who loved hockey). They also have snazzy blue uniforms that look like the old Whalers duds once upon a time (to their credit, they didn't steal "Brass Bonanza"), and their fans are so devoted enough that after Game 2's game-winning overtime goal by Burrows, they were still standing and cheering in their seats a full 10 minutes later. Their Achilles' heel: They nearly choked away a 3-0 lead to Chicago in Round 1 because goalie Roberto Luongo briefly unhinged midway through the series, which means he could do it again.

First and foremost, let’s assume that SportsGuy is calling the Sedin twins creepy because they don’t collect paychecks signed by one Jeremy M. Jacobs. There is almost no other impossible-not-to-love story in sports than that of Daniel and Henrik Sedin. They have, until this year’s NHL All-Star Game, played on the same line together their entire lives. The Canucks spent the second and third overall picks of the ’99 draft to acquire their services, and have kept them on the roster ever since. Their play together demonstrates a chemistry unmatched in professional-sports history. They skate hard every second of every shift and they produce a tremendous number of points for the Vancouver offense. Second of all, I appreciate as much as the next guy a reference to the old Hartford Whalers theme song, but the Whalers came into existence nearly a decade after the Canucks made their NHL debut. It’s not all about New England, yo. The color scheme used today resembles the most-familiar Hartford sweater, but waffling hockey fans aren’t going to “love” the 2010-11 Canucks for fashion reasons. To SportsGuy’s credit, the Canucks do have a passionate fan base, and Luongo does have the consistency of Seattle weather. Also, those early Canuck sweaters...yeesh.

If you haven't been following the series, it took exactly one game for Bruins fans to work up a Canadiens-level hatred for the Canucks. This was surprising because Vancouver isn't Tampa Bay, Columbus, or any of those other microwavable insta-Bettman hockey cities that any Original Six fan base instinctively hates.

Well-played, sir. Three paragraphs in and we have a Bettman slam. Andrew “Dice” Clay thinks you need some new material. Also, way to speak on behalf of six fan bases that date back 86 years. I’m certain the newest generation of those hockey families learn to eat, walk, talk, and hate NHL expansion in that order.

For four decades, Canucks fans suffered and suffered and suffered. Only twice did they make the finals, the last time in 1994, when they became anonymous foils for Messier's Rangers. Everyone remembers that series because the Rangers shed 54 years of baggage and won the Cup, and also because that may have been the last time anyone other than hockey fans liked hockey. It's easy to forget that the Canucks staved off elimination in Game 5, flew cross-country to stay alive in Game 6, and then —- right after their fans had let their guard down and decided to believe — -fell short in Game 7. They never came that close again.

Actually, that’s not why everyone remembers that series. Everyone remembers that series because of two reasons: the Vancouver solidarity displayed from both its personnel and its puckhead-adorned fans, and Mark Messier himself. But please, continue to make the world’s equator and Prime Meridian the Atlantic and Northeast Divisions of the National Hockey League. Also, please refrain from associating that Cup with “the last time anyone other than hockey fans liked hockey.” There have been plenty of situations since then in which non-hockey fans liked hockey, even if it was only during the post-season.

I assumed Bruins fans and Canucks fans would be bonded by their histories of heartbreak (a little like the Cardinals and Red Sox in 2004, actually). That hasn't happened. And it hasn't happened because the Canucks revealed themselves to be flopping wusses who (a) bite the fingers of opposing players, (b) use a 15th-string defenseman to knock the other team's best forward unconscious when he's not looking, then dedicate the next game to that defenseman as if nothing ever happened, and (c) don't back any of this crap up. If this were a movie, the Bruins would be Will Hunting and the Canucks would be the condescending ponytailed guy from Harvard who won't go outside(1).

Operation: Wheels Come Off: Commence. I can think of no other word besides audacity in making an effort to tie the alleged heartbreak of these two fan bases together. The reasons for which such a suggestion embraces absurdity should be obvious, but in case they are not:

a) Boston has five rings.
b) In the 15 seasons since Vancouver lost to those Rangers, Boston has not qualified for post-season play five times. Of the 10 in which they did, they did not make it out of the first round seven times. The other three times, they were ousted in the second.
c) Boston, hoisters of five Stanley Cups, ranks as the fifth-winningest team in NHL history.
d) I could, and should, talk about the abundance of other professional sports championships that have occurred in the Boston area since the Cup-less Vancouver Canucks came into existence. Thankfully, I don’t have to, as Jonah Keri just did.
e) The Bruins, who, by the way, have won five pro-hockey championships, have made the finals a total of 17 times.

One might wish that such an error would be the largest disgrace of that paragraph, and one would be right in wishing so. One, however, would probably also note that calling the Canucks “flopping wusses” challenges the notion of bonded-by-heartbreak for worst suggestion in that sentence cluster. At this point, it becomes obvious that SportsGuy paid little to no attention to Vancouver prior to the Finals, and has made the focus of such a claim based on one late-game incident that occurred in the third contest between the two clubs this round. And, painful as it is to admit it, we’re not out of that paragraph’s woods even there:

a) “bite the fingers of opposing players” is, one would hope, an attempt at humor.
b) Unfortunately for the author, it is the antithesis of comedic.
c) Making a singular incident plural is something we’ve all been guilty of when attacking our foes with words. In this situation, I would guess that the now-redeemed hockey aficionado supposes that players like Alexandre Burrows are inherently dirty, and engage in such tactics with high frequency.
d) I’d also suppose that the SportsGuy has never been the victim of a single face wash, let alone multiple, simultaneous face washes.
e) The use of hyperbole is a dangerous tactic, and, like fabricating multiplicity, it can be funny, but to suggest Aaron Rome was a 15th-string defenseman is nothing shy of preposterous, and again, an attempt at funny shrinking in the rear-view mirror. You could take Rome’s 52 games played, his 53 Penalties in Minutes, or his just-shy-of-1000-minutes log of ice time this season.
f) Unfortunately, we haven’t broken camp with that sentence yet. The author, you see, implies that the Canucks “used” this team member as a guided weapon, that they premeditated the vicious hit Rome laid on Nathan Horton.
g) It gets worse. SportsGuy adds the disclaimer “when he’s not looking,” as if it was Rome’s responsibility to make sure Horton saw the hit coming. Had SportsGuy not checked out on the game so many years ago, he would perhaps be familiar with coaching strategies such as “finish your checks,” “or keep your head up.”
h) Since it is clear that he is not familiar with such phrases, I would then imagine that the author feels that the lateness of the hit was also a major portion of the infraction, which is not the case. The largest two aspects involve the direct contact with Horton’s head, and the fact that Rome left his feet to deliver the blow. End of discussion. At least that part.
i) If SportsGuy wants to put some stock into the Canucks allegedly dedicating game four to Rome, so be it. He’s the only one outside of the Vancouver locker room that paid it any mind. If it happened, it’s a morale booster of a move, not an indictment on the Canuck personnel and coaching staff.
j) “don’t back any of this crap up” is, as they say in the newspaper business, a waste of column inches. It doesn’t even mean anything. The most it could suggest is that Grantland’s copy editor had an oversight.
k) Good Will Hunting? Really. The most recent film analogy we could get was only three years after non-hockey fans stopped caring about hockey? I’m disappointed. In fairness, though, I've been guilty of the same practice, and hey -- it's not like quoting new movies is going to resonate with many.

For a city weaned on the Big Bad Bruins of the 1970s, Vancouver's flopping/biting routine went over about as well as a Roger Clemens statue(2). A few hours before Game 3 on Monday, my father was sitting in a Beacon Hill Starbucks when five couples walked in, all wearing Canucks jerseys, and ordered some drinks. A Boston local stood up, walked over to one of the guys and calmly stuck his fingers in the man's face. With the implication being, "Why don't you bite my fingers, isn't that what you guys do?" Only he didn't actually say anything. He just stood there waving his fingers in the guy's face. And by the way, he was outnumbered five-to-one.

I will take a quick moment to offer the author some kudos here: Attending a professional hockey game with one’s father has to be an iconic moment. Attending a professional playoff hockey –- let alone Stanley Cup Finals –- registers higher than any other father/son sporting event I could imagine. Yes, even going to a clinching World Series game. The praise, however, is flanked by poor imagery in that it is flanked by a subject -– a weak one at that –- that has already been covered: flopping and biting.

Nothing ended up happening —- the Canucks fan laughed it off —- but that gives you an idea of the bitterness spawned by Games 1 and 2, thanks to Vancouver's two soul-crushing game-winners (18 seconds left in regulation, then 11 seconds into OT), and also because Alexandre Burrows bit Patrice Bergeron's finger in Game 1, didn't get suspended, then became Game 2's hero. At gunpoint, I don't know what makes Boston fans hate Burrows more: that he bit Bergeron, that he didn't get suspended, or that his name is "Alexandre." What pushed it over the top: Burrows is good. Usually playoff villains take the form of Carolina's Scott Walker (who sucker-punched a Bruin two years ago) or Pittsburgh's Ulf Samuelsson (who crippled Cam Neely in the '91 playoffs), role players who overstep their boundaries and make you say, "Who the hell does that guy think he is?" But Burrows' biting Bergeron, then scoring a ridiculously creative goal to win Game 2? That deserved a waterboarding.

If you root through the tack box for the brass ones, this paragraph doesn’t even deserve any attention. I will, however, call attention to the fact that, here we are, once again, talking about the biting incident. For the unaware, that incident happened in game one, also known as 10 days ago. The game-winner was a week ago, and it hinged upon three Boston mistakes: 1) A careless neutral-zone turnover, 2) Tim Thomas channeling his inner Patrick Roy and becoming too aggressive leaving the crease to try to break up the scoring chance, and 3) Bruin defenseman -– you may have heard of him –- Zdeno Chara, who wears a ‘C’ on his sweater (that stands for Captain) failed to hone his awareness of what Burrows was attempting to do. In case you were unaware, Burrows was attempting a wraparound goal, which is, like, one of four things you can do behind a goalie’s net. In the event that you do not understand the game, the probability of a player attempting a wraparound while skating behind the net in an overtime period of the Stanley Cup Finals is 100 percent, especially considering that Burrows broke into the zone as the lone Canuck and ostensibly had no teammate to whom he could pass the puck. If you are unfamiliar with Chara, he stands 6’9’’, which registers in as the tallest guy to ever play in the league. He’s big. He’s good. He knows what to do in that situation, even if it means taking Burrows down and risking a penalty-kill situation, or even a penalty shot. But sure, SportsGuy. Make the Canuck the villain, and throw out a few player-reference stretches, even if one of them occurred when you weren’t paying attention to hockey.

Those first two games played out like a generic version of every traumatic Bruins playoff series from the past 35 years: The Canucks were faster and slightly more talented, and both games ended abruptly in the most brutal way possible. (Welcome to my childhood.) Momentum shifted in Game 3 when Aaron Rome coldcocked Nathan Horton in the open ice —- exactly the type of blindside hit that hockey has been trying to eliminate in the Concussions Are Bad era —- then Horton spent the next few minutes lying on his back, motionless, as the crowd stared in horror(3). After they carried him off, three things happened: the Bruins were fired up, the Canucks became tentative, and the fans ratcheted up the intensity to Boston Tea Party levels. The highlight of the ensuing 8-1 shellacking: Looch (a.k.a, Milan Lucic) making a belated run at Burrows, belting him around a little, then shoving his fingers in Burrows' face as they were being separated. You're not going to believe this, but the crowd thoroughly enjoyed it.

Here again we revisit biting, toss out ancient history analogies, and speak to what the league wants to do, even though the author cast the game out like a broken toy so many years ago. I take special issue with the opening sentence to that paragraph, though. What I remember about the Boston Bruins in the playoffs while SportsGuy ditched them at the bar for a decade and-a-half, are either a) regular-season overachievers, b) groups of personnel still learning to gel, and, more often than not, c) a club lucky to play in the Northeast Division. Either way you slice it, they’ve been post-season chokers. I don’t say this because I dislike the franchise. Far from the truth, in fact. My tendency is to get on their bandwagon and hope that a great Irish sports city can get behind their hockey team and hint to non-fans that hockey always has and still does matter. The Bruins, however, completely collapse after establishing the stranglehold on Philly last year, and as I already stated, either bow out in the first or second round. How going down 0-2 in the Finals is “a generic version of every traumatic Bruins playoff series from the past 35 years” does not add up. Scattered in those 35 years of Boston post-season contention are every possible version of falling short. It’s what they’ve done. How that’s a generic version of traumatic is beyond me. When you hit the 20-years-since-your-last-Finals mark, I think trauma kind of becomes an afterthought.

How about the St. Louis Blues? Part of NHL expansion in 1967, three Stanley Cup Finals appearances in their first three seasons of existence -– including a loss to the Bruins –- and only two Conference Finals appearances since? That, while establishing a professional-sports-consecutive-playoff-appearance record (25 seasons), having perennial divisional competency amongst better competition. That, while choosing to fire the coach who took you to those early Finals, only to watch him go on to become the winningest coach in NHL history, is traumatic.

By all accounts, Canucks fans weren't treated well as they left the arena. Sauced-up Boston fans were shoving them, throwing things at them and challenging them to fights. A friend of mine who roots for Vancouver wore his jersey to Game 3, despite my warnings, and saw his life flash before his eyes about 20 times as he looked for a cab. Things were so ugly that it prompted a Boston Globe editorial urging Boston fans to act with more class, an impossibility after we learned Horton would miss the rest of the playoffs. In the stands during Game 4, the hostility toward the Canucks and their fans was fairly suffocating. One fan behind me was swearing like a sailor at every Canuck, even using an obscenity that I hadn't heard at a sporting event in years. Because there was a little boy sitting behind us, I braced for the boy's dad to say something to the guy … then I realized that the boy's dad was the guy. And he wanted the blood of the Vancouver Canucks.

I take zero issue with the sentiments in this paragraph, save that it prompts me to point in the general direction of the above-linked Jonah Keri piece.

Quick tangent: It's a weird time for sports right now because, once upon a time, going into an opposing arena or stadium while wearing your team's colors was the ultimate sign of fan support. It meant you "risked" your life to support your guys … although, really, you just ended up getting heckled and that's it(4). That's the way it should work. You go into the lion's den, support your team, take the ensuing heat (mostly good-natured) … and that's where it ends. But once the secondary ticket market (StubHub, eBay, etc.) made it easier for out-of-towners to get tickets, the odds increased for something truly terrible to happen: like that poor Giants fan getting beaten into a coma outside Dodger Stadium recently. I don't know what to make of the "let's make miserable the rogue outsider who dared to wear opposing colors in our house" dynamic now, or know why an opposing fan would take that chance (especially in hockey), or know what the boundaries are for making that fan miserable. It's all in flux.

As a fan who has repped his (NFL) team on the road for 10 years, I’m glad that the author composed this tangent. It’s crucial that hometown fans take a bit of responsibility, if and when it’s possible, and put the safety of all in attendance as first priority, not just those rocking the home-team’s jersey.

Anyway, we managed to avoid anything spectacularly inappropriate on Monday and Wednesday. Barely. Game 4 turned into a Bruins romp by the end of the second period. My father and I were lucky enough to have seats on the glass; we noticed quickly that the Bruins were skating around with their proverbial chests puffed out, convinced they had gained control of the series, physically. (Which they had.) The best moment happened near the end, when Burrows kept tipping the stick of popular Bruins goalie Tim Thomas and Thomas went medieval on his ass, then smiled afterward to the enduring delight of the crowd. That's my favorite thing about hockey, and one of many reasons why it's made a sneaky comeback since its devastating lockout: Unlike basketball (where the refs carry too much sway), hockey players police one another(5).

Specific to this series, I must admit that the chances that I’d be rooting for Boston –- were they not competing against a Cup-less franchise -– are high. I dig their style of play. I like their personnel. I admire Claude Julien, and I love Tim Thomas. I don’t like what he did with his goalie stick because he did it against a Vancouver Canuck, or against Alexandre Burrows. I like how he wielded his lumber because it was a feat of badassery, Ben Thompson style. But way to quote an even older movie, SportsGuy. Geez. I’m considering hiring a team of IT nerds to program an auto-play of some Hall and Oates every time someone opens a column of yours.

I am fit to be tied by the terminology “devastating lockout” used by so many media. Before I say more, here is my bias: I’m a hockey fan. I couldn’t wait for the lockout to end, just so that I could watch hockey games on television and attend them in person once more. That’s where the story starts and stops. I am a simple, semi-educated dude with limited time and access, so if data that highlights why the lockout was devastating exists, please point me in its general direction. I don’t have the time or the interest in scouring television ratings numbers. We know that the deal with ESPN expired, and that that particular network was likely never again going to seriously pursue a deal with the league.

My first hunch is to assume that SportsGuy deemed it devastating because its timing was tied to his employer's decision to no longer carry the NHL product.

Regardless, does that mean that people thought that professional hockey would no longer be televised? That can’t be what people thought. On my end, it meant that a portion -– be it small, insignificant, or whathaveyou -– of sports fans, at that moment, no longer had a need for ESPN as a television network. For me, I’ll tune in if I’m looking for a specific bottom line news bit, and that only happens when I’m too lazy to look up a stat or score or development on the Internet. It doesn’t mean I’m boycotting the network. I just don’t have a use for it, especially if we’re not talking about Monday Night Football. Hockey fans had Outdoor Life Network, which became Versus, which will now become something vaguely resembling the NBC-Versus network, or whatever. The point was that hockey was back on television, and available live in its respective markets. Not once did I hear a hockey fan, a casual hockey fan, or even a non-hockey fan cast disdain into the air for the sport, the league, or its players. In fact, this is the almost uniform response from each said group:

Non-hockey fan: “Ha ha. That game’s dumb anyway. The world is better without it.”

Casual hockey fan: “You know, that’s really too bad about the lockout.”

Hockey fan: “Man, I can’t wait til hockey’s back.”

So, what’s devastating there? Non-hockey fan never cared in the first place. You were never going to get him to sit down and watch a game with you on TV, and if you did –- probably by hosting a party or offering free beer and pizza -– the game would be littered with gripes. The only time non-hockey fan has something positive to say about hockey is when you treat him to a live NHL game with good seats. And even then, the response will be something like, “I’m not going to broadcast this. I’ll deny it if you repeat it, but that was pretty awesome.” He’ll never attend another game (barring another free invite) and he’ll go right back to dissing it, save for the occasional neutral comment about viewing it live, which will probably be made in such a way that suggests he has never done so.

Casual hockey fan wasn’t necessarily seeking out tickets or channel surfing looking for the game anyway. They take it. They leave it. Maybe they tune in for a Stanley Cup Finals game, or maybe they get into a little Winter Olympic hockey action, but they’re never really here nor there.

Hockey fan likely felt compelled to try and will a new Collective Bargaining Agreement into existence, and was happy as a dog in a pet-food store when play resumed. Season-ticket holders bought tickets again. Couch fans turned on the tube for games again, even though they weathered a rough broadcasting debut from the new network(s), and sure: Ticket sales, in general, probably suffered a bit, but in the big picture, the game flourished. Take the first post-lockout season –- 2005-06 –- for example. Do you know who won the Cup that year? They go by the name of the Hurricanes. They play hockey in Raleigh, North Carolina, and they saw an increase in ticket sales that year (compared with the final pre-lockout season) and made a profit for the first time since moving from Hartford.

After that the Ducks won it. Then you have Pittsburgh and Detroit -– two great hockey markets –- competing in consecutive Cups, followed by Philadelphia and Chicago last year, now Boston/Vancouver. So, did general league revenue shrink a bit in the first season back from the lockout? I would guess that it did, and I would also guess that that would happen in any pro sport. You know what else happened, though? The league instilled a salary cap, the players elected a new NHLPA president, and, best I can tell, the game continues to grow.

Hockey fits in better these days in general. I had lost interest in the Bruins in the mid-'90s because of their unlikable skinflint of an owner, Jeremy Jacobs, who lives in Buffalo (I mean, really?) and always spent enough money to compete but never quite enough to win. But looking back, I'm realizing that it wasn't Jacobs as much as me turning on the product itself: I grew up watching potbellied, heavy-footed, toothless bald guys like Wayne Cashman coexisting with occasionally brilliant offensive players like Bobby Orr or Rick Middleton. There was always the right balance: You had your muckers, your fighters, your scorers, your playmakers, your two guys on each team who skated faster than everyone else, your token European … thrown together, everything just worked. Then the Euros and Russians flooded the league, along with the helmets and face shields, and suddenly there were no more potbellied bald guys, and they started cracking down on the chippiness, and the Devils trap ruined the flow of the game, and there were suddenly 10 new teams in cities that never should have had a team, and … wait a second, what the hell was I watching? I just couldn't adjust.

I think that, if this is going to be your stance that this paragraph works well, though I disagree with most of it. What doesn’t work is the opening sentence. Not as a standalone or as part of that sentence cluster’s motif. I mean, I just don’t get it. “(F)its in better” with what? Your attitude? Your television-viewing schedule? Your propensity to ditch teams when they’re not succeeding? If you’re trying to draw a comparison to the game and the adaptations it’s made based on consistent changes in the pro-sports world, then you’re simply stating the obvious. Of course guys wearing your Bs sweaters were toothless and fat when you were a kid. Just like baseball players chewed a ton more, managers fired down heaters in the dugout, football players didn’t train as hard, and the NBA was a little bit whiter. Same reason people used to ingest a dozen hamburgers a day, and the same reason people drove around with their kids on their laps. Kids whose mothers drank and smoked while pregnant with them: They didn't know any different or better.

Back then you didn’t necessarily have to be trim, fit, and speedy to compete at the NHL level. Nobody was too concerned with protecting your dome or your teefs –- I mean, we are talking about a game that didn’t used to have its goalies wear masks. But the game grows, and with that growth, the talent pool expands, and the dumpy guys with the receding hairlines go the way of the BetaMax. “(T)he Euros and Russians” make the game better because they bring their own skating style, their own collection of talents, and increased competition. And as far as the gripe with the Devils trap, it’s called coaching. New Jersey wants to run a trap? Then, the Islanders, say, better figure out a way to coach around it. Or through it. It’s no different than the 1-3-1 that Guy Boucher’s Tampa Bay Lightning –- the club that just took your Bruins to seven in the Conference Finals -– ran all post-season. Claude Julien and his staff figured out a way to beat it, but there’s no arching complaint lob coming from your side of the net on that one. It’s no different than NFL clubs running the Wildcat.

Did coaches and players and sportswriters sit around griping that this wasn’t their old West Coast offense? No. They either prepared their teams to try and beat it, and about half of them wedged their own take on it into their own playbook. You adjust. And you certainly don’t get out your megaphone and begin firing off the proverbial back-in-my-day speech. That’s the kind of tone that will make people wonder if your craft has passed you by, sir. What I want to say, though, is that it’s fine if you couldn’t adjust. I’m not going to criticize you for it, but I suggest your exploration be intrinsic instead of otherwise.

They created a hard salary cap after the 2005 lockout that kept ticket prices down and helped the Bruins (suddenly Jacobs wasn't a factor); so did a few smart rule changes, widescreen HD televisions (the games look splendific, which isn't even a word), and the sport's unannounced return to the days when men were men. In basketball, you can't look at someone cross-eyed without getting a technical. In football, you can't touch the quarterback or the receivers anymore. In baseball, you can't throw at anyone even after they've just taken 20 seconds to complete a home run trot. Hockey swung the other way: It will never endorse something as sleazy as Rome's hit on Horton, but Thomas' getting pissed off because Burrows kept being a dick and hitting Thomas' stick? Absolutely. Do your thing, Tim Thomas. Cross check him in the head, get your two-minute minor, make your point.

I like this paragraph, save the phrase, “the sport’s unannounced return to the days when men were men.” Somewhere in there is a seed of an idea, but it’s one of those notions you can’t just launch out there without developing it at least a little. As is, I don’t even know what it means. Did men cease to be men at some point? Is this a reference to the men of the world, how they used to be one way, changed, and now the game of hockey resembles the original way, or is that idea particular to the sport. If it’s the latter, that’s foolish. Hockey has always been (pound for pound), the toughest sport with the toughest players in the world. If this naked concept was meant to imply that hockey players were less tough during the period in which Mr. Simmons checked out, then I implore him to dress it up, because that, SportsGuy, is a grotesque body covered with excess hairy flesh and horrific scars.

Of course, real hockey fans stuck with the sport through the toughest times; they don't want someone like me returning as if nothing ever happened, like some adulterous husband who moved out for a few years, waited until his wife dropped 20 pounds and got implants, then suddenly decided he wanted to win her back. Every time I tweet about hockey or mention it in a column, I'll get a few insults about being a bandwagon fan. When some people online noticed me in the background of this picture taken right after Rich Peverley's first goal, I got crushed by a few blogs for being a front-runner.

This is an interesting statement here, and I have zero idea what the insults sound like, and frankly, I’m torn about the fact that he got/gets them. On the one hand -– and this is always the biggest, most-important hand –- anytime a sportswriter with as far-reaching an audience (regardless of medium) as SportsGuy is saying anything about hockey, it’s a positive. For example, launching a project like grantland.com -- which is cool and has an all-star cast -– with a post about hockey is fantastic. I always view the growth of the game as a fragile entity, though, and so with such a far reach comes a certain risk-and-injury factor. I mean, there are probably a portion of Simmons readers that, if told that hockey was dumb and they should never consume it ever, they might listen. Not a slam on the audience; I envision the majority of them to be intelligent. But, on the other hand -– and I’ve already mentioned this more than once and in several ways –- Careful With That Axe, Eugene. I’ve put together a series of playoff posts that have some stats and trends in them, and the purpose of which was to attempt to gather a rudimentary look at whether or not sports and hockey fans are getting a better product than ever before.

Of course, by “ever before,” I mean the last 10 years, because you’ve got to start with a small sample size, and I questioned the value in digging 20 and 25 years back. From a personal standpoint, I knew the answer before I looked up my first stat: Damn skippy, we are. I can tell that by watching the standings develop as the league rolls through games 79, 80, 81, and 82, on into the Conference Quarter-Finals that the product is better than ever before. Heck, I knew that watching last year’s post-season, and the previous two Winter Classics. But before I’m accused of saying the same thing as SportsGuy, understand that I’m not. What I’m saying is that Mr. Simmons left the game because it –- or perhaps his team/its ownership -– grew stale to him. The game didn’t dip in value in the early ‘90s, wallow in darkness leading up to the lockout, and only now, has it skyrocketed to best-ever status, conveniently at a time in which the Bruins have figured out how to take their post-season lumps and not let them cripple their playoff progression. No, sir. The game has been growing all the while. It’s been making a sound in the forest. SportsGuy just hasn’t been around to hear it.

Technically, they're right: I loved hockey until I was 24. From 1995 to 2007, I didn't care about hockey unless the Bruins made the playoffs, and even then, I didn't really care. The 2008 playoffs sucked me back a little, then the 2009 and 2010 playoffs made a little more ground. This year, two young Boston forwards (Tyler Seguin and Brad Marchand(6)) swayed me toward regular-season hockey for the first time in forever. I found myself watching more playoff hockey this spring than just the Bruins; honestly, I found Canucks-Hawks, Red Wings-Sharks, and Canucks-Sharks to be equally entertaining(7). Isn't roping someone like me back in a good thing for hockey? Do you know how rare it is for a product to lose a consumer, then get him or her to come back? Usually with these things, once you're gone, you're gone. And if hockey keeps building its audience, maybe every finals game would appear on network TV, and maybe we wouldn't have any more situations like the three times this spring when I couldn't watch a playoff game because my hotel didn't carry Versus.

I like the column to which the author linked there, because it dabbles in his return to hockey fandom. It also touches on something I had not really noticed until I started doing some hard-core numbers crunching: The Boston Bruins and the Montreal Canadiens have met in the post-season eleventy billion times. It’s unreal. Like a fix, a rig, a scam, a sham, a hoax, a prank, and a joke all rolled into a water-squirting flower on the vest of Pope at his daughter’s wedding. It’s unreal. I’m not going to take the time to look, but I’d wager that they’ve played one another double the amount of times the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox have met in the MLB playoffs. And like those baseball counterparts, they play in the same division, so they already know one another real well, come season’s end. This fascinates me to no end.

Look, I totally get the Cult of the Status Quo, which afflicts MMA fans, hockey fans, and American soccer fans, in particular —- they all have a chip on their shoulder because they're still in that "we're all rooting for a local music band and we don't want it to go mainstream" stage, so they unabashedly drive away anyone late to the party. (It's the reason Springsteen die-hards loathe the "Born in the U.S.A" album —- from that point on, Springsteen belonged to everybody, not just them.) Here's my counter: What was more fun than the 1994 NHL Playoffs? Remember that? The spring after Jordan split to play baseball and before the Devils ruined all momentum with their stupid trap, when Sports Illustrated had that cover wondering if hockey was passing basketball, when the Rangers played two straight epic seven-game series against Jersey and Vancouver that everyone watched? Don't we want to get back to THAT point? How can that happen if you don't have enough fans?

Speaking of fascinating me to no end, this poisonous nugget needs a warning label on it. It’s dangerous to parse through, and if you dare to do so, you could wind up contradicting yourself faster than the Boston/Vancouver game-two overtime period. The part about the shoulder chip is true. I carry a hockey chip on my shoulder, but it doesn’t resemble what’s in quotes there. What it resembles has more to do with a timeline than it does any anti-mainstream local rah-rah. What I mean by that is that dudes like SportsGuy are lucky to have grown up watching hockey, and even luckier that they had a hometown team. Being a Kansas Citian, my town had the Scouts make their NHL debut the year I was born, and before I was three, they were gone. Their stay in Denver lasted six seasons, and off to New Jersey they went. What this meant for me growing up was that there was absolutely zero hockey awareness in my home and in my neighborhood.

I have the darkest memory of the Lake Placid games being on the tube, but that was it. This is the way things were in the Midwest, and if you look at the timeline of NHL expansion, pickins were nothing but slim for the longest time. The biggest, most-successful league expansion happened in 1967. Six new teams were added to the original six. One is now defunct, the other has a new home. Two more teams were added three years later, and they still call Vancouver and Buffalo home. Two years later, two more teams came aboard, one of which still resides in Long Island; the other would become the first of two failed NHL experiments in Atlanta. Kansas City and Washington joined the mix in ’74, and a few other shifts happened throughout the late ‘70s before the Rockies became the Devils.

Here’s the point: Between two years prior to SportsGuy’s birth (1969) and the San Jose Sharks joining the league in 1991, there were never more than four teams east of St. Louis, and for most of that time there were only three. That obviously mirrors the initial development of the United States itself –- everything clustered in and around New England, then spread –- but it didn’t mean that kids of my generation didn’t grow up without baseball, football, basketball, and soccer, the latter of course being the sport many folks start in before moving on to something else. There simply was no room, or interest for that matter, for hockey, and that’s largely based on awareness of it, or rather, a lack thereof.

I played all of those sports as a kid, and some as a young adult, but the thought of hockey really never even occurred to me until high school, and it did only then via a Nintendo game. I discovered it freshman year of college –- the same year of that Canucks/Rangers Finals -- bonded with it, and my passion for it has grown every year since. I believe it’s the greatest game on the planet. I want it to grow. I want people to experience playing it, to experience fandom, for it to be talked about on a level that somewhat resembles the water-cooler chatter associated with the NBA, the NFL, and MLB. I don’t have any desire for it to overtake those sports, nor do I think that will ever happen. I’m just tired of it being foreign to so many. This, however, is changing, and changing exactly where it needs to: in organized youth sports. It’s a slow process, and it will never develop with the speed and popularity that basketball, football, and baseball do/did, largely because it’s so damn expensive. Most any kid can go down to the park and shoot some hoops. Many kids find a way to get onto an organized baseball or football team. Those facilities exist, and their sports have programs in schools and in the community. It’s not as easy to find a sheet of ice and drop the coin necessary to gear up and play on it.

The point is that I don’t care if you’re late to the party. I’m just stoked you came. I know there are tons of Springsteen fans out there, and there are a few that hate him. I like his first three albums now, as an adult, having sought them out for the sake of curiosity, but that doesn’t change the way I felt about Born in the USA when it came out. Great freaking album. Hockey doesn’t have to be that way. It doesn’t have to belong to those who loved it first or earlier. It can be loved by all. I don’t not recognize the toying-with-absurdity aspect of such a statement, but it’s what I believe. Regarding the ’94 playoffs, here’s my answer to what was more fun than it: Almost every season since. Sure, the Devils (and their stupid trap) took home the Cup the year after Messier and Company, but the artists formerly known as the Quebec Nordiques hoisted it the following year, and living in Colorado, I gotta tell you that that was awesome.

I’ll also add that that was the largest exhibition of bandwagonism I’ve ever seen, but I don’t hold it against them. It merely makes for the occasional no-harm-no-foul joke. The next three years were brutal, in that Detroit won consecutive championships (Editor’s Note: Didn’t take long for me to establish a hatred for them.), and one of those came at the expense of the Flyers, and I just so happened to have made a bunch of Philly friends (in southwest CO) by that point. And if there’s a low point in my hockey-fandom career, it was watching the ‘Wings sweep the Capitals. I wanted nothing more than this team I could find zero reason to get behind (other than the fact that I hated Detroit) to win, and they got flat-out embarrassed. After that it was Brett skate-in-the-crease Hull and the Dallas Stars winning in six over Buffalo, which was an amazing Finals, short-changed as it was. Dallas/New Jersey wasn’t terrible either, but it was hard to have a horse in that race.

After that, you get Ray Bourque. Sixteen W. One of the top-three sports memories of my entire life. Another Detroit championship followed, but two things happened for me that year: 1) I really began to appreciate what an amazing hockey club the Detroit Redwings have, and that their fan base is as widespread as it is made me hate them even more, a la the Yankees, Lakers, and Raiders. 2) I got on the Carolina Hurricanes/Ronnie Franchise bandwagon. Great team to pull for. Really wanted the Ducks to knock off the Devils in ’03 since I’d gotten tired of seeing them and hey -– anybody that sweeps the ‘Wings drinks for free at my bar.

I’ll admit with no qualms that having the Tampa Bay Lightning win the Stanley Cup was odd. I found it in me to appreciate the stars of that team, but also felt that their fan base lacked a little enthusiasm. On the other end, it was great for Canada to have a team in the Finals again, and that Calgary Flames squad was really likable, what with Craig Conroy –- one of my all-time favorite Blues -– and the new hype in the form of the dazzling Jarome Iginla. Plus, Roman Turek had been shipped to Calgary and was riding the pine. Win, win. Not to mention that they took Tampa the distance. Great series.

Naturally, the lockout was a drag, but as I mentioned, the league, in my biased eyes, came back strong, and that Hurricane fan base was a savage bunch. Had to respect ‘em. Also, watching Dave Andreychuk get a Cup the year before was great. It was impossible for that to top the Bourque moment, but having the pleasure of watching Rod Brind’Amour heave that trophy in the air was, well…let’s just say it got a little dusty in the living room that evening. With the Ducks championship, you got a) the awesomeness of another veteran getting their first, this time with dual-brother action, b) another Canadian team in the mix –- gotta throw ‘em a bone now and again, and most importantly c) no shortage of Snoop Dogg in attendance and rocking an Anaheim sweater.

I could take or leave Pittsburgh and Detroit being in contention in consecutive years, but they were great series, nonetheless. Mario –- even though he dissed Kansas City a little –- seeing his franchise notch another championship was pretty sweet, and again, ‘Wings foes are my friends. Things really got sizzling with Chicago/Philly last year, and really, the whole post-season was one for the ages, only to be outdone by this year’s. I realize that this sort of jives with what SportsGuy is saying, but the tidbit to remember is that the awesomeness of the game hasn’t gone anywhere, that many a Finals have rivaled the awesomeness of Canucks/Rangers. I find it a bit of a reach to suggest that everyone watched in the spring of 1994. Perhaps a poll on Grantland could prove interesting.

From what I can tell, hockey solved every pressing issue except for one: It still needs more Canadian teams. Winnipeg was a good start; I hope Quebec and a second Toronto team are next. Call me crazy, but I think we want as many teams as possible in the country that cares about hockey the most. Just seems like a logical plan. My dream scenario: two of the WTFDTCHAHT's move to Quebec and Toronto(8), giving us 10 Canadian teams (I'm including Buffalo, our only bisexual North American city —- it can go either way). Throw in Minnesota and Detroit (right on the Canadian border) and a Seattle team (let's build an NBA/NHL arena there already), and suddenly we're looking at an entire conference that I'd tentatively call "The Top Half Of North America Conference" (I know, it needs some work).

The idea that the league needs more Canadian teams is one with which I mildly disagree. Didn’t the league just have to almost rescue Calgary six or seven years ago? Isn’t there the issue of a lack of season-ticket dollars swirling in and out of the provinces? Actually, I don’t like the idea at all. I want this sport to grow in the United States. Whether or not that’s a realistic wish, I’m unsure. My thought, though, is that everybody already knows that Canadians love hockey. Having more Canadian teams seems, to me, to fuel the tired let-the-Canadians-have-their-game mantra that still gets thrown around amongst the hating clans. I was, and still am, concerned that Winnipeg will be able to support, much in the same way I’m certain that Kansas City could not.

When I moved back to K.C. 11 years ago, a fine gentleman by the name of Paul McGannon created an organization called NHL21, the goal of which was to bring professional hockey to the area by 2001. Ten years later, here we still are, hoping that the Calgary Flames will falter, that the Mario Lemieuxs will divorce their cities and come play in our shiny building, that the “Boots” DelBiaggios will Art Modell the city of Nashville, that the Atlanta Thrashers will get the commissioner’s approval to come to Kansas City. None of that has even seemed close to possible, save when Lemieux came to town for a tour of the Sprint Center and took his positive reviews back to Pittsburgh so that the city could hasten the casino-funded construction of the CONSOL Energy Center.

Don’t get me wrong. I love every ounce of energy McGannon has put into the program. He’s facilitated four or five exhibition contests here in town, and the Penguins and Kings will be here for another in September. On Wednesday night, for game four, his group hosted a watch party. I got there late because I had a game of my own, but there were like 10 people watching the Canucks fall apart. When I spoke with Paul, I voiced my displeasure regarding the turnout, to which he said, “No, no. We had a good crowd, but people have to work,” etc. When I tabbed out, the bartender estimated that there were roughly 30 people in attendance at the onset. Thirty.

So I have no idea what it takes to estimate what kind of fan base a city can generate. Carolina, Nashville, Anaheim and San Jose have all been pleasant surprises, while Atlanta has now gone 0-2, and all signs point to Phoenix folding the tent next. I don’t have the answers, but I have the change-the-culture philosophy, which makes me literally hate the gall SportsGuy has to throw around WTFDTCHAHT.

Math has never been my strong suit, but adding Winnipeg, then a second Toronto team and a Quebec team to the mix seems to add up to nine. How the author thinks this will make 10 Canadian teams is a bit of a head-scratcher, but it’s possible I’m overlooking something. I say this because on my maps, Buffalo is in New York, which, last time I checked, is in the United States, and not a go-either-way type of cat. Kidding aside, Quebec will support a franchise this time why? And build a venue in Seattle? Didn’t the Sonics just blaze town? Like I said, I don’t have the answers, but at this point, I don’t think SportsGuy does either.

Regardless, I can't believe Gary Bettman actually pulled off a little momentum here; it's like imagining life if Fredo had beaten the odds and figured out the casino business. I was done with hockey. I was finished. But the sports brought me back for all the right reasons. Sure, I can't (and won't) take nearly as much satisfaction that the Bruins are two wins away from the Stanley Cup as the die-hards who stuck with them through thick and thin —- fans like my father, a true fan for 40 years who never turned his back on them even in the darkest times, unlike his front-running son. The last time the Bruins won the Cup, my father was going to law school and bartending every night. He missed the whole thing. He's been watching ever since. He never gave up on hockey, not even right before and right after the lockout. That's why I flew back to take him to the game. It was 40 years overdue.

And here we are again, trotting the Has-Beens out to the mound. Really with the Bettman business? Give the guy some credit. You are, after all, claiming that the game is better now than ever (as am I), and all of that has happened on his watch. Another poll idea for Grantland: Ask hockey fans if they actually know why the Bettman boos were started, and why they continue today. The whole thing is akin to Hooliganism. You brawl because you see others doing it, and you know that the ManU masses have done it for years. You’re not sure if it’s right or wrong or foolish or fun, but damn it all if you’re gonna do any thinking for yourself.

Now he needs two more Bruins wins. Like always, it's probably coming down to the goalies, a great sign for Boston since Luongo just gave up two more goals while I was typing this paragraph. Before Vancouver pulled him in Game 4, the Boston crowd was derisively singing, "Loooooo-on-goooooooooooo. Loooooo-on-goooooooooooo. Loooooo-on-goooooooooooo." Is that sound still ringing through his head? Are Vancouver fans freaked out that their greatest fear -— Luongo melting down like a volcano —- might actually be happening? Will Ryan Kesler throw the Canucks on his back again like he did against Nashville? Will Milan Lucic keep playing out of his mind like he did in Game 4? Will the Sedin twins introduce a new flop that we've never seen before? Will the Canucks finally bite back instead of letting themselves get pushed around? Er, fight back? And why does it feel like this has to end with a seventh game? I wish it was best of 13.

Speaking of things that occurred in mid-draft, I watched the Canucks take two dives in the first period of game five last night, hours after I’d typed some words lashing Mr. Simmons for supposing that they were floppers. Thanks, guys. Thanks a lot. Anyway, hooray for more bite jokes!

One last thing: I was lucky enough to attend Game 3 and 4 of the NBA Finals, then Game 4 of the NHL finals, within a span of 75 hours. If you remember, Games 3 and 4 in Dallas were pretty freaking compelling. I thoroughly enjoyed them, loved the atmosphere, loved the drama, everything. Even feel like I may have witnessed a little history on Tuesday with LeBrondown II. But you know what? The hockey game was a slightly better live sporting event, and I would have said that whether the Bruins were involved or not. It flowed a little better. It makes you feel like every second matters. Every time someone scored, you felt like the roof was caving in. Even when there's a blowout, you have to keep watching because you never know when one team wants to send a message to the other.

Yes, Mr. Simmons. I do know what. Post-season hockey has had post-season basketball on the ropes for a few years, maybe since the end of David Robinson’s career, possibly since Jordan retired. I’m aware that television ratings and ticket sales don’t support such a claim, but I’ll fight to the death in support of the argument that playoff hockey, in terms of the product, trumps anything that Kobe or LeBron have ever done or will ever do. The trouble is that this country grew up with basketball, and the NBA is the ceiling of the sport, so fans gravitate towards it. And without getting into my gripes about in-game dunk contests and the lack of fundamental defense, hockey does flow better. A lot better. Every second does matter, and the energy of those buildings goes unmatched across the pro-sports spectrum.

And yet, my favorite part happened before the game, when the fans respectfully waited out "O Canada," then belted out the "Star Spangled Banner" at the top of their lungs: partly to prove a patriotic point, partly because we were so happy to be there, and partly because it was the Stanley Cup finals and that's what you do. I had goose bumps on my goose bumps. What a moment. So thank you, hockey. I might be a front-runner who ditched you once upon a time, and I know you probably won't let me move back in. Just know that you've never looked better, and if you'd always looked this way, I never would have left.

Though there are some –- perhaps many that will disagree with me -– I don’t care if you’re a front-runner, and I will most certainly let you back in. It bothers me that you ditched the game, but I’m not trying to be in the business of holding grudges. I’m ecstatic that you think the game never looked better. I think it does, too, but I cannot let you off the hook for suggesting that the look of the game fell into some ugly hole that nobody wanted to rescue. It’s been aided by the salary cap and by the rule changes, but mostly it’s the talent pool, and the growth of the game. Had you not checked out post-Messier hoist, you may have found many other memories to keep you attached to the greatest game on the planet.

SportsGuy’s footnotes:

1. Sorry for the lack of bias —- I couldn't help it.
2. Across from the old Boston Garden, Halftime Pizza used to show tapes of Bruins fights before every game. People would eat slices and just stare at fight after fight for like 20 minutes. I'm sure this is the case in Philly, as well, but in Boston, being tougher than everyone else from year to year mattered nearly as much as winning. That's why Stan Jonathan's beat down of Montreal's Pierre Bouchard became such an iconic moment — maybe the Canadiens were better than us those years, but we'll always have Jonathan-Bouchard.
3. Horton had been Boston's best forward in the playoffs and a potential Conn Smythe candidate. I think that's the single strangest thing about hockey: A third-line defenseman can knock out a first-line forward and, to some degree, it's part of the game. Can you imagine if Brian Cardinal clotheslined Chris Bosh in Game 3 of the Finals, they carried Bosh off on a stretcher, he got scratched for the series … and then the series just kept going as if nothing ever happened? Actually, let's try this and see what it's like.
4. I once watched a Red Sox game in the Yankee Stadium bleachers while wearing a Bruins jersey, Red Sox hat and Celtics shorts. My friends were horrified. Nothing happened other than about 1,500 funny insults getting thrown my way.
5. This is a really important point —- it's just that I devoted a whole column to it in 2009 and didn't want to repeat myself.
6. Marchand gets his own footnote: As my dad says, "We never have guys like him," one of those annoyingly talented pests who gets away with dirty plays when the officials aren't looking, always seems to be in the right place at the right time, plays his ass off, isn't afraid of anyone, and genuinely pisses off other teams. He's like Claude Lemieux —- you hate him when he's on the other team, you love him when he's on yours. In my lifetime, only Ken Linseman was like that for the Bruins, but it was always hard to commit to Linseman because he was the only athlete whose neck had chest hair. It's much more fun to root for Marchand. I love that guy.
7. Ratings for Game 1 were the highest of any Game 1 since 1999 and 14 percent higher than last year's Game 1 (Philly vs. Chicago). To paraphrase Terrence Mann, if the product is good, people will come.
8. WTFDTCHAHT stands for "Why the fuck does that city have a hockey team?" I'm looking at you, Nashville. And you, too, Phoenix.

Bill Simmons is the Editor in Chief of Grantland and the author of the recent New York Times No. 1 best-seller The Book of Basketball, now out in paperback with new material and a revised Hall of Fame Pyramid. For every Simmons column and podcast, log on to Grantland. Follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sportsguy33 and check out his new home on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/billsimmons.

bankmeister is the Editor-in-Chief of this site and the author of some stuff published in his high-school and college newspapers. He is neither a best-selling author, nor does the New York Times even know that he exists. His new book is sitting in a disheveled pile on his desk, and will likely never know another home. He has no podcast, and no current plans to launch an awesome Website with some of his best writing peers, but he does frequently log on to Facebook and has a Twitter account, which you can find here.
Read more

The 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Recap, Assessment, and History; It's Finals Time

It feels like forever ago that the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs commenced, and little did we know that there would be such a vast difference between each of the three preliminary levels to compete for Lord Stanley’s mug. The feeling that lingered upon the conclusion of the Conference Quarter-Finals was a bit overwhelming in that if the energy of that opening round carried into the second and third, it would be difficult to sleep after games concluded and near impossible to wait for the next affair. In some marriage of sigh-of-relief and disappointment, the Conference Semi-Finals did not quite deliver in a manner equivalent to its immediate predecessor, but there were some exciting battles, nonetheless.

Now the Conference Finals have come and gone, the height of mixed emotions peaking like a mind on a really clean dose of LSD. Or, for the PG version, a child’s excitement on Christmas Eve. It’s been said, written, and tweeted this post-season, by both fans and non: There’s nothing that compares with playoff hockey. That’s why the wait for the Stanley Cup Finals to get here is drenched with anticipation, and when the moment arrives, it kind of feels like December 26 before the first Finals puck drop.

The last round, nevertheless, is here, and it’s possible that we’re looking at one of the best Finals matchups in a long time. It’s been a combined 31 years –- the Boston Bruins last qualified in 1990; the Vancouver Canucks were conference champions in 1994 -- since these clubs have played for all the marbles. But the schedule is set, and the competition gets underway Wednesday evening in British Columbia. We’ll chew the series fat in a moment, but first some numbers.

The Round That Just Was

Predictions from yours truly have been all over the map this post-season. A wild hair led to a first-round hope that the Phoenix Coyotes would knock off the Detroit Redwings, which was foolish. The go-to move then, in round two, was to pick against the Sharks, the thinking being that the ‘Wings had chiseled out a small slab of momentum. As we saw, San Jose established the stranglehold, but quickly found themselves in a mercy situation before sending Detroit home in game seven. The tell-tale sign for how the Sharks would fare against Vancouver was in game six of the Conference Semi-Finals. Everybody knows that the Redwings have a seasoned roster, but watching the San Jose forwards cross the blue line in that game bordered on pathetic. I mean, the Geico ad executives responsible for the caveman series were sending Pony Express messages to Todd McLellan that said, Dude you’re taking forever to gain the zone.

The irony in that is that a lot of clubs can’t even gain the offensive zone against the Redwings, which suggested that the Sharks might come out of game seven victorious, but there is no way that that wasn’t going to be the end of the road for them. To make matters worse, the heroes for the Canucks through two rounds had not been their stars, which made for massive foreshadowing that they’d begin to click in the Conference Finals. And click they did.

What We Didn’t Know Yet About These Two Teams: Whether or not their marquis scorers would show up and do more than log significant ice time and qualify for being called tough and gritty by the media. To some degree, they did. And by that I mean, if you’re name’s Patrick Marleau, you’re off the hook, courtesy of four goals and three assists in the series, and one could make the argument that he has Jeremy Roenick in the Versus booth to thank for lighting an on-air fire under his ass the previous round.

If your name is Joe Thornton, a goal and five assists is nice, but you’re gonna have to put rubber to twine more often than once in five games. As for Joe Pavelski, three assists is nice if you’re part of the second platoon of defenseman on your squad, but as a fourth-line center, you gotta produce more than that. As far as Vancouver is concerned, the only two questions were whether or not the Sedin twins would regain the point-tallying displayed early in round one but not seen since, and whether or not Roberto Luongo would stand strong in the crease if significantly tested. The simple answer to that is that he did, but he wasn’t. Facing 37.8 shots per night (with the help of two overtime periods in game five) shouldn’t be too difficult for an Olympic gold medalist and a Vezina finalist, but to his credit, he looked solid on the high-quality scoring chances.

What We Already Knew About These Guys Already: San Jose simply cannot make it click in the post-season. If you go back to the last time the Canucks were in the Stanley Cup Finals, you’ll see that the Sharks have made efforts at retooling the roster. You’ll see that they continue to bring in young talent. You’ll see that they typically have someone solid in net, and you’ll see that, when things aren’t getting done, they make a coaching change. But above all, you see that they almost always qualify for the playoffs (only five times in their history have they not), and they always fall short. In that span, they’ve been eliminated in four Conference Quarter-Finals, seven Conference Semis, and three Conference Finals, the last two being consecutive. You could argue that this year’s round three was an improvement since last year they were swept by Chicago, but that’s a far cry from bragging rights.

As far as the Canucks are concerned, I’m going to do something completely toolish and block quote what I said about them after the Conference Semi-Finals:

You cannot dump and chase against this Canuck team. You cannot, and will not, outskate them, and you will almost certainly lose the majority of the loose-puck battles, no matter where you are on the ice. What’s more is that you cannot expect to alleviate any particular attack by clearing the puck. Vancouver will find ways to keep it in the zone, which will almost always lead to larger numbers of generated shots.

Todd McLellan and the Sharks were not wise enough to read my post before the start of the Conference Finals. Maybe Claude Julien and the Bruins will be.

We Can Be Heroes, Unsung or Otherwise: Call it cheesy, call it gay, but this entire Vancouver squad has played like heroes, and they deserve credit. The main thing about them is they get production out of key guys when everyone does their job. We’ve all heard football coaches say that a thousand times, but with this club, it’s true. Alexandre Burrows scored five times and had two helpers last round. Kevin Bieksa had four goals and an assist. Ryan Kesler continued to stake his claim as leader of Camp Conn Smythe with six more points for his post-season total. Alexander Edler joined the big boys with three assists. Daniel Sedin caught fire with 12 points of his own, while his brother lost his damn mind against San Jose, tallying a goal and 11 assists. If this momentum carries into the Finals, Boston could find themselves stunned and down two games before they even blink.

In the Eastern Conference, things were a bit more interesting. If the San Jose Sharks find themselves looking for some direction on how to make off-season improvements, and they should, they should look all the way across the country at Guy Boucher and the Tampa Bay Lightning. This club has all the right cogs in place, all systems tuned up, and all of the energy sources tapped. Too bad for them they live in a market that doesn’t seem to care too much. As for the Bruins, I must give that hungry fan base some serious credit, as they’ve ranked up there all post-season with the Detroits and the Vancouvers as one of the rockinest buildings around. And the club deserves a lot of credit, too.

In the last round they gelled, and the only next correct step is to find ways to win when all ways appear to have vanished. This Bruins club took one-game leads in this series on three occasions, and nearly needed overtime to put the dagger in the Lightning, but they did it, and I don’t usually give a lot of props to teams with multiple trophies on their mantle, but Boston has overcome a post-season wrestling match with themselves. They have figured out how to get to the big stage.

What We Didn’t Know Yet About These Two Teams: You look at a club like Vancouver, and you know that the big names will get the points because the lesser-known names do the little things that make things like lamp-lighting happen. You look at two squads like Tampa Bay and Boston, and you have a few stars that will be expected to do nothing less than be big-time performers in the biggest of situations. Your St. Louises, your Lecaveliers, your David Krejcis and your Nathan Hortons.

Seldom do you look at rosters of clubs like this and take note of all of the lesser-known names that wind up making a huge difference, like Dennis Seidenberg of Boston, who has logged 511 minutes of ice time this post-season. Five hundred eleven. Good for 28-plus minutes per game. That’s exhausting. He’s also a plus-eight through three rounds. Or left-winger Ryan Malone for Tampa Bay. He shifts in after Sean Bergenheim and Simon Gagne and has managed to generate six points, 24 PIMS, two even-strength tallies, a power-play goal, and a game winner in these playoffs. You look up and down the roster of these two clubs, you’re seeing production of some sort or another.

What We Already Knew About These Guys Already: Take your well-assembled lines, give them good coaches, and then hope for good goaltending? Not so fast. You go out, and you pick through the rubble piles, find the best of the discards and you give them a shot at winning your starting job. That’s what Julien and Boucher did, and they were not incorrect by going that route, as Dwayne Roloson and Tim Thomas just put together the most impressive goaltender dual of the post-season, and if I may borrow a little Vincenzo Coccotti, “that’s as good as it’s gonna get. And it won’t ever get that good again.” Not this post-season, anyway.

But Roloson, at 41 years of age, discarded by five other pro teams, two of which he took to Conference Finals, one of which he took to the Stanley Cup Finals, just pitched a .924 save percentage and a 2.51 goals-against average, along with a shutout. Unfortunately for him, that game-winning goal scored by Boston’s Nathan Horton in game seven was a number all-too-familiar to him: 41. That’s how many times Roloson was beat in 17 starts. Just over two goals per game, on average. Not bad a’tall.

One of the best tweets (courtesy of Hockey Trend) I’ve seen in months came across the wire this round: “Tim Thomas. ..A goalie drafted by a team that no longer exists in a round that no longer exists.” Yup. Taken in the ninth round by the Quebec Nordiques was the ol’ Thomanator, and since then he’s been just about everywhere an unwanted hockey player could be: the International Hockey League, the American Hockey League, the East Coast Hockey League, Finland, Sweden, on the bench. These are, of course, none of the places an NHL goalie wants to be. But Thomas has been lights out this post-season, and I don’t see any possible way he doesn’t win his second Vezina Trophy this year. The point to all of this madness, though, is that we knew these two netminders were gonna come out and be solid in the Conference Finals. Did we know they’d be this solid, though? That’s tough to predict.

We Can Be Heroes, Unsung or Otherwise: There are a lot of players that deserve notoriety from both of these teams. They went at it hard and went at it often from game one through the final horn of game seven, and fans everywhere were delighted. My two heroes for Boston, though, would have to be Mark Recchi and the fan base. Recchi, at 42, with two rings already, has scored twice in the post-season, and added five helpers to his point total. He’s also managed to log an average of just under 17 minutes of ice time a game, which is no small feat at that age. And the fans. They’ve had plenty of professional-sports love in the last decade, and this may sound a bit redundant, but it’s great to see that city buzzing for Bruins hockey and rocking the (TD) Garden, especially since they’ll be celebrating the 10th anniversary of something called The Tradition next month.

Tampa Bay has its heroes as well, and they are none other than the 20-year-old Steven Stamkos, who generated 13 points this post-season, and almost had his dome smashed in in game seven. Also, Blair Jones, who, according to Corey Masisak of NHL.com, had no problem hangin’ with Zdeno Chara and Dennis Seidenberg. Also, credit to his parents for making his name as awesome as it could be.

The Round That’s to Be

All the numbers meant to be crunched have been crunched, and if I have to calculate one more series-shot total or tally one more dude’s ice time, I’m’a shoot somebody. Not really. I hate guns. But, this is the time of the year where the stats do you no good. It’s all about winning battles along the boards, beating your man to the loose pucks, forechecking, backchecking, protecting the zone, and not fanning on quality scoring chances. Well, some good strategery, lights-out goaltending, and some unprecedented stamina all help, too. It’s about biscuits in baskets, primarily, though, and we’re going to see two squads work real hard to get that feat accomplished.

The brand of hockey that the Vancouver Canucks have displayed in the 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs is one I’ve not seen any club even attempt to execute in a number of years. Again, cue the redundancy wheel, but they have speed, skill, smarts, drive, and chemistry that make them an impressive, systems-based club that has meant two things for them. On the one end, they dominate. They bring this mix of talent and ability that gives opponents fits, and when all the tabs are clicking, they can’t be outmatched. On the other end of the pantry shelf, they’ve seen themselves challenged to the brink of elimination when one piston isn't firing, such as was the case versus Chicago in round one.

My opinion is that the fact that that Conference Quarter-Finals series took seven games was a mental battle Vancouver had with themselves, namely one Roberto Luongo. It didn’t help that the Sedins weren’t generating points in the second half of that series, so, as mentioned, the Canucks can find themselves in trouble if one aspect to their game is lacking. That’s the case with any team in any sport though, and in Vancouver’s case, in that situation, they overcame. This team will face a giant of defensive bodies and determination, and making sure they can get all the gears to turn at all the right times will be their big challenge.

The Vancouver defense is one of the best in hockey, and the interesting aspect about that is that so is Boston’s. An important factor in this Stanley Cup Finals will be confidence, and it’s possible that facing the San Jose Sharks in the third round will have been a problem for the Canucks in that they may have a bit too much of it as they prepare to host the Bruins in the series. The one thing that might help them balance that out is their franchise’s lack of championships; in 40 years, they’ve been to the dance twice and experienced both ends of failure: a sweep, and seven-game defeat. They know how much this appearance means to the city and the fan base, and it should provide for an extra tablespoon of motivation for them as they prepare to challenge for Lord Stanley for a third time.

The existence of momentum is something that I believe in. I think it matters within the swing of the game, between series, and on occasion, heading into subsequent seasons. If that’s accurate, Boston has the edge in that department, having just gone the distance with Tampa Bay. What’s more is that they earned a sweep over Philly in round two, but had to go all seven with Montreal in the Conference Quarter-Finals. Add to that that their city and fan base have comparable hunger. They have five cups in their history, but they’ve been playing in the league for more than double the time Vancouver has.

The reality, though, is that it will come down to individual and team drive, and this is something the Bruins do not lack. After a two-year absence from post-season play, they lost in the first round, then twice in the second, a clear indicator of progress within the current regime. They also continue to make key personnel additions, and said additions are no slouches. Boston’s biggest obstacle won’t be the Vancouver home-ice advantage, or a better coach in Alaine Vigneault. The hurdle that stands in their way will be any questioning they have of their own style of play, more specifically, the potential desire to try and play the game the way the Canucks do.

What Boston must do is disrupt the flow of the Vancouver attack. They must prevent that system from ever establishing the ability to click. Failure to do so early could be detrimental to their chances, especially if that happens in game one, and they find themselves desperate to even the series in game two before going back to Beantown. The Bruins have the physical ability, the smarts, and the experience to exert force on the Vancouver forwards, and throw their efforts to synch out of whack before they’re even humming. If they can do that, and continue to get the offensive production they’ve gotten, they’ll be in good running for one reason: They have the goaltending edge.

Tim Thomas is playing a more solid, consistent, head-strong game than Roberto Luongo right now, and there aren’t enough games left in the season for that to change. Thomas is poised to put on a netminding display equal to the greats of this era. His mind is in the right place, his ability has been proven time and again in the last three years, and he wants it worse than maybe any athlete left in contention. Nothing will faze him. Roberto Luongo, on the other hand, could go in a shell with one bad game.

The pick: This series has the makings to be the best since the lockout, and it’s possible that it could reach a bit further. Trouble is, it won’t. The talent, the ability, the defense, and the goaltending possessed by the Boston Bruins are all impressive and remarkable, but it’s also something else: not enough. Vancouver is ready to take this trophy home, and do just that they will. I’d love to be wrong and see it go to seven, but they’ll handle their business in six.

The Rounds That’ve Come Before

Just like the previous two rounds, we’ll have a look at the last 10 (in this case) Conference Finals, and afterwards, we’ll do an average so’s to determine how this post-season stacks up. In case you’re new to this party: Shots on goal are registered shots that would’ve been goals had they not been saved; we’re only looking at major penalties; overtimes refers to total number of overtime periods, not games in which there was an overtime.

1999-2000 Conference Finals (eventual champion: NJ Devils)
Goals: 76
Shots: 711
Penalties in Minutes: 105
Overtime Periods: 1
Home vs. Visitor: 1/1 tie
Average Number of Games per Series: 6

2000-2001 Conference Finals (eventual champion: CO Avalanche)
G: 60
S: 728
PIMs: 30
OTs: 1
H vs. V: 1/1 tie
GpS: 7

2001-2002 Conference Finals (eventual champ: Detroit Redwings)
G: 52
S: 564
PIMs: 10
OTs: 4
H vs V: 2/0, home
GpS: 5

2002-2003 Conference Finals (eventual champion: NJ Devils)
G: 51
S: 712
PIMs: 30
OTs: 6
H vs. V: 2/0, home
GpS: 6.5

2003-2004 Conference Finals (eventual champion: Tampa Bay Lightning)
G: 39
S: 601
PIMs: 0
OTs: 4
H vs. V: 2/0, visitor
GpS: 5.5

2005-2006 Conference Finals (eventual champion: Carolina Hurricanes)
G: 68
S: 687
PIMs: 30
OTs: 2
H vs. V: 1/1 tie
GpS: 6

2006-2007 Conference Finals (eventual champion: Anaheim Ducks)
G: 63
S: 623
PIMs: 25
OTs: 5
H vs. V: 2/0, visitor
GpS: 5.5

2007-2008 Conference Finals (eventual champion: Detroit Redwings)
G: 56
S: 594
PIMs: 60
OTs: 0
H vs. V: 2/0, home
GpS: 5.5

2008-2009 Conference Finals (eventual champion: Pittsburgh Penguins)
G: 58
S: 593
PIMs: 95
OTs: 3
H vs. V: 2/0, home
GpS: 4.5

2009-2010 Conference Finals (eventual champion: Chicago Blackhawks)
G: 44
S: 525
PIMs: 20
OTs: 1
H vs. V: 1/1 tie
GpS: 4.5

How this year’s Conference Finals stack up against the previous 10:

Previous 10 Conference Finals (by average)
Goals: 56.7
Shots: 633.8
PIMs: 40.5
OTs: 2.7
H vs. V: 12/8, home; 60 percent
GpS: 5.6

2010-2011 Conference Finals
G: 73
S: 759
PIMs: 140
OTs: 2
H vs. V: 2/0, home
GpS: 6

An interesting comparison. Increases in shots taken and goals scored, nearly triple the PIMs, a microscopic dip in overtime periods, a massive slant in favor of home-ice advantage, and an increase in the number of games played per series. In sum, you’re getting more offense, which everyone loves. You’re getting more buffoonery, which continues to be a split issue among fans, but in reality, most everybody gets fired up about (Editor’s Note: We’ve gone round and round about this topic here inside the House of Georges, and I hate to rule in absolutes –- as Obi-Wan Kenobi said, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes,” –- but I don’t care what anybody says, it’s part of the game and you cannot remove it. That is, you can, but it wouldn’t be the same game. Also, irony, via the use of the word “only,” noted, Obi-Wan.) it. Said buffoonery, however, also leads to more special-teams play, which means more open ice, which means more action/easier for the casual eye to follow the puck.

Fewer overtime periods historically in this particular round, but it’s only two series out of the whole post-season, so for this round, you take a dip. The increase in home ice for this season could be a fluke, but if it’s not, does that suggest a flaw in the league’s parity effort, or is that true across the pro-sports board? What do home-field numbers look like in the NBA Conference Finals, the NFL Conference Championship Games, and MLB’s League Championship Series? Are those next-to-final rounds a larger advantage for the home squads than in others? And a higher games-per-series ratio is great because it, duh, means more hockey.

Moving on.

How this year’s playoffs stack up against the previous 10 through three rounds:

Previous 10 Post-Seasons (by average)
Goals: 411
Shots: 4637
PIMs: 386
OTs: 22
H vs. V: 80/60 (57 percent), home
GpS: 5.69

This Post-Season (through three rounds):
G: 474
S: 5175
PIMs: 555
OTs: 27
H vs. V: 10/4 (71 percent), home
GpS: 5.79

I like this set of numbers even better. Huge increase in shots taken, goals scored, so again, you’re getting more offense. Astronomical spike in major-penalty minutes. More overtime periods is like free steak with your mashed potatoes and gravy. Another giant inflation for the home team, and an elevation in the average number of games per series.

We’ll check back again after the playoffs have concluded, but, to me, these numbers mean good things for the game, and if there’s any truth to the knuckleheads that think the league lost its fan base after the lockout and is still struggling to get it back (Editor’s Note: There’s not.), then there’re a whole lotta people out there not watching a game that appears to be getting better every year. Oh, and by the way, I nailed the Conference Finals picks.
Read more

The 2011 Stanley Cup Playoffs: Conference Semi-Finals Recap

I still stand by my assertion that that was one of the best opening rounds of the Stanley Cup playoffs in nearly 20 years, and nearly every game made me ecstatic for the game, the sport, and the league. That said, I made two mistakes while letting my thoughts and emotions get the best of me: 1) I imagined that, somehow, that electric Conference Quarter-Finals would both slightly diminish the number of haters and add a few members to the fan base; and 2) I figured this would mean an even tighter, more-action-packed Conference Semi-Finals.

Regarding the first, I haven’t exactly had the chance to poll the sports-viewing world, but there is one small sample from which I draw, and that would be the comments section from a Pro Football Talk post earlier this week. And really, that’s fine. I’ve got this new approach going, and it won’t make any sense if I don’t mention the old, which is this: Advocate for the game in any and every possible way, whenever possible. Watch as many games as possible, tweet about them, toss blog-post links on Facebook, e-mail cool YouTube clips, volunteer for hockey organizations in the community, and of course, continue to play and love the game. Be an unpaid ambassador for the sport, if you will.

The new approach looks like this: Change nothing regarding the energy invested in promoting the game, but adjust expectations. People in this country did not grow up with this game. They didn’t watch it, and they certainly didn’t play it, and for them, that’s simply not going to change. So forget about the people that make jokes about the game, joke about the National Hockey League, or throw out the same old excuses about why they can’t/won’t get into it. They are a lost cause, and the most valuable loss is their own. The focus will be the youth, the kids of today’s generation that are playing the game and watching the game, in numbers that continue to grow every year.

Facet two was simply an overestimation in my book: The Conference Semi-Finals have been exciting, but it would take some pretty awful hockey for me to think otherwise. That said, I’m the first to admit that round two delivered less of that roar of adrenaline the opening round produced. And the numbers support such a claim as well, but we’ll get to those in a bit.

The Round That Just Was

The first series to come to a close was the one between the Tampa Bay Lightning and the Washington Capitals. I lobbed a prediction that the Lightning would make quick work of the Eastern Conference’s number-one seed, and handle them in six, to which Guy Boucher’s squad clearly took offense, as they handled the Ovechtricks in a clean four. I’m not going to change my dark-horse pick mid-playoffs, but thinking that the L.A. Kings were the secret bet was incorrect. And it seems foolish to say now that the Lightning is the Cinderella story. Their success as a franchise is already documented, and they’ve taken impressive strides to up the perennial ante by bringing in Steve Yzerman to handle the general manager responsibilities and by hiring Boucher, he crossed a big item off his to-do list.

What we didn’t know yet about these two teams: Predictions aside, we didn’t know that Tampa Bay would come in and just mow these guys down. Martin St. Louis and company eliminated the Pittsburgh Penguins in the quarter-finals, but it took them seven games to do so. The assumption there was that they advanced almost entirely due to the absence of Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, which is not to say that the Lightning are without talent of their own, but I would never’ve guessed that not only would Washington not score first once in an game, but that they’d only hold a lead for a total of 18:59 throughout the entire series.

What we already knew already about these clubs: Sometimes in sports, franchises have an identity associated with them over time. Tampa Bay is in its 18th season. This is their sixth playoff appearance, and they’ve already won one Stanley Cup. Pretty good start. Through 36 seasons, Washington has qualified for the post-season 22 times, which include one Conference Finals loss, one Finals loss, and a boatload of early exits. Tampa built a nucleus for their club, and they continue to feed it. Washington repeats the same cycle of having a star player -– Dale Hunter, Peter Bondra, Olaf Kolzig, Jaromir Jagr, and Alex Ovechkin –- surrounded by relative mediocrity.

We can be heroes, be we expected or otherwise: It’s no surprise that Vincent Lecavelier and St. Louis have been big –- a combined 25 post-season points –- but you have to two other Lightning right wings deserve equal credit: Steve Downie and Teddy Purcell have generated a combined three goals, 20 assists of their own. And of course, Dwayne Roloson has been huge in net.

While we have the brooms out, let’s talk Boston/Philly. Yikes. I said Flyers in seven, and I thought they had the motivation from last year, coupled with grit and the coaching edge, to handle the Bruins. I was a tad off the mark. The Bruins might be better poised to make a run at it than any of the either three clubs left. These two teams had to’ve been exhausted coming in to round two, as they each went the distance –- Philly with Buffalo, Boston with Montreal –- to advance to round two.

What we didn’t know yet about these two teams: The corps of this Bruins squad picked the right time to gel, and gel they have. Boston big man Zdeno Chara leads the league in plus/minus with an 11, and their last line of defense –- net minder Tim Thomas -– suddenly looks like the star of American-born goaltending, even though 2010 fellow Olympians Jonathan Quick and Ryan Miller had decent post-seasons of their own. It was also unforeseen that the likes of Patrice Bergeron, David Krejci, Nathan Horton, and Brad Marchand would each produce double-digit point totals by this point in the tournament.

What we already knew already about these clubs: You can trot out a Running Back by Committee platoon in the National Football League, and you might have success. This practice does not translate to playoff goaltending. You have to pick a guy, and stick with him, even if he has an off night and costs you a game. Deciding to rotate the three Philly men in masks –- Kyle Bobrovsky, Brian Boucher, and Michael Leighton -- means you eliminate the possibility of allowing your main man in the crease getting hot and single-handedly winning a contest or two for your club. Additionally, every team that has ever had Chris Pronger on the payroll has suffered immensely when he is out of the lineup due to injury. The 2011 Flyers are just another notch on the post.

We can be heroes, be we unsung or otherwise: Nearly every year there’s an old man on a squad that you simply have to root for. We’ve seen it with Ray Borque, Dave Andreychuk, Chris Chelios, and perhaps to a lesser degree, Marian Hossa. More often than not, that story is of a guy near the end of his career that hasn’t won a Cup yet, and the goose-bump factor gets higher with every game his club wins. This year Boston has 42-year-old Mark Recchi –- two goals, five assists thus far in the playoffs -- on its roster, and he’s already got two rings –- one with Pittsburgh as a rookie, and another with Carolina when Rod Brind’Amour was the feel-good story. So we don’t root for Recchi because his name’s not yet engraved on the chalice, but because leadership like his affords the city of Boston to fully get out of the pro-sports dog house. I’m no Beantown homer by any stretch, but Bostonians have their Patriots dynasty, a pair of Red Sox championships, and a Celtics title, all in the last decade. Hockey is a sport that really jives with the Boston persona, and a championship for the Bs would be massive. As our pal Damon Amendolara tweeted, “Boston is electric” right now.

While the two victors in the east made quick work of their semi-finals foes, the teams out west have done the opposite. Vancouver jumped out to a 3-1 lead over the gritty Nashville Predators, but took until game six to knock them off via a one-goal victory. For those counting at home, that’s the only series in games that I got right. San Jose, on the other hand, had Detroit on the ropes, ready to knock them out in four straight, but the Redwings had other ideas.

At the Versus desk, Keith Jones and Jeremy Roenick said two things heading into the Vancouver/Nashville series, and those two things proved to be key. Jonesy said that the Sedin twins would have to step up and start producing, while J.R. mentioned that the Nashville defense would give the Canucks more fits than they’d seen against Chicago. Well, the Sedin twins did not step up, and therefore, the Predators –- courtesy of that D, some decent offense, and goalie Pekka Rinne –- did give Vancouver more fits.

What we didn’t know yet about these two teams: The Nashville Predators, previously having never gotten out of the Conference Quarter-Finals, could’ve just rolled over and gone home, satisfied with their first post-season advancement. They did not. Joel Ward came steamrolling out of the regular season, and as it stands now, leads the league with playoff goals (seven). We also knew very little about Pekka Rinne, but he played out of his mind for this Predz team, and looks to have a massive future ahead of him. The Vancouver Canucks were in a similar boat, having been eliminated in consecutive years by the Chicago Blackhawks, and narrowly escaping a third year of defeat against the defending champs. The role of Canuck goaltender Roberto Luongo is immense in these playoffs, because he simply must go out there each night and not give up foolish goals. Luongo and Vancouver could’ve shown up to the second round and folded up camp, content with just getting past Chicago. Not that many would’ve been surprised.

What we already knew already about these clubs: Nashville is a solid group of youth and league veterans, which is a crucial balance to find. They’re close but not yet there, so it’s no genuine surprise that their season is over. The reason behind this lack of surprise is this: You cannot dump and chase against this Canuck team. You cannot, and will not, outskate them, and you will almost certainly lose the majority of the loose-puck battles, no matter where you are on the ice. What’s more is that you can not expect to alleviate any particular attack by clearing the puck. Vancouver will find ways to keep it in the zone, which will almost always lead to larger numbers of generated shots. Also, Ryan Kesler. Nearing the conclusion of the second round is too early to identify what guy, out of all the teams remaining, is really going to elevate his game, and score when you need a goal, or deliver a picture-perfect pass with pinpoint timing. Kesler has emerged as that guy in this post-season.

We can be heroes, be we unsung or otherwise: Alexandre Burrows doesn’t appear to be significant in the varying stats columns. He doesn’t generate a lot of points. You won’t see him spend a ton of time in the penalty box, and he isn’t going to lead your club in ice time. But he will probably work harder than anyone on your team not named Ryan Kesler, and that’s saying a lot when your teammates include the Sedins, and Kevin Bieksa. The same can be said for Nashville’s Shea Weber, who generated shots, logged nearly 340 minutes of ice time, scored two power-play goals, and had a pair of assists through 12 playoff games.

As far as the San Jose/Detroit series goes, I look back to what I said regarding Washington and Tampa Bay. The Sharks have talent. They always have. They score, they bang bodies, play solid defense, and usually have an all-star in net. But for some reason, they can’t ever get it all too click in the post-season…Detroit, on the other hand, is arguably the most storied franchise in league history, and if you catch them on a down year -– or in this case, consecutive down years –- you better make quick work of them, or they will make you pay.

What we didn’t know yet about these two teams: There’s something to be said about leadership and experience, and these clubs have displayed practically polar-opposite examples of the notions in recent post-seasons. The Sharks have put together an impressive string of regular-season play, but the best it’s gotten them was a conference-finals appearance last year. Detroit, on the other hand, has been a franchise that many teams have tried to model themselves after, in that they sign and keep their good talent, cycle in key younger players that they develop, and ink end-of-the-line types, i.e. Brett Hull, Mike Modano, in case they’re bitten by the injury bug. This year they got bitten hard, and it severely cost them.

What we already knew already about these clubs: Detroit seldom falls behind in a playoff series, and is frequently capable of rallying back for a victory when they do. I think it was completely unforeseen that San Jose would go up 3-0, let the Redwings tie it up, and then stave them off in game seven. Not only was the sequence of victories a surprise, but the outcome was, too, but perhaps the biggest shock of all was that Detroit gave the Sharks everything they had in the final game, and San Jose was able to hang.

We can be heroes, unsung or otherwise: There’s not a single member of the Detroit Redwings organization that I wouldn’t dub some form of hero. They have been an admirably run club for as long as I can remember, and I’ve said it before, but it’s worth repeating: Mike Babcock was probably the perfect successor to Scotty Bowman. He’s got his club skating hard in every game, and the talent pool there is frightening. Seldom can a club have immeasurably talented forwards, lock-down defense, and stalwart goaltending, and the ‘Wings manage to do just that season after season. As far as San Jose, Todd McLellan did an amazing job filling the role of pupil beats student, and you have to appreciate his honesty when his club completely tanks a game like they did in that sixth tilt.

The Round That’s to Be

Here’s where emotion can begin to get the best of hockey fans, in that you spend most of the quarter-finals and a chunk of the semi-finals loving all the action, but waiting to see who will emerge as true contenders. Then when the conference finals arrive, you immediately, albeit still eager, regress, knowing that the end of the season is near. These two matchups could pan out to be the most fascinating conference finals series the league has seen since the lockout, maybe since the turn of the century. Last year, there were only five third-round games played, as Chicago swept San Jose and Philadelphia only lost once to Montreal.

In the east, I don’t think you could ask for better in Tampa Bay/Boston. The skinny is this: Two clubs that have been independently on pace with one another in terms of developing the overall talent on the roster and the chemistry to make it this far in the playoffs. Neither has made the mistake of going the direction of Washington and depended so heavily on the talent of a marquis player, yet neither has achieved the competitive longevity of a Detroit, but both are on the Redwings end of the scale, not the Capitals. Both clubs have 50+ combined points from their top five scorers, and both squads are backed by a goaltender that’s playing at the top of their games. Both teams also have shrewd bench bosses rolling out the lines. Ultimately, this series will be decided by which team has a corps, or an individual capable of taking it to the next level.

The pick: Steve Yzerman, Guy Boucher, and the Lightning are on the right track, but they fall short of getting through a third time. Bs in seven.

Out west, there is potential for a great dog fight as well, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. San Jose was admirable in their fight with Detroit, and I’m still tremendously impressed that they fought back and won in game seven. It’s possible that the Sharks can overcome the fact that Vancouver has had extra rest since knocking out Nashville, but it is entirely unpossible that Scott McLellan’s team can overcome the fact that they, in direct comparison with their next opponent, are a slow-skating team. The Canucks are crafty, they’re skilled, and they play a brand unmatched anywhere in the league right now, and if the Sedin twins can get hot again, it won’t even be close. This difference is inflated further if Kesler continues to play at the level he attained through two rounds.

I don’t want to discredit the veterans on the Sharks roster, but when it comes down to creating scoring opportunities, Antti Niemi will be tested much more often than Roberto Luongo. This much is certain. The only uncertainty, in fact, is which Luongo will show up. One would like to think that the cobwebs between the ears of the Canuck goaltender have been cleared, that his back is free of monkeys, but death and taxes don’t buy you wins in the Stanley Cup playoffs, let alone the Conference Finals.

The pick: San Jose may find that a retooling is in order once their season is over. Vancouver in five.

The Rounds That’ve Come Before

Just like last round, a look at the previous 10 NHL post-seasons is in order, and then this time around, we’ll average them and compare them with this season thus far. As a reminder: Shots on goal are registered shots that would’ve been goals had they not been saved; we’re only looking at major penalties; overtimes refers to total number of overtime periods, not games in which there was an overtime.

1999-2000 Conference Semi-Finals (eventual champ: NJ Devils)
Goals: 97
Shots: 1280
Penalties in Minutes: 155
Overtimes: 7
Home vs. Visitor: 3/1 in favor of home teams
Average Number of Games per Series: 5.5

2000-2001 CSFs (eventual champion: Colorado Avalanche)
Goals: 115
Shots: 1299
PIMs: 30
OTs: 10
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 6.25

2001-2002 CSFs (eventual champion: Detroit Redwings)
Goals: 138
Shots: 1373
PIMs: 145
OTs: 7
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 6.25

2002-2003 CSFs (eventual champion: New Jersey Devils)
Goals: 118
Shots: 1322
PIMs: 55
OTs: 13
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 6

2003-2004 CSFs (eventual champion: Tampa Bay Lightning)
Goals: 92
Shots: 1178
PIMs: 200
OTs: 6
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 5.5

2005-06 CSFs (eventual champion: Carolina Hurricanes)
Goals: 107
Shots: 1203
PIMs: 100
OTs: 8
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 5

2006-2007 CSFs (eventual champion: Anaheim Ducks)
Goals: 100
Shots: 1391
PIMs: 10
OTs: 11
H vs. V: 3/1, home
GpS: 5.5

2007-2008 CSFs (eventual champion: Detroit Redwings)
Goals: 117
Shots: 1208
PIMs: 75
OTs: 9
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 5

2008-2009 CSFs (eventual champion: Pittsburgh Penguins)
Goals: 159
Shots: 1645
PIMs: 190
OTs: 9
H vs. V: 3/1, visitor
GpS: 6.75

2009-2010 CSFs (eventual champion: Chicago Blackhawks)
Goals: 150
Shots: 1518
PIMs: 80
OTs: 3
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 6.25

2010-2011 CSFs
Goals: 114
Shots: 1360
PIMs: 40
OTs: 7
H vs. V: 2/2 tie
GpS: 5.25

How this year’s playoffs stacks up against the previous 10, through two rounds:

Previous Ten Playoffs (by average)
Goals: 354
Shots: 3324
PIMs: 345
OTs: 18
H vs V: 68/52, home; 56 percent
GpS: 5.73

This Year’s Playoffs
Goals: 401
Shots: 4416
PIMs: 415
OTs: 25
H vs. V: 8/4, home; 66 percent
GpS: 5.6875

What, then, do these numbers mean? Well, the first four categories are telling, in that you the league has seen a higher-than-usual number of registered shots, resulting in a higher number of goals scored, and as to be expected, the more goals that are getting scored, the higher the tempers will be, thus the increase in major PIMs. Even more interesting is that the increase in scoring has generated an increase in total overtime periods, to the tune of a 16 percent boost. And home-ice advantage is up 10 percent as well. The negative in these numbers is that the average number of games per series has dropped, a figure that, through round one was likely on par, if not higher, but two second-round sweeps dropped it below the average of the past 10 post-seasons.

What’s fascinating is that the increase in offense the league sought with the current collective-bargaining agreement has been a success, and, as we’ve discussed, it’s not a reflection of a lesser goaltending talent pool. What happens regarding games per series, though, is possibly a direct result of matchups, meaning, had Philly not faced Boston, or had Washington faced someone other than Tampa Bay, those series may have gone deeper than four games.

As I said in our last recap, it’s difficult to quantify the product we’re seeing in the league right now. Maybe the numbers are telling, maybe it’s because I don’t have a horse in the race, but this has been one of the best post-seasons of hockey I’ve ever seen, and the forecast for the final two rounds don’t indicate any signs of slowing down. Read more