Los Angeles vs. San Jose

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

F*** the LA Kings.

If those idiots won, we'd have at least one more day of rest, with game 7 being tomorrow. Also, San Jose would be a tired team if they advanced to the next round to play us.

Now, I just hope Chicago can win, so that they and SJ kill each other. We'd get Nashville, a team with less talent and less travel for us.

Pittsburgh lost and so the Wings will get that extra day of rest anyways because that series has a Game 7.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Pittsburgh lost and so the Wings will get that extra day of rest anyways because that series has a Game 7.

Why does that series affect anything in the West?

I know the NBA will often have a game 1 in one Conference on the same day the other Conference is having a game 7 in a previous round.

Edited April 26, 2011 by GMRwings1983

[Mabuhay Red Wings 177]

Why does that series affect anything in the West?

I know the NBA will often have a game 1 in one Conference on the same day the other Conference is having a game 7 in a previous round.

I don't know. That's just what another user on here, VM1138?, clarified for me.

The NBA does things differently though. They don't re-seed like the NHL. The less similarities, the better, imo. Even though Bettman is teaching the same officiating philosophy.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I don't know. That's just what another user on here, VM1138?, clarified for me.

The NBA does things differently though. They don't re-seed like the NHL. The less similarities, the better, imo. Even though Bettman is teaching the same officiating philosophy.

Well, in any case, the Sharks are getting more rest now, instead of having to play either us or Chicago off a 7 game series with limited rest.

[chrisdetroit 189]

Yeah, unless the Sharks "flipped the switch" I like the Wings chances too.

The Kings could've been ahead in this series, or at least even but blew a 4 goal lead. And they were a young team without much offense and missing their best player in Kopitar. And the Sharks still looked beatable a lot of the time against them.

The Sharks needed 3 OT wins to get past the Kings. THREE. This could have easily gone the other way. Niemi finished with an .863 save percentage and a 3.99 GAA he allowed 19 goals in 6 games on 120 shots.

The Sharks finished as a team:

G/G 7th

Ga/G 12th

5on5 8th

PP 13th

PK 8th

The only thing they did well was puck possession. 1st in shots and 3rd in shots against. And this was against one of the weaker teams in the playoffs.

The series was pretty much a disaster for them. They were fortunate to escape.

Before the series, I was concerned about both San Jose and Vancouver. Now. Not so much.

I don't know. That's just what another user on here, VM1138?, clarified for me.

The NBA does things differently though. They don't re-seed like the NHL. The less similarities, the better, imo. Even though Bettman is teaching the same officiating philosophy.

The next round cannot start until the previous round is finished. Usually there is 1 full day between when nobody plays. Pittsburgh and Tampa will have to play on Wednesday which means the second round will probably not start until Friday though they may have some teams start on Thursday.

[Grypho 195]

The only thing they did well was puck possession. 1st in shots and 3rd in shots against. And this was against one of the weaker teams in the playoffs.

I agreed with everything you wrote except the last (unqualified) sentence.

The Kings were one of the weaker teams in the playoffs...offensively. Defensively, I saw them as El Numero Uno, and by a long shot - stronger defensively, IMO, than any other team in the NHL. It wasn't just their strong suit, it was, to me, sheer poetry at times to watch, especially in their own zone. They had unbelievable, uncanny coordination and defensive responses that I haven't seen in ANY other team this year. That failed only when they tried to match offense-for-offense at the expense of defense, which happened just enough for them to fail. If, however, they had had the wisdom to stay firmly on their amazing defensive game, I thought that they could have eliminated all comers, and plowed their way to the Cup this year.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Grypho

[stuck in socal 56]

I agreed with everything you wrote except the last (unqualified) sentence.

The Kings were one of the weaker teams in the playoffs...offensively. Defensively, I saw them as El Numero Uno, and by a long shot - stronger defensively, IMO, than any other team in the NHL. It wasn't just their strong suit, it was, to me, sheer poetry at times to watch, especially in their own zone. They had unbelievable, uncanny coordination and defensive responses that I haven't seen in ANY other team this year. That failed only when they tried to match offense-for-offense at the expense of defense, which happened just enough for them to fail. If, however, they had had the wisdom to stay firmly on their amazing defensive game, I thought that they could have eliminated all comers, and plowed their way to the Cup this year.

Kings do not have the best defense. Doughty - outside of game two, had a terrible series. Matt Greene - most king fans say he was the worst player on both teams. Alec Martinez - when I was in attendance for game 4, he made countless rookie mistakes. Scuderi was solid most the time, and Willie Mitchell was their best defender. Jack Johnson also had a decent series. But come on, the Kings had terrible defense in game 4. And this team with the "best" defense, blew a 4 goal lead at home. And you want you want to say this is the best defensive team in the playoffs? Give me a break.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Kings do not have the best defense. Doughty - outside of game two, had a terrible series. Matt Greene - most king fans say he was the worst player on both teams. Alec Martinez - when I was in attendance for game 4, he made countless rookie mistakes. Scuderi was solid most the time, and Willie Mitchell was their best defender. Jack Johnson also had a decent series. But come on, the Kings had terrible defense in game 4. And this team with the "best" defense, blew a 4 goal lead at home. And you want you want to say this is the best defensive team in the playoffs? Give me a break.

Overall the Kings have great team defense, but when they get rattled, holy hell that goes out the window.

I agree that Doughty didn't have a great series. He had those goals, but he has this habit of trying to do too much. He ends up getting cute with the puck or trying to make the highlight reel hit, and though he's good, he's not good enough to take over a game like he tries to. Couture blew past him for a goal when Doughty went for the big hipcheck. And Thornton made him pay when he tried the spin-o-rama along the boards in his own zone instead of making the simple play.

Still, overall I'd say they're a very good team defensively when they're on their game. They could grind it out and cycle the puck better than almost any team in the NHL. Their puck retrieval was incredible. It had to be, because it's really the only way they could ever gain the offensive zone was to dump and chase.

[Grypho 195]

Kings do not have the best defense. Doughty - outside of game two, had a terrible series. Matt Greene - most king fans say he was the worst player on both teams. Alec Martinez - when I was in attendance for game 4, he made countless rookie mistakes. Scuderi was solid most the time, and Willie Mitchell was their best defender. Jack Johnson also had a decent series. But come on, the Kings had terrible defense in game 4. And this team with the "best" defense, blew a 4 goal lead at home. And you want you want to say this is the best defensive team in the playoffs? Give me a break.

Let me clarify, then. I did not mean the best defensive team "[performance] in the playoffs", but rather the best defensive team, by nature, and when it is playing at its peak, of all the teams that made it into the playoffs. Big difference.

No team in the NHL is on its game every game, including the Wings and the Kings, which is why we say things like "didn't show up". "Not showing up" does not change the known nature and capacity of a team when it is its proven best. Furthermore, every team in the NHL, even when it does show up, can be pulled off of its game. Anecdotal evidence of contrary behavior and poor momentary performance does not change the capacity fundamentals.

After a bad loss by the Wings, do you think of it as being because your teams sucks, in general, or that it just sucked for that game, or series? Playing at less than capacity is not the same thing as not having the capacity to begin with. When I say that I thought the Kings had the best defense (in the entire NHL, not just the playoffs), I was referring to their ultimate capacity relative to all the other teams -- not their performance in any particular game or series.

Statistics are only meaningful when there are many data to trend and average. It's funny to me, therefore, when people will cite statistics of a single game or even a series (like a GAA, or GF), as if it actually meant something, or was an indicator of anything except the isolated performance of a team for that particular time frame, and under those particular circumstances. Otherwise, just go cherry pick your favorite stat from a given two week period for any team in the regular season. Show me the hockey gods, and I will pick a different two week period and produce a goat - using that same team.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Grypho

[HankthaTank 1,100]

Who was that player that scored the OT goal again? Never see him in the playoffs, it's odd.

[stuck in socal 56]

Let me clarify, then. I did not mean the best defensive team "[performance] in the playoffs", but rather the best defensive team, by nature, and when it is playing at its peak, of all the teams that made it into the playoffs. Big difference.

No team in the NHL is on its game every game, including the Wings and the Kings, which is why we say things like "didn't show up". "Not showing up" does not change the known nature and capacity of a team when it is its proven best. Furthermore, every team in the NHL, even when it does show up, can be pulled off of its game. Anecdotal evidence of contrary behavior and poor momentary performance does not change the capacity fundamentals.

After a bad loss by the Wings, do you think of it as being because your teams sucks, in general, or that it just sucked for that game, or series? Playing at less than capacity is not the same thing as not having the capacity to begin with. When I say that I thought the Kings had the best defense (in the entire NHL, not just the playoffs), I was referring to their ultimate capacity relative to all the other teams -- not their performance in any particular game or series.

Statistics are only meaningful when there are many data to trend and average. It's funny to me, therefore, when people will cite statistics of a single game or even a series (like a GAA, or GF), as if it actually meant something, or was an indicator of anything except the isolated performance of a team for that particular time frame, and under those particular circumstances. Otherwise, just go cherry pick your favorite stat from a given two week period for any team in the regular season. Show me the hockey gods, and I will pick a different two week period and produce a goat - using that same team.

Well the sad thing is they did not play at their peak at the most important part of the season, the playoffs. I see your point, but I kindly disagree . Regardless, looking forward to the matchup with your sharks this year. It should be a heck of a series.