Conquer Club

oVo wrote:Both the Kings and Rangers needed big comebacks
to get this far. If they both advance it will be the
first time in ages that so many games have been
needed to reach the finals.

Interesting point, if at least one of these two teams you mentioned wins by 4-3 in this series as well, they'll have a chance to set playoff history by playing the maximum 28 games, and in a year when there was olympic break as well, meaning the playoff would could very well end up being finished later in June than it has ever been before.

After doing just a little bit of research I realise it's still not going to be enough as last years playoffs ended on an abnormal June 24, not due to maximum games being played but because of the lockout. Last year could've easily seen games being played in July if both Semifinals weren't dispatched with so easily (4-0 and 4-1).

sempaispellcheck wrote:Haters gonna hate, Rangers gonna win.

Bring on the West! We'll be more than ready.

sempai

What a crazy game 7.

Two defensively stout, great goaltending and offensively meh teams. Except in the playoffs the Kings have just been killing it offensively.

Kings in 6.

Kings have played 21 games to reach the Finals.
This should be fun to watch.

Hard to believe NBC showed some repeat tv
instead of Game 7.

oVo wrote:Kings have played 21 games to reach the Finals.
This should be fun to watch.

Hard to believe NBC showed some repeat tv
instead of Game 7.

Gotta shell out for the sports package if you want to watch hockey, I suppose. I'll be shocked if the finals don't get full coverage, but then again playoff scheduling for hockey can be a bit wonky. Hopefully they'll show most of the games on their main channel.

Rangers in 7!

Kings in 5.

Bollocks.

Serbia wrote:Kings in 5.

Bollocks.

You think that a matchup between two teams who combined have played a total of 41 out of a possible 42 games will end in 5 games? Statistically that's highly unlikely. I'm not sure who wins but I'm very sure it will take at least 6 games to determine it.

Rangers have the advantage when it comes to total goals scored contra let in.
New York has scored 54 in 20 and let in 45 in 20. Los Angeles has scored 68 goals in 21 games but let in a humongous 63 goals in 21 games, that's 3 goals per game, for a team that reached the stanley cup finals that is rather extreme. That's also why I found it quite ironic when Kings GM Lombardi praised his teams focus on the defense as the key to their success. They've let in more goals per game than any other of the three teams that made it to the semifinals, their defense hasn't been close to laudible.

Comes down to the goaltender who is in the zone. Lundqvist has had a way better playoffs than Quick it seems. I have not watched Lundqvist but I have seen Quick during the playoffs. Quick has come up with some big saves but he has given up some ones that I just shook my head about. Basically Kings score 4 or more goals it's theirs, or maybe even 3. Low scoring it is the Rangers. GO KINGS, GO!!

Wow! Great start and a wicked 1st Period, three turnover goals
and the Rangers get one shorthanded.
Speed & Pace in abundance and excellent goalie play,
even with the 2-1 score.

Halfway thru the 3rd Period both teams looked spent
and I expected sloppy play to provide a winner.

Rangers first opening series game loss of these playoffs.

What a great game. Kings come back down 2 again.

Another nail biter with so many great scoring chances,
can Game 3 possibly go 3 OTs?

Army of GOD wrote:Kings in 6.

Errrr, whoops, I meant Kings in 4.

Rags are severely outmatched and Henrik looks like the typical playoff Lundqvist (aka not that good).

Sempai has been oddly quiet...

Kings 4-0 Finals sweep

Kings could have a let down for game 4. It's always better to carry the Stanley Cup around the ice on your home ice. But when you have a chance to put it away,put it away.

Gillipig wrote:

Serbia wrote:Kings in 5.

Bollocks.

You think that a matchup between two teams who combined have played a total of 41 out of a possible 42 games will end in 5 games? Statistically that's highly unlikely. I'm not sure who wins but I'm very sure it will take at least 6 games to determine it.

I'm still keeping the "Kings in 5" faith.

Bollocks.

Two exquisitely tight games with an abundance of scoring opportunities that could have easily gone the other way... followed by a shutout.

Rangers are certainly capable of making this interesting,
but I doubt a four game win streak is in their future.

Serbia wrote:

Gillipig wrote:

Serbia wrote:Kings in 5.

Bollocks.

You think that a matchup between two teams who combined have played a total of 41 out of a possible 42 games will end in 5 games? Statistically that's highly unlikely. I'm not sure who wins but I'm very sure it will take at least 6 games to determine it.

I'm still keeping the "Kings in 5" faith.

Bollocks.

This is just crazy, everything indicated that this series would be settled in at leats six games, now it looks like a five game series tops. It isn't that Rangers have been so much worse though, the two first games Rangers lead with 2-0 at the end of the first round, then LA won both on overtime, the last game in New York, the 3-0 victory, Rangers shot more than twice as many shots on goal. It has been a very close series, the score just doesn't reflect that. LA hasn't dominated New York, but they lead with 3-0 nonetheless.
And really, when you try to predict the amount of games in a series, you have to decide whether you think the teams are evenly matched or not, if they are it's most likely going to be a long series, if they aren't, it's most likely going to be a short series. The teams have been evenly matched and yet it looks like it will be a short series, it doesn't add up and I can't blame myself for not guessing the series would be short when I correctly guessed that the matchup would be even. That amkes me wonder how you think the series would turn out.
Did you think LA were going to steamroll New York and win every game except one with 4-2? Or did you think it was going to be close series but LA would have luck on their side?

DoomYoshi wrote:Sempai has been oddly quiet...

I wanted to make sure I was thinking straight and not reacting when I posted here - I'm trying not to be a crybaby, or a sore loser, or to make excuses for my team.

To put it bluntly, we've been awful - giving the puck away every chance we get, not taking nearly as many shots as we could (especially on the power play), and putting what shots we do take straight into Quick's body.
The two skaters who were supposed to lead this team to the Cup now go by Bad Richards and Rick Trash - Richards practically got a standing ovation when he went to the bench for a change.
We've gotten as far as we've gotten by beating teams with our speed. Now that the Kings have figured out how to deal with that, we don't seem to have all that many options.

BUT, there is still reason to be optimistic: we need to win our next 4, right? Well, last time we got beaten as badly as we did Monday night - shut out, at home, while outshooting our opponents 2-to-1 - we won our next 5.
As the great Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Also, be honest, how many of you would have thought, back in October - or even in January - that the Rangers could even get half this far?
Whether we win the Cup in 7 or lose it in 4, I think this is a season we can be proud of.
I won't say right now that we'll be able to build on this effort for next year, though, because that schmuck Sather will probably keep Richards and Nash and let everyone else go.

sempai

Kings are up 3-0, but it's not like it hasn't been tight. Hell, the first two games went three overtimes and anything is still possible. Been some great hockey and I sure hope it doesn't end in a sweep... MORE MORE MORE!

ONWARD TO A GAME SEVEN!

Too much detail ovo, try to keep your summaries shorter.

oVo wrote:ONWARD TO A GAME SEVEN!

This.

sempai

YEAH!!!
THAT'S RIGHT!!!
PUT THOSE BROOMS AWAY, BITCHES!!!

We'll see you motherfuckers in Los Angeles.

sempai