(IST) WCF: (3) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (1) Anaheim Ducks

[HawkWriter]

And you fail to grasp that we're not being literal. You love arguing semantics. Yeah, sure, the Rangers had a certain mathematical probability that they could win. Perhaps Henrik could've went nuts. Perhaps Toews or Kane would've got hurt. Perhaps the Blackhawks would've all contracted AIDS at the same time and been forced to forfeit the series.

The point of what BHP (and everyone else) is saying that the Blackhawks and the Kings were, by far, the superior team to the Rangers last year and that any 7-game series between the teams would've ended up in favor of the Western Conference series representatives.

Note: "Any series" is not meant to exclude unforeseen circumstances such as players incredibly over-performing or acts of God on behalf of the Rangers.

Obviously that's what someone means when they say that the West was winning and the Rangers didn't have a chance...

What I grasp is that people fail to realize that the Blackhawks have weaknesses and other teams have strengths. It is vice versa and it is a two way street here. Maybe the Blackhawks don't have as many weaknesses or other teams as many strengths, but they are still there. Blackhawks are a damn good team, I'm a Blackhawks fan and certainly think they can win the Cup...but I'm not stupid enough to not acknowledge what can happen, that this is a sport, and that other teams out there want this as badly as the Blackhawks.

 

[Shantz My Pants]

In my opinion, there isn't a team right now in the East that could beat the Hawks or Ducks in a 7 game series. Rangers have Lundqvist, but they don't have the depth like the Hawks and their goal scoring has been lacking. If the Hawks play like they have been, it would be a 4 game, 5 max series.


Sent from my Texas Instrument Calculator

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Yall *****s is crazy.

 

[DMelt36]

I know you're talking playoffs but let's take a look at career numbers against the Hawks for the other goalies you mentioned.

Quick
7-14-1
.908 & 2.84

Rinne
14-11-4
.918 & 2.54

Rask
2-1-1
.937 & 1.76

Luongo
15-12-4
.929 & 2.22

Only one that compares is Rask during regular season.

All fair points. Henrik would likely be the best goalie the Hawks will have faced in a 7-game series.

But Henrik's never faced a postseason team with the forward depth that the Hawks have right now. And while you keep posting Henrik's career numbers against the Hawks, only two of those games have happened since 2010. Safe to say that the Hawks have been quite the different team since then, right?

 

[DMelt36]

Obviously that's what someone means when they say that the West was winning and the Rangers didn't have a chance...

What I grasp is that people fail to realize that the Blackhawks have weaknesses and other teams have strengths. It is vice versa and it is a two way street here. Maybe the Blackhawks don't have as many weaknesses or other teams as many strengths, but they are still there. Blackhawks are a damn good team, I'm a Blackhawks fan and certainly think they can win the Cup...but I'm not stupid enough to not acknowledge what can happen, that this is a sport, and that other teams out there want this as badly as the Blackhawks.

If this was a one-game series I'd be way more likely to believe that. In a 7-game series, teams with fewer weaknesses are going to rise to prevail a vast majority of the time. Plus, from all the analytics studies I've ever read, the highest correlation between performance and success comes from puck possession. The Hawks biggest strength, IMO, is their team's puck possession. They're better at that than any of the other teams remaining. That's why they're going to win the Cup.

 

[DMelt36]

I'm confused. You say Hawks dominate good goalies than you list playoff fuckups Rinne and Luongo.

Vancouver's letdowns often had more to do with the jackasses skating on the ice for them than the guy in net.

 

[DMelt36]

Crawford vs. Ducks
9-4-1
1.88 GAA .926 SV%

Andersen vs. Hawks
0-2-0
3.52 GAA .900 SV%

The further you dig into the stats of any Hawks/Ducks comparisons, the more hilarious they get. Anaheim is fucked.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

The further you dig into the stats of any Hawks/Ducks comparisons, the more hilarious they get. Anaheim is fucked.

You might not want to compare current playoff stats this year, then.

 

[DMelt36]

You might not want to compare current playoff stats this year, then.

Well, I'd hope Anaheim's numbers are better when they've had a pair of cakewalks in Calgary and Winnpeg while the Hawks had to deal with a pair of 100-point teams in Nashville and Minnesota.

[Edit] I realize now that Calgary and Winnipeg weren't all that far from 100 points so maybe that wasn't the best way to put it. But anyone want to compare the level of competition in the division occupied by Chicago/St. Louis/Minnesota/Nashville with the Anaheim/Calgary one? Didn't think so.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Well, I'd hope Anaheim's numbers are better when they've had a pair of cakewalks in Calgary and Winnpeg while the Hawks had to deal with a pair of 100-point teams in Nashville and Minnesota.

[Edit] I realize now that Calgary and Winnipeg weren't all that far from 100 points so maybe that wasn't the best way to put it. But anyone want to compare the level of competition in the division occupied by Chicago/St. Louis/Minnesota/Nashville with the Anaheim/Calgary one? Didn't think so.

I don't get why people in general are trying to talk up Nashville and Minnesota like some powerhouses the Hawks slayed while Anaheim was walking through Candyland facing Calgary and Winnipeg.

 

[ClydeLee]

I don't get why people in general are trying to talk up Nashville and Minnesota like some powerhouses the Hawks slayed while Anaheim was walking through Candyland facing Calgary and Winnipeg.

Because Canada is candyland... and there are differences between low depth having teams that have limited playoff experience, especially in net or on defense than those with it.

 

[DMelt36]

I don't get why people in general are trying to talk up Nashville and Minnesota like some powerhouses the Hawks slayed while Anaheim was walking through Candyland facing Calgary and Winnipeg.

Minnesota was the hottest team in the league for the 2nd half of the season and knocked off a lot of people's Cup favorites in St. Louis (though we certainly knew better about the Blues). Nashville was in contention for the President's Trophy for much of the year. They were damn good teams with damn good talent. Calgary and Winnipeg were nowhere near that good.

 

[CRM 114]

I'd rank the Wild/Preds/Flames/Jets as so:

Wild


Preds/Jets (pretty even)
Flames


I still don't think Nashville is very good. Before the playoffs started if you told me we were going to play the Preds and Wild and sweep one of them I would have put money on the sweep coming against Nashville.

 

[DMelt36]

With perhaps the deepest blue line in the league, you could argue that Nashville was the 2nd best team in the West.

 

[CRM 114]

Who's 3rd best? Edmonton?

 

[DMelt36]

Who's 3rd best? Edmonton?

 

[MassHavoc]

I can't get banned for doing nothing wrong (unless DewSox is the mod which thankfully he isn't)

Anyone can get banned for doing wrong, captain double negative.

EDIT Oh for fucks sake I wish this board ever worked right.

 

[LordKOTL]

I don't get why people in general are trying to talk up Nashville and Minnesota like some powerhouses the Hawks slayed while Anaheim was walking through Candyland facing Calgary and Winnipeg.

Consider the Quality of Opponents:

Anaheim got 109 points in the weakest division (109, 101, 97, 95, 89, 62, 50). Chicago was in the toughest (109, 104, 102, 100, 99, 92, 90). They beat a 99 point team and a 97 point team that beat a 101 point team. The 'hawks, OTOH, beat a 104 point team and a 100 point team that beat a 109 point team.

Further, both the Blues and Ducks got 109 points in the toughest and weakest divisions, repectively. Using the 97-point playoff bar as the standard, Anaheim faced only 2 playoff-level teams on a regular basis. Chicago faced 4 on a regular basis (including the Blues)--and still managed to get more points than the next-toughest pacific opponent (Vancouver). In other words, if Anaheim was really all-that, you would expect a point spread over the rest of their division similar to Detroit in 2006 & 2008, San Jose in 2009 (even though the Pacific wasn't the weakest, it was on the weak-side), Washington in 2010, Vancouver in 2011, or Chicago in 2013--esentally plowing through their divisional opponents as well as the rest of the conference like they were paper sacks filled with red-colored Karo™ syrup & turkey gibblets.

Now, it's not to say that these series won't be tough or hard-fought by the 'hawks. If they go in thinking Anaheim is easy they'll be embarassed like they were against Nashville in games 1, 2, 5, and the 1st period of 6. But on the flipside Anaheim cannot take Chicago lightly, either. Chicago is far and away a better quality opponent than not only Anaheim has faced, but also the opponents that Anaheim's opponents have faced.

Even a Coworker (neutral 3rd party--follows the Coyotes and to a lesser extent, the Kings) said he doesn't quite know how to place Anaheim. They could be that good and the extra rest (now I think becoming a non-factor since the East is dragging on like a lecture from your parents and rust may be a factor for both the ducks and 'hawks), or they could be in for a shock against a tougher opponent.

Either way, I think it will be a good series. Even if Cal-gary and Winnipeg (via Vanouver) are not the same as Nashville and Minnesota (via St. Louis), the disparity is smaller than it would seem, IMHO.

 

[Samurai]

We need the WCF to start pronto. This statistical shite is giving me a headache.

And NO team in the east has the defense and/or team defense to handle either the Hawks or the California raisins in a 7 game series.

And Lundqvist is overrated...as was Rinne...as was Dubnyk.

 

[CLWolf81]

Didn't we have to schedule around the Rolling Stones in 2013? **** Kanye West.

We also have experts at that sort of thing. Anaheim needs a lot more hours to work with. -.-