It's over: Bruins end Habs season in Game Seven OT
Congratulations to the Boston Bruins, who overcame a two-game deficit to defeat the Montreal Canadiens with a 4-3 overtime win in Game Seven.
Equal congrats to the Habs, who were deemed the underdogs and not really given a chance to win this series.
It was a series that easily could have gone in either direction, and easily ended sooner than seven games for either team.
As for the game itself, it certainly wasn't a classic to put in the vault. Poor ice conditions had the puck bouncing all over, resulting in muffed of missed shots and bad bounces. Neither team had any real establishment of dominance, with the Bruins maybe having the early first period edge.
Officiating was again at it's worst on both sides, with several missed and borderline calls. The NHL must seriously reevaluate who they use in the playoffs.
The Bruins took an early two-goal lead in the deciding game, with goals from Johnny Boychuk and Mark Recchi, and it looked like it would was going to be over early for the visiting team. The Canadiens took advantage of special teams with a power play marker from Yannick Weber and a shorthanded breakaway goal by Tomas Plekanec to rally back and tie the game.
Chris Kelly put the Bruins back ahead in the third period, being a factor at both ends of the ice. After a spear to Roman Hamrlik (and yes it was) Kelly made his way back up ice to cash a rebound past a sprawling Carey Price. Hamrlik remained on the ice for some time, hoping to gain the referees attention. Unfortunately the zebras, and even his own bench weren't buying it. Surprisingly, I'll have to quote our friend Jack Edwards and say that Hamrlik needed to, "Get up!" and get back in the play. The play was also controversial in that it was started by a high stick by Boston that wasn't called down.
The Bruins then had numerous chances to put it out of reach, but Price kept his team in the game.
A late high sticking call gave the Habs another power play, and P.K. Subban cashed it in with a powerhouse one-timer past Tim Thomas with 1:57 left in the period.
The Habs season ended when Nathan Horton fired a shot from just inside the blueline at 5:43 that deflected off of Jeff Halpern's skate. It was Horton's second OT winner of the series.
The victory ends a four game losing streak in Game Sevens for the Bruins, who move on to face the Philadelphia Flyers. It was also the first time the Bruins overcame a two game deficit in the playoffs, and probably saved the job of head coach Claude Julien for at least a few more months.
With a wedding on Friday (mine, not Will and Kate's) to attend to Friday, yours truly will be taking a few days away fro EOTP. I'll hook up with the rest of the crew to evaluate the Habs season and what to expect in the off season next week. Hint: Andrei Kostitsyn may have played his way out of contract negotiations based on his Game Seven play alone.
Three Stars: 1. Nathan Horton 2. Chris Kelly 3. Mark Recchi
The winning side's reaction and summer bragging rights at Stanley Cup of Chowder
SCORING SUMMARY
| SCORERS | |
| First period | |
| 03:31 BOS | Johnny Boychuk, 1 (Brad Marchand, 4 Patrice Bergeron, 5) (MTL: 44 11 21 13 20 31 BOS: 28 30 21 55 37 63) |
| 05:33 BOS | Mark Recchi, 1 (Andrew Ference, 2 Kirk Macdonald, 1) (MTL: 75 11 21 13 31 76 BOS: 28 30 21 55 37 63) |
| 09:49 MTL | Yannick Weber, 2 (PP) (Roman Hamrlik, 3 Michael Cammalleri, 7) (MTL: 44 11 13 46 31 68 BOS: 30 33 11 55 20) |
| Second period | |
| 05:50 MTL | Tomas Plekanec, 2 (SH) (MTL: 55 6 32 14 31 BOS: 28 30 33 44 37 49) |
| Third period | |
| 09:44 BOS | Chris Kelly, 3 (Andrew Ference, 3 Rich Peverley, 4) (MTL: 44 11 21 32 20 31 BOS: 30 21 73 23 44 49) |
| 18:03 MTL | P.k. Subban, 2 (PP) (Tomas Plekanec, 3 Brian Gionta, 2) (MTL: 21 13 14 20 31 76 BOS: 30 21 23 11 55) |
| Overtime | |
| 05:43 BOS | Nathan Horton, 3 (Milan Lucic, 2 Adam Mcquaid, 2) (MTL: 75 15 13 14 31 76 BOS: 30 33 18 46 54 17) |
| Team | Shots | Faceoffs | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
181 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very hard fought series by your boys… shown a ton of grit, determination and resilience. Definitely should be proud of them.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 27, 2011 11:03 PM EDT reply actions
Thanks
One thing about the Habs team that Gainey put together after the ‘09 purge, these guys don’t give up. We saw that in last year’s playoffs and in tonight’s game.
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Apr 27, 2011 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
GREAT series.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Cheers. Gotta give your Bruins a lot of credit. Ryder had a redemptive series, Marchand has shown he has the game to back up the bark, and Thomas put all the silly talk of his demise behind him. Horton, for all his disappearances, did what he’s supposed to: score big goals. Chara was a force, and the D held together and seemed to get more confident as the series progressed.
Well fought on both sides.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and I forgot Chris Kelly- boy has his game grown since he came over from Ottawa.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Good summary of the game, Kevin. The ice was indeed awful, how many times do you see Cammalleri completely muff a shot like the one he did late in the third? BTW, I thought they were done when that play unfolded. Great effort all around, but the B’s broke everybody’s hearts in the end. A great season for many individuals, and definitely one that the team as a whole can be proud of.
Congratulations on the wedding, my friend!
by Richard McAdam on Apr 27, 2011 11:09 PM EDT reply actions
Agreed.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks Dan
Always welcome here, friend.
We keep the site busy, even though the Habs are done, so be sure to stop by.
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Apr 28, 2011 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Have you ever seen a guy who did absolutely nothing for 400+ minutes impact a series so dramatically? Horton was invisible ALL series except for about 6 seconds.
In the playoffs, that’s all it takes.
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Apr 27, 2011 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s the thing about GWG. It doesn’t really matter.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I really, really dislike Scott Gomez. It kills me that this team is saddled with him for another 3 years.
by Jedi Master A-Rod on Apr 27, 2011 11:14 PM EDT reply actions
I’m concerned about Gomez, though I’m waiting for Olivier’s scoring chances from tonight for a verdict on this game.
I was keeping track of the aggregate of the Habs’ scoring chances Olivier was tracking (though I accidentally deleted the file back in March). Gomez started off the season almost as well as Plekanec and was very positive positive. Around December or January things started to change, his lines were routinely getting out-chanced, and I’m pretty sure he finished the season with a negative differential in scoring chances at even-strength. I’m pretty sure Plekanec was still facing the toughest opposition, so the degrading of Gomez’s play is concerning. Hopefully he had a niggling injury that held him back a bit.
Looking ahead, the Habs do need Gomez for next season. This year Eller had some trouble handling top-6 opposition and I would think it will take him another year of development until he’s ready for a top-6 role on a team that hopes to contend. If you get rid of Gomez this off-season you need to bring in a top-6 replacement, which isn’t easy (if it was Gainey wouldn’t have traded for Gomez). Hope for a bounceback season from him, some more development from Eller, and then the Habs can probably trade him when his salary goes below his cap-hit and Eller is ready without weakening the team. I believe some cash-strapped Southern franchise would love a free $2 million towards the salary floor while picking up a top-6 centre, even one in decline.
I don’t see much of a point in getting rid of Kostitsyn. He has his faults but don’t see many oppurtunities to get anyone significantly better for his role. If you do have the oppurtunity to upgrade, it would be better to keep him to play with Eller on the third line
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 27, 2011 11:20 PM EDT reply actions
The team put forth a really valiant effort, particularly given the injuries we faced. Its too bad we couldn’t play the spoiler for a 2nd year in a row.
I completely agree Stephen. Kostitsyn’s skills are often overshadowed by the fact that we play a defence-first system. The guy is an incredibly competitor, and on a team with a bona-fide No. 1 centre, would easily score 30 goals.
I don’t mean to denigrate Martin’s system. Its held us into games we had more business being in. But that seems to speak to the dearth of offensive creativity amongst our forwards beyond Cammalleri, Kostitsyn, Gionta and Plekanec, the latter of whom is more of a two-way shadow centre.
The Hammer comes off the books this summer, and as much as I love the guy, we need to look for more offensive forward depth. I’m sorry, but Deharnais, Darche, Moen, etc. cannot be expected to shoulder 2nd line offensive responsibility. A comeback by Patches will help, but he’s far from a certain commodity.
- it’s held us into games we had no business being in.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions
The Hammer comes off the books this summer, and as much as I love the guy, we need to look for more offensive forward depth. I’m sorry, but Deharnais, Darche, Moen, etc. cannot be expected to shoulder 2nd line offensive responsibility. A comeback by Patches will help, but he’s far from a certain commodity.
I’m not sure he’s top-6 quality, but I was regretting the Habs not picking up Zherdev off waivers back in February. Gauthier couldn’t have seen the Pacioretty injury coming, but putting Zherdev on Eller’s wing with a more defensive winger on the other side would have been a nice luxury to have.
If the free agent market is anything like last year’s, there are bargains to be found in the 3rd-line forward tier. I know that when you’re talking about another forward you’re looking at a bona-fide offensive top-6 guy, but someone like Brunette would be a nice luxury player to have on the 2nd/3rd line, depending on how the defense shapes up.
I’ve been playing around with the capgeek calculator during the intermission and there are some intriguing possibilities for forward depth if the market doesn’t change completely. On defense things don’t look pretty (Hamrlik getting $5 million/year wouldn’t surprise me… not a lot there), but there might be a fair number of 3rd-liner/can step into the 2nd line without many problems.
Agreed on Zherdev, I’d take a chance on him for half price.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Brunette’s exactly the type of guy who would fit in well…I suppose I should have said a 2A/3rd liner to be more precise.
Its tough to find those sorts of veteran contributors…and I’m glad we didn’t do something stupid, like attempt to fit in Satan or another over the hill goal scrounger.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Habs re-sign Markov, they don’t have a burning need for Hammer. Their top-4 would go Markov-Subban-Gorges-Spacek. That’s already very strong, and if they can re-sign one of Wisnievski or Hamrlik for 3-4 mil and have Weber fill the last spot, they’ll be pretty set.
I think our D is incredibly deep compared to almost any team out there. We got this far without Gorges and Markov, leaving us to play belle at the ball for offseason.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions
I see Wisniewski making between 4-5, but I’d seriously consider paying that to secure a relatively young PMD that was top 10 for defensive scoring this year.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 4:19 AM EDT up reply actions
At this point it’s customary to tip one’s hat to the winning team. But let’s not be afraid of reality, shall we?
The better team has lost this series. I think that’s pretty clear.
The Bruins were not a bad club, they were close to Montreal, but yet the much diminished, beat-up Habs were still the better team.
But the Habs lost, mostly because as was the case all year, they couldn’t buy that bounce that would make them win games they outplayed their opponents in. It’s something that happened in hockey. 3-0 in overtime? Really? That’s luck.
Montreal having lived by that sword last year, they can’t really complain about dying by it this year. Still, I think we now understand (albeit to a lesser degree) how Washington and Pittsburgh fans felt last year.
The Habs’ future is bright. This year marked a massive turnaround in the team’s ability. With Markov and Gorges and Pacioretty back next year, they should be the best team of the division, ahead of the Sabres (with the Bruins slotting in third).
As for Boston, I don’t see them going deep. They were very overrated to start the playoffs (living on the percentages gravy train will do that to you) and they will have to face superior clubs throughout the playoffs — most of which will be better than Montreal, a team they already really shouldn’t have beat. They might get lucky again, like the Habs did last year, but it’s going to catch up to them just like it did the Habs.
by MathMan on Apr 27, 2011 11:39 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Give the Bruins some credit- they didn’t exactly roll over and die. There were long stretches where they absolutely dominated in our end. Despite our vaunted defensive set-up, we would’ve been dead without Price.
However, I will agree with you on the luck of tourneys. We benefited last year, and we got burned a little this year.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the Bruins are a pretty good club. I just think they weren’t as good as the Habs, even this beat-up version. And honestly, at this point they’re the weakest club remaining in the playoffs by a fair margin.
They played just well enough to win. The Habs outplayed them and lost. It’s hockey: the better team doesn’t always win.
I don’t think the Bruins are weaker than Tampa Bay, although Tampa’s coaching is leaps and bounds better.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions
Tampa is a very strong hockey club that’s been undone by farcical goaltending for most of the year. They’re much better at driving the play than Boston and I think they are a significantly better team.
I mean, even on paper. Look at Boston’s defensive depth beyond Chara. Bad D is supposed to be Tampa’s Achilles’ heel and their blueline unit is better than the Bruins’.
If their blueline is better than Boston’s it’s by a hair. They have some serviceable guys but only Hedman is top pairing material and even he gets caught out of his depth a lot.
From what I’ve seen Tampa is a pretty crappy team that’s benefited from great coaching and luck.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Ohlund?
Tampa Bay has driven the play way too much for their success to be luck. Their shooting percentage isn’t particularly high either. One could easily argue that they were unlucky. If they had had decent goaltending the whole year, I don’t think Washington could have caught them.
Very underrated contributions of one Dominic Moore and Sean Bergenheim, plus the more publicized rebound by Downie into a hockey player.
If Rollie can keep his 41 year old legs moving, they’ve got a chance to be a sleeper.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought Tampa was a Cup contender right from the start. I picked them to beat Pittsburgh — credit to Pitt for dragging it to seven, though, I underestimated them minus Crosby and Malkin.
I liked them too, despite their struggle for points. If you watched their regular season games, they absolutely blitzed the opposition for scoring chances. Like you mentioned, more bad luck than bad play.
Who’s that Boucher guy behind the bench ;)
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions
If Martin hadn’t completely turned the Habs around and turned them from a pathetic 5-on-5 club to a strong one, I’d be screaming bloody murder about letting Boucher go.
Martin’s system can be tough to watch, but its disciplined and calculated to reduce GA. After Carbo’s randomness, its a very comfortable place to be.
We couldn’t expect to hold onto a star candidate like Boucher forever. But his work in Hamilton is paying dividends for us now.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions
At the time, given how horrid the Habs were last year, I thought the Habs were nuts for not firing Martin right then and there and putting Boucher in his place. It was difficult to imagine he could do worse, luck-fueled miracle run to the conference finals notwithstanding.
This year the Habs were much, much better and it’s a shame the giant turnaround wasn’t recognized. Montreal was hands down the most improved team in the league.
And I still wonder if Boucher couldn’t have done better.
No offense intended, but the Tampa Bay Lightning are the most improved team in the league. They had a 23 point improvement (12th to 5th place) and held the division title for a good part of the year. And now they have a second round birth, too.
Sometimes it seems this cycle never ends, we slide from top to bottom then we turn and climb again.
Stoik_Leafs Twitter
by Chris Stoikoff on Apr 28, 2011 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions
berth*
Sometimes it seems this cycle never ends, we slide from top to bottom then we turn and climb again.
Stoik_Leafs Twitter
by Chris Stoikoff on Apr 28, 2011 1:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Tampa has a case, but in terms of level of play, Montreal went from a team that should have been in the lottery to a team that should have won their division. They litterally went from terrible to very good in one year.
Unfortunately, the Habs’ luck went down at the same time, meaning that this giant improvement ended up not being reflected in the standings as much as it should. But if they had played like last year with the same amount of luck, they’d have given the Oilers a run for their money as the worst team in the league. They were that bad.
While I appreciate humility as a hockey fan
And particularly a Leaf fan whose seen some bad teams of his own, luck isn’t really tangible. You guys improved by 8 points, which is nice but not TB-12th-to-5th nice. You lived and died by your special teams as always, but you still couldn’t really score goals. You allowed exactly the same number of SA/g as my Leafs, but Carey Price managed to bail you out night after night.
The Habs seemed like they were more well rounded this year(particularly with PK Subban stepping into Markov’s oft-vacant spot), but the Lightning had a huge jump in the standings (80 pts to 103) that nobody really comes close to touching. Any most improved award has to go to them.
Not trolling or anything, don’t get me wrong.
Sometimes it seems this cycle never ends, we slide from top to bottom then we turn and climb again.
Stoik_Leafs Twitter
by Chris Stoikoff on Apr 28, 2011 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
And there was NO WAY you guys were taking the last-place crown from Vesa Toskala last year. Just sayin’. :)
Sometimes it seems this cycle never ends, we slide from top to bottom then we turn and climb again.
Stoik_Leafs Twitter
by Chris Stoikoff on Apr 28, 2011 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Luck is actually quite tangible, and an accurate estimate of its effects can be calculated. There’s been plenty of analysis to figure out which elements of a team’s game are sustainable skill (controlling the play, puck possession), and which ones are luck (shooting percentages) and how much they matter.
Montreal went from lottery-level to top-10 in the former. Unfortunately, they also went from middling to bottom-5 in the latter, which almost entirely masked their improvement and fooled people into believing Montreal had a popgun offense (which they don’t). They left at least 20, maybe upwards of 30, goals for on the table due to bad luck, just at even strength.
In short, Montreal had a monstrous turnaround in play level that was masked by a huge dip in chance-based factors.
I was terribly pessimistic last year because I realized how bad Montreal had played. Now I can’t wait for next year.
Dude, Ohlund is crap. Maybe the numbers don’t back me up on this, but he’s terrible.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions
The Bruins forward corp is deep. The Ference-Boychuk-McQuiad trifecta is what sets them back.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Speaking of Ference, he should be suspended asap. That hit on Halpern was inexcusable.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Pretty much the same as Steckel on Crosby. I’m sure its realllllly high on Mike Murphy’s priority list.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it was much worse than the Steckel hit. The intent was beyond obvious.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I just hope Halpern still has a few nuts and bolts together. His head should be given the 3rd star after what Boychuk and Ference laid out.
The fact that Ference was looking directly at him skating by really bugged me. Just a dirty play.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Same here. When you look at the replay, if Ference wouldn’t have moved they both would have just skated by each other, but at the last second he goes for the headshot. Incredibly despicable considering what he said about Paille.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t care about a Ference suspension. I want the major penalty and game misconduct retroactively called.
I’m guessing since the event never happened in the official’s eyes that Halpern was able to avoid the quiet room. Can’t put him in there for something that didn’t happen, right?
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Apr 28, 2011 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s probably how Halpern was able to avoid it I guess. I think that decision by the Habs medical staff is a questionable one as Halpern looked dazed the rest of the game, and he has a concussion history.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
He had already taken a blow to the head as well.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Indeed he had.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
After reading one sentence I pretty much stopped. The habs weren’t better. If Boston learnt how to score a PP goal you porbably wouldn’t have made it to the seventh game. Oh and learnt how to PK too. Although Montreal does have a nice powerplay. I wish the Devils would watch and learn..
by Kyle Hamelin on Apr 28, 2011 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I disagree, the Habs were the better club. Not by much, mind you, but they were.
The key stat of this series is really 3-0: the Bruins’ record in overtime. Three coin-flip games and the Bruins win all three.
The Habs were 3-1 in regulation games, and won two of them by two goals. The Bruins’ sole regulation win was also by two goals, but it included an empty-netter. Even without delving deeply into shot-based metrics, that gives a pretty good indication.
I think Boston’s inability to score on the PP is a red herring; nobody’s mentioning the Habs’ corresponding inability to score 5-on-5 (even when they carried the play) but that was as much a factor. I think that’s random distribution at work.
At a minimum, the pre-series narrative that presented the Canadiens as an hapless underdog to a world-beating dominating Boston team took a serious hit. Even if some in the Boston media never seemed to be willing to let go of it. ;)
Your response implies that a club’s hard work in OT in essence mean nothing, that only regulation games measure a team’s muster. But OT is measured by the determination and skill of a team’s output within the timeframe needed for the other team to score. Sure odd bounces can occur here and there making the other team “lucky.” But OT, IMHO, is not a “coin flip.”
Regardless of how one team plays their special teams, their 5-on-5s or their overtimes, the “better club” is the one who comes away with the win…or the series.
by WeatherExperiment on Apr 28, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
- That should read “for that team to score” not “for the other team to score.”
by WeatherExperiment on Apr 28, 2011 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course one club’s hard work in OT matters, because both clubs work hard and if one team didn’t, they would naturally get pasted.
The key here is understanding what a team exercises real control over (generating scoring chances) and what it has much less control over (turning those chances into goals). In the long run, the team that does the former is going to outscore the other team, so it’s going to be deemed “better”. But on a small sample such as overtime where you stop at one goal, variations in “finish” are going to overwhelm which team’s better — and a large portion of “finish”, on a small sample, is luck.
So when the two teams end up in sudden-death overtime, because of the extremely small samples and the general closeness of the teams’ skill levels, the game does largely becomes a coin flip… and that’s frankly being generous to the Bruins as the Habs were, generally, better at generating chances with the score tied both in this series and in the regular season, so their odds of winning any given OT game were likely slightly better than the Bruins’. That the Bruins still won three overtime games (out of four games required to eliminate the Habs) speaks to remarkable good fortune on their part.
Hockey is already a game where the better team often doesn’t win over a full hockey game, even a playoff series. So imagine over such a short time as sudden death overtime!
I’ll accept that explanation in the general sense that, yes, once a goal is scored in OT, it’s over. A lucky breakout by a team that, having just been dominated in their own end for, say, two minutes, scores a goal. And maybe that constitutes luck on their part.
But why couldn’t the other team score during their two minute domination? Was the defensive team just lucky that shots
1.) went wide,
2.) got deflected, or
3.) were stopped by the goaltender?
Or could it be that their skill and determination was such that they
1.) created just enough confusion in front of the net,
2.) positioned themselves smartly to block shots, and
3.) had a hot goaltender that was able to hold the offensive team from scoring?
I just think that if OT is tossed off as “luck” periods just because one team happened to play better offensively or defensively for longer periods of time, it makes those OT periods out to be, in essence, deemed unnecessary, and that cheapens the game, IMHO, to look at it that way. You might as well eliminate OT periods and give the “win” to the team who scored the tying goal in regulation since they fought back hard enough to take away the lead from the opposing team. Then you can’t argue that the game is over. The opposing team would then have “X” amount of minutes/seconds in regulation to redeem themselves and earn their win back.
Defintely not trying to take away from your reasoning or feeling about it. Just wanted to give my point of view. There are good points from both sides.
by WeatherExperiment on Apr 29, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
There’s nothing wrong with overtime. It’s a fine way to pick a winner between two teams that are usually, on that night, very close in ability. Of course, because the two teams are close in ability that night, each should normally have close to a 50-50 chance to win.
And that’s key I think. There isn’t anything to suggest that between two teams that are otherwise very close, one will have special skill at playing overtime and the other one won’t, especially in the playoffs where overtime is standard 5-on-5. As such, at the macro level, it becomes a coin flip; a coin flip that’s composed at the micro of a number of plays that involve both a portion of luck and skill, as all hockey plays do, but ultimately, with both teams being that close it’s a 50-50 coin toss. And the Bruins won all 3 of them.
Now yes, if one team is significantly better than the other, then their odds of winning overtime are better (though because of the sample, probably more along the lines of 60-40). But that’s not this particular situation. With the score tied, Montreal would generally carry the play more, which means it would normally be the higher-odds-to-win team.
Montreal also actually outscored Boston over the course of the series, discounting the empty-netter. Boston’s goals, though, turned out to be timed so they had more leverage, culminating in 3 OT wins. Goal distribution in close games, well, that’s pretty much random chance, too (no, it’s not some mythical form of “clutchness”).
I appreciate the candid talk. Thanks!
by WeatherExperiment on Apr 29, 2011 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Luck is an unsatisying explanation, that is why it is so thoroughly rejected by the majority of people, but everybody knows it, they just have creatively figured out a way to disguise it.
Go hard to the net. Playing from the perimeter. Traffic in front of the net.
These are all things that teams do to maximize their luck. There is a reason that Tomas Holmstrom cracks a 17+% shooting percentage every season (7 of the last 10 seasons) and somebody like Cammalleri fluctuates wildly.
One is shooting the majority of his shots from a high scoring area where luck is reduced and the other is depending on picking corners and finishing off one-timers. Even the best shooters in the world cannot make the same shot all the time so their production goes up and down.
This is proven out in the shootout. The greatest shooters in the world on clean cut breakaways shoot the puck wide or right at the goalie more often than they pick the corners or five-hole.
This is the greatest reason for the reduction in scoring from the 80s. The goalies (Roy and Allaire) figured out the math and began to exploit it.
When you accept the luck factor what you are watching changes dramatically. You start to see the percentages as they unfold, the random occurrences of luck leap of the TV at you. When Price makes a save and places it in a non-dangerous area you see it, when he makes the same save to a danger zone and it sits there waiting for somebody to pounce on it you see the fortune in that event.
It is all I saw this series. The winning goal came on a shot that hit a forward in front of the net. Breaks like that are why I didn’t believe in Halak being a saviour last season. The Habs went to that defense out of necessity and the Capitals never got that deflection or fortune. Simple as that.
Depends on the money, but I think that if Kostitsyn isn’t a Hab next year, it’ll cast Gauthier’s competence as a GM in doubt.
The guy is a fine hockey player who can dominate easy matchups and handle tough competition. He’s got an underrated defensive game and while his scoring is streaky, his ability to help outchance the other guys isn’t.
If they can re-sign him for what he’s paid right now it’s a fantasitc bargain.
Kostitsyn will be back. Pouliot, on the other hand, may be gone.
If it comes down to Kostitsyn vs Pouliot, it’s not even close in my mind. Kostitsyn by a landslide. If he’s not a Hab next year I’ll be annoyed as hell.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d say we’ve given Pouliot a fair chance. He’s been given a shot on the top lines, and the odd PP run. He can’t seem to turn his size advantage into consistent goals down low, and he doesn’t have enough of a shot to make himself a sniper.
There’s lots of likeable guys on our 3rd-4th lines, but we can’t keep ’em all.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Acquiring Pouliot for Latendresse was stupid on the face of it at the time but one could at least hold the hope Pouliot would become a decent NHLer.
At this point tho, I’m left hoping the Habs find a sucker for him. Won’t get anything resembling Latendresse, of course, but a more useful but less flashy player would be nice.
I think we’ve got enough bottom six/defensive depth to take a flyer on a project player. We’ve got a great development system in Hamilton. See if we can find another team’s diamond in the rough.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t forget that you overrate Latendresse though. He isn’t the player Minnesota had last year. He’s never going to shoot at 19% again like he did after he was traded.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 27, 2011 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
Remember where Lats was when we traded him as well. Its not like we could’ve expected fair value.
And I full agree with you, Andrew. He isn’t the elite power forward everyone’s made him out to be.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 27, 2011 11:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not overrating Latendresse. For one thing, he better for the Habs than Pouliot ever has.
His shooting percentage last years was inflated, but his production-per-sixty numbers were bang on his usual. He just had more icetime and more power play time to score in. He’s not going to score 35 goals next year, but if he’s healthy 25 goals shouldn’t be much of a challenge — and I think he’ll do it playing top-6 competition, whereas Pouliot has to be sheltered.
He’s been way better than Pouliot his whole pro career.
No arguments about whether he’s better than Pouliot, but he’s not a 30 goal scorer. Probably a 20 goal scorer consistently.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions
He was on a 20-goal pace his last season with Montreal and with practically no PP scoring. If he gets regular PP time and more than 13 minutes a game, 20 goals has to be the floor, not the ceiling.
I didn’t say it was his ceiling, I said he would hit that consistently. I highly doubt he’ll ever hit 30. And he’s still as one-dimensional as they come, and still has horrendous habits. This year he missed the entire season because he came into training camp 20-30 lbs overweight.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions
He missed the season because he was overweight. Right.
Look, you’re free to heap irrational hate on the guy, but in reality, he’s a pretty effective player, just like he was for Montreal… and not just offensively, I might add. He was one of the Habs’ few good 5-on-5 forwards at a time when they were struggling to play 5-on-5 and singlehandedly carried a line completed by Max Lapierre and Tom Kostopoulos into a credible third line.
I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t hit 30 goals at least once in his career.
I think it’s and incredibly safe point to make that his lack of fitness caused his groin injury.
No one said he wasn’t a good player, and playing well 5-on-5 against weak competition doesn’t mean you’re good defensively. Latendresse is NOT a good defensive player. I would take him on my team over Pouliot though.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Not really, I’m looking at the situation where Latendresse was reamed out by the coaching staff in training camp for coming in completely out of shape, and he was injured soon after and out for an entire season. When you’re not in shape, you’re more prone to injury. Not exactly a new concept.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure why you’re so against Pouliot, looking at his advanced stats at behindthenet he really seamed to thrive in his role this year as a bottom six scorer. He definately needs to be sheltered and paired with a center that can cover for his defensively lapses but I don’t see anything wrong with having him as third line secondary scoring.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I think we have enough 3rd/4th liners who can hold their own without giving a roster spot to a guy who needs sheltering. We need to make the ability to play against high level talent, even at short intervals, a standard to make the club.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions
The point is that his even strength offense is good enough that he more than covers the bet so long as you can protect him from his deficencies. Much like Pyatt’s below replacement level offence is made up for by his defensive wizardry.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I get where you’re coming from Stephen, but I just don’t see Pouliot morphing into something more than a 3rd/4th line sometimes scorer. He’s not very assertive. He can go games being invisible.
Pyatt’s contribution is far more tangible. He makes life tough for the competition with his skating and aggressiveness on the puck.
Pouliot would be the better player- if he could score consistently. However, without that as an asset, he’s less valuable than Pyatt, White, Moen, Deharnais and Darche.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Pouliot needs to be taught how to become a team-first player. At the moment, he’s far too worried each game about his own situation to be effective. How do you make an ensecure player feel better about himself. Starts with little things, the right attitude and the right coach.
There’s no doubt of Pouliot’s capabilities. We’ve seen him as both a confident player, and a mess.
True. I’ve been pretty mean on him lately, but much like SK before he left, he looks lost and terribly insecure.
Hopefully teammates and coaches will talk to him in the offseason and help him get amped up for next year. I’d love the guy if he could consistently put forth his best efforts, but it always seems to be a maddening, tantalizing disappearing/reappearing act with him.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I think that’s something that’s reflected in his awful penalties taken/ penalties drawn ratio. Subjectively, I’ve seen him take what seems to be a disproportionate amount of really dumb penalties.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions
And panic. If you’re a high draft pick and you’re career’s on the line after 4-5 seasons, that stick is getting clutched awfully tight.
Hey, is that Brian Lawton over there?….
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions
The nature of offense is to be inconsistant, especially at the lower levels. He can contribute more on that than anyone on that list but Desharnais, another player that needs sheltering.
Personally I see the abundance of bottom sixers that can contribute in other ways to be a reason why it would be a good idea to hide an inconsistant scorer among them. Also he is someone who can be teamed with Eller and/or Desharnais as a soft minutes line to take advantage of the matchup oppurtunity that the top-sixes ability to play power versus power affords.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he’s a top-sixer, and I don’t even have a problems with his numbers. It’s his all around contribution that’s skewered. He doesn’t do any of the little things that wins games with any consistency. Improve the small stuff first, make it a regular contributions, and we’ll have a better players.
I agree with that from my own watching of the games. I do think there has been an improvement in that regard from last season and I’m holding out hope that he might continue to improve. In my opinion those are the kind of things that being coached by Martin could make a big effect. Kostitsyn’s habits for example look far better after two years under Martin than they did under Carboneau.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
The biggest problem with Pouliot is how he’s finished both of the last seasons. All but useless for the last 20-30 games of the year +playoffs.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s gotta tell you something, right there.
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Apr 28, 2011 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Exactly. The most important time of the year and he’s been useless, twice. I’m done with him unless he concedes to arbitration, the Habs decline and they sign him as a UFA for league minimum.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:30 AM EDT up reply actions
At some point, the sample size is enough. We gave him a more than fair shot after Minnesota all but gave up on him.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, time to cut him loose.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Do we have blinders?
MathMan,
From my observation of comments from this site, your’s is the only one I find ONLY based on stats.
To say that the trade was stupid is only based on your stats of what the player produces in the equations you use.
As far as giving people a fair chance, I believe Mr. Lats was also given time. Do I think the Habs big club does as good a job developing their young talent as their AHL affiliate? No. I think that by the time they are deemed ready for the NHL, the big club EXPECTS them to play at the BIg club level.
Could we keep every positive corsi and renfrew candidate?
What’s your take on past players like Stefan Lebeau, Donald Audette, Oleg Petrov? For periods of their short careers in Montreal they all could have been seen as assets …. but they were short lived. And Only Audette made anything of himself after Montreal let them go. Do I think the Habs should have kept him because of it… Nahhh.
I mean when you look at it, guys are only as good as what they do with their skills. Darche, White and Desharnais have shown by good work ethic and determination that they deserve to be in the line-up. Whatever their stats say from those equations they didn’t disappear in the roles that were expected of them. If I can say White exceeded expectations and used other skills than what he was brought up with. Toughness was something people believed we needed in the line-up. He came up and played that role. Fought because he thought that’s what would keep him in the line-up…. but played incredible hockey down the stretch and in the playoffs by not fighting.
I don’t see Lats or Pouliot any differently because one outshined the other. I still feel the same about ‘that type of player’. Big guys that don’t pull their weight (no pun intended), experience loss of effectiveness, self confidence and always had a lack of effort due to believing their junior days will bring about coach confidence in them.
I seriously wish you would consider putting down your calculator and observing a game without computing percentages. You could experience a total new world of fan-dom.
by Cruisin4aBruisin on May 1, 2011 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions
My dislike of the trade was entirely due to the fact that Latendresse was a better player for Montreal than Pouliot was likely to ever become.
There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with trading Latendresse for whatever reason — disagreement with the coach, attitude issues, work ethic, style doesn’t fit in with the team, whatever. You have, however, to get something close to value when you do such a trade.
In the Latendresse-vs-Pouliot, the value wasn’t anywhere close, and it was obvious at the time, except that there was so much irrational Latendresse hate flying around that people were unwilling to admit it.
On another note; I think that work ethic issues are commonly overblown. Typically, they’re a good way to slag on a player one doesn’t like when one can’t make any other cogent argument about his performance. I don’t particularly care if a player looks like he works hard, heck, I don’t even particularly care if he does. All I care about is on-ice performance. If a guy can give my team quality performance, why should I care if he has to try hard or not?
I judge guys based on what they bring to the team. Not based on how well they do relative to how well I feel they should be doing for whatever reason.
Latendresse brought more to the table than Pouliot. That makes trading Pouliot for Latendresse a bad trade, regardless of any work ethic issues.
The rabid hatedom towards Andrei Kostitsyn, who is a quality hockey player, is of the same nature.
Another thing:
“I seriously wish you would consider putting down your calculator and observing a game without computing percentages. You could experience a total new world of fan-dom.”
You know, I think that the natural tendency of most fans is to judge players based on his stats and then project that onto their observations. Seriously, it’s all about the point totals to most people, though they don’t realize it. A guy who puts up points will be seen as putting a strong effort, a guy who doesn’t will be seen as slacking — and then other, unrelated flaws will be attributed to his game, whether those flaws actually exist or not. It’s just about the only explanation for most of the stuff that’s said about Gomez (for example, that he takes too many bad penalties when he is objectively one of the most disciplined players in the NHL).
Watching a game and forming general impressions without validating those impressions with some systematic observation is a great way to be wrong. Subjective impressions are naturally influenced by one’s preconceptions; that’s why forming objective opinions based on objective criteria is so important on correctly evaluating a player.
Pouliot needs to be torn down and rebuilt as a hockey player, in the manner that SK was in Nashville. Sadly, I don’t think he sees himself as a player.
SK wasn’t rebuilt in Nashville. He rode a good shooting streak to make the Habs look bad, but the reality is that he’s always been a good hockey player and he’s just naturally growing. If the Habs had had any sense, they’d have kept him.
Totally agree. There’s no way he’ll shoot over 20% again so another 20 goal season next year is pretty unlikely but he would have been great part of the Habs forward depth had he been kept. I’m not sure if that was a coaching or a management failure though. Sigh….
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Would’ve, should’ve, could’ve.
Who knows. Maybe the change of scenery was the kick in the ass that he needed to approach the game more consistently and professionally. Maybe he likes Trotz more than Martin. Maybe not having big brother around helps.
I didn’t like the trade either, but when we talk about Lats and SK, we’re not exactly talking about Lafleur and Beliveau. There’s comparable players out there.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions
I agree, especially that these are not particularly high impact players. It would have been nice to have both of them play well in montreal but these kind of things happen and we shouldn’t get too hung up on them.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t look at stats, numbers etc to explain anything. I just look at the player and watch him. I don’t care a rats ass about shooting percenrages, Corsi or any of that stuff. I just look at him and see a confident player contributing. Every stat in hockey is relative to five other players on the ice plus the opposition, making them essentially dependant on too many random external factors. I mean when stats can show (not prove) that Gomez is worth anything, well there you have their validity.
by Robert L on Apr 28, 2011 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I get roasted for this all the time Robert ;)
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s what bugs me about a guy like Pouliot, to make a scapegoat ;)
He skates around, has no assertiveness, doesn’t pursue the check, doesn’t pressure the puck, and sometimes slams one in the net. As another player, you’d cringe half the time he’s out there. On the other hand, even if the results are similar, a guy like White and Pyatt can create hell on the other team’s back end, and even if it doesn’t mean much, it can elevate the intensity of other team members. Just a flawed opinion though…
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
As well you should. It’s an excellent way to be led astray by one’s natural observer biasses.
Calling it a “bunch of bunk” is, frankly, asinine.
What are natural observer bisases?
I’ve played the game, coached it and studied it for over 25 years. I guess all that becomes irrelevant now. I think Hockey is too fast a game to judge statistically, so I can’t really have an observer bias. There’s ten players on the ice all affecting the statistical, too many bounces that translate into both positive and negative numbers. I trust what I see because I’ve rarely been wrong.
by Robert L on Apr 28, 2011 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Hang on. Let me bring up the article on the limits of observation.
http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2010/11/05/the-limits-of-observation/
As for statistics, I’m afraid I’m going to leave it at that. I don’t have much patience tonight, I’m afraid that if I try to argue against the notion that stats have no value and that personal impressions trump facts tonight, I’m going to get impolite.
Its a long offseason. I’m sure we can do a fanpost where we can debate the merits of both when we’re all a little less down.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I will say this tho: Robert sounds exactly like a lot of baseball guys did talking about sabermetrics 15 years ago. Didn’t work out too well for them in the end.
I’m not one to dismiss them out of hand. They do have merit. But I do like to see the games, and I don’t usually comment here if I haven’t.
Let’s leave it for now. The boys did the best they could. I was already thinking of how we’d match up against Washington. Its been a big downer.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
> “Calling it a "bunch of bunk" is, frankly, asinine.”
You already did get impolite.
by nyhabsfan on Apr 28, 2011 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Not just a shooting streak, but Trotz has the patience to work with players in a weaker media market such as Nashville.
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Apr 28, 2011 12:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Sergei isn’t doing anything for Nashville he couldn’t/hasn’t done in Montreal, except shoot 25%. He’s always been a good player for the Habs. Unfortunately, he became the media scapegoat after they overblew his attitude issues.
So MathMan,
On top of getting all the stats, you have insider psych evals for the players and understand the intricate relationships between player and coach. You, my friend, are a marvel.
Diminish relationship and group dynamic and you only have numbers to play with.
Its easy to blame the media for a young players disdain for not getting top minutes and hoping what skills he has is enough to get by on. Unfortunately, in real life, we need not only get by on numbers alone.
Skills are great… as long as we use them, and as long as we UNDERSTAND they can only give me credit for the efforts I put forth… not for the capability I am not using.
by Cruisin4aBruisin on May 1, 2011 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Sergei was using his skills for Montreal. He’s not playing better for Nashville except to the extent you expect a player his age to progress.
As for the media overblowing his attitude issues, it is admittedly an assumption, but I feel it is a safe one. The media loves to pick a scapegoat and overblow everything negative about him. They’ve certainly been showing the most execrable of bad faith about the Kostitsyn brothers for any number of other issues, including evaluating their play on the ice. It’s not a huge leap from there to assume they overblew his attitude issues… especially since they overblew every attitude-related bit of news that came out about Sergei.
Just like they did Carey Price’s. Look how that worked out.
Just like they did Carey Price’s. Look how that worked out.
But Carey Price doesn’t care enough to win. Just look at the guy’s lazy body language and the way he reacts to a goal being scored on him. Not a winner.
Man, he doesn’t do anything. it’s like he doesn’t care.
Meanwhile, look at how calm Halak looks after he gets scored on. He doesn’t do anything. It’s obvious he’s focussed, and doesn’t let a goal get to him.
Anyone can see it, if they just watched the game.
My favourite was that Price always blamed his defense for goals, while Halak didn’t. They could see it in his eyes.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on May 2, 2011 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
He refused to report to Hamilton twice and was twice suspended. I don’t know how the media blew that up.
I am all for the presumption of innocence, but at what point does it become not made up? Carey Price gave him shit when he didn’t feel like practicing in the playoffs last season. Can we make that assumption that the media didn’t understand that either?
There is reporting opinion and then there is reporting the Canadiens suspending a player. That is not opinion, it is a player being reprimanded for poor behaviour and officially being reported as such.
Kostistyn was traded because he offered up the middle finger on two occasions to management. End of story as far as I am concerned.
I love stats and value their importance, but chemistry and internal behaviour are a factor and getting rid of a guy with a bad attitude can help.
Congratulations to the Boston Bruins and their fans. It was another great, classic series between the teams.
The two clubs were so evenly matched that it took a seventh game overtime goal on a deflected shot to call a winner. I don’t think it should be any other way.
Now let’s hope the Bruins demolish the Flyers!
Second! All those in favour say Aye!
Kevin van Steendelaar
http://www.twitter.com/kvansteendelaar
but don't forget...
http://www.twitter.com/HabsEOTP
by Kevin van Steendelaar on Apr 28, 2011 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Sorry, I dislike the Bruins as a team and I hope they hit a wall. And frankly, I think they will. Philly’s just better — a shame because Philly is maybe the one team I dislike as much as Boston.
by MathMan on Apr 28, 2011 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This. Oh well, the Capitals will trounce either of them in the ECF.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions
They’re looking like a team on a mission. Although the Rangers weren’t exactly top-flight competition. I thought Carolina would’ve given them a little more run for their money.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
The Rangers really stunk out the joint in that series, but I don’t think the Capitals have hit their stride either. Neuvirth however is a massive improvement on Varlamov.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Varly was one big gamble, although he replaced an even bigger gamble in Theo. Neuvirth still doesn’t strike me as a guy who wins a series for you, but he’s consistently competent, ala Cam Ward 2006.
by westcoasthabs on Apr 28, 2011 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Neuvirth is a great goaltender, but he has the demeanor that helps a nervous team like the Capitals. He’s a calming influence and rarely gets rattled. Not to mention that coming off two straight Calder Cups his confidence is sky high.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions
They needed two OTs to win that series and came back from 3-0 to do so in the final game. I don’t know why they pulled a 180 when the Habs series was essentially a fluke.
That team should have destroyed the Rangers, but if the Rangers had pulled a Boston and won two OTs the Caps could have faced another disaster. The only game they won comfortably was Game 2.
They are trying to trap when all they needed was forwards to have some semblance of defensive responsibility.
That’s why I said ECF. ;P
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Great Series!
Well played Montreal!
See you in October,off to Philly to avenge that mess from last year!
A lifelong Bruins fan living in Penguin land!
A great effort by the Canadiens!
"I think it’s important to understand that you can’t change the result,’’ said Montreal coach Jacques Martin on the disallowed goal. "What’s important there is how you handle it. Your reaction is that you’ve got to keep focus and keep your concentration on the task at hand.’’ April 26, 2011.
This statement by Jacques Martin has been the summary of this team. Once agin tonight, poor officiating led to goal that came of a speering infraction and high sticking. The Canadiens had to deal with it and come back and score to tie the game with about a minute left in the 3rd period. A great effort after falling behind 2-0 and fighting back.
The Canadiens had to overcome alot this season. In their 100+ seasons have they ever had to overcome so much in a single season? They were the most penalized team in terms of minor penalties. They lost two top defencemen with Markov and Gorges. They found the big two-way forward they were looking for in Max Paccioretty and lost him as well for the season. They had to rely on young players from Hamilton to salvage a season and yet still made the play-offs surprising everyone.
In this series against Boston they battled hard every game and had a chance to win every game. Their penalty killing was perfect and their depleted line-up lost in game 7 in overtime when nobody gave them a chance to win. They made Canadiens fans proud.
Even though nothing came out of them, I think we can all agree that Eller had some dandy looking shifts in game 7. The production isn’t there yet and he has a lot to work on (including improving his physical strength) but you can see his potential to be an impact player in the future. I really hope he realizes it.
by Stephan Cooper on Apr 28, 2011 12:55 AM EDT reply actions
Habs choked. Winning the first two on the road and then failing to put them away says it all. Gil & Hammer (joke) at what, $8 million combined salary. Pyatt over Pouliot? Hammer can take all the stupid penalties he wants, and be on the ice for every goal, and JM will give him a regular shift. Hope this is last time I see Hammer and Gil in a habs uniform.
What did Gill do wrong? Hamrlik made a few mistakes but logging such heavy minutes for a veteran would have to be taxing. Also if you think playing Pouliot was a good idea then I don’t know what to tell you.
Also I would say Habs were more unlucky than they choked (although quite a few calls went their way). Game 5 Ryder made a glove save and Chara saved a goal with his skate while looking the other way, meanwhile in game 7 Horton’s winner is deflected off Halpern’s skate and in, both games could easily have gone the other way
"Ironic isn't it, that the very strings I played then are made from the very gut of the animal this song is about" - David McGahan
What did Gill wrong? How about turn-overs, count them. Hammer – turn-overs, stupid penalties, poor coverage that led to big goals for the Bruins. Pouiliot – Way better than than Pyatt. What did Pyatt do? JM plays his favorites …. In his bizzare mind, he thinks that Pyatt is a better player that Pouiliot and SK?
JM plays an effective defensive system and Pouliot cannot play defense to save his life. Pyatt, on the other hand, is quite good defensively, and he takes waaaayy less penalties.
by Alexandre S on Apr 28, 2011 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Hamrlik flop
This was really tough series that certainly could have gone either way. I thought going in that the Bruins were the better team and would win this series in five games. I underestimated the Canadiens, they are a better team than I realized. Also, I know that a lot of Habs fans don’t care for J. Martin’s conservative style of coaching. Style aside, this Montreal team is very well coached and makes very few mistakes. Coaching is a significant part of their success.
I know that Habs fans get tired of the flopping comments coming from other fan bases and media but perhaps its time to take a closer look at how your team operates. As a Bruins fan it was sweet justice when Kelly scored after Hamrlik was flopping looking for a cheap call. The Habs should just play the game, let the officials do their job and stop all of the embellishing.
So, the Bruins get to move on against the Flyers. It’ll be a tough series against perhaps a more talented team. There will most certainly be some rough play but at least there will not be the constant diving and whining that has come to mark every game played against the Montreal Canadiens
Looking for a cheap call? Kelly speared him in the face. Just so we’re clear, that’s not a cheap call whether Hamrlik stayed down too long or not.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
The NESN angle didn’t show any contact on that play. Nothing.
I only saw it on the TSN. Not sure spearing is the term I would use but there was stick contact high on Hamrlik.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s moot anyway since the play should have been called dead on the high stick in the neutral zone.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Flop
The Hamrlik flop (from my perspective) was just that, a flop. And I agree that Montreal fans need to recognize it for what it is.
Which is exactly what Bruin fans should be recognizing when players like Ference go head hunting, or Marchand tries to coax retaliation by slashing a Hab only after making certain no officials were watching. You know something is blatant when even CBC announcers (who often times seem to be calling a different game than what they are watching)step away from their pro-Bruin soapbox and actually criticize them. Hell, the CBC has more Bruin fans than NESN!
Habs had their chances to win the series but couldn’t get it done. Kudo’s to the Bruins and best of luck against the Flyers.
Ference
Does anyone really think there will be any suspension?
No penalty called, no blood, Halpern was able to come back. Ference is one of the better Bruin defensemen, its the playoffs, and besides all that Campbell’s son is a Bruin.
Campbell will look at a few second clip. then ask Ference if he meant to target his head, to which Ference will say no. And then Campbell’s office will release a statement that after extensive review it has been determined that no offense took place. Easy, fast and simple. I really don’t see why the NHL even has to go through the charade of even trying to appear impartial. This is a whole lot of wasted effort on a decision that has already been made.
Bruins earned the win. They came back after loosing the first 2 home games, which really says a ;ot about their character. Habs had their opportunities, but couldn;t get the job done. Kudo’s to the Bruins … and please … beat the Fyers,
Think they’ll interview Halpern asking if he meant to skate headfirst into an opposing players shoulder?
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually talk to Halpern?
Why would the NHL waste their time talking to Halpern? They never bothered to talk with Patches until after they had already made their ruling, so there is no reason to think they’ll change anything for this head hit.
The NHL’s inability to be even slightly consistent when it comes to head hits is a sad reality. Hell, their even unable to be consistent when it comes to flipping the bird at players or fans. One year it will be a 4 game suspension, and the next its a $2000 fine.
by Craig McNamee on Apr 28, 2011 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually the players were going to skate right by each other until Ference changed direction at the last second and laid the shoulder into Halpern’s head. The intent was obvious, and Ference should be ashamed after he called out Paille.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 1:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Ference stayed on a straight line in every angle I have seen of it.
Sure he popped his shoulder up at the moment of impact but thats the extent of it. Halpern looked right at him and then looked up ice while continuing to skate towards him. Not smart.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
He slowed himself to remain in Halpern’s path. Look at his skates on the play, they both turn inward, telling the whole story right there.
He was barely moving before that.
Apparently the NHL agrees with me on the matter as there will be no suspension.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
What did the NHL do. Did they review the matter? They had a brief phone call. Ference said he didn’t see Halpern so they ruled against any suspension. The NHL cannot suspend a Boston Bruin player. That would upset Mr. Campbell. Wisniewski gets suspended for two games while Ference gets only a fine.
Actually, Ference said he saw Halpern skating right at him so he braced himself for impact. Had no clue what the point of contact was, merely that Halpern hit him with force.
Lets not forget, all the force in that equation was delivered by Halpern, not Ference.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s exactly how I read it B.O.B. There was no overly aggressive movement from Ference toward Halpern. Ference tightened up his upper body knowing Halpern was coming at him. Can’t tell if Halpern was deliberately moving in on Ference with intent or if he simply had his head down at the time of impact, but Halpern had to know Ference was there, close by.
by WeatherExperiment on Apr 28, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
The TSN clip of the game shows the play at 1:40. Halpern looks directly at Ference then turns his head and continues skating.
No clue what he was thinking there but it shouldn’t have been unexpected contact.
I would assume it was that video that ensured Ference went unpunished.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions
He was thinking Ference would continue on his path AWAY from where Halpern was skating instead of adjusting and slowing down to throw a shoulder directly into Halpern’s head.
The fact that any Bruins fan is even disputing this is astounding. The intent was clear as day, there really can be no argument about what Ference was thinking. This is the most clear-cut headshot since Torres nailed Seabrook.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Quote from a Habs-fan friend:
So I barely missed it live. But as I saw replays, I honestly didn’t know what the commotion was. Ference looked like the parked car and Halpern looked like a drunk guy on a bicycle. I’ve been that drunk guy before. I’ve never blamed the parked car for me running into it. So even though I’m a Habs fan, I definitely thought Halpern needed to just watch where the hell he was going…
Maurice Richard would have punched Halpern in the mouth, no matter if he’s on his own team, were he to pull a stunt like that and make the team play 4-on-5 hockey while he squirms.
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Uh huh, Maurice Richard played a completely different game 50 years ago, I hardly think ANYONE’s opinion from 50 years ago is relevant on any subject today.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, if the NHL agrees then you’re obviously right.
Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/andrewberkshire
by Andrew Berkshire on Apr 28, 2011 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Andrew, you’ll never win an argument here by quoting facts and stating the obvious. :)
That Torres was given an “good job, atta-boy” after he tried to decapitate Seabrook, is inconceivable unless you have seen the NHL’s laughable enforcement of its own “head-hunting” rules.
Simply inconceivable. And yes, I do know what that word means.
by Craig McNamee on Apr 28, 2011 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions
hockey argument are for idiots
its a great game with no honor from top to bottom , other leagues have honor in them even tho there jus as brutal, but the difference is hockey is a lawless leagues of man on ice , and it doesn’t make them tough cause, take them off the ice and they can’t do shit and how can u fighting in a league game an bring your kids to watch it, thats stupid and blind siding a fellow player is a cowards move, and they can’t even fight good
yeah its a tough sport but try football then talk shit. i like the game of hockey but hate it at the same time , it makes no money only in Canada and takes up to much media team , there’s other sports other than hockey people enjoy in Canadian, but jus like thanks giving its a dirty history of enjoying what plainly wrong ps no canadian team well ever when a cup , cause if the start winning then America well stop watching lol
I agree that blindsiding someone into the boards needs to be kept in check. But fighting in hockey has been a part of the game for generations. Get over it.
by WeatherExperiment on Apr 28, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Over my head?
Nah. I thought my response was better than playing the sarcastic messageboard tennis that these threads usually devolve into.
And didn’t I accurately predict the outcome of its review? I still believe that the reasons why nothing was done can be found on my list. Particularly the last one.
I agree with Mathman regarding both the NHL’s willingness to accept headshots and its bias towards certain teams and players. Until a player is killed or paralyzed because of a headshot, the NHL will continue voicing its desire to protect players, while actually doing nothing. Sad but true.
So you think Ference got off because Greg plays for Boston? Tell that to Paille… and Booth…
by BobbyOrrsBastard on Apr 28, 2011 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey guys…just got back from some holidays and playing catch up at work for the last few weeks I forgot to stop by and say I heard it was a great series. Had to miss games 4-7 as I had a wedding in the Dominican but I did find a lot of your fellow Habs fans down there. I was outnumbered like 30-1. I wish I would have been able to watch but such is life. Have a good one and see you next year

by 














