New York vs. Los Angeles

[nhlpa93easn]

@hokkeefan LOL yes hokkeefan, all 3 games that went to overtime, and 2 that went to double-OT, the Rangers were "lucky" in all of them.

The Rangers were also "lucky" that they held the lead for the majority of the series. Unreal. Lets not give the Rangers any credit at all, hokkeefan.

If any team was lucky, hokkeefan, it was the Kings. They held a lead for exactly 0.0 seconds the first 2 games, and won both of them. The Rangers outplayed the Kings 6 out of 8 periods the first 2 games. They also outshot them by a wide margin in Game 3. And they received 2 critical calls that shifted the game in their favor, both of which were pure b.s. in games 2 and 5.

It's obvious you didn't even watch the games. And if you did watch, and still think L.A. "dominated" then you don't know very much about hockey.

So tired of this crap. You're trying to make the Kings into something they are not. Like they are the 1988 Oilers reborn. Guess what? They're not the 1980's Oilers. So stop trying to make them out to be. You have bought into the "west is best" propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Lets put this discussion to bed. Were the Kings the better team? Yes. Were the Kings "dominant" against the Rangers? Any hockey fan with an ounce of knowledge about this sport will tell you NO, not by a long shot. "Rangers were lucky"...unbelievable. Such a stupid statement. Please, stop listening to the media, and start thinking for yourself. You'll feel better, trust me.

Edited June 21, 2014 by nhlpa93easn

[Brutus]

I thought there were some bad timed penalties/non-penalties in the hawks/kings series that went against the hawks at big moment moments & set the series to 3-1.

I also feel if the fix were in, it would be for the kings. HUGE market w/ no fan base means it's worth trying to manipulate into getting a fan base in la w/ an extra cup!!

BUT, the games too fast to tank for one team. It's hard enough to get them to call it when they are trying to get it right. No way I'd trust a ref to be able to steer it to one team w/out totally risking a complete embarrassment. That talk of a fix is retarded.

I also felt stating "we" in reference to the NYR tells you that you are biased on anything you say afterwards, unless you were secretly a real nhl player on the rangers. It's usually the "we" guys going over the top.

And finally, Kings always found a way to win all the games & come back from every lead, just about. Give the rangers a goal here or there, or same w/ hawks, and that king team found a way to win. I have no doubt with or without the refs, they were going to win. And despite the score, you can watch hockey and see another team being dominated, as the Rangers were most of that series. The score was being kept a tie by Lundy.

Kings were the champs & you could play that playoff season 10 times, & 8 go to them. Maybe one to hawks. Maybe, maybe, maybe nyr squeak one in.

That's what I saw watching the games. Maybe "we" had better viewing point on the ice or something??

Edited June 21, 2014 by Brutus

[nhlpa93easn]

@Brutus...where did I say "we"? I try to avoid saying things like that because I'm not on the team. I'm not a player, just a fan. I scanned my posts, and couldn't find where I said "we" but maybe I did.

I don't think there was a "fix" for L.A. to win, although who knows. Just 2 game-changing calls in games 2 and 5 that forced both games into OT when they both should have been Rangers regulation wins. I think it was horrible officiating that unfortunately, changed 2 games in the Kings favor at critical moments.

It's easy to say "L.A. found a way to win" when you get critical calls you don't deserve, at critical times. Lots of teams would "find a way to win" when that happens.

The Kings outplayed the Rangers in the 3rd periods because our coach tried to play "prevent defense" and it failed miserably. But by no means were the Kings this "unstoppable force" that a lot of hockey fans have bought into. Rangers hit a bunch of posts on OT in Game 2 and Game 5 as well. This series could very easily have gone 6 or 7 games.

I don't mind if you think the Kings deserved the cup. But don't sit there and say they were "dominant" in the finals, because they weren't. They were OUTPLAYED the majority of games 1 and 2. Rangers had FOUR 2 goal leads, the Kings had NONE the first 2 games. That is NOT "dominant" in any way, shape, or form.

People who say the Kings "dominated" have bought into the whole "west is best" crap. They don't think for themselves, or watch the games. I can't respect fans like that. Sorry.

Edited June 21, 2014 by nhlpa93easn

[Freydey]

dominated.

[Brutus]

Yeah, no "we" in there upon review. I was reading on my phone & could have swore I saw that. Not sure if it got "edited out" in one of the many edits in your posts there (not stating intentional, but you've got some re-wording, so it's possible).

Of course, my eyes have lied to me before.

Rangers come off the weak series vs Montreal, and the Kings have the monster grind out against the Hawks, who are easily the top talented team in the league (not by wide margin, but it's obvious you'd put them #1 for talent).

Coming off that, they still beat the Rangers 4-1, w/ NYR only win at 2-1 in their desperation don't sweep me game. Rangers clearly caught Kings off guard w/ their speed in Game 1 & still lost.

Somewhere in there should have been a 3-1 score, 2-0 as the Rangers built on their lead with the Kings being forced to take chances (as the Kings did when they lead against the Hawks). But, to point to two calls & state a 4-1 series should have gone the NYR way or made it into a Game 6 or 7 series to me sounds silly. If the Rangers were legit champs, they do something more than what they showed. Kings showed it to me against the Hawks 4 times, and they showed it to me 3 times against the Rangers, and I'll concede the one win against the Rangers as weak.

If the Hawks or the Kings played Montreal w/ out Price before the NYR, and the Rangers had to play the Kings or Hawks, the series would have been Hawks vs Kings.

The Rangers never make it out of a conference against either of those two teams. That's just my opinion, and as long as the Stanley Cup keeps getting won by either Chicago or LA, it's hard to argue w/ that statement. If the Kings had squeaked by a bunch of weak teams and then lucked out against the Rangers, I'd also give some more validity to your argument, but to me, there is plenty to by in to the West is dominating the East.

[PRoBob38]

you wanna see luck? watch rangers-pens game 7. luck is squeeking by with a 1 goal win in a game 7 that saw the pens miss several open opportunities and a goaltender making blind saves.

luck is not winning a 5 game series when one team had the better of the play throughout.

[nhlpa93easn]

Actually, PRoBob38, the Rangers outplayed the Kings the majority of games 1 and 2. Not to insult you PRoBob38, but did you even watch the games? The Rangers had four 2 goal leads in games 1 and 2, the Kings had no leads. Where did the Kings outplay the Rangers in either of those matches, other than in the 3rd periods? It sounds like you just read "Kings win in 5" and assumed the Kings dominated, which they didn't at all.

The Kings pushed hard in those 3rd periods, but the Rangers played prevent defense. That was their mistake. In the overtimes, the Rangers arguably outplayed the Kings in both games 1 and 2 (again, if you bothered to watch the games you'd see this).

Not saying the Kings don't deserve the cup. But lets cut it out with the "west is sooooo much better" bullcrap. Because the Kings could have easily lost this series in 5 games instead of winning it in 5 games. And if you deny that, you didn't watch the games. Sorry.

As far as your comments regarding the Rangers/Pens Game 7, the Rangers hit posts in that game, and missed several glorious scoring chances as well. The Rangers also missed several "open nets" in Game 5 vs. the Kings.

Somehow to you, winning 2 games in double OT and one in overtime is "dominating". If that's how you feel, you're entitled to your opinion. To me, they dominated nothing. Rangers hit posts in overtime in games 2 and 5. Boggles my mind how you think there is this huge disparity between the 2 teams. It really does, sorry.

And FREDYDAY, I agree with you. The Canadiens were dominated by the Rangers. Dominated.

Edited June 22, 2014 by nhlpa93easn

[nhlpa93easn]

@Brutus we will have to agree to disagree. There is no "huge advantage" for western teams, in my opinion. However, big physical teams like the Kings (and the Bruins for that matter) give the Rangers fits. I think the Rangers would have matched up better against Chicago, who plays less physical and more of a skill game. Most Rangers fans were rooting for Chicago beforehand for this exact reason. But we'll never know how that would have panned out.

The Kings were better than the Rangers, no doubt. They scored when it mattered most and found ways to win. I just get ticked off when unknowledgeable hockey fans spew bullcrap about the western teams being this "juggernaut". Rangers hung right in there with the Kings, and they were not "dominated" by any stretch of the imagination. Anyone who watched the games knows that. They were simply the favorite to win, and they ended up winning. Period. But were they beatable? Absolutely, in my opinion. With a few breaks here and there, this series easily could have gone to 7 games. Easily.

EDIT: I did say "we" in one of my posts and I edited it out. You were right, sorry. I also hate it when people say "we". Just a slip up.

Edited June 22, 2014 by nhlpa93easn

[Freydey]

Lol

[trudatman]

while I understand your point about leads and being "in the game^tm" and all that, I have to disagree about the domination aspect. it was almost like a bored cat playing with a mouse for a while, lettting it bite ears and whatnot, before killing it. here's hoping we have Bruin versus Rangers next postseason.

[PRoBob38]

the kings, to me, looked more structured, more composed, more aggressive, and relied less on their goaltender in that series than the rangers did.

i'm not so much ripping the rangers as much as simply saying i'm not buying the notion that LA's win was lucky. they won because they were the better team. but am i still bitter my team blew a 3-1 lead to NYR? absolutely.

regardless, our matchups will be fun next year. especially if we get Ulf from you guys.

Edited June 22, 2014 by PRoBob38

[smozoma]

Shots:

         LA    NYR
Game 1:  43    27
Game 2:  44    38
Game 3:  15    32
Game 4:  41    19
Game 5:  51    30
Total:  194   146
Avg:     38.8  29.2
Avg(60): 31.5  23.7

Dominated.
Rangers were lucky to get to OT in game 1 (shots 20-3 in the 3rd, no 'score effects' because it was tied the whole period) and game 5, unlucky to lose game 3.
Can't say much about the penalties because I don't remember them, but say the Rangers pulled off a couple wins, it still looks like LA would win the series.
Regular season, LA had a shooting percentage of 7.63% and NYR 7.87%. Save %s: Quick: .915. Lundqvist: .920.
With those shot totals, the total score for the series would be expected to be:
Based on shooting percents: LA: 2.96 G/GP. NYR: 2.30 G/GP.
Based on save percents: LA: 3.10 G/GP. NYR: 2.48.
The actual was LA: 3.00 G/GP. NYR: 2.00 G/GP.
The Rangers were unlucky, but still pretty much destined to lose.

Using the Pythagorean Expectation , based on shooting percents and the number of shots, we would expect LA to have a win% of .624, or .610 using save percents. 0.610 * 7 games = 4.27 wins.

[nhlpa93easn]

@Smozoma shot totals do not dictate the number of quality chances a team has by any stretch of the imagination. Game 1 vs. the Kings is a perfect example of that. The Rangers had the majority of quality chances in that game, despite being outshot 43-27.

Do you even understand why the shot totals were so lopsided in some of those games? Because the Rangers HAD THE LEAD and were playing defensive minded hockey.

Here's a stat for you: Wanna know how many minutes the Kings held a lead for the first 2 games AT HOME? Here's your answer: ZERO. That's right ZERO. I can pull up stats to support my side of the argument as well. Rangers lead the first 2 games ON THE ROAD for the entire duration of both games, and never trailed ONCE. That is DOMINATING wouldn't you say?

The Kings were the better team, but the Rangers were not "dominated". Sorry. 3 games going into overtime, and 2 of them double OT, and you can honestly sit there with a straight face and claim "domination"? Wow man, I really don't know what to say about that. Funny how a team so "dominating" like the Kings STILL needed the refs help to win Games 2 and 5 of this series. And even after the refs help, they BARELY won.

It seems like you went into the finals with the mindset of "The west is so superior to the East" and in spite of the Rangers proving otherwise, you don't want to let go of that thought and give the Rangers any credit whatsoever.

Unbelievable. The Kings NEVER held a lead the first 2 games of the series, had help from the refs, and still somehow they "dominated". They dominated NOTHING in the finals. They were LUCKY to win it. They needed HELP from the refs in TWO games to win it and they TRAILED IN THE GAMES for the majority of the series. That is NOT dominating anything.

Sorry, this is not homerism. This is fact. The Rangers could have easily won this series. EASILY my friend. They should have won the first 2 games of the finals. The Kings did not lead ONCE in either game. Yes, the Rangers blew both games. I admit that. But "dominated"? You cheapen the word "dominate" when you use it to describe this series.

You want to see what DOMINATED is Smoz? Go watch a tape of the first round 1994 playoffs between the Rangers and Islanders. THAT my friend is what "domination" is. The 2014 finals is NOT an example of "domination". It's an example of a team needing luck and the refs help to win.

NY RANGERS vs LA KINGS AMOUNT OF TIME PLAYING WITH THE LEAD IN GAMES 1 AND 2:

NY RANGERS: 50:03 (fifty minutes, 3 seconds)

LA KINGS: 00:00 (zero minutes, zero seconds)

How's that for your "domination"? What a joke. And that's WITH the refs help, and ON THE ROAD, mind you. "Dominated" my butt. L.A. dominated NOTHING. As for the penalties which you "can't remember" (LOL) let me refresh your memory: In Game 2 Lundqvist was basically steamrolled while the Rangers were up 4-2 in the 3rd, giving LA huge life and basically handing them the win. And in Game 5, the ref called Zuccarello for a trip when Jake Muzzin actually was the one who tripped HIM with his big fat leg (and then took a DIVE), leading to Gaborik tying the game and allowing LA to get another "ref assisted" win.

Funny how a team so "dominating" as the Kings had to basically TAKE A DIVE in Game 5 in order to get a pathetic ref-assisted win. Ain't it?

But hey, no biggie. The Rangers are only up 3 games to 2 going back to MSG if the refs took their heads out of their rears. But as you say "LA probably wins it anyway, easy" right? Yeah, down 3 to 2 going to MSG...piece of cake though Smoz for the "powerhouse" Kings.

It's unreal how you can say LA dominated, it really is. You literally must not have watched ANY of the games. Only thing I can think of. Peace out.

One last thing: The Rangers were not "unlucky" as you say. They were screwed by the refs. Big difference.

Edited August 3, 2014 by nhlpa93easn

[tru]

I will never understand the prevalence of shots-for-based statistics.