Golden Knights (P1) vs. Capitals (M1)

[CarltonTheBear]

Game 1: May 28 at Vegas, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsnet, fuboTV)
Game 2: May 30 at Vegas, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsnet, fuboTV)
Game 3: June 2 at Washington, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsnet, fuboTV)
Game 4: June 4 at Washington, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsnet, fuboTV)
*Game 5: June 7 at Vegas, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsnet, fuboTV)
*Game 6: June 10 at Washington, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsnet, fuboTV)
*Game 7: June 13 at Vegas, 8 p.m. (NBC, CBC, Sportsner, fuboTV)

(All times Eastern; * If necessary)

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/davelozo/status/999466566168252416

 

[Kin]

The ratings for this one will be interesting.

 

[Guru Tugginmypuddah]

Looking forward to this series.  It really shows just how hard it is to win a cup.  Washington has had some success the last few years, including a President's Trophy in '16 & '17, but always seem to come up short.

On the other hand, if you have $500 million bucks for an expansion team, and get some pretty sweet expansion draft rules, you too can make it to the Stanley Cup Final in your first year of existence. 

 

[Peter D.]

Eff Vegas.

Go Caps.

 

[ZBBM]

Eff Vegas.

Go Caps.

Yeah, DC for me, too.

I'll just say that Nashville ought to be ashamed of themselves. They had a high road to a Cup and couldn't get it done.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Eff Vegas.

Go Caps.

Yeah, DC for me, too.

I'll just say that Nashville ought to be ashamed of themselves. They had a high road to a Cup and couldn't get it done.

Pekke Rinne blew it for them. Couldn't stop a beach ball in the losses. Can't win with inferior goaltending and he shit the bed.
Tampa, meaning Stamkos and Kucherov should be ashamed also. Useless 5v5.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm saying Caps in 5. Vegas will finally come back down to Earth (... something that I've been saying since October).

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The Bruins protected the wrong Miller.

 

[Kin]

I know I sound like a broken record on this, and a party-spoiling broken record, but I just watched the first two periods of this game which was the first hockey I'd watched in a while and I'd really defy anyone to make the case that this is a better brand of hockey than a game between any two pretty good teams in Februrary.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I know I sound like a broken record on this, and a party-spoiling broken record, but I just watched the first two periods of this game which was the first hockey I'd watched in a while and I'd really defy anyone to make the case that this is a better brand of hockey than a game between any two pretty good teams in Februrary.

I think this has been a pretty entertaining game, although I do miss that thing where refs would call penalties.

 

[Kin]

I think this has been a pretty entertaining game, although I do miss that thing where refs would call penalties.

It's not so much a question of entertaining, I've seen some terrific back and forth games in Februrary too, but whether or not the actual quality of play is any better.

 

[BrownRolo]

I think this has been a pretty entertaining game, although I do miss that thing where refs would call penalties.

It's not so much a question of entertaining, I've seen some terrific back and forth games in Februrary too, but whether or not the actual quality of play is any better.

You could say that about any sport though (except maybe baseball..I feel their playoffs you see the difference between a mediocre team and a great team more clearly from starting pitching to hitting..everything)

Watch an NBA game and tell me is it really that much different?

 

[Kin]

You could say that about any sport though (except maybe baseball..I feel their playoffs you see the difference between a mediocre team and a great team more clearly from starting pitching to hitting..everything)

Watch an NBA game and tell me is it really that much different?

I don't think that's remotely true and I'm basing that off watching most of the basketball game last night. A pretty good NBA team isn't remotely on the same level as the Warriors or Rockets. There's far more separation from the middle of the pack in basketball and, in fact, when people complain about the NBA it's for the opposite reason. That there's too much separation from the rest of the pack and you get the same matchup of exceptional teams/players too often.

The final four NBA teams featured four players who've won 8 of the last 10 MVP awards(assuming one of James or Harden wins this year). By contrast, the NHL's final four teams had one player who'd won 2 of the last 10 MVP awards(having won 6 and 10 years ago). In the NBA the finals and conference finals you'll find teams a significant step above the rest featuring the game's greatest players.

For the most part this is broadly true of soccer as well. Near the end of the year you're far more likely to see teams like Man City or Barca or Munich who are significantly better than the mid-tier teams of their domestic leagues because they feature the best players in the world. Likewise, as you mention, this is true with Baseball. Similarly football tends to give us a steady diet of the Patriots year after year because they're a step above most teams.

It used to be true in hockey. When the best teams had multiple HOF calibre C's and defenders there wasn't a lot of comparing them to the also-rans. It's just not true anymore. I can say with some confidence that I don't think Washington is head and shoulders better than, say, the Bruins or Leafs. And likewise with Vegas and a fair number of teams in the West. I think hockey is pretty unique in that regard.

 

[TimKerr]

You could say that about any sport though (except maybe baseball..I feel their playoffs you see the difference between a mediocre team and a great team more clearly from starting pitching to hitting..everything)

Watch an NBA game and tell me is it really that much different?

I don't think that's remotely true and I'm basing that off watching most of the basketball game last night. A pretty good NBA team isn't remotely on the same level as the Warriors or Rockets. There's far more separation from the middle of the pack in basketball and, in fact, when people complain about the NBA it's for the opposite reason. That there's too much separation from the rest of the pack and you get the same matchup of exceptional teams/players too often.

The final four NBA teams featured four players who've won 8 of the last 10 MVP awards(assuming one of James or Harden wins this year). By contrast, the NHL's final four teams had one player who'd won 2 of the last 10 MVP awards(having won 6 and 10 years ago). In the NBA the finals and conference finals you'll find teams a significant step above the rest featuring the game's greatest players.

For the most part this is broadly true of soccer as well. Near the end of the year you're far more likely to see teams like Man City or Barca or Munich who are significantly better than the mid-tier teams of their domestic leagues because they feature the best players in the world. Likewise, as you mention, this is true with Baseball. Similarly football tends to give us a steady diet of the Patriots year after year because they're a step above most teams.

It used to be true in hockey. When the best teams had multiple HOF calibre C's and defenders there wasn't a lot of comparing them to the also-rans. It's just not true anymore. I can say with some confidence that I don't think Washington is head and shoulders better than, say, the Bruins or Leafs. And likewise with Vegas and a fair number of teams in the West. I think hockey is pretty unique in that regard.

So please expand on this. Are you upset that there is so much parity in the NHL? As opposed to the NBA where there same teams have been in the Finals the last 4 years and the same player has been in the Finals the last 8 years?
Now I am reading lots of complaints and anger at the NBA Finals that its the same teams again and it is boring.
But I think whether you have 3 or 4 top teams always, or a league of parity people are going to find a way to complain.
Personally, I think the best model is European soccer where relegation exists, but I digress.

 

[Kin]

So please expand on this. Are you upset that there is so much parity in the NHL? As opposed to the NBA where there same teams have been in the Finals the last 4 years and the same player has been in the Finals the last 8 years?
Now I am reading lots of complaints and anger at the NBA Finals that its the same teams again and it is boring.
But I think whether you have 3 or 4 top teams always, or a league of parity people are going to find a way to complain.
Personally, I think the best model is European soccer where relegation exists, but I digress.

I'm not upset but I do think it's a major factor in my personal growing dissatisfaction with the league. Growing up it seemed that even once the Leafs were out I had a compelling reason to watch because teams like the Wings and Avalanche(and occasionally Stars and Devils) were so good that it offered a calibre of play that I just didn't get to see very often. Remove that and once the Leafs have been eliminated I tend to lose interest in the league.

Conversely, in the NBA, once the Raptors are eliminated I still personally enjoy watching great players and great teams. Lebron is fun to watch and Basketball has an inherent advantage that hockey doesn't where he's on the court for the vast majority of the game.

This is, of course, my personal opinion but I do think there's some evidence for it being shared by a fair number of people given how heavily regional the Stanley Cup ratings have become. Some people will try to create compelling narratives, like Vegas' expansion history or Ovechkin filling the Ray Bourque role, but I really do think those things are really only of significant interest to people who are fans of those teams whereas I think great teams and great players have a universal appeal.

If someone feels the opposite way, if they like the current set-up better than the late 90's-early 2000's model, or if they're just such fans of hockey that they'll watch any hockey regardless of it's comparative quality then I wouldn't say they're wrong. It's all personal preference to one degree or another.

But as someone who did once feel a larger connection to the sport beyond my interest in my own team I think it's disappointing that it's sort of slipped away as the NHL has given me less and less reason to be interested in its finals despite the fact that my rooting interest in the Leafs is as strong as ever. Moreover, I think it's kind of a bummer that in general sports seem to be going the way of increasingly settling into comfortable niches rather than going for broad appeal. I recognize this is broadly true of society as a whole as we move on from what used to be a pretty widespread monoculture into our increasingly fragmented segments but I feel like my one or two posts a year where I lament the change in 70 or so words is pretty tame as far as "complaining" goes*.

*With the obvious caveat that I'm happy to talk about it at greater length if people are interested in the discussion. It's better, for me at least, than just "Are you interested in which of these two non-descript teams won a decreasingly meaningful Stanley Cup?".

 

[Kin]

Two other points:

1. I think there's a happy medium between the current NHL and the current NBA and I think we more or less had it in the pre-Cap, post-Oilers NHL.

2. This might seem sort of contradictory but I also think one of the by-products of a league that has overdosed on parity is that it not only devalues the finals, it renders just about everything other than the finals largely meaningless. If anyone can win any series, than nothing really surprising or exciting can happen in any series. Contrast that to some of the 1/8 matchups between Dallas and Edmonton in the 90's where Edmonton had no business being in the same room as Dallas but were kept in it due to Cujo's heroics. Sure, Edmonton had no real chance at a cup but those first round series' were real victories in their own right. Comparatively, if New Jersey had beaten Tampa...would it have stayed in anyone's mind for more than a week?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

The ratings for this one will be interesting.

So far, so good. At least locally, although those overnight numbers are impressive too (courtesy of @NBCSportsPR):

Last night?s #StanleyCupFinal Game 1 between @Capitals & @GoldenKnights on NBC delivered a 3.72 overnight rating, the BEST overnight for a Game 1 in 3 years (2015 with Chicago/Tampa Bay, 4.23).

Game 1?s overnight rating (3.72) for @Capitals @GoldenKnights was up vs. both last year?s Game 1 with Nashville/Pittsburgh (+7%; 3.49) and 2016?s SCF Game 1 with San Jose/Pittsburgh (+36%; 2.73).

Las Vegas? 28.1 local rating for Game 1 stands as HIGHEST RATING for Golden Knights game EVER in market, surpassing this year?s deciding Gm5 of WCF vs. Winnipeg on NBC (17.9). The game did a 44 share in Las Vegas, meaning nearly 1 in every 2 TV sets in use were watching Game 1

With a 16.0 local rating in Washington DC, Game 1 was the HIGHEST RATED Capitals game EVER on the networks of NBC in the market, topping this year?s Game 7 of the ECF vs. Tampa Bay on NBCSN (12.6).

Top 10 markets for Monday?s Stanley Cup Final Game 1 on NBC:

1  Las Vegas  28.08
2  Wash, DC  16.02
3  Pittsburgh  10.31
4  Baltimore  9.07
5  Buffalo  8.84
6  Richmond  6.92
7  Minn-St. Paul  6.58
8  St. Louis  5.22
9  Denver  5.11
10  Ft. Myers  4.71

 

[CarltonTheBear]

This is, of course, my personal opinion but I do think there's some evidence for it being shared by a fair number of people given how heavily regional the Stanley Cup ratings have become. Some people will try to create compelling narratives, like Vegas' expansion history or Ovechkin filling the Ray Bourque role, but I really do think those things are really only of significant interest to people who are fans of those teams whereas I think great teams and great players have a universal appeal.

Vegas has really saved these finals. Imagine how boring they would have been if Winnipeg came out of the West.

 

[Kin]

So far, so good. At least locally, although those overnight numbers are impressive too (courtesy of @NBCSportsPR):

Eh. There's really no evidence that it's broken out of the strong regional trend. Washington is significantly bigger than Pittsburgh and Vegas is bigger than either of Nashville or San Jose. As mentioned, it still didn't do better than the last time a bigger city was in the Finals.

I agree that the strong local numbers in Vegas are good(although to what extent that's just a novelty is up in the air) but the idea that the uniqueness of Vegas and their narrative is really drawing in people without connection to either city seems to not be holding up.