Rangers (6) vs Bruins (4)

[bustaheims]

The Bruins really struggle at closing out series. 1-4 in the last 2 playoffs in games where they could end a series. Rask hasn't had much luck there, either. He's 2-7 in his career in potential series clinching games.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Rangers 4  Bruins 3  Final score in OT.  Boston leads series 3 games to 1.

A zone pass by the Rangers Rick Nash and deflected by Chris Kreider as he was streaking towards the Bruins goal, staved off elimination by giving New York the overtime win.

After Boston led 2-0, the Rangers Carl Hagelin, a catalyst for Tortorella's frustrations, put the Blueshirts on the scoring map with what was termed an "ugly goal".  There is nothing quite like a little inspiration coming from a forward who had been playing ugly on the power play all series long.  Relief alright.

Way to go, Blueshirts!

Source:  Yahoo! Sports

 

[Peter D.]

I know the numbers are against what I'm going to try and convey considering it has only happened three times in the league's history, but I've never understood why a 3-0 hole is practically insurmountable.

Taking this series for instance -- Boston wins both at home, and wins the first one in New York to go up 3-0, and the series is basically deemed over.  New York wins last night to make it 3-1, but still no one gives them a chance to win this series.  Yet, if the games in New York were flipped and the Rangers won Game 3 to make it 2-1, the mentality would be that while the Rangers likely aren't coming back from a 3-1 hole, some would suggest that they'd still have a (slight) chance to win the series.

I don't think the Rangers will come back in this series, so I'm only using them as an example since it's most recent.  But it's not like a team has never won four games in a row before.

Perhaps there is some psychological factor behind it or something.  Again, I know the numbers kibosh my thinking, but I kind of find it odd.

 

[Derk]

Is it me, or did Seguin look like he wanted to cry after he scored his goal in the third period?

I expect Boston will close this one out, but I would probably feel some small amount of satisfaction if the Rangers somehow pushed it to the limit.

 

[Kin]

Perhaps there is some psychological factor behind it or something.  Again, I know the numbers kibosh my thinking, but I kind of find it odd.

I think the thing of it is that the reason why 3-0 is typically considered insurmountable is that for most of hockey's history, and sports in general, a 3-0 lead wasn't just indicative of which teams had won the game but which team was a much more talented team. Nowadays, with all the parity, the idea that one team could beat another evenly matched team four times in a row doesn't seem like such a crazy thing but the idea of a significantly worse team winning four straight?

Think of it like probabilities. The odds of flipping a coin and having it come up either heads or tails four straight times is pretty low and that's with even odds. However if it becomes rolling a die and having to come up with four straight 6's? It's way, way harder.

 

[L K]

Perhaps there is some psychological factor behind it or something.  Again, I know the numbers kibosh my thinking, but I kind of find it odd.

I think the thing of it is that the reason why 3-0 is typically considered insurmountable is that for most of hockey's history, and sports in general, a 3-0 lead wasn't just indicative of which teams had won the game but which team was a much more talented team. Nowadays, with all the parity, the idea that one team could beat another evenly matched team four times in a row doesn't seem like such a crazy thing but the idea of a significantly worse team winning four straight?

Think of it like probabilities. The odds of flipping a coin and having it come up either heads or tails four straight times is pretty low and that's with even odds. However if it becomes rolling a die and having to come up with four straight 6's? It's way, way harder.

Even with better parity, I think in general that it isn't easy to win 4 games in a row anymore because of that same parity.  So while a 3-0 lead isn't necessarily insurmountable, winning 4 in a row is pretty much universally unlikely because neither team is really good enough to win 4 in a row against the same team every night.

 

[bustaheims]

Looks like the Bruins are going to move on, and, with that, the Stars get their 1st round pick as the conditions from the Jagr trade have been met. So far, after contributing at a decent pace post-trade in the regular season, Jagr hasn't really contributed for the Bruins in the playoffs.

 

[caver]

Rangers are eliminated... and now the Brad Richards watch begins...    ???

 

[Bates]

Nonis should get creative and offer the Rangers Grabovski for Richards and a blue chip prospect.  If Richards doesn't regain form in a better suited system it's only money and we are up one prospect.  If he regains form we win big time.

 

[L K]

Looks like the Bruins are going to move on, and, with that, the Stars get their 1st round pick as the conditions from the Jagr trade have been met. So far, after contributing at a decent pace post-trade in the regular season, Jagr hasn't really contributed for the Bruins in the playoffs.

The Kaberle factor?  Trade for a guy who should have been much better than he was, but potentially go deep in the playoffs/win the Cup in spite of him?

That being said, I think Pittsburgh destroys Boston.  I don't think anyone can score with the Penguins at this point, and Vokoun provides stability in net that Fleury doesn't.

 

[Peter D.]

As the season progressed (even before the season began), practically everyone pegged the Bruins and Pens as the two best teams in the East, so them squaring off in the East final should not be surprising.

But is it ever tough as a Leaf fan not to think the Leafs could be the ones in the East final. 

 

[bustaheims]

But is it ever tough as a Leaf fan not to think the Leafs could be the ones in the East final. 

It is a little frustrating, knowing how close they came against the Bruins and feeling so strongly that they very well could (and, in my opinion, probably would) have beaten the Rags. That's just life, though. The Pens-Bruins series should be some excellent hockey.

 

[Kin]

As the season progressed (even before the season began), practically everyone pegged the Bruins and Pens as the two best teams in the East, so them squaring off in the East final should not be surprising.

But is it ever tough as a Leaf fan not to think the Leafs could be the ones in the East final. 

It's tempting but it just doesn't work that way, I don't think. Ask most Leafs fans if because LA got beaten in 5 the Habs in the 93 Finals would have easily handled the Leafs and I think most would say that, no, different matchups yield different results.

No way to know how a series would go unless you see it played.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Nonis should get creative and offer the Rangers Grabovski for Richards and a blue chip prospect.  If Richards doesn't regain form in a better suited system it's only money and we are up one prospect.  If he regains form we win big time.

Sounds too much like taking a gamble with Richards. 

While he'd probably be a good fit with the Leafs, there really is no way to tell if this big money will have been fruitful or not to yield the results we'd be hoping for in a Richards.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Pittsburgh destroys Boston.
 

I would like nothing better than to see that happen.  Pittsburgh's style is fast-paced and very skillful, plus having Crosby out there on a tear in the playoffs is more than enough for an opposing team to handle, let alone Boston.

GO PENS!