The Hockey File

It’s pretty safe to say that, before the playoffs began, this wasn’t the Final anyone was expecting.

While the Chicago Blackhawks were viewed amongst the Cup favourites and thus their appearance here isn’t all that surprising, the Philadelphia Flyers being here is a shocker. Here was a team that had underperformed all season, getting into the playoffs on the final day where they barely escaped Madison Square Garden with a shootout win (one helped by the fact the New York Rangers inexplicably didn’t go with Marian Gaborik in the shootout) and reduced to journeyman goaltender Brian Boucher as their starting goaltender, with regular starter Ray Emery out and regular backup Michael Leighton out as well. Then, as the playoffs went on, the Flyers found themselves in a 0-3 hole against the Boston Bruins in the second round, barely needing overtime to get out of Game 4 alive. To make matters worse, Boucher would go down in Game 5 with the Flyers holding to a lead, though, fortunately for them Leighton had just came back that night to be the backup. Philadelphia somehow won to force Game 7, only to fall behind 3-0 early in that game. That could have been the straw that broke the Flyers’ back, but instead Philadelphia scored four unanswered goals- including one on a power play induced by a too-many-men-on-the-ice penalty- and to improbably take Game 7 and the series. Philadelphia rode that momentum to a five-game victory over the Montreal Canadiens in the Conference Final to set up their first Finals appearance since 1997.

“Unimaginable” doesn’t begin to cover the extraordinariness of the Flyers’ run. “Inconceivable” is more like it.

Yet, here they are, four wins away from their first Stanley Cup since 1975. It’s stories like these that draw me to the sport I love.

Now, for their part, the Blackhawks have a chance to write a little history of their own. Chicago hasn’t won the Stanley Cup since 1961- a full six years before the Flyers were even born- and faced well over a decade of futility and irrelevance under the contemptuous ownership of “Dollar” Bill Wirtz. Before Chicago made the playoffs in 2009, the Blackhawks endured a period of ten seasons from 1997-98 to 2007-08 where they made just one playoff appearance and won only a single game (2002 against the St. Louis Blues), a stretch the team hadn’t been on since the early days of the Original Six. During this period, Wirtz alienated fans and ‘Hawks legends alike, forbidding the broadcast of Blackhawk home games and refusing to spend any money to retain talent or pursue free agents. It was a period of hopelessness that would be unbecoming for any franchise, let alone one with the proud history of the Blackhawks, leaving many wondering in the Windy City blew away the team’s allure and ability to win. Then- for the lack of a better explanation- Bill Wirtz died, his son, Rocky, took over, embraced the fans and the legends, ended the blackout, opened the chequebook and suddenly the franchise is alive again. So here too, “inconceivable” is an apt description of the Blackhawks’ run given their medium-term history, because no one would have believed this team would have gotten here in the depths of their despair just a few short seasons ago.

So, with as many as seven or as little as (but hopefully not, unless you’re a fan of either team) four games to go in the NHL season, it’s time to break out the Crystal Ball™ and see which Cinderella gets a chance to dance at the ball.

(W2) Chicago Blackhawks vs. (E7) Philadelphia Flyers

How They Got Here:

Chicago:

Defeated #7 Nashville Predators 4-2

Defeated #3 Vancouver Canucks 4-2

Defeated #1 San Jose 4-0

Philadelphia

Defeated #2 New Jersey Devils 4-1

Defeated #6 Boston Bruins 4-3

Defeated #8 Montreal Canadiens 4-1

Key Players:

Chicago:

Philadelphia

THE MODUS OPERANDI

Chicago: The Blackhawks are here due in no small part to their superior team speed. You’re all aware of Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, but others such as Dave Bolland, Patrick Sharp and Kris Versteeg buzz with such a frequency that opponents can’t handle them regardless of where they are on the ice, because they’re always creating fearsome scoring chances or snuffing out your own with relentless pressure. The speed is so alluring that it draws you into that game, and takes you away from your own, meaning you have to be able to skate with them to have any chance of winning. Furthermore, the presence of elite puck mover Duncan Keith keeps the tempo up all game long, so don’t expect any relief; and don’t expect to get under their skin because they have the likes of Dustin Byfuglien and Ben Eager who are more than capable of throwing their weight around too. The power play also clicks with ease due to the traffic Byfuglien’s size creates, as well as Byfuglien’s ability to shoot well in tight. Chicago is still a little small along the blueline, so, naturally, the Blackhawks look to avoid getting stuck along the boards and fortunately they’re mobile enough to stay away from that game. Finally, Antti Niemi seems to have resolved all the questions surrounding his goaltending ability, being able to bounce back from difficult games and- while he hasn’t been spectacular- be at least good enough so that any lead Chicago takes will hold up, which is the least he can do.

Philadelphia: You can’t start any discussion about the Flyers without bringing up Mike Richards. Is there a better player in the NHL right now? The answer is an emphatic “no”. Quite simply he does it all- he hits, he scores, he dangles, he passes, he defends and he leads at such a high level that no one could dare keep up. He’s already drawing comparisons with Flyer legend Bobby Clarke- and with good reason- and if he ever lets his hair grow into curls and loses his front teeth, there really would be no differentiating the two (aside from their age, of course). Philadelphia is glad to have him, and they’re also glad he doesn’t *have* to shoulder the load. Right behind Richards on the scoresheet are the rejuvenated Daniel Briere (finally living up to his lofty contract), the returning Jeff Carter, the blossoming Claude Giroux, Simon Gagne and Villie Leino, the latter coming out of nowhere after the Detroit Red Wings essentially traded him for a bag of pucks (sorry Ole-Kristian Tollefson, but perhaps if you weren’t a Grand Rapids Griffin right now I might not have gone there). On the backend, the Flyers can boast an adroit group with twin anchors Chris Pronger and Kimmo Timonen (a big reason why the Flyers’ defence ranks as the best in these playoffs), as well as capable supporters in Matt Carle and Braydon Coburn. Let’s also not forget the yeoman work that the likes of Scott Hartnell and Ian Laperierre bring to this group, bringing a tenacity to this group that allows them to get the job done no matter how daunting. Simply put, this is still the Flyer team you’ve grown to love (or hate, depending on your persuasion)- they’ll hit, they’ll fight and get under your skin, but don’t think they don’t have speed or ability, because they’ve got plenty of that as well. Then there’s Leighton, the journeyman goaltender who provides hope to the Adam Berkhoels of the world that with just enough perseverance anything can happen; and what a rock Leighton has been, posting a microscopic 1.45 GAA in these playoffs. If you want to talk about “rejuvenated”, you have your model right here.

HOW THEY WIN

Chicago: Their speed killed during the playoffs and it’ll have to kill again. Although the Flyers are more than capable of playing that game as well, the Blackhawks need to be able to dictate the pace of the game if they are to succeed in this series. That means creating quick offence off the rush and holding on to the puck, so the faceoff prowess of Toews needs to continue. Also key to their success would be the re-emergence of Marian Hossa, whose size would be instrumental in taking on the Flyer big men (especially Pronger) and creating space for the smaller forwards; but so far Hossa (who just has two goals) hasn’t been the factor he needs to be. Byfuglien also needs to win the battle in front of the net for the power play to be effective, which won’t be easy with Pronger patrolling the area. Niemi will need to be stellar, because this Flyer team will create a lot of chances so he’ll have to work harder than he had before at preserving whatever lead the Blackhawks get (if Chicago is capable of getting one, that is). Above all else, though, is that Chicago needs to ensure they can mitigate the pounding their defencemen will receive from the Flyer forecheckers. This means that Brian Campbell has to emerge as a force for the first time in his career to provide relief for Keith in the puck moving department, while Brent Sopel and Niklas Hjalmarsson have to be effective defensively so Brent Seabrook doesn’t get overused. If the Blackhawks are forced to use Byfuglien on the backend that will drastically reduce the size of the Chicago front end, and play right into the Flyers’ hands, so it is absolutely vital that the current Blackhawk defenders do their jobs.

Philadelphia: Pound the Blackhawks. Chicago has been fortunate that they have yet to face a forward corps as physical and as tenacious as the Flyer group (Joe Thornton and the Sharks could take notes here), so the Flyers will need to work them and tire them out, since it will drastically slow down Chicago’s ability to play the speed game they want to play. The Flyers have the speed and skill to keep up with the Blackhawks, so using their clear size advantage is instrumental in shifting the series in their favour. Pronger will also need to win the battle in front of the net against Byfuglien, with Gagne and Carter needed to win the net battle on their end of the ice. Leighton also needs to be stellar because the Blackhawk forwards will barrage him with shots so he’ll need to be on top of his game for the Flyers to have any chance. Lastly, the Flyers need to continue being effective without the puck, meaning the yeoman work of Laperierre and the emerging Darroll Powe has to continue. Chicago’s game is puck possession, so playing with the proper positioning is the best way to counter it.

WHO WILL WIN

There are compelling cases to be made for both teams, but if I had to choose, the stronger one is Philadelphia’s. Size always triumphs over skill in the playoffs (see Anaheim Ducks, 2007 Stanley Cup Champions) and you don’t get the mixture of speed, size and skill that the Flyers possess very often. Chicago is simply too small on the backend to be effective against a Flyer forecheck that will pound them for the first time this playoffs, and the size at the top end of the forward corps is lacking. Sure, the Blackhawks have Eager, Adam Burish, Andrew Ladd and Troy Brouwer to mix things up, but that only goes so far when you have Richards, Carter and Gagne to contend with, and those guys can score whereas the Chicago bunch cannot. The Blackhawks won’t be swept like they were in 1992, but they’ll have to wait a little bit longer to parade the Great Mug down Michigan Avenue.

Flyers 4, Blackhawks 2

-DG

# posted by Vicendum : 12:07 AM  0 Comments

12:12 may live in infamy for a long time for San Jose Sharks fans.

At that precise moment in the third period, Dany Heatley- #15- took a borderline slashing penalty that gave the Chicago Blackhawks- already in the ascendancy after scoring twice in the second period to erase a 2-0 San Jose advantage- a power play. The Blackhawks would score on the power play on a goal by The Great Immovable Object, Dustin Byfuglien, to gain the lead for good. Kris Versteeg would add an empty-netter to complete the 4-2 Chicago win, a victory that sends the Blackhawks to their first Stanley Cup Final since 1992 (when Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane were preschoolers) and a chance for their first Stanley Cup since 1961 (when coach Joel Quenneville was a preschooler).

All that drama would be well and good if it didn’t obscure the fact it completed a four game sweep, meaning that although that controversial moment was the series-decider, the Sharks’ loss can be attributed to a lot more than just that moment. This is a series where the big, slow Sharks proved the adage that in the “new” NHL, speed always wins over brawn, especially when you’ve got brawn of your own. The fact that Chicago won perhaps isn’t surprising- this one could have gone either way, especially if the Sharks had even tried their cycle game- but the fact that this series went only four games is. Even if San Jose wasn’t going to ultimately win the series, they should have given Chicago a fight after the Sharks’ own demolition of the Detroit Red Wings in Round 2, meaning that the sweep provided a disappointing end to what should have been a classic series.

Yes it’s time to write the “Here Go The San Jose Chokers Again” articles and evaluations about just what went wrong in the series; and yes it’s time to speculate on the future of Patrick Marleau and Evgeni Nabokov (both unrestricted free agents). However, coupled with the Philadelphia Flyers’ 4-1 series win over the Montreal Canadiens, the sweep continues what is becoming a disturbing historical trend in the NHL, and that’s the fact that every year we see one (if not both) Conference Finals come up lame. The series results this year mean that for a second consecutive year we’ve seen a total of nine games in the Conference Finals, after the Pittsburgh Penguins swept the Carolina Hurricanes (remember them?) and the Red Wings defeated the Blackhawks in five (with Chicago, eerily enough, winning only in Game 3).

Granted, one could surmise that this is a two-year fluke, but the numbers tell a far different story. Below is the total amount of games in each Conference Final since 1987, the year the NHL instituted the best-of-seven format throughout the entire playoffs, up to last year’s playoffs:

(Table Notes: “Conf. Avg”=“Conference Final Average”)

The numbers in bold indicate the times where a Conference Final has gone at least six games, typically the standard for a “well-contested series”. As you can see in the table, there have only been five instances in the 23 post-seasons of the best-of-seven format where both Conference Finals have at least gone six games- 1996, 1998, 2000 (the only time both Conference Finals have gone seven), 2002 and 2004. Furthermore the numbers since the lockout are even more staggering, with the last Conference Final series to go seven occurring in 2006, when the Hurricanes defeated the Buffalo Sabres, and an average series length just over five games. Lastly, the overall average series length during the 1987-2010 period is less than six games, with the more troubling trend that the Western series are shorter than the Eastern series. If we add the 2010 totals, we get this:

If you’re a NHL official, you should be troubled by these numbers. No, make that “alarmed”. You see, it’s one thing if the first round- or even the second round- features a lot of short series because those series typically feature one team that’s overmatched. However, at the Conference Final, you shouldn’t be seeing short series this often. Although it’s not “the pinnacle” like the Stanley Cup Final is, the Conference Finals should still be a showcase. This is the moment where the playoffs should be heating up, because by this point you have four, battle-tested teams who have (presumably) proven their ability to win in the playoffs and thus shouldn’t be pushovers. Playoff ratings should be rising as the excitement builds, especially in the cities where the team is doing well because, in those towns, there’s a real belief that their team could win the Cup. It’s a real letdown that every year one- or even two- of those teams look more like pretenders than contenders. Thus, at this moment we should be guaranteed a six-game set (at least) in both Conference Finals, because that at least means the winners were challenged. Obviously, we can’t expect to happen every year, but a five-game stinker or a four-game sweep should be the exception not the rule, as it appears to be currently.

This can only mean one thing and that’s to rethink how the NHL conducts its playoffs. Although the best of seven series has a long history in the NHL (it was introduced in 1939), it’s clear it has outlived its usefulness as the sole determinant of playoff victors. I’ve never been a fan of the best-of-seven format anyway, because, as pure entertainment it gets a bit tedious. I mean, unless you’re a fan of any of the teams in a series, you’re never cheering for it to go four, five or even six games- you want to see Game 7. Yeah, the ride to seven games is usually fun, and from a competitive standpoint the better team is more likely to win with more chances to win, but the first six games of a series ultimately winds up feeling like a movie that’s gone on for too long and you’re sitting there waiting for its conclusion. Or as Tony Kornheiser once put it on an episode of Pardon The Interruption (discussing a series that was destined to go seven), “get to the point!”

However, I didn’t write this with an eye to attack the best-of-seven’s entertainment value (though it is a tangential issue). The real point is that the best of seven appears to have the unintended consequence of making the playoff journey too long for too many of its teams. Yes, there may be other reasons why a team who makes a Conference Final look like a deer in the headlights, but those explanations (e.g. “they were overmatched”, “they didn’t realize just how much work the playoffs are”) would be great explanations if they were one-off deals, but the fact of the matter is we see it almost all the time. The most common comment at this time of year is that the losing team “ran out of gas” (it’s one the Canadiens are sure to hear after bowing meekly to the Flyers following two straight seven game sets), and the frequency of this occurrence is troubling. You want your contenders to appear like, well, contenders and they’re not doing that if they’re bowing meekly at the Conference Final stage.

So, with the just completed Memorial Cup out of the way, I began spinning my wheels about how we can best alter the NHL tournament, and this is what I came up with:

• Go back to the divisional format for the playoffs. This was one tradition that had been scrapped which was actually useful, because the divisions each had their own character and it actually meant something to win your division (furthermore, placing importance in the division instead of a conference shortens the amount of teams and players the fan has to pay attention to, which makes it easier for a newcomer to “get into” the sport).
• Instead of the top four teams making the playoffs in each division, it’s the top three, with the division champ receiving a bye to the second round. The first round series can be a best-of-three series so the first place team isn’t waiting too long for its opponent.
• The second round will retain the “best-of-seven” format, which will be used to determine each of the divisional champions.
• Once we determine the divisional champions, we’d have them all play a six-team round robin tournament- held at a neutral site- to eventually determine the Stanley Cup champion.
• This round robin tournament wouldn’t have the traditional “four teams make the ‘playoffs’” format that is normally used for six teams. In this format, the sixth placed team after the ‘regular’ part of the tournament is eliminated entirely, while fifth would play fourth. The winner of that game would play third, with the winner of that game playing second and the winner of that game playing first place for the Stanley Cup.

Yes, this format would dramatically reduce the amount of playoff games (and subsequent playoff revenue) but this would be offset by the excitement- and the decisiveness- such a tournament would bring. Just like the Olympics, every game would be a war with so much literally riding on the result. The ride would be intense, quick and riveting, giving the fans that dramatic rush that comes with the quick ups and downs a tournament like this would bring. In a pounding flash the Stanley Cup Tournament would be over, and what’s left is either intense ecstasy or a crushing defeat. Makes you want to take part, does it not? If it doesn’t, just think about the most successful tournaments in sports- soccer’s World Cup and college basketball’s March Madness. Why are they successful? Because those tournaments don’t take years months to conclude, providing a result that’s incisive, decisive and quick. They don’t need the dull, slow dance of a seven game set to reach the climax- they get to it, and get to it quickly; and, like anything in sports, we all want a quick conclusion.

(Oh, I guess I forgot to mention just how much money could be made on a tournament like this...but you should have figured that out once you realized how exciting this tournament would be)

Speaking of the money, the loss of playoff games can be offset by sharing the revenues the Stanley Cup Tournament would bring, which would likely be a lot more than the present playoffs bring. I’m convinced most of the problems with the dearth of advertising revenue in the Stanley Cup Finals and similar tournaments (like the National Basketball Association Playoffs or Major League Baseball’s Fall Classic) are because their Finals don’t have the decisiveness the Super Bowl brings, and if those Finals became a single-game classic they’d become the events they should be. Plus, four rounds of best-of-seven are redundant. They worked when few teams were in the playoff because it highlighted the matchup between those two teams and that was the only matchup you needed to feature. Now, realistically, a team really only defeats four teams on its playoff journey, which isn’t indicative at all about how good they actually are- get a lucky string of matchups and you could get the Cup too. Take last year’s Penguins for instance- they had no offence (outside of Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Jordan Staal), an average goalie and a yeoman cast of checkers and defenders that really didn’t strike fear into anyone. Yet they lucked out with four easy series for the Stanley Cup- one team they had beaten before (the Flyers), one absolutely brutal defensive team (the Washington Capitals), one absolutely brutal team (the Hurricanes) and a team they’d played in the Finals the year before, a team that forgot to compete once they established their 3-2 series lead (the Wings). Once they played a team that was competent defensively and competently coached (the Canadiens) they were schooled. I understand this assessment is more of a matter of opinion than conclusive research, but it should highlight that winning in the playoffs really does come down to who you play as much as it is to how you play- get a bad matchup and your dream is over, which sure isn’t a great way to settle a score. At least with this round robin format the Stanley Cup winner still has to show its superiority over the other teams in the tournament, since they at least play the other teams once (and likely had to beat them to get to where they are).

You could get adventurous and invite the European winner to this tournament (creating a seven team tournament, or you could realign the NHL into five divisions and maintain the six-team format) but that’s a debate for another day. The point today is that the NHL’s concluding hours should be more decisive than it is currently, and it can do that by scrapping the four rounds of best-of-seven tedium and reverting to something more exciting, like the Memorial Cup-style Stanley Cup Tournament. This way the NHL championship is quick and decisive, being guaranteed to be more exciting than the present format is; which, in turn, increases its profitability. The best-of-seven format had a purpose in its heyday when only two teams made the playoffs- now, with 16, it’s outlived its usefulness, creating arbitrary champions that only got there because of their favourable matchups and needlessly extending the season. At least with the round robin the team that wins at least shows a greater sense of dominance because they’ve at least played every other team at least once (and likely had to beat them to get them to where they are); and at the very least we’re left with a Final that’s conclusive and decisive- and quick.

If that’s not enough, then just look at it this way- at least this means our playoffs will be over before June; and that’s something we can all agree on.

-DG

# posted by Vicendum : 12:29 AM  0 Comments