2009 Stanley Cup Playoffs Thread

[OregonDuck1989]

I didn't realize they were going to get new, better fowards for the playoffs. How silly of me

Think of it in Mogul terms. Your team made the playoffs. It is game three, and you are starting your number three starter, who is an 85 overall. That's pretty good, compared to many other starters in the league. But he faces the stacked teams number 3 starter, who is a 91 overall. He isn't so talented anymore, is he?

He's still very talented though isn't he?

That's a poor justification. Based off contracts, Mike Hampton was a very good pitcher. Based off contracts, Andruw Jones was an above average outfielder.

Those analogies actually work in favor of my argument. Andruw Jones underachieved didn't he? As did Mike Hampton?

I am not debating like a dick. I am using facts. Fact is that they were horribly offensively in 82 games, which is a fair sample size. And it is the same team going into the playoffs which played the 82 games. So chances are their offensive talents are not going to change in the playoffs?

Saying (also known as the NHL season) and I know nothing about hockey....well, that's dickish. Sorry.

Could they become an offensive power house in the playoffs? Could the Cubs win the World Series this year? Could a convicted rapist become a principal in an elementary school? Could I win the lottery?

Yes except for the third one. Sexual offenders aren't allowed to work around children. But otherwise, yes.

They are talented in the roles they can handle, which is basically on the second or third line. I am not one to say player X is talented that often. Because if you give it to a Naslund, who is at best a second line foward now, then basically nearly half the leagues fowards are talented(because there are 4 lines per team, so every top two player would = half the league)

I would say half the leagues forwards are at least decently talented (barring the lower half teams with no legitimate forwards (Colorado, for instance, past Statsny)

There is a difference between a developing 20 year old foward with first line potential, and declining 30+ old second liners.

Agreed.

For one, they had their ALL STAR goalie out the entire season. But even with that, I wouldn't argue that they are close to the most talented team. I am not a homer. I can admit things like that. But I don't see why you said that...I never argued that they were

I said that because you attacked me for saying they had practically no talent. Which is basically true. Right?

No team is going to trade out of franchise potential prospects like John Tavares and Victor Hedman, so they are as good as ours. It just depends on which one the Isles choose, but I can basically gurantee the Isles will have one of them.

Never said they were. What I meant from that was that the Islanders and Lightning don't have Tavares and Hedman yet do they? So it's a moot point to discuss them in a team talent discussion. Will Tavares and Hedman instantly make their teams better? Definitely. Hedman will add young defense to a Lightning squad needing it and the Islanders need a kid like Tavares to score goals.

But they didn't have them this season or right now so they are a moot point in a discussion on current talent.

[defense]

Besides the "chance" they score more, what logical evidence is there that they will be able to score in the playoffs? They are icing the SAME team that was 28th in the league in goals for

He's still very talented though isn't he?

No he is not. He is an average player.

Those analogies actually work in favor of my argument. Andruw Jones underachieved didn't he? As did Mike Hampton?

You don't get it. They didn't underacheive. They sucked, plain and simply. To underacheive, they actually have to have the talent to play better. They just happened to suck while making the big bucks. Same thing with the Ranger players, except they play average to above average for a big pay day.

Yes except for the third one. Sexual offenders aren't allowed to work around children. But otherwise, yes.

Yes, but point is they are highly unlikely. More often then not, the 82 game sample size is a better predictor of how a team will do.

I would say half the leagues forwards are at least decently talented (barring the lower half teams with no legitimate forwards (Colorado, for instance, past Statsny)

Well that's where we differ. If we call 50% of the players "talented," then being talented isn't anything very special, is it?

I said that because you attacked me for saying they had practically no talent. Which is basically true. Right?

I never said they had no talent. I've been saying that they have three good players, and one of them being amazing. But I am not one who wears Rangers' goggles, and think that every name on their team is good, even though more than half of them are declining rapidly the lat three years.

Never said they were. What I meant from that was that the Islanders and Lightning don't have Tavares and Hedman yet do they? So it's a moot point to discuss them in a team talent discussion. Will Tavares and Hedman instantly make their teams better? Definitely. Hedman will add young defense to a Lightning squad needing it and the Islanders need a kid like Tavares to score goals.

But they didn't have them this season or right now so they are a moot point in a discussion on current talent.

They basically have them now. They didn't have last year, yes. But now, they basically unofficially have them.

[gosensgo101]

My predictions

Boston over Montreal in 6

I still think Montreal has a good team. They'll have no problem getting up for the games in the Bell Centre, but I still think Boston comes out in front. Montreal won't go down without a fight though.

Washington over New York in 6

Washington's offense is potent, but their shaky d complemented by Lundqvist's netminding will cost them a couple games. Don't be surprised if New York wins this series.

New Jersey over Carolina in 5

I'm just not feeling it with Carolina. Brodeur will lead a veteren team to an easy series win.

Pittsburgh over Philadelphia in 7

Everything you could expect from a 4-5 series. Two equally matched teams with a heated rivalry to boot. Tensions will be boiling over by game 7, but Pittsburgh will come out on top.

San Jose over Anaheim in 6

This will be another hard fought series but San Jose will come out in the end.

Detroit over Columbus in 6

Mason's terriffic play in net coupled with Detroit's shaky goaltending will let the Blue Jackets squeek out a few wins, but I don't think it will be enough to put them over the top of the Detroit team which is far superiour outside of the net.

Vancouver over St. Louis in 4

I haven't jumped on the Blues' bandwagon yet, and I'm not about to pick a young team to win a series against a team with such a great goalie.

Calgary over Chicago in 7

The Hawks' youth will be their downfall. Kipper may not be outstanding, but he'll steal atleast one game in this series.


Stanley Cup Final

San Jose over Boston in 6

[OregonDuck1989]

Besides the "chance" they score more, what logical evidence is there that they will be able to score in the playoffs? They are icing the SAME team that was 28th in the league in goals for

I guess theres not. But I'm not picking them, either. Arctic did.

I just thought saying there was no way they had any talent to win was kind of dumb.

No he is not. He is an average player.

85 is ABOVE average.

You don't get it. They didn't underacheive. They sucked, plain and simply. To underacheive, they actually have to have the talent to play better. They just happened to suck while making the big bucks. Same thing with the Ranger players, except they play average to above average for a big pay day.

No, you don't get it. Andruw Jones underacheived last year. He hadn't sucked before did he? Except for 2007, which some thought was a major down year Andruw never "sucked".

Yes, but point is they are highly unlikely. More often then not, the 82 game sample size is a better predictor of how a team will do.

Which is why I picked the Caps, I just thought you calling Arctic daft for saying they have talent was well...daft.

Well that's where we differ. If we call 50% of the players "talented," then being talented isn't anything very special, is it?

Then I guess that is where we differ...

I never said they had no talent. I've been saying that they have three good players, and one of them being amazing. But I am not one who wears Rangers' goggles, and think that every name on their team is good, even though more than half of them are declining rapidly the lat three years.

Rangers goggles? Yes, I have Rangers goggles. I picked against them lol

They basically have them now. They didn't have last year, yes. But now, they basically unofficially have them.

Then, it's a moot point...

[defense]

No, you don't get it. Andruw Jones underacheived last year. He hadn't sucked before did he? Except for 2007, which some thought was a major down year.

Jones declined in a ton of categories in the past three years. Jones doesn't have a starting job. If you still have good talent, you underacheived. When you continually decline in 3 years and lost a starting job, you don't underacheive. You now suck. Robinson Cano underacheived last year. Andruw Jones was a good player. But now he isn't a good player.

Same basic thing for the Rangers players, although they are nowhere near Andruw Jones' talent level.

[OregonDuck1989]

Jones declined in a ton of categories in the past three years. Jones doesn't have a starting job. If you still have good talent, you underacheived. When you continually decline in 3 years and lost a starting job, you don't underacheive. You now suck. Robinson Cano underacheived last year. Andruw Jones was a good player. But now he isn't a good player.

Same basic thing for the Rangers players, although they are nowhere near Andruw Jones' talent level.

Now, he sucks. And we know that. In 2008 he underachieved heavily and this year he's reached "sucking".

Cano is a different story, he's young.

It's like if Daisuke had done bad in 2007. He underacheived right? If Andruw Jones had bounced back in 2009 we would have called it still underachieving in 2008. Now, we just know he sucks. Plain and simple. But in 2008 all we knew was that he was having some bad years.

[gosensgo101]

The Penguins and Flyers are just punishing each other. This is gonna be a fun series to watch.

[OregonDuck1989]

Of course NHL gamecenter isn't working.

[OregonDuck1989]

After the first three games of the NHL playoffs we got the Rangers winning 4-3 off a good show by Lundquist, Pens dominated Philly 4-1, and the Devils worked Carolina 4-1.

I think all three of those will be good series though. Vancouver St. Louis just got going.

[EVEN11323]

Good thing I actually get Versus here at college so I can watch some playoff games.

[EVEN11323]

Calgary and Chicago heading into OT, hopefully this lasts a while.

[EVEN11323]

Wow, that lasted a whole 12 seconds.

[Joe12Pack]

I and everyone I've ever known agree, hockey was only ever good in video games.

EA's NHL 94 - best sports video game of all time, ever.

[Arctic Blast]

I and everyone I've ever known agree, hockey was only ever good in video games.

EA's NHL 94 - best sports video game of all time, ever.

Wrong...and wrong (NHL 2009, the console version anyway, is the best sports video game of all time).

[OregonDuck1989]

NHL 09 is amazing.

And Joe, hockey is a great sport. To play and to watch. Much like baseball, it's much better if you know what's going on.

Blackhawks with a crazy win tonight in OT and Anaheim with a big 2-0 win over San Jose.