Larry Goodenough wrote: I've only been able to find scoring chance info from game 1 of the final. But the Sedins even strength scoring chance differential in that 1-0 game was 7-1. But all average/below average fan takes from that game is "the Sedins got shut down in the playoffs/important game".
The truth is, during last year's playoffs, the Sedins played very much like they always did. The underlying stats point to this. In the finals, Tim Thomas got incredibly hot and his save percentage was remarkable. But, depending on certain people's agenda, that did not mean Thomas was great, it meant the Sedins can't do it when it means the most.
Couldn't agree more. I simply can't understand the way people piss at the Canucks (and in particular Luo and the twins) and question whether they have what it takes. They went to game seven of the freaking Stanley Cup Final! It was a toss up! Six games into the SCF Boston had won three and Vancouver had won three. How much closer can it get? In the end it was Tim Thomas phenomenal performance that earned the win for Boston. Luongo did not stink. He mixed great games with poor ones. People tend to forget that he posted two shutouts in that series. The twins were fairly invisble, and especially Henrik, but we know now that he was playing injured. The Canucks arguably had their best season ever last year, and all people do is piss and moan. Get a grip!If Tim Thomas hadn't put on the performance of a life time - he has never been that hot before, and mark my word, he never will be again - we would have won. Injuries didn't help, laissez-faire refereeing didn't help, but in the end it all boils down to Tim Thomas and his unreal save stats.
Larry Goodenough wrote:The regular season is constructed to prize durable, sustainable talents, to average out streaks and slumps and give the favorable position to the most consistent teams. But then that reward is followed up by a tournament of ridiculously small sample sizes where any little surge of awesomeness, from anyone, no matter what their true talent level, might make the difference between a Cup ring and a golf cart. The game is designed, in the end, to give out its highest prizes based on unsustainable streaks.
True. In soccer leagues around the world, the highest achievement is to win the league, ie the same as winning the president's trophy. There's almost always a cup as well, but it is nowhere near as prestigious as winning the league.
Unfortunately, this is not as exciting as watching do or die games, so the real crowd pleasers are instead the World Cup and the Champions League (which really is a cup), where a single mistake or a single extra ordinary feat can decide who wins.
People are stupid that way, but hey - I understand it, because I'm no better myself!
It's those nerve wrecking games where it can go either way - utter failure of immense success - that really gets your endocrinous system going. It's also why watching a game live is a hundred times more exciting than watching it taped, knowing how it will end.