Washington vs Pittsburgh

[JR Boucicaut 3797]

Washington Capitals (M1) vs. Pittsburgh Penguins (M2)

Thursday, April 26, 7pm: Penguins @ Capitals | NBCSN, CBC, SN, TVA Sports

Sunday, April 29, 3pm: Penguins @ Capitals | NBC, CBC, TVA Sports

Tuesday, May 1, 7:30pm: Capitals @ Penguins | NBCSN, SN, TVA Sports 2

Thursday, May 3, 7pm: Capitals @ Penguins | NBCSN, SN, TVA Sports

*Saturday, May 5, TBD: Penguins @ Capitals | TBD

*Monday, May 7, TBD: Capitals @ Penguins | TBD

*Wednesday, May 9, TBD: Penguins @ Capitals | TBD

[UCMnumber8 32]

I see this going to six games, maybe fewer if the Pens get Malkin and Hagelin back.

 

Sure, Washington looked promising by jumping out to a 2-goal lead last night, but then let 3 unanswered in a 5 minute span. It's classic Caps hockey: get momentum going by good offensive play and early leads, let off the gas once they feel comfortable, and then turtle like they have in years past.

It also goes without question that Trotz needs to adapt or fail, as the conservative style of coaching isn't going to cut it as it would have before. This isn't the Western Conference circa late 90s/early 2000s; the game has come a long way in almost 20 years. While I expect the veterans to step up and set a tone based on the fact they've been here before, you can't rely on a small core to carry everyone else as dead weight. Sitting the younger guys and rookies due to gut feeling and lack of experience won't help them. How will they know what to do down the road when they can't even get a crack at a chance to prove themselves right now, when it matters most? Put trust into your younger guys, because Ovechkin, Backstrom et al. aren't getting any younger, and like I said, sitting younger players will only hurt them later on. 

 

Do I have hope that the Capitals could make this a good series, and maybe even pull off an upset? Yes. As a fan, that's what you do: be optimistic. But, there's also the old saying about hope in one hand, something involving a bodily function in the other, and seeing which one fills up faster. Hope doesn't win games, series, or even the Cup.

 

We'll just have to see how the next games play out, and while I do have a glimmer of faith that this could maybe be it, I just don't see this going the way of the Capitals.

[marka 526]

Howdy,

To me, this series is about how Murray plays.  If he continues to be able to save the team from defensive mistakes, the Pens will win.  If Murray breaks down (or gets injured), the Caps will finally move past the Pens in a playoff series.

Mark

[chippa13 1844]

You could basically say the same thing about every team in the playoffs. Goaltending is a huge factor. Teams might be able to overcome a faltering goaltender for short stretches (witness: Bruins) but it always catches up to them.

[psulion22 402]

Goaltending is sort of irrelevant in the NHL.  He just needs to make the saves he should. I really don't think a goalie can win you a Cup anymore, but he can lose you one.  As ridiculous as Murray played last night, the Pens can't win if he has to play that way on a regular basis.  It's about limiting chances with speed, puck retrievals, and quick transitions, and blocking shooting/passing lanes.  Over a larger sample size, If teams do that, they win.  If they don't, they lose.  We can focus on the 2 or 3 ridiculous saves Murray made to preserve that win, like both blocker saves on Connolly.  But we should be talking about the bad plays the Caps made, not doing the aforementioned things, that cost them the game.  Holtby allowed 3 awful goals, not stopping shots he should have (while Murray was on the other end making saves he shouldn't have). Poor puck retrieval on goals 1 and 3.  Poor lane closing on goals 1 and 2.

Let's look at the past few years, where the team with the hot goalie has made it to the Cup Final only to lose to the team with the better defensive structure and retrievals/transitions.  Pekka Rinne last year carried the Preds to the Final and then essentially lost on two bad goals in two games.  Meanwhile, the Pens completely strangled out the Preds in games 5 and 6.  Murray had it pretty easy in those last 2 games.  Same thing the year before against San Jose.  Jones got them there, but couldn't overcome the Pens defensive system.  A weak goal or two were the difference.  Same with the Bolts losing to the Hawks the year before.  And the Rangers to the Kings before that.  Defense and transition beats goaltending over the long run.

Edited April 27, 2018 by psulion22

[adams2001 54]

Agreed, It is more of a balance that wins cups these days. A goalie can definitely loose it for you by not making the easy saves. 

[chippa13 1844]

"Goaltending is sort of irrelevant........."

I stopped reading there.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Going Pittsburgh in 5. They're just on too much of a roll. 

[psulion22 402]

1 hour ago, chippa13 said:

"Goaltending is sort of irrelevant........."

I stopped reading there.

Too bad.  It's your point as well.  I guess I should have said, goaltending "should be" irrelevant.  That is, a team needs a goalie to make the saves he should, maybe occasionally bailing them out, but not counting on him to continually steal games.   In the long run to be successful, it's much more important for the defense to limit chances.  But it isn't irrelevant to the negative side.  Allowing weak goals when the team is doing their job won't win a Cup.  Boston can't win if Rask keeps allowing bad goals.  Pittsburgh can't win if they keep forcing Murray to make those kinds of saves.  

Edited April 27, 2018 by psulion22

[Kgbeast 195]

19 hours ago, psulion22 said:

I guess I should have said, goaltending "should be" irrelevant...

Perhaps it should be "goaltending is not the only factor"... You have to have great goaltending, but that alone is not going to get it done. You need to have great goaltending and great "chemistry" between players on at least 3 lines and 2 defensive pairings. If the above is closely matched between two opponents, skill level of individual players (goalies included) becomes a factor. And of course a bit of "puck-luck". As someone before said, it is about balance. No one good part of the game will win the cup, but one bad part will certainly loose it.

Perhaps what Chippa was saying is that the teams are matched pretty close in ability to win the games, but goaltending has been on the Pens side in that one game and if that changed, Pens will be ending the season sooner this year. However, Holtz has better chance on falling behind comparing the two years of performance between the two goalies.

[psulion22 402]

It goes beyond that though. It’s a perception issue. The reality is that there’s very little difference over the long term between most starters in the NHL. We’re talking about hundredths of a percent in save percentage from the best starter to the worst. That equates to 1 goal every hundred shots or so. It’s not like the old days where the top 5-6 goalies would be leaps and bounds better than the bottom 5-6.   The team that limits shots, especially high quality ones from in the house or that cross the center line, will win the game more often than not if their goalie, any goalie, performs on average. Look at Vegas, they were down to their 5th goalie and still winning games the same way earlier in the season. Why? Because they’re one of the best in the league at limiting chances by retrieving and transitioning the puck quickly.  

When it comes to this series, the reason we’re even having this discussion is because the Caps real starter shit the bed and is playing well below his season averages. Grubauer was the better goalie by far this season, until the playoffs started. If he played on his average, the Caps sweep the Jackets and win game 1 vs the Pens. And if Holtby just did his job and stopped what he should have, all of Murray’s heroics would just have been an afterthought in a loss (like Quick’s were in round 1). 

In the end, the word “irrelevant” is wrong. Goalies aren’t irrelevant. They definitely impact the game, particularly to the negative side. I guess the better word is interchangeable. That is, they are mostly so close statistically that the results of the game are significantly more impacted by the team in front than the goalie, as long as that goalie just stops what he should. 

[chippa13 1844]

Interchangeable? No. There is a huge difference between the elites and the rest. Confidence in your goaltender to stop the ones he should and bail you out is enormous. It lets players do their jobs instead of do anything to prevent a shot. Yes, a team needs balance but a goalie on a run can take a team further than any other streaking player.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

As a Flyers fan, I know all too well that goaltending is a significant factor. Is it the only factor? Of course not. But please give us one example of a team that won the Cup in the Modern Era that DIDN'T have fantastic goaltending. In some cases, you have a franchise 'tender in net. With others, the guy(s) get hot at the right time and the team rides that momentum into June. 

[psulion22 402]

4 hours ago, 215BroadStBullies610 said:

As a Flyers fan, I know all too well that goaltending is a significant factor. Is it the only factor? Of course not. But please give us one example of a team that won the Cup in the Modern Era that DIDN'T have fantastic goaltending. In some cases, you have a franchise 'tender in net. With others, the guy(s) get hot at the right time and the team rides that momentum into June. 

Corey Crawford. Twice. Over a team with the hot goalie.

Matt Murray.  Twice.  Over a team with the hot goalie.

That's 4 of the last 5 Cups.  Both guys were replaced by someone else for sucking so badly at some point during at least one of those Cup runs.  Murray played less than half the games last year.

Yes, both of those guys made some key saves when needed.  They also allowed some terrible goals that cost their team.  And all 4 of those Cups relied more on their team's ability to defend and transition (and the Kings' inbetween as well) than their goalie carrying them. Interesting that both guys are known to be able to be picked high glove.  And they frequently are when the other team has time to shoot. As a Flyer's fan you definitely know how a goaltender can lose you a series.  But you also should understand how poor defensive structure can't win either.  A goalie definitely impacts a team on the negative side more than the positive.  With the way teams are playing over the past 5-6 years, a goalie needs to stop what he should and make a key save sometimes.  But I feel that's something that every goalie in the league should be able to do, not just the elite or fantastic ones.  That's why I say they're interchangeable.  You should be able to put almost any goalie in and get those things.  There are many, many examples of backups and unknowns coming in and outplaying the elites over the past 5 years.

Things are different now than they were 5 years ago when teams all played that "Torts" passive style of defense and tried to clog up the middle of the ice and just block everything.  Now they're very active and want to play defense by limiting the other team's possession, therefore limiting shots.  Yes, if that doesn't work they try and block things, but that's not their first choice.  The teams that are left in the playoffs are the teams that are the best at that.  Goalies are still important, in that you need them to not suck and allow goals they shouldn't.  But they aren't the most important to winning a Cup anymore.

Let's look at this series.  Game 1 the Pens play like crap, don't do their job, and win because the other team's goalie failed and their goalie bailed them out.  Game 2 they play the same way, the other goalie doesn't choke and they lose.  In both games, the Caps had time to exploit Murray's weakness.  I said it at the beginning, if the Pens keep asking Murray to make the ridiculous saves to win games they will lose.  That was the entire point of my post.  They've won 2 consecutive Cups by strangling out the other team and not allowing possession rather than who was in net.  If they win this series and another Cup, you'll say it was because Murray was fantastic.  I'll say it was because he didn't have to be.  I don't know that either of us will be right or wrong, nor that we'll agree with the other.

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by psulion22

[chippa13 1844]

And yet the 3 Vezina finalists are still playing.........

[psulion22 402]

55 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

And yet the 3 Vezina finalists are still playing.........

And who was the last Vezina finalist to win a Cup?

Thomas in 10/11?  He truly carried that team to a win.  But that Bruins team was the last of the really heavy, passive teams to win.  After them, the Kings and Hawks moved to a more active, speed game that was metric based. The game is different now.

Edited April 30, 2018 by psulion22

[chippa13 1844]

The 2017 season was the first season in the last 6 that didn't have a goalie place in the Vezina voting appear in the Stanley Cup Finals.

2012: Kings beat Devils, Quick was 2nd in Vezina voting

2013: Hawks beat Bruins, Emery (7th)/Crawford (8th) vs Rask (5th)

2014: Kings beat Rangers, Quick (5th) Lundqvist (6th)

2015: Hawks beat Lightning, Crawford (6th)

2016 Pens beat Sharks, Jones (8th)

Having a goalie in the Vezina conversation doesn't guarantee you a trip to the Finals but it gives you a hell of a lot better chance of getting there. 

 

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

5 hours ago, psulion22 said:

Corey Crawford. Twice. Over a team with the hot goalie.

Matt Murray.  Twice.  Over a team with the hot goalie.

That's 4 of the last 5 Cups.  Both guys were replaced by someone else for sucking so badly at some point during at least one of those Cup runs.  Murray played less than half the games last year.

Yes, both of those guys made some key saves when needed.  They also allowed some terrible goals that cost their team.  And all 4 of those Cups relied more on their team's ability to defend and transition (and the Kings' inbetween as well) than their goalie carrying them. Interesting that both guys are known to be able to be picked high glove.  And they frequently are when the other team has time to shoot. As a Flyer's fan you definitely know how a goaltender can lose you a series.  But you also should understand how poor defensive structure can't win either.  A goalie definitely impacts a team on the negative side more than the positive.  With the way teams are playing over the past 5-6 years, a goalie needs to stop what he should and make a key save sometimes.  But I feel that's something that every goalie in the league should be able to do, not just the elite or fantastic ones.  That's why I say they're interchangeable.  You should be able to put almost any goalie in and get those things.  There are many, many examples of backups and unknowns coming in and outplaying the elites over the past 5 years.

Things are different now than they were 5 years ago when teams all played that "Torts" passive style of defense and tried to clog up the middle of the ice and just block everything.  Now they're very active and want to play defense by limiting the other team's possession, therefore limiting shots.  Yes, if that doesn't work they try and block things, but that's not their first choice.  The teams that are left in the playoffs are the teams that are the best at that.  Goalies are still important, in that you need them to not suck and allow goals they shouldn't.  But they aren't the most important to winning a Cup anymore.

Let's look at this series.  Game 1 the Pens play like crap, don't do their job, and win because the other team's goalie failed and their goalie bailed them out.  Game 2 they play the same way, the other goalie doesn't choke and they lose.  In both games, the Caps had time to exploit Murray's weakness.  I said it at the beginning, if the Pens keep asking Murray to make the ridiculous saves to win games they will lose.  That was the entire point of my post.  They've won 2 consecutive Cups by strangling out the other team and not allowing possession rather than who was in net.  If they win this series and another Cup, you'll say it was because Murray was fantastic.  I'll say it was because he didn't have to be.  I don't know that either of us will be right or wrong, nor that we'll agree with the other.

 

Those guys played fantastic in the playoffs. Were they great every game? No. Read what I'm writing. A goalie can have a fantastic run in the playoffs and be, overall, a mediocre goalie. A goalie can also play lights out and still lose. Why? Because like I said, goaltending is a significant factor. That doesn't mean its the ONLY factor. You can hand pick a game here or there. No goalie has gone 16-0. At least not to my knowledge. 

[IPv6Freely 2092]

37 minutes ago, 215BroadStBullies610 said:

Those guys played fantastic in the playoffs. Were they great every game? No. Read what I'm writing. A goalie can have a fantastic run in the playoffs and be, overall, a mediocre goalie. A goalie can also play lights out and still lose. Why? Because like I said, goaltending is a significant factor. That doesn't mean its the ONLY factor. You can hand pick a game here or there. No goalie has gone 16-0. At least not to my knowledge. 

Quick in 2012 was pretty damn close! 16-4, winning the first three games of all four series including a sweep of St. Louis. Not bad for a team that secured the 8th seed in the last game of the season! But I completely digress - I just haven't seen such a dominant run in the NHL in a long time, if ever. 

[psulion22 402]

19 hours ago, chippa13 said:

The 2017 season was the first season in the last 6 that didn't have a goalie place in the Vezina voting appear in the Stanley Cup Finals.

2012: Kings beat Devils, Quick was 2nd in Vezina voting

2013: Hawks beat Bruins, Emery (7th)/Crawford (8th) vs Rask (5th)

2014: Kings beat Rangers, Quick (5th) Lundqvist (6th)

2015: Hawks beat Lightning, Crawford (6th)

2016 Pens beat Sharks, Jones (8th)

Having a goalie in the Vezina conversation doesn't guarantee you a trip to the Finals but it gives you a hell of a lot better chance of getting there. 

 

I don't know how I forgot Quick in '12.  He was ridiculous.

The rest of the guys aren't finalists.  Many of them got only one vote. In fact, you have to go back to 13/14 to find one of them that got more than one vote.  That year Quick got 3, for a total of 9 points.  The winner, Rask, had 103 points.  So again, what you continue to ignore is that the team with the best defensive structure beats the team with the hot goalie over the long run.  That was what I said.  5 years in a row the better team beat the goalie that carried their team there, mostly in dominating fashion.  In those wins, the teams had multiple goalies playing with similar results.  Statistically, the goalies are interchangeable when the team does its job.

18 hours ago, 215BroadStBullies610 said:

Those guys played fantastic in the playoffs. Were they great every game? No. Read what I'm writing. A goalie can have a fantastic run in the playoffs and be, overall, a mediocre goalie. A goalie can also play lights out and still lose. Why? Because like I said, goaltending is a significant factor. That doesn't mean its the ONLY factor. You can hand pick a game here or there. No goalie has gone 16-0. At least not to my knowledge. 

But you're handpicking the games the guy played fantastic, and ignoring the games he blew the game as your argument.  I believe any goalie in the league is capable of stealing some games and shitting the bed in others.  Most of the guys that played truly fantastic recently - Rinne, Jones, Bishop - all lost to a dominant team with an inconsistent goalie, allowing bad goals that had been atypical up to that point.  Both Murray and Crawford were replaced because of their poor play and won, and Murray only played half the games last year.  My point isn't that goaltending isn't a factor.  It certainly is, especially to the bad side.  My point is that the goalie doing the goaltending isn't important as long as he stops what he should and doesn't allow bad goals.  Statistically, there just isn't a large enough separation between these guys to make a big difference over the long term.

We'll just to have to agree to disagree on this.

Edited May 1, 2018 by psulion22

[chippa13 1844]

This isn't basketball. The team with the best player in hockey doesn't always win.Goalies that are in the conversation of the elite group get their teams higher in the standings and deeper into the playoffs.

[psulion22 402]

2 minutes ago, chippa13 said:

This isn't basketball. The team with the best player in hockey doesn't always win.Goalies that are in the conversation of the elite group get their teams higher in the standings and deeper into the playoffs.

The regular season and playoff success of guys like Price, Bobrovsky, Holtby, Rask, Rinne, and even Lundqvist would seem to contradict that.  Those guys are the ones that are about as elite as it gets over recent time.  They've all had inconsistent results, both in the regular season and playoffs.  Lundqvist, Holtby, and Rask have been outplayed by backups for a time.  A guy like Mike Smith, or Luongo, are guys on bad teams that don't get the recognition they should.  Antii Raanta was unbelievable this year for a terrible team that got nowhere.  Devan Dubnyk was close to an elite level in Minnesota for a few years with little success.

The team that plays the best defensive system - first the passive Torts system, and now the active transition game - is the one that got higher in the standings and deeper into the playoffs over the past 5-7 years.  It's not basketball.  The team with the best player doesn't always win.  That's why team play and system is significantly more important than a single player, even a goalie.

[chippa13 1844]

We're not saying an elite goalie is all a team needs.

[215BroadStBullies610 435]

Is this really that confusing haha? The fact that you don't seem to understand what we are talking about is baffling. No one is saying that regular season success = playoff success when it comes to a goalie. What we are saying is that you need good goaltending to win a Cup. How you don't seem to grasp that is beyond me. There are other facets to a Cup-winning team but you still can't give an example of a goalie who played less than fantastic OVERALL to get 16 wins after the regular season is over. 

[IPv6Freely 2092]

7 minutes ago, 215BroadStBullies610 said:

Is this really that confusing haha? The fact that you don't seem to understand what we are talking about is baffling. No one is saying that regular season success = playoff success when it comes to a goalie. What we are saying is that you need good goaltending to win a Cup. How you don't seem to grasp that is beyond me. There are other facets to a Cup-winning team but you still can't give an example of a goalie who played less than fantastic OVERALL to get 16 wins after the regular season is over. 

Crawford is the only one I can think of. I still say the Hawks won their cup in spite of him rather than because of him. He was "just okay". 

But otherwise I agree with both of you, if I'm reading the responses correctly:

• Top tier goaltending is generally a must to win
• Poor goaltending will end your season quickly
• Average goaltending can potentially get it done if the defensemen and defensive system is good and executes well
• Asking a goalie to steal games too many times is a recipe for disaster no matter how good he's playing