Stanley Cup Finals: Vegas Knights vs. Washington Capitals

[FD19372]

3 minutes ago, jammer2 said:

 

 Will NEVER forget that kick....and the time leading up to it....a hot blonde was supposed to do unthinkable things to me IF Scott made that kick....but he missed and she stuck to her guns...blue balled real bad....LOL

I won't ever forget that kick, either. I lost $50 on Buffalo, which was a lot of money for me to lose back then.

[FD19372]

Just now, jammer2 said:

 

 Needless to say, the jammer2 household has no autographed Scott Norwood memorabilia....how much would that set you back I wonder.....20 cents??

Only with Thurman Thomas' autograph. 

[notfondajane]

On 5/25/2018 at 6:15 PM, pilldoc said:

 

 

I totally agree.  I have said from the beginning that the Knights got a Golden Goose when they were able to pluck MAF from the Pens.  Not many expansion teams are able to come out of the gate with a former SC winning goalie.

 

Now as far as Subban.  I don't think you give him enough credit.  He played 22 games this year for the Knights.  That is 25% of their games.  He played outstanding all things considering he never played any amount of substantial NHL games.  In 22 games, starting 19 of them, he earned 13 Wins. with a .910 SV% and a 2.68 GAA.  Over a who season, (assuming your starting goalie gets about 60 starts) that would equate out to about 41 wins.  Any NHL would take for their starter.  Now I would agree that no would know how  he would hold up physically playing 60+ games, but he certainly, IMO, could hold his own.  It is a fair argument you make.

 

 

Now I may be taking this a bit out of context, so if I am, please forgive me.  Vegas as a team,  certainly has no playoff experience playing together as a group.  However, individually, Vegas has more playoff experience than what some writers might give them.

 

From an interesting article I found when reading up on Vegas and their incredible run .....

 

https://sinbin.vegas/playoff-experience-vgk-not-the-least-experienced-but-definitely-not-the-most/

 

With that in mind, we decided to look into how much playoff experience the Golden Knights have on the roster, and depending on how you slice it, it could be viewed as a lot or a little.

 

Obviously MAF has the most playoff experience on the Knights with over 100+  games and 3 SCF to boot.  But what about the other's?

 

Three Vegas players have played 40+ postseason games. Twelve Golden Knights have seven or fewer playoff appearances. Combined, the team has played 480 individual postseason games.

 

So here is the list ......

 

115 Playoff games: Marc-Andre Fleury
.908 save %, 2.65 GAA, 62 wins
80 Playoff games: James Neal
25 goals, 44 points, 5 game-winning goals
42 Playoff games: David Perron
3 goals, 14 points, 1 game-winner
36 Playoff games: Ryan Reaves
1 goal, 9:34 ATOI (last season), 23 PIM
28 Playoff games: Deryk Engelland
2 assists, -9, 16:24 ATOI
24 Playoff games: Erik Haula
6 goals, 13 points, 15 takeaways
21 Playoff goals: Nate Schmidt
1 goal, 4 points, +3, 16:39 ATOI (last season)
20 Playoff goals: Luca Sbisa
1 goal, 4 points, -10, 17:15 ATOI
20 Playoff goals: Shea Theodore
2 goals, 8 points, 17:25 ATOI, 20 giveaways
19 Playoff games: Cody Eakin
3 goals, 10 assists, 51.9 FO%, 18:44 ATOI
18 Playoff games: Reilly Smith
8 goals, 13 points, +12, 8 points/24:57 ATOI (’17)
17 Playoff games: Tomas Tatar
3 goals, 7 points, -5, 15:21 ATOI
14 Playoff games: Oscar Lindberg
3 goals, 4 points, 52.6 FO%, 10:27 ATOI
7 Playoff games: Jonathan Marchessault
1 assist, +1, 8:21 ATOI
5 Playoff games: Pierre-Edouard Bellemare
1 assist, 4 blocked shots, 15 PIM,
5 Playoff games: William Karlsson
2 goals, 3 points, +4, 16:06 ATOI
5 Playoff games: Brayden McNabb
6 SOG, -4, 16:54 ATOI
4 Playoff games: Colin Miller
1 assist, 18 shot attempts, +1, 15:33 ATOI
0 Playoff games: Ryan Carpenter, William Carrier, Brad Hunt, Jon Merrill, Tomas Nosek, Malcolm Subban, Alex Tuch   How does that stack up with the rest of the Western conference?  (Sorry I don't have the stats for the Eastern Conference)   Anaheim: 1,336 Individual Playoff games San Jose: 1,138 Individual Playoff games Nashville: 1,016 Individual Playoff games Los Angeles: 928 Individual Playoff games Minnesota: 748 Individual Playoff games Vegas: 480 Individual Playoff games Winnipeg: 264 Individual Playoff games Colorado: 175 Individual Playoff games   So yeah you do make a very valid point  when considering that the Western Conference had Vegas vs. Winnipeg.   You have an excellent post and I might have proved your argument by throwing out the above numbers.  My point is that Vegas has more playoff experience than what some sports are giving them credit for.   Anyway ....Great post!

 

MAF sucks

[FD19372]

1 minute ago, notfondajane said:

MAF sucks

Yet, Matt Murray is playing golf. Oh was that sarcasm?  I'm a little slow. 

[Poulin20]

10 minutes ago, rottenrefs said:

So you dislike Vegas because they're not part of the NHL establishment? Their team was built on players 30 other teams didn't want. Why fault Vegas for something 30 other teams basically had the majority of say in who they acquired?

 

I find posts like this goofy.

 

Nope, I dislike the NHL and their ovexpansion to "goofy" hockey markets (to coin a phrase) where they have trouble garnering support for teams.  I disagree with your comment that this team was built with players that 30 other teams didn't want.  The expansion draft was semi-rigged to ensure that teams had to part with some players they did want to keep but couldn't protect.  You could only protect 9 to 11 players vs the 14 or 15 in years past.  That begs the rhetorical question, why would the NHL do this?  Of course the answer is because they are putting a team in a non-traditional hockey market and they want them to be competitive from the get go to avoid another disaster in the desert like the Coyotes. 

 

As a lifetime fan of free markets and a 35 year fan of one of the "NHL Establishment" teams who has been loyally supporting them through thick and thin with my hard earned money and my time it pisses me off to see the NHL influence / put their thumb on the scale of anything having to do with any one team over another in order to justify their generally idiotic decisions.  The fact that it may result in a nascent fanbase getting to experience the ultimate prize without having to go through the normal ups and downs and growing pains rubs me the wrong way. 

 

Finally who is faulting Vegas?  Did I say or suggest they did anything illegal in their handling of the draft?  I believe I was fairly clear that the league and their leadership was at fault in this case.

[FD19372]

1 minute ago, Poulin20 said:

 

Nope, I dislike the NHL and their ovexpansion to "goofy" hockey markets (to coin a phrase) where they have trouble garnering support for teams.  I disagree with your comment that this team was built with players that 30 other teams didn't want.  The expansion draft was semi-rigged to ensure that teams had to part with some players they did want to keep but couldn't protect.  You could only protect 9 to 11 players vs the 14 or 15 in years past.  That begs the rhetorical question, why would the NHL do this?  Of course the answer is because they are putting a team in a non-traditional hockey market and they want them to be competitive from the get go to avoid another disaster in the desert like the Coyotes. 

 

As a lifetime fan of free markets and a 35 year fan of one of the "NHL Establishment" teams who has been loyally supporting them through thick and thin with my hard earned money and my time it pisses me off to see the NHL influence / put their thumb on the scale of anything having to do with any one team over another in order to justify their generally idiotic decisions.  The fact that it may result in a nascent fanbase getting to experience the ultimate prize without having to go through the normal ups and downs and growing pains rubs me the wrong way. 

 

Finally who is faulting Vegas?  Did I say or suggest they did anything illegal in their handling of the draft?  I believe I was fairly clear that the league and their leadership was at fault in this case.

You mean Glendale, AZ and Miami, FL AREN'T hockey markets?

[jammer2]

28 minutes ago, FD19372 said:

Yet, Matt Murray is playing golf. Oh was that sarcasm?  I'm a little slow. 

 

 Of course, the question of the day/week/month is.....would the Pens still be playing if they sent Murray to the Knights??  It would have been a crazy decision, just based on wage and age alone.....but .....my gut says, they beat the Caps with MAF in net. 

[jammer2]

32 minutes ago, Poulin20 said:

Nope, I dislike the NHL and their ovexpansion to "goofy" hockey markets (to coin a phrase) where they have trouble garnering support for teams.  I disagree with your comment that this team was built with players that 30 other teams didn't want.  The expansion draft was semi-rigged to ensure that teams had to part with some players they did want to keep but couldn't protect.  You could only protect 9 to 11 players vs the 14 or 15 in years past.  That begs the rhetorical question, why would the NHL do this?  Of course the answer is because they are putting a team in a non-traditional hockey market and they want them to be competitive from the get go to avoid another disaster in the desert like the Coyotes. 

 

 

 I honestly believe that the NHL staying in Ariz is all Uncle Gary's ego at work. He cannot, and will not admit he was ever wrong. Even when attendance, local tv ratings, season ticket sales, no one buying commercial time, paint a MUCH different story. He is one of those little guys who actually has Napoleonic tendencies. He is trying to make up ground in the legacy field to offset his small stature....you can see it clearly. 

 

 I actually think Seattle SHOULD come before Quebec. It's a HUGE untapped market, the WHL does great there....hockey is WELL liked. Conquer the great unknown...bring our great game to tons of people that don't know it that well....ie VEGASITES....lol...and Quebec will ALWAYS be waiting....they will always be loyal...seattle first. 

[jammer2]

41 minutes ago, Poulin20 said:

Nope, I dislike the NHL and their ovexpansion to "goofy" hockey markets (to coin a phrase) where they have trouble garnering support for teams.  I disagree with your comment that this team was built with players that 30 other teams didn't want.  The expansion draft was semi-rigged to ensure that teams had to part with some players they did want to keep but couldn't protect.  You could only protect 9 to 11 players vs the 14 or 15 in years past.  That begs the rhetorical question, why would the NHL do this?  Of course the answer is because they are putting a team in a non-traditional hockey market and they want them to be competitive from the get go to avoid another disaster in the desert like the Coyotes. 

 

 

 AND....despite my hatred for Gary.....he has succeeded in growing the league into a legit sport that rakes in some serious cash. NOT NFL or NBA cash...but legit 4th place money. Unfortunately, he has grown the game, but has alienated many old time fans. There HAD to be a middle ground between the clutch and grab era and the sham that is now taking place!!  I know they can't and will never go back, and I don't want to go all the way back...but some middle ground??/  Where you can at least physically impose your will on opponents without going to the box??  

 

 Will never happen....but I would settle for HOME = WHITES   ROAD= DARK....WTF!!!

[jammer2]

Gary to Seattle....650 mill for the OLD expansion rulels....900 mill for the Vegas treatment!!

[rottenrefs]

5 hours ago, Poulin20 said:

 

Nope, I dislike the NHL and their ovexpansion to "goofy" hockey markets (to coin a phrase) where they have trouble garnering support for teams.  I disagree with your comment that this team was built with players that 30 other teams didn't want.  The expansion draft was semi-rigged to ensure that teams had to part with some players they did want to keep but couldn't protect.  You could only protect 9 to 11 players vs the 14 or 15 in years past.  That begs the rhetorical question, why would the NHL do this?  Of course the answer is because they are putting a team in a non-traditional hockey market and they want them to be competitive from the get go to avoid another disaster in the desert like the Coyotes. 

 

As a lifetime fan of free markets and a 35 year fan of one of the "NHL Establishment" teams who has been loyally supporting them through thick and thin with my hard earned money and my time it pisses me off to see the NHL influence / put their thumb on the scale of anything having to do with any one team over another in order to justify their generally idiotic decisions.  The fact that it may result in a nascent fanbase getting to experience the ultimate prize without having to go through the normal ups and downs and growing pains rubs me the wrong way. 

 

Finally who is faulting Vegas?  Did I say or suggest they did anything illegal in their handling of the draft?  I believe I was fairly clear that the league and their leadership was at fault in this case.

If Vegas was rigged for success by the NHL, from the same token one could say previous expansion teams were rigged for failure.

 

In comparison teams used to be able to protect about 2/3's of their team. Now they can protect about half. How they go about it either makes or breaks them. I applaud Vegas for doing their homework from the front office on down. Legitimately they had no top tier players to work with at all and yet they amassed a really decent team.

 

And yes, I too go way back to the 70's as a hockey fan. Back before Lange introduced a ridged boot style skate to help enable weak ankled kids to hit the ice without being on their ankles... lol

[Buffalo Rick]

8 hours ago, jammer2 said:

 

 

 

 You DO realize you are literally wrong every time you post a prediction like that....you can time it like Hailey's Comet...except it comes around every week...LOL...you have literally sealed the Caps fate by predicting they win!!!

You said that when they played the Penguins and Tampa. You are full of crap as usual

[Buffalo Rick]

7 hours ago, Poulin20 said:

 

Nope, I dislike the NHL and their ovexpansion to "goofy" hockey markets (to coin a phrase) where they have trouble garnering support for teams.  I disagree with your comment that this team was built with players that 30 other teams didn't want.  The expansion draft was semi-rigged to ensure that teams had to part with some players they did want to keep but couldn't protect.  You could only protect 9 to 11 players vs the 14 or 15 in years past.  That begs the rhetorical question, why would the NHL do this?  Of course the answer is because they are putting a team in a non-traditional hockey market and they want them to be competitive from the get go to avoid another disaster in the desert like the Coyotes. 

 

As a lifetime fan of free markets and a 35 year fan of one of the "NHL Establishment" teams who has been loyally supporting them through thick and thin with my hard earned money and my time it pisses me off to see the NHL influence / put their thumb on the scale of anything having to do with any one team over another in order to justify their generally idiotic decisions.  The fact that it may result in a nascent fanbase getting to experience the ultimate prize without having to go through the normal ups and downs and growing pains rubs me the wrong way. 

 

Finally who is faulting Vegas?  Did I say or suggest they did anything illegal in their handling of the draft?  I believe I was fairly clear that the league and their leadership was at fault in this case.

I totally agree with the middle paragraph here.

[Buffalo Rick]

9 hours ago, ruxpin said:

I saw no skate in his crease. 

You saw an illegal goal.  Why did the refs not give him a penalty? Makes you wonder if the fix is in.  Washington will overcome this.  They are easily the better team.  They will start to kill them entering the zone.  Its one game.  Go back and see how Washington overcame much tougher circumstances vs battle tested teams like Tampa and Pittsburgh. 

[Math]

When Washington scored their 4th goal, I thought it was over. Fleury allowed as so-so goal, things weren't going in Vegas' direction...

 

And then It happened. Again. Vegas took the victory. Again...

 

The train is reaching nearly its top speed now. And it will be hard to stop it.

[Math]

I just recall Alzner's statement when he joined Montréal: "Montréal is closer to get the Cup than Washington."

 

How do you say ? "lol" maybe... ?

[ruxpin]

28 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

You saw an illegal goal.  Why did the refs not give him a penalty? Makes you wonder if the fix is in.  Washington will overcome this.  They are easily the better team.  They will start to kill them entering the zone.  Its one game.  Go back and see how Washington overcame much tougher circumstances vs battle tested teams like Tampa and Pittsburgh. 

LOL!

 

No, what I saw was a shove.  Let's play hockey.

 

What I also saw was really weak defense by Carlson. He made no attempt to clear the crease.  He skates in there like a faux champ and instead of engaging Reaves or messing with his stick or something in the way of playing defense, he actually gets between Reaves and his own goalie and turns his back to Reaves!  What was that supposed to accomplish other than to create an additional potential screen for Holtby and do nothing to counter Reaves' presence.    Reaves gave him a half-backed shove.  Sure, the refs could have called it if they were calling a nitpick game in the 3rd period of game one of the SCF.   They let at best a borderline call go.   Good for them.

 

Hey Carlson, play some defense, huh?

 

The "better" team choked away game one last night. Let's see if they rebound.

 

 

[Buffalo Rick]

Just now, ruxpin said:

LOL!

 

No, what I saw was a shove.  Let's play hockey.

 

What I also saw was really weak defense by Carlson. He made no attempt to clear the crease.  He skates in there like a faux champ and instead of engaging Reaves or messing with his stick or something in the way of playing defense, he actually gets between Reaves and his own goalie and turns his back to Reaves!  What was that supposed to accomplish other than to create an additional potential screen for Holtby and do nothing to counter Reaves' presence.    Reaves gave him a half-backed shove.  Sure, the refs could have called it if they were calling a nitpick game in the 3rd period of game one of the SCF.   They let at best a borderline call go.   Good for them.

 

Hey Carlson, play some defense, huh?

 

The "better" team choked away game one last night. Let's see if they rebound.

 

 

I cannot read past your stupid sentence "a shove".  WHAT WERE YOU WATCHING?  Eddie O said it and so did Doc Emerick  Everyone saw it except the stinking refs that let it go for some reason?  It sure makes me wonder.  Yet they go to the replay booth over a non goal play hit at center ice on the Vegas player that wound up in concussion protocol.? Why?  

 

Did you not see the same guy that shot the puck in the net CROSS CHECK THE DEFENSEMAN RIGHT IN PLAIN SITE?  What is wrong with you?  Just because you hate Washington does not make it right.  

[ruxpin]

2 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

Yet they go to the replay booth over a non goal play hit at center ice on the Vegas player that wound up in concussion protocol.?

 

They didn't go to replay booth over the Wilson hit on Marchessault. That's fake news.    They're not allowed to consult with video on that play.   They huddled to see who saw what--because a player was hurt.    None of them saw the actual play in this case because the puck was gone so long.  They knew something happened but none of them saw it.   

 

I saw a shove and a borderline call at best.  I'm not calling that there.   If I'm the coach, I'm yelling at Carlson for a really piss poor play.  And stop telling me "Eddie O" said it.   If Eddie O says it's raining outside, I'm fairly confident that I don't need an umbrella.  Emerick was too busy looking at his thesaurus.  Nothing to see here.   Carlson needs to play defense there.

[Buffalo Rick]

16 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

They didn't go to replay booth over the Wilson hit on Marchessault. That's fake news.    They're not allowed to consult with video on that play.   They huddled to see who saw what--because a player was hurt.    None of them saw the actual play in this case because the puck was gone so long.  They knew something happened but none of them saw it.   

 

I saw a shove and a borderline call at best.  I'm not calling that there.   If I'm the coach, I'm yelling at Carlson for a really piss poor play.  And stop telling me "Eddie O" said it.   If Eddie O says it's raining outside, I'm fairly confident that I don't need an umbrella.  Emerick was too busy looking at his thesaurus.  Nothing to see here.   Carlson needs to play defense there.

GO LOOK AT THE REPLAY

[ruxpin]

13 minutes ago, Hockey Junkie said:

GO LOOK AT THE REPLAY

 

I'm sitting here watching it many many times.   Live and slow-mo. 

 

I see an extremely lazy play by Carlson.  I don't know how long he'd been out there or if he was gassed or something, but that was pathetic.

 

Or are you talking about the Wilson thing?   What about it?  They did NOT consult video on that play.

[pilldoc]

8 hours ago, notfondajane said:

MAF sucks

 

We all know your disdain for MAF, but please for the love of god,  please give us something more substantial than "MAF sucks"  Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the post itself,  which by the way, if you would have read in its entirely, dealt with playoff experience.

 

For a player who "sucks" (your own words), he currently owns a 1.81 GAA and a 0.942 SV% with 4 SO.  Where is your Golden Boy? Murray?  Oh yeah ... He had a 2.43 GAA  with a 0.908 SV% and only 2 SO.  Clearly we know the winner here.

Your utter distaste for MAF has blinded you.  So please give me something more than just "MAF Sucks".  I'm waiting ..

[pilldoc]

For the benefit of all .. here is hit on Marchessault...

 

 

Clearly the puck is on another part of the ice and Marchessault is NOT part of the play.  It is a LATE HIT period.  By definition of the NHL Rule Book....

 

Rule 43

– Checking from Behind

43.1

Checking from Behind

– A check from behind is a check delivered on a player who is not aware of the impending hit, therefore unable to protect or defend himself, and contact is made on the back part of the body. When a player intentionally turns his body to create contact with his back, no penalty shall be assessed.

43.2

Minor Penalty

- There is no provision for a minor penalty for checking from behind.

43.3

Major Penalty

– Any player who cross-checks, pushes or charges from behind an opponent who is unable to protect or defend himself, shall be assessed a major penalty. This penalty applies anywhere on  the playing surface (see 43.5).

43.4

Match Penalty

- The Referee, at his discretion, may assess a match penalty if, in his judgment, the player attempted to or deliberately injured his opponent by checking from behind.

43.5

Game Misconduct

– A game misconduct penalty must be assessed anytime a major penalty is applied for checking from behind.

43.6

Fines and Suspensions

- Any player who incurs a total of two (2) game misconducts under Rule 41 and/or Rule 43, in  either the Regular season or Play-offs, shall be suspended automatically for the next game of his team. For each subsequent game misconduct penalty the automatic suspension shall be increased by one game. If deemed appropriate, supplementary discipline can be applied by the Commissioner at his discretion (refer to Rule 28 )

 

Since this will be a topic of much debate, I will start a new thread on this .....

[ruxpin]

8 hours ago, jammer2 said:

 

 Of course, the question of the day/week/month is.....would the Pens still be playing if they sent Murray to the Knights??  It would have been a crazy decision, just based on wage and age alone.....but .....my gut says, they beat the Caps with MAF in net. 

 

 

I could argue this two ways.  The first I'd be agreeing, so we'll set that aside.

 

The other is really just in a form of a question:   Taking nothing away from MAF, how much of this year is about a chip on his shoulder and something to prove?   I'm just wondering if he stays in Pitt does he have the same motivation and maybe not quite the edge he seems to now.

 

 

[pilldoc]

3 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I could argue this two ways.  The first I'd be agreeing, so we'll set that aside.

 

The other is really just in a form of a question:   Taking nothing away from MAF, how much of this year is about a chip on his shoulder and something to prove?   I'm just wondering if he stays in Pitt does he have the same motivation and maybe not quite the edge he seems to now.

 

 

I'll take that one step further.... how many Vegas players are playing with "chips" on their shoulders? After all, every single player on Vegas was exposed by their former teams for a myriad of reasons.