11/17/24
June 09, 2002
They can't win them all in overtime.: Carolina loses to Detroit in the 3rd overtime. Can they come back? Have they shown that they aren't the pushovers we all thought them to be? Does anyone else think Erik Cole look just like a garden gnome with his playoff beard? So many questions.
posted by Samsonov14 to hockey at 12:35 AM - 15 comments
Dammit. I have to agree with the hilarious Erik Cole assessment though. Game 4 is do or die.
posted by insomnyuk at 01:13 AM on June 09, 2002
Oh, and that was a long game, 3rd longest in Finals history.. I have this theory about watching hockey, and I admit I'm now superstitious about the whole thing. About 10 seconds before Larionov scored the game winner, they popped on the screen a stat showing that this game was the 3rd longest in NHL Stanley Cup Final History, with only 20 seconds before it would overtake the number 2 game. Bill Clement then said "that's a record I have no desire to see broken," Gary Thorne laughed, and a light went off in my head (I know, it's rare). I said, oh my god, they just jinxed the game. Larionov promptly shelfed it. It's as if the commentators, in a grand conspiracy with the NHL Illuminati, have a little red button they can push, determining the outcome of an overtime game. I know this sounds like insane, incoherent rambling, but this isn't the first time, and its starting to freak me out. The announcers should just shut up. I need to start documenting this as it happens... yeah...
posted by insomnyuk at 01:17 AM on June 09, 2002
Ahhh yes, the good ole' announcer jinx. Works every time they mention a goalie's shut-out streak. Anyway, the first game was good... but the second one was even better (eh, 1st-3rd overtime being the second game). Not bad for a bunch of old geezers, though it did seem as though they started to fatigue late in the 2nd OT -- when Carolina was completely all-over them. If the period was five minutes longer, I think that Carolina would have won it right there.
posted by mkn at 01:24 AM on June 09, 2002
Succa: I was wondering when the standard "those old guys can't hang" argument was going to be thrown out again. I heard it during the Vancouver series and the Colorado series. The oldest player in the league just scored the game winner in a triple overtime game. It's the finals: they're playing for the holy grail of hockey, and at that age you may not get another chance. You find that extra step in you if you really want it. Even though the Canes are a much stronger team than anyone anticipated, Irbe is the only thing keeping them in the series at this point in time. I said that he couldn't stand up to Detroit's firepower in an earlier thread, I was wrong.
posted by tj at 01:38 AM on June 09, 2002
insomnyuk: "There is only one team who can win this now"
This commentator jinx thing apparently applies to all sports. I like hockey. I watch it on Channel 5 if I don't have to get up for work the next day (it's on "live" at about 1am here in England). What this article did illustrate to me though is a) the American obsession with stats - what the hell is all that about? b) this habit of playing "series" between two teams. What's wrong with just a final?
posted by squealy at 04:57 AM on June 09, 2002
Good call about the garden gnome. The weird thing is that in high school he had no beard at all. Not even close. But after Bertuzzi, who was out in round 1, he definitely has the thickest beard in the playoffs. Pretty good for a rookie. Now if only he'd snap the 9 game pointless streak since the montreal series.... Actually the weirdest thing about watching him on TV is that on the bench, as the young guy, he totally looks awestruck and almost timid, which is the absolute opposite of the cocky arrogant guy he was growing up. Sort of weird to see. I thought that Carolina deserved to lose that one in the first and second OT... then they picked it up late in the 2nd and through the 3rd, but as soon as they said something about the long game, it ended. Detroit deserved to win, so I'm not complaining. I think it could have been a backbreaker. If they had pulled it out, they had a chance, but now the wings will do it in 5, maybe 6 if the canes get lucky. They'll be close, but at this point I don't really have any confidence that they'll pull it out.
posted by Bernreuther at 01:50 AM on June 10, 2002
tj: "I said that he couldn't stand up to Detroit's firepower in an earlier thread, I was wrong." Of course, the goal posts seem to be doing a lot of the work for him. squaly: "...this habit of playing "series" between two teams. What's wrong with just a final?" The thought is that the "wrong" team can win any particular game by luck, but that the "best" team will win over time. Benreuther: "I think it could have been a backbreaker." Oh, it was a backbreaker. Just not for the Wings.
posted by jmpeterson at 08:12 AM on June 10, 2002
the Wings have lots of old guys who will probably be very sore two days from now. The only thing older than the Wings is the conception that they are too old. According to the Detroit Free Press, the 'Canes were taking fluids intraveneously between periods. What did the Red Wings do? Drink Pedialyte, the stuff you give kids when they have the runs to keep nutrients and vitamins in their system. And they had some bananas and oranges. Playing with experience and skill also means that you don't wear yourself out as much because you have the wisdom to have better position and not have to hustle as much. That is why Lidstrom can log those insane minutes and doesn't seem to get worn out at all. Mitch Albom did a great piece today about the series, begging for the Avs to be granted the right to play in the last few games. It seems like the trap that the 'Canes play is the great equalizer in hockey: it allows anyone disciplined enough to follow it to compete, and it bores the watchers to tears. But hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to win, I just consider it a crying shame compared to the Detroit/Avs series, the best I have ever seen. It's like being in a coma, this series. Hull said it best: I'd rather be old and wise than young and dumb, and we all know that age and treachory will prevail over youth and skill. I predicted a sweep or at least a blowout, and I too was wrong. I am just disappointed that the choppy play is not showcasing the talent in this series on the Wings like it did in the Avs series. This is horrible hockey, if you ask me, and if the Wings swept the series and the play was still the same, I would be saying the same thing. That said, I would like to now reiterate my desire for the abolition of ties in hockey during the regular season, and to do away with this multiple overtime crap. One overtime session, followed by a shootout. I can hear the critics now: "But that would hand the victory to the team with the better goal-scorers and most skill!" Tough. That is exactly my point. This multiple overtime crap is just sadistic.
posted by adampsyche at 08:46 AM on June 10, 2002
age and treachory will prevail over youth and skill. I meant to say "youth and guile." Insert standard apology for mistake, wtih emphasis blamed on a lack of sufficient caffeine this morning. Maybe I should take a page from the 'Canes book and ingest my coffee intraveneously.
posted by adampsyche at 08:57 AM on June 10, 2002
One overtime session, followed by a shootout. A playoff hockey game should not be decided by a skills competition. It's like replacing overtime in the NBA playoffs with a dunk contest. As a Stars fan, I loved hearing the opponent's local media complaining about the neutral zone trap. I don't think it's an equalizer, though -- only a handful of teams can win with that style because it requires talent, endurance, and a psychotic level of commitment to the philosophy. When the Stars stopped buying into it because they were tired of Coach Hitchcock, their trap didn't even equalize things enough to get them into the playoffs.
posted by rcade at 10:07 AM on June 10, 2002
A playoff hockey game should not be decided by a skills competition. It's like replacing overtime in the NBA playoffs with a dunk contest. I don't totally agree. Four periods of hockey followed by a shootout seems fair enough to me. If you can't put it away during that time, have a shootout, and your goalscorers will be allowed to be goalscorers and your goaltenders will be allowed to either win it for you or lose it for you. This is one part of the Olympics that I actually like. You have a point with the Stars example. Thing is, everyone these days plays a trap of some sort. The Avs had the best defensive record this season (lowest GAA), but they didn't do the mugging and absolute obstruction that the 'Canes are doing this year. I agree that it takes a level of dedication and discipline to play an effective trap, and that defense wins championships, but it is a shame to watch. I do think it is somewhat of an equalizer: it got the Wild to effectively compete this year, and win a few games they had no business in. I think there is a difference between clutch and grab and a trap. It is a shame that the worst of hockey is being shown in what should be the best of the year. It is bittersweet; I want to watch and cheer, but have a hard time getting up the emotion after such a great preceeding series.
posted by adampsyche at 10:34 AM on June 10, 2002
rcade: two minutes in the box for incorrect assumption. The nuetral zone trap does not require talent. Lining four guys (any four guys) up along the blueline is not a stroke of genius. The reason that the Stars were successful with it is that they actually had some talented offense that could perform in spite of the system they played. It's boring hockey as well. (then again, I don't expect much hockey knowledge from Dallas)
posted by tj at 04:53 PM on June 10, 2002
The nuetral zone trap does not require talent. Lining four guys (any four guys) up along the blueline is not a stroke of genius. That is not the trap. Not at all. The trap is much more complex than that, and it starts at the offensive blue line, not at the defender's. It involves three guys converging on the puck carrier while the defence hangs back. Different teams play different styles of trap. For example, the Devils play a completely smothering, aggressive trap, while the Canes, Senators, and others play a more relaxed trap that preys on bad passes.
posted by Succa at 08:25 PM on June 10, 2002
Wow, that was a nasty hit by Fischer.
posted by adampsyche at 10:16 AM on June 11, 2002
baby jesus: *cries* I thought the Canes were going to take this one, I really did. I still think it's good for them, though...the Wings have lots of old guys who will probably be very sore two days from now. I still think the Canes will make a series of it.