We already have one .....
- paulr

Jammer isn't even in the same league.

With all due respect, with turnover, I don't see it.

Game 1 in Chicago (Ducks 1-0), 2 F, 1 D not playing in postseason. Gibson goalie
Game 2 in Anaheim (Chicago 4-1), 2 F, 3 D not playing in postseason
Game 3 in Anaheim (Chicago 4-1), 1 F, 1 D not playing in postseason (2nd of b2b)

I also acknowledge Chicago has changed their roster since we last met. I just don't put as much emphasis on regular season stats, since the players that met in the regular season change come the playoffs. Especially game 2 above, where 1/3 forwards are now different, and half the D. Anyway, should be fun. We can agree to disagree.
- quackup

Not sure I understand that. The game becomes tighter checking and more about matchups. But players don't change per se. Sure unsung heroes emerge but your big players have to carry you. The Ducks are awful defensively any way you slice it and the numbers don't lie.

With all due respect, with turnover, I don't see it.

Game 1 in Chicago (Ducks 1-0), 2 F, 1 D not playing in postseason. Gibson goalie
Game 2 in Anaheim (Chicago 4-1), 2 F, 3 D not playing in postseason
Game 3 in Anaheim (Chicago 4-1), 1 F, 1 D not playing in postseason (2nd of b2b)

I also acknowledge Chicago has changed their roster since we last met. I just don't put as much emphasis on regular season stats, since the players that met in the regular season change come the playoffs. Especially game 2 above, where 1/3 forwards are now different, and half the D. Anyway, should be fun. We can agree to disagree.
- quackup

Problem is, the defensemen and forwards not playing then don't solve the overall matchup problem.

I'll spell it out for you.

Between Saad-Toews-Hossa and Bickell-Richards-Kane, who does Kesler go out against? And who stops the other line? Because if you want to go by playoff stats, then you have to accept that in the last round Minnesota had no answer for this. Kane ripped them up.

It seems no Ducks fans yet can process this.

You have not one, but THREE of the best right wings in the game in this series. One for Anaheim, and two for Chicago. Saad-Toews-Hossa is arguably as good (and some would say better) first line than Perry-Getzlaf-Maroon. Bu then on another line, Chicago has the most proven playoff scorer of the last several years who is second only to the Great Corey Perry in playoff scoring 9against two vezina Finalists—since you insist the playoff records matter more).

Defense? Your top pairing guys are #4 guys on Chicago. Chicago has a two-time Norris winner.

Lower line scoring. You have one guy who has had one 20+ goal season. Chicago has 3 guys who have 8 such seasons between them.

The match ups are not good for the Ducks. "Improvement" or no.

Not to mention Q works match ups better, anecdotally admittedly, than Boudreau does. But Q also has the proof as far as what he's won.

Perry on the ice for practice today

I have to agree with True Grit.

I really don’t care what TSN, THN, ESPN, Sportworld, sports net, Kanye West/Bette Midler dot com thinks, or what the analytic breakdown from Stats in your drawers says.

Don’t find solice in who anybody thinks wins, or why.

I have experienced enough Stanley Cup Final Fours to know that each game is totally separate entity and each shift and everyone’s play is what gets a win.

Sure I used to feel comfort in pre-series opinions, but now the way I look at it, is if everyone favored the team I wanted to win, and they lose even one (the first game) those same “experts” start reporting in negative terms about the whys and where-fore,
Conversely the team I am rooting for wins, and it is so very easy to get cocky and think the next three wins will come the same way, and that really isn’t the way Cup playoffs go…teas don’t ro;;over and pucks deflect, bounce, skip, and go dead and the other guys score, besides the times they simply make good plays and beat my guys.

I am not chastising anyone, just trying to be a hawk fan who keeps an even keel. Not gonna go all rah-rah and then return to the board if there are sour moments to critique this player or that.

Not suggesting you all fall in line, just saying let’s play hockey a bit, on the ice, not the board.

I have to agree with True Grit.

I really don’t care what TSN, THN, ESPN, Sportworld, sports net, Kanye West/Bette Midler dot com thinks, or what the analytic breakdown from Stats in your drawers says.

Don’t find solice in who anybody thinks wins, or why.

I have experienced enough Stanley Cup Final Fours to know that each game is totally separate entity and each shift and everyone’s play is what gets a win.

Sure I used to feel comfort in pre-series opinions, but now the way I look at it, is if everyone favored the team I wanted to win, and they lose even one (the first game) those same “experts” start reporting in negative terms about the whys and where-fore,
Conversely the team I am rooting for wins, and it is so very easy to get cocky and think the next three wins will come the same way, and that really isn’t the way Cup playoffs go…teas don’t ro;;over and pucks deflect, bounce, skip, and go dead and the other guys score, besides the times they simply make good plays and beat my guys.

I am not chastising anyone, just trying to be a hawk fan who keeps an even keel. Not gonna go all rah-rah and then return to the board if there are sour moments to critique this player or that.

Not suggesting you all fall in line, just saying let’s play hockey a bit, on the ice, not the board.
- wiz1901

No disagreement here. A prediction is an educated guess at best, not a mandate.

They're valid as much as people love to read them and go out of their way looking for them on the internet and elsewhere.

Caveat emptor. Some are more supported and tied to meaningful insights than others. And who knows how the actual games will play out (to your point).

Let me add, I've been doing these on Hawk series since 2009. My record is pretty good, because I think, I look at the teams, how they play and how the stats bear that out, then match them up. As you know, Wiz, I'm not a genius. but the numbers and styles and match ups tell you things and you can draw generally accurate conclusions form there.

Over the last couple of years, I seems from watching the Blues Hawks games that one of the big differences is that while the Hawks can play a puck possession style, much like the Blues can, the Hawks are immensely better at the opportunistic, counter attack style as well (stretch passes behind the D being a very simple example). The real differences seem to be on the finishing end and on the counter-attacking end. jmho which isn't worth a cup of coffee.

My only point being they can play other styles too when they need to do so.
- stljam

Another point which is not always discussed, but I think is important is the attack dog type of defense the Hawks have played when they have been successful. in 2010 and 2013 when they were at their best all 5 skaters on the ice would close immediately and aggressively on their responsibilities. We saw a bit of that aggressiveness against the Wild, and I think to beat the Ducks they will want to have more of that. Take time away from a talented Ducks offense, and then exploit mistakes in transition.

Today's Interview-
Hawks-Ducks Playoffs on NHL Radio Network with Boomer Gordon http://chirb.it/sDBpbL
- Al

I think that was about as rational an analysis on this series as I have heard to date Al.

Whoever establishes dominance down low in the other team's defensive zone will likely win this series. Crawford and the Hawks' 3rd and 4th lines can be the difference makers over the long haul.

I think that was about as rational an analysis on this series as I have heard to date Al.

Whoever establishes dominance down low in the other team's defensive zone will likely win this series. Crawford and the Hawks' 3rd and 4th lines can be the difference makers over the long haul.
- RickJ

I agree, and I said it in another comment in this thread or the last, whichever team succeeds in getting—and keeping—pucks behind th opponent's defense has the advantage.

I also agree that the lower lines for Chicago could make a huge difference.

Kruger, as far as giving Q another option versus Getzlaf and just doing what that line does so well—keeping other teams pinned in their end.

And Vermette, because if that line can get something going offensively, lookout, now it a HUGE matchup problem for Boudreau. The elements are there with Sharp and TT on the wings. There were flashes against the Wild.

You've really left me no choice, since you refuse to read the blog and about 10 comments where I not only cite pretty much al the statistics, but ask you to cite yours.

So, I will summarize one mote time:

Regular season possession stats (5 different ways), special teams, GF, GA, head to head, who scored head to head, goalies head to head, and yes, I even cite the Duck power play and goaltending in the playoffs.

The playoffs however, are a tiny sample size, more than nine times smaller than the regular season, and only involves two teams, two different teams than Chicago faced.

Further, we saw how flawed playoff stats are when Minnesota got blitzkrieged in round 2.

So it is you who is being selective. And you who are trolling and earlier in the thread overtly disrespecting the blogger, and still playing the same game.

So this is where it ends. See ya.
- John Jaeckel

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=60102

But all that said, the Kings were 0-3 versus the Hawks this season after dropping the WCF in 5 games last year. They just do not match up well with the Hawks' speed and depth.

By reputation, the Kings and Jonathan Quick get the edge in goal, but not so fast. It was Quick who withered under the (albeit more potent) Chicago attack last Spring. And Chicago netminder Corey Crawford has been dialed in all along in these playoffs, carrying the Hawks at times in a challenging second round series versus Minnesota. Crawford, it seems, has laid the demons of his 2012 playoff failures to rest, and now seems supremely confident and ready to step up if the defense in front of him falters.

Just gonna leave this here...Pretty decent read from last year.

I think that was about as rational an analysis on this series as I have heard to date Al.

Whoever establishes dominance down low in the other team's defensive zone will likely win this series. Crawford and the Hawks' 3rd and 4th lines can be the difference makers over the long haul.
- RickJ

Personally, I think people are not taking the ugly uniform factor into account here. The Ducks will be so demoralized when the look across the ice and see those beautiful uniforms that it has to be worth a half a goal a game.

As you know, Wiz, I'm not a genius. but the numbers and styles and match ups tell you things and you can draw generally accurate conclusions form there.
- John Jaeckel

No beef with you or anyone...just getting the same antsy worries that I get as a fan.

Can't stand this wait, the banter, the pre-game, and the talk.

LOL, I am shutting down.

Problem is, the defensemen and forwards not playing then don't solve the overall matchup problem.

I'll spell it out for you.

Between Saad-Toews-Hossa and Bickell-Richards-Kane, who does Kesler go out against? And who stops the other line? Because if you want to go by playoff stats, then you have to accept that in the last round Minnesota had no answer for this. Kane ripped them up.

It seems no Ducks fans yet can process this.

You have not one, but THREE of the best right wings in the game in this series. One for Anaheim, and two for Chicago. Saad-Toews-Hossa is arguably as good (and some would say better) first line than Perry-Getzlaf-Maroon. Bu then on another line, Chicago has the most proven playoff scorer of the last several years who is second only to the Great Corey Perry in playoff scoring 9against two vezina Finalists—since you insist the playoff records matter more).

Defense? Your top pairing guys are #4 guys on Chicago. Chicago has a two-time Norris winner.

Lower line scoring. You have one guy who has had one 20+ goal season. Chicago has 3 guys who have 8 such seasons between them.

The match ups are not good for the Ducks. "Improvement" or no.

Not to mention Q works match ups better, anecdotally admittedly, than Boudreau does. But Q also has the proof as far as what he's won.
- John Jaeckel

And here is where I agree. The argument was regular season stats, which is where I argued aren't that relevant now. How we match up is, and yes, it is a problem. Also, Q has "been there, done that", where BB is entering new territory. Again I agree.

I think the Ducks only hope is to exploit your third pairing (acknowledging they will have limited ice time), and wear down your top 2D. Nobody said it was going to be easy. And our young D have to somehow slow you guys down. May not be doable. But then again......

Personally, I think people are not taking the ugly uniform factor into account here. The Ducks will be so demoralized when the look across the ice and see those beautiful uniforms that it has to be worth a half a goal a game.
- Elbows15

This is a theory that I haven't seen put forth before and clearly there is merit to it. Lets term it Uniform Depression.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=60102





Just gonna leave this here...Pretty decent read from last year.
- nurk

OK, here's the problem. Kings were a #6 seed (old system), Ducks #1 seed this year. Point being, they clearly improved in the playoffs (they also had a track record of doing so—my bad in not seeing that). The Ducks are not so proven in that regard. Yep, they beat up on the two weakest teams in these playoffs. But again . . .

Regular season record was an ACCURATE indicator that the Hawks would beat Minnesota this year—and especially that Kane would rip Minnesota up. And that happened.

So, while you have a point, it doesn't categorically prove anything except that regular season (head to head) records didn't matter that much in the WCF last year. I have just shown you that it did in at least one playoff series this year. So, that proves nothing.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=60102





Just gonna leave this here...Pretty decent read from last year.
- nurk

Before you run up the stairs from the basement singing "Gonna Fly Now".....

You do realize last year's WCF was decided in OT of game 7, right?

Before you run up the stairs from the basement singing "Gonna Fly Now".....

You do realize last year's WCF was decided in OT of game 7, right?

- tredbrta

Looks like these "experts" agree . . .

http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...erence-finals-predictions

OK, here's the problem. Kings were a #6 seed (old system), Ducks #1 seed this year. Point being, they clearly improved in the playoffs (they also had a track record of doing so—my bad in not seeing that). The Ducks are not so proven in that regard. Yep, they beat up on the two weakest teams in these playoffs. But again . . .

Regular season record was an ACCURATE indicator that the Hawks would beat Minnesota this year—and especially that Kane would rip Minnesota up. And that happened.

So, while you have a point, it doesn't categorically prove anything except that regular season (head to head) records didn't matter that much in the WCF last year. I have just shown you that it did in at least one playoff series this year. So, that proves nothing.
- John Jaeckel

which proves what multiple people have been trying to get across to you

Jammer isn't even in the same league.
- Elbows15

Should I be offended or not?

Looks like these "experts" agree . . .

http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...erence-finals-predictions
- John Jaeckel

This is so freaking hilarious. Apparently some people's lives have become so meaningless, so mundane, they nothing better to do than call out a blogger for not batting 1.000.

Looks like these "experts" agree . . .

http://espn.go.com/nhl/st...erence-finals-predictions
- John Jaeckel

But McCann called the Ducks the prohibitive favorite. He better fire the intern that wrote that blog....

Hard not to pick the Hawks the way they rolled a Wild team that had some serious momentum. Add the experience factor (coach, goalie and players) and the stats you have mentioned and it gets even more difficult.

Officiating, the ability of Kesler and others to possibly hurt key players (that is Kesler's style still - particularly when he is losing) and their more mobile defense make this still a toss up to me. All of those are hard to quantify though. I also called the Wild a tossup so I might as well stay non-committal until the Hawks win everything.

which proves what multiple people have been trying to get across to you
- nurk

Still phonics challenged in Philly? "So that proved nothing" was actually saying YOU and/or the point you were trying to make proved nothing. Which you/it didn't.

Should I be offended or not?
- stljam

I wouldn't.

It's been said before in this thread, but I think (JMHO) that Vermette is the key to this series. (If one player can be) Not to score, but to win faceoffs, get pucks to TT and Sharpie and to collapse down and be the third defender.

I know people have been disappointed, but I think this is AV's best role on this team. D, FO and Dish.

It's no doubt going to be a good series, but on paper...the 'hawks should win in 6 or 7.

which proves what multiple people have been trying to get across to you
- nurk

I see, so you offer ONE case where season head to head didn't accurately (completely accurately) reflect how the series went—and that just renders that invalid. But 9 games against two different sets of opponents is valid?

OF COURSE there are numerous factors that occur in playoff series that are different form the regular season head to head. Start with injuries. Fact: the Hawks were way more banged up in the WCF than most realized. At least three top guys should not have been playing at all. Maybe 4. Not an excuse for how they played, but helps explain why they lost.

Again, this isn't about the actual point. It's just playing gotcha.

Do this whole board a favor. Give it a rest.

See the link I posted above, go email the 13 our of 14 ESPN analysts who are taking Chicago. Tell them regular season and head to head don't matter. Oh, yeah, SAP Stats on nhl.com? Guess what they're using? Regular season stats. Why? I've already explained. You're the one who isn't listening.