Follow @james_tanner123 Narratives never change. Eras change, but once the general public is locked in on a certain way of thinking with a specific team, it's very rare that that can be changed, even when all the evidence points to it.
So what that means leading up to the Ducks and Hawks series is that the Hawks have the experience, that the Ducks lack secondary scoring, that the defense of Chicago - because of Keith and Seabrook - is near unstoppable.
But it also means that the Blackhawks are heavily favored. They have won two of the last five Stanley Cups and are in their fourth Final Four of the last six years.
Weird isn't it? The Ducks finished with a better record and have home ice advantage, and yet everyone is picking the Hawks and the Vegas odds favor them as well.
I think it's because of experience. No doubt experience matters, but I am pretty sure - like 100% positive - that our society values it way too much. People with experience screw up all the time, but whenever an inexperienced person does, it is just so much more convenient to find out what went wrong - it takes two seconds, you just go "oh they lacked experienced, now put on the TV, no way am I thinking this through further."
I mean, yeah the Hawks have experience. Sure. But let's not forget that Ryan Getzlaf and Perry have won literally every team related trophy it is possible to win.
Let us also remember that even if Toews - because he's a possession monster and a two-way king - outranks Getzlaf slightly that the rest of the Duck's centres destroy those of the Hawks.
Brad Richards is 100 years old and about as healthy a choice for a second-line centre as day-old Taco Bell is for your digestive tract. Despite bizarrely leading the Blackhawks in even-strength ice time among centres, so far in these Playoffs, Richards posts just a 45% CF rating, and needed a PDO of 108 just to secure four ES points in 10 games.
By comparison, Kesler has seven points and a 56% possession rating.
On the third lines, we have Richard Rakell vs possibly the most overrated player in the NHL, Antoine Vermette. Not even close here. Rakell is 11 years younger and a much better player.
You wanna talk defense? The Blackhawks supposed strength? Sure, they have Keith and Seabrook, and the Ducks #1 is Francois Beauchemin, so there's no comparison, right?
Well, this is a "narrative" thing again, because there is no way that Beauchemin is in their league, except that he quite clearly is. Now, Duncan Keith is the best player on either team's defense, no doubt about that. But possibly due to the Hawks over-skating their top-four, Beauchemin's playoff stats are comparable to his (Beauchemin has less points but better possession stats).
A look at their regular season stats line shows that Beauchemin and Seabrook are very comparable player's - Seabrook had a 2% higher possession rating, but Beauchemin scored more goals and more points in 20 less games, playing more minutes per night. Most people wouldn't agree with this, because of his stellar reputation, but it's doubtful that Seabrook - in reality - is as good as Beauchemin, who remains incredibly underrated.
Given that so far in these Playoffs the Hawks have skated their top four D more than anyone on the Ducks' defense, on a nightly basis, I think the Ducks may be fresher, deeper and capable of taking advantage.
On the Ducks, only the Vatanen/Stoner pairing are a negative possession duo. However, they are still superior to the Hjalmarsson/Oduya pairing in virtually every way, and Vatanen is also a weapon on the power-play.
So even though the Ducks don't have Duncan Keith, I think their defense is actually a lot better than the Blackhawks' overall.
Goalies?
Is there any doubt that Anderson is a better goalie than Crawford? Any? Cause just from a talent perspective it doesn't seem that close to me. Assuming the Hawks will go with Crawford, it's likely that they aren't even starting their best goalie.....why? Because of experience of course (just ask Jonathan Drouin what he thinks of experience).
Wingers?
This is where the Hawks win right? I mean, Anaheim is just a two player team? They lack depth? Not exactly. Remember, despite their stellar reputations, Sharp, Hossa and Richards are all old dudes. (In hockey terms, at least).
I don't have to remind you of Matt Belesky, because he's tearing it up, but him, Silfverberg and the criminally underrated Andrew Cogliano are the three top possession forwards on either team so far this Playoffs.
Throw in Kesler, Maroon, Palmieri and of course Dr. Perry, and what you have is not a team that lacks secondary scoring, but one of the deepest teams in the NHL at wing.
If you just say Kane/Toews and Getzlaf/Perry are a wash, then the the Ducks have the better forwards overall, I think it's safe to say.
Conclusion
The Ducks have superior goaltending, defense, wingers and centre. They finished the year higher in the standings and have home-ice advantage.
And yet, for some reason, the Hawks are the unanimous choice and the actual betting favorite.
The question isn't will the Ducks win, but only in how few games.