Aside from getting two of the better markets in the United States, Gary Bettman's probably thrilled that both of his Stanley Cup representatives are very good teams. Granted, it was going to be pretty difficult to get a paper tiger out West -- Los Angeles and Chicago have been two of the best offerings the league has had for years, and other options included San Jose (still an elite hockey team), and St. Louis. Though I gave Anaheim some flak this year for not being as good as the standings suggested, they're still a very good team, too.
So, in the West, you are talking about half of the playoff field being elite caliber, with one (and if you want to stretch it to Dallas, two!) being very good. In the East, the math on getting a truly great hockey team was more unfavorable. Boston's as good as it gets. New York's very good -- probably not in that top-tier, but pretty damn close. That's about it.
I think general consensus here is that the LA Kings -- who out-possess anyone and everyone, and really don't have a noticeable flaw in the skater ranks -- are going to roll up New York. When you run through a San Jose/Anaheim/Chicago gauntlet, New York just doesn't seem as scary a foe. It's understandable, I think.
Now, lord knows I'll carry the water of the LA Kings to hell and back, but I'm not entirely convinced New York's going to just get blitzed in four or five games here. The biggest equalizer, if it even needs to be said, is that New York has a massive goaltending advantage here. For as great as the Kings are, Jon Quick is strikingly average. On the other hand, Henrik Lundqvist is just about as good as it gets.
Even if you think LA will carry about 54% of the play here, beating Henrik Lundqvist is another animal. Especially so when you consider that the Kings, for many spurts of the last three years, have had trouble scoring goals. Their possession dominance has reflected much better on deflating goals against averages, which can just as realistically translate to wins. But, overall, their possession-dominance over the years hasn't translated verbatim to Goal% dominance, and a lot of that is because they've been a very middling team when it comes to shooting the puck. Those of you who suspect their possession-padding style have had a slightly negative effect on their team shot percentage might be right -- to a small degree, anyway.
So, you've got a team that's had trouble at times scoring heading into a match-up where the goaltending disparity is kind of stark. I mean, this tells a pretty impressive story here, and this even includes that weird dip Lundqvist had at the start of the year:
All this to say, I don't think this is a brutal mismatch, although a large part of that is in thanks to the Rangers being decisive favorites in the crease. At the skater level, New York -- a lineup I have written about a lot in the past; it's one I like quite a bit -- is overwhelmed here. I don't see any real way the Stepan line, or any line can not be eviscerated by the Kopitar line for however many games this series lasts. And, as good as the Rangers blue line is (like Chicago, moreso on depth than any one individual player), they've got nothing in the chamber like Drew Doughty. His impact on their success is just as important as Anze Kopitar's -- the possession dominance has turned into goal-dominance now, though, thanks largely to the team waking up in the Sh% department. Which is great for Drew Doughty, because the strength of his game is now reflecting better in the counting numbers that the journos fawn over.
I like LA to take care of this series in six games, but I think the cautionary tale about goaltending disparities and general hockey variance is an important one. For many, these are obvious points.
But, the main thought here? This is a pretty good Stanley Cup match-up. You get, probably, the second-best in the East against one of the three best in the West. And two huge markets. New York/Chicago would've pulled better ratings, but this will still perform.