Stanley Cup Finals Game 5 Boston at Chicago

[Son_of_A_Legend]

What are your thoughts?

 

[Zeke]

Thinking the D's both get their heads out of their asses & show up for this one & it reverts back to an under. The books most likely got hammered when they hung out that 4.5 Wednesday. The series was due for some goal scoring. They smartened back up & put a 5 back up there.

I will most likely take the B's though. I know I'll get a shit line from local but even at +120 I'll probably hit it. I wouldn't bet against my B's but even if I didn't give a fuck about them, I could not see laying -150 on the team who has yet to win in regulation.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

If Boston were the better team they'd be up 3-1 in the series at this point. In the biggest game of his life, Tuukka Rask shit the bed.

I'll be posting some stats later in an hour or so relating to the playoff history Boston will be creating if they win this game.

 

[chancedog]

I missed game 4 had to work so I will watch the tape before game 5 but thought it was more the defense the lost the game more than Rask the caused the loss ?

 

[BetCrimes1984]

chancedog - The shot count in Game 4 after the end of reg. was 42 against Boston. Boston's D surrendered 48 regulation shots to Pitt in Game 3 of the ECFs in Boston, and Pitt scored 1 goal. Rask gave up twice as many goals in Game 4 as he had given up in his 6 previous home games. While his D didn't play well (42 reg. shots is the 2nd highest amount they'd conceded at home these entire playoffs) it's not like he hadn't had that happen to him previously (as mentioned, vs Pitt) and not come through it. Certainly the 2 worst goals conceded were by CC, but no one is saying he didn't shit the bed either.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

OK, the stats I mentioned in a previous post.


(1) Boston's streak of no-regulation-losses now sits at 14 games, which ties the all time playoff record. The 1978-79 NY Rangers are the only other team to reach the 14 game mark, but their streak only included 4 OT periods whereas Boston's streak includes a whopping 10 OT periods, which means that Boston actually owns the longest streak on a TOI basis.

The Rangers streak ended on the road in the SCFs, when they lost 6-2 (the most amount of goals they conceded in any of 18 playoff games that season) I think this scoreline is important, because obviously - as I'd imagine in this case with today's Game 5 here re Boston's chances - few people would've believed the Rangers off such a streak of impressive form would be thrashed to such a degree (they'd won their 2 previous games in Montreal by 4-1 & 6-3 scorelines). My take on why they got thrashed has already been expressed when I covered this streak prior to game 2. Such a long streak of playoff form inevitably meets a letdown effort, because no team has an infinite supply of gas in their tanks. One could argue that the fact Boston's tanks are running low on gas was witnessed by the fact that in their last home game they conceded collectively (whether you blame Rusk alone, the defense alone, or hold them both equally responsible) thrice as many goals as they had combined over their previous 3 home games, and conceded more goals in that 1 game than they had to Chicago in the 3 previous combined games of these SCFs.

Bottom line is, as I previously also stated, the longer this streak goes on the harder it will be for them to maintain it. They're human, their fuel tanks don't contain infinite gas. 52 periods is the equivalent of over 17 playoff games without a regulation loss. That's nuts.

From this angle, Boston has to create playoff history to avoid losing this game is regulation.


(2) Only 1 team with home ice advantage has ever gone 5 SCFs games without winning at least 1 of them in regulation (& that team won the SC 4 games to 1, all games going into OT).

(excuse my initial misrepresentation of this stat: I recorded a result from the 50-51 series forgetting to notate the OT aspect of the result.)


(3) Teams playing in the SCFs on the road off a home OT loss in which they conceded at least 4 goals, have gone 1-4 SU in the subsequent road game. All 4 losing teams conceded at minimum 4 goals. The sole winning team was playing to win the SC in that subsequent road game.


(4) Historically when tied 2-2 in finals, the home team has 16-4 record in Game 5.

 

[matteson83]

chancedog - The shot count in Game 4 after the end of reg. was 42 against Boston. Boston's D surrendered 48 regulation shots to Pitt in Game 3 of the ECFs in Boston, and Pitt scored 1 goal. Rask gave up twice as many goals in Game 4 as he had given up in his 6 previous home games. While his D didn't play well (42 reg. shots is the 2nd highest amount they'd conceded at home these entire playoffs) it's not like he hadn't had that happen to him previously (as mentioned, vs Pitt) and not come through it. Certainly the 2 worst goals conceded were by CC, but no one is saying he didn't shit the bed either.

This isnt true. Bruins defense played much worse in game 4 than any game in the Pitt series. The lone goal that should be on Rask was the gwg, he needed to work harder to see that shot. The rest resulted from piss poor play in front of him, whether it was bad pinches, odd man rushes or not being able to clear rebounds. One of the biggest misconceptions is Rask is dominating since the Toronto series ended. Not true at all, Julien's system props up his goaltender's stats. They sit back and make easy saves from low % areas. His rebound control has been poor all post season but the defense is usually there to clear the puck.

You have to be careful noting shot totals when discussing hockey teams playing a style such as the bruins. When playing well, they are fine with giving up larger number of shots because they control the shot location. For years Thomas and Rask have been at the top of the gaa/sv% lists due to this. That said, last time Rask gave up 6+ he posted a shutout his next time out.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

You have to be careful noting shot totals when discussing hockey teams playing a style such as the bruins. When playing well, they are fine with giving up larger number of shots because they control the shot location. For years Thomas and Rask have been at the top of the gaa/sv% lists due to this.

I'm well aware shot totals don't betray everything, but while I didn't see every minute of Game 4, I saw all of Game 3 vs Pitt. Pitt had numerous decent chance after chance after chance that didn't score not because the shots specifically concerned were low % ones, or the D in front of Rask was primarily responsible for their failing to score, hence my comparison of those 2 games: Rask plays against Chicago as he did against Pitt that night, Chicago doesn't win Game 4. Needless to say my opinion of Rask's performance is saying nothing good about the D in front of him: obviously they played their part in 6 goals being conceded, how could they not.

To pick out a 1 goal that wasn't the gwg - the SH goal: 2 attackers with 2 defenders: 1 defender well in front of the closest oncoming attacker, 1 defender trailing by a body length behind the 2nd attacker. Rask displayed no trust in the defender who had the major body position for defense over the initial attacking player (a fact which always indicated he was going to pass to the trailing attacker suffering from less intrusive defensive attention & in far better shooting position, rather even try to begin to shoot through both his own defender and goalie from the angle he was dealing with), so when the pass came - a pass that had no great pace to it when it was slid across well in front of the goal (NHL.com has highlights, go back & see how much pace that pass lacked) - he was horribly slow to react to it and in consequence left himself little time to try and stop the goal. If he had been quicker to react to the pass (which is on him, nothing to do with anything any defender of his did) then he'd have exponentially increased his ability to make a save. If he had reacted more crisply there's no saying Chicago still wouldn't have scored, but that he didn't made the fact of their scoring basically a fait accompli.
This goal was no normal odd man rush score (where 2 attackers, dealing with a solitary trailing defender, engineer a quick bang bang play), the type you can't blame a goalie for.

That said, last time Rask gave up 6+ he posted a shutout his next time out.

I'd take Quick over Rask if I was picking a team (nothing against Rask, I'd take Quick over CC too), and in Chicago's 3 Home Game 5s so far he's the goalie who has conceded the least amount of regulation goals ... but that's still a total that numbers 3. Howard conceded 4 & Minnesota had 2 goalies combine to concede 5. Good luck with expecting a shutout.

FTR, CC has conceded 5+ goals twice this season & consequently conceded 1 goal in both his next starts.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

Thanks to all who added their two cents on this game.

As for myself, I expect Chicago to come out physical and then go up tempo.

I have the home team to win 2.00 units from a -150 line.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

Thanks to all who added their two cents on this game.

As for myself, I expect Chicago to come out physical and then go up tempo.

I have the home team to win 2.00 units from a -150 line.

The Blackhawks so far have been playing a more physical game (1P) and are up 1-0.

As such, I took them to win another unit from a -330 line.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

Anyone betting live should note the following:

In these playoffs, Boston has not trailed after 1 period on the road and ended up winning in regulation.

 

[guaranteeed]

I think Chara is injured

only played 6:49 in the 1st and didn't look sharp, we'll see in the 2nd but his usual is closer to 9

if he's injured the B's are in big trouble

 

[guaranteeed]

and Chara just lost Kane in front of the net on that one...

2-0

 

[BetCrimes1984]

Me thinks someone's long unbeaten in reg. streak is in a bit of trouble. But then that's nothing anyone wasn't warned about before the game began.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

TV highlighting the fact that Bergeron doesn't look right either. Minus Chara & Bergeron being effective, Boston isn't seeing a Game 7.

 

[guaranteeed]

he just took a super short shift, doesn't look right

 

[BetCrimes1984]

Yep, just confirmed Bergeron isn't right.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

I am passing on 2nd Intermission wagering.
The lines are so far away from what I thought they'd be, there is no room for even one mistake.
The best option I could find was game total over 3 but was -338 - that means two goals in the last period and based on what I've seen tonight, no thank you.
I'll stay with what I have and be very happy if they both win.

 

[bloodhound]

I am passing on 2nd Intermission wagering.
The lines are so far away from what I thought they'd be, there is no room for even one mistake.
The best option I could find was game total over 3 but was -338 - that means two goals in the last period and based on what I've seen tonight, no thank you.
I'll stay with what I have and be very happy if they both win.

I AGREE saw a lot i like but nothing i could aford

GL Son

 

[BetCrimes1984]

I don't believe, based on a quick scan of my memory, that these 2 teams have had consecutive scoreless periods.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

I AGREE saw a lot i like but nothing i could aford

GL Son

Thank you and you too.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

I don't believe, based on a quick scan of my memory, that these 2 teams have had consecutive scoreless periods.

I couldn't tell you when but I'm pretty sure it's happened before but won't matter now as it's 2-1. Worse part is, I missed the Boston goal getting the grill set up for after the game. Well, we got a game now.

 

[guaranteeed]

Bergeron on the way to the Hospital

Toews isn't playing, CBC overheard him asking Q for "just 1 shift"

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

Bergeron on the way to the Hospital

Toews isn't playing, CBC overheard him asking Q for "just 1 shift"

That's not good. I know Chicago came out more physical but don't remember seeing him get hit. Hope he'll be okay for game six.

I'm sorry but asking for "Just one shift." is wrong when one can clearly see the guy is hurt.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

They just showed Bergeron's last 10-12 seconds from his last shift. I recall making the comment he might have pulled his groin or quad. Now I'm thinking it's a lower back issue.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

There haven't been any instances of consecutive scoreless regulation periods in this series, but game 1 was a triple OT affair, which meant 2 OT periods of scoreless action.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

There haven't been any instances of consecutive scoreless regulation periods in this series, but game 1 was a triple OT affair, which meant 2 OT periods of scoreless action.

I thought you meant the regular season. :shake:

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

EMPTY NET! Under a minute to play.

 

[guaranteeed]

there it is

3-1

 

[BetCrimes1984]

G-a-m-e O-v-e-r.

S-t-r-e-a-k O-v-e-r.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

But, it's not over. Boston could still play without the netminder to try for a quick pair.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

Your optimism levels are quite alarming.

Congrats all Hawk backers.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

I questioned CC's net-minding the last couple games, so I think it's only fair to state he had pretty good game.
That extra one-on-one glove positioning paid off. I hope he plays at least this well the remainder of the series.

 

[tipyerbartender1]

BC, thanks for the 16-4 stat. I bet the Hawks. Now get to work on game 6.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

Your optimism levels are quite alarming.

Congrats all Hawk backers.

It's not over until the clock reads 0:00.
A quick score off the faceoff and it's back to a one goal game.
Yes, time was the enemy but this season I've seen teams score a pair of goals in under 12 seconds apart.
That was the concern.

Thank you and hope you cashed as well.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

BC, thanks for the 16-4 stat. I bet the Hawks. Now get to work on game 6.

Injuries and updates are needed on this end but would say off the top of my head, take Boston to win the first period as they will be ready and won't go away without a fight.

 

[BetCrimes1984]

BC, thanks for the 16-4 stat. I bet the Hawks. Now get to work on game 6.

No probs. Game 6 is going to be Over 4.5 (the first and probably only 3-2 scoreline of the series). Hawks don't have Rask problems when they put in the work (which they didn't in Games 2 & esp. 3), and Boston won't be held to 1 at home in this elimination spot. That's my call.

 

[Son_of_A_Legend]

Tonight's yeild: 2-0-0 and +3.00 units.

Time to grill.