Series Thread: Second Round: Pittsburgh Penguins vs. Washington Capitals

[pixburgher66]

Yeah back to hockey I agree as well. Pittsburg is still in command and their goalie is playing great. I like the Pens in 6 even without Crosby.

Only thing that gives me hope is they were honestly the better team for a large portion of last night, and it took 2 PPGs to win it. Behave and things go well. Of course, thus far in the series the team playing better for a large portion of the game has...lost every game.

 

[elocomotive]

Anyhooo, the stewardess, (I think that's what you call him) brings me a warm pillow.

You call them a Stuart I think.

/#FirstWorldProblems right there

 

[elocomotive]

Only thing that gives me hope is they were honestly the better team for a large portion of last night, and it took 2 PPGs to win it. Behave and things go well. Of course, thus far in the series the team playing better for a large portion of the game has...lost every game.

@ritari330 is correct. Hockey is stupid.

 

[pixburgher66]

@ritari330 is correct. Hockey is stupid.

It was actually amusing last night after the Pens went down watching every fan on twitter saying "They're playing too good, the goals will come...just not getting the breaks." Which eventually came true, of course, but I couldn't help but think "Uhh...this is every Caps fan through the first two games."

 

[ritari330]

I dunno, Pix.

If Sid isn't falling that is just a garden variety cross check below the shoulder blades and may or may not have been a penalty. No one would be talking about this. I'm sure there are some non Pens fans (poor bastards) out there that can pull clips of Sid doing the same or worse. Cross checking players in the crease is part of the game. Our guys do it all the time.

I disagree with everything eloco says though, he just reminded me of that thread from last year. That guy's the worst.

I wish I could remember the tweet, but someone tweeted out that the problem with that hit is more of a league wide problem. In the playoffs, that play is not just the norm, its expected.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

did someone say stewardess???

OT: This is so freaking COOL!

 

[ritari330]

I mean, C'mon!

 

[Darkstone42]

We[re not making him out to be saint, we're just sick of you turning a play into something it wasn't. If you crash a player into the boards it is equally likely to cause pain/injury. That play was every bit as dangerous as Niskanen's and hardly as necessary as it wasn't right at the goal mouth. Your boy got a 2 minute penalty and you claim that was sufficient, our guy got a 5 minute game misconduct and thrown out of the game for a play no more wreckless and dangerous. And even that's not good enough for you.

I think Jared was saying (and I agree with him) that same check happens multiple times every night, especially in the crease. It's literally why they talk about paying the price for going to the "dirty areas." I think guys are just trying to save a goal, clear the traffic, etc. And we see this all the time in hockey... a guy goes for a shoulder hit or a cross check and the guy drops or falls over as its happening and a routine check (even when a penalty) is suddenly more severe. For the record, I could see either no suspension or up to 1 game for Niskanen. I don't see malice, but it is careless. It's a tough call in my book.

Now all that said, I agree with Jared, who by definition can never agree with me. So we've created some kind unending logical wormhole that will likely absorb the universe within a few minutes rendering all of this moot anyway.

There are two distinct issues here.

1. The play happens all the time, and
2. When it results in an injury, players don't take full responsibility for an action which could easily result in an injury (because it happens all the time).

If we're going to just accept cross-checks in the crease, of varying viciousness, as part of the game (which it seems we are), then players likewise need to accept the responsibility for their actions when something goes horribly awry. That doesn't mean it's a suspendable or even finable offense. It just means players should be willing to accept the responsibility for doing a dangerous thing and it resulting in an injury to another player.

Like Niskanen's cross check, Crosby's slash that injured Methot back in the regular season didn't carry any explicit intent to injure, and as such, both are only fringe suspendable offenses. But neither player should hide behind "it happens all the time" to justify it. They both did a thing which could easily have resulted in an injury, and they knew that. Accept responsibility for that action. If you slash down on a guy's stick to try to take it, you're taking the risk that you'll catch them in the hand. If you cross-check a player, you take the risk that you'll get them in a bad spot. In each case, you're just trying to disrupt a player. In each case, the reward of disruption carries the risk of injury, and every player knows that.

The alternative, of course, is to eliminate the behavior altogether. Cross-checking isn't the only way to clear the front of the net, just as slashing isn't the only way to disrupt a puck carrier. Players could find alternatives if these things were consistently enough called penalties to discourage them. But right now, slashing and cross-checking are easy, and they frequently go unpunished--even with minor penalties--so here we are.

 

[elocomotive]

It was actually amusing last night after the Pens went down watching every fan on twitter saying "They're playing too good, the goals will come...just not getting the breaks." Which eventually came true, of course, but I couldn't help but think "Uhh...this is every Caps fan through the first two games."

I've been thinking a lot about how tiny breaks in the game become a narrative at times. And how that narrative often really doesn't tell the story. Milbury was talking after game 1 of this series of how Ovechkin was laying off Crosby and not really hitting him. Now last night you have a game where he gives Crosby a slash. And they paint that player as if his character is different, which you can't tell from just one moment. If Ovechkin didn't hit him and he scores there, maybe OV is blamed for not doing the "dirty work" needed to win a Stanley Cup.

Or in the three games in this series, the Caps could easily be up 2-1 and people are talking about how "this is a different Caps team this year" but when they were down 2-0 they talked about us like a flawed team. Neither is true. They were a very good team last year and are again this year. Either team could have won last year's series and same for this year's series.

That's probably what makes it so hard being a Caps' fan. Knowing these tiny breaks and bounces might have meant a different history, but they just haven't. It's like flipping a penny ten times, it will usually land on heads/tails like 5-5 or 6-4. But every now and again you may get 9 heads and 1 tail. We are the one tail! And it sucks! And there isn't always a nice story to go along with it that provides great insights or some deep flaw to be exposed.

I'm not saying it's all luck either. I just tire of the cliches and strategic insights the commentators and personalities make. I just think it's more often you have two great teams and one does a little better over that two-week period.

 

[pixburgher66]

I've been thinking a lot about how tiny breaks in the game become a narrative at times. And how that narrative often really doesn't tell the story. Milbury was talking after game 1 of this series of how Ovechkin was laying off Crosby and not really hitting him. Now last night you have a game where he gives Crosby a slash. And they paint that player as if his character is different, which you can't tell from just one moment. If Ovechkin didn't hit him and he scores there, maybe OV is blamed for not doing the "dirty work" needed to win a Stanley Cup.

Or in the three games in this series, the Caps could easily be up 2-1 and people are talking about how "this is a different Caps team this year" but when they were down 2-0 they talked about us like a flawed team. Neither is true. They were a very good team last year and are again this year. Either team could have won last year's series and same for this year's series.

That's probably what makes it so hard being a Caps' fan. Knowing these tiny breaks and bounces might have meant a different history, but they just haven't. It's like flipping a penny ten times, it will usually land on heads/tails like 5-5 or 6-4. But every now and again you may get 9 heads and 1 tail. We are the one tail! And it sucks! And there isn't always a nice story to go along with it that provides great insights or some deep flaw to be exposed.

I'm not saying it's all luck either. I just tire of the cliches and strategic insights the commentators and personalities make. I just think it's more often you have two great teams and one does a little better over that two-week period.

You're absolutely spot on with the OV stuff especially. There's no winning in the narrative driven world of sports. None.

 

[forty_three]

He's deflecting responsibility. Intent is one thing, but it's still a reckless play.

Be careful using that word. You may never hear the end of it. No matter how right you are.

I didn't say he deserved a suspension.

I said have a hearing to verify which involves the player and a breakdown of why it is or is not a suspension/fine. That's what I'm saying. Every hearing with a player the NHL has shouldn't involve an action. When the NHL says "a player hearing will happen," they may as well call it a sentencing.

Providing the public with more info on what is NOT a suspension is as important.

Winnah, winnah chicken dinnah!!

If fans of other teams wouldn't stick their noses in here with their comments, the thread would be like, 5% shorter. So much shorter.

I blame the thread immigrants.

We're just doing the jobs the locals refuse to do.

I mean, C'mon!

I wouldn't say he "goes out of his way" to specifically injure anyone, let alone anyone on a specific team. But he does hunt hits that sometimes cross the line into being late, occasionally very late, hits. And he does it more now than in years past. Just like Messier did. I hated it then, and I hate it now.

And it's not just OV. It's Doan. It's Perry. It's Marchand, It's Dubisnky. Lucic. Neal. It's a bunch of other guys. It sucks to see it happen, especially when it winds up contributing to taking out a player that I personally hate, but like to watch manage a game. And especially when some of those guys have the skills to control a game other ways. Dubinsky excluded, of course.

 

[ritari330]

I wouldn't say he "goes out of his way" to specifically injure anyone, let alone anyone on a specific team. But he does hunt hits that sometimes cross the line into being late, occasionally very late, hits. And he does it more now than in years past. Just like Messier did. I hated it then, and I hate it now.

And it's not just OV. It's Doan. It's Perry. It's Marchand, It's Dubisnky. Lucic. Neal. It's a bunch of other guys. It sucks to see it happen, especially when it winds up contributing to taking out a player that I personally hate, but like to watch manage a game. And especially when some of those guys have the skills to control a game other ways. Dubinsky excluded, of course.

That was more about the fact that OVs in a lose-lose position when it comes to the media. He doesn't hit Crosby late behind the net in game 1 and he's criticized. He slashes Crosby on a goal scoring chance in game 3 and he's criticized. Does he deserve criticism for his play sometimes? Absolutely! But it doesn't matter what he does, he'll receive criticism because -Insert long list of reasons here-.

 

[dash]

I think if we try hard enough, we can put OV in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.

 

[Comeds]

I think if we try hard enough, we can put OV in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.

That was one magic high stick.

 

[obxyankeefan]

I think if we try hard enough, we can put OV in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.

Ovi wasn't there, but his dad was Oswald's handler for the KGB.


Trust me I have sources.

 

[ritari330]

Ded.

 

[BGDave]

Ovi wasn't there, but his dad was Oswald's handler for the KGB.


Trust me I have sources.

Oh, he was there.

Tardis.

 

[Judge Fudge]

I think if we try hard enough, we can put OV in Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963.

Is he in the book depository, the walkway or the grassy knoll?


Damnit @dash inquiring minds want to know???

 

[Judge Fudge]

If we also think hard enough. Ov was in the ambassador hotel kitchen as well on the early morning of June 5th 1968

Edited because damn tunnell vison( 68 not 86)

 

[obxyankeefan]

If we also think hard enough. Ov was in the ambassador hotel kitchen as well on the early morning of June 5th 1968

Edited because damn tunnell vison( 68 not 86)

It is a good thing you edited that. I was trying to figure out what the ambassador hotel had to do with the space shuttle blowing up.