(Get) A Sporting Life

That is the only word that can be used to describe the Blues' performance this Stanley Cup Playoff season. The sad fact is the Blues are lucky to be still playing. The Blues didn't really win either of the first two games of this series against the Kings. In reality Quick brain cramped them away. The best the Blues have been able to muster this postseason is to put themselves in a position where they are only two fortuitous bounces away from winning or one bad bounce away from losing. At no point last night did I believe the Blues were going to win that game. You could see it coming. Even when Pietro scores with 41 seconds remaining to send the game to overtime, it only had the feel of postponing the inevitable. Our forwards do not play well enough for us to win tough games in the playoffs. Period. As a group they have combined for just four even strength goals in five games. I don't care how well you play defense, you cannot win consistently without better offensive pr...

...and all I can do is wish him luck in the attempt. I think this bodes ill: Hitchcock reunites CPR line for Game 5 Ken Hitchcock took the "C" out of the CPR line in Game 4 and it wound up being a bad "PR" move. After the Blues 4-3 loss to LA in Game 4, many were lamenting the absence of Adam Cracknell in the lineup. Cracknell's replacement on the fourth line was Vladimir Tarasenko, who played only 5 minutes, 51 seconds in the game. Hitchcock's intent with Tarasenko was thought out. A couple of the Blues' top forwards are banged up, and Tarasenko's availability would give the Blues a safety net, moving him up higher in the lineup if they couldn't continue. Which confirms that Hitch had no intention of playing Tarasenko meaningful minutes unless someone got hurt and was unable to play. That is bullshit. I have no problem with Cracknell getting back into the lineup, he never played his way out of the lineup. My problem is Andy ...

I hate writing about a loss. It makes me angry at the time and brooding upon it later doesn't help. As far as I can tell, when it comes to sports, there is no such thing as catharsis. So, I'll make a couple of points about the Blues excrementally bad Game Four and move on. 1. Hitch screwed up the insertion of Tarasenko. Period. He got it wrong. I don't care how many games he has won as a coach he fucked this up. The Blues would have been better off keeping Cracknell in than using Tarasenko the way they did. Cracknell would have contributed, Tarasenko was not given a chance to contribute. So, what's the point of playing him? To shut up the fans who think scoring an average 1.67 goals a game is no way to win in the playoffs? Really? 2. McDonald has been terrible. Bench worthily bad. 3. The D sure did pick a shitty time to play their worst game in the last 20 Blues contests. Some individual blunders were worse than others (there was one pinch that led to a 3-on-1 th...

From the PD : Tarasenko, who was a healthy scratch in the first three games of the Western Conference series, will take the place of Adam Cracknell in the lineup. A right winger normally, Tarasenko will start out on the left wing on the fourth line with Chris Porter and Ryan Reaves. Cracknell was one of the obvious choices to sit, as evidenced by the fact even someone as dumb as myself predicted it. That being said I hate slotting Tarasenko into the fourth line. I suppose the idea is to limit his minutes 5-on-5 and still have him available for a spot shift on another line or on the power play. However, this really could hurt the play of a fourth line that was a real asset on the ice. The Kings are not able to roll out their fourth line as often. They just aren't good enough to keep from getting exposed. Over the course of a playoff series this advantage could payoff hugely, as hard minutes can be lifted from our other lines who will be fresher later in the series. I'd mu...

The question of the day, as it pertains to the Blues/Kings playoff series at least, seems pretty clear: does anybody have anybody exactly where they want them? Hell if I know. On the one hand, there is no doubt that the first three games have followed a preferred script for the Blues. They have been hard hitting, tight checking, well goal-tended affairs with few scoring chances and no open ice. I also think they may be giving me an ulcer. Seven total goals in three games results in contests where there is precious little margin for error. If either team ever gets a two goal lead that will signal the first moment where a team gets to take a breath. I realize the Blues will not want to change a whole lot going into Game Four. They've been good and the basic game plan they are working with is a proven winner. However, being shutout in Game Three underscores a basic fact about hockey: you need to score more goals than the other guy to win. To that end I hope Hitch decides tonig...

Through one period of Game One of the Stanley Cup finals and the refs are not allowing the Red Wings to interfere off the puck, trip the goaltender, or hold Penguins up after they dump the puck in. In other words, they are actually calling the game as the rulebook says they should. Miracles do happen.

Some random thoughts: The Ottawa forwards had an off night. Spezza in particular looked terrible. I'm wondering if the nine day lay-off took its toll there. Heatley is gonna have to decide if he is a hockey player or a South American soccer forward. He can't keep falling to the ice every time he gets breathed on. His flopping is an embarrassment. Despite what the folks on Versus said, I didn't think either goalie let in a soft goal. Getzlaf did a great job making Emery think he might pass the puck and then slid that nice backhand shot by the goalie. You have to tip your hat to the forward there. Anaheim's physical play did seem to knock the Sens back on their heels, but I expect we will see Ottawa improve and compete better in game two. Surprise, surprise! Brad May CAN still play effective hockey! Who knew?

I'm gonna assume there will be no "goal disallowed" shenanigans in the finals. Though, why I can just assume that even I'm not sure. (Brett Hull's Cup clinching "goal" anyone?) I'm just gonna hope for a well officiated Finals. So lets break down these teams, shall we: Goaltending : Everything starts with the net minders. Even in the "new" NHL, good goalies are gonna stop 91-94% of the pucks thrown at them. So it is Ottawa's Emery against the Duck's Giguere. Emery has gone 12-3 in the playoffs with 3 shutouts and a .919 save percentage. Giguere has gone 9-3 with no shutouts and a .931 save percentage. GASL will give a slight advantage to Anaheim here. Giguere played a bigger role in getting the Duck's to this point then Emery has. Emery has yet to face real adversity in these playoffs, while Giguere came up huge against Detroit. Anaheim +1 Defense : Both Ottawa and Anaheim have deep bluelines. Ottawa's defensemen have picked...

Good God. Senators get yet another goal for an opponent disallowed. They get what could charitably be called "questionable" penalty calls to give them a two-man advantage to take a lead. (To my mind one of those penalties was questionable, the other was a complete and utter joke.) Alfredsson gets no call on an obvious boarding call that was borderline for being a major penalty. AND they get a winning goal off of a draw that looked like the linesman was throwing the puck backward. (Did that look like a fair draw to anyone???) For all of those who say that all the breaks "even out," I defy you to look at the last three months of Ottawa's season and see anything evening out.