hahaha, turned out almost exactly like game 1.

Thats incredible, the devils have managed to dominate 6 of 9 periods and yet are down 2-1. Should be a rebound in game 4.

rangers run hot activated

outclassed

Nah, according to Pierre it's cause "their grit factor is so massive".

who sets the game time on the same time when the cl final is held....

Wait checking in at halftime from the CL game...how did the Rangers win

there's your answer

BLA BLA BLA RANGERS SUCK BLA BLA BLA DEVILS BEST TEAM EVAAAAAAH BLA BLA BLA SO LUCKY BLA BLA

2-1 BRITCHES, HENKE FOR KING, 2 SHUTOUTS IN 3 GAMES WEEEEEEE MAAAAAAAAAAAAAARTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

PYTHAG 8-3

score 1 goal a game, blame run hot

Well yea, when you have the refs in your back pocket and then run hot, it's almost impossible to lose. Of course, the former helps create the latter as well.

get 82 shots on goal in 3 games, think that 3 goals against is sustainable, become a bandwagon fan, pretend you're no longer a rangers fan once they lose in 7

??

so now how does that stat (PDO? POD?) explain this one?

low shots by rangers (3 goals so high shot %),
very high save % (low gaa).?

obv sss but it seems this is how the rangers plan on playing.

if they plan on playing this way, they will not win the stanley cup. they are not planning on playing this way.

never seen triumph so furious in my life. once c.w. ice gets into the clubhouse i'm sure he'll check in with some butthurt as well

that was an ok game. i'd like to see more than 2 goals but whatever. Rangers buried their chances, Devils did not.

let me rephrase...it seems that is how their plan TURNS OUT. their ACTUAL plan is huge d/superhuman goalie + shots on net, get to the net, make things happen on rushes.

they do NOT have a consistent/effective offensive zone.

i think the kings are more explosive offensively than the devils but quick has never been to the bigtime like this and it's shown. the kings offense and coyotes kinda suckiness has helped. brodeur on the other hand continues to rob people left and right. the low # of sog belie the actual insanity of the chances the rangers had but were robbed.

one random question re: what counts as a sog:
a) puck is shot very wide, goale leaves crease to glove it
b) puck hits the post and goes wide or out of play
c) puck hits the post and comes back and goalie covers it.

i'm assuming a) for some reason counts as a shot as do b) and c) but i think a) should not count and b) is arguable. c) i think has to be a sog but i dont make the rules and i have no idea about this (i can see the logic behind a rule of "if puck is either shot near the net and touched by goalie OR puck hits any part of the goal/goalie, it's a sog" but not sure if that's really what it is)

ok, i'm lying, what i'd like to see is a team that makes me say "wow, they are really really good." i mean, this is the pinnacle of the sport and i watch these teams play and i just think "meh, they're not bad." i'd like to see teams like the past WANGZ, AVS, PENS, whatever. it is what it is i guess and the Rangers are damn good at winning in today's NHL so kudos to them.

none

It's the irony of the whole thing I'm sure. Metrics are having a tough time explaining this effect:

I don't understand the refs comment. In what way were the refs favoring the Rags besides the missed call on the elbow?

there's no question he's been the most consistent (top) goalie for all of his past 7 seasons (4vezina nominations, multiple franchise records broken and 1 BIGTIME nhl record broken). fluctuation of something like 1.95-2.43 gaa and .910-.937 sav% (something like those). look at any other goalie over 7 seasons and nobody is that consistent...except the king.

but metrics do explain that. it shows in the rangers stats as displayed earlier in the thread. i guess the only explanation for both high shot% and high sav% is run hot and just in the rangers case, the high shot% is the one most likely to revert to normal meaning rangers simply have to get way way way way more shots on net than the low 20s to win the cup.

hmmm. interesting. never knew that. what about:
d) puck touches the goalie's jersey (like to the smallest degree you can imagine) and then hits the post?

the letter of the law is that it's a SOG if it would have gone in if the goalie didn't save it (or if it's a goal obviously). so, if in your scenario the shot was going in and the goalie got the smallest piece of it then yes, it's a SOG.

why are you asking? just curious.

sidenote: i remember (around 1990) whenever the Bruins played at home they would just annihilate the opposition in SOG. like, any time the puck left the Bruins' player's stick it was a SOG. random facto. not sure how it is now.