Rite of Spring 2013 (NHL Playoffs): "You have no fear of the underdog, that's why you will not survive."

[CS85]

I'm not a Kings fan, but if Raffi Torres' NHL season is over, the world is a better place.

[Kevin W.]

I'm not a Kings fan, but if Raffi Torres' NHL season is over, the world is a better place.

And tomorrow, the Blackhawks have the chance to send Todd Bertuzzi home.

[CS85]

I'm not a Kings fan, but if Raffi Torres' NHL season is over, the world is a better place.

And tomorrow, the Blackhawks have the chance to send Todd Bertuzzi home.

[Kramerica Industries]

Not that I've ever defended Bertuzzi's actions, or have any desire to; I think it's all-to-easily forgotten that Steve Moore was also a total douchebag who probably deserved something in the form of a comeuppance for his cheap shot on Naslund. Just not in the form of a career-ending broken neck injury, of course.

[dbadefense1990]

I'm not a Kings fan, but if Raffi Torres' NHL season is over, the world is a better place.

And tomorrow, the Blackhawks have the chance to send Todd Bertuzzi home.

That bastard is still playing??? Holy God are hockey players durable.

[Sodboy13]

Steve Moore wasn't

[CubsFanBudMan]

I just realized that if the Kings and Hawks advance, then it will be the last 4 champions in the final four.

As it is, the last 5 champs are in the final 5.

[Eye]

Same ol' Sharks

A 2-goal lead is nothing in hockey. I'd be shocked if the Sharks didn't get back in it soon.

The 2-goal lead is the most dangerous to have in hockey/soccer.

If you lead by 1 goal, then it's just a close game where anything can happen, and there's plenty of time for anyone to be a hero.

If you lead by 3+ goals, then it's a safe lead where a comeback would probably take too long.

If you have a 2-goal lead, when you allow the 1st goal, not only your lead is chopped in half, you lose all momentum, to where the other team can use it to grab the 2nd goal. At that point, your team is screwed.

So, instead of being up by two, you'd rather be up by one? You can't be serious.

[DaRadniz29]

Oh well, was mad for about 25 minutes, then I got over it. Really no surprise. Didn't expect the Sharks to win the cup this year but they played their hearts out. Yet another year of "your team choked" monikers. Whatever. Niemi is awesome, but when is Greiss going to get a chance? I think if the Sharks don't hurry, he'll be off to (insert team here). Next season will be a full season, new division, new playoff format. So we will see. Will be interesting to see who out of this team is still on the team next season. I'm going to root for Crankshaft and I guess by association, the Penguins. It would be great if Murray could get a cup. I know the moves had to be made, but imagine if Clowe and Murray on the team for at least locker room presence? Those two guys were pretty much beloved by the team and the fans. Maybe one day they will be back.

Best of luck to the remaining teams in the playoffs. Time to move onto Baseball. Coming up CWS. Go Gators. My St. Louis Cardinals are doing good, so I've got that.

[dbadefense1990]

One final note of this Kings-Sharks series before it's put in the archives: no matter how its sliced, home did matter. Home mattered more than anyone thought of. Los Angeles' remedies were at Staples Center, while San Jose's remedies were at HP Pavilion, point and simple. The regular season finale and how it eventually dictated this series placed a greater emphasis on the season, on how you finish it off, and the tone set on protecting home-ice.

I am very proud of the Kings, but have gained tons of respect to the Sharks and their fans. No, I'm not going to call their loss this time a "choke job" since they were incredibly equal to Los Angeles. All the breaks, all the board checks, all the goaltender traffic to Niemi and Quick; it seemed that San Jose was nearly a clone of Darryl Sutter's gameplan for the Bay Area hockey team. But it all came down to this Game 7, and when the series reached its climax, it's the Kings who had their ace, in Staples Center, and used it to complete a defeating hand to the Sharks' party-crashing hopes. But best of luck to Niemi, to Joe Thornton's menacing way of winning face-offs, to Logan Couture terrorizing the Kings on the power-play, and to others like Scott Gomez (seriously, he's still playing?), M.E. "Pickles" Vlasic and other fellow Sharkies who gave the Kings all they can handle. Enjoy the off-season in peace, while LA prepares for a battle against a team from the Midwest, for the right to go to the Stanley Cup Final.

And now that this series is over, I think this song best captured the mood set by both the Kings and Sharks throughout these seven games:

[dbadefense1990]

Same ol' Sharks

A 2-goal lead is nothing in hockey. I'd be shocked if the Sharks didn't get back in it soon.

The 2-goal lead is the most dangerous to have in hockey/soccer.

If you lead by 1 goal, then it's just a close game where anything can happen, and there's plenty of time for anyone to be a hero.

If you lead by 3+ goals, then it's a safe lead where a comeback would probably take too long.

If you have a 2-goal lead, when you allow the 1st goal, not only your lead is chopped in half, you lose all momentum, to where the other team can use it to grab the 2nd goal. At that point, your team is screwed.

So, instead of being up by two, you'd rather be up by one? You can't be serious.

Let's take tonight's game, for example.

I'd rather want the goal sequence to be LA-SJ-LA, rather than what actually happened, when the Kings raced to a 2-0 lead but got its lead sliced in half. If the two teams exchanged goals every other pass, then I'd take solace in knowing that both game-plans are pretty even, and that it'll take the courageousness of one player to breakthrough. But get a two-goal lead and have it trimmed, and not only does the other team get new life, but nerves start to rattle on the other bench, and that nervousness reaches the playing field. Take a look at how much work Quick had to do after the San Jose goal for proof; the Kings were rattled, San Jose saw through Sutter's defense, and they went all-out in trying to tie the game, but couldn't.

See, I'm one of those people who believes in the "broken axle" theory in sports; allow one error and the floodgates gradually, and painfully, get a team to be doomed. And one of my teams did experience such "broken axle" loss of losing exactly a 2-goal lead (MLS Cup 1996).

[Still MIGHTY]

All of what this blabberass is trying to say is succinctly thus:

A two goal lead is the most dangerous because it's big enough to feel comfortable all the while being small enough to be erased. You can think you're safe, but it can be treacherous or lost in a snap.

[The_Admiral]

A one-goal lead is the most dangerous lead because if you give up a goal, you are no longer in the lead. I have never in my life felt better about a one-goal lead than a two-goal lead.

It's supposed to be really humid again today and there was a Stones concert at the United Center last night, which means the ice is going to be notchy slushy crap, which should favor these new and de-improved Wings. I have a bad feeling.

[Sport]

I've been tweeting the "correct" team to root for most days since the playoffs began. The wrong team won last night.

Tonight's Correct Team to Root For Tonight: The Chicago Blackhawks

[Maz]

[Kramerica Industries]

I can't agree with "two goals = more dangerous" either, because of simple mathematics.

It's a perception thing. A 2-0 lead whittled to 2-1 feels more precarious, because the other team has managed to get a goal and may have some momentum riding afterwards. But I'd rather be in the position that is always ahead, than the one which involves a 1-1 scoreline, because in those situations, there's the very strong possibility of falling behind.

Whenever the Lightning lost a lead/game where they led by 2+ goals at some point, it wasn't because it's a dangerous lead. It was because they are a terrible ing hockey team.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

It's supposed to be really humid again today

Don't you miss the days when hockey was over in late May? I mean I love the game but I really do need a second wind to watch hockey in June. Here we are just a couple of days away from June and the Conference Finals haven't even started yet!

I know its been delayed with the lockout but even without the lockout the Finals would start in June anyway.

I still remember the 1981 and 1991 Finals which featured my North Stars. I remember them winning on my birthday both times. On May 19, 1981 the North Stars won thier only game of the Finals against the Islanders (Game 4), and on May 19 1991 they won the game 3 against Pittsburgh wihich put them up 2-1 in the series. When I flipped my calender to June, hockey (even the Cup parades for the winners) were over.

Soon on my birthday they will be just starting the playoffs at this rate.

[The_Admiral]

I know, extenuating circumstances and all this year, but we should be done with the regular season at the end of March, no excuses. Start in the last two or three days of September if you have to, but the Final shouldn't go into June.

Also, the United Center should REPLACE ITS FREAKING ICE PLANT ALREADY so that we don't have to fret so much about the playing conditions for a finesse team every time the mercury passes 60. Come on. If they can afford to pay Rostislav Olesz to sit at home and put his fist up his ass, they can afford to rebuild the thing that makes the thing they play on. God.

[monkeypower]

I'm probably going to take some heat for this and get the "Oh, he's just an angry Ducks fan" reaction, but my brother and I were talking last night after the game and we were wondering if the Kings winning last night really makes a difference in the playoffs.

What I'm getting at is that I don't see anybody outside of Chicago, or Pittsburgh or Boston wining the Cup this year. Those teams are just too good this year.

[TheOldRoman]

I can't agree with "two goals = more dangerous" either, because of simple mathematics.

It's a perception thing. A 2-0 lead whittled to 2-1 feels more precarious, because the other team has managed to get a goal and may have some momentum riding afterwards. But I'd rather be in the position that is always ahead, than the one which involves a 1-1 scoreline, because in those situations, there's the very strong possibility of falling behind.

Whenever the Lightning lost a lead/game where they led by 2+ goals at some point, it wasn't because it's a dangerous lead. It was because they are a terrible ing hockey team.

I could see that line of reasoning in baseball. It's anecdotal, but it seems that most of the times when a team scores a run or two in the 8th/9th to pad a one run lead, the closer gives lets up a little and ends up giving up runs (while still getting the save). It's possible that trailing teams are more likely to score a run if down by two or three rather than one. At least as a White Sox fan, Bobby Jenks was generally lights-out in one run games, but once the lead got to three, he gave up 2-3 baserunners before finally getting the save (and I do remember a few 3-run blown saves). Still, as I said, it's anecdotal. You'd be crazy to argue that it's better to have a one goal lead than two, just as you'd be nuts to prefer being up 1 run in the ninth because your closer might not focus as well with a 3 run lead.