After two.

Everyone’s watching the game, so nobody’s going to read this.»? Nevertheless…

This is depressing.»? At this rate, the Oilers will most certainly lose the game.

A couple of things:

  • Ales Hemsky: you’re not a one-man team, man.»? You’ve got soft hands, to be sure, but I have yet to see you complete one of your one-man rushes in this series.»? You start out skating circles around everyone and then it goes nowhere.»? This isn’t time for hot-dog heroics.
  • The Oilers aren’t skating and, worse, they aren’t finishing their checks.»? They rush the man, the man passes the puck and the Oiler skates by him.»? They need to start finishing every check if they want to win.
  • What’s with all the stupid penalties?»? They needed Smyth in front of the net during that last penalty.»? Unfortunately, Smyth got a stupid penalty.»? Although I’m tempted to blame that one on Hemsky—just give it to Pronger already!
  • Markannen: you’ve done well so far my friend, but please, I beg you, STAY IN YOUR NET!»? All that skating around is going to come back to haunt you.



Aww, nuts!»? I sure hope we don’t have to wait another 16 years for another Oilers Stanley Cup final.»? And I really hope they keep their team together for next season.»? No high-profile trades, please, because they did well.

11 thoughts on “After two.

  1. Darren

    A great game, nonetheless! Very entertaining, and the Oilers managed to get one and keep it close. I do hate empty netters!

    Be careful when advising someone (particularly the team you’re cheering for) to “finish their check”. If the puck is off in space, by all means, but if the puck has been passed to someone else, “finishing a check” can be interpreted as interference. I sure didn’t want to see Edmonton spend MORE time in the box.

  2. Marc

    Why did Carolina deserve it more? They were the better team, I think, but that doesn’t mean they “deserve” it, does it?

  3. Darren

    Hmmmm… “May the ‘best’ man win?” Best… team? Shouldn’t the better team win? Does not the better team deserve to win? Certainly the Oilers were not UNdeserving of the cup, but wouldn’t the better team be MORE deserving? Wouldn’t it have been a travesty if the better team, the one that played harder, longer and better, lost (like on a stupid technicality?)?!!? Wouldn’t that engraving be a blemish on the chalice of Lord Stanley?

    Oilers… great run, fantastic entertainment, good hockey. Hurricanes… better team. Congratulations to the champions! For the Oilers to have been deserving of the title, “Champions”, they should have played like they can for the whole game, not just the latter half of the third period!

  4. Marc

    Statistically in the regular season Carolina was a better team than Edmonton. If this is what makes Carolina the “better” team, then your logic implies that even if Edmonton had won the cup, they still wouldn’t have deserved it. In fact, it would mean that Carolina didn’t deserve it either, since Detroit was the #1 team in the NHL entering the playoffs.

    But your comment, Darren, implies that you think the “better” team is “the one that played harder, longer and better”. I’m not sure about the “longer” bit, but I’m not convinced that Carolina played harder and better. Both teams had good games and bad games, both teams had blowouts, both teams won games on the road….

    The saying “May the best man win” simply implies that the winner is the best man. Had Edmonton won, we wouldn’t think that the saying was no longer true.

    Of course, being the “best”, statistically, isn’t the same thing as being the most deserving. What if Carolina was so good that they won the series with a lacklustre effort, while Edmonton lost in spite of giving it everything they had? Carolina would still have been the best, but were they the most deserving?

    And what about this consideration: Carolina placed 2nd in the Eastern Conference, so their making it to the final was not unexpected. Edmonton was eighth and last (playoff) place in the Western Conference, but proceeded to defeat the #1 team in the NHL (i.e. the best of the best, statistically) as well as two other strong teams in order to get to the final, and then in the final came back from a 3-1 series deficit to tie things up. Doesn’t this hard work and success also merit a Stanley Cup win?

    I don’t think it’s possible to say definitively who “deserved” the cup more. Sure, Edmonton has won the cup 5 times and Carolina none, but this Edmonton team is entirely different (except for some of the staff) than the 80s dynasty we all know and love.

  5. Darren

    Hmmm… perhaps I wasn’t clear. Let me try again.

    My thesis is that the term “deserving of the Stanley Cup” is given to the team that wins it, barring odd technicalities.

    The regular season: Carolina did well, Edmonton poorly. This allowed Carolina perhaps a slightly easier playoff run, having to play teams that were arguably poorer to get where they wanted to go, the final. Edmonton had to claw their way up. Good for Edmonton.

    IF Edmonton had won, I would have said they deserved to win. They clawed their way up, and fought to the bitter end, finally killing the only other standing team. They failed to do that.

    Carolina had to do the same thing Edmonton did: they had to make it to the final. They did it through placing better in the playoffs (through regular season work) and winning 12 playoff games. Edmonton placed lower (through poorer regular season performance) and won 12 playoff games anyway. Then they met each other. Both teams won 3 games, bringing it down to one game.

    In order to be deserving of hoisting Lord Stanley, one team had to put more pucks in the other’s net in 60 minutes. Carolina managed 2, Edmonton 1 (obviously not counting the empty netter, resulting from last minute Edmonton desparation). Both teams were good teams, but in order to be considered “deserving” of taking the cup, they had to win, fair and square.

    There are many ways to win a game (or in this case a protracted tournament). Edmonton tried one way (which in the end failed) and Carolina tried a different way (which in the end succeeded). You are not deserving of the Stanley Cup if you work hard, overcome adversity, sweat, bleed, and struggle but don’t win the final game. You have to win. So no, to answer one of your questions, “hard work and success” does not merit a Stanley Cup, because another team worked hard and had more succes. I’m willing to bet that the players on the Oiler team would agree with this.

    Bottom line of my thesis: In order to be “deserving” of the Stanley Cup, YOU MUST WIN 16 PLAYOFF GAMES.

    Carolina: deserving because they won 16 playoff games. Edmonton: not deserving, as they only won 15.

    I should also point out I was cheering for Edmonton. If we’re awarding the cup to any team that, in their heart “deserved” it because they worked hard, we’d have to make a lot more trophies and give them to 9 or ten teams. What about Montreal? They were playing great until their captain suffered a season ending eye injury. They actually hammered Carolina 2 games straight before the injury, which is as good as Edmonton managed (winning 2 in a row). You could argue they did better, beating them both time in Raleigh, which Edmonton only did once. Maybe we should say they “deserved” to have the cup also? Stanley Cups all around!

  6. Marc

    Ah, I agree for the most part with your last comment, Darren. But in it you are saying something different than you were saying yesterday.

    I quote (from yesterday): “…wouldn"t the better team be MORE deserving? Wouldn"t it have been a travesty if the better team, the one that played harder, longer and better, lost (like on a stupid technicality?)?!!?”

    Perhaps I did misunderstand you, but it seems to me that in the above quote you are saying that
    a) the better team = the more deserving team, and
    b) the better team = the one that played harder, longer and better.
    Ergo, c) the most deserving team = the one that played harder, longer and better.

    Now you are saying, and again I quote, ““hard work and success”? does not merit a Stanley Cup”. In other words, the most deserving team =//= (does not equal) the one that played harder, longer and better. That’s the opposite of what I understood you as saying yesterday.

    But, as I say, I agreed with most of what you said in your last comment. In particular, let’s examine this statement: “My thesis is that the term “deserving of the Stanley Cup”? is given to the team that wins it, barring odd technicalities.” (I think the phrase “barring odd technicalities” is key.)

    This is similar to what I said earlier: “The saying “May the best man win”? simply implies that the winner is the best man. Had Edmonton won, we wouldn"t think that the saying was no longer true.”

    In both cases, the application is a retroactive one, applied after the winner is determined. The stakes change, however, if the term “most deserving” is preemptively applied, which is what I read Lisa as doing.

    She said: “Carolina deserved it more than the Oilers did.” Which, now that I think about it more, is probably a retroactive statement. But when she made the comment, and I think it is still open for interpretation, I took it to mean that “Carolina should have won the cup anyway, because they were more deserving—Edmonton didn’t deserve it, even if they did win.”

    This is important (within the context of this fun and ultimately meaningless debate) because I don’t think you can say “so-and-so is more deserving of the Cup” before the series is finished.

  7. Darren

    Before game seven, I thought the Oilers were more deserving. They proved me wrong, however, as they did not show up for the last, and most pivotal game. I thought they could do it… apparently not.

Comments are closed.