SNN Predicts: 2010 Conference Finals

After a second round for the ages, all of us have a little egg on our faces, though some more than others…Matt.

Doogie	Hoop	Matt	Gerard	Result
4-2	4-1	4-2	4-2	4-3
4-3	4-2	4-2	4-1	4-3
4-2	4-3	4-1	4-3	4-1
4-2	4-2	4-3	4-1	4-2
1-3	3-1	0-4	2-2	W-L
10	7	15	10	GO
6-6	9-3	4-8	6-6	W-L
28	20	31	28	GO

Actually, to be perfectly fair, Matt’s picks were identical to those of one Robert McKenzie, so it’s a bit unexpected to see things blow up that badly. Also, given how Boston-Philly turned out, I actually don’t feel totally bad. I mean, if at any point the Bruins had pulled their heads out of their asses and stolen a game, it’s much more even down the stretch. As it is, Hoop has essentially won by default, Matt has been mathematically eliminated, and Gerard and I are playing for second prize. Still, as a lapsed Canadiens fan, I can’t complain about the outcome too terribly much, except to say that I’d rather have seen the 33^rd installment of Habs-Bruins, and third in a row, simply as an expression of sheer cosmic will that these two teams face each other all the fucking time.

Who will win the Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny out West (or as many cynics have called it, “The real Stanley Cup Final”)? Who will win the skirt-tearing slap fight of Cinderella teams out East? Answers to these questions, and many more, after the jump.

Your Stanley Cup finalists are Philadelphia and Chicago. Series starts Saturday. Go Hawks.

Wales Conference Final

(7) Philadelphia vs. (8) Montreal

Playoff History: This will be the sixth meeting all-time between the Flyers and the Habs, and the fourth to decide who plays for the Cup. Most recently, the Flyers knocked off the top-ranked Habs in just five second-round games, based in no small part on the poor showing of Carey Price.

1973 SF	1976 SCF	1987 CF	1989 CF	2008 CSF
4-1	4-0	4-2	4-2	4-1

Last Time They Were Here: For Philly, just a couple of years ago after they beat the Habs, only to get ousted by Pittsburgh in five. For Montreal, it was 1993, when they creamed the Cinderella Islanders in five games.

Season Series: Tied 2-2, all in regulation with Montreal winning the first and last meetings.

Doogie Says: Part of me kind of wants to puss out and take a pass on this one, because really, how do you pick between two Cinderella teams? I mean, really, what’s your poison? The team riding an absurdly hot goalie and winger, which has played all 14 games, and has a defence full of walking wounded, and has offed the President’s Trophy winners and the defending Stanley Cup champions? Or the team with half their top six on the DL or playing through serious injury, which just completed the greatest comeback in professional sport, as only three other teams in the history of North American pro sport have ever accomplished, and did so for the most part with their third-string goalie? How the hell do you make that kind of choice?

Well, since looking at stats is probably useless at this point, you go back through history, look for patterns, and make an educated guess. I stated in the comments to the last predictions post that I think the 2010 Canadiens look superficially an awful lot like the 2003 Anaheim Mighty Ducks, at least in terms of accomplishment and method thereof, so figure on Hal Gill to ride Simon Gagne back onto the IR and little Danny Briere right into the ice, Halak to continue to make Big Saves, and Cammalleri to continue his assault on the record books. Habs in six.

Hoop Says: Both teams are incredible stories this year in the post season. Philly was the first team in 35 years to come back from 3-0 down. While Montreal has taken out the President’s Trophy winners and the defending Stanley Cup Champions. When I look at this matchup it boils down to one major difference to me and that is goaltending. Michael Leighton did not look sharp in game 7 and was fortunate that his team came back. In fairness it takes time to get your feel back after a long injury. However that is time Leighton will not have, while Jaroslav Halak has been the MVP of the playoffs I don’t see that changing. Montreal in 6.

Matt Says: Had this been the MON-BOS series I was expecting after the Habs moved on, I would have went back to my roots as a hockey fan, but while Halak has been amazing, I think they’re going to get beat down by Philly. Besides, when as Montreal ever relied on a (pseudo-)rookie goalie to get anywhere? Flyers in six.

Gerard Says: Did you know that the winner of the last two Winter Classics lost the Cup in the Finals? That would likely have continued without the epic FAIL of Boston Friday night. But since that train got broken by the loser of this year’s Winter Classic…oh, fuck it. If Philly wins this series, that means Chicago will win the Cup. But that can’t happen, because of Hossa [ed: See below]. Montreal in 7.

Wait a sec…did I just predict the Habs to win the Cup? Madness. See Boston? This is what you reduce me to.

	6	3	1	3	4	4
	0	0	5	0	2	1

Postmortem: You know, I had a bad feeling about my Montreal pick, and I even expressed some reservations on the admin forum, but I couldn’t place it, and I figured since the Habs had done away with two teams vastly superior, on paper, to the Flyers, they should be able to overcome some stylistic differences over the course of the series. Then CBC put up a graphic during game one that flipped the switch: “No team has ever won two Game 7s and gone on to win a third series.”

Oh. Oh, fuck. Well, never mind, then.

While the series likely would’ve looked different with a healthy Andrei Markov, the bottom line is, the Habs looked tired. Their plays in both ends of the rink were sloppy, their attention to detail, their awareness, was gone, and they lost probably 80% of the puck battles and races outside of Game 3. Meanwhile, Leighton out-Halaked Halak, putting up three shutouts in a series for the first time since Marty Turco blanked the Canucks three times in 2007 (bizarrely, Turco’s Stars lost that series, anyway: they couldn’t win a single game without him posting a clean sheet). Plus, unlike most teams in playoff history, the Flyers actually got healthier. After getting Gagne back in the Boston series, they added Ian Laperriere and Jeff Carter in Game 4, and they were both solid contributors, in their respective ways, to Game 5, with two blocked shots for Laperriere and two goals for Carter. Still, I have to think they’re in tough against a Chicago team that dispatched the Red Wings and Sharks in a total of nine games. Meanwhile, congratulations to the Canadiens for reaching the semifinals for the first time since ’93, causing the experts to tear their hair out for a month and a half trying to figure you out in the process.

Campbell Conference Final

(1) San Jose vs. (2) Chicago

Playoff History: None. By the time the Sharks shook off their expansion shittiness, Chicago was on the verge of turning into hot garbage for about twelve years.

Last Time They Were Here: For the Sharks, their only prior appearance in the conference final was in 2004, when they hocked up the first two games at home against Calgary and ultimately lost in six, thus birthing a legend of playoff chokery. The Hawks, meanwhile, were here just last year, getting shown up by the Red Wings in five.

Season Series: 3-1 Chicago, with a pair of OT wins and a pretty sound clobbering at the Tank to their credit.

Doogie Says: This series is difficult to call for an entirely different reason than the Wales final is. While the Wales final consists of two teams that were kind of bad during the regular season but who got hot at the right time, the Campbell final consists of two teams who were pretty much expected to be here. San Jose has defied expectations simply by showing up here, after so many years of disappointment, while Chicago seems to be right on schedule in their development. Rest vs. Rust probably isn’t a huge factor at this point — and probably wouldn’t be beyond the first ten minutes anyway — since both teams have been off for days. That also means they’ve had time to rest up what bumps and bruises they have. In looking desperately for an advantage, I eventually turned up the following justifications: a) a slightly tougher road to the conference finals, b) the appearance of slightly better depth, and c) if you want to use the tables from here, better 5-on-5 and score-tied play throughout the year, and d) the season series. As last one should make clear, I’m going with my initial gut reaction of Hawks in six.

Hoop Says: The Sharks have been rolling even since the game 3 OT loss to Colorado in the 1st round. My concern with San Jose is who have they beaten? A Colorado team that was just happy to make the playoffs and a Detroit Red Wings team that had been worn down with a rookie goaltender that was incredibly lucky to get by an average Phoenix Coyotes squad. While Chicago got lucky in round 1 against Nashville, they really took the game to Vancouver in the 2nd round and showed their depth. The depth will likely be the deciding factor here so I am taking the Hawks. Chicago in 6.

Matt Says: I was wishing the Sharks would get buried by the Avalanche, and I honestly figured that the Wings wouldn’t have that much trouble with them, but they started swimming straight. I’m still not sure about them though, so it should be long, and definitely drawn out, but one of these times, the Sharks have to sink, right? Hawks in seven.

Gerard Says: Chicago will win in 7 games. Why? Hossa has been in the last 2 finals and has caught “Conklin Fever” (Conklin having been on the losing team in the finals 3 of the last 4 seasons while losing in the conference final the other season) having lost the cup the last 2 years.

	1	2	2	2	0
	2	4	3	4	4

Postmortem: A bit of a surprising result, not in terms of who won (note that we all had the Hawks), but in how quickly they’d do it. The series score paints a deceptive picture, though: the Sharks scored the first goal in three of the games, all of which ended in one (non-EN) goal victories for Chicago. Even when the ‘Hawks played like dog turd, as they did for the first half of Game 4, they still found a way to flip the switch when the time was right and get the goals they needed. I’m not sure if that’s more of a credit to the ‘Hawks or a deficit for the Sharks: it didn’t seem to be like they were playing badly, they just got straight-up beat by a better team. And now that better team is going on to face a team that made the playoffs on the last day, by a shootout goal, but which also staged one of the greatest comebacks in pro sport history and handily dispatched the presumed Cinderellas of 2010. They’ll have their hands full, but if this series is any indication, I don’t see any reason why the Flyers should present more than a temporary problem for these ‘Hawks. It took a while to rev ‘em up, but now that they’re going at full power, this club is a buzzsaw.