
I guess some times you just have to tip your hat, bow your head, and remove your pants for a good old fashion ass slapping. The Caps have, once again, run into a goalie who is stealing the series. Of course, he isn't really stealing anything, he's just out-playing his fellow goalie and making the Caps illustrious offense look pedestrian. That is a feat, to be sure. Last night, the Caps goose was cooked in a 2-1 loss that all but gave the series to New York. As of now, it stands three games to one.
Unlike game one, this loss wasn't the fault of the goal tending, and unlike game two it wasn't the fault of the offense. This loss came down to the fact that Henrik Lundqvist was just too good in goal. There are things the Caps could do about that, other than wrap him in duct tape, take him to the Meadowlands and give him a Mexican necktie. More traffic in front of the net would help, as would an improvement in the face off circle. But this is really nit-picking, if you ask me.
The Caps took 39 shots at Henrik Lundqvist, bringing their four game total to 149 shots on goal. No, that isn't a typo, 149 shots on goal in four games, or 37 shots per game. For some context, the Rangers have managed 99 shots on goal in that same four game time span. From those 149 shots (not including hit crossbars and posts), they've scored eight goals. Eight. That's a .946 save percentage, if I'm doing my math correctly. That's sick. It's also 0.3 higher than Lundqvist's regular season save percentage. That's called turning it on in the playoffs, folks.
And for all that Lunqvist has done to win the series for the Rangers, we should remember that the Caps have actually out-scored their opponents in this series, 8-6. They've out-scored and out-shot their opponents, and somehow find themselves on the sad end of a three games to one deficit... I guess some times you just have to tip your hat.
5 comments:
The hockey equivalent of the 1960 World Series.
Much less important, but yes.
F'n
I think you mean 0.30, or three tenths, not 0.03, or three hundredths.
Unless it was, like, a joke or something.
Nope, not a joke. 0.3 is correct. ...Fixed.
Post a Comment