This is what happens...

...when you come out of the gate slow in a playoff series. 

Hockey involves a lot of luck. I say that not to denigrate hockey -- my favorite sport to watch on television -- but only to point out that in a game where scrums are so frequent, action is so frenzied, and yet so few goals are scored, the random bounce of the puck has a lot to do with whether you win or go home. That's why hockey playoffs are played out in 7-game series. One game can't tell you who the better team is. In a 7-game series, you have to really and truly -- comprehensively, one might say -- beat the other team to send them home. 

In the closest playoff series of all time -- 3 overtime games, and all 7 decided by a single goal -- it's safe to say that the Washington Capitals and Boston Bruins were about as close to evenly matched as it gets. Some will say that Washington wanted it more, out-hustling the B's when it counted. Some will say that the Bruins let it get away from them when they really should have won. Really the only thing to say is that in 4 out of 7 games, the Washington Capitals put more pucks in the net than the Boston Bruins. And the Bruins are home early because of it. 

In hockey, the "random bounce of the puck" can be tempered by three factors primarily: your ability to get shots on goal, your ability to deny the opponent shots on goal, and your goaltender's relative ability of your goaltender to make the marginal saves on random bounces that would otherwise have found the net. 

Here are the shots on goal for the series:

1: BOS 30, WAS 17

2: BOS 44, WAS 39

3: WAS 32, BOS 29

4: BOS 45, WAS 21

5: BOS 37, WAS 32

6: WAS 39, BOS 31

7: BOS 32, WAS 27

Focusing solely on SOG, then, two games were won decisively by the Bruins and 5 others were more-or-less a wash (the two teams within 8 SOG of each other). This leads me to make two main conclusions about the series. 

(1) It really was pretty close. With the exceptions of Game 4, which the Bruins dominated but lost, and Game 1, which they dominated and won, no team dramatically outplayed the other at any point. 

(2) Because of that fact -- the closeness of the games -- it really did come to a lot of of luck. True, Braden Holtby did outplay Tim Thomas, and Timmay did give up a couple soft goals, but really there wasn't a tremendous difference between the goaltenders. At the end of the day, the puck bounced Washington's way a few more times than it bounced Boston's way. Last year, it bounced our way more than a few times this time of year. 

If the Bruins wanted to win this series, they needed to come out of the gate and dominate from Game 1. They needed to overwhelm the Capitals with physicality, control the puck more, and produce the chances that would have led to goals. The B's failed to do that. 

In net, Tim Thomas played poorly by Tim Thomas standards, but he's not to blame for the series, not nearly. He even submitted a typical Tim Thomas Game 7 gem -- he deserves blame for neither of the 2 goals -- but by that point it was too late. The puck bounced Washington's way on both of those goals, and the Capitals move on. 

Disappointing though it was, the Bruins have nothing to be ashamed of. They played through a number of key injuries (Horton, McQuaid, Bergeron) and had a good chance to win it in the end. This team is as fun to watch as any in the NHL, and as fun to root for as any team in New England. They didn't lift the Cup this year, but I can't wait to watch them try again in 2013. 

Bruins-Capitals Game 7

Gosh, the Bruins drew a tough matchup with these Capitals. The kid Holtby is playing like a brick wall in goal. Semin seems to score every game. Backstrom and Ovechkin are deadly and require one defenseman's attention at all times. 


And it doesn't help that Tim Thomas is playing like a sack of crap. It's like the cab driver says in that commercial: "You're naught Tim Taugh-mas." He has given up ugly goals every game, today's being the late-game five-hole game from Ovechkin. 


Nevertheless, you gotta feel good about this Game 7 from a Bruins perspective. We're coming home to Boston, we've got the Game 7 experience, and the team's been playing better and better -- Krejci and Seguin finally making it onto the scoresheet. If Thomas can pull it together and post a solid Tim Thomas game, we should be able to get it done. 

Two More Wins

So the B's take Game 3 and it looks like the Caps might be Backstrom-less for Game 4. Solid. Bruins need to take advantage on Thursday night and then close the book back home in Boston. That would give us the winner of Devils-Panthers, either one of which I think will be a weaker team than the Capitals. 

Meanwhile, it's looking more and more like Rangers-Flyers on the other side of the bracket. Regardless of how well Philly's been playing, I think that'll be a cupcake matchup for the Rangers, who swept the Flyers in the regular season. The Flyers are a very similar team to the Rangers in style; they're just a little bit worse. And that always makes for the most lopsided matchups. 

I liked what I saw out of the Bruins tonight. I'm not worried about the three goals because I think at least two of them were attributable to unusual, unlikely-to-recur mental lapses on the part of Zdeno Chara.

(1) It was Chara's roughing penalty in the first that led to the first Capitals goal. He is a crucial part of the Bruins' penalty kill and the B's are at a huge disadvantage when he steps into the box. He's gotta avoid doing that.

(2) It was Chara whose lapse led to the wide-open breakaway Laich goal in the third. Chalk it up to Chara's having his eyes on Ovechkin, and hopefully it doesn't happen again. 

(The third goal was classic Ovechkin, and one can take solace in the fact that this is the first we've heard from him all series.)

Once again, the defense was phenomenal, particularly Seidenberg and Boychuk. Once again, the third line of Rolston-Kelly-Pouliot provided dynamic production, with Rolston netting one in the second. 

Cause for Concern: Anemic production continues from the top 5 offensive weapons of Lucic, Krejci, Seguin, Marchand, Bergeron. Seguin in particular has looked hapless at every turn. Of the first two lines only the add-on Rich Peverley has provided any sort of spark. 

Nevertheless, I'm confident the B's will win the series, and the reason for that is depth. The big guns will continue to get their minutes, but so will the third (Rolston-Kelly-Pouliot) and fourth  (Paille-Campbell-Thornton) lines. And that's where Washington is doomed. By the end of the second period, Dale Hunter was barely even playing his third line, while the Bruins rotated four lines right up until the final horn. That leads to fresher legs, more and harder hits, and ultimately more goals. 

Bruins in 5. 

Bruins Adjustments

So far, so good as far as defensive play is concerned. Dennis Seidenberg has been doing a (literal) bang-up job on Ovechkin and the Caps have only produced 56 shots in almost 160 minutes of play. 

Offense is a different story, having scored only 2 goals in almost 8 periods of action. Here is how the lines break down:

1. Marchand-Bergeron-Seguin: 20 SOG in 21 mins. 

2. Lucic-Krejci-Peverley: 13 SOG in 24 mins. 

3. Rolston-Kelly-Pouliot: 12 SOG in 17 mins. 

4. Paille-Campbell-Thornton: 12 SOG in 12 mins. 

Line 3 has been indisputably the best, scoring both of the goals against Holtby and creating more legitimate chances. (Just goes to show what dynamic additions Rolston and Pouliot have made in the absence of Recchi and Ryder.) Line 1 has been fine, although it's disappointing that they haven't found the net in 8 periods, and even Line 4 has looked solid in limiting playing time. 

The problem is Line 2. Looch, Krejci and Peverley have given the Bruins nothing. This is born out in the numbers (fewest SOG per playing time, about 0.5 per minute) and also plain to see when they take the ice live. Stagnant is about the only way to describe it. 

My suggestion: Up the minutes for Rolston-Kelly-Pouliot. These guys have been playing great and bringing the biggest spark to the offense. Maybe Lucic-Krejci-Peverley play more efficiently with a little more time on the bench, maybe they continue underperforming. Either way, this team needs to find some way of generating an offensive spark and I love the way that third line is playing. 

Welcome

So, welcome. This is going to be my Boston sports blog, since I have a lot to say and nowhere to say it. I've always been a big sports fan, but sports have become a bigger part of my life in the ten months since graduating college as I've had a suspicious amount of free time on my hands. 

I live in New York but am a devoted fan of the Patriots, Bruins, Red Sox, and Celtics. The Red Sox were my first love, suffering through many traumatic defeats with them in the early 2000s, culminating in the Aaron Boone Tragedy of 2003, before standing by with my heart in my throat as they charged to a World Series in 2004 and another in 2007. I became a Patriots fan around the time of that second World Series, abandoning my random fetish for the Minnesota Vikings in exchange for my true football inheritance, a feat made easier by the signing of Randy Moss in the 2006 offseason. Once again, my first experience with my now-favorite sports franchise was tragedy. I attended the 2007 AFC Championship game, in which the then-15-0 Patriots squeaked out a feeble victory over the San Diego Chargers. Despite witnessing the win, I felt a sinking sensation throughout that game, a subconscious foreknowledge that the undefeated season was not to be. The 2007 Super Bowl and the 2012 Super Bowl of this past February share second-place honors for the heartbreaks of my sports-fan past. The 2007 loss, in particular, left me sullen in my freshman year dorm room as Giants-fan classmates littered the library with celebratory posters and commenced a douche-bag parade outside my window. 

Becoming a Celtics and Bruins fan was much easier. I had always had much sympathy for the two teams but not as much interest in the two leagues. The NBA generally began to pick up just as the Celtics amassed their juggernaut. Having watched Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker tank their way through an NBA with a chronic lack of defensive basketball and competitive spirit, I now could watch with a rooting interest as Pierce-Garnett-Allen rose to power in a league featuring more compelling teams, more competitive rivalries, increasingly passionate fan bases. The NBA became an all-around better watch, and the Celtics were at the top of it. This was all the more fun because of a Lakers fan friend from college who I mocked relentlessly as the Celtics rolled Kobe in the 2008 Finals. 

The Bruins, admittedly, entered my sports consciousness mostly due to their successes. In my youth they had always been a hapless team, much like the Celtics -- so much so that Ray Bourque had to leave for Colorado to hoist the Cup once before retiring. Like the Celtics, I was fond of the Bruins without being unduly worried about their suckiness. Moreover, people in New York don't care all that much about hockey, and my interest in the league mostly involved the Pittsburgh Penguins featuring Jagr-Lemieux and some fun Western Conference teams like the Sharks and Mighty Ducks. When the Bruins got good around 2009, I started following them with a greater interest. In typical Boston fashion, they delivered heartbreak before triumph with a sweep by the Philadelphia Flyers, a team I had always hated. But the unforgettable ride to the Cup in 2011 was well worth the wait, and the Bruins are now quite possibly the most enjoyable Boston team to watch. They are dynamic. They score goals. They scrap. They get in fights. They are quickly rising in my personal Boston sports pantheon and more than any of my other teams, they are the one I could most see myself rooting for even if they belonged to another city. 

That's the bare-bones of the story. I love all four of my teams. I've felt the pain of their losses -- the Sox in 03 and 11, the Patriots in 07 and 12, and less painfully, the Celtics in the Walker-Pierce years and the Bruins with Bourque. 

But I will readily admit that I've had a much less painful go of it than my father, uncle, and grandfather, who suffered through years of agony with a pathetic Patriots team (Grogan and Plunkett) and a cursed Red Sox team (Buckner), although also experienced some epic triumphs with the Bruins (Orr) and Celtics (Bird). 

Life's not bad for a Boston sports fan in 2012. As I write, the Celtics have the best point guard in the Eastern Conference and a legitimate shot at the title before starting the offseason rebuilding process. The Bruins are a top-5 team in the NHL, play great defense and score tons of goals, and are easily the funnest team to root for in hockey. The Patriots are coming off a Super Bowl run and poised to make another in the anemic AFC. And the Red Sox -- well, they're the Red Sox, currently struggling but one of the strongest franchises in baseball and soon to be bolstered by an up-and-coming future-GM by the name of Ben Hecht. 

Here are the most important figures since 2000.

Patriots: Have made 5 Super Bowls, won 3.

Red Sox: Have made 2 World Series and won both. 

Celtics: Have made 2 NBA Finals and won 1. 

Bruins: Have made 1 Cup Finals and won it. 

So midway through 2012, it's been 11 1/2 years since 2000 and the Boston teams have competed in 10 world championships, winning 7. You do the math. And that's not even counting the three remaining title runs of 2012: the Bruins (highly competitive), the Celtics (credible contender) and the Sox (outside shot). It's a good place to be. 

I figured I'd start this blog so that, rather than talking to myself about sports I can get down some thoughts. Hopefully I'll come up with some worthwhile.