Skip to main content

ONE GOAL!: The Kings are dead. Long live the Blackhawks!

As those who read this blog know, I'm ordinarily well-disposed toward teams with names inspired by family Ursidae. The Bears and the Cubs are dear to my heart.

The Bruins? Not so much. At least for the next week or two.

My Blackhawks are playing the Bruins this week in the Stanley Cup Finals- and this time, the Ursines are going down.

The Hawks ousted the defending Stanley Cup Champion Los Angeles Kings from the playoffs Saturday night in double overtime by a score of 4-3. The Hawks won the series four games to one.

The puck will drop for the first game of the Finals at the United Center at 7:30 On Central on Wednesday..

As a special bonus, we won't have to listen to the NBC play-by-play announcer rooting for the Kings anymore.

The decisive Game Five shouldn't have gone to overtime. In the first place, when you're fewer than ten seconds away from the Stanley Cup Finals, you really should find a way to avoid allowing the tying goal. While Corey Crawford, the Jennings Trophy winner who by rights should, after the year he's had,  also win the Vezina Trophy (but won't be considered) has had  a phenomenal year, he does seem to have a propensity for giving up goals just as penalties or periods are about to expire.

After Patrick Kane put the Hawks ahead with what should have been the game winner with 3:52 left in regulation.Crow let a deflection by Mike Richards get by him with nine seconds left on the clock

It took an overtime period and a half for  Kane to take a pass from Jonathan Toews on a two-on-one break and complete his hat trick,  winning the Campbell Bowl, emblematic of the Western Conference championship, for the Warriors of the Four Feathers.

Following tradition, no Blackhawk touched the trophy at the presentation ceremony. This symbolizes the fact that it's the Stanley Cup, and not merely the Campbell Bowl, that they're after- and that they'll reserve their celebrating for the moment when they can hoist that trophy aloft.

Secondly, the Hawks let the Kings off the mat. This team gets it done when it has to. But it seems to relax when things are going well and not to play its best hockey. When the Hawks are playing their emotional, up-tempo, all-the-stops-out best, they are virtually unstoppable. But both the Detroit and the Los Angeles series featured lesser teams coming back on them when the Hawks seemed to presume upon their own skill, and if not exactly coast, at least not to play with the emotion they exhibit when the chips are down.

Now they'll be facing a Boston Bruins team which ousted the only team in the NHL which, at the level of skill, is in the same class as the Hawks- the Pittsburgh Penguins- in four straight. The Hawks would clearly have matched up better with the Pens than with the Bruins, since they could have played at the same level of skill as Pittsburgh while being physical enough to disrupt the Pens game in much the same manner as the Bruins did, although perhaps not to the same degree.

Still, if Boston thinks the Finals will be a replay of the Wales Conference series just completed, they're in for a rude surprise. The Hawks, it's true, are a team that depends on skill rather than size and physicality. But they have a great deal more size and physical toughness than the Pens do, even so.

The Bruins are the type of team that can theoretically beat a team as skilled as the Hawks, who- thinking back to the NHL of my youth- are essentially the Montreal Canadians of '71's to... well, Boston's 1971 Blackhawks, whom the Habs defeated in the Finals that year.

But as Hawk fans of a certain age remember all too well, it was the Flying Frenchmen who raised the Cup that year- although in one of the most exciting series and one of the greatest Game Sevens in Stanley Cup history.

My prediction is that history will repeat: Chicago in seven.





 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jan Chamberlain's rhetoric is too strong. But the stand she has taken is right.

I do not share the religion of Jan Chamberlain. I don't even pray to the same god. But I can't help but admire the integrity of the woman who quit the Mormon Tabernacle Choir rather than sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

Ms. Chamberlain, like me, voted for Evan McMullin in November. Like me, she holds no brief for Hillary Clinton or her agenda. But she cannot, as she put it, "throw roses at Hitler."

As I've said before, comparing Trump to Hitler strikes me as harsh. I believe that Trump is a power-hungry narcissist who exhibits disturbing signs of psychopathy, like Hitler. Like Hitler, he has stigmatized  defenseless minorities- Muslims and undocumented aliens, rather than Jews- and made them scapegoats for the nation's troubles. Like Hitler, he has ridden a wave of irrational hatred and emotion to power. Like Hitler's, his agenda foreshadows disaster for the nation he has been chosen to lead.

But he's not going to set up death camps for Musli…

Neither Evan McMullin nor his movement are going away

Evan McMullin has devoted most of his post-college life- even to the point of foregoing marriage and a family- to fighting ISIS and al Qaeda and our nation's deadliest enemies as a clandestine officer for the CIA. He has done so at the risk of his life.

He has seen authoritarianism in action close-up. One of his main jobs overseas was to locate and facilitate the elimination of jihadist warlords. Evan McMullin knows authoritarians.

And when he looks at Donald Trump, what he sees is an authoritarian like the ones he fought overseas. He knows Donald Trump. After leaving the CIA he served as policy director for the Republican majority in the United States House of Representatives. He tells about his first encounter with The Donald in that role in this opinion piece he wrote for today's New York Times.

In fact, when Mitt Romney and Tom Coburn and all the others who were recruited to run as a conservative third-party candidate against Trump and Hillary Clinton backed out,  McMulli…

Huzzah! Once again, 45 does something majorly right!

First. he appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and now 45 has- at long last- initiated a sensible space policy, with a plan to promote a "rapid and affordable" return to the moon carried out by private enterprise by 2020.  Afterward, it will be onward to Mars and beyond.

This is a great idea for three reasons. First, private enterprise is the future of space exploration, and as far as I know we will be the first spacefaring nation to put most of its eggs in that basket. Second, it's nice to have eggs! Since the Obama administration canceled the Constellation program to develop the Ares booster and the Orion crew vehicle (though it subsequently reinstated the Orion part of the program), the United States has been twiddling its thumbs while China has taken great leaps toward the moon and other countries- including Russia, India, and Japan- have to various degrees intensified their own space programs. It would be both tragic and foolhardy for the nation which first…