FanNation - The Republic of Sport

I'm sitting here in Las Vegas, waiting to head to Caesar's Sports book to watch the game, and reading through the blog-o-sphere, and various columnists, a few things come to mind:

1. The Red Wings Come Back in The Third

A lot is being made of the fact that A) the Red Wings out-shot the Penguins badly in the third period and over-time, and B) The "Red Machine" kept coming and coming until the young Penguins folded.

This seems to be the general consensus, along with the thought that Fleury stood on his head and basically stole the game in overtime. (And, I will not discount Fleury's one-man stand... but...)

Here's what seems to be missed in all of this "Brilliant Analysis": The Penguins were missing their best defenseman during the time period in question. Not only was Gonchar out -- bad enough -- but the Pens were short-manned. They had pairings that hadn't been together before trying to learn how to play together.

Why is this never mentioned?

Why should anyone be surprised that the Red Wings were able to exploit this?

When Timmo Kimonen was out for the Flyers, the talking heads couldn't stop going on about it. It was Kimmo this, and Kimmo that...

Yet, Sergei Gonchar is out, and suddenly the ice tilts to the Red Wings favor... and no one thinks it was relevant?

I'm not complaining about the injury or anything... it's just I think there is more to the analysis than: "The Red Machine came back." Part of the reason they came back is that the Penguins were suddenly short-handed, and missing their best puck-moving defensemen.

The upshot of that is that the Big Red Machine may not be chugging along as well as people think... It's very possible that if Gonchar does not go into the boards, the final score is 2-1 Penguins - over in regulation. However, I think that it is actually in the favor of the Penguins to have played - and won - that over-time game.

But only if Gonchar is good to go tonight.

2. Why when the Red Wings complain about Officiating, it's OK?

A few games in, Therrien was complaining about the lack of obstruction calls, and the international press was basically saying: "Stop Whining." When Babcock complains about the Goalie Interference calls, everyone seems to be rushing to back him up.

Why isn't anyone telling him to shut up and stop whining? (BTW, I really like Babcock, I am not really zinging him here... He's doing his job...)

It isn't like the Penguins won on a badly called penalty... I think we all agree that the high sticking call had to be made...right? So, why is anyone talking about it?

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I just think it is easier to be upset about something that is called (Goalie Interference) than it is about something that isn't (No holding called). But they are both fair game, IMHO, and a coach has the duty to raise the issue. (To my mind, one Goalie Interference call was blatant, and had to be called -- the other was marginal, and could have been let go. I don't buy that you stop making calls in over-time.)

But, whatever, the Penguins are hardly the Media darlings, (whatever Flyer's fans may think.) The press has been brutal on Malkin, are always second-guessing Therrien, and even took a shot at Mario Lemieux. If you're from Pittsburgh, I guess you're used to it by now... but it is funny when someone calls favoritism...

3. Osgood is not as good as Fleury

Change teams for the goalies, and the Red Wings win in four, and Fleury has four shut-outs. Osgood benefitted greatly from the "tight checking game" of the Red Wings in games one and two (see comment above about obstruction). But he has a very hard time moving from side to side in the net.

There is no way that Talbot should have had an open net to whack the puck into. Fleury would have been back over onto the post... Watching Osgood switch directions is like watching synchronized swimming. Smooth, and even pretty -- but not near quick enough.

Game in 1 ½ hours... time to head down and place my bet...