DANIEL:
Alright, the Ducks are out of the picture, and the playoffs are still happening. After crying, I decided it would be better to keep blogging. Also, I wanted to get Arthur to stop making fun of me. So, Arthur, let's take a quick look at the two series that are left, and give me your picks.

ARTHUR:
A close second to my disappointment in the Ducks is the elimination of Boston. No chance of an Original Six finals, now. My alternative matchup is Pittsburgh/Chicago: Battle of the First Overall Picks. I like that storyline more than a DET/PIT rematch and more than anything involving Carolina. This is a rematch 17 years in the making (less if you count the Jean Claude Van Damme movie). Like '92, Pittsburgh would be returning to the Finals, but unlike '92 they're returning as the previous year's losers. So, no, we won't see a dynasty with this matchup (unlike a Detroit repeat). No, we don't have anyone resembling Lemieux involved. And no, we won't see Chelly whoop Larry Murphy. BUT, it would give every lottery team faith in the draft system, and I think it'd be a hell of a matchup and an explosive series.

So, I'm picking Pittsburgh/Chicago. Even though Cam Ward has never lost a series and Staal proved he couldn't be shut down. Even though Detroit was 4-2 against this Chicago team in the regular season, and have shown they're not all that impressed by the Hawks' transition game. I'm picking Pittsburgh/Chicago because Gonchar will be taking the ice, Malkin's waking up, Fleury's got larceny on his mind, Detroit looked tired in Game 7 (not a good sign in a series where they'll need their legs) and the Hawks made Luongo look pedestrian. Pittsburgh/Chicago.

DANIEL:
Eastern Conference:

Pittsburgh v. Carolina: I have to pick the Penguins. They just came off of an epic 7 game series against the Caps where they dominated the last game. Crosby is on fire, and Fleury may not be amazing right now but he's more than acceptably solid. Right now, this series has two teams that know how to get there, so I think experience is a wash. I just don't know if Carolina has the scoring to win a 6-5 game, which they'll have to do at least twice in this series.
Pens in 6

Western Conference:

Chicago v. Detroit: Detroit just finished a dogfight with the Ducks, and they've got to be more than a little damaged. They're defense can hold, and Osgood has shown he will not be a liability this offseason. But Chicago looks great. They've comeback from multiple goal deficits throughout the playoffs. They look hungry, and they don't give up on the game no matter how far behind they are. That youngster trio looks so dangerous, and they are playing well. Not to mention, they have the Ducks old stopper in Pahlsson. Look for him to give all the Red Wing forwards fits. The rebirth continues.
Chicago in 6

DANIEL:
As has been mentioned by columnists on ESPN and other astute bloggers, for the past 6 seasons, the Ducks and Red Wings are the two most successful playoff teams. Anaheim has had two trips to the Finals, a Conference Final, and a First Round exit to an eventual Conference finalist. Despite all of this, Anaheim has been deemed "dirty" and the elbow by Niedermayer on Datsyuk certainly didn't help.

This question will not focus on who does or does not get away with what in this series. The question I think Anaheim fans are really interested in is why do we have this reputation? I've watched a lot of Ducks games, and I do not think we are dirtier than any other team in the league. Pronger works in his shots and we definitely play rough, but dirty is a moniker that I am uncomfortable with. I also think that this link to dirty play is what keeps us from being respected as a success story throughout the league. So Arthur, how do the Ducks shake this reputation and what is it going to take to get the rest of the league to notice that this organization is for real?

ARTHUR:
I think we have to accept that it's entirely possible the Ducks will NEVER gain the respect of the rest of the league. That's not just a Disney thing, but an East Coast bias thing. The advent of Sportscenter LA can't really fix that. How long have the Kings, the Lakers, the Dodgers and the Giants been in California, and how many writers still don't stay awake for their evening games?

As far as cleanliness, I don't think I want to see a clean Ducks team. I know you and I will disagree on this, Daniel, but I've resigned myself to the fact that we ARE the Big Bad Ducks. There's nothing wrong with that in my eyes. Just as there was nothing wrong with the Big Bad Bruins. Moreover, it's no accident that the team is like this. Brian Burke went out of his way to put this team together.

I have no irrefutable proof that Brian Burke hates Russians and Eastern Europeans, or that he thinks the 90s influx of European superstars ruined the game. He certainly likes Swedes and the Finnish. But there was SOMETHING suspect about Burke discarding every single Russian and Eastern European player in the Ducks system. I wouldn't blame him if he felt that way. There was a time in the NHL when the attitude was similar to that of the NBA-- non-Americans are soft and reliant on referee calls. However, unlike the NBA, non-Americans softly played their way into becoming the dominant superstars in the NHL, though maybe that's what bothered Burke most of all.

Burke always said he wanted "two way forwards with character," but when you look at the team he built, that reads as "gritty North Americans." And if the stereotype of the rest of the world is that they play soft, the stereotype of North Americans is that they play as rough as you'll let them: hard checkers, who take dirty shots at your skill players and expect the game's "officiating" to be done with the gloves off. Now, even if we play to that stereotype, the only "dirty" players on our team would be Pronger and Perry, who are in the trenches every shift. But a guy like Parros is fighting and enforcing strictly by The Code. His play only makes us look more physical because the rest of the league seems happy to let The Code lapse into disuse.

I said recently that we look like a time-warp of pre-90s hockey, an anachronism in the modern game. I actually feel like thanking Burke for that. Because I honestly feel that we WON'T ever be respected as a franchise. But we're earning respect the only way we can. No team comes into our building thinking it will be an easy win, now. No series with us ever seems survivable. And really, that's not at odds with the early Ducks teams, who were always dropping the gloves for respect. Only now, we're doing it a little dirtier, but it's a LOT more effective. We're no longer the team that watches Paul Kariya get cross checked to the face or laid out, and does nothing or waits a game later to start a fight. We're the team that lets you know we'll lay your guy out if you take a run at ours. So, now our guys don't get laid out as often. Maybe that's all the respect we can get, for now.

DANIEL:
I'm always frustrated when I read commentary from national blogs or news sources, or more importantly from asshole fans, on both sides, who don't respect the game and call us dirty. Look, the wings have gotten away with plenty, Holmstrom elbowed Wisniewski while he was hobbling in front of the crease, and there wasn't even a penalty. In my opinion, if you want to argue that a player is always responsible for his elbows the same way he is his stick, then Holmstrom's elbow is as bad as Niedermayer's. I think I came up with this question because I read some fan comments that basically said Scotty was classless and taking cheap shots. Even though he'd taken a mountain of abuse from Holmstrom, who pulled him down to the ice after the whistle during a powerplay. Everyone was saying Scotty tackled him, and yeah, Niedermayer was clearing the crease, but then Holmstrom grabbed Scotty's arm and dragged him down. Scotty has done nothing but win, and everyone says the Wings would rather have the power play, but where's the respect for the game when people take cheap shots and then refuse to stand up. Say what you want about Perry, but the kid drops the gloves, something I can never recall Holmstrom doing. But we get labeled as cowardly, dirty and every other adjective. Hockey is a tough sport, and it's not for the feint of heart. Yeah, we play hard, but we answer the bell. Pronger and Perry can definitely be called dirty, but it's not like they do those things and then are unwilling to take their punishment.

When I say we aren't dirtier than any team, I simply mean that all of these types of plays have happened and continue to happen. Even if we do them more often, we are not exactly reinventing the wheel. Burke built this team to play hard. Yes two-way forwards, primarily North Americans, and that was of course to the detriment of one Teemu Selanne, who doesn't really play that style of hockey. In a way though, I think you're right in that the East Coast bias will always be prevalent. In Game 3 when Scotty had just scored a power play goal, the entire intermission interview focused on everything that was going wrong for the Ducks. The period before focused on how Detroit was doing fine even though they were down a goal. And the Puck Daddy blog on yahoo sports pointed out how a reporter was interviewing Holmstrom about the elbow to Wisniewski and when he asked for Holmstrom's comment essentially said "Holmstrom, that elbow couldn't have been a dirty play because we know you wouldn't do that sort of thing." And of course when Detroit scored a goal at the end of game 6, all the Versus commentators said "What else would you expect from a defending champion?" as if we were so far removed from our cup title that we don't know how to close out a game. I suppose my main argument is that this bias helps create our image. I don't think we are as dirty as everyone thinks, just that no one watches the games and that the East Coast bias you mentioned really works to generate and perpetuate that moniker. I like that we play a little nasty. I like that we're gritty. I think that it's the best kind of hockey. I just don't think that it's fair to call hard play dirty play simply because we've taken a few penalties, and people spend more time reading box scores than they do watching games.

I suppose my real argument is that the media has crafted this image and hung it around our neck. I know I've given Detroit examples, but that's not the only team that gets this treatment when they do this. I hate to sound like an academic, but the rhetoric used to discuss the Ducks has, in fact, created the perspective that everyone in the league uses when looking at us, as well as the vocabulary that they use when talking about us. I could explain in greater detail, but that would require source citations and would only piss off our readers. More importantly, the general lack of respect is going to create a chip on anyone's shoulder. It's what makes us play harder in my opinion. So, while I'd like some respect, maybe it would be bad for us in the long run. I just think that the general lack of respect towards us is also what causes us to play so close to the edge. In other words, if we are the Big Bad Ducks, it's not just because Burke went and got the players to bring that edge, it's because the rest of the league refuses to acknowledge that we are a legitimate hockey force.

**This was our CLS mini-blog post for today. We'll put up an Anaheim Calling exclusive post shortly**


[Pavel's still mad about that hit in 2007]

DANIEL:
We have spent a lot of time talking about different aspects of this series, from Hiller's struggles to the contributing factors of Detroit's success and we even hated on Versus' coverage, or lack thereof, of this series. What a lot of people are forgetting is that since 2003, these are the two most successful post-season teams. We've each won a Cup, and the Ducks actually have more Cup appearances, 2 to the Wings' 1. Anyone who has followed this rivalry since the early days in 1997 knows that there is a lot of hate between these two teams. I'm sure some Detroit fans blame us for costing them a Cup in 2007, and possibly 2003. Thus, it's no surprise that there were so many fireworks at the end of last night's game. So Arthur, what makes the Anaheim-Detroit rivalry one of the most compelling in hockey?

ARTHUR:
Let me point out that 2002 was a Cup year for Detroit, so the Ducks don't really have an appreciable lead in Cup appearances when measuring from 2003.

In my opinion, there has never been a Ducks/Wings series without a quality storyline. Detroit has faced Anaheim following each of its last three championships, answering the bell of the Stanley Cup hangover against the same team for the last decade. When these teams first locked horns in '97, Detroit went on to win its first Cup in 42 years, and ten years later, Anaheim beat the Red Wings to advance to the Finals that brought them their only Stanley Cup. It's never a meaningless series when it's Detroit/Anaheim, but here are my three reasons that this is one of the best rivalries in hockey:

1) Fun to watch. Hradek over at the Entertainment Sports Programming Network said it best after Game 3 when he asked if we could watch these teams play a Best of 15 series instead of 7. Anaheim and Detroit declare war every time they face each other. The sweeps aren't sweeps when it's Ducks/Wings. The teams played a combined 10 overtime periods in their 1997 and 2003 sweeps of one another, and the '99 series was filled with goals knocked in above the crossbar, Kariya hitting three posts (but no net) and the general shenanigans we've come to love. In fact, if you add up the all-time Playoff OT minutes between these teams, you probably have enough for another series. And every minute of that time is filled with contentious hockey: they draw blood, they question each other's heart and grit and they steal games from their opponent more often than they best them.

2) Respect. For the longest time, the Ducks were the NHL's answer to Rodney Dangerfield. They routinely dropped the gloves, and had the most potent offensive talents in the NHL. For that, other teams regularly took runs at their skill players, and the talking heads classified them as a purely offensive team, not built for serious playoff contention. No respect, I tell ya. Detroit, by contrast, could win an entire playoff series with nothing but the respect the other team gave them. How many times did we hear a co ach in the 90s say of Detroit, "We can't respect these guys too much." It was a legitimate key to the series in a best-of-7 against the Wings. There was always the danger you'd get caught watching Fedorov skate around you, or not put a solid enough check on Shanahan.

Yet, when the Ducks tangled with Detroit, they brought the most dangerous weapon possible with them: the belief they could win. At first, you could chalk it up to a young franchise being too stupid to realize it couldn't beat the Red Wings, but a lights out goaltender and a one-man forecheck in 2003 proved it possible. Since then, the Ducks have morphed into the Big Bad Ducks, but it's the same story. Like the Big Bad Bruins of old, the Ducks don't respect anyone that comes into their building, least of all the Red Wings. And that lack of respect has got to stick in the craw of a Detroit franchise with that much history, that much consistent success and that many skill players. But it's also got to stick in the Ducks' craw that no matter what they do, the Red Wings will have the reputation of being classy and skilled, while the Ducks are Public Enemy #1 for every officiating crew in the NHL.

3) Litmus test in the West. Since 2002, only ONE Western Conference Finals was played without one of these two teams. They are the lineal champions in the West. You can't EARN a trip to the Finals if you didn't go through Detroit or Anaheim. When they face each other, people are prone to speculate (as they have this year) that the Ducks and Wings are deciding the Stanley Cup champion in THEIR series, not the one played weeks later.

DANIEL:
As I've said before, I am a long time Ducks fan, and as a result, I have a massive chip on my shoulder. That also means that I hate the Red Wings. As you already stated Arthur, the Ducks were always seen as a flashy offensive team, the Kariya and Selanne show, that never had what it took to be a serious NHL team in the playoffs or otherwise. Then, when we ground out a 7-game win over a gritty Phoenix team, back when Roenick and Tkachuk occupied their top line, it was a step in the right direction. After that, we ran into a wall against Detroit. I believe 3 of the 4 games in that sweep went into overtime. Two years later, we were swept again, and that is when I began to hate Detroit. More importantly, it's also when the Ducks decided to fight for respect as an organization.

As you've mentioned, there is a new litmus test in the West, i.e. the Cup representative has to go through us or them, but the Red Wings have always been a litmus test for Anaheim. Detroit is an Original 6 franchise, and even though they had that 42-year hiatus from Cup glory, when we were starting to develop as a franchise and create an identity, Detroit was a league powerhouse. They were a model franchise, and in a way, I've always seen them as Anaheim's older brother, at least in terms of the franchise wars. After defeats in '97 and '99, what Anaheim fans wanted more than anything was that match up in 2003. In a way, Detroit has been a gatekeeper for Anaheim's respect as a franchise, and I think that is what makes this series so amazing. It may not seem tough to people who refuse to pay attention to a west coast team, but this rivalry belongs in the mythic category. It runs deeper than teams hating each other for ending playoff runs. We fight for the respect of an Original 6 franchise that always seems to be on our path to success, as a constant reminder of what we are trying to become. Red Wings fans seem to see us as a threat, an upstart mickey-mouse hockey club that has no right to even be in the NHL, let alone deserve the honor of hoisting a Cup. In some ways. I think Anaheim/Detroit demonstrates the battle between hockey purists and those who see the economic advantages of a modern league. While we do play a more old skool style of play in Anaheim, I think some people will never forget that we only exist because Disney rode the marketing wave a little too long. Detroit, on the other hand, is an Original 6 in a renaissance that has yielded more Cups in the past 12 years than any other franchise.

As a result of this sort of clash of hockey ideology, I see the players doing more to win than in other series. The reason why the Anaheim/Detroit playoff matchups are always such great hockey is that you have two teams who refuse to lose. It's usually a long stretch of mistake free, hard-hitting, grind-it-out hockey, where a superstar can, at any moment, change the momentum of the game. I know my answer is a little abstract, but that's what makes sports so great. It is so symbolic, yet so material. All I'm saying is that this rivalry has budded into the type of thing that no one from either camp will ever forget. It has offered the promise of hard fought hockey that every fan can appreciate, and most importantly, the games matter. The Cup winner might not come from this series, simply because of the damage these two teams have done to each other, but the winner of this series will definitely have the edge and confidence to hoist the Cup should the opportunity arise.

DANIEL:
It's hard to be critical of Jonas Hiller, who has had a pretty impressive playoffs so far, but the Wings got to him in Game 4. They lit the lamp 5 times with Hiller between the pipes, and let's face it, some of the goals were pretty soft. Hiller has made his fair share of amazing stops, but some of the pucks that have slipped past him in this series have been very stoppable. I know we disagreed on the backhander that slipped through the pads in Game 3, but Hiller had 2 go right through the arm and the body, which is exactly what a butterfly goalie isn't supposed to give up. So let me ask you, Arthur, is Hiller slipping and is it time to let a Conn Smythe Trophy winner find his way to the Anaheim crease?

ARTHUR:
First, on Samuelsson's backhander in Game 3, my issue was with the declaration that that was "not a quality chance." You have to put a stick on Samuelsson and pressure the shot out of him. You can't let him streak past you diagonally, free to shoot it whenever he wants. Hiller guessed high, and any quality backhanded chance would've been high. Yes, he should've had it, but I was saying we never should have given it up.

Is he slipping? Maybe. I can tell you he didn't look sharp in the skate around. The second goal was unstoppable, but the others were all ones he should've had. Detroit got better chances this game; Hossa benefitted from playing on a different line. But by the time Hiller let that fifth goal past him, you could see the kid just didn't have it tonight.

I think he's allowed a bad game, though. In 2003, Jiggy had a phenomenal series against Detroit, opened the series well against Dallas, had a game where he had to be pulled and then closed in record-setting fashion against the Stars and Wild. I'm not saying that Hiller is destined for that same performance, but when you ask a goaltender to bear the brunt of upsetting the No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the West, you have to allow him a bad game. And Allaire prepared Jiggy to bounce back in the Dallas series, just as I'm sure he's prepared Jonas.

I know a lot of people want Jiggy to ride into the crease and save the day, and I'm sure it's crossed Carlyle's mind. I just don't see that happening, though. This isn't like 2006. Jiggy lost this job in March, not in the middle of a playoff series. Carlyle owes Hillsy Sunday's start. He's the starter, and he hasn't imploded just yet.

DANIEL:
I think we can both agree that Hiller didn't have it tonight. I don't know who he prays to, but the hockey gods were not listening. I also agree that the problem tonight was the quality chances that Detroit seemed to conjure at will. It's hard to talk about what went right for Anaheim in this game, defensively, because nothing really did. The goals Hiller gave up had one thing in common: they came from in between the circles. Hiller has done some amazing things in the playoffs, but if a goalie faces 5 or 6 quality chances between the circles . . .

I do think that Hiller has wrestled the starting job away from Jiggy, and it's going to be tough not to do something to change momentum. We got thoroughly handled in Game 4. The fact is though, if he can't rebound and play amazing in Game 5, maybe he'll never be the playoff goalie that a championship team needs. Every goalie is going to have a night like this in the playoffs. Luongo got lit up for 6 in game 2 of the Chicago/Vancouver series, and came back really strong. If Hiller does rebound, the Wings are going to have themselves an awful night sunday. If he doesn't, maybe Jiggy can save the series. I do know that Hiller needs to shake this one off, and be the same guy who had the Sharks shaking their heads in Round One.

DANIEL:
Alright, Arthur. You saw it, I saw it and we can both hear the incessant griping out of Detroit, "the dirty Ducks are at it again, blah, blah, blah." I would like to point out that the first penalty called in the game was on one Jiri Hudler for a dirty elbow on Francois Beauchemin. There were a lot of things that went into Brown's hit on Hudler. I don't think it was dangerous, and I'm sure I'll get my chance to explain, but why don't you lay it down for everyone and give a level perception of what happened when Brown knocked some sense-- sorry --knocked down Hudler?

ARTHUR:
[laughing]

So, here's what happened. Believe it or not, the Red Wings broke discipline first in this game. At 8:00 of the 1st, Jiri Hudler elbowed Francois Beauchemin. I'd love to tell you more about the play, but I didn't see it on Versus, as they didn't show it. I saw the replay on TSN, and while it doesn't look like a hard and sudden elbow, Hudler follows through all the way, which pries Beauchemin's helmet off, and takes him out of the play.

Fast forward 3:30, and Jiri Hudler is handling the puck just outside of his zone. He tries to make a quick play, backhanding it off the boards and turning low. Mike Brown is in Detroit's zone, and puts Hudler in the train tracks right before he touches the puck. Hudler releases the puck along the boards, and we hear the appropriate number of beats that would require a player to at least let up if he's still going to execute the check. Brown charges full steam ahead, and finishes the hit with his shoulder. He catches Hudler flush, and the hit is made even more dangerous by the fact that Hudler was turning his body to skate toward Brown as contact was made. Hudler was twisting one way, and then violently twisted back onto the ice like one of those "Hit Stick" checks in NHL 09. Hudler was cut either by the ice or his visor when his head hit the ground, leaving a pool of blood. He got up gingerly, opening and closing his hands (I don't know what that's medically relevant of, but it caused me to say, "DAYUMN!").

Now, if you ask me for my unbiased hockey analysis? I think that it's a retaliation play made worse by the fact that the offensive player had his head down. If Corey Perry got blindsided with a late shoulder check to the head after he elbowed Claude Giroux, I wouldn't call it a dirty play, any more than any retaliation or the initial cheapshots and elbows that breed them are dirty plays.

Is it illegal or suspension worthy? See, this part I love. The Hockey Central crew on Versus both agreed that the play is a terrible and suspension-worthy offense. But then I read the crew over at Hockey Night in Canada agreed it was a clean hit, and decided to move on with the broadcast without discussing it. Apparently, the only broadcast to express some disagreement was TSN, where Bob McKenzie reiterated a point he explored in an article he wrote this week, where he points out that a shoulder blindside to the head is NOT an illegal hit in the books. Dirty hit? Yes. Should be excised from the sport? Yes. But does the NHL say you can never put your shoulder into a guy's head? No.

But here's the thing. It's been legal for so long that I don't think of it as dirty. When Scott Stevens took Paul Kariya out in the Stanley Cup Finals in '03, it was a blindside shoulder check to the head that was a beat or two late. He even leaned into it with his elbow. I didn't get up and scream that it was dirty, even though I was pretty sure Paul was dead (I mean, it was like his 6th concussion, 2nd major one). So, maybe I'm insensitive, but I don't care how BADLY you were hurt, if the reason that you were hurt so badly and were unable to protect yourself is that you made a play with your head down.

DANIEL:
I couldn't agree more.

Actually, I'm furious for a different reason. Keith Jones is over in the Versus booth, crying like it was his kid who got it. He was mad like someone took his lunch money, or tried to date his daughter without bringing a condom. There's nothing more frustrating in Hockey than when good hits get called dirty because someone gets hurt. Look, the hit on Paul in 2003 pissed me off, but just like Barry said, he kept his shoulder in and then followed through. This hit wouldn't have been a problem if it wasn't for Hudler deciding to pirouette at center ice after getting rid of the puck. Someone on his team should have told him.

Look, Brown was barely on the tracks. He had stopped striding well before he went after Hudler. He is a big dude, who can generate some speed very quickly, but he kept his arms in and he only hits Hudler with the follow through. While I hear Detroit fans crying already about "if it was Getzlaf you'd want a suspension." All I can say is my guys know that if you go around the neutral zone with your head down, somebody is going to drop you.

Moreover, Hudler coming back like he did leads me to believe that the only thing that was really wrong with him was that he got cut. Since when is a hockey player getting cut such a tragedy? If all that happened was that he got cut, and he's not hurt then the hit is clean. There should be no suspension. We lost our second-best PK forward for the first game of the series, and Detroit scored 2 goals as a result. I don't know what else to say, really. Yes, the hit looks bad, but only if you don't know what you're doing. There's less than a second and a half from when Hudler gets rid of the puck and when Brown hits him, is that time enough to pull up? Sure. But if Brown is zeroed in, he's not moving. He kept his shoulders in, didn't lead with the elbow and followed through.

More than anything, I'm angry about how one bad thing seems to snowball on us. Pronger loses his head a few times, and all of the sudden the entire Ducks organization is dirty. Detroit was doing the same things we were, but for some odd reason, being from California means we don't know how to play real hockey. Wake up!!! We won the cup. We have the most postseason series victories since 2003, and we didn't accidentally upset San Jose. The refs did a great job of calling this game down the middle. I don't really disagree with the Interference call although I think a double minor would have been much mor e appropriate, unfortunately, there's no such call, but that's another topic. But if Brown gets suspended for this, it's just another example of how the league doesn't care about hockey in California, and is more focused on protecting its cold weather franchises.

ARTHUR:
Okay, but you agree that it was a 5-minute Major for Interference? Rulebook (56.4 and 56.5) reads that any interference with a degree of violence that results in an injury should result in a Major for Interference and a Game Misconduct. Clearly, Brown knew he was getting there a beat late, and could be called for Interference. If the guy gets injured, regardless of whether Brown meant to injure him or not, he knew he could get called. So, it's gotta be a 5-minute Major for Interference, right?

DANIEL:
I don't think this is a 5-minute Major, and that's a problem with the rule. I know we want to stop hits to the head, but the referees need the power of discretion. I do think you can call the penalty. It's definitely an Interference call, and he did draw blood. But it should be a double Minor, not a Major. Just like with high sticking: if blood is drawn, the penalty is 4 minutes instead of 2. I'm not saying there should be an automatic 4 minutes every time someone draws blood, just that when it comes to hits to the head, a more effective tiered system is needed. With high sticking the refs don't make the decision; here they should.

But, let's take a closer look at what happened. The hit was a second late. This isn't Donald Brashear peeling off from a change to crack some guy who hasn't touched the puck for 4 seconds. This is a guy who had the puck carrier in his sights and tried to separate the carrier from the puck. Even during coverage, no one observed it was a bad hit until there was blood. That, to me, means it's not a dirty play. If it's not dirty, and there's no intent to injure, which is not the same as playing physical, then the 5-minute Major and Game Misconduct shouldn't come into play. There was no Boarding. No bad stick work. Nothing. Majors should be reserved for penalties that are malicious and seek to injure. This was neither.

I'm okay with calling this a penalty, and given the rules, I guess the refs had no choice but to call the Major. However, this rule needs to be reevaluated. I'm just not in favor of something like Interference being an all or nothing penalty. There needs to be a way for the refs to consider the degree of injury and whether or not it was directly caused by the hit. I'm in favor of rules that protect players, but I'm more in favor of players protecting players and refs being able to call the game that is in front of them.

DANIEL:
So, the first round is over, and it's time to look at how we did. If Buccigross can admit his shortcomings, then we at Anaheim Calling can do the same. So let's do it, Arthur. Tell us what happened that affected your predictions in the first round, and lay down some predictions for the 3 series of the Conference Semis that don't involve our Ducks.

ARTHUR:
First, I'll point out to our readers that Daniel and I don't do series predictions for the Ducks because that's 7 years bad magumbo. And Daniel remembers what happened when I said the Sabres would win the Cup during the '99 All-Star Break and when I said it was the Ducks' year to win the Cup during the 2003 All-Star Break. Although, in my defense, the Sabres still haven't lost that '99 Finals (and they better hurry up and finish those games before Guy Carbonneau dies). For our breakdown of the keys to the Ducks/Wings series, head over to the CLS mini-blog.

On my first round calls, I got my winners right 5/7 and correctly predicted a Boston sweep. However, I was VERY wrong about the Blues, and I overestimated Brodeur. Though in my defense, Brodeur was the difference in those last two games. If he focuses as the clock winds down, it's NJ in 6.

East

Washington-Pittsburgh: From the regular season matchups, I want so desperately to pick the Capitals. Watching Ovechkin laugh and push Crosby around while Sid is on the verge of tears-- priceless. But the Capitals had trouble last series, and they had trouble at home. Fedorov AND Ovechkin would have to take this series over. And I don't think they will.
Pens in 6.

Boston-Carolina: After the end of their series with NJ, the Canes clearly have the hockey gods on their side. Boston's Irish Catholic population might be the only thing that can combat that. I'm going to say that Cam Ward has at least one bad game, and that Chara shuts down Staal. And since you have to score to win...
Bruins in 5.

West

Vancouver-Chicago: I picked the Hawks in a sweep last round and Vancouver losing a in a long series. Since I got those totally backwards, you'd think I'd pick the 'Nucks right? Nope. Unless I see a 100% Mats Sundin, I say Chicago keeps rolling.
Blackhawks in 6.

DANIEL:
Well, I was also 5/7 in my predictions, probably because we picked the same teams. Sadly, we'll do it again, although for different reasons. I'd also like to point out that I had exact matches on 3/4 of the Eastern Conference series, and was sorely let down by Brodeur. I have nothing but shock over that game 7. I still don't know how Carolina did it. As for the Blues, I just don't know where they went. They didn't look at all like the team we'd seen at the end of the year, and maybe all that youth just wilted in front of Luongo and the Sedins. So, predictions for the next round:

Eastern Conference

Boston-Carolina: My heart wants to pick Carolina: they're coming off a great upset of New Jersey, Cam Ward looks like he could steal some games and that top line with Staal and Whitney looks pretty dangerous. I love a good upset as much as anyone, but Boston has too much up front and Tim Thomas doesn't look like he's getting rattled anytime soon. Still, I think Carolina gives Boston a little bit of a scare.
Bruins in 6.

Pittsburgh-Washington: I love Ovechkin, like I'd-let-him-date-my-daughter-if-I-had-one love him. He plays a style that the league hasn't seen in years. I know everyone knocks him for celebrating too much, including me, but the kid is just exciting. Whenever he touches the puck I'm waiting for something amazing to happen. But you know what happened to Wayne Gretzky when he ran into Patrick Roy, the same thing that's going to happen in this series. I'm not saying Marc-Andre Fleury is Roy-- I'm not stupid. I'm just saying that Pittsburgh wins the goalie battle by a lot. And I think people who pick Washington are forgetting something, Kunitz used to play on a very defense-oriented Anaheim team, and that guy knows how to piss people off. If I'm Bylsma, I let Kunitz go loose all over Ovechkin. The Pens are too strong up front, and they have the experience. This isn't Washington's year.
Penguins in 5.

Western Conference

Chicago-Vancouver. If I love Ovechkin enough to let him marry my hypothetical daughter, then the youth movement in Chicago can date my sister. Not all of them at the same time,-- this isn't that kind of website --but Toews, Sharp, or Kane can take a shot and try to tame the shrew.* The Sedins might be the best workers in the league that don't reside in Anaheim. They can cycle on a level similar to the RPG line. It's not really their game, but I've seen them do it. Sadly, that's not going to be enough. Mats isn't 100%, no matter how much rest he's had. Mostly because he is just out of gas. Chicago is too young, too fast and they just look hungry. They had so many opportunities to fold to the Flames, but they kept coming back. Others might say that Luongo can win this series for the Canucks, but I think he's going to be blinded by the glint coming off Khabibulin's '04 Cup Ring. That's right, I said it!! The Bulin Wall is going to outduel Vancouver's darling of the pipes. Look for Luongo to give up another softy when it matters most, like he did in Vancouver's defeat at the hands of the '07 Ducks.
Blackhawks in 6.

*ARTHUR:
In reference to Daniel's sister: I wouldn't call her a shrew, but I AM surprised I've never found her on "that kind of website."

ARTHUR:
Anaheim Calling to the hockey world...

Game 5.

The Ducks MUST close this team out. While 3-0 is a dominating force that only two NHL teams have ever overcome, 3-1 is a bit of a manageable beast. NHL teams are 20-230 in series where they were down 3-1. A long shot sure, but as recently as 2003, the Minnesota Wild did it TWICE (to COL and VAN) to reach the Western Conference Finals.

The Ducks have a 10-2 record when closing out a series, and are 2-1 in games where they own a 3-1 lead. The Sharks are 6-12 when facing elimination, and 1-1 in games where the opponent holds the 3-1 edge. But don't forget that this is essentially the same team that forced Dallas to six games (and a bounce away from seven) last year after the Stars went up 3-0 in the series.

The Ducks are 3-2 at HP this year, and Sleek has broken down the Sharks' general home record for you. Suffice to say, the Ducks aren't afraid of The Tank, but the Sharks might have reason to be.

A Mover And A Shaker - A note on Game 4:
I prepared some earthquake info on my way home from the game, but decided to post about the empty seats at Ponda instead. Rather than waste the information, I thought I'd tack it onto the end of this short post.

Daniel and I attended the January 8th game at The Staples Center (Bobby has since signed this game program for me, though the Kings charged me $5 for it) where a 5.0 earthquake gently rocked the stadium at 7:15 of the 1st Period. After a scoreless 1st for the Ducks, Bobby Ryan opened the floodgates at 19:14 of the 2nd, closing them at 1:35 of the 3rd with a Denis Savardian spin that tied the game and capped off a natural hat trick. We were sitting up top, center ice and I wasn't wearing a hat, but I was screaming for Kings fans to throw theirs.

Then on Thursday, the aftershocks of a 4.0 hit The Ponda Center during the 1st intermission of a scoreless 1st. I had my feet up on the rail in front of me and noticed that my legs started to sway gently. Bobby Ryan scored 6:33 into the 2nd and after a 15-minute delay to fix the glass, found the net again at 10:13 of the 2nd. I was so amped, I climbed the very same rail that had made me question its structural integrity just minutes earlier.

Give him a rattle and a 15-minute break, and you basically pull the pin out of the grenade. Must be the spores in the air or something. Check this kid for milky tears!

ARTHUR:
Anaheim calling to the hockey world...

This is a solo edition of Cold Hard Stats.

While reading the Monday hype for tonight's game, I came across two things that contradicted what I think I know about the Sharks:

The first was McLellan's insistence to The Hockey News that he had no intention of changing the way his team plays as they were "one goal behind in both games, with - in my opinion - more chances."

The second was Pronger's quote to The LA Times, which estimated that, "They have a very potent power play and at some point they're going to explode."

Now, the Sharks hit some injuries and a scoring drought midseason, though they seemed to climb out of it before the trade deadline. Still, to my recollection, they hadn't won many games by multiple goals down the stretch, and they struggled heavily both on the power play and at even strength against Pacific Division teams. If that's true, it would make McLellan's quote sound rather silly, and confirm Pronger's quote to be more of a sports platitude than anything else. Let me use some statistics from the months of March and April to illustrate my view on this.

McLellan's Quote
For the months of March and April, McLellan's Sharks went 11-8 with 2 overtime losses. Three of those wins came by way of Shootout and one in OT. That gives the Sharks a regulation record of 7-8.

Of those 7 wins, only 2 were decided by a goal differential greater than 1, and the 3-1 victory over the Avs on March 22nd included an Empty Net goal by Setoguchi. That means that for the months of March and April, the Sharks won just ONE game where their opponent was not in striking distance when the horn sounded.

Now, McLellan could be saying he's staying neck and neck with a good team, and his team has the opportunity to win these games if not for the unlucky bounces-- but shouldn't Carlyle be saying that? Since when does a Presidents' Trophy team hang its hat on staying with an eighth seed (even a great eighth seed)?

Again here, let's go back to the March and April records. The Sharks dropped 8 games to teams that were 6th or lower in the Western Conference standings, including 2 losses to the Coyotes, who were cycling in minor league players. And of San Jose's 4 wins after regulation, one came in overtime against MIN and three were decided in shootouts against LA, COL and NSH (all teams placed 6th or lower at game time).

San Jose had the luxury of finishing the season against teams that were missing or were in danger of missing the playoffs, and they notched ONE convincing win. You can argue that a malaise came over the team, as they had clinched a playoff spot and were staring at an easy schedule, maybe surprised by teams with something to play for down the stretch. But that malaise is only okay if you snap out of it when the playoffs start. You DEFINITELY shouldn't be proud that you're STILL playing that way. Carlyle should be happy that these games are close; McLellan should be upset.

Pronger's Quote
Don't get me wrong, the Sharks have a great power play. They're stacked with talent and maybe only 3 teams in the league can hold the zone and move the puck as well as they do. But in a series where the Ducks are stymieing the Sharks' offensive zone entry, you have to wonder if Anaheim hasn't also figured out how to defuse much of the explosiveness of San Jose's power play after it sets up in the Ducks' end.

Let's go back to the March and April stats. In that block of time, San Jose played 10 games against the Pacific Division, going 5-5, and 11 games against the rest of the Western Conference. In those 11 games, San Jose matched up with teams like MIN, CGY, NSH and STL-- all top 10 in PK% in the league. The Sharks went 10 for 37 (27%), commensurate with their season total of 24.2% with the man-advantage.

However, against the Pacific Division, the Sharks went 10 for 52 (19.2%). And if you factor out the 3 for 7 showing April 11th against the Kings, the Sharks power play would have tallied 15.6%. Now, a 20% power play is nothing to scoff at, but consider that in the Pacific Division, only LA and SJ have competent PK stats this season. ANA, DAL and PHX all placed 23rd or worse when down a man. Yet, these teams were comfortable taking 52 penalties against the league's 3rd best power play?

I doubt ANYONE could beat the Sharks giving up 6 penalties per game, but the fear of an explosion implies you've showed this power play some respect before. You haven't, and with Phoenix beating San Jose 4-1 while turning them away 0 for 6, something on these Pacific Division scouting reports probably says you shouldn't.