NHL Playoffs

[Asher]

You seem surprisingly butthurt.



Well make sure you have the suicide hotline on speeddial.



Least deserved SCF? Really? No, that still belongs to the '45 Leafs. They got blown out 10-3 by the Habs and were way more minus over fewer games than the Canucks going into the SCF.

From TSN:

19 times a team has won the SCF in 6 games, never has the team allowed more goals then scored. TOR in 1947 13GF, 13GA is the only team EV

The Canucks have 6GF, 14GA. No one else is even close. The Canucks would need to win 8-0 tonight to TIE the Leafs for suckiest cup winner ever.

It's called clutch, but as a Flames fan I can see why the concept is alien.

Oh, this is golden. The Canucks have gone what, 40 years without a single cup, ever? And you're talking about Vancouver fans knowing what "clutch" is? This is the team famous for epic collapses and goaltending failures?

Further, tell me what happened the last time the Flames and Canucks met in the playoffs?

And to be 'systematically outplayed'? They were outplayed in 2 of 5 games. In the other 3 they outplayed Boston.

The other three games were very, very very close. I wouldn't say one team outplayed the other.

Vancouver looked like a PeeWee team in two of the games, completely undeserving of being in the SCF. This isn't even the first time this playoffs they did that. It's shameful.

[Ben Kenobi]

The 1945 Leafs were EV.

Hmm? No.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/playoffs/NHL_1945.html

Toronto Maple Leafs 13 8 5 0 .615 24 30 -6

The 2011 Canucks are deep in the negative.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/playoffs/NHL_2011.html

23 15 8 0 .652 56 60 -4

You are a liar.

You are wrong, as usual.

The Canucks have gone what, 40 years without a single cup, ever? And you're talking about Vancouver fans knowing what "clutch" is? This is the team famous for epic collapses and goaltending failures?

And the same team that's a win away from passing Calgary in overall playoff success.

Further, tell me what happened the last time the Flames and Canucks met in the playoffs?

They went to OT in game 7, where Calgary got a fluke goal. One bounce and they would have been going home.

That was back in 2004, which was 7 years ago. Since then the Canucks have been dominant, and Calgary? Don't make me laugh.

I wouldn't say one team outplayed the other.

Of course not, that's because it would require giving the Canucks credit.

Vancouver looked like a PeeWee team in two of the games

Actually, in game 4, chances were 13 to 17 for Boston, which would work out to a 4-3 score, all else being equal.

completely undeserving of being in the SCF.

Remind me, which team was outscored in their conference final? I'll take "Bruins" for 500, Alex/

This isn't even the first time this playoffs they did that. It's shameful.

Yet, they were a plus team going into the final. Clearly they deserved to be there, because they were better than the other teams when the crunch came.

[Asher]

19 times a team has won the SCF in 6 games, never has the team allowed more goals then scored. TOR in 1947 13GF, 13GA is the only team EV

I'm not going to say it again.

With a win tonight, the Canucks would be the worst cup winner, ever. By a huge margin.

6 GF, 14 GA. It's hilarious how bad that is.

And the same team that's a win away from passing Calgary in overall playoff success.

So the Canucks will win two cups this year?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to say it again.

With a win tonight, the Canucks would be the worst cup winner, ever. By a huge margin.

No, they won't be. Sorry. With a win tonight, they will still be better than the '45 Leafs.

6 GF, 14 GA. It's hilarious how bad that is.

Yet they are still winning. What does that say about the Bruins?

So the Canucks will win two cups this year?

Uh, let's see. If they win:

1 Cup, 2 finals appearances, 5 division Championships vs

1 Cup, 2 finals appearances, 8 division championships.

[Asher]

No, they won't be. Sorry. With a win tonight, they will still be better than the '45 Leafs.

No, but you continue to cling to that like it means anything?

"Only SECOND worst in history! Toronto did worse 66 years ago!"

Yet they are still winning. What does that say about the Bruins?

The Bruins have been very, very consistent. It says more about Vancouver than Boston.

Uh, let's see. If they win:

1 Cup, 2 finals appearances, 5 division Championships vs

1 Cup, 2 finals appearances, 8 division championships.

Division championships.

The Flames have been in the finals 3 times, you idiot.

1985-86
1988-89
2003-04

They also did this in 30 seasons, vs 40 for the Canucks.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Bruins have been very, very consistent. It says more about Vancouver than Boston.

Uh, they were outscored by the Lightning. Doesn't seem very consistant to me.

The Flames have been in the finals 3 times, you idiot.

Uh, so have the Canucks. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

They also did this in 30 seasons, vs 40 for the Canucks.

This is true, but now you're arguing for a handicap. Even assuming a 4/3 multiplier, the Canucks have still won more division titles.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, but you continue to cling to that like it means anything?

You claimed they were the worst. This is false.

Only SECOND worst in history! Toronto did worse 66 years ago!

Sure, glad to see you conceding the point.

[Asher]

Uh, they were outscored by the Lightning. Doesn't seem very consistant to me.

The context was quite clearly the series. I think you may need to work on your reading comprehension.

Uh, so have the Canucks. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.

You said "2 finals appearances". My reading comprehension is fine. Your writing skills are not. Perhaps you should consider a tutor...

This is true, but now you're arguing for a handicap. Even assuming a 4/3 multiplier, the Canucks have still won more division titles.

Division titles have precisely nothing to do with playoff success.

[Asher]

You claimed they were the worst. This is false.

It depends on which metric. They're awful in all kinds of ways, they are quite clearly the worst if they win tonight in 6 games. See the stat I quoted several times. If you include any number of games, they are merely the second worst of all time.

Sure, glad to see you conceding the point.

I suppose you don't know what "no" means. I'm glad no woman would get near you...

[Asher]

You didn't even mention pre-season championships, Ben. I'm sure Vancouver has more of those, which is very important when reflecting on past playoff success.

[Ben Kenobi]

The context was quite clearly the series. I think you may need to work on your reading comprehension.

They've been the furthest thing from consistant in this series. Games of 7, 4, 2, 0 and 0 goals.

You said "2 finals appearances".

1 Cup, 2 finals appearances. What's wrong with that statement? They've won one cup and lost twice in the finals.

Division titles have precisely nothing to do with playoff success.

Given that they are an automatic playoff birth and an indicator of sustained success, then yes, they are significant. The Canucks will have had more overall playoff success then Calgary should they win tonight.

[Ben Kenobi]

They're awful in all kinds of ways, they are quite clearly the worse if they win tonight in 6 games.

You claimed they were the worst team ever in the SCF. This is so *incredibly* wrong.

See the stat I quoted several times.

Not only was the stat you 'quoted' (ie, pulled outta your ass, wrong), but it remains to be seen how the series will play out.

I'm glad no woman would get near you...

Sorry Asher, I'm not gay for you.

[Asher]

They've been the furthest thing from consistant in this series. Games of 7, 4, 2, 0 and 0 goals.

What series is this? It's not the one I've seen.

They've been shut out twice, but that's not THEM being inconsistent -- it's Lou. They looked dangerous in all games. They were consistent.

1 Cup, 2 finals appearances. What's wrong with that statement? They've won one cup and lost twice in the finals.

A cup win requires an appearance in the final.

What do you not understand?

If somebody is in the final three times, you don't say they appeared twice.

Given that they are an automatic playoff birth and an indicator of sustained success, then yes, they are significant. The Canucks will have had more overall playoff success then Calgary should they win tonight.

Ben, you ****ing ******. What do you not comprehend.

Division titles are handed out based on REGULAR SEASON. They are NOT an indicator of PLAYOFF SUCCESS. You are a liar, and not a very good one.

[Asher]

You claimed they were the worst team ever in the SCF. This is so *incredibly* wrong.

Not only was the stat you 'quoted' (ie, pulled outta your ass, wrong), but it remains to be seen how the series will play out.

You're claiming TSN Research is wrong?

Please show me otherwise.

[Ben Kenobi]

They've been shut out twice, but that's not THEM being inconsistent -- it's Lou.

So Bobby Lou was insanely good to shut them out twice. BTW, the SCF record is three.

A cup win requires an appearance in the final.

A cup win is not the same as a final appearance which is a cup loss.

If somebody is in the final three times, you don't say they appeared twice.

You do, if you count one of those times as a cup win. All cup wins are finals appearances. So in saying that they have a cup win and two finals appearance where they did not win the cup, is correct.

Division titles are handed out based on REGULAR SEASON. They are NOT an indicator of PLAYOFF SUCCESS. You are a liar, and not a very good one.

Uh, the fact that they are awarded an automatic playoff spot has no bearing on playoff success? Are you really arguing this?