There was nothing inevitable about game two of the Stanley Cup final Wednesday night in California, but the result was one that most predicted. The LA Kings came out on top, 3-2 over the New York Rangers, after “Mr Game Seven” Justin Williams delivered on his namesake a little early, and fired a high quick wrist shot past the shoulder of Rangers goalie Henrik Lundqvist early in the first overtime period. And I say it was the result most predicted simply because, well, it was.
Sporstnet figured the Kings would take it. So did ESPN. So did every single writer for Puck Daddy. And yes, so did I.
And yet, early on, it felt like an upset in the making.
The Rangers were the first to strike at the Staples Center Wednesday night, care of Benoit Pouliot (on the breakaway, off an uncharacteristic mistake by Drew Doughty) at the 13:21 mark of the first period. It looked like this:
Then, the Rangers scored again – this time short-handed. The speedy Carl Hagelin outpaced LA’s Slava Voynov and back-handed one past Jonathan Quick.
Maybe it was just lucky. Or maybe it was a reminder for all the commentators out there that this could be a much closer series than they anticipated – a reminder Eric Tulsky over at FiveThirtyEight.com had already given us. While he mostly agreed that LA has the advantage in the series, (the Kings have the edge, statistically, in shots, and even shot differential when adjusted for the impact of score effects), he got stuck on one caveat. Rangers goaltender Henrik Lundqvist, he said, “is the fulcrum.”
“If we expect the Kings to get 52 to 53 percent of the shots and expect Lundqvist and Quick to match their average save percentages over the last three years, that leads to a draw at even strength,” Tulsky wrote, noting the Rangers seem to have the edge on special teams, shooting and fatigue. “Ignore the pundits – this thing’s closer to a toss-up than a blowout.”
The Kings did battle back from that 2-0 deficit, obviously. After Kyle Clifford made it 2-1 at the end of the first, LA’s stalwart defenceman Drew Doughty flipped the puck through his own legs, and fired a wrist shot past Lundqvist just over six minutes into the second.
Here’s an idea of how the game progressed for the Rangers. First-period shots were almost even, with the Rangers taking 13 against Quick and LA responding with 14 on Lundqvist. In the second period, the Rangers managed another nine shots, while the Kings had seven. New York only managed three shots against Quick in the third. LA, on the other hand? They fired 20 on Lundqvist. Not that you need a visual to imagine what that was like, but here’s one anyway, via Extra Skater.
How close did the Kings come to ending it in regulation? This close:
— World of Isaac (@WorldofIsaac) June 5, 2014
Finally, in overtime, Williams put away the winner off a weird play at from Dan Girardi, as he coughed up the puck to the Kings forwards in his own end.
Even still, it was, as Tulsky figured, hardly a blowout. Why? The fulcrum, Lundqvist. After the game, Ranger coach Alain Vigneault told reporters what everyone already knew: Lundqvist, he said, was “the reason we went to OT.” He’s right. Lundqvist did what he’s been doing for his team throughout their long post-season: give them a chance. New York didn’t take full advantage of it, despite using their speed to produce a few two-on-ones and breakaways early on (something they’ll hope to replicate in game two).
That speed is their other ace in the hole. The Rangers started the game flying and kept the home team on their back foot and the home crowd quiet. But that pace wasn’t ultimately one they could maintain, however, and the Kings capitalized. They threw everything at the Rangers, and every puck they could at Lundqvist. That, perhaps more than anything, ought to worry the Rangers and their fans: how long can they rely on their fulcrum? And how do they find an answer for the Kings’ energy?
We’ll have to wait a few days to see what they come up with. Game two goes Saturday at 7pm ET from LA.
View all comments >
comments
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
This discussion is closed for comments.
We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)