OK, I don't want to say last night was a bad game. Yes, we lost 5-2, the first time we've played a decent team in a while, but still: we're 4-1-2 in our last 7, gaining 10 of a possible 14 points. Despite losing 5-2, I thought we played a pretty decent hockey game, all things considered. Prust and Parenteau both scored (I am right about everything), and while it seems like we brought Callahan back too early, it's not like there's a rest-of-the-season to save him for, and it's not like we lost much by not giving Weise a chance. Ice time was very reasonably split (every forward but Shelley (9:29) and Voros (8:33) got between Prust's 11:57 and Prospal's 18:11), and we outshot them 32-20. Some days, the bear eats you.
The only thing I can really complain about is that once again, we started Lundqvist. Guess who's right about everything! It's this guy. Now, I'm not saying we would have won the game with Auld in. No one can make a claim like that. But our first two goals against were absolutely soft (the first was Lundqvist's signature bane, the space between him and his left post, and the second I feel like I could have stopped), and the third one, though probably screened, I imagine would have been stopped by Lundqvist 2 weeks ago.
What I am saying is that perhaps Lundqvist would have been sharper if Torts hadn't been asking him to carry the entire team all month. What I am saying is that perhaps Auld would not have let in those first two goals, given how rested he was. What I am saying is that perhaps Auld would have been sharper throughout the game (he was really fine as it was), had he been given the opportunity to warm up as a starter and start the game with his team. What I am saying is that perhaps Lundqvist would be in better shape for tonight, both mentally and physically, had he not had to start and then subsequently be pulled last night.
Perhaps.
Anyway, given how well we'd been doing in the standings lately, it was easy to forget how big a deal one loss would be, from our "outside looking in" standpoint. Here's where things stand, as of this morning:
6. Montréal - 87, 2 GR
7. Philadelphia - 86, 2 GR
8. Boston - 85, 3 GR
---------------
9. NEW YORK RANGERS - 82, 3 GR
10. Atlanta - 81, 2 GR
Yeah, doesn't look so good, does it? Let me break this down for you, math-style. There are three teams ahead of us that we can possibly theoretically pass, and they are in the final three playoff spots. Atlanta is also listed because there is a mathematical possibility that we could pass one of these three teams and yet still be passed by Atlanta and not make it. It's extremely unlikely, but it's there.
We have three games left: tonight against Toronto, and then a home-and-home with Philadelphia to end the season. Here's how our chances break down:
To pass the Canadiens in the standings, we would have to win our our remaining three games, and Montréal would have to lose out their remaining two (Carolina and Toronto), in regulation. If they gain a single point in either of those two games, we can't pass them even if we do win out. So, this isn't looking too likely.
With the Flyers, we actually do control our destiny. We will pass them if we win out the season, provided that at least one game of the home-and-home against them ends in regulation. We can also pass them if we push tonight's game to overtime but lose, if we then win both games against them in regulation. A regulation loss tonight, or any kind of loss to them later this week, would eliminate our chances of passing them.
Boston is the only team we could even theoretically pass without both gaining a point tonight and sweeping the home-and-home. But that wouldn't be terribly likely at that point: Boston is 3 points ahead of us. So, if they gain at least 4 points in their remaining three games (Buffalo, Carolina, Washington), we can't beat them no matter what. If they gain exactly 3 points in those games, we beat them if and only if we win out. And so on: if they gain 2, we need to gain 5; if they gain 1, we need to gain 4.
The reason Atlanta is still listed: if Boston loses out the season in regulation (hah!), the above would lead you to believe that if we gain only 3 points in our remaining three games, we would still make the playoffs. However, if this happens, and Atlanta wins out the season (Capitals and Penguins, so not the likeliest), they would actually leap-frog both us and Boston and end up in 8th.
So that's the full picture. But maybe that's too many words. Here's why tonight is being called a must-win for the Rangers. If we lose tonight in regulation, the following becomes our playoff picture:
---------------
-We cannot come in anything above 8th.
-For us to make the playoffs at all, Boston must gain no more than one point in their remaining three games. If they win a single one of those, or if they even send two of them to overtime, they eliminate us.
-Should Boston send even one of their three games to overtime, we will have to win both games against Philly to make it.
-Even if Boston totally loses out their season in regulation, we need to gain at least 3 of 4 points against Philly, and if we only gain 3, we need Atlanta to not win out their season.
---------------
That's basically elimination. Counting on Boston to gain no more than one point in three games against the Sabres, the Hurricanes, and the Capitals while fighting for their playoff lives is completely unreasonable. To reasonably expect to make the playoffs (and to maintain any hope at all of ending up above 8th, thus avoiding definite sweepage at the hands of the Caps), we must win out the season. That starts tonight, when the Leafs come to the Garden, at 7.
Let's Go Rangers!
No comments:
Post a Comment