Home
Feature Article
Stanley Cup Finals Preview: New York vs. Los Angeles

It's been 20 years since the New York Rangers have been to the Stanley Cup Finals (where they beat the Vancouver Canucks in 1994), but they'll get another chance at glory as they face 2012 Stanley Cup winners the Los Angeles Kings. The Kings continue to play a firebrand style of hockey, so that's always welcome, but it will be interesting to see a relative newcomer out of the east, since New York has had the underachiever (read: choker) label for quite some time.

Schedule

Game 1: Wednesday, June 4 in Los Angeles at 8 p.m. ET (TV: NBC, CBC, RDS)
Game 2: Saturday, June 7 in Los Angeles at 7 p.m. ET (TV: NBC, CBC, RDS)
Game 3: Monday, June 9 in New York at 8 p.m. ET (TV: NBCSN, CBC, RDS)
Game 4: Wednesday, June 11 in New York at 8 p.m. ET (TV: NBCSN, CBC, RDS)
Game 5*: Friday, June 13 in Los Angeles at 8 p.m. ET (TV: NBC, CBC, RDS)
Game 6*: Monday, June 16 in New York at 8 p.m. ET (TV: NBC, CBC, RDS)
Game 7*: Wednesday, June 18 at 8 p.m. ET (TV: NBC, CBC, RDS)

*If necessary

The Road to Stanley

I think it's safe to say that the Los Angeles Kings have walked the more challenging road to get to the final. Having conquered all three previous foes in tough seven-game showdowns, LA is in the thick of playoff hockey. It was one thing to get by San Jose, who was hungry to prove something of themselves in the playoffs once again; it was another to outlast the Anaheim Ducks, who had freakishly skilled offensive jam this year. That said, the Ducks fell victim to some injuries that hurt their chances, giving LA the edge. Finally, LA topped it off with Sunday night's win over the Chicago Blackhawks, who are perennial playoff favorites in the current hockey era.

Any time you can win a Game 7 of a series, it's a big deal. Winning three in a row is something else entirely. It shows that you can be beaten and that you are fallible, but it also shows that you only bend (and not break) under the most crushing pressure the Stanley Cup Playoffs can offer. Make no mistake: that definitely means something.


For New York, the path has been a bit different. It's definitely not meant to be a slight towards the Rangers, but the caliber of the Eastern Conference — and in particular with the teams they faced — just isn't the same road that LA walked through. To be fair, the Rangers have survived two game sevens themselves, but the teams they've punched out (save for Pittsburgh) don't bring what the Kings can dish out. Philadelphia has been an enigma in recent years, and their goaltending continues to be a stumbling block. That didn't help them this year against the Rangers, nor did their lack of secondary scoring.

After bypassing the Flyers, New York took on their biggest on-paper challenge in Pittsburgh, where they proved more than capable of frustrating some of the NHL's best players in Evgeni Malkin and Sidney Crosby. After falling down 3-1 to the Penguins, the Rangers came storming back and represented their team with some inspired effort. Led by an emotional Marty St. Louis (whose mother had recently passed away) and the always-talented Lundqvist in net, the Rangers showed some serious guts.

All of that sort of explains them kind of doing their thing against Montreal, who, frankly, overachieved big-time this year. I think they were as shocked as anyone to get past Boston, and the Rangers showed some poise in finishing them off. Then again, Carey Price in net probably would've changed the series a lot, but that's a game of what-ifs, which every team can do. Injuries happen in the playoffs. Period.

What does this mean for New York's chances against LA? I think Henrik Lundqvist gives any team a chance to win, especially if they already have skilled players like Marty St. Louis, Ryan McDonagh and Derek Stepan. Even the streaky Rick Nash can still turn heads, when he feels like it.

Players to Watch

Los Angeles

Jonathan Quick (12-9-2, 2.86 GAA, .906 SV%, 1 shutout)
Jeff Carter (21 GP, 9 goals, 13 assists, 4 PPG)
Jake Muzzin (21 GP, 5 G, 6 A, 21:56 average time on ice)
Drew Doughty (21 GP, 4 G, 12 A, 27:50 average time on ice)

New York

Henrik Lundqvist (12-7-1, 2.03 GAA, .928 SV% 1 shutout)
Dominic Moore (20 GP, 3 G, 4 A, 2 GWG)
Marty St. Louis (20 GP, 6 goals, 7 assists, 2 GWG)
Brad Richards (20 GP, 5 goals, 6 assists, 2 GWG)

X-Factor

It's tempting to call Henrik Lundqvist the X-Factor, or even Jeff Carter or Marty St. Louis or Drew Doughty, but I think I'm going to go outside the box a bit and say Rick Nash will step his game up — that is, he will if the Rangers are destined to win. If Nash plays the way he can, the Rangers are in business. If he has a quiet series, I see LA taking over the flow of the game.



Prediction

It's tempting to call for the spoiler and say the New York Rangers, as one could argue that they are the most rested team and they have a series-stealing goalie with King Henrik. On the other hand, LA has just walked through three Game 7s and has recently won a cup. It would actually be cool to see the likes of St. Louis and Lundqvist raise a cup, but the script doesn't always play out that way you think it should. Los Angeles in six.

 


NHL 14 Videos
Member Comments
# 1 DrJones @ 06/04/14 03:28 PM
The Kings play a "firebrand" style? It's "firewagon", and no they don't. The Rangers have a reputation of being chokers? Who's writing this stuff?
 
# 2 Wiggy @ 06/04/14 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
The Kings play a "firebrand" style? It's "firewagon", and no they don't. The Rangers have a reputation of being chokers? Who's writing this stuff?
I'll admit I was being a bit loose with the term, but firebrand is a word, just so you know. I'm aware of firewagon hockey. I was referring to their style causing trouble for other teams (and that they can play a "big" game).

The last time I checked, the Rangers haven't won the cup in 20 years, including numerous "Did Not Qualify" seasons and plenty of quarter-final exits (and some semfinal game 7 defeats). Sounds like a team who squandered a lot of potentially good seasons in a weaker conference (hence, they sometimes "choke.")
 
# 3 DrJones @ 06/04/14 04:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggy
I'll admit I was being a bit loose with the term, but firebrand is a word, just so you know. I'm aware of firewagon hockey. I was referring to their style causing trouble for other teams (and that they can play a "big" game).
Yeah, I know. No offence meant (I assumed this had been written by EA), but it still strikes me as odd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggy
The last time I checked, the Rangers haven't won the cup in 20 years, including numerous "Did Not Qualify" seasons and plenty of quarter-final exits (and some semfinal game 7 defeats). Sounds like a team who squandered a lot of potentially good seasons in a weaker conference (hence, they sometimes "choke.")
Since winning the Cup in '94, the Rangers are 5-1 in Game 7's. I mean, I guess you could say any team that didn't win the Cup in the last 20 years is a "choker", but 2012 is the only real contender the Rangers have had since then. The Sharks, Capitals, Canucks, and Senators (plus arguably the Blues) have had several powerhouse squads in the last decade or two that lost in agonizing, horrendous fashion. They've been chokers. The Rangers have merely been middling.
 
# 4 Wiggy @ 06/04/14 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJones
Yeah, I know. No offence meant (I assumed this had been written by EA), but it still strikes me as odd.



Since winning the Cup in '94, the Rangers are 5-1 in Game 7's. I mean, I guess you could say any team that didn't win the Cup in the last 20 years is a "choker", but 2012 is the only real contender the Rangers have had since then. The Sharks, Capitals, Canucks, and Senators (plus arguably the Blues) have had several powerhouse squads in the last decade or two that lost in agonizing, horrendous fashion. They've been chokers. The Rangers have merely been middling.
None taken. I probably could've chosen better words in both cases. The first word was just what came to mind. LA plays kind of an exciting, disruptive style, but alas. They certainly aren't boring =)

As for New York, I agree that that's probably a strong word. I still think a lot of their potential has been squandered in early exits or times where they had a good late-season push. Still, I know what you're saying. They definitely aren't that in the traditional sense of the word.
 
# 5 TDNY @ 06/04/14 08:01 PM
Players to Watch

LA: Marian Gaborik

NY: Marty St. Louis

X-Factor: Henrik Lundqvist

Prediction: Rangers in 6
 
# 6 Zer0 C00lness @ 06/04/14 08:47 PM
L.A. Kings in 5.
 
# 7 sinacosmath @ 06/05/14 03:30 AM
good,I know what you're saying. They definitely aren't that in the traditional sense of the word.thanks
 
# 8 PPerfect_CJ @ 06/06/14 05:43 PM
I'll say Kings in 6, but let's be honest. No matter who we're pulling for, we should want it to go the full 7. MORE HOCKEY!!!
 

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.