A very wise man once told me, "You can have the greatest team in the history of hockey, and they can lose in the first round because the other team's goalie plays out of his mind for four games." The converse of what my dad told me is that you can have a fantastic team and lose because your goalie plays like a backup for four games. In the San Jose Sharks case, they lost because their goalie performed like he has since the lockout. It's a shame that it was a sweep, really, because it's pretty clear that these were the two best teams in hockey. Perhaps the Sharks can take the Prince Of Wales Trophy?

The two teams were evenly matched except for that one pesky position. I don't know if the Sharks, their fans or the mainstream media have learned the correct lesson from this playoff run though. The fans are calling for a rebuild and parts of the mainstream media are looking for a big-ticket goaltender. Soon, very soon, executives are going to realize that big contracts for goaltending are not worth it, and that throwing $4,000,000 plus at a goalie with one or two decent years harms their teams in the long run. Until then, we'll have goalies with enormous contracts like Evgeni Nabokov. San Jose's best bet next season? Pay Tomas Greiss and Martin Biron and use the $3,000,000 that's leftover to bolster the rest of the roster.

Scoring Chances for Western Conference Finals,

Games 30321, 30322, 30323, 30324

For those of you who are new to the concept of tracking scoring chances, a scoring chance is defined as a clear play directed toward the opposing net from a dangerous scoring area - loosely defined as the top of the circle in and inside the faceoff dots, though sometimes slightly more generous than that depending on the amount of immediately-preceding puck movement or screens in front of the net. Blocked shots are generally not included but missed shots are. A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score. Vic Ferrari makes this all possible with his tools to evaluate Corsi, head-to-head ice time and scoring chances.

I'm tracking this series with the Sharks as the home team, so in any unlabeled sequence, the first number is for the Sharks, the second for the Blackhawks.

Period Totals EV PP 5v3 PP SH 5v3 SH 1 27 15 19 15 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 18 14 15 10 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 21 23 18 17 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 75 62 53 53 21 9 0 0 1 0 0 0

The chances were 53/53 at even strength -- in a four-game sweep. The Sharks were +13 on special teams -- and got swept.

# Player EV PP SH 3 D. MURRAY 69.33 23 19 0.08 0 3 8.87 0 0 4 R. BLAKE 70.77 14 18 4.35 6 5 13.12 1 0 7 N. WALLIN 41.20 6 8 0.00 0 0 2.93 0 0 8 J. PAVELSKI 67.65 23 18 8.82 14 3 8.63 1 0 12 P. MARLEAU 68.48 16 19 9.93 15 2 11.65 1 0 15 D. HEATLEY 66.47 17 17 10.35 16 1 3.22 0 0 16 D. SETOGUCHI 62.03 23 16 4.07 5 0 0.60 0 0 17 T. MITCHELL 46.62 11 11 0.12 0 3 6.47 0 0 19 J. THORNTON 74.33 22 24 10.00 15 3 4.28 0 0 20 E. NABOKOV 198.2 48 52 13.52 20 9 1.62 1 0 21 S. NICHOL 26.05 4 6 0.18 0 3 5.82 0 0 22 D. BOYLE 79.35 28 24 12.05 15 4 8.57 0 0 27 M. MALHOTRA 48.45 9 15 4.22 6 3 9.27 0 0 29 R. CLOWE 72.18 19 19 4.92 6 0 0.85 0 0 39 L. COUTURE 44.97 16 8 0.38 1 0 0.00 0 0 40 K. HUSKINS 50.22 11 15 0.00 0 0 0.72 0 0 44 M. VLASIC 71.38 15 17 0.98 1 6 13.75 1 0 60 J. DEMERS 18.72 8 4 2.62 6 0 0.22 0 0 64 J. McGINN 28.15 4 5 0.12 0 0 0.08 0 0

There are a number of interesting things to talk about here:

# Player EV PP SH 2 D. KEITH 93.67 25 30 13.97 7 11 8.05 0 0 4 N. HJALMARSSON 68.78 21 13 0.00 0 8 6.32 0 0 5 B. SOPEL 67.78 13 12 1.22 0 15 7.12 0 0 6 J. HENDRY 24.62 3 7 0.20 0 0 0.00 0 0 7 B. SEABROOK 85.65 24 31 9.93 4 8 7.42 0 0 10 P. SHARP 52.03 13 12 13.12 3 6 2.43 0 0 11 J. MADDEN 45.50 8 17 0.60 0 5 5.83 0 0 16 A. LADD 37.33 12 17 0.88 0 0 0.00 0 0 19 J. TOEWS 58.33 21 11 23.22 6 8 5.48 0 0 22 T. BROUWER 45.53 8 11 8.62 3 1 1.03 0 0 31 A. NIEMI 200.8 53 53 24.42 9 21 14.45 0 0 32 K. VERSTEEG 65.65 17 21 8.58 3 7 3.23 0 0 33 D. BYFUGLIEN 57.03 16 10 14.42 6 0 0.00 0 0 36 D. BOLLAND 69.67 14 24 1.58 0 5 5.38 0 0 37 A. BURISH 22.88 4 6 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 51 B. CAMPBELL 62.05 20 13 11.65 4 0 0.00 0 0 55 B. EAGER 26.92 4 7 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 81 M. HOSSA 56.65 19 12 9.45 3 5 5.00 0 0 88 P. KANE 63.62 20 10 13.98 6 1 0.50 0 0

The Hawks stuck with the hard match of Dave Bolland on Joe Thornton for the entire series. It paid dividends at home when McClellan started bouncing Thornton around as Bolland got the best of him any time he was on the ice except with Couture and Devin Setoguchi. And the juggling ended with both the Toews and Sharp lines beating the heck out of the Malhotra - Marleau - Heatley line.

Of note:

Niklas Hjalmarsson Brent Sopel and Brian Campbell and it didn't matter much to him. He wasn't seeing much of Joe Thornton, but his managed minutes look excellent by this count.

Brent Sopel and Brian Campbell and it didn't matter much to him. He wasn't seeing much of Joe Thornton, but his managed minutes look excellent by this count. Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook were on the ice for 62 of Thornton's 74 minutes in this series.

The story of the series somehow remains Dave Bolland, even though he was getting beaten up pretty badly on the chances sheet.

Below are the chances broken out per 15 minutes of even strength time:

# Player ESTOI CF/15 CA/15 3 D. MURRAY 69.33 4.98 4.11 4 R. BLAKE 70.77 2.97 3.82 7 N. WALLIN 41.20 2.18 2.91 8 J. PAVELSKI 67.65 5.10 3.99 12 P. MARLEAU 68.48 3.50 4.16 15 D. HEATLEY 66.47 3.84 3.84 16 D. SETOGUCHI 62.03 5.56 3.87 17 T. MITCHELL 46.62 3.54 3.54 19 J. THORNTON 74.33 4.44 4.84 20 E. NABOKOV 198.22 3.63 3.94 21 S. NICHOL 26.05 2.30 3.45 22 D. BOYLE 79.35 5.29 4.54 27 M. MALHOTRA 48.45 2.79 4.64 29 R. CLOWE 72.18 3.95 3.95 39 L. COUTURE 44.97 5.34 2.67 40 K. HUSKINS 50.22 3.29 4.48 44 M. VLASIC 71.38 3.15 3.57 60 J. DEMERS 18.72 6.41 3.21 64 J. McGINN 28.15 2.13 2.66

And Chicago's numbers. Notice Bolland - he was giving up two more chances than he was creating...per game.