The Athletic Hockey Show - Can the Avalanche rebound from their Game 5 collapse, will Connor McDavid reach 40 points in the playoffs, and ugly jersey numbers

Episode Date: May 26, 2022

Ian Mendes and Sean McIndoe talk abut the St. Louis Blues' comeback win Wednesday night versus the Avalanche, will the Avs be able to rebound from Game 5's collapse? Also, if Edmonton and the Avalanche advance to the Conference Finals, could McDavid vs. MacKinnon be among the greatest "Star vs. Star" matchups? Then, a discussion on choosing between McDavid or Vasilevskiy in a hypothetical Game 7, with Jesse Granger also weighing in, before discussing home ice advantage trends in "Granger Things". To wrap up, a listener brings the data on league parity, "ugly" jersey numbers, and to wrap up, a look back with "This Week in Hockey History"Have a question for Ian and Sean? Email [e-mail], or leave a VM [phone]!Save on a subscription to The Athletic: theathletic.com/hockeyshow Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome back. It is your Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show. It's Ian Mendez, Sean McAdoo with you for the next hour or so. Coming up, we're going to figure out what the Colorado Avalanche have to do to rebound after a game five collapse on a home ice. Boy, we were so close to, we're so really close to McKinnon, McDavid in the next round. We'll talk about that. McDavid with just an unbelievable run so far to start the Stanley Cup playoffs. So we got so much to get through Jesse Granger for Granger things. You got a voicemail from a listener.

Some This Week in Hockey history that takes us back to some New York Rangers related stuff from the 80s and 90s. So we got to get to all of that. Let me kick off this podcast by saying, Sean. I'm coming to you and our listeners from literally in the dark here. Yeah. And I feel like maybe I brought this upon myself. Because on last week's pod, on the Thursday. episode of the athletic hockey show, I made an Amish-related reference to the Calgary Flames.

And since then, I have been living without power and electricity. Like, I think I, like, maybe now this all has to come full circle. I need to finish this podcast, admit that making the Amish comparison was offside. And then I'll get my power back by the end of the show. Yeah. And in case people are wondering, like Ian and I literally live five minutes of part. He has not had power for the better part of a week. We never even lost it in my neighborhood. We're doing just fine. So I'm not saying, but I mean, I'm not not saying it either. I think you're,

I hope the lesson's been learned. Yeah. And I think you have to, yeah, figure out a way to make amends or make like some joke about a futuristic society where everybody has sufficient, electricity and doesn't have to go and pour gas in a generator to do a podcast, which is the most 2,022 sentence, I think, I think we can come up with. Yeah, I literally had the top up, yeah, a generator with gas just to get this podcast, go and get the Wi-Fi going. And even like last night watching, it is commitment right there. And, you know, you got to time it out like, because it lasts about six hours, but, you know,

you got to time it out. And last night, I'm thinking, okay, Avalanche and Blues, when it was, you know, three-goal Aves lead, I'm like, I don't know, is it worth it? We're paying $2 a leader for gas. Is it worth it for me to top it up to watch the end of the game? And then I'm following along. I'm like, oh, maybe I need to pop it up. And sure enough.

And so that's where we're going to start because I thought on a couple of occasions last night, the Aves had that thing in the bag on Wednesday night, right? Like, I mean, the three-goal lead for sure. But then, you know, Nate McKinnon scores that goal. We'll get to that in a second. But, I mean, the Colorado Avalanche have these labels, Sean, from the last couple of years that they can't close out, they can't get past the second round.

And you kind of feel like those demons came back. The ghost came back on Wednesday. So, like, where do they go from? Like, how do you come back from something like that? That's it. I mean, it's a tough one. And look, one thing that all the smart people tell me is that game-to-game momentum in the NHL playoffs

is vastly overrated. It is a virtual non-factor. Once they drop the puck, it's a new game. And momentum within that game, maybe sometimes is, it can be a factor, but game to game,

you don't worry about it. So in that sense, hey, if you're Colorado, you're looking at this going, we're the better team, we've got two chances to win one game. We should be fine. You know,

against a Blues team that doesn't even have their starting goaltender. So we should be, we should win this. But man, for a team that has this, this weird hump to get over, this isn't the team that can never make the playoffs. This isn't the team that can never get, never win a playoff round. But they can't get out of the second round. It's been 20 years for this team.

And they cannot get out of round two. And we look, we all had the story written last night. It was the, the dragon had been slayed. and, you know, now the avalanche were on their way. And like I said on Twitter last night, we apparently forgot to send the script to the St. Louis Blues because the coronation that we had all planned to attend last night didn't end up happening.

And you know what? I mean, we're going to talk about the avalanche because that's the nature of this. But let's just take a few minutes and talk about the St. Louis Blues. And this team does not quit. This team just absolutely, you know, down 3-0 in another team's building in an elimination game in a series that everybody said you were going to lose.

I mean, you're done. Pack it in and, you know, good season and you move on. They refuse to do that. Even after the McKinnon goal, you know, to come back with a minute left and tie it up, you know what? I've just been so impressed with this team. And let's not forget, this St. Louis Blues team, this is the last Western Conference team to win a Stanley Cup.

this is the last of the Western Conference team still standing to have been to a Stanley Cup final they have a claim to say this is still our conference this is still our house until somebody takes it from us and the avalanche have come very close to doing that but they haven't yet and you know what if you're if you're the blues head they may still lose the series that's you know perhaps the the most likely outcome but they're going to go out on their shield and I've been been just so impressed with this group, this team. I know blues fans have been saying, hey, where are you been all year long? We're a hundred and nine point team. You know, look at the numbers. We deserve more respect, more credit than we got all along. And yeah,

part of it is we like the new thing. You know, we've all been waiting for the avalanche. We, you know, the wild kind of came up a little bit surprised us. And so we all jumped on that bandwagon. Meanwhile, the blues are still here, still saying, you know, what, this is ours, take it from us. And last night, the Avalanche could not do it. You know, the Aves, do they kind of give you the vibes? Remember when Washington, you talk about you get trapped in this kind of purgatory where you, like you make the playoffs, you win a round, but you can't get to the conference final.

Like the Ovechkin era capitals, that's what I think of, right? Like they would always either make the playoffs and then out in the first round or oftentimes out in the second round, right? And usually it was Pittsburgh that would do them in. But the caps could never get to the conference final. Remember? Like that was the, I think it was like eight or nine years in a row with Ovechkin. Like out in the first round or second round.

And at some point, they got to break through. And boy, I just, you're never going to have a better opportunity than what you had. A three goal lead on home ice in the third period of a closeout game. And then your best player scores, you know, a goal that makes you, like we were all picking our jaws up off the floor when Nate McKinnon scored

that goal. And there's like under three minutes to go. You're like, holy smokes. Now we're going to be talking about the best series clinching goals of all time. And they let it slip through their fingers. And I want to ask you about that because I saw people saying that's the, Nate McKinnon, that would have been the best series clinching goal, him going coast to coast to cap the hat trick. But my question to you is, like I felt like the Brad May, the May day goal, which was overtime back in the day, Buffalo, Boston, that that was better. Even Darren McCarty ended up getting, I think, the game winner in 97 to clinch the cup for Detroit.

I felt like those goals were more spectacular than McKinnons, or am I wrong on that? You know what? It would have been a tough one. You know, Brad May, the fact that it was overtime and the fact that, like with the avalanche, it had been such a long time for the Sabres to, in their case, even get out of the first round. that was a great one. But honestly, I mean, I think the McKinnon goal was better than Brad May.

You show that goal to both fans without the audio, because that's the other thing about the Brad May goal is it's the Mayday call, Rick Jenneret, that just elevates that to a whole other level. I mean, the Nathan McKinnon goal, you know, was a more skilled goal. Brad May had to beat Ray Bork, and he did, and that was full credit. But, I mean, McKinna went through an entire team. The Darren McCarty goal I love. I rank that as the best cup winner ever.

And, you know, I don't think anyone even argued with me. The fact, it was the perfect guy to do that for the Red Wings. I'm kidding right up there. To me, the gold standard still remains the Steve Eisenman in 00-O-T, Game 7 laser beam. But again, that's a game seven overtime. So we're elevating it for that. Certainly for, you know, goals that weren't an overtime. this absolutely would have been right in there.

And it was just, I mean, this again, if you are any kind of a, forget a hockey fan, a sports fan, we know the narrative, right? You know, the team, they build up the lead. They let their guard down. They get, they get, let the other team up off the mat. And then the superstar steps up and says, no, not tonight, not on my watch. I'm doing this by myself. And, you know, I was sitting there, believe me, as a Leafs fan, I'm sitting there going,

this is what we've wanted in Toronto for the last years and years and years is when that moment came. That's what we wanted to see Austin Matthews or Mitch Martin or William Nillan or John DeVaris to. And to see Nathan McKinnon, the best player on the team, say, you know what, guys, stand back. I got this one. I'm going to single-handedly win this. And he goes out and he does it.

And you're sitting there going, you know, I would have given you 100 to 1. That game was over at that point. But again, we forgot to tell the St. Louis Blues. and they go and get it done. And then the fact that they win it in overtime, I wouldn't say on a bad goal. Yeah, it wasn't great. But not a great one.

And that hurts too because that's always the thing. You know, with Colorado, they're, you know, even though Darcy Kemper had a very good season, there's always been a little bit of, you know, doubt that in the, that they were good enough in that spot. And that also kind of. gives you something. If it had been a bad bounce or a great effort or something, okay, you know what, that's, that's overtime. But the fact that it was a bit of a stinker also gives you something to

think about. And this is just, you know, again, you made the comparison to the capitals. That's a great one. Nine years that they were a dominant team won three presidents trophies never got out of the second round. Obviously, the Leafs comparison is right there. This is, you know, this is the rich man's version of the Maple Leafs. They can get out of the first round, but not to the second round. And I know as a Leafs fan, part of what happens is if it happens enough times, there's always adversity in the playoffs. There's always bad breaks. There's always things that go against you. But when it happens to your team, suddenly you're wondering, okay, here we go again.

Is this what we're going to have to hear about all summer? Is this, you know, how we blew this game, how that goal went in in overtime? And it's really up to the coach and the leaders in the room and everyone to get everyone just calm down and say, no, no, we're not going down that road again. we're fine. But sometimes it ends up that you're not fine. And they're playing a real good team. And man, you don't even want to think ahead. But if they lose this series, like, my good, I don't even know where you go from there.

Yeah. No, we're probably getting ahead of ourselves. But just the way that the manner in which they lost, I think it's going to, it's going to be a real challenge for them to. And it gets, look, it's an opportunity to because they can go into St. Louis, top building. And they have a great game. And remember, they won twice in St. Louis in Gap's three and four.

They go in and do it again. Have, you know, one of those dominant avalanche games exert their will. Then we all say, okay, you know what, maybe it is different. Because in previous years, they would have crumbled, but they did this time. So that's the opportunity. But, man, you're in another team's building. You lose that game, and then it's game seven. And I feel like all bets are off at that point because we all know what everyone's going to be thinking.

So we're on the verge. I mean, Nate McKinnon in the avalanche are one game away from getting to the conference final. Connor McDavid and the Oilers, one game away from the conference final. And you and I know we've had this conversation in the past. Like the one thing about the NBA is if you think back to, you know, Byrd against Larry Bird against Magic Johnson. We even had Michael Jordan against Magic in an NBA finals. I think of LeBron against Steph.

Like it always feels like you get superstar versus superstar in meaningful. playoff games, either conference final or finals. And it feels like in the NHL, we don't have that, right? Like, Gretzky and Lemieux never met each other in a playoff series that mattered. Like, and so if we get Nate McKinnon against Connor McDavid in the conference final, is that potentially the best star versus star matchup we've had, like kind of this deep into the playoffs, a conference final or Stanley Cup? Because, look, I know we got Sid against OV, but that was the second round.

Like we haven't had it deep, deep into the playoffs. Like could McKinnon-McDavid be the best star versus star matchup we've had either in a long time or maybe, you know, I don't know, ever probably seems like a stretch. But yeah, I mean, I'm sure back in, you know, original six days and that. But it's, yeah, it's got to be up there. In modern times at least, like, you know, post-WHA, it's hard to think of it. Because you're right, Gretzky and Lemieux is, Gretzky and Lemieux is the one that obviously would trump ever. But we never got that at all, period. Because they were in different conferences.

And closest we came was 93 and it didn't happen. And yeah, we never got Sid versus Ovi past the second round. I was looking back, the one that jumped to mind was, I know we got a few Mario versus Mark Messier matchups when he was with the Rangers, but those were all in round two. So yeah, like I'm kind of looking down the list. You know, there's so, obviously you could look at Detroit and Pittsburgh playing back to back and say, like, hey, we had, you know, Crosby versus Lidstrom slash Datsuk and, you know, Ray Bork against Gretzky a few times if we're working defensemen into the mix. Certainly, if you want to go even further back, the Islanders and Oilers, when they played back to back, those were star-studded teams. I mean, we had Gretzky versus Bossie and Potvin and Trache and all those guys.

But I'm not sure, at least recently, I'm not sure there's anything that fits here where you've got the guy who's clearly the number one player in the world versus the guy who is arguably the number two player in the world. You know, not to mention that, I mean, there's a lot of people that said, hey, let's expand it. Let's turn it into a top 10, Dracetyl and Kel McCar are both on that list too. So, yeah, it would be great and it'll be fun to see it if it happens. And obviously we got two teams that are working hard to make sure it doesn't. But that would be fun, because we don't get this a lot in the NHL. And, you know, the greatest probably head-to-head that we've ever seen was the Ovechkin-Krosby dueling Hattricks game, which was early in a round two series. Man, wouldn't it be cool to see that late in a conference final?

That would be awesome. Yeah. I know back in the day, Edmonton and Detroit played in a couple of, I guess it would have been what Wales or Campbell Conference Finals and it would have been Gretzky against Eisenman but Eisenman wasn't quite Steve Eisenman at that point. He was the young

that was the young Eisenman who was an excellent player but yeah not not the fully realized version that we got a little bit later. Yeah so and then you know if you're going to go go goaltenders then obviously we got we had Patrick Waugh versus Broder

and stuff like that but you know I, Eisenman Sackick, we have to say, with certainly conference finals with Detroit and Colorado and everything involved in that, that would be up there as well. But I don't, I think as phenomenal as both those players were,

they were never like head and shoulders, best player in the world the way Connor McDavid is. So yeah, this might one, this one might top it. You know, speaking of great goalie matchups, you know, one that we could potentially start to think about, too, imagine Andre Vazelowski against Igor Shus Thurkin in the conference final. Like that, this is,

we have the potential to get McKinnon, McDavid, going end to end in one conference final and then just a whole bunch of one-nothing games. Yeah. Because the two best goalies, uh, who are both playing real well now are, uh, are just throwing dueling shutouts at each other at the other end. That would be, that would be something. And of course, now that I've said that, the lightning and Rangers would be seven to six games every night and, uh, and it would be the

the abs and Oilers who'd be playing the low-scoring stuff. But yeah, that would be a hell of a match-up. Yeah. You know, it's funny because right now, look, Connor McDavid is off to a start to the postseason with 25 points in 11 games that, you know, he's producing at a clip that only Gretzky and Lemieux have ever done. Like, I have 25 points in this many games to start a playoff.

And Gretzky and Lemieux are the only guys to ever get to the 40-point plateau. if you even look at 35 points in the playoffs, it's a short list of players in NHL history who have been able to get to 35 points in the singular playoffs. McDavid is at 25. At what point do we start talking about, Sean, like he's got potential to get the 40 points

in this year's postseason. I guess they've got to get past this round and then we open up our minds to that conversation. Well, I mean, geez, the way he's playing, if they go into round three and it's seven game, I mean, keep in mind, they haven't finished the Oilers off yet, or the flames off yet, rather. So probably another two, three, five points on top of that. He could get to 40 in the conference final, which would be just ridiculous, especially to do it in this era.

It's just absolute insanity. It would be, it would really be something. And I don't think there's any time, I've learned over the years. There's no time that's too early to start talking about Connor McDavid doing something crazy because he just gets better and better and better. And, you know, at the very least, one of my cherished favorite records because it's one of the old, the very, very few in moderate times that's held by a leaf. But Doug Gilmore's 35 points in the playoffs for a guy who didn't go to the final is very much

in danger if Connor McDavid runs into it. a tough matchup in the third round. Because even if you beat the oilist, you're not stopping Conrad McDavid. You're just not. And as we're recording this, we're coming off a game where Conner McDavid didn't do too much. So it's terrifying to think what his rebound game is going to look like. Yeah. And so let me ask you this question.

And I know it's kind of apples and oranges because one guy's a goalie and one guy is a centerman. But if I give you a game seven tonight, I'm like, hey, Sean, you can have either Andre Vazelowski or Connor McDavid. you get to have one of them on your team. Man. Like, I think I'm going Vasilevsky just because of his, I mean, he plays the whole game, right? Like, you're getting 60 minutes of Vaselowski.

But it's a good conversation to have because I think in the past it would, oh, easy. You take the goalie, no, you don't even think twice about it. But man, McDavid has gone to another level that makes you think, you know, maybe I take McDavid here. That's it. I mean, it's hard not to take Vaselowski, especially he's playing great right now. And we know his track record in elimination games. I mean, just ridiculous stuff. And I'm not usually one who likes to cherry pick little stats here and there because you can always find weird stuff if you dig deep enough.

But I mean, it's what we're going on seven games now, elimination games in a row and he's given up one goal. Insanity. So, yeah, I mean, I might have to take him just for that reason. But again, I mean, you're Connor. I mean, having Connor McDavid in your lineup is almost like starting every game with a two-nothing lead, the way he's playing right now. I mean, he's going to do two things tonight that are going to lead to a goal that the other team just isn't going to be able to stop. And then what else can we do around that to beat the Oilers?

And what can we do when he's not on the ice to try to make up for it? It's a tough call. It would be legitimately tough. And it probably wouldn't be with anyone else who isn't at that McDavid-Lamue-Gretzky tier. You know, I, just to wrap up this conversation, since we're talking about goaltending and the Oilers, I mean, we've gotten the full Mike Smith experience in this year's postseason,

and none more so than in that last game, game four. When he lets in that goal from whatever, 150 feet away, and that goes in, Calgary ties the game, it's a shorthanded goal. We're all looking around like, that's that. Like Mike Smith just went full Dan Clucier or full, you know, you know, Tommy Sallow or like, here's my question, because I'm waiting for the down goes brown column on, you know,

most deflating or like longest range goals or whatever. And I was waiting. I was like, man, Mike Smith is going to move to the Mount Rushmore of deflating goals when Calgary wins this game. Of course, the Oilers come back and win. Like, do you have any recollection of a goalie letting in such a dud goal? And then they win the game?

Like, this was unbelievable to me. They're not in the playoffs off the top of my head. I'm trying to remember the, did the devils win that game where Broder had the awful where he accidentally threw a stick? No, they lost. That was in Anaheim, I think in game four or three of that three cup final. That's one that comes to mind.

Yeah. You know, there have been a lot of bad ones at play. So I'll give you a regular season one. And it's the one that everybody thinks of, which is the vasatoscola. And what people forget, and rightly so, because that goal was hilarious.

The final score in that game was three to one. That was the only goal of Eschatoscal it gave up that night. And the Leafs came back in the third period and won three to one, which, you know, in theory makes it maybe a little bit better, but it doesn't because, you know, we all still remember that. Nobody remembers that they beat the Islanders in some meaningless game. Playoffs, though, there's got to be some. But yeah, most of the ones that we remember are because it led to a loss,

in Dan Clucay being the classic example and on down the list. It's going to be interesting to me. I wonder if in five years, 10 years, will remember the Mike Smith goal or whether the fact that the one means that it kind of disappears out of the list of the really bad ones. Because, man, I'm trying to like Roman Chechmanich. They lost that game when he dropped his glove and stopped paying attention. Yeah, I don't, off the top of my head, I'm trying to think of, playoff games with really, really bad goals.

There's got to be something. This is a good one for the listeners. Let me know because I'm sure you've got some for your favorite team that you remember either that they gave up or that they got scored on. But yeah, like I think back Owen Nolan against the Blues in 2000, I think it was with a slap shot from Center. Roman Turik. Yeah, a few seconds left in the period. They lose that game. Boy, that's a tough one.

And it was a big, like here's the thing on Mike Smith. It wasn't like, oh, the Oilers are up for nothing and it gives up one. It would tied the game in the third period. Like, you couldn't have a more meaningful, impactful goal in that spot. Another situation where as a fan, you're sitting there going, oh, they're done. This is, you know, oh, that right there, that's the goal to kill. And full credit to the Oilers. They didn't play along with that script.

And they kept pushing on it. And it was like Mike Smith said after the game, now I can laugh about it. And, but if he hadn't, oh my gosh, we'd just be, we would have spent the last 48 hours talking about the Mike Smith crisis. And instead, we got a team that's potentially hours away from going on to a conference final. Yeah. And you're right. This is a great one to crowdsource from our listeners. Because like I said, we've got fans from probably 31, 32 teams.

Sure, there's got to be some good ones out there where your team came back in one. But boy, that bad in that situation, that late in the game, there can't be many. No. All right. As always, on a Thursday edition of the Athletic Hockey Show, it is time for a little Granger things. Brought to by BetMGM, the exclusive betting partner with us at the Athletic. As we bring Jesse Granger into the conversation, I'd like to ask you the same question I just asked Sean a couple of minutes ago here. And that is, we got a fictitious game seven tonight.

and I'm going to give you your choice on Jesse Granger's team. You can have either Connor McDavid or Andre Vazilewski. Which way are you going? Just based on the way they're playing right now. Yeah, man, that's a really fun question. I think I like to consider myself part of the goalie union, and I think they would take my card if I didn't answer Andre Vasselowski here. But seriously, I'm taking the goalie,

and especially because Andre Vasselovsky's as good as he is, I think Connor McDavid can have a phenomenal game and score a hat trick and you can still lose. If Andre Vasselowski has a phenomenal game, you aren't losing. As long as you get one and you don't, you might have three, four overtimes. You might have 120 minutes to get that one. The way he's playing, I don't know if he'd ever give up a goal in a game seven. He, man, what he did to the Florida Panthers, not just in that closeout game, but the whole series to allow three goals to the highest scoring team in 27 years.

He's just, he's big, he's positional, but he moves like the smaller goalies. He's just, he's such a complete goalie. When he's on, the other team's pretty much screwed. You know what? And it's, I'd love to get your opinion, both of you, your opinion on this because I've seen the debate being kind of tossed around. And it's early because Vaselowski's got a lot of runway left. Like he's probably got eight to 10 years left of being, you know, a goaltender in this league.

But at some point we start to think about, you know, where goalies rank all time. And I'm seeing people saying, look, Vasilisky belongs already in the same, if you're mentioning Patrick Waugh, Marty Brodur, Hachik, you know, think of the best goalies the last 30 years, that Vazelowski deserves to be mentioned in that same breath. Are you guys on board with that? Or you're still kind of like, maybe just wait and see a little bit more? Or do you guys feel like, yeah, you know what?

He's there. He's arrived. I want to wait a little bit. I think it was Rick Tock and I think who said it was, you know, Basilisky's already on the Mount Rushmore. Yeah. It's been eight years, six years as a starter. And he's been phenomenal throughout all of them, Hezavisina, you know, two cups, et cetera, going down the list. There have been lots of guys, goaltending and otherwise where through six years they looked like they were on the trajectory.

and for whatever reason it doesn't happen. So he's certainly on track. He's on track to, I would say, you know, pass and maybe even blow by guys like Henrik Lundquist and Roberto Luongo for the title of best goaltender since that Trinity of Broder and Asik. But other than that, I'm going to pump the brakes just a little bit because it's been six years. He's only 27, 28 years old, long way to go.

He might make this a completely non-argument by the time he's done. But let's get there. Yeah, I totally agree with Sean. I think his trajectory, I think I'll say his trajectory right now is to be the best goalie to ever live. I think if he continues on what he's done through six years, if he does that over the next six years, he's the best goalie to ever play this game. But that's not a given. And especially with this position specifically, it is so difficult. to maintain a high level of play for a long time.

And that's what makes Brodur and Hachik and Wa so good as they did it for 15 years. And it's, to me, goalie is the hardest position because the results don't always, that you don't always get what you deserve as a goalie. A lot of it is based on deflections and screens and second chances. And there's just so much you can't control. And you've got to be so good to put up elite numbers and get elite results. for 15 years. And that's why Wa and Hachik and Brodur are seen in the light that they are. And I don't think it's a given that Vasselowski can do that. I think if he keeps playing the way he has,

I think I honestly think if you're taking each of these guys at their prime, maybe Hachick, he's the one that I say is like maybe he's better than Vasselowski just because he used to do ridiculous things. But man, it's hard to say anybody's ever played goalie at a specific point better than Vasselowski is at his top, at his peak performance. Yeah, the Martaambrotr, Vezna finalist at 37, Patrick Gua, Vesna runner up at 36, finished fourth in his last season at 37. Dominic Hasick obviously went to, started later, but went forever. So we got a long way to go. And I'll say this, though, about Andrei Vazolev's game, this is the thing that maybe is the most amazing to me.

He is, he's got a shot at tracking down Martan Broder for the all-time world. wins record, which, and I know wins isn't a great stat, but over a career, it's a pretty good one. And Broder, that should have been absolutely completely untouchable. No chance. Forget it. Put it next to Gretzky, and it's

done. And you know, Vasilevsky, I think it's, what, six years in a row that he's led the league in wins? You could make it interesting. Yeah. It's a fun, it's a fun conversation. And I think we're going to and Sean and I talked about this earlier, Jesse, that wouldn't it be fun?

And this is not meant to be any, you know, we're not trying to slight Carolina fans here. But seeing Shasturkin against Vasilevsky would be a ton of fun in a conference final. And I know that's one series that you'd like to kind of focus on and just talk about some of the home ice trends because Carolina is doing that classic Jekyll and Hyde thing, right? Where like at PNC, they're dominant.

Like they haven't lost a game. They go on the road, whether it's TD Garden against Boston or MSG against the Rangers, and they haven't won a game. And what I, you know, curious, like, are the hurricanes in aberration or are we seeing that all over the place where, you know what, home teams are dominating and then the teams on the road are having a hard time winning? Yeah, I was joking with Rob yesterday, during yesterday's show.

If they always say the series doesn't start until the home team loses. So I guess Carolina is still in the regular season right now. Because the home team has not lost a game in either series. And so like you said, it made me curious. Is Carolina the only one doing this? So I started looking it up. And as I'm tallying up the home records, it's actually unbelievable. The home team in these playoffs is 42 and 26 so far.

So that's a win percentage of 617, which may not sound that high. So over 60%, but man, when you compare what the win percentage of home teams have been in the playoffs over the last few years, over 60% win percentage is actually incredibly high. In 2015-16, it was 0.505. So just barely over 500. In 2016, 17, it was 540. In 1718, it was actually the road teams won more games. It was at 48% was the win percentage.

And then 51% in 2019 and 45% last year. The home teams have barely had an edge. We're talking by a game or two. And then at sometimes the road team is actually one more. But in these playoffs, the home teams are 42 and 26. It's actually insane. I don't know if this is just a coincidence. They just happened to be winning this year.

I don't know if maybe the fact that we didn't have fans in the stands for two years. And guys are extra juiced up. These atmospheres, I mean, when I watch on TV, I'm jealous. I'm not covering playoff hockey this year. I see in Raleigh, I see what it's like. MSG. It's been fun. I don't know if maybe that.

has some contribution to it, but the home teams are really performing well in these playoffs. Yeah, they're not exactly helping me on my whole, the regular season doesn't matter because home ice is meaningless hobby horse that I'm usually on. This has, this has been something. And you know what? I'll just say it. I like it. I like that it feels like home ice matters. It, you know, I like that, and yet at the same time, doesn't matter so much that you just go, why am I even watching the game? It's, you know, sort of like, like we sometimes feel about the NBA in the early rounds. It's been, I think it's been a good mix.

Yeah. Hey, listen, Jesse, before we let you go, we were talking about Mike Smith's brutal goal that he allowed from, you know, 150 feet away or whatever. You play goalie, right? And you've played goalie for a long time. You need to describe to us the worst goal Jesse Granger has ever given up. Oh, that's perfect. I have the goal. Okay, so it was a playoff game.

Yeah. And actually, it was a championship game in the men's league. And this is like, this is like when I'm older. This wasn't when I was a kid when I actually was like going on like regional tournaments or whatever. This is just me as an adult. It's to come to the end of the beer league season. And we're in the championship. And I skate out the puck's coming down.

And it's about in my, it's in the faceoff. circle to my right and there's a guy on the other team running to skating towards it and I skate out to beat him to it. I've got nowhere to pass it in front of me so I decide I'm going to turn around and rim it around the boards. Oh no. I turned around and fired it directly into my net. Directly. It didn't touch. It didn't hit a post. It didn't hit a board. It wasn't even along the ice. I fired it midair into the net like a gorgeous goal. Just sniped to my own net. And then I just and then I just turned around and looked at the guys and I'm like, sorry guys. I don't know how I did that. I don't know how I turned around and fired that into my own net. We ended up winning the game, so it made it a

little easier to swallow. But yes, just skated out, turned around, fired it, snipes right in my own net. Worst goal I ever give up. Two things I love about that story. Number one, like a classic goalie, there was no hesitation. Like he didn't have to think or anything. It was just like right there top of mind. And I also love the fact that you ask a goalie, what's the worst? goal you've ever given up. And he tells you a goal that was scored against him, but that, like, he didn't actually get beat on. Yeah.

Like, there's no, like, you know, it's, you know, it's just, it's subtle, but it's not like, oh, yeah, I got beat on 100 foot slap shot. No, no, it's just, I snipe the top corner. What can you say? Yeah. And you won the game, though. That's the important thing. You won the game.

You won the championship. But did that goal, like, did that tie the game or anything? Or do you remember the score? Yeah, it was close. I don't remember if that tied it or if it put us behind. but it was definitely not a like we're up by four. This goal doesn't matter. It mattered when that goal went in.

And everybody looked at me like, like they thought I did it on purpose. My teammates skated back and were like, why did you do that? I'm like, well, I didn't try to. Got it had to inspire them though. It's funny though. Hey, guys, it's not that hard. Come on. I can do it.

Get out there and score. I don't think I've ever given one up like the one Mike Smith gave up where a guy fires it from the other side. What cracked me up the most, like talking about goalie men. What cracked me up the most about Mike Smith's goal that he gave up was before the puck even hit the net behind him, he already had his hands up in the air. Like looking at his teammates, like, what are you guys doing? And like, I have no idea what he was upset with them about. Like, Mike, they shot it from 150 feet away. You can't let that one in. I think he explained it after that it was

more of a like, I couldn't see it. Like, sort of like a, you'd see a baseball outfield or do sometimes. Right. But it looked like that at the time. It was sort of. Okay, so he wasn't, okay. Answer me this. Let me, as a goalie, this is one of my weird ideas that I've always had in my back pocket. Why, we see these days, especially in the playoffs, you know, Winnipeg has the white out, teams, you know, the Calgary, it's the sea of red. Why don't we get fans to all wear black at the end? And then you only at the end of the other team's goalie is looking at, and then just flip the puck in on him.

Wouldn't he lose that in all those black shirts? Would you, would that work? You give everybody reversible shirts. You know, you wear the black one, you flip them over to white when it's when the team switch sides. I feel like this, I feel like this could be a thing. What do you think? That's, I honestly, I don't know. That's a good question.

You cover a team that wears black. I mean, the military nights could definitely make this happen. There are, there are, like, I've played in buildings where the sight lines are harder to see the puck when it goes up above the glass. Depending on the lighting. I don't know if, I don't know if fans in, I honestly do not know the answer to that. if the fans in black shirts would help disguise the puck if it's up in the air. But for sure, it would be harder to track than it is in like a white out in Winnipeg, for sure. It's like in baseball.

They put the black background against, you know, against the pitch. If you see the white ball, it'd be the same thing. You know what? Delete this from the podcast. I'm going to call up Brandon Shanahan. I got an idea to the next time we run into Vasilevsky next year. I think we can make this happen. Love it.

Love it. All right. We'll leave it there. Jesse Granger, as always, thanks for dropping by. Have a great week. And we'll hit you up again next Thursday. Cool. Thanks for having me, guys.

Thank you. All right. Listen, that's a brilliant idea, by the way. The black shirt. I feel like that could work. I feel like I'm onto something. Yeah. Like, you know, you're right.

It has to be reversible shirts. And you know, that end of the building, you just switch it up in the second period. And, man, you might be on. And then you just like we need like one of the, You just flip it in. Was it MythBusters? Is that the show?

Yeah. I always think like we need to try this out like somewhere. Yeah. We need to get, I mean, well, it's just senators could do this, right? Yeah. I mean, this is, this is, you guys, you change your uniforms every year anyways. Might as well, make this happen. I thought you were going down the road of, well, why don't they just make all the seats black?

Yeah, you could do. I thought that's where you were going. Yeah, you just can't, I mean, you couldn't do it against the leaves because there's no senators. fans in the building then, but one of the other teams, you could probably make it happen. Yeah. Hey, a quick question for you. I'm not, I'm not, you know, I hope you know me well enough to know that. I'm not, I'm not trying to rub it in here. I just, I legitimately want to know how you're feeling as a Toronto fan. Like, after Tampa swept Florida. Like, does that, like, as you go back and look at the Toronto Tampa series, like, does it make you more angry, like, or do you just feel indifferent? Like, like, how do you feel that Tampa, barely got by Toronto and then swept Florida. Yeah, it's, I mean, it makes you feel potentially better about the Leafs team. And, you know, we talked a couple weeks ago about the whole like, do you blow it up?

Do you bring it back? If, you know, certainly if Tampa goes on and rolls to a Stanley Cup, then that will change your perception of the Leafs. But it doesn't make, it makes it more painful because they. head them. It was right there. They were one goal away. And, you know, even as you're in the middle of that series, you're thinking, man, we still got the Panthers to go through. And then you find out that the Panthers could have been, could have been a piece of cake. We don't know how they would have matched up against the Leaves. But it makes it worse. And this keeps happening, by the way.

This would, the Leafs in going back to that Boston series in 2013, the 4-1, that Bruins team, after that series became unbeatable. And they rolled all the way to the final and then ended up losing to Chicago. But again, they played Boston a few years ago. Boston goes to the final. And then obviously last year with Montreal, like the least keep losing these very close series

against teams that then flip a switch and become unbeatable for a few weeks. So we're kind of used to this. But it just drives home like, man, one more goal and you really could have been on to something. But as always, they don't get that one goal. Yeah. All right, let's open up the mailbag here.

You can email us to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. You can leave us a voicemail at 845-4-45-8-8459. Why don't we start there with a voicemail? Because Matthew, who has phoned into our podcast before, left us some voicemails, has done it again, and he's done some research here. So let's listen into Matthew's question for us this week. My question last time was about parity, and I gave some statistics regarding, you know, about only 33% of the league has won the cup,

and in the cap era, and that's a lower percentage than it was in the 16 years pre-cap, and I was asking about, you know, parity. And Sean made a good point that you should look at who actually got into the finals. So I ran those numbers as well and wanted to report and get your thought. If you look at the 16 years since the cap, the percent of teams that have made the finals is quite high. It's actually got 70 percent, which would go along. with this notion that maybe there is some parity here, even though only 33% of one, 70% have made it. However, and this is where it got really interesting for me, if you look at the 16 years before the

cap, 75% of the NHL made the finals in those 16 years before the cap. So my question is, maybe there is some parity, at least in making it all the way for the finals, but is it really just a salary cap to blame? Is there something else going on? Has it been this way for longer and we just feel like there's more parity now. What do you guys think about that? All right, here we go, Sean. It's the great myth of parity in the NHL and the CAP era. And Matthew's point is, hey, look, there's really about the same amount of teams

are getting to the finals in the 16 years since the Cup and really only about 30% of the teams are winning the championship. Like, first of all, I think both of us want to say we appreciate the research that went into that. No, I don't want to say that. When we say we want research, we want people to do our work for us. So we mean to prove us right. Don't do it to contradict us.

That's not what we're looking for. If I say something that's wrong, let it go. It's just if I say something that's right that I want you to do hours of research to prove it for me. Yeah. But it's interesting stuff though, right? Like it, you know, 33% of teams have only won this Stanley Cup in the salary cap era. And 70% have made it to the finals. But like Matthew says, when you compare it to the 16 years before,

it's pretty much the same number, right? It's similar, which is, I guess, surprising. You know, again, the fact that it's not so much the variety of teams making it, although that is, I guess, one way you could look at parity. Although, you know, when we're talking about comparing this current version of the Lightning to 2015 to 2004, I think those start becoming very different teams. but it's the level of, you know, it kind of gets back to that thing that we've talked about before where we see these incredible Cinderella runs to the final.

And you sort of say, okay, there's your parody, right? The fact that Montreal, the 18th place team can go to the final and you go on down the list. But they never seem to win, which is the weird thing that that even predates the salary cap era. You know, you go back to the North Stars and some of the other teams. that made these miracle runs and then they run out of gas just at the finish line. And I think you can point to some of those and say, that's parity that we see, you know, these unexpected teams making it. But, yeah, I mean, if it does feel like it's similar teams year after year, then yeah,

maybe that does go to the argument that we're overstating the case when it comes to how much parity and randomness and everything else is in this league. All right. So again, appreciate that, Matthew, the research and the voice. Don't do it again. Stop using research to prove us wrong. Again, the voicemail 845-4-4-85-844-59. Let's take one email too.

This one comes in from Patrick who says, hey, look, Jake Gensel wears number 59, David Peron, 57, Michael Bunting, Chris LaTang, were 58, Bo Horvatt at 53. They're all good players, but they're wearing ugly jersey numbers, in my opinion. Do any jersey numbers make you guys cringe? That one comes in from Patrick. Yeah. The number 34 makes me cringe and people who read my stuff know where that's from. Because I sat down to do a piece once where I said, and somebody asked me, and I thought it was going to be simple.

They said, what's the record for most goals in a season by somebody whose jersey number matches their goal total? And what I have quickly found out was in the NHL, there's basically two types of stars. There's the stars that have the cool, unique high numbers. That's the trend that Gretzky started. And you got guys, all sorts of guys wore in 91 and 88 and 81 and stuff like that. And then you got the guys with the traditional low numbers. If you get the number nine or something like that, your star. You don't get the guys in the middle.

You don't get the guys with a number in the 50s or the 40s in that. So yeah, it's one of those weird things about the hockey, that those are typically, the sort of numbers that you get as a rookie, your first call-up. And in fact, there's a lot of guys that if you look in their hockey reference page, which tracks jersey numbers, you'll see like weird numbers. And you're like, I don't remember that guy wearing 58. And it's because he wore it for two games in his first call-up. And then as soon as he was established, he changed numbers.

Like Nikita Kuturov was another one, I think, where he wore some weird number for a while. And then as soon as he was, you know, on the team, he's like, like give me 86. I want a real number. So I guess in one sense, it's kind of neat that those guys, if that's how they got those numbers, that they stuck with it and they didn't turn around and ask for something better. And maybe also some of them have history there and reasons why they did it. But no, generally speaking, those are ugly numbers for everybody except Steve Hines. We all agree that when he wore 57, that was cool. That was money. Yeah, Kucharov was 56 when he first broke in. Yeah, that's a linebacker number, man.

That's not, you don't, you don't wear that if you can help it. And those, that's like, that's a training camp number. Yeah, totally. So wait, so what is the answer to the question of who holds the record for scoring the most goals in a season in which they match their jersey number? Is it 34? Are you telling me you don't read every post it? Yeah, I don't remember the answer. I went through the entire thing, slowly went insane doing it, and then found out the answer was Austin Matthews just a couple of years ago.

He got his 34th. It was a year where he missed a few games with injury. And so he finished with 34, scored on Kerry Price on the last night of the season to match his jersey number. And that turned out to be the answer. And that was a couple years ago, but I'm pretty, I know there's people who watch it now. and I think there were a couple of guys who got into the range, but didn't end up doing it this year. You know, speaking of cringe jersey numbers,

okay, I'm going to give you a number that, for obvious reasons, will probably never be worn again. Like, if you think about a hockey history, the number that's retired by every team is 99. And then every other number is fair game. Heck, you even saw Josh Hossang wear 66, right? So, like, there's a possibility that 66 is worn by somebody else.

but I'll guarantee you no one will ever wear 69 again, right? The last one was about 10 years ago. Yeah. There's only been two players who wore it. And Andrew Desjardin was the guy. With San Jose. With San Jose. You know, will anyone ever wear it again?

I'm not sure. Every beer league team has a guy wearing it. For sure. At some point. And it's, I don't know why it's all. always like the biggest dude too. Like you're just like, oh yeah, okay. That's, I don't think we can put that up there with the 99 and the other ones that I want back,

zero and double zero. Yeah, zero and not allowed by the NHL. Those are goaly numbers, man. Those are fantastic goaltender numbers and we don't allow it right now. So let's bring them back. Andrew Desjardin and Mel Anglestad are the only two players to wear number 69. Like, I feel like I'd love to, you know what, somebody, one of us with the athletics who chased down Andrew Desjardin, get the backstory of how and why he got that number.

And how does he feel that he might, he might be the last guy to ever wear that jersey number? It's got to be a good feeling to be the greatest player to ever wear a number. Because Mel Anglestead played two games. And, yeah, again, that I think the fact that he, yeah, he's, I'm looking at his page. He was 31 when he got up and played two games. And I think, yeah, it's got to be great. Look, making the NHL is an amazing accomplishment. But when you walk in there and the trainer hands you the jersey and you flip it over and see that's your number,

you kind of know that this maybe isn't. I'm maybe not in the long-term plans here as much as I'd like to be. Yeah, exactly. All right. Again, email to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com. Let's wrap up the show like we always do on a Thursday. take a little trip back in time. It's a little this week in hockey history.

We've got two New York Rangers-related things to hit on this week. Let's start with May 24, 1984, 1989. May 24, 1989, Sean, the Rangers decide to relieve Phil Esposito from the dual role of general manager and head coach. Now, Espo's time in New York was short, but boy, oh, boy, was it colorful. It was phenomenal. And most of us these days, you remember Phil Esposito, obviously, is the record-shattering offensive force of the 70s

and maybe later as a just a personality broadcaster, you know, he was instrumental in bringing Tampa. But I remember him, I choose to remember him as a GM because everybody who knows me, knows I'm always whining and complaining about it. There's not enough trades and the GMs make it out.

Like, it's so tough. Not Phil Esposito. This guy was, he was nuts when it came to trade. He made so many trades. I mean, go look up his, trade page on, you know, NHL trade tracker or whatever other

source he like. And it just goes and go, and they're not little trades. Like, I mean, he's trading three, four guys at a time. Just, just constantly, famously once traded for a coach. The only GMs ever pull that move off.

Trade it for, traded a first round pick that ended up being fifth overall to the Nordiques for Michelle Bergeron back of the 80s. Just all sorts of wild trades. because he was, I mean, he played being an NHLGM like you'd play a video game. You just, I want to make my roster better. Those guys are a couple, a little bit better.

Bring those on. I'll trade the guys I have. It was just, I mean, the sheer number of players, like I said, go look it up. Because it's not, you know, a fifth round pick for this or that. It's four or five, six player trades over and over and over again. You wonder how that team ever had any continuity. and he was, he went on to also be the GM in Tampa and wasn't quite as wild, but also there just, just a ton of moves.

For sheer, like when I put together my all entertainment team, Phil Esposito is the GM of that team. A head of Mike Milbury, hey, like in terms of pure entertainment? I think so. Wow. Yep. I think so. Because, Mill, I mean, Milbury, it just got sad after a while.

Yeah. Maybe I'll let Milbury be the assistant GM slash crowd control security guy. Shoo guy. Shoo guy. All right. One other. And this one, if you're a Devils fan, you're probably not going to appreciate this. We'll take you back to May 25th, 1994.

And of course, to set the scene, the devils are up three games or two in the conference final. And Mark Messier famously says before that game at the old Metallands, we're going to win. We're going to win game six, and we're going to force this back to a game seven. And then Messier with a performance for the ages, erases, if I'm not mistaken, it was a 2-0-0-devil's lead in the third period. Messier scores not once, not twice, but thrice. Last one into an empty net, seals it. And I love that.

I think it was Gary Thorne had the call back in the day. It was phenomenal. Messier, natural hat trick for the Rangers, May 25th, 1994. Yep. Good use of the word thrice. Yeah. We don't use it enough. Nicely done.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's, it is both a great story and one that, I'm not even Devils fans, I'm sure, are sick of because, holy smokes is the NHL beat this into the ground. Their head office, their marketing department apparently thinks this was the only playoff run and playoff series ever. But it was great to do that on the road. I mean, the third goal was into an empty net. But, yeah, it was still. A real impressive performance led to, unfortunately, the genre of hockey guarantees where every

time, you know, you go to somebody, I'm sure someone's going to go to Nathan McKinnon today and be like, how do you feel about game six? I'll be like, I feel good. And we'll be like, whoa, Nathan McKinnon just guaranteed. You just pulled out his inner mind. Let's watch the Mark Messier clip again for the 10,000 time. But, I mean, you got to give credit words to do he did call his shot. And he paid it off.

And then, of course, leading to that big game seven, that was memorable in its own right. And apologies to Devils fans for continuing to bring this up. But you know what? You're probably numb to it by now because, wow, you ever get beat over the head with this constantly. Well, and the one good thing if you're a Devils fan, at least you came back the next year and won the cup. Right? Like, it's not like that was you, you were so close and you couldn't close out and you never, like, you literally got over it the next year, hopefully.

Well, they didn't get over it. I'll tell you that right now. I know a few Devils fans, they did not get over it. But it, I'm sure it's softened the blow. Yeah, for sure to win all those Stanley Cups. But I wonder, I do wonder, you know, if you could hook a Devils fan up to a lie detector and say, how many of these three cups would you give up? to win that series in 94, but then you lose to the Canucks. So you don't get a cup out of it, but you take the cup away from the Rangers.

Oh, at least two cups. You would think, right? I want to hear from Devils fans on that. How many cups would you give up? We all still have 1940 now. Like, we're still chanting that. They're into, you know, year 80, whatever it is of their Stanley Cup drought. You never have to hear, mattoe, mattoe, motot again.

You never have to hear about the guarantee again. would you give up two of your three Stanley Cups for that? I think you're for sure giving up that cup over the ducks, right? Like you're like, ah, we don't need that. Yeah. That was a boring series. You're fine with that one. Yeah.

Maybe you give up two. Maybe you give up two cups if you know it wipes out the misery of losing game seven. I want to hear from Devils fans on that one. That's tell me, tell me, I'm crying. And if your answer is zero, I'll hear that too. But I feel like, and I feel like even Islander fans would, chip in like one from the dynasty just to when you don't have enough and your buddy

reaches in like here I'll throw it I'll throw a 10 in for you I feel like we could make this happen. Yeah, I understand you know what? That couple of the North Stars, you take it. Just go ahead. Yeah, you can have that one. Yeah, that one seems good.

All right, we will leave it there. I can tell you that miraculously my power has not come back on. Yet, I'm running off the generator. But maybe by the time we're back again next week. I'll get the power. Fingers crossed.

Maybe. Maybe. We'll see. All right. We will leave it there. We want to thank everybody for joining us. If you have any thoughts there, I know we crowdsourced a couple of things there about goaltending and, you know, devil's fans there. Would you trade some cups for beating the Rangers 94?

You can drop us an email to the athletic hockey show at gmail.com or leave us a voicemail at 8454-4-5-8459. If you're not a subscriber with us, you can join us at theathletic.com slash hockey show. you'll get an annual subscription for a dollar a month for six months. And then you can subscribe to the Athletic Audio Plus on Apple Podcasts. All of our bonus content available to you from our entire network. They'll start with a 30-day free trial. And then it's just 99 cents a month after that.