Stanley Cup Final preview

Who's going to win? Shit, I don't know. Philadelphia has a better-rounded playoff team, but Chicago has better forwards and goaltending, although I'm not totally sure about the latter. This blog is rooting for Chicago, because if they win, it will mean that Toronto will hold the record for longest Cup drought, and we'd like that.

I do have a couple of pointers, though. First of all, give Philadelphia's front office credit for putting togther an excellent playoff team. In the regular season, it all looked like the Philadelphia we're used to since the lockout: big hits, suspensions, comedy defense, a different goalie every night. We didn't think they'd make the postseason. In the playoffs, though, they've really started playing hockey, and after all, these are the games that count.

On defence, it's going to be interesting to see how the big guys match up. Yes, Chris Pronger is old, slow and plays dirty. He's won the Hart Trophy, Norris Trophy and Stanley Cup, too, and he's a hell of a postseason player. One on one, as good as Chicago's guys have been, I'd give him the edge.

When it comes to the defense as a whole, though, the Flyers are in trouble. Montréal had a strangely schizophrenic offense. When they were on their game, Cammalleri was unstoppable; when they were off their game, you couldn't even understand how they were trying to score, let alone how they might eventually manage it. It was much the same thing with Boston. Chicago is probably going to give the Flyers the first real defensíve test of the postseason, and I don't think they're going to pass. When they're not at their best, they do play the usual Philadelphia comedy defense, and I fully expect Kane, Toews and the over-lettered Byfuglien to tear them apart.

Overall, I'd rank the Hawks' forwards over the Flyers', what with Jonathan Toews heading for a Conn Smythe Trophy whichever way the final goes. The Flyers have more depth while the Hawks' first line is on a different level than anything the Flyers can throw at them.

There's been a lot of ink spilled about the goaltending on both sides. Philadelphia's revolving door system has worked remarkably well, and Leighton posted some incredible numbers against Montréal, while Niemi has been good. Here's the thing, though: neither of them is actually as good as they're being made out to be.

The Finnish media has been having a field day with reports of Niemi, who several North American publications have claimed was "the difference" against the Sharks. Sure, he played well while Nabokov wasn't at his best. That definitely wasn't the difference, though. Now that I've used the term twice, I'm beginning to think the Difference is a friend of the Situation's. Anyhow, the thing with Niemi is that he's a positional goalie, rather like Minnesota's Niklas Bäckström and Toronto's monster, although he's way better than either of those guys. Anyone playing a positional style is very much at the mercy of his team's defensemen, and Niemi's numbers are a combination of his play, his team's defense and the Sharks' inept offense. Big Pavelski was a disappointment in the Hawks series, and the big line an even bigger one. They had much more to do with the Hawks win than Niemi did. I'm not saying he was bad, I'm just saying he wasn't nearly as good as they say he is.

The same goes for Leighton. As I said above, the Montréal offense was, at times, ridiculous. Their insistence on unscreened shots would make any NHL goalie look good, and although Leighton pulled off a couple of impressive saves, his numbers are much better than his play. The "musical goalies" system also comes with a drawback: Boucher's healthy again. If Leighton doesn't play well enough in the first game, will they start second-guessing and switch goalies? What will that do to their game?

Although the numbers say different, and despite what I've just said, I do think Niemi is a better goalie than Leighton. Hey, if playing for Pelicans in the Finnish league back when they routinely lost games 10-2 doesn't teach you goaltending, what will? More importantly, the Hawks defend better than the Flyers.

So overall, I think Chicago has the clear advantage. With one big "but". The Hawks are a very young team, and the Flyers aren't. Superior experience may well come into play here, especially as the series gets older. The first two games will be fairly big, but given Philadelphia's ability to rally from a defeat, not as big as they might otherwise be. Then again, if the Hawks get nervous, the Flyers can really take the fight to them from the get-go.

Still, my money's on the Blackhawks. A big line, better team defense and better goaltending sounds like a safe bet. Then again, the Flyers wouldn't be here if the safe bet always won.

Whoever wins, the best part is that if anyone says they saw this final matchup coming, they're lying. No-one could have predicted this, and I like that. I hope the best team wins.