The rap on European players is that they don't shoot enough. This may or may not be true, but it's frustrating to watch two defensemen on the point play catch with the puck back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, and not take a shot. The PK's are doing their jobs and clogging up the shooting lanes. Edmonton needed a faster skater than Pronger playing the point (or playing along with Pronger) who could take a pass and skate in, or at least break free to get a shot that could be deflected. The Carolina penalty killers did a very good job. But if a team can't score on a 5-on-3, they have no right to win the game.

Ales Hemsky held back on a few shots and instead kept looking for the perfect pass. I can say from my vast experience playing in lousy rec hockey leagues that the more shots you take, the better. Even with a great goalie, at least 1 in 18 shots will go in. Guaranteed.

Scoring goals in a tournament like the World Cup is even more important than their value in the game at hand, given that goal differential is used to break ties in the standings after group play is complete.

Time and time again, you'll hear soccer announcers claim that a 2 goal lead is the most dangerous. Well, I can say with some certainty that no one EVER lost a game when giving up a goal while up two goals. No, leads are only lost when you give up a goal while leading by ONE.

I was just griping about that "score first" stat to some friends the other day. If a game ends at 1-0, well, duh, of course the team who scored first won. They're the ONLY team to have scored.

Given that soccer/futbol games often end 1-0, wouldn't it be more interesting to remove all of the 1-0 games and then present the stat? It *might* be interesting to know how often teams win after scoring first, then getting scored on, and then breaking the tie for 2-1, or more. Though my suspicion is that it isn't quite the blow-you-away stat those interns are looking for...which make the whole thing a waste of time anyway. I'm with you King, I hate stupid stats...

For the most part, whichever team scores the most goals is the winner. But have you seen those Swedish female fans? They make us all winners.

I have to admit, I was cheering for Edmonton Monday night. Partly because they were the underdogs and partly because I'm originally from Connecticut. I had to suffer through the Whaler's failures and watch the team become a transfer station for an all-star teams worth of talented players who dogged it until they could get signed to a 'real' team (among those, Chris Pronger, btw) and then bid them adieu when they moved to Carolina.

I specifically remember being at a game and watching Pronger stand in the crease and do nothing while Dave Andreychuk (then on Toronto) stood in front of him to setup a screen/deflection opportunity for Dougie Gilmore. I play hockey as well, usually defense, and in that situation you have to at least make an effort to tie up the guys stick with your own, if not try to shove him out of the way. Hockey 101.

An exception to this 'dogging' rule was Ron Francis. He was a Whaler originally and made it to the finals with Carolina in 2002, but retired during the lockout. Rod Brind'amour is a player's player and it's good to see him get his name on the Cup near the end of his career, but too bad about Ron.

If I remember with the one Hemsky play you're referring to, I couldn't agree more. I think he had an open shot at the goal on the left side, in the circles, and he makes a blink backhand pass into the middle- nobody home. Bad play- the right play there is to shoot, hopefully to the far side post so the rebound will come straight out.

But to just throw all pucks possible at the net during a power play is a losing strategy. Especially in this series, since both teams have been so successful at blocking shots. If you're at the point and there's a guy 15 feet in front of you, and you shoot and he blocks it, there's a very good chance it's knocked out the zone.

I think the 1 in 18 shots stat also includes good shots. Statistically, the shots are independent events. Ward makes a great save, it doesn't mean he's less likely to make a great save on the next one, because his overall save % is .910. You give the goalie an unobstructed look at a 50 foot shot, slapper or wrister, he will make that save 98 or 99 times out of a hundred. Guaranteed.

The goal wasn't missed. It wasn't a goal because of a delayed penalty made up the other end of the ice prior to the scramble in front of the net. When a delayed penalty is called against a team (here, Edmonton), play continues until said team (Edmonton) takes possession (or, in other words, touches the puck). This happened in front of their own net in the scramble to prevent the 'canes from scoring. Consequently, the penalty was called and the usual rules prevailed, Edmonton's player goes off and there's a face off in front of the Edmonton net. It was too bad for Carolina, for sure, but it was the correct way to handle the situation. In this instance, the officials did their jobs well (for once).

- CS

...eventhough he had a couple in Pittsburgh

It fails to account the number of players playing. If the team scoring first had eleven players and the opposing nine, what use is the stat? And what about kicking the ball into your own goal, like Italia vs. USA?

If only the record keepers used asteriks in this game....

Even those 30 foot shots from the point have a much better chance of being redirected or a rebound being tapped in. I was referring to the 5 on 3 specifically. Typically on a 5 on 3 the offensive team is very meticulous and controlled and it results in a goal more than 50% of the time I would bet. But when you're down by 2 goals in the 3rd period, you have to shoot more. Even if one of the 3 defenders is able to ice the puck, on a 5 on 3 you can easily go retrieve it and not lose more than 10 to 15 seconds of power play time. I don't mean to second guess professional players and coaches but I think Edmonton hurt themselves by not taking more shots, even if they are shots they wouldn't normally take. A coach who was a walking cliche once said that you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.