2016 Stanley Cup Playoffs

@Young:

@LHoffman:

Deadline for pool picks is (today) Wednesday the 13th… sometime around 7:00 EST if you can swing that. Already have a couple of yours.

I didn’t get the sheets… try cliffsidebunker@outlook.com.

Sorry YG, using your old email.

I resent to the new one.

I am conflicted and not sure what to do about my picks. Been so busy with everyone else’s and work stuff that I haven’t had time for my own.

@Young:

@LHoffman:

I am conflicted and not sure what to do about my picks. Been so busy with everyone else’s and work stuff that I haven’t had time for my own.

I’m sure you’ll get yours in just before the Conference Finals like you do every year :-D

(Just kidding Commish, I know you’re busy)

HA! HA! A wise guy, huh?

@Young:

No Gargantua this year?, well at least we won’t be subjected to empty declarations of impending victory.

I am not sure. He’s been MIA since I got a non-committal “Dare I do this again” email from him.

He did get his to me a little late last year, but it wasn’t an issue. I hope he joins again, he provided some very funny material last year.

@Young:

I got a 4 point night out of Hornqvist (although I think lots of people took him in that garbage box).

I did to and was happy that I took him. It was either Hornqvist or James Neal… but i am unsure of the NSH-ANA series. Plus James Neal is a petulant dirt bag… so, yeah. Hornqvist.

If you like Pittsburgh to beat the Rangers, Hornqvist is actually a pretty underrated pick. He could have easily been bumped up to the higher box, but it was too stacked. I suppose I could have knocked Nash down to box 3, what with the rather poor year he had.

@Young:

I’ve got no problem with the way the boxes were done, you’re always gonna have one or two that guide your hand to some extent.

Yeah, it is always a bit of a challenge. I go through about a dozen different preliminary revisions before I settle on the final version. In no particular order, these are the attributes of each player that I must weigh:

• season point totals
• star status / widely known name
• known past playoff performance
• perceived team favoritism to go deep
• position played
• previous placement in the pool
• usage on the power play and penalty kill
• number of players available in boxes from a given team
• injury status (long, term, short term, best guess)
• balanced likelihood to start (goalies)
• I also try to balance the number of East/West conf players in each box, best as possible.

There is a lot to consider… After the tenth revision, I get pretty close to a perfect balance. Never totally satisfied though.

@John:

Go Stars! They may not be the favorites, but it is my team. At least, it is a good start. :-D

As I said to someone else, Minnesota is a dumpster fire waiting to happen.

That takes nothing away from Dallas… if nothing else they will be the napalm that blows them up.

@Young:

I’m heavy on Anaheim in the pool, but watching that Sharks vs Kings game last night (WOW!)… I got a little worried. If there is a team other than the Sharks or Kings that is going to the final… they will have to go through one of them first.

The West as a whole is ridiculously tough, both in terms of the physical play and the great talent involved.

But yeah, between the three California teams, they are all so dominant (or have the potential to be at any moment), it is hard to say which one will come out on top. I went with San Jose, Dallas and Washington mostly. Really hoping that this is finally the year for the Sharks. Goaltending there is the only concern for me. Jones is pretty untested, playoff wise. Maybe I ought to have reconsidered taking him as my goalie… at least that was my thought when I saw the .875 Save % from last night. Yikes. That has got to get better.

I was looking forward to watching that game, but was so tired I fell asleep. Even before the Wings game was over.