Neil Keefe

Mar 31, 2010

Opening Day Butterflies

The Yankees will no longer be world champions on Sunday night They will be defending world champions. And the only thing harder than winning a championship is winning back-to-back championships.

This column was originally published on WFAN.com on March 31, 2010.

Something about this spring training coming to an end just doesn’t feel right. This spring has that feeling you get when you leave your house and feel like you forgot something, but you convince yourself you didn’t, and then when you are too far away from your house to go back, you remember what you forgot. I have figured out what has been missing from this spring training, and it’s the distress of the last eight springs.

From 2001-2008, no matter what situation the Yankees faced, I believed they would prevail in the end. But that was me being spoiled and stupid as a Yankees fan, trying to hold onto the magic from 1996-2000. Up until Luis Gonzalez fought off a cutter into shallow right field, I honestly thought the Yankees would never lose again. Winning had become routine and losing wasn’t even considered an option anymore. It’s hard for anyone who is not a Yankees fan to understand this, and trying to explain the concept to non-Yankees fans is like Ron Washington trying to explain to the Rangers front office why he failed a drug test. However, it wasn’t until they hit rock bottom in 2004 that I was able to admit that I was unsure of the next time the Yankees would be world champions.

In 2004, I didn’t even care that the Red Sox won Game 4 because I knew the series would end in Game 5. But when I left Fenway devastated after having wasted nearly all my spending money for the semester on a ticket to Game 5 with my friend Jim, thinking we were going to see the Yankees clinch the pennant in Boston, I still believed the Yankees would finish the Red Sox off in Game 6. And if not, they would certainly get the job done in Game 7.

The Yankees failed in every imaginable way from 2001-2008, and with each year removed from 2000, the offseasons lasted longer and the anxiety for another title grew larger. The Yankees slowly evolved into what the Patriots have become in the NFL, and it wasn’t until November that they were able to rid themselves of their fading image.

Every spring for the last eight springs, I spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out where the holes on the team were and how Brian Cashman could fill them in order to bring the team back to glory. But this season, there are virtually no holes. The No. 4 starter had a 2.87 ERA in the National League in 2009, and the No. 7 hitter hit 30 home runs a year ago. The only thing to complain about right now is why the Yankees are opening and closing the season in Fenway Park. Aside from that, the team has an answer for everything, or at least it appears that way.

There might not be much to worry about with this team, but there is always something to worry about with every team. Any fan who is completely content with their team is lying to you and lying to themselves. To me, there are two crucial components to the success of the 2010 Yankees. While I’m not all that worried about them, there is still a cause for concern since the margin for error in the AL East is zero, and the difference between these two things working out and not working out is the difference between championship No. 28 and a third-place finish.

1. The production from 2, 20 and 42
The same way I don’t want to believe that Eric Taylor of Friday Night Lights isn’t really a high school football coach at East Dillon, I don’t want to believe that Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada and Mariano Rivera will one day be bad at baseball.

Jeter is going to be 36 in June, Jorge will be 39 in August and Mariano turned 40 in November. At some point these three won’t be the same players they are going to be remembered as being. Let’s hope that never happens, but more importantly, let’s hope it doesn’t happen this year.

The Yankees are in a position in which the success of these three will likely dictate the success of the team. Since 1996, the team has made the playoffs in 13 of a possible 14 seasons. The only season they didn’t was the year when Posada appeared in only 51 games. When they are healthy the Yankees win, and it’s as simple as that.

Eventually Father Time is going to catch up with the trio, but their demise has been falsely predicted each season for the last few seasons. This year, many analysts and “experts” are jumping on the bandwagons of the Red Sox and Rays, banking on old age finally catching up with the old guard. But the “experts” have been wrong before and will likely be wrong again.

I don’t think we are at the end of the road with these three, but eventually we will be and no one knows for sure when that will be. Not only does that deeply sadden me, but it also scares me since a decline in production from Jeter, Posada and Rivera will mean the end of an era and a year without postseason baseball.

2. The bridge to Mariano
The first time I saw Joba Chamberlain fail in person was May 6, 2008. Aside from the midges in Cleveland, it was the first time Joba had every failed in the majors. Joba allowed a go-ahead three-run home run to David Dellucci at the Stadium, and then leaned over on the mound in disbelief, appearing as though he was going to throw up on his spikes after what happened. The entire stadium felt the same way. Joba had been untouchable in his career up to that point, and seeing him blow a lead was like seeing Brian Bruney hold a lead.

In 2007, the only run he allowed in the regular season was a solo home run to Mike Lowell. When Ron Guidry went to the mound to check on him following the homer, Joba reversed roles with the pitching coach. Joba patted the Gator on the back and sent him back to the dugout, assuring him that he was fine and that it wouldn’t happen again. That was the personality of Joba Chamberlain before he became a starter and before the Joba Rules were created.

Joba wants to be a starting pitcher, and he has made that very clear. Why wouldn’t he want to? That is where the glory and glamour is, and the big money as well. But will knowing that he lost his starting spot after the team tinkered with his career and arm for a year and a half cause him to be a different reliever than we know him to be? Will he still possess the personality that meant a 1-2-3 inning and an emotional outburst?

When Joba returned to the bullpen during the postseason, the aura from 2007 and the beginning of 2008 was back, and so was his fastball. It was like watching the guy get the girl at the end of a movie. Everything was the way it was supposed to be, and the result was a happy ending in the form of a championship.

The world now knows two Jobas: Reliever Joba and Starter Joba. Joba might be a reliever now, but that doesn’t necessarily make him Reliever Joba. No one knows what to expect from him as he returns to his original role with the team.

This offseason seemed to go by a lot faster than years past, which is partially due to the Yankees playing until Nov. 4 and partially due to not longing for another championship. Eight springs as the hunter and not as the hunted have made me value championships more than I did the last time the Yankees won, when I took the Subway Series win for granted.

Fans of the other 29 teams will credit the 2009 World Series to the Yankees spending $429 million last offseason, but that was just part of the process. The thousands of breaks, the vast amount of luck and the tens of injuries the team dodged made up for more than half of the pieces to the 2009 World Series puzzle.

If CC Sabathia had actually been hurt when he left in the second inning of a game against the Marlins on June 21, the new Yankee Stadium would have opened the same way the old one closed. If Phil Cuzzi doesn’t call Joe Mauer’s ground-rule double foul in Game 2 of the ALDS, and if Mike Scioscia intentionally walks A-Rod in the bottom of the ninth in Game 2 of the ALCS, maybe the Canyon of Heroes goes unused for another fall.

I have tried to cherish the 2009 season as much and as long as possible because after Josh Beckett delivers his first pitch to Derek Jeter on Sunday night, the Yankees will no longer be world champions. They will be defending world champions. And the only thing harder than winning a championship is winning back-to-back championships.

Blogs • Rangers

Mar 26, 2010

Hope Remains With Rangers

I feel like Andy Dufresne using the meaning of hope to tell Red of his plans to escape Shawshank Prison. Except I’m not trying to escape Shawshank Prison, I’m trying to escape the 2009-10 Rangers.

On Thursday night with under a minute left, Mike Sullivan drew up a play for the Rangers’ offensive-zone faceoff. The play ended with Erik Christensen giving a no-look pass to Chris Drury, who banged it home with 16.5 seconds left. John Tortorella celebrated like he just won a Showcase Showdown, and the Rangers went on to earn two points that they had to have.

The Rangers have made it hard to give up on them, and at the same time, they have made it equally hard to believe in them. They have let their playoff chances dwindle down to basically needing to run the table over the final weeks of the season. But whenever it comes time to pull the plug on them, they go out and win and prevent their magic number from completing its inevitable freefall.

The Rangers’ playoff push would have ended long ago if the Flyers or Bruins wanted it to. Instead, the Rangers’ main competition has slipped up as much as the Blueshirts themselves, and the Ranges are still breathing with eight games left. Barely breathing, but breathing nonetheless.

But like Red told Andy, “Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane.”

It was just three months ago that the New York Giants gave hope to their fans before pulling the rug out from underneath them. It was the Giants who made sure their playoff hopes lasted until the final weeks of the season before the Eagles and Panthers pounded them into submission. Now it’s the Rangers going down that same path. And the thought of coming close again just to fall at the last second is scarier than the look Frank Martin used to stare down his Kansas State players during overtime on Thursday night.

Was I surprised when the Rangers tied the game? No, because I have learned to expect the unexpected with this team. No lead is safe and no deficit is insurmountable. The Rangers have become as predictable as the weather forecast 23 days from now, and the only person crazier than someone who expects consistency out of this team is a person who bets on this team.

Every goal against the Rangers this season has seemed like three and every goal for has seemed like the only one they will score in the game. It’s not exactly the healthiest way to watch a team, but I continue to do so, thinking that just maybe they can win out or come close to winning out, and sneak into the playoffs. And the best-case scenario if this hope turns into reality? A meeting with Ovechkin and the Capitals in the first round of the playoffs. Not exactly the type of dream someone should be hoping for.

But here we are, eight games and 16 days away from the end of the season, and the Rangers have instilled the same hope the Giants instilled at the end of December. Mathematically, there is a chance the Rangers can make the postseason, but even if they take care of their own business, they will still need help from other sources, and in the end, winning their own games might not be enough.

It would have been easier if the Rangers finished the season like the 2008 Yankees. In 2008, the Yankees folded pre-flop, saving themselves and their fans from emotional heartache and disaster. I’d rather the Rangers went away like the 2008 Yankees rather than the 2008 Mets, who lasted all the way until the river before coming up short. But it’s the Rangers we’re talking about, and being led on and strung along is in their DNA. In all likelihood, the season will come down to the final weekend against the Flyers.

None of this would be possible without the play of Henrik Lundqvist, who has to be tired of being a Ranger, or at least tired of being a Ranger with this group of Rangers. Even with the Rangers defense letting the Devils play “rebound” against Lundqvist in the third period, King Henrik stopped breakaway after breakaway and a handful of odd-man rushes to keep the game from turning into a blowout.

Lundqvist might be the best-kept secret in the NHL. That might sound ridiculous considering he plays in New York on the biggest stage in the sports world, but he certainly isn’t recognized with the credit he deserves. Those who have the luxury of watching Lundqvist on a nightly basis understand just how good he is and how valuable he is to the Rangers. Casual hockey fans, on the other hand, might not know because no one on the Rangers is going to be winning the Vezina or Hart Trophy anytime soon. Those awards are saved for players on winning teams.

Without Lundqvist, the Rangers are a last-place team playing for the No. 1 pick in the 2010 draft rather than playing for a playoff berth. Put Lundqvist on the Red Wings last year and they win the Cup, not the Penguins. Put him on the Capitals this season and maybe Washington has five losses. With Henrik, the Rangers are on the postseason bubble – a place that has become their second home after MSG. Without him, MSG is home to two miserable franchises, not just one.

The reason to still believe in the Rangers is simple: playoff hockey. Postseason play has a way of making optimists out of pessimists. It’s enough to make someone believe that a 33-32-9 team can run the table over the final weeks of the season. It’s enough to not only make the idea of making the playoffs seem reasonable, but also the idea that the Rangers could get hot, ride a hot goalie in Lundqvist into the first round, and possibly even make it out of the first round. Thinking that the Rangers are capable of making the playoffs is insane enough. Thinking they might be able to do something if they get in is really just stupid. But hope will make people do stupid things, like think the Rangers can survive the Capitals in a seven-game series.

“Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”

As long as the Rangers stay alive, there is hope that their season will last longer than 82 games.

Blogs • NHL

Mar 22, 2010

A Face-Lift for the NHL Playoffs

The odds of filling out a perfect NCAA bracket are 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1. I’d like to think the odds of not getting a shot on goal during a four-minute power play are close to the

The odds of filling out a perfect NCAA bracket are 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 1. I’d like to think the odds of not getting a shot on goal during a four-minute power play are close to the same. But that’s what happened on Sunday when Marian Gaborik got high-sticked by Zdeno Chara, and the Rangers wasted a double minor against the Bruins in a must-win game.

The Rangers’ season came to an end on Sunday, three weeks before their last game is scheduled. Now sitting five points behind the Bruins for eighth place, and four points behind the Thrashers for ninth, only three points separate the Rangers and the lowly Islanders. A 3-5-2 record since the Olympic break has the Rangers closer to being the worst of three teams in the tri-state area than being in the postseason right now. However, after watching them fail on six power-play opportunities and once again leave Henrik Lundqvist out to dry, last place is where they belong.

There is nothing more depressing than watching regular season games that have no meaning. And with the Rangers ending their season on Sunday, the Knicks having ended their season in November and my NCAA bracket being destroyed by Kansas, it’s going to be a long 13 days until the Yankees and Red Sox meet at Fenway Park on Easter Sunday.

Maybe the Rangers not making the playoffs was actually a good thing. For one, it clearly shows Glen Sather that the team needs change (though he likely won’t make the necessary changes), and it probably would have just been depressing to watch the Capitals sweep the Rangers in four straight.

Even though a glimmer of hope still remains for the Rangers’ chances to make the postseason, they don’t deserve to – at least not under the current playoff format. But the current playoff format has a place for teams that finish .500 or barely better. And in the Eastern Conference, there are multiple spots in the postseason for teams in that category.

The NHL currently lets 53% of its teams into the postseason – tied with the NBA for the most playoff teams among the major sports. And the only reward for the top teams in the NHL is home-ice advantage for Games 1, 2, 5 and 7. Maybe home-ice is enough of an incentive for teams to finish at the top of their conference in the regular season, but in the era of cookie-cutter arenas, the idea of home-ice advantage ended when the lights went out on places like the Boston Garden, Montreal Forum and Maple Leaf Gardens. Home-ice advantages today are few and far between, and it’s hard to understand how “home ice” could be enough of a reward for a team that played better than .700 hockey for more than six months.

Sure, it would already be a daunting task for the currently eighth-seeded Bruins to take down the top-seeded Capitals in a best-of-seven, it’s not improbable. It’s not as improbable as it should be, and if Tim Thomas or Tuukka Rask were to get hot for a few days in April, the Capitals could be joining the Rangers at Alpine Country Club before the first of May.

It might be hard for the Bruins to eliminate the Capitals in the first round of the playoffs, like it would be for any eighth seed to upend a first seed, but it should be a lot harder. There needs to be more of an incentive for teams to finish at or near the top of their conference, and there should be as much punishment as there is reward for teams that find the second season via the back door.

Under the current playoff format, there are three seven-game series for each conference and then the Stanley Cup finals, which is also a seven-game series. The 1, 2, 3 and 4 seeds are granted home-ice advantage in the first round and then the matchups reseed in the second round to determine the home-ice advantage. Using the Eastern Conference, if the playoffs started today, the matchups would be:

1. Capitals vs. 8. Bruins

2. Penguins vs. 7. Canadiens

3. Sabres vs. 6. Flyers

4. Devils vs. 5. Senators

The 16-team format has been used since the 1993-94 season, and it is the only format I am old enough to remember, and therefore the only format I have really ever known. I am OK with 16 teams making the postseason in the NHL, but how you get those 16 teams is a different story.

I have always wondered how the top teams in the league could be better rewarded for their regular-season success, and maybe it’s the 100 or so hours of college basketball or the college hockey playoffs that has finally given me the answer I have been searching for, but I think have finally found the solution to fairly modify the NHL postseason.

In the new-and-improved postseason, 10 teams would last past Game 82. The top six teams would clinch playoff berths and the bottom four teams would play to decide the final two spots in the conference.

Here are the top 10 teams in the East right now:

1. Capitals
2. Penguins
3. Sabres
4. Devils
5. Senators
6. Flyers
7. Canadiens
8. Bruins
9. Thrashers
10. Rangers

The Capitals, Penguins, Sabres, Devils, Senators and Flyers would be in the playoffs. The Canadiens, Bruins Thrashers and Rangers would play to decide the seventh and eighth seeds in the postseason.

The last day of the NHL season this year is Sunday, April 11. Under the new format, on Monday, April 12, the Canadiens, Bruins, Thrashers and Rangers would begin two three-game series. The teams would be seeded for the mini series in the order that they finished the regular season and the matchups would be:

7. Canadiens vs. 10. Rangers

8. Bruins vs. 9. Thrashers

The higher seeds (Canadiens and Bruins) would host every game of the three-game series. The winners of each series would fill the seventh and eighth seeds in the postseason. Once the eight seeds are determined following the conclusion of the three-game series, the postseason would return to its current format of seven-games series.

Under this proposed format, you are forcing the bubble teams to play on consecutive days right after finishing the regular season, in which they would have likely already been playing with a mentally-draining postseason mentality. You are rewarding the seventh and eighth seeds by allowing them to host the entire three-game series, while also punishing them for an average regular season by making them win an additional series just to reach the real postseason.

This way, the higher seeds in the conference get a few days of rest before the two-plus month playoff grind begins, and the top two seeds in the conference get the luxury of hosting a team that spent the last few weeks of the regular season fighting to play in the postseason, and then had to fight some more in a three-game mini series just to reach the actual postseason. There would finally be a real incentive for teams to finish atop the conference.

Not only is this format good for the top two seeds in both conferences, it is also good for the league as a whole. It would give teams that wouldn’t have made the postseason otherwise an alternate but also laborious route in, even if they would wind up meeting a rested top seed in the first round. It would make more teams eligible down the stretch for the 7, 8, 9, and 10 seeds, creating excitement for franchises that would have likely been dormant over the final month of the season. It would give the NHL the excitement MLB gets from its small postseason field and rare one-game playoffs, the stimulation the NFL playoffs generate from a one-and-done format and the theatrics the NCAA Tournament produces from being “March Madness.”

The NHL would be able to generate revenue through the two additional series, and they would be able to sell it as the prelude to the postseason. There is no doubt that the short series could create the sort of drama needed to build a bigger audience for the game, and with the actual postseason taking place over April, May and June, only real hockey enthusiasts remain attracted to the playoffs the entire time. The short series could give the the casual fan a quick fix for playoff hockey, and it might be enough for those new and interested fans to stick around for the long haul.

There is no reason this format can’t be implemented by the NHL. It keeps the current format intact, while also making a fair and just postseason for the teams that deserve to be in the postseason. The postseason is the ultimate reward for the regular season’s elite. It isn’t meant for the average and below average, which is it what it is currently designed for.

Last week during the Bruins-Hurricanes game, Andy Brickley said that “points are at a premium at this time of the season for the Bruins” – a phrase that has always made me laugh. A win is still two points and an overtime or shootout loss is still one point. The points aren’t any more valuable or “premium” now. What he should have said was “points are imperative” or “scarce” at this time of the season because the Bruins waited until the final weeks of the season to play with urgency.

The same goes for the Rangers as they try to salvage what is left of their most disappointing season in the post-lockout era. If the Rangers had played with consistency at any point this year, they wouldn’t find themselves with their backs against the wall as the season winds down, and they run out of possible points and time.

Success down the stretch will result in the Bruins being rewarded with the eighth and final seed in the postseason. Success all season for the Capitals will give them the top seed in the Eastern Conference and home-ice advantage throughout the postseason. But one more home game in a possible seven-game series isn’t enough disparity between a team that played outstanding for six-plus months and one that played outstanding for one month. The Capitals and whichever team emerges as the best in West deserve more. They at least deserve the opportunity for a few extra days rest and the chance to play a tired and banged-up team that slipped in through the back door in the first round.

Blogs

Mar 20, 2010

Five Things from the First Round

March Madness is rarely ever madness. It’s usually more like March Mediocrity. For a tournament based around the upset, the impossible comeback, the feel-good story and the half-court buzzer-beater, it’s a tournament that is hardly

Thursday was unlike any first-round day I can remember. It had everything you could ask for in a day of 16 games, and then some. If you needed to explain March Madness to someone who had never seen or heard of it, Thursday became the textbook example of how March Madness should look.

Eleven underdogs covered the spread and seven of them won their games outright. At 12:49 a.m., on Friday morning, just over 12 hours after BYU and Florida tipped off the day, the final buzzer sounded on New Mexico and Montana, ending Montana’s season and the first day at the same time. But even after watching college basketball for 12 straight hours on Thursday, it left me wishing there was a fifth round of games set to tip off in the 1:00 a.m. hour on Friday morning. Friday at noon just seemed like too long of a wait after Thursday’s results, even though it seemed unrealistic to think that the emotional swings of Day 1 could be replicated for a second straight day.

Friday would have been a good tournament day any year other than 2010. There were four upsets and seven underdogs covered, but compared to Thursday, it was a letdown. But when the first day of the tournament includes seven games decided by three points or less and three games that went to overtime with one going to double overtime, it makes it a tough act to follow.

The first 24 hours of tournament basketball lived up to the excitement that the first round makes possible. There were enough close scores and close calls to make you believe that this year might include a Christian Laettner, Lorenzo Charles or Tate George, and enough upsets occurred to make you believe that there might be a George Mason in this year’s bracket. Murray State gave the world some new footage for future buzzer-beater ads, and like Murray State, Ohio, Old Dominion and Cornell have given people reason to believe in Cinderella stories again.

I don’t care that my bracket looks like Omar Minaya and Jerry Manuel managed it. I’m just happy to see teams without last names on the back of their jerseys shooting lights out from behind the arc, and big-name schools with big-name players exiting the tournament every hour.

After two days of basketball and 24 hours of actual games, there has been a lot thrown at viewers. To this point, the tournament has been like a semester of work taught in a week, and I’m not even sure I have been able to process everything that has happened after one round of play. But here are five things the first round made me think about in what has truly been “madness:”

1. The Big East isn’t as good as advertised
The majority of regular season college basketball I watch is Big East basketball. Actually I would say 90 percent of any non-NCAA tournament college basketball I watch is Big East basketball. This is mainly because all of the local teams are from the conference and also because it is believed to have the most elite teams and the top talent in the country.

I pick my bracket every year with a Big East bias and always advance every Big East team to at least the second round. But after the first-round debacle, the Big East and I aren’t really on good terms.

It hurts me to say, but maybe the Big East just isn’t as good as it is cracked up to be. I mean you can’t lose of three of four on Day 1 and have losses to No. 11 Old Dominion, No. 11 Washington and No. 14 Ohio and a near loss to No. 15 Robert Morris and think your credibility will remain intact. And if you’re Rick Pitino and Louisville, how do you start a game down 22-4 to a Pac-10 team?

Three of the bigger names in the conference (Luke Harangody, Scottie Reynolds and Greg Monroe) all had forgettable performances. The trio did little to convince anyone on the national level that they are some of the most talented players in the country. And they also managed to make it possible for basketball enthusiasts to question who they are compiling their regular season stats against. If the Big East can’t win in the tournament, just how bad are the teams from the conference that didn’t make the tournament?

2. No need for 96 teams
If you thought that expanding the tournament to 96 teams was a good idea, then the first round should have changed your mind. In a down year for elite teams and true contenders, the upsets were aplenty and it is obvious the committee had a tough time seeding the teams that did qualify.

The addition of 32 more teams will just water down a talent pool that was already watered down this year. If the NCAA wants to take away the importance of the regular season and the conference tournaments, then a 96-team tournament is a great idea. But if they want to keep with tradition and make a decision that makes the most sense with finances aside, then keeping the tournament as it is would be the right choice.

But who am I kidding? In the end, the NCAA sees dollar signs for a bigger tournament as they get closer to negotiating a long-term deal for the TV rights. And the NCAA doesn’t care that the 2009-10 UConn Huskies would be in the NCAA Tournament under their new format, they just care about maximum profit. Whether or not that comes at the cost of talent or the postseason’s integrity is irrelevant.

3. Sloppy seeding
Everyone loves a good upset, but this year, upsets have become the norm. Seven underdogs won on Thursday and another four won on Friday with 18 underdogs covering the spread in the first 32 games. Maybe it goes back to the fact that there is a lack of elite teams this season, but aside form the No. 1-seed’s games, just about every game was entertaining all the way through.

Take Notre Dame for example. The Fighting Irish were a team that wasn’t even in the tournament just a couple of weeks ago and without Harangody playing a significant role down the stretch, it looked like they wouldn’t even make the bubble. But a decent finish for Notre Dame got them in the tournament and they were seeded as No. 6 team. Now maybe some people agree that that s a seed they deserved, but it just doesn’t make sense that a team that nearly missed making the tournament could be seeded in the top half of the teams. But Old Dominion ousted them early on the first day to start a trend throughout the first round.

7-seeds went 1-3 against 10-seeds, and 6-seeds went 2-2 against 11-seeds. There shouldn’t be that match equality between teams seeded that differently, and maybe all of the upsets that occurred weren’t upsets at all. Maybe they were just products of poor team evaluation by the committee.

4. Jimmer could be the next Stephen
There isn’t anyone who isn’t pulling for Jimmer Fredette and BYU (unless you have Kansas State advancing in your bracket). Fredette put on a show in the first round with his unorthodox layup style and his sharp shooting, as BYU knocked off Florida in double overtime.

Fredette seems to be this year’s player who has the chance to make himself a lot of money if he can keep BYU in the win column and advance to the Sweet 16. Like Stephen Curry did with Davidson a few years back, Fredette has a chance to turn himself into a household name and build some serious draft stock.

I have talked about Jimmer with every person I have talked to over the last two days about the tournament. For those that have seen him, we have talked about how badly we are pulling for him and BYU to make a long run in this thing. And for those that haven’t seen him, I have hyped him up so much that anything short of 30 points against Kansas State will probably be a disappointment for anyone that has listened to me. But watch Jimmer in the second round on Saturday and you will be happy you did. At least I hope you are.

5. A bad slate for Gus
It’s too bad viewers of the tournament didn’t get their first taste of Gus Johnson until Friday with all of the nail-biters and close games that took place on Thursday. And it’s even worse that he was stuck in Buffalo where the games were decided by 28, 8, 7 and 23 points.

The Vermont upset of Syracuse that, for some unknown reason, people seemed to believe would happen didn’t happen. Gus was held from creating new levels of bedlam with a true upset (Missouri over Clemson was a game of equals) in his region, and it was a shame that he was taken out of the games he broadcasted because of such lopsided scores. Hopefully Gus will be given a chance to give a call for the ages over the weekend. The tournament isn’t the same without him getting at least one impossible shot to fall.

Blogs • Rangers

Mar 17, 2010

Rangers Running Out of Time

On Tuesday, there were several possibilities for how the bottom of the Eastern Conference standings would look at the end of the night. The Rangers were in a position to take over possession of the

On Tuesday, there were several possibilities for how the bottom of the Eastern Conference standings would look at the end of the night. The Rangers were in a position to take over possession of the eighth and final spot in the East (a k a the chance to lose to the Capitals in the first round), and also in a position to lose more ground on the Flyers, Canadiens and Bruins.

With Rangers-Canadiens, Bruins-Hurricanes, Flyers-Predators all on the same night, I envisioned the opportunity to start this story off by saying, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance?” Just six days after I questioned John Tortorella’s future with the team and compared his Rangers tenure with the men before him, he had a chance to erase the 1,598 words I used to question his job along with Glen Sather’s.

If the Rangers could take care of their own business and get some help from the Hurricanes and Predators, maybe Tortorella could have this team on a run to the playoffs that very few thought was possible. But all that talk of urgency the team spent preaching about during the week ended up just being talk.

On a night when the Rangers could have moved into eighth place and prevented the Canadiens from separating themselves from the pack even more, the Rangers put together one of their worst home performances of the season. But the four-point swing in the standings between the Rangers and Canadiens wasn’t the only bad news for the Blueshirts. It was just the tip of the iceberg.

After the Rangers were able to tie the game at 1, I flipped to the Bruins-Hurricanes game where Carolina had cut into the Boston’s lead and trailed just 2-1. Then I flipped to the Flyers-Predators where Nashville had a commanding 3-1 lead and a goal away from putting that game on ice. Things were quietly falling into place for the Rangers if they could score the next goal. But when the Canadiens took the lead against the Rangers on a garbage deflection of Artem Anisimov’s skate, everything began to fall apart at the same time across the league.

The Rangers lost, the Canadiens won, the Bruins won, the Flyers fought back to earn a point in a shootout loss and Game 70 of the Rangers’ season was used up. Maybe it wasn’t all bad. I guess the Flyers could have gotten two points instead of just one.

Here is what the standings looked like at 7 p.m. on Tuesday night:

6. Flyers, 76 pts
7. Canadiens, 76 pts
8. Bruins, 72 pts
9. Rangers, 71 pts

And here is what the bottom of the East looks like now:

6. Canadiens, 78 pts
7. Flyers, 77 pts
8. Bruins, 74 pts
9. Rangers, 71 pts

The Canadiens tried to give the Rangers the game on Tuesday and so did the refs with timely power-play opportunities handed to the Blueshirts, including man advantages at 11:20 and 19:05 of the third period. But the Rangers wanted no part of their power play, as they went 0-for-5 with the man advantage and recorded a total of two shots on the five chances.

The Rangers had to put a dent into their direct competition, but instead, they ran in place while their competition took off for the finish line. And while saying the right things might sound nice, it really doesn’t matter at this point. All that matters is getting two points at the end of the day, and for a team that talked about playing with a postseason mentality and a do-or-die mindset all week, they couldn’t have played with less desire against a team they are chasing.

“Every game is a Game Seven for us, no matter who we are playing,” Henrik Lundqvist said before Tuesday’s game. And Lundqvist is right. It’s just too bad he is the only one that plays like it. You could make a case for Sean Avery too after his last two games, but it took him nearly the entire season and a recent benching to wake up, and there aren’t enough games left for Tortorella to wake up the rest of the team by making examples of every player.

Lundqvist continues to stand on his head while his anemic offense tries to muster some shots and even sometimes a goal or two. He continues to play outstanding down the stretch, and is always there to field questions after the game whether the team wins or loses. He has yet to pull a Billy Wagner and throw his teammates under the bus for inconsistent play, but King Henrik is only human and at some point, you’d have to think that the last few years of carrying the team on his back will get to him.

No one expected the Rangers to run the table and climb to the top of the Eastern Conference standings, and it’s unfair to think that they will win every game over the final weeks of the season. But you’d like to think they would at least come to play at home against a team they are chasing. Then again, maybe it’s just wishful thinking asking for a team that is under .500 at home to start playing with a purpose in their own building with just four games remaining at MSG.

Is the Rangers’ season over? No. And wins over St. Louis on Thursday and Boston on Sunday will certainly enhance their playoff odds. But what have the Rangers done to make anyone believe in them down the stretch? With two wins in their last seven games and Sean Avery as their offense, the Rangers aren’t exactly deserving of a playoff berth, and maybe that’s for the better. Maybe finishing ninth instead of eighth will keep the Rangers from being dismantled by the Capitals in the first round and save the tri-state area further embarrassment from the Blueshirts.

Chris Drury referred to the Rangers’ losing ways as “immaturity” after being embarrassed by the Canadiens. “That’s what it’s been all year,” Drury said. “Simple answer.”

Hopefully the Rangers will respond to “immaturity” because they didn’t seem to understand “urgency” or “Game Seven” or “postseason mentality” or “do-or-die,” and there isn’t enough time left to try any other motivational phrases.

Author: Neil Keefe

Opening Day Butterflies

Hope Remains With Rangers

A Face-Lift for the NHL Playoffs

Five Things from the First Round

Rangers Running Out of Time