Blogs – Page 196 – Keefe To The City

Apr 22, 2014

Jacoby Ellsbury Doesn’t Get the Johnny Damon Treatment

It’s the first Yankees-Red Sox series of the season in Boston and the first time Jacoby Ellsbury will play in Fenway Park for another team and that means it’s time for an email exchange with Mike Hurley.

After this week in Boston, the Yankees and Red Sox won’t meet again for two months and they won’t meet again in Boston until the first weekend in August. (Never change, Major League Baseball schedule, never change.) But this week in Boston is not only the first meeting between the two teams at Fenway Park this season, it’s the first time Jacoby Ellsbury will be in the third-base dugout at Fenway Park.

With Ellsbury making his Yankees debut in Boston and the teams playing a three-game series before a two-month break, you know what that means. An email exchange with Mike Hurley.

Keefe: It’s been only 12 days since we last talked and after this it will be over two months until the Yankees and Red Sox meet again. There’s nothing quite like seven Yankees-Red Sox games in April and then none for basically half the summer. It makes sense though, right? I mean it makes more sense than Major League Baseball’s replay/review/challenge system, doesn’t it?

Last week you sent me a series of videos showing how the transfer play is no longer being called in baseball the way it has been since the invention of the game. I laughed watching umpires and the umpires in the New York offices decide games on balls being dropped “during the transfer” but I wasn’t laughing anymore when the Yankees nearly lost on Sunday to the Rays because of a transfer call involving Brian Roberts at second base.

I was all for replay in baseball and I didn’t and still don’t care about the length of review time or extending games because of replays as long as the calls are made correctly. But that’s clearly not what’s happening right now with no one knowing what a catch in baseball is anymore, the umpires in New York not having the same views and angles as those watching at home and ancient baseball rules being changed overnight.

Hurley: Replay in baseball is utterly useless.

I was never strongly for or against it. I’ve always been able to live with a missed call on a bang-bang play, the same way you have to live with a bad strike call. But I also watched disasters like the Jim Joyce botching of Armando Galarraga’s perfect game or Phil Cuzzi blowing his only job of calling balls fair or foul in the 11th inning of a playoff game at Yankee Stadium, and mistakes like that were just so egregious that I supported a system that could easily correct those obvious screw-ups.

As it turns out, we got a system that neither fixes the obvious mistakes or fine-tunes the close plays. We just got a stupid, stupid, stupid system that has tried to change the sport for absolutely no reason.

The new emphasis on the transfer rule is not only nonsensical (a catch and a throw are two different actions; how a bobble on the throw negates a catch that has already been completed is beyond me) but also far more common than I think anyone anticipated it would be. It reminds me of the NHL’s crackdown on toes in the crease in the late ’90s, a rule that may be the worst in sports history. I remember the Bruins losing a playoff game because Tim Taylor’s toe was just barely touching the blue paint on the opposite side of Olaf Kolzig’s crease.

After that season and after the Brett Hull/Dominik Hasek controversy, the NHL came out and were like, “Oh, well, yeah, you see … that is a terrible rule and we will get rid of it. Because it’s stupid.”

If MLB doesn’t have the same sense as a league led by Gary Bettman, then baseball is in bigger trouble than I thought.

Keefe: I’m not sure that Bud Selig has more sense than Gary Bettman. We’re talking about a guy who allowed performance-enhancing drugs to revitalize his sport after a strike and then a decade later started to pretend that players who use performance-enhancing drugs are the worst people in the world, and he got the beat nerds to buy into it the way he got them to buy into the idea that having at least player a year hit 60 home runs (after two people had ever done it) was no big deal. He also still allows the All-Star Game — an exhibition game — to determine home-field advantage in the World Series after a six-month, 162-game daily grind. I like to think that the commissioners of the four leagues get together once a year and talk about their increased revenues and think about new ways to ruin their respective leagues while laughing at the expense of the fans. Then before they leave, they play credit card roulette to see which commissioner will have to impose the next lockout and Gary Bettman always loses.

In the last Yankees-Red Sox series, Dean Anna (I’m sure you’re aware by now that he is a real person) doubled and then when he slid into second base, he came off the base for a split second while the tag was still being applied to him. He was called safe on the field and then safe again after the umpires at the New York office apparently didn’t have the same views as those watching at home. I don’t think when expanded reply was instituted it was meant to make such ridiculous calls, but if it’s going to be used for those (and it shoudn’t be), how is it possible that fans watching at home have better information than the paid umpires and officials at the league’s headquarters? Real life?

Hurley: Yeah, precisely. We don’t need replay to break down every split-second of these plays. The Francisco Cervelli play at first base last Sunday night ended up being correctly made after a replay review, but we were all subjected to watching frame-by-frame breakdowns of the ball entering Mike Napoli’s glove, and we had to hear John Kruk blabber on about whether it’s a catch when the ball goes into the glove or when the glove is closed around the baseball. What are we really doing?

Replay should fix the aforementioned obvious mistakes, but on Friday night at Fenway, John Farrell challenged a Nick Markakis double, claiming the ball landed foul. Farrell believed this to be the case because the ball did in fact land foul. We all saw it on our televisions. There was a dirt mark where the ball landed in foul territory. It was a no-brainer.

Yet after review, the double stood. For some reason.

There is no point. It’s a disaster.

But not according to Selig, who said, “We’ve had really very little controversy overall” and “you’ll hear about the one or two controversies, but look at all the calls that have been overturned.”

The guy is an idiot.

The scenario you created got me thinking, I’d like to see a Celebrity Jeopardy! episode with Gary Bettman, Bud Selig and Kim Kardashian as the contestants. They would all obviously finish with negative money, and then Alex Trebek could spend the time normally reserved for Final Jeopardy to just berate them for being dopes.

Keefe: Speaking of “idiots,” let’s talk about Johnny Damon’s return to Fenway Park in 2006 because on Tuesday night, Jacoby Ellsbury will return to Fenway Park for the first time as a Yankee.

I was at Damon’s return and was actually surprised by the amount of cheers he received from Boston fans. He had been the face of the Red Sox’ culture change and the symbol of their change from losers to winners and there he was wearing a Yankees uniform and tipping his helmet to Red Sox fans before his first at-bat. Sure, there were people throwing fake money at him once he took his position in center field, but for the most part, Johnny got about as many cheers as anyone could get in his position.

When it comes to Ellsbury, I think he will receive a better ovation than Damon because he wasn’t as iconic of a figure in Boston, even if helped them win two World Series, and it felt like during his entire time with the Red Sox, everyone knew once he became a free agent that he would bolt for the highest bidder. People will boo on Tuesday night in the first inning just to boo and they will continue to for every Ellsbury at-bat for the rest of his career, but are Red Sox fans upset that he signed with the Yankees as a free agent?

Hurley: It’s a weird thing. I don’t think many people, aside from maybe the folks who think Fever Pitch is a good movie, are actually “upset” with him for going to the Yankees. I think if anyone knows Ellsbury, it’s those of us in Boston who have seen him come up and develop over the past seven years. And I don’t think anyone here thought Ellsbury would be worth the money he’d be getting on the free-agent market. And knowing he was going to the free-agent market, and knowing the Angels had already spent a billion dollars, how many realistic suitors were really in play for him?

So obviously, there was a good chance he’d be going to New York, and obviously, players on the Yankees get booed at Fenway Park. He’s going to get booed, and for a lot of people, just the sight of a former Red Sox player in a Yankees uniform is enough to boil up some rage. But in terms of people being really mad, I don’t think that’s the common feeling.

At the same time, the Red Sox leadoff situation is so dire this season, there might be some extra boos rained down that are coming from a place of frustration.

Keefe: I thought the Red Sox would survive fine without Ellsbury at the top of the lineup and they likely will once they sort it out, but I don’t think I realized how important he was to the top of their order and extending the lineup until now. Seeing just about everyone except for David Ortiz and Mike Napoli get a chance to hit leadoff for the Red Sox has shown how important Ellsbury was for them. John Farrell hasn’t been afraid to try anything and has even gone with Jonny Gomes in that spot and Jonny Gomes as a leadoff hitter in a lineup that wasn’t picked out of a hat is pretty comical.

Right now the Red Sox seem to be having the same problems the Yankees had last year with injuries and an inability to score runs. There were long stretches of time where I knew the Yankees would be lucky to score just two runs in a given game and that meant the pitching staff would have to be perfect to win. (Granted they had Vernon Wells and Lyle Overbay hitting in the heart of their order and not Ortiz and Napoli.)

It’s never good to have several hitters slumping at the same time, especially your best hitters, but that seems to be the Red Sox’ problem early this season.

Hurley: Yeah it’s pretty bizarre how a team that has averaged 860 runs per season since 2002 is on pace to score just 616 runs this season. They’re hitting .209 with RISP, which ranks 25th in MLB, just two points ahead of the Cubs, so that gives you a good indication of where they’re at.

Overall, they’re hitting just .238, which ranks 23rd. It’s largely the same roster as last year, save for A.J. Pierzynski taking Jarrod Saltalamacchia’s place (kind of a wash), Shane Victorino being injured and Daniel Nava looking like Neil Keefe if he was asked to play Major League Baseball. So it should all come around at some point.

I think Clay Buchholz is a much bigger problem. He took the mound on Marathon Monday and looked like he was throwing knuckleballs with a Wiffle Ball. He allowed five straight hits in the third and ended up leaving after allowing 6 runs in 2 1/3 innings. For as much time as he missed last year, he was a major reason why the Red Sox won 97 games. If they don’t have even that half-season of a contribution from him this year, they’re in serious trouble.

Keefe: I have never been a Clay Buchholz believer, even for as good as he has looked when he is healthy, mainly because he is never healthy. He’s going to be 30 in August and the most starts he has ever made in a season is 29, after that 28 and after that just 16. So I would say banking on just a half-season from him is a good bet since that is all the Red Sox are likely to get.

I’m headed to Boston for the series and when I looked at tickets, I was surprised at how cheap they are. In the past, I would be looking at spending at least $100 just to sit in the right-field grandstand, which are the worst seats in any stadium in the entire league. You might as well sit on your couch or in a bar somewhere and get 1,000 times the viewing experience than sit in a low-number section in Fenway. I thought that winning the World Series after a few disastrous seasons and the one-year Bobby Valentine era would bring Red Sox ticket prices back to what they were from 2003-2011, but that hasn’t happened. Maybe it’s because the Bruins’ Stanley Cup run just started or maybe it’s because the Red Sox aren’t what they were to the city of Boston a decade ago?

Either way, I can’t complain since I’m saving money. Maybe we’ll run into each other at Fenway this week and can finally settle these email exchange debates with our fists.

Hurley: You’ve been challenging me to a Lansdowne Street throwdown for years. Given how dormant the rivalry is right now, I don’t think it’s the best time to actually throw fists outside Fenway. If Ellsbury goes into second spikes up and takes out Dustin Pedroia, then maybe we can circle back and meet up outside Gate E.

Blogs • The Joe Girardi Show • Yankees

Apr 21, 2014

The Joe Girardi Show: Season 5, Episode 1

The Yankees avoided leaving Tampa Bay on a three-game losing streak, but Joe Girardi couldn’t avoid me starting up a fifth season of The Joe Girardi Show to question his decisions.

I wanted the Yankees to go 4-2 in their six games against the Cubs and Rays this past week. After winning the four-game series against the Red Sox at the Stadium the weekend before, I thought 4-2 was very doable between a two-game series and four-game series and I didn’t care how the Yankees won their four games, I just wanted them to win them.

The Yankees did end up going 4-2 in the six games, so I shouldn’t have anything to question. But I do. And I do because Joe Girardi made some very questionable decisions over the weekend in Tampa Bay that nearly cost the Yankees my 4-2 goal and could have sent them to Boston this week reeling from a three-game losing streak. The Yankees prevented the losing streak to happen and Girardi’s decision making worked out, but that doesn’t mean over the course of the season his choices won’t cost the Yankees.

I was hoping to make it through April without having to do this, but after this weekend, I thought it was necessary to fill in for Michael Kay on my version of The Joe Girardi Show. After only 19 games, it’s time for the fifth season premiere.

Why don’t you trust Dellin Betances?
Right now the bullpen pecking order (with David Robertson), according to Joe Girardi is:

1. David Robertson
2. Shawn Kelley
3. Adam Warren
4. David Phelps/Matt Thornton
5. Dellin Betances

The problem here is that after Robertson, Betances is the best reliever the Yankees have and actually has the best stuff and velocity of the entire bullpen. In eight innings, he has has allowed ONE hit, that’s ONE hit, while walking six and striking out 14.

The bullpen pecking order should be:

1. David Robertson
2. Dellin Betances
3. Shawn Kelley
4. Matt Thornton
5. David Phelps
6. Adam Warren

Over the weekend, Betances entered a game the Yankees were winning 8-2 in the eight inning and pitched the last two innings of the eventual 10-2 win. Then two days later, Betances entered a game the Yankees were losing 12-1 and was asked to get five outs. Is it possible the best non-closer reliever on the Yankees is viewed by his manager as an innings eater?

According to the way he was used this weekend, it is, but in reality, Betances has been used inconsistently because Joe Girardi likely doesn’t “trust” him yet. And the only reason he doesn’t “trust” him yet is because Betances has pitched enough under Girardi for him to. He hasn’t blow enough games the way Kelley and Warren and Phelps have last season and this season to gain the trust of Girardi and earn a spot in high leverage situations.

So for now, Betances will be asked to throw 41 pitches in a game the Yankees lose by 15 runs and will be unavailable to pitch in a 12-inning game, leaving Girardi to ask just-called-up Preston Claiborne for two scoreless innings, the same Preston Claiborne, who wasn’t good enough in spring training to make the Yankees three weeks ago, because his only other option to close out the game was just-called-up Bryan Mitchell from Double-A, who has a 5.14 ERA and 1.571 WHIP for the Trenton Thunder this year.

Who is going to take Ivan Nova’s rotation spot?
The answer should be Vidal Nuno. Here is what Nuno has done in four career starts:

5/13/13 at CLE: 5 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 3 BB, 3 K

5/25/13 at TB: 6 IP, 5 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 1 BB, 2 K

5/30/13 vs. NYM: 6 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 2 ER, 2 BB, 2 K

4/20/14 @ TB: 5 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 2 BB, 6 K

It’s devastating that Ivan Nova isn’t going to get a full season to either build on what he had become last year or at least show the Yankees what they would be getting for the future, whether it’s a potential front-end starter or the new poster boy for inconsistency now that Phil Hughes is with the Twins.

Now that Nova won’t be back until next year, Nuno should be the one to fill the rotation spot. He has earned the right to and has proven he can win as a starting pitcher in the league. I trust Nuno more than I trust David Phelps and more than I trust Alfredo Aceves or Shane Greene if the Yankees decide to dip into the minors to make a move.

The job should be Nuno’s until he proves he can’t and so far he hasn’t.

Do you know what year it is when it comes to Mark Teixeira?
Mark Teixeira hit fifth on Sunday because his name is Mark Teixeira and because Joe Girardi apparently thinks it’s 2009 still. Because five years ago, the name “Mark Teixeira” held enough stock to get someone in the heart of the order on name alone, but in 2014 it should take a little more than that. But it’s not surprising when you realize that Girardi used to hit Teixeira third and Alex Rodriguez fourth and Robinson Cano fifth long after Cano had proved himself as the best hitter on the team. I’m not shocked that Teixeira hit fifth on Sunday because part of me thought Girardi would hit him fourth as if it were April 20, 2009.

All along the if Teixeira can hit his home runs and drive in his runs and be Jason Giambi 2.0 and play his Gold Glove defense that I wouldn’t matter if he hits .240 or still can’t hit a changeup or pops up to short with runners on third and less than two outs and is the last person you would want up on a big spot despite making $23 million per yaer. But not only is Teixeira not even Giambi 2.0 at the plate, he apparently can’t even play defense anymore as shown by his three errors in not even five full games this year.I ranked Teixeira fourth in The 2014 Yankees’ Order of Importance before the season and said the Yankees couldn’t handle losing him for a significant amount of time, but the Yankees went 8-6 in 14 games without him using Kelly Johnson, Francisco Cervelli, Carlos Beltran and Scott Sizemore at first base, none of which have any real experience at the position. Teixeira is never going to be the player the Yankees signed five years ago again and he has made that clear, but please Teixeira, at least be average.

Can you please stop being overly cautious with the lineup since it hasn’t gotten you anywhere in the past?
Joe Girardi has been out of control since becoming Yankees manager with the way he handles lineup decisions and the amount of rest he gives players. It might be unrealistic to think Derek Jeter can play all 162 games at shortstop in the season in which he will turn 40 after missing essentially a year and a half. But Jeter is still the Yankees’ everyday shortstop and not a catcher who needs day games after night games off or a day off every four games for necessary rest. And he should already be well rested after missing that year and a half I mentioned. There is a countdown clock on Jeter’s baseball life and for a guy who has spent a lot of time avoiding days off since 1996 despite injury, I’m sure he doesn’t want to watch games he won’t get back after 2014 pass him by because Girardi doesn’t believe in a Farewell Tour. But does Girardi know that sacrificing games in April could be the difference between the Farewell Tour ending in September or October or the difference in playing in a one-game playoff or getting into the ALDS without having to play in Bud Selig’s gimmick? Injuries can happen at any time and they are going to happen or not happen whether or not Girardi believes he can control.

And Jeter hasn’t been the only guy with unnecessary rest early in the season, he has just been the one with the most. Girardi gave Jacoby Ellsbury a day of in the third game of the season in Houston and gave Carlos Beltran a day off in Tampa after falling over the outfield wall (though that might say more about Beltran’s toughness after he sat out a World Series game last year after spending his whole career trying to reach the World Series). I don’t expect this kind of managing to end from Girardi, I only wish it would.

Apr 21, 2014

Rangers-Flyers Game 2 Thoughts: Best-of-5

The Rangers lost a two-goal lead, Game 2, a chance to take command of the series and home-ice advantage against the Flyers and now it’s a best-of-5 series.

Did I think Game 2 was over? Of course I did. When Benoit Pouliot scored 4:18 after Martin St. Louis completed the rare perfect 3-on-2, not only did I think Game 2 was over, I thought the series was over.

The Rangers were coming off a 4-1 Game 1 win and had the Flyers in an early two-goal deficit with Ray Emery proving why Flyers fans were hoping Steve Mason would play Game 2, even an injured Steve Mason. And then everything changed. The Rangers gave away a two-goal lead, Game 2 and home-ice advantage in the series, and now they head to Philadelphia in what has become a best-of-5 series with the Flyers having home-ice, as if those two additional regular-season wins and regulation wins never happened.

– Game 2 changed when Ryan McDonagh and Dan Girardi decided that playing defense wasn’t something that interested them in a Stanley Cup Playoff game. I’m willing to give McDonagh a pass for how he played (or didn’t really care to play) Jakub Voracek on his goal because without McDonagh, the Rangers aren’t even in the playoffs. But I’m not willing to give Dan Girardi a free pass, especially after how he single-handedly handed the Bruins the series a year ago. I will let this picture do all the work in showing Girardi’s “effort” to complement McDonagh’s gliding half-assed poke check.

What was Dan Girardi doing here? Maybe for a moment he thought he was at the Keefe household drinking wine and eating lasagna and porchetta and watching Rangers playoff hockey. He didn’t have the wine or lasagna or porchetta, but he did watch the play and goal develop just like I did from a couch, he just happened to have a better seat.

This goal not only cut the two-goal lead in half before going on to prove, but it showed the Flyers after a 15-shot effort in Game 1 that the Rangers’ defense could be beat and that Henrik Lundqvist could be beat without needing a deflection or lucky bounce. The goal shifted the momentum and feel of the game and the Rangers became another statistic in the “worst lead in hockey” theory, proving that if they weren’t going to score the third goal to take a 3-0 lead, they were were better off only having one.

– Before the series I talked with Sam Carchidi of The Philadelphia Inquirer about the Flyers’ strategy coming into the series and if they would look to draw the Rangers into a physical game and get them off their finesse game. He thought that could be the case and that the Flyers would want to play physical, but be smart about it.

In Game 1, the Flyers were dumb about being physical, especially as the game got out of hand. And in Game 2, they opened the game the same way, getting two penalties within the first 6:55 of the game, one of which the Rangers scored a power-play goal on. But once Carl Hagelin got called for holding at 9:56 of the first period, the Rangers became the undisciplined team. The Flyers got what they came into the series wanting and just in time before Game 2 and the series got out of hand.

– Two diving calls against one team in the same game in the playoffs? Yes, this is real life.

– At times, Rick Nash can be one of the best pure goal scorers in the world. These times happen when he is riding one of his patented hot steaks that I talked about here. This postseason, Nash has two assists in two playoff games and has played well. But with the Rangers in now two postseasons, Nash has one playoff goal in 14 games. That’s not going to cut it.

I have refrained from saying anything negative about Nash because I have always been a fan of his since his 2002-03 rookie season and because I campaigned so hard for the Rangers to trade for him at the 2011-12 Trade Deadline, blamed the Eastern Conference finals loss on the lack of trading for him and then campaigned hard again fora trade for him in the summer before it eventually happened. I always said it would take a lot for me to start “Ladies and gentlemen”-ing Rick Nash, but we are nearing that point if he doesn’t start producing the way he can and has for long stretches of time.

– Here is what I said about Henrik Lundqvist after Game 1:

It was as if the Rangers stole a win without having to use their ace and when you figure that Lundqvist will steal AT LEAST one game in this series, getting by without needing to rely on him in one game, especially Game 1, could be the difference in the series.

Well, now we have played two games in which Lundqvist hasn’t stolen a game for the Rangers or even really looked like the Henrik Lundqvist we saw during the regular season. I guess he could have looked as good as possible in Game 1, but he was never really tested, so it’s hard to say other than that he had allowed one goal and had a .933 save percentage. It’s time for Lundqvist to steal that game or games now.

– What the eff happened when Henrik Lundqvist was supposed to be pulled for an extra attacker? I blame Lundqvist for what happened because he came nearly all the way to the blue and then stopped either after not getting a signal to come to the bench or being unsure if he was given the signal to go to the bench. But when Lundqvist started skating toward the bench, Brad Richards, who was going to go for Lundqvist, must have seen Lundqvist headed toward the bench and hopped the bench in order to time Lundqvist’s arrival to give him the most amount of time to join the play. So when Lundqvist decided to stop, Richards had likely assumed he was arriving as he was joining the forecheck. Chances are the Rangers lose the game 3-2 or even 4-2, like they did, had they not been called for too many men. But they never even gave themselves a chance for a last-minute, empty-net miracle. It was the perfect ending for a perfect Game 2 collapse.

Apr 18, 2014

Rangers-Flyers Game 1 Thoughts: The Tortorella Era Nerves Are Gone

After the Rangers’ Game 1 win over the Flyers, I might have underestimated this Rangers team by predicting them to win the series in five games.

The moment Andrew MacDonald’s shot went past Henrik Lundqvist at 7:28 of the first period, my emotions that had been filled of positive anticipation were deflated and left me feeling like the Camp Hope campers watching Lars destroy “The Blob” in Heavyweights. “Here we go again” is the G-rated version of what I thought with the Flyers celebrating in front of a quickly quieted Garden. Another playoff game the Rangers were trailing in and trailing early in and another game where it looked like even if Henrik Lundqvist stood on his head, it wouldn’t be enough.

My thoughts and feelings after the game were an overreaction to just 7:28 of a seven-game series, but they were thoughts and feelings that I had been trained to experience since the 2008-09 season when John Tortorella became the head coach. I had learned to except the fact that one goal might be all the Rangers would get in postseason games during Tortorella’s tenure and under Tortorella’s system. In the 44 playoff games Tortorella coached the Rangers for from 2008-09 to 2012-13, the Rangers scored 78 goals or 1.77 goals per game. So I was within reason to be worried about the opening minutes of Game 1.

But then at 10:53 of the first period, Mats Zuccarello scored to tie the game and after a sloppy start to the game, the Rangers went on to dominate play for the rest of the game and my early feelings about not being able to score crept back in as I started to envision a game in which the Rangers would control the play and possession and hold a ridiculous margin in shots, but still find a way to lose the game 2-1 either in the third period or in overtime. And then Brad Richards turned back the clock to the pre-2011-12 season offseason or even to the 2003-04 playoffs and led the Rangers to a win.

I predicted the Rangers would win the series in five games, but after Thursday night’s game it feels like I might have underestimated the Rangers with that prediction.

– The last playoff game Brad Richards played in was the Rangers’ 2-1 Game 3 loss to the Bruins last May 21. At the time, we didn’t know that Tortorella would decide to scratch his supposed good friend, who won the Conn Smythe and the Cup for the coach, who would likely be out of the league as a head coach without the 2003-04 playoffs on his resume. But when Tortorella decided to start teaching lessons and make examples of former playoff MVPs and a Ranger who wears an “A” with the Rangers’ season on the line it felt like that 2-1 Game 3 loss would be the last time we would see Richards in a Rangers jersey. Thankfully, it wasn’t.

Richards’ power-play goal gave the Rangers a 2-1 lead at 8:22 of the third period (and turned out to be the game-winner) and his assists at 9:09 and 15:52 sealed the deal. For what seemed like the first time in a long time and the first of just a few times, he looked comfortable on the point on the power play, taking charge of the unit and controlling the play during the double minor.

Glen Sather decided not to buy out Richards contract before this season and gave him a chance to play under Alain Vigneault and play in an offensive system that could return him to his pre-Rangers form and bring out the best in what was once a point-per-game (or better) player. And on Thursday night, after a 20-31-51 regular season, Richards repaid Sather for not buying him out, even if he will never be able to repay him for his nine-year, $60 million contract.

– With the Rangers leading 4-1 in the final minutes and the game in the bag, I started to think about the job Sather had done in turning the team into a strictly blue-collar, rely-on-Lundqvist team into a finesse team and one that can beat you offensively, defensively (at times) and in goal. The Ryan Callahan trade played a big part in erasing the way the Rangers played to how they play now and completed the transition of the Tortorella Rangers to the Vigneault Rangers, (even if Callahan was came up with Tom Renney as head coach, he was textbook Tortorella system player). While I don’t usually credit Sather for the job he has (and rightfully so) he did a good job in building the 2013-14 Rangers. Though I realize I might be a little too high on them after just one playoff game and this could all change by Easter afternoon.

– When Martin St. Louis was traded to the Rangers, I thought he would play with Rick Nash, mainly because I wanted him to. Pair your best scorer with your best playmaker. Sure, it might create a bit of a balance issue, but you could finally create a line that other teams have to prepare for and defend against and a line that makes the opposition and their fans think “Oh eff, THAT line is out there.” It’s been a while since the Rangers had a line like that ever since Jaromir Jagr left the team.

I thought a line of St. Louis, Nash and Brad Richards would make the most sense given the history and chemistry and positions, even if it would create even more unbalance. But having Derek Stepan as the center for St. Louis and Nash was good enough. And after the second time of trying St. Louis with Nash since the March 5 date, it looks like Vigneault is going to keep them together and it’s the right move.

– If the Rangers don’t win the Stanley Cup, Henrik Lundqvist will take the brunt of the blame. He always does. Despite the 1.77 goals per playoff game during the Tortorella era, it’s still on Lundqvist when the Rangers are eliminated. The Rangers went 19-25 in the playoffs under Tortorella and in those 25 playoff losses, the Rangers scored 36 goals or 1.44 goals per game. Here is the breakdown by goals scored in the losses and how many times they scored each amount of goals:

0 goals: 5
1 goal: 9
2 goals: 8
3 goals: 3
4 or more goals: 0

That’s 14 playoff losses when the Rangers couldn’t score more than one goal and 22 when they couldn’t score more than two, so if Henrik Lundqvist wasn’t going to be perfect in every postseason game, he had to be pretty close to it for the Rangers to win. And even then, it wasn’t enough.

But in Game 1 of the 2013-14 playoffs with the 2013-14 Rangers under a different head coach, Lundqvist didn’t need to be perfect or even close to it. The Flyers only had 15 shots and Lundqvist stopped 14 of them and was basically given the night off after having a week off. It was as if the Rangers stole a win without having to use their ace and when you figure that Lundqvist will steal AT LEAST one game in this series, getting by without needing to rely on him in one game, especially Game 1, could be the difference in the series.

One down, 15 to go.

Blogs • Rangers • Rangers Playoffs

Apr 16, 2014

Rangers-Flyers Has ‘The Feel’

I got my wish and the Rangers will play the Flyers in the playoffs for the first time since the 1996-97 conference finals, but this time things will end differently for the Blueshirts.

I can’t believe it’s been 28 weeks since I was turning on MSG for the first time in months to watch the Rangers open the season in Phoenix on Oct. 3. And I can’t believe it’s been nearly just as long since I was turning off MSG and thinking about not turning it on again this season after the Rangers were embarrassed 9-2 by the Sharks on Oct. 8.

The Rangers started the season with their third and final season-opening extended road trip and went 3-6-0, getting outscored 33-15 in the process with Alain Vigneault’s offensive system heavily criticized. They returned to New York for their home opener on Oct. 29 and were shut out 2-0 by the Canadiens and after almost a month of hockey found themselves in last place. But they quickly turned it around, going 6-1-0 between Oct. 29 and Nov. 10 and looked like the Real Rangers and the team we expected to see in 2013-14 (and the team we expected to see in 2012-13 for that matter).

Following Henrik Lundqvist’s extension in the first week of December, the Rangers went into another slump, going 0-3-1 from Dec. 7 to Dec. 12, before beating the Flames in a shootout at the Garden on Dec. 15 for their first two-point game in 10 days. After that win, they went on a 16-7-2 tear until the Olympic break, winning in Chicago against the defending champions and sweeping the Stadium Series along the way.

They returned from their 20-day break with heavy rumors of a potential Ryan Callahan trade surrounding the team and after three post-break games, Callahan was gone and Martin St. Louis was a Ranger after what evolved into a mandatory move for Glen Sather. The Rangers became a better team with St. Louis, but still entered the final 10 games of the season not knowing if they would play an 83rd game this season.

Following the 1-0 loss to the Sharks, on March 16, which was part of a 1-3-0 stretch from March 11-16, I wasn’t sure if we would be here. I wasn’t sure if I would be watching Rangers playoff hockey this year or hate-watching the playoffs and simply watching because it’s playoff hockey and not because I cared who won or lost during the best time of the year. But here we are. After 82 games and highs and lows and winning streaks that not even Mike McDermott could have handled or losing streaks that not even Joey Knish could have helped dig Rangers fans out of, here we are on the eve of the postseason and the eve of the first Rangers-Flyers playoff series since the 1996-97 Eastern Conference finals.

I didn’t want the Rangers to play the Flyers in the first round, I needed the Rangers to play the Flyers in the first round. After seeing the Capitals in the first round in 2012-13, 2010-11 and 2008-09 (and the conference semis in 2011-12), I didn’t need something different in the postseason just for the sake of watching something different, I needed something different because it’s the Flyers and because Rangers-Flyers still has “the feel” of something special in an age where “the feel” is hard to find. It’s hard to describe what “the feel” is when it comes to a rivalry, whether or old of new, but you know it when you have it the way Rangers-Devils has had it and Rangers-Islanders use to have it and Bruins-Canadiens has always had it and Bruins-Canucks built it. And if Rangers-Flyers can continually give you “the feel” in the regular season after 17 years without a playoff series, imagine what it could do in a playoff series after such a drought. That’s why I needed this series to happen.

I thought after the 2007 ALDS when I wanted nothing more than the Yankees to face the Indians, I would have finally learned the “be careful what you wish for” lesson, but I apparently haven’t in asking for the Rangers to face the Flyers. I wanted no part of the Blue Jackets or the Columbus Rangers because of their 2011-12 Rangers feel (not because of their roster, but because of the way they win) and Sergei Bobrovsky. They have changed the image of what the Blue Jackets have represented since entering the league in 2000 and making just their second playoff appearance, they would have been a tough out for anyone and that includes the Penguins, who they will face. I got my wish. I got Rangers-Flyers and I can only hope it turns into Rangers-Penguins or Rangers-Blue Jackets a couple weeks from now and the hockey season continues for more than just a week or two.

I didn’t feel this good about the Rangers entering the playoffs two years ago when they were the No. 1 seed coming off a 51-win and 109-point season and with Henrik Lundqvist posting fake life numbers. But two years ago, the Rangers’ path to the Stanley Cup Final was paved like the New York Football Giants’ path to Super Bowl XLVI once the Saints were eliminated because the Bruins and Penguins were eliminated in the first round and the Flyers were gone in the second. I thought the stars had aligned with the Rangers facing the Devils in the conference finals, but the Rangers’ scoring inconsistencies (and lack of trading for Rick Nash at the deadline) were finally too much to overcome once the ridiculous bounces stopped going their way (and they still got a lot of ridiculous bounces to go their way in the six games).

On this Stanley Cup Playoffs Eve, I feel as good as I could possibly feel about the Rangers and that’s not necessarily a good thing. But like the Giants, the Rangers don’t perform well with expectations or with hype or with a bandwagon that’s gaining steam. They were embarrassed by the Bruins in the conference semis last May after everyone picked the Rangers to win the series, they couldn’t get past what seemed to be an inferior 6-seeded Devils team the year before despite being a 1-seed, the year before that they clinched the 8-seed in Game 82, the year before that they missed out on the playoffs with a Game 82 shootout loss and the year before that were an 8-seed and blew a 3-1 series lead in the first round. Nothing has ever come easy with the Rangers and I don’t expect this spring to be any different, but maybe it’s better that way.

I was 10 years old and in fifth grade for the 1996-97 conference finals when the Rangers were easily handled by the Flyers in five games. This time, 17 years later, I think it will go five games once again.

Rangers in five.