Stanley Cup: Home Ice Advantage Looms Large

In a pivotal Game 5, the Vancouver Canucks seized the opportunity on home ice to take a 3-2 lead in the Stanley Cup final.  The team that took the ice last night looked nothing like the team that lost by a combined score of 12-1 in Games 3 and 4.  Roberto Luongo looked nothing like the nervous wreck he was in Boston.  The Bruins played a great game in Vancouver for the third time, and came away with a one-goal loss…for the third time.  It’s a testament to two things.  First, the Bruins were one of the best road teams all season.  The Canucks have had to play near perfect hockey at home to get the three one-goal wins they’ve earned in this series.

The second point it illuminates is how large home ice advantage has been in this particular series.  Usually, it matters the least in hockey.  When you’re on the road, you want to play tight defense, maintain physicality, and take chances where you can get them.  Coincidentally, this is generally a great way to win a lot of hockey games.  The Bruins struggled at home during the regular season because their style of play is pretty similar to how teams want to play on the road.  Instead of having an advantage at home, there were several games where the found their game was being taken to them.  In basketball, you still have to shoot well on the road to win.  Some players thrive on hearing the crowd go silent, but for the most part, teams shoot better at home with the crowd behind them.  In baseball, the home team always gets the last at-bat.

Neither team has allowed the other’s powerplay to get going in this series, a testament to the penalty killers on both squads.  The Bruins squandered a few chances in the first period with the man advantage, but I could tell about 8 minutes or so into the first that Roberto Luongo had clearly showed up to play.  But Tim Thomas also showed up, as he has every night, and I had the feeling that there was probably only going to be one goal in the game.  Both goalies looked so sharp, I figured that goal would be on a weird play, and sure enough, I was right.  As much as the Canucks, and Thomas’ critics, would like to blame the goal on his aggressive style, it was a breakdown that started in Vancouver’s zone.  If anyone was caught out of position, it was Bruins defenseman Dennis Seidenberg.

Vancouver fans have to be excited by Luongo’s turnaround.  They can’t be excited about the fact that once again, the Sedin twins and Ryan Kesler were non-factors.  Alex Burrows was the difference in Game 2, last night it was Maxim Lapierre’s turn to play the unlikely hero.  But in a lot of ways, the biggest heroes in this Stanley Cup final have been the hometown crowds.  The energy in the arena transformed a dismal Canuck team into a great one.  As the series heads back to Boston for the final time, I’m sure the fans at the TD Garden will be ready to pull the Bruins back up to force a Game 7.  After Game 4, and for most of the day yesterday, I had this nagging feeling in the back of my head.  I think it was that the way this series is going, we’re destined for a Game 7.  Both teams are playing so well on home ice, it makes sense that it is going to come down to one game.

Roberto Luongo, however, was unable to contain his elation in re-finding himself.  Instead of just being content over carrying his team to victory, he went so far as to suggest that Lapierre’s goal would have been an easy save for him.  That’s kind of a bold statement for a goalie coming off a 6.00 GAA in the previous two games.  At least he admitted that Thomas has made a lot of saves in this series that he couldn’t have made.  Even if Vancouver ends up taking the Cup, I think it’s pretty clear that Thomas should be the recipient of the Conn Smythe trophy, awarded to the most valuable player in the playoffs.

But I still think for every step – or bite – the Canucks have taken in this series, they do or say something to upset the karmic balance that presides over sports.  OK, I understand that I’m roaming into the atmosphere of complete opinion and superstition here.  Beyond the fact that it took a low-angle shot on a broken play from Maxim Lapierre (of all people) for Vancouver to win, I still was reaching for some sort of psychological positive to be happy about today.  Then I stumbled upon Luongo’s comments. 

I know I’m a Bruins fan, but I also try to take the objective view because it leads to clearer analyses.  Being a history major at a very liberal college taught me the importance in doing so.  I’d be very surprised if anyone who’s been following this series, who doesn’t have a vested interest in rooting for, or rooting against (I’m looking at you Tim Custer) one of the teams, could possibly be on Vancouver’s side.  All they’ve done is bite, dive, whine, and complain.  With Luongo’s comments, you can add gloating.  These aren’t admirable characteristics in athletes or human beings.  If there’s any truth to my cosmic superstitions, and my unwavering faith in the teams I love, the last laugh has yet to be had.