Bruins-Panthers is an all-time great hate-watch series and I hope it never ends

The second-round series between the Boston Bruins and Florida Panthers is, to a neutral observer, a puzzle without any hope of a satisfying solution, the sort of matchup that leaves fans of every other team exhausted and slumped over with their eyes rolled so far back into their own head that they can see into the past, where the only outcome that would feel like a win would be for Gary Bettman to announce the series over, declare both teams the loser, suspend everyone involved, and fold both franchises.

That's intended as a compliment, by the way.

No really, it is. An NHL postseason needs a lot of things to be truly great – an underdog, a juggernaut, a few OGWACs, and as much overtime as possible. But it also needs a great series between two teams that you can’t stand, because there’s nothing quite like a good old-fashioned hate-watch.

This year, the hockey gods have delivered. Because man, this series, right?

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

The one simple rule that explains goaltending in the NHL playoffs

Welcome to the NHL playoffs, where it’s all about goaltending.

It really is that simple, right? Sure, we like to pile on the narratives, arguing about which rosters have the most talent or experience or heart, sprinkling in subplots about who knows how to win or who wants it more. But most of the time, that’s just noise, and deep down we know it.

Want to know who’s going to win a playoff series? Figure out who’s going to get the better goaltending. There’s your winner.

Of course, that leads to an obvious follow-up: How do we know who’s actually going to get that better goaltending?

That’s a tougher question, but it’s one that shouldn’t be all that difficult to figure out. After all, we’re roughly four weeks into the postseason, meaning the 16 playoff teams have been handing the answer to us, one game at a time. If you’re a fan, all you have to do is observe. The rule reveals itself as you go.

This stuff just isn’t that complicated.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Team Big Brother vs. Team Little Brother: Who wins a battle between NHL stars?

Yesterday was Mother’s Day, which was hopefully a pleasant day for you and your family and/or explains why your wife seems like she's mad at you today. It also seems like as good a day as any to honor all those hockey moms out there by tackling a simple question sent in by a reader.

Pekka L. wants to know: Who’d win, a team made up of NHL big brothers, or little brothers?

Sounds fun. But first, a few ground rules™:

- We’re building 21-man rosters, with four lines of forwards, three defense pairings and three goalies. We’ll try to slot in wingers with centers, but won’t get too hung up on position.

- To be eligible, a player must have a brother who played in the NHL for at least 100 games.

- I’m only going back to the Original Six era, because otherwise we wind up with a bunch of guys that a lot of you have never heard of. Apologies to the Cooks, Conachers and Cleghorns.

- In cases where three or more brothers all played in the NHL, the middle children will be ignored, which they should be used to.

You may have noticed that 100-game limit that we slipped in there. That takes out some big names like Wayne Gretzky (whose brother Brent played only 13 games), Gordie Howe (whose brother Vic played 33) and Patrick Roy (whose brother Stephane played 12). Maybe that feels arbitrary, or like it violates the spirit of the thing. But here’s the deal: If we don’t put that limit in, we’re not going to have a contest. Team Big Brother would absolutely destroy Team Little Brother. It wouldn’t be a contest. There are just a ton of NHL stars who had younger brothers show up for a cup of coffee and then disappear.

Why? I have two theories. The first is that older siblings are clearly superior to their coddled, snot-nosed little wannabes. But more importantly, I think there’s some clear cause-and-effect here, with teams over-drafting or signing younger brothers of star players in hopes that genetics will kick in. If you see a guy like Sergei Fedorov or Paul Kariya tearing up the league, why not roll the dice on their kid brother? It works sometimes, usually it doesn’t, and it screws up our contest if we don’t account for it. So yeah, a 100-game limit is in play.

This will be fun, because athlete brothers always enjoy a spirit of friendly competition and oh no it’s started already. Let’s build from the net out and see where this goes

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

Who to trade, who to fire, and is there any hope? A "Leafs lose" DGB mailbag

It’s the second round of the playoffs, so it must be time for our annual “the Leafs were just eliminated” mailbag. This should be a million laughs, I can’t wait.

Note: Submitted questions have been edited for clarity and style.

Based on the one-way parasocial relationship between us as podcaster/listener, I hope you don't find it weird that my only real question is "are you okay?" – Danny B.

I am, thanks. Honestly, this one barely stung at all.

I once wrote a column about how difficult this version of the Leafs is to root for, and that was almost two full seasons ago. It’s fair to say it hasn’t got any easier. This is a talented group, but it’s not an especially likable one, especially when the story always ends the same way.

So yeah, my reaction to Game 7 was a lot closer to a shrug than a tantrum. (And if you don’t believe me, here’s Ian Mendes opening Monday’s podcast with a description of what it was like to watch the game with me.)

Honestly, this is pretty easily the least disappointment I’ve ever felt after a Leafs playoff loss, which is maybe not a great sign. And I’m guessing I’m not the only one, which is worse.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)

“We can and we will.” A history of how the Maple Leafs got here, in 12 quotes

“Obviously we’re looked upon as… you know, kind of gods here to be honest.” – Mitch Marner, May 2024

Did you enjoy the Maple Leafs’ final media day of the season, at least for players and coaches? I sure did. Nothing quite like being reminded over and over, by just about every player on the team, that they’re “close”. Always close, with these guys. Close to winning something, close to each other, close to making you throw your remote through the TV screen. So close!

This year, we got a memorable bonus quote from the current whipping boy, who decided this would be a good week to compare the players to deities. He’s not even wrong. The Toronto Maple Leafs players really are gods, in their own way. Then again, so was Oizys.

For the record, I don't think Marner's "gods" quote was especially controversial; I think we can all appreciate what he was going for, even if he might have preferred to have it come out a bit differently. And if Marner's sound bite was a bit awkward, at least it fit with a larger trend in Leafs land, where the team has spent the last few years leaving quote-based sign posts along to the road to wherever this is that they’ve wound up.

So today, as we wait for the implosion to truly start, let’s remember 12 sound bites that this team offered up during the Brendan Shanahan era, and how they ultimately add up to explain the way it all fell apart.

>> Read the full post at The Athletic

(Want to read this post on The Athletic for free? Sign up for a free trial.)