The Chicago Blackhawks are the best team left in the NHL playoffs

Thanks for the debate! Sorry in advance if the second half seems a little choppy, my computer decided to restart to update whatever without asking me... so I'm finishing this pretty quickly. POSSESSION There's no arguing against stats, but there's one thing regarding shots and corsi and all this that I want to point out - looking at all-around stats (5 on 5, 5 on 4, 4 on 5, 4 on 4) [1], as well as 5-on-5, yes, the Hawks got more shots off, which does help the possession statistic, they only hit the net 2775 of 5107 times [1], which is 54.33%, whereas the rangers hit the net 2580 of 4618 attempts. The numbers are very similar for 5-on-5. Yes, the Hawks got more shots off, and yes, the Hawks hit the net more, however the rangers were able to hit the net 55.87% of the time (overall), compared to the Hawks 54.33%. A percent and a half more than the Hawks, not too sure where you got that 75% number. So to conclude, the Hawks out shot the Rangers, but the Rangers were actually able to hit the net at a higher rate. POWER PLAY/PENALTY KILL Yes, the Rangers were penalized more and didn't draw as many penalties, however this can be the Referee's faults, as we all know how easily the Refs can change the game. I obviously won't go through every penalty called against the Rangers and say why they're bullcrap, but the penalty stats are left in the Refs hands, and face it, the refs don't make the best calls and is really all up to the ref's discretion as to what they consider a penalty or not. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say "the refs decided to call more penalties against the Rangers than the hawks, therefore the Rangers are a worse team." However, using your FoxSports link [2], the Rangers killed more penalties than the Hawks (I guess kind of obvious, considering they took more), but let's see the kind of penalties they took - One suspension was handed out to the rangers, and Two to the Hawks [3], giving the impression that the Hawks were the less disciplined team (by a small margin, but still one more suspension, 3 more total games suspended). And considering you like bringing up the playoffs, here's an easy-to-maneuver website [4] for box scores of all games. So far (up to May 4th) in the playoffs, Chicago only drew more penalties than the other team once, were penalized more 3 times, and got the same amount 4. The Rangers were never penalized more than the other team, and drew more penalties four times, of 7 games. So as for penalties, the Rangers (in the playoffs) have been able to draw more penalties and take less than the opposing team, and in comparison to Chicago, they took less and drew more. If you think it's the playoffs that matter for penalties, then the Rangers have dominated in this category. ROLLING LINES Unfortunately I'm unable to find stats as of a certain date, but I want to do some quick math and hopefully some kind of point will present itself in the process. The Hawks so far have totalled 87 points, whereas the Rangers have 70. Yes, the Hawks have more points, but I'll touch on that in my next paragraph. 18 players from each team scored, so luckily for us, that's a bonus to work with when we're dealing with math. The average point per player (if all lines were "equal") for the Hawks should be 4.8, and 3.9 for the Rangers. The closer more players are to this number, the more "equal" each line is, and instead of relying on the top five guys on the team (the Hawks top five guys have 13, 11, 10, 9, and 8 points, whereas the Rangers have 8, 8, 7, 6, and 5 points... not as spread apart), each line is able to generate equally as many scoring opportunities (and capitalize on them). How many guys on the Hawks' have 4.8 (let's say 5) points? Two. Eleven guys are below that average [6], giving the impression that there are a distinct few guys that are the playmakers on that team. However that's much different with the Rangers - Six guys have 3.9 (let's say 4) points, and only seven have less than that [7]. Nine are within one point of that average for the Rangers, with the #1 guy having only 4 more points. Only five are within the one point average on the Hawks', with the #1 guy having eight points more. The numbers don't lie, and the numbers tell us that between the Hawks and the Rangers, the Blackhawks have a more distinctive few guys who make plays than the Rangers, who roll the four lines quite well, and don't rely on a couple guys. GOALIES The Rangers and Hawks faced two very different sets of goalies. Something that I always pay attention to is the goals scored per game (duh), but the total amount. Only two of eight games the Rangers played (until May 4th) had more than three total goals scored. Each game was decided by one goal, supporting the idea that both goalies were on top of their games. Multi-goal games go to show that the goalies aren't the best, and therefore are easier to score on, which adds up to more points, hence why the Hawks have more points than the Rangers. Almost two times as many goals were scored in the Hawks' first eight games than the Rangers, as well as the Hawks' being blown out by the Predators twice, 6-2 and 5-2. Every single game totalled five goals or more, supporting the idea that every goalie (including the Hawks') was not playing well... Which leads me to talk about the Blackhawk's goalie(s) and the Rangers' goalie, as well as the two teams' goalies each was up against in the first two rounds. First let's talk about the goalies our guys were up against, and who better to start with than Braden Holtby for the Washington Capitals [8]. Holtby faced the most shots and made the most saves in both the regular season and the playoffs. In the playoffs, he finished 2nd in the league with a .944 save percentage as well as 3rd in the league with a very little 1.71 goals against average. To say the Rangers were up against a good goalie would be an understatement. As well as the 2nd best in the league, the Rangers faced Marc-Andre Fleury [9], the 6th best in the league with a .927 save percentage, as well as a 2.12 goals against average, placing him in 7th. Both goalies the Rangers were up against were in the top ten in the league in the playoffs for save percentage and goals against average, and Holtby was top five in the league in every category. Now when we look at the two goalies the Hawks were up against, we see an entirely different couple of guys. Pekka Rinne [10], who had a great regular season and was arguably the main reason the Predators even made the playoffs, collapsed in the playoffs, and had a measly .909 save percentage, and 2.68 goals against average, finishing 15th and 16th in the league. Devan Dubnyk [11] wasn't much better and shared a pretty similar, great regular season - horrible post season, situation. With only a .908 save percentage, finishing just after Rinne at 16th, and a 2.53 goals against average, at 13th, we can see a pretty big difference in the goalies that both our teams faced in the playoffs. Sure, points matter, but does it really when we're up against two sets of entirely different goalies? And now that brings us to our teams respective goalies. Lundqvist tied Holtby for 2nd in the league in the playoffs with a .944 save percentage [12]. Compare that to Crawford's .916 [13] or Darling's .936 [14]. As well as a far superior save percentage and goals against average (with a minuscule 1.60 per game, 2nd again in the league), Lundqvist let in a total of 20 goals. Crawford allowed 16 goals and Darling 11, for a total of 27 goals, and keep in mind that these were goals made by teams that are not known for high scoring games. I'd say it's safe to say that the better goalie was the Rangers'. Although I do see that the Penguins played worse this year (does not necessarily mean they were a bad team, just that others were better), they were still a tough team to play against, whether or not other teams performed a bit better. Regarding the Hawks allowing less goals overall... they allowed three less. Three. Yes, they allowed less goals, however this number is so minuscule and the amount of more goals the Rangers scored pushes this tiny number away to be next to meaningless. And one final thing I'd like to add - instead of comparing the teams the Rangers and Hawks beat, let's just see how well they played against each other recently. As you can see here [5], the last few years the Rangers and Blackhawks played each other, the Rangers won nine times, and the Hawks only won five. Would it be fair to say, looking at this statistic, that the team who won almost twice as many games is better? Again, I want to point out that the resolution of this debate is not "The Hawks are a better performing team in the playoffs," but "The best team left in the playoffs." I think a team that is better all-around, pre-season included, would be considered a "better" team. My opponent admits that there are a few categories where the Rangers outperformed Chicago in the regular season, and judging by my stats and reasoning, the Rangers have also outperformed Chicago in the playoffs, showing that the Rangers are (slightly) better than the Chicago Blackhawks. Thanks [1] http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com... [2] http://www.foxsports.com... [3] http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com... [4] http://scores.espn.go.com... [5] http://eishockey.wettpoint.com... [6] http://blackhawks.nhl.com... [7] http://rangers.nhl.com... [8] http://capitals.nhl.com... [9] http://penguins.nhl.com... [10] http://predators.nhl.com... [11] http://wild.nhl.com... [12] http://rangers.nhl.com... [13] http://blackhawks.nhl.com... [14] http://blackhawks.nhl.com...