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

I apologise in advance for this stupid formatting, it seriously just doesn't want to work. Thanks, RoyalFlush. I'll give it to you, the Hawks are looking pretty good right now. I actually wasn't expecting a well thought out argument backed with a plethora of facts, so thanks for making this a serious debate, I'm looking forward to it. (If not specified, this will all be referring to 5-on-5) It's kind of hard to argue against facts, so I'm sure our respective rebuttals will be quite short. However, if we look at Fenwick (shots on goal + shots that missed the net), we will see that although Chicago did get more shots off than the Rangers, they missed the net more. Now what's something you hear the coaches yell all the time? "Hit the net!" Doing some quick math, we can see that the Hawks missed the net a total of 718 times, whereas the Rangers missed 704 times [1]. And while shorthanded, the Rangers were able to get off nearly double the shots as the Hawks [4]. This shows that even while the Rangers are down a man, they're able to play hard and fight back, which also led to a league-tying-high 9 goals while shorthanded, compared to the Hawks' measly two. Back to 5-on-5, getting shots off is great and all, but it only matters if they can get the puck past the defence and to the net. Sure, 14 times doesn't look like very much, but that's fourteen more chances that the Rangers had than the Hawks. Which will lead me to my next point... Goals For (GF) The Rangers had the highest GF in the entire league (while 5-on-5) with 179, which was nearly thirty more than the Hawks, who ended in 13th place with 150 [2]. Could this be a result of hitting the net a few more times? Or possibly just being better shots overall than the Hawks, with an entire 2% better shot percentage than Chicago, who finished third last in the league, compared to the Rangers finishing third overall. So yes, the Hawks got some more shots off, which could very well lead to a point in puck possession, however what matters in this game? Goals. You could carry the puck and dance around the other team for half the game, but if you can't hit the back of the net, that's just not good enough. Generating scoring chances is good, I agree, however when those chances stay just that - chances - you end up, well, not being better than the other team. The Rangers' ability to capitalize on their shots two percent (which is a lot) more than Chicago gives them a huge edge; the team as a whole is able to hit the back of the net much more. I guess before I forget, I might as well bring up the President's Trophy. We all know that this is awarded for finishing the regular season with the most points, and the Rangers won it [3]. Eleven points ahead of Chicago, who finished the season in seventh place, the Rangers won an entire ten games in regulation and overtime (ROW) more than Chicago. The Rangers managed to get 252 goals this season, finishing third in the league, compared to Chicago's 229, 23 less than NYR, which landed Chicago in 16th place for scoring. Although Chicago allowed only three less goals than the Rangers, the +/- favors New York, +60 for NYR and +40 for Chicago. What's important in this game again? Being able to score! I guess I could also add that the Rangers won five of their last six games in April, while the Blackhawks only won two of the last six in April. New York ended the regular season on a much better note. One important thing that contributes to the Rangers being an overall better team than the Blackhawks is the fact that more of the Rangers' players are getting points than the Blackhawks' players. The Rangers are rolling their four lines better than the Hawks. Both teams have ten players that finished with ten or more goals this season, however the Rangers have many players that are able to make plays over the Hawks, instead of relying on the top two lines, with fifteen of their players having twenty points or more [5], while Chicago only has eleven [6]. This, combined with the fact that NYR have two players who played more than half the season with a negative rating while the Hawks have four, goes to show the Rangers are able to roll all four lines better than the Hawks. Instead of relying on a select few guys to make plays and score, although Rick Nash finished third in the league with goals [7], the points and plays and goals (three more NYR players scoring than Hawks players) are spread out over all four lines. This, I think is fair to say, negates the idea that the Hawks have better depth than the Rangers. Quickly touching on playoff experience, the Hawks have performed better than the Rangers in the past, although most recently, the Rangers did make it to the finals. And looking at the current playoffs, the teams that these two teams have to face plays a role in all of this. The Rangers were up against the Penguins, and are now up against the Capitals, both teams having arguably the best two players in the league, as well as a lot of support to back them up. The Rangers were able to beat the Penguins, somewhat recent cup winners, a team known to be overall good performers, in five games. And they're currently up against the Capitals (series was 1-1 as of the creation/acceptance of this debate), another team known for great overall performance as well as playoff performance. So as of the creation of this debate, both the Rangers and Hawks had a 6-2 Win/Loss record in the playoffs. The thing I think makes a difference is that the Hawks were up against teams who usually have very little playoff experience. Nashville and Minnesota have only made the playoffs five times total since 2010, whereas Pittsburgh has made the playoffs every single time since 2010, as well as advancing quite far, and Washington only missed the playoffs once. I'm sure we both agree that so far, the Rangers have faced tougher, more experienced teams than the Hawks, yet they (at the time of the creation of this debate) share the same W/L record. I think I'll get more into the current playoffs next round if necessary, but from the teams the Rangers and Hawks are up against, the Rangers have had a much harder treck (each game against the Pens only being decided by one goal shows what kind of difficulty level that is), yet still have the same W/L record as the Hawks, who are up against teams who don't make the playoffs as regularly and haven't got very far at all. Shorthanded Going back to shorthanded stats, taken from here [4], NYR dominated practically every category. The only two categories that Chicago beat the Rangers in was Save Percentage, by a mere 1.3%, and Defensive Zone Faceoffs, by a mere 3%. Every other category, while down a man, the Rangers came out on top. Seven more goals, four less goals against, thirty-five more shots and a 7% better shot percentage. Chicago is in the bottom five in the league for six of all categories. The Rangers are in the top five nineteen times, including first in the league ten of those times. Looking at the stats, the Rangers completely dominated the Blackhawks when it came to being a man down. The Hawks have a good top line, and a pretty decent 2nd line. However it looks like the Rangers are overall more able to roll all four lines, generating points and goals for more players. This is shown (from what I mentioned before) by the three more Rangers' players with goals, and the four more rangers players with 20+ points. The two games the Rangers and Hawks played against each other this season were both decided by one goal (the only goal of the game), so they were very close. The Rangers managed one more shot on goal than the Hawks. These two teams were incredibly close in the regular season, and the two games that they played against each other were practically tied. However the one more shot from the Rangers (I think) gives the Rangers that very, very, slight edge, regarding the games played against each other. I'd love to see these two teams in the finals. Thanks for a good first round, kind of unfortunate there isn't more than three :( Sources [1] http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com... [2] http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com... [3] http://www.nhl.com... [4] http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com... [5] http://rangers.nhl.com... [6] http://blackhawks.nhl.com... [7] http://www.nhl.com...