If you are going for deep cuts, I would have given the Leafs vainglory. But this was amazing, thank you.

It’s like the Uber of cable.

‘93 was at least a little similar. Two division winners out in round one, and the other two in round two. Record number of overtime games (which we are on pace to approach this season). The Habs were a good (100+ pts) team who beat a good team in round one, and then beat three teams who were barely above .500 to take…

They did. They announced they wouldn’t do it, even before they clinched a playoff spot.

Again, I agree on the penalty, or mostly. I think it is inarguably a penalty (hard cross-check when the puck was long gone) but not a major, and that shouldn’t change just because the victim was badly injured. The NHL does this way too often, and it’s BS.

I will come by and give you a benign thumping with a hockey stick :-) I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I agree with your opinion that the infraction did not warrant a major penalty. It is natural that the Knights feel cheated.

Yes. And in the 1st, the CBC crew was commenting how the Leafs were sending one and sometimes two forwards ‘long’ on the breakout, which is usually the kind of high-risk strategy that weaker teams try. The Leafs gave up two goals on turnovers low in their own zone. Not directly related maybe, but mystifying.

She was referring to the last Canadian (Canadiens) team to win the Cup, in 93. She seems to think that all us Canucks will root for any old Canada-based franchise.

Here in the Maritime provinces, there are also a fair number of legit Bruins fans, not just Leafs anti-fans.

It did seem, to my surprise, that Babcock got out-coached here. Admittedly I am not a Leafs fan (to put it mildly), so I haven’t paid that much attention before this series.

Definitely trying too hard, that one.

It seemed people didn’t like the fact that Mr. Washington is a convicted murderer.

That’s some good hockey-knowing.

I mean, it doesn’t even rise to the level of a theory. 

That interpretation would mean the goalie is “in the act of playing” any puck that is not already covered.

That is 100% not my gut instinct.

I don’t agree. Your logic is sound if the goaltender was “in the act of playing the puck” (as the quoted rule 183 ii describes it). That is not what happened here... The puck was loose, and both players moved towards it.

I don’t watch a lot of NBA, but in this particular clip he sounds pretty self-deprecating. Like he is making a joke, knows that he is the joke, and makes it anyway.

It’s not stated explicitly, but it seems that the Velez/Davis record is for most consecutive at-bats without a hit, and the Bernazard record is for most consecutive plate appearances without a hit. A plate appearance that ends in a walk (or hit by pitch IIRC) does not count as an at-bat.