Monday, May 04, 2009

Sittin' at the end of the bar...

Taking a page out of the numbers sheet of Annoying Fantasy Numbers Guy, we were wondering about the history of Antarctic foul in Games 1 and 2. Just to complete the series…

Number of series played: 44
Overall record in series: 21-23
Record in Games 1: 20-24
Record in Games 2: 28-16

As you can see, the Penguins are no strangers to slow starts in their history, and it has a way of biting them in the flipper…

Series record, winning Game 1: 14-6
Series record, losing Game 1: 7-17

But where it gets important, as you might expect, is in Game 2…

Series record, winning Game 2: 17-11
Series record, losing Game 2: 4-12

The tipping of home ice aside, Caps fans would be forgiven if they were to entertain thoughts of “oh no” in the event of a Penguins win this evening.

Looking at the combinations of Game 1 and Game 2 records…

Series record, winning Game 1 and winning Game 2: 11-2
Series record, winning Game 1 and losing Game 2: 3-4

A 14-6 record when either 2-0 or 1-1 after two games (if the opponent wins Game 1) should assuage that concern a bit, the Caps having won Game 1 and making this set of combinations moot. But what of the combinations when losing Game 2?...

Series record, losing Game 1 and losing Game 2: 1-8
Series record, losing Game 1 and winning Game 2: 6-9

Having lost Game 1, the Penguins are really behind the eight-ball, history-wise, even if they win Game 2 (feeling better?). A 7-17 record in series through two games in which they lost Game 1 isn’t the sort of thing that would make Penguin fans comfortable.

Here’s the thing about the Penguins and Game 2. Until they lost Game 2 in the Stanley Cup finals to the Red Wings last spring, 3-0, they had won nine Games 2 in succession, dating back to a 2-1 overtime win against the Caps in Game 2 of the Eastern Conference Quarterfinals in 2000.

What does all this mean?

Not much, other than to toss another set of numbers onto the ever-growing pile of them that serves as fodder for bar talk, message boards, and (of course) blogs.

No comments: