They are playing strong tonight!

I hate to say it, but John Carlson is giving me a challenge.

Anonymous wrote:No smith-pelly? He is dreamy.

Sorry, I'd put my laptop aside. Here you go:

No smith-pelly? He is dreamy.

In honor of that goal, a little TJ Oshie as well:

Ooh, I'm on board with picture time.

Anonymous wrote:Plus there’s the eye candy. Tom Wilson may be a thug, but dear lord he is hot.

Needs a pic.

It's time to Unleash . . . The . . . Fleury!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now what do the Caps have to do to win the Cup? Don't they have to win three more games? So that's not a guarantee. I think everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

During the Stanley Cup playoffs, the teams play for the best of 7. So, the first team to 4 games wins. So, the Caps need 2 more wins. Vegas would need 3 more wins.
If the Caps win the next 2 games, they are the champs. They don’t need to play all 7 games - only the first one to 4. Seven is the max # of games played.

"Best of 7". Used to be "Best of Five", then "Best of Seven" - for those of us who actually watched/followed hockey for truly decades (ie: NOT bandwagon fans).

Which is relevant to precisely nothing in the current conversation. Further, it's been best of seven since 1939, so unless you're over 80, you're just be pretentious.

Nope. Apparently your google is broken.

See the records here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stanley_Cup_champions#NHL_champions_(since_1927)

Every winning team from 1939 onward has won it with four wins. Best of five would only need three wins.

PP again, I just realized what the confusion is. The Stanley Cup final itself has been best of seven since 1939. Earlier rounds used to be best of five. I thought we were talking about the final (since the original pp in this tangent was asking what was needed to win the cup), but I see that you were probably responding to the other pp's reference to playoffs generally as opposed to the final specifically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now what do the Caps have to do to win the Cup? Don't they have to win three more games? So that's not a guarantee. I think everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

During the Stanley Cup playoffs, the teams play for the best of 7. So, the first team to 4 games wins. So, the Caps need 2 more wins. Vegas would need 3 more wins.
If the Caps win the next 2 games, they are the champs. They don’t need to play all 7 games - only the first one to 4. Seven is the max # of games played.

"Best of 7". Used to be "Best of Five", then "Best of Seven" - for those of us who actually watched/followed hockey for truly decades (ie: NOT bandwagon fans).

Which is relevant to precisely nothing in the current conversation. Further, it's been best of seven since 1939, so unless you're over 80, you're just be pretentious.

Nope. Apparently your google is broken.

See the records here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stanley_Cup_champions#NHL_champions_(since_1927)

Every winning team from 1939 onward has won it with four wins. Best of five would only need three wins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now what do the Caps have to do to win the Cup? Don't they have to win three more games? So that's not a guarantee. I think everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

During the Stanley Cup playoffs, the teams play for the best of 7. So, the first team to 4 games wins. So, the Caps need 2 more wins. Vegas would need 3 more wins.
If the Caps win the next 2 games, they are the champs. They don’t need to play all 7 games - only the first one to 4. Seven is the max # of games played.

"Best of 7". Used to be "Best of Five", then "Best of Seven" - for those of us who actually watched/followed hockey for truly decades (ie: NOT bandwagon fans).

Which is relevant to precisely nothing in the current conversation. Further, it's been best of seven since 1939, so unless you're over 80, you're just be pretentious.

Nope. Apparently your google is broken.

When was it best of five?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now what do the Caps have to do to win the Cup? Don't they have to win three more games? So that's not a guarantee. I think everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

During the Stanley Cup playoffs, the teams play for the best of 7. So, the first team to 4 games wins. So, the Caps need 2 more wins. Vegas would need 3 more wins.
If the Caps win the next 2 games, they are the champs. They don’t need to play all 7 games - only the first one to 4. Seven is the max # of games played.

"Best of 7". Used to be "Best of Five", then "Best of Seven" - for those of us who actually watched/followed hockey for truly decades (ie: NOT bandwagon fans).

Which is relevant to precisely nothing in the current conversation. Further, it's been best of seven since 1939, so unless you're over 80, you're just be pretentious.

Nope. Apparently your google is broken.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now what do the Caps have to do to win the Cup? Don't they have to win three more games? So that's not a guarantee. I think everyone's getting ahead of themselves.

During the Stanley Cup playoffs, the teams play for the best of 7. So, the first team to 4 games wins. So, the Caps need 2 more wins. Vegas would need 3 more wins.
If the Caps win the next 2 games, they are the champs. They don’t need to play all 7 games - only the first one to 4. Seven is the max # of games played.

"Best of 7". Used to be "Best of Five", then "Best of Seven" - for those of us who actually watched/followed hockey for truly decades (ie: NOT bandwagon fans).

Which is relevant to precisely nothing in the current conversation. Further, it's been best of seven since 1939, so unless you're over 80, you're just be pretentious.

you bi*ches get on "off topic" or relationship forum or something. unless you want to talk caps hockey, get the f*ck out of here.