<p>He wasn’t injured in warm-ups. They evaluated him and decided to scratch him after warm-ups. The story was mis-reported.</p>
<p>BTW, one of my beefs with Boston sports generally, not specifically the Bruins, is the insufferable need to label a local “the best” and ideally “the best ever”. </p>
<p>Today’s exhibit: piece by local columnist that begins “It’s time to recognize Patrice Bergeron for what he is: the best all-around player in hockey. That’s right. Not just the Bruins, hockey.” You see, it’s never enough in Boston to be one of the best or even just really good. You have to be claimed to be the best. It’s nonsense. Patrice is a very good player, particularly adept at face-offs and particularly good in these playoffs but to say he’s “the best all-around player” is ignorant and pointless … except the real point is the exaltation of Boston, a need that’s extremely real in this city.</p>
<p>So it wasn’t that Tim Thomas was really good when the Bruins won a few years ago. It’s that he had the best playoffs of any goalie in history. Keep saying that, despite the fact every series went to 7 games. He made that save where the puck hit his stick!! Yes, he made a great, lucky save. He was very good. He wasn’t better than many other goalies have been. And of course now with the performance of Tuuka Rask, it’s become somewhat more obvious what should have been clear all along: it’s the team defense. The goalie has lots of coverage, doesn’t have to worry much about rebounds, gets to see the puck instead of being screened, etc. But now we’ll hear that Rask had the greatest series ever. Because it’s Boston.</p>
<p>That’s why when Clay Buchholz wins a bunch of games at the start of the year, the local payers run stories that “Buchholz is the best pitcher in baseball” like no other pitcher has had a really good start. I suppose you could narrow the window down to “that was the best pitch thrown in baseball” so we could feel on top for that moment. When John Lester started off well, we saw articles “Lester is bac to being one of the best pitchers in baseball”. Now he’s thrown more balls and gone to more 3-2 counts than all but maybe 2 other pitchers. But if he has a good game, he’ll be “one of the best pitchers in baseball”!!</p>
<p>Before I lived here, I’d hear about how the Red Sox had the best line-up in baseball. They did, if you didn’t care about actual production but only looked at what maybe they’d each be capable of if they each had a career year at the same time. And the Patriots always had the best talent, best roster in football … but never won. You see where I’m going? The Patriots win and now empty claims about “best talent” don’t matter so you don’t hear them. Instead you hear about how they win without having the best talent when in the more reasonable truth is the difference in talent from NFL roster to roster is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. Same with the Sox. They sign up a bunch of talent and everyone says they’ll win going away. 100 wins easy. Team folds. They overrated Adrian Gonzalez because he had one year in SD with power. One year is not a career. So they turn on the team, because that’s what you do when the guys you need to be “the best in baseball” turn out not to be, and now we hear about the Sox being “likable” because they win with less talent. Well actually, they have the same talent or better. The difference is these people aren’t being paid as much.</p>
<p>That is not exactly Boston or all of the fans, you might want to qualify that with Boston Sports Media/Writers/Talk Radio and TV contingent. The media coverage of sports in Boston tend to get out of hand. Even the people who root for all the teams have different classes, the casual fans get called names like “pink hats” and get labelled as not “true” fans. For goodness sake, it is just sports.</p>
<p>I really hate the “pink hats” label. It’s this idiotic tribalism we have here where your “worth” is measured by how long you’ve been around and other nonsensical stuff. It’s always divisive and, frankly, emphasizing division is one thing that often seems to work in Boston, particularly in sports and politics. If you’re a true fan, you stuck with them. If you’re a true fan, you wouldn’t stick with them. I’ve been going for x years … as though that means your opinion counts more.</p>
<p>I grew up in Detroit. I’ve lived in other cities. Heaven knows I’ve been in many. Boston sports culture is unique with its tendency toward grandiosity coupled with bitterness. When I moved here, the Herald ran a daily box making fun of Roger Clemens’ speaking patterns, which sometimes sounded folksy to the point of uneducated. It was called something like “wisdom from the Texas con man”. This was the same culture that made a sport of hating Ted Williams while he played and then aggrandized him almost beyond belief when he was long retired. Similarly when Josh Beckett’s career started heading south, the refrain became “Texas tough guy” as an insult rather than a more rational acceptance of what was obvious, that he wasn’t as good a pitcher anymore. It became his fault, not something that happens to athletes.</p>
<p>In Detroit, it was pretty simple. If the team was good, people went. No one really cared that Denny McLain dumped on Mickey Lolich when they were both all-stars. When Gordie left because the Wings gave him the mushroom treatment, people thought good for Gordie that he did what was right for him. A guy goes to another team from Boston and they boo him like he killed your dog. It isn’t intensity of caring. It’s more a nasty streak that sits right in the mirror with the need to make these ordinary people who happen to be athletes into “the best”.</p>
<p>Lergnom…Bergeron may very well be the best all around player in hockey…if he’s not, he’s in the top 3. Name me a better all around player? 24-4 in face offs last night…that’s incredible. Nothing wrong with stating an opinion and talking about players you follow. Why shouldn’t home town fans discuss the players they follow in terms of where they might rank with their peers.</p>
<p>…fans can see the offensive stars talents, a bit harder to see how the defensive stars lock down the other team’s best.</p>
<p>9x9 = soft player…rumor has it Hossa pulled himself out yesterday</p>
<p>
These people are not fans. They are bandwagon jumpers, or trend-followers, or sightseers, or whatever.</p>
<p>A real fan follows the team no matter if they are great or they suck.</p>
<p>And this is why there is such disdain for the pink hats - these people don’t go because they are fans, they go because it is “the thing to do”, to make a fashion statement. They don’t mind paying 5x face value for a ticket from a scalper, which makes it hard or impossible to get a ticket if you are an actual fan, and runs up the prices due to the scarcity of tickets.</p>
<p>
I heard on the way home tonight it was his hammy. My guess is he could have sucked it up, but if he can only skate at half-speed he would have been a liability. He’ll get second-guessed though.</p>
<p>
yuck…bandwagon fans</p>
<p>sounds like you have a problem with passionate fans. I will take a little over the top fans any day over bandwagon fans…</p>
<p>Think about the words used “disdain” … “yuck…bandwagon fans” … “real fan”. </p>
<p>Do you think these teams could pay their salaries if they didn’t have the people you dump on?</p>
<p>Reminds of the runners group I was in years ago. One year the complaints about people running in the Marathon became really loud. Like “why don’t those people go run Fred’s Marathon in Worcester” instead of clogging up Boston. I told them they were bleeping out of line, that my Town would cut the BAA off at the knees and not allow the Marathon at all if they ever tried that crap … and I got someone from the BAA to back me up. </p>
<p>So stick it. Pink hats are fans. People who like winning teams are fans.</p>
<p>
Have you tried getting a Red Sox or Patriots ticket in the last 10 years? They are certainly not dependent on the pink hats to pay anybody’s salary.
Geez, chill out.</p>
<p>I had partial season tickets to the Sox, for a while past 3rd and then closer to the plate. I also had Premium Club seats with my company for the Bruins and Celtics. Not the Patriots, though of the 4 I was a Pats fan long before I could root for the Sox. I still find it hard to root for the Celtics against some teams. As for the Bruins, my kid is a big Bruins fan and I like the way the team is made up and plays - and I think their coach and GM are tops* - and I think Bergeron’s story coming back from severe trauma is fantastic. I grew up listening to the idiotic homerism for the Celtics - something that we now hear in the regular season from Jack Edwards, a guy with a lot of talent - in which the other team is villainous and every play should be a foul or penalty, etc. Do people in Boston realize that this is the only city in the US where that is done? It’s really bush league in the eyes of the rest of the nation. </p>
<p>*And of course less than a month ago, the “real fans” were calling for Julien to be fired because Cam Neely, great player who never won a Cup and who never has been a GM or coach, was going to replace their “defensive system” with real Bruins hockey. I’d rather be with the casual fan on that one.</p>
<p>Perfect example of Boston triumphalism: riding home last night the talk on WEEI was about the 1986 Celtics. The Lakers won 5x to the Celtics 3x but the Boston touch is to proclaim the 1986 team the best ever. Like that matters. But then the talk of course turned to the Bruins and I actually heard them saying things like “winning 2 out of 3 years” and talking about where they’d rank all-time. All-time. Some things are silly, like saying after the Cup win “the Cup’s back in Boston where it belongs” when of course if it belong anywhere it’s in Montreal where they’ve only won 24 times. That’s the kind of silly thing you can expect but all-time teams? Seriously?</p>
<p>Everyone knows Johnny Most was completely over the top if not outright bat-***** crazy. But he was entertaining as hell to listen to. I haven’t really noticed Jack Edwards doing it to nearly the same degree.</p>
<p>
I think whenever a team wins multiple championships in a few years, it’s legitimate to have the conversation. This is what fans do for fun, whatever the sport. Talk show people are paid to be over the top, I wouldn’t expect anything different. When the teams are bad there is no shortage of criticism.</p>
<p>To me, being a fan is more than just watching the game. It’s knowing the history, being able to hold your own in arguments, beating someone at trivia, having opinions, memorizing stats, busting on the fans of your opponents when your team wins, getting busted on they lose, etc. It’s passion.</p>
<p>Maybe its “homerism” but I’ll take that any day over the the fans of a team that don’t care if they win or lose, or if beloved players leave town, or even if the team leaves town.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t they? It’s hard to deny that the Wings in the mid-late 90s (Russian Five era) were one of the best teams of all time especially when they won cups back to back in sweeps. When you win everything a few times in a short time, it’s not wrong to think about how that team will be looked at. It’s quite a feat.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the issue with talking up your home team. It’s fun to have some pride in your team and talk about what your legacy is going to be like.</p>
<p>This game is insane.</p>
<p>The Bruins are lucky to be making it to OT, I think Chicago has played an outstanding game.</p>
<p>Hawks!!!</p>
<p>OMG, I´m so busy I can´t even keep up. So now it´s 2-2 and in Chicago for game 5? I tried to stay up for game 3, but it´s impossible.</p>
<p>By the accounts I have been reading it seems that 3 of the 4 games have been awesome.</p>
<p>Go Hawks!</p>
<p>It was an exciting game, and, yes, gloworm, it’s now 2-2. Game 5 in Chicago on Saturday. I was happy to see the Hawks win. They did play well and, despite handing the Bruins ample opportunity to win it, I’m happy to see the series tied up.</p>
<p>I was surprised the Blackhawks won because they turned the puck over so much. I can’t off hand remember all the goals but one stood out: Patrick Sharp, who later scored, behind the net with the puck on a penalty kill throws the puck at ice level around the boards to the right wing … directly to Chara at the top of the circle. In other words, a beautiful pass to an opposing player already halfway in towards the goal. He didn’t step to the side of the net and look up ice or put the puck high on the glass to make it hard to control. Really bad mental play. Chara takes the puck with all the time in the world, shoots it at the goal - and from that close, you’re going to get a rebound if you just put the shot on the goalie’s pads - and the puck comes right out to Lucic, who bangs it home.</p>
<p>As I remember, on another goal, a pass attempt for clearing was reacted to late by the Hawks player who then didn’t reach it and that was converted into a goal. And on Boychuk’s final tying goal, there was a bad clear attempt on the side boards that led directly to the play. </p>
<p>BTW, all morning sports radio has been ragging on the Bruins. Like I’ve been saying, if the Bruins do well, it’s because they’re the best and if they don’t do well it’s their fault. Love and Hate tattooed on the knuckles of either hand. Chicago connected on some opportunities this game. If they’d connected on more in games 1 and 2, they’d have won both of those.</p>
<p>Gloworm, honestly, we won that game by a lot. Crawford was having trouble with his glove hand and kept it low and on his pad and out of position. He kept going down with his glove low. I hope his coaches talk about this with him. It was consistently what “happened.” Other than that, we were great.</p>
<p>Nice game to the Bruins. See you Saturday.</p>
<p>All five Bruins goals in game 4 were on Crawford’s glove side.</p>
<p>They are clearly targeting that area.</p>