the Ivy Leage is for chumps

Seriously: fuck Princeton. As a hockey writer, Anaheim Duck and Princeton alum George Parros is a pretty good hockey player--and as a hockey player, he's one of those goons who makes your Georges Laraque guys look like legit power forwards. All italics mine, because I didn't have the heart time to go through and explicitly mock every one of his clichés.

Hello Times readers! What a Game 6 on Monday night, a 5-2 Boston Bruins victory over the visiting Vancouver Canucks.

Is he going to write in this weird, atavistic hack voice the whole time?

The first period was certainly action packed

Yup. He sure is. *reaches for Scotch baster*

and unfortunately for the Canucks, it was the same old story at the TD Garden.

Which story? The one where they kicked the shit out of the entire league all season? *checks list of media-approved narratives* Oh, I guess the story you mean is the one where Vancouver's Kryptonite is high-pitched Massholes.

I actually thought Vancouver had a dominant start (first shift, I guess would be more accurate)

Dude? Thomas Pynchon gets self-correcting parentheticals. William Gaddis gets self-correcting parentheticals. Marcel Proust gets self-correcting parentheticals. George Parros doesn't. And a dominant shift = a dominant start? Guess you didn't take a lot of Saul Kripke's logic classes at Princeton. (Clear the Crease: more analytic philosophy joaks than any other hockey blog or your money back, homie!)

until the Canucks’ Mason Raymond went down in a heap at the hands of Johnny Boychuk and missed the remainder of the game. It appeared like his spine was crunched up as he crashed into the boards - never a good way to start a match.

Ah, it's insights like this that make player commentary such an indispensable resource. Without reading this, I would hardly have concluded that apparent spine trauma, followed by a guy requiring help to move and being unable to continue competing, is somehow a sub-optimal component of a competition.

I think Raymond’s absence ruined the bench chemistry for Vancouver Coach Alain Vigneault. I know it often does the same to our bench with an odd number of forwards, and trust me, I know a thing or two about bench chemistry.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Like "hey, guys, I know what it's like to spend most of a game on the bench" (because I'm bad at hockey playing)? Or is he actually bragging about how much he knows about chemistry?

All of a sudden the lines get screwy and that leads to too many men on the ice calls.

A-ha! That explains the...checks the box score...one penalty called for too many men on the ice that night. I knew something had to account for that!

Things went haywire for Vancouver in a hurry. It was a tough pill for Canucks goaltender Roberto Luongo to swallow, I am sure.

The Bruins played a great second period as well. It can be challenging to cling to a four-goal lead;

I mean, sure. But at least you've got those four goals to fall back on: no matter how easy it is to play when you're four in the hole, you're unlikely to come back. Is that stupidly, insultingly obvious? Yes, but at least I'm not presenting it as some kind of significant insight. Also: who "clings" to a four-goal lead? Do football teams "cling" to four-touchdown leads?

playing too safe will lead to more defensive zone play and more goals against.

Remember this, kids: according to George Parros, playing defensively leads to getting scored on. Looking forward to his coaching career already!

But Boston stayed true to its system and kept applying pressure.

An unimpressive power play for the Canucks hasn't helped their cause throughout the Stanley Cup Final. But things finally clicked early in the third period and it’s always a momentum swinger to score early or late in a period. Vancouver’s Henrik Sedin finally got on the stat sheet, which by all accounts was overdue for a player of his caliber. It was simply just bound to happen.

Speaking of high-caliber players, I have to give some love to Boston’s Mark Recchi. He has been playing so well for a Bruins squad that has obviously benefitted from his leadership and solid play. I have to believe he is like a Teemu Selanne for their team in many respects.

Sure, except for the respects involving scoring and skating well. Which I guess leaves advanced age and superlative ability to consume liquor.

*thinks about it*

Confidential to Mark Recchi: will you be my friend?

I was very excited about the outcome of Game 6 because who doesn't love a Game 7?

That sentence was written by an Ivy League graduate. I point this out because if I didn't, you'd probably mistake it for a Grade 4 "what I did on Wednesday night" report. Oh, and you know who doesn't love a Game 7? The team that could have won the series in Game 6 and didn't. Also that team's fans. Also anybody who left their car in downtown Vancouver the other night.

There's nothing like it in the world. No other sport has this much emotion wrapped into one game than a Stanley Cup Final Game 7.

Not so much a series of lexical clichés there, but a sentiment that is kind of tiring and that turned out to be false: Game 7 was an adequate series-ender, but neither team seemed notably emotional--Kesler might be an exception, because he played a monstrous game, looking fast and physical and committed.

Everyone hold on tight and watch the drama unfold in Vancouver Wednesday night!

Over and out.