wouldnt that suggest that it was MONTREAL luck that their backup had a great sv%?
Yes, on one hand you could say this, which is what a lot of fans said.
On the other hand you could say: with all due respect to PKS and the Montreal defense, what the heck is wrong with the Rangers that they aren't scoring more against a rookie goaltender? Why is his SV% so high when he is obviously still quite young and making mistakes? Why did we win game 6 by only one goal? What is going to happen next round against Crawford or Quick?
But we don't say that, we focus on the first point, which is that Montreal is lucky that Tokarski is an elite level goalie.
Luck distracts NYR from focusing on its weaknesses in scoring and finishing generally.
Fast forward several games and Zuc is not getting his shots in, MSL is not getting shots in, etc. Players and fans are surprised and talk about puck luck. Articles are written and posted showing peaks and troughs in goalie performance and how it's a tough break for their team when their goalie is down.
So now you can say: Quick and LAK are good but they've had some good bounces and have luck on their side and NYR luck has run out.
Or you can say: NYR problems became evident in Round 3 but no one realized it because they were focused on justifying Tokarski's performance. Whereas if Price had not been injured, there would have been no distraction, he almost certainly would have been more difficult and we would have had to take stock and improve our game then.
Sometimes being lucky is bad because it enables living in denial about weaknesses.
