There "are" plenty of cracks in this statement. I hate to be that person but if you're going to teach us all about stuff, it matters to me.
"Vastly overachieved" is such a ridiculous angle. A team that "achieves something" deserves the accolades of that, it's not a fluke. Sure, maybe a game or two but to sustain what they did over the year means they're legit. When they built up enough capital that's noteworthy....you think a team should just stay on a trajectory of only winning? Even experienced teams hit skids. So to diminish what they've done with a label of "overachieving" is your deal, not theirs. They achieved that and it matters when Petey's a bit off and Demko's missing. Ignoring this stuff to feed a narrative doesn't make it (that narrative) true. The team's ran a bit colder recently but to cherry pick those moments is ridiculous. What they did earlier counts as much as anything.
But I'm sure if they don't win the cup this'll all be confirmed by some who don't realize that experienced teams will also miss out.
I wish the experts would quit "analyzing" our team and just get behind it for crying out loud.
Winning a round pushes any team forward. Momentum plays into this all BIG TIME...get hot at the right time and sky's the limit.
But only "experienced teams" count? Like the Penguins? Let's hear which of these teams you're awarding the cup to and then we'll see how it plays out.