NHL notebook: Stanley Cup Final Game 4 sets viewership record
Another overtime game in the Stanley Cup Final drew another big audience for the NHL.
The high-scoring, back-and-forth Game 4 on Wednesday on NBC — won in OT by the Blackhawks, 6-5, over the Bruins — was watched by an average of 6.5 million people. That's the most viewers for a Stanley Cup Final Game 4 since records started being kept in 1987.
With three of the first four games going to overtime, the finals are averaging 5.4 million viewers. That's the most through four games since at least 1994, though the population is larger now. It's more than double the 2.5 million for last year's Kings-Devils series.
• Raffi Torres showed the Sharks during his short stint the attributes that make him a valuable player and the negatives of his suspension-filled history that sidelined him for the final six games of the playoffs. General manager Doug Wilson decided the rewards outweighed the risks, signing Torres to a $6 million, three-year deal Thursday that prevents him becoming an unrestricted free agent. “Every player comes with some level of risk, and obviously, we're very comfortable with this,” Wilson said. After coming over in a deadline deal from Phoenix on April 3, Torres had two goals and four assists in 11 regular-season games and provided a spark with his speed and physical play that helped San Jose wrap up a playoff spot. He then scored an overtime game-winner in Game 2 of first-round sweep against Vancouver and turned himself into a key component on the Sharks.
• The Sabres signed backup goalie Jhonas Enroth, who was scheduled to become a restricted free agent, to a two-year contract extension. He had a 2.6 goals-against average and a shutout in going 4-4-2 in 12 games last season, his third in the NHL. Overall, he has a 2.72 goals-against average, three shutouts and a 21-18-10 record in 53 career games.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.