Because the Blues and Hawks are both excellent teams? Because the whole series was a damn-near tied score the entire time? The Blues scored with less than 2 minutes left in Game 1 to force an OT and with less than 10 seconds left in Game 2 to force an OT - winning both games. The Hawks came back to even the series up with a shutout by Crawford and a beautiful goal by Kane. The series showcased great players from both sides - Tarasenko, Oshie, Toews, Kane. Crawford showed that he may be a better goalie than people give him credit for.
I've learned some time ago that you can't control officiating. Hell, I already put way too much passion into a game that I have absolutely no control over - I can't use anymore energy on what calls are being made and not being made. In your life as a sports fan, you will have calls that will go your teams way and you will have calls that completely

your team over. Didn't the Rangers get screwed over yesterday by that early whistle call? How about that bad call last year that denied
Hjalmarsson's goal? Seabrook should have gotten 5 and not 3? Debatable, but let's not forgot that the Hawks won the three games that Seabrook was suspended so would it have made a difference? Let's say Kane get's a few more penalty calls...would that have made a difference? I think the Blues only scored on, what, 2 of 25+ power plays?
I never blame the officials on the outcome of a best of 7 game series. That is one of the reasons it's a 7 game series. In the end, the better team won. The Blues lacked offense and Miller wasn't the difference maker he needed to be. The defending Stanley Cup champs showed what makes them so great.