View Single Post
10-28-2008, 11:20 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 100
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
That's great, because in all honesty, I feel that if they dominate the other team like they had Philly and they get a reasonable of puck luck, their odds of losing that series are very low.

The problem against Philly wasn't about getting "slapped around", it was about RJ Umberger and the Flyers getting an improbable run of puck luck on deflections and bounces whereas the Habs could not buy a goal. With the amount of puck possession and scoring chances the Habs had, even reasonable puck luck would've seen them win the series regardless of any woes Carey Price might have suffered.

The whole go-to-the-net thing was completely overblown by people looking for a comforting, familiar explanation because they were unwilling to admit the truth: that puck luck was the major factor. But "luck" is a dirty word even in a game played on a slippery and degrading surface with a bouncy rubber object.

Philly was a typical Cinderella team (albeit a better one than usual) that lost horribly as soon as their luck ran out -- to the Penguins, whose scorers are not really tougher than Montreal's.

That explanation is a classic case of going from the result (Montreal lost) and going back to find causes that sound plausible (lack of toughness) even if they're not borne out on the ice, which tends to happen a lot. In reality, Philly didn't actually go to the net more than Montreal, they didn't have the puck enough that they could, that wasn't really the factor. The puck would just go in more for them.
Terrific post IMHO. Someone who understands about after-the-fact rationalization and false correlation.

fromage67 is offline   Reply With Quote