HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

Boucher to Tampa

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-08-2010, 09:23 PM
  #426
Max Levine
Registered User
 
Max Levine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitesnake View Post
RDS saying that there's no press conference tomorrow 'cause....it's Game 6. Most likely a press conference Thursday.
That's what they said earlier today. They want to wait after the finals to make the announcement.

Max Levine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 09:26 PM
  #427
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
I love your contradictions. We destroyed Pittsburgh in scoring 5 on 5, your favourite type of domination, yet its a deterant because you claim it is so?
By "destroyed", do you mean "had 3 more 5-on-5 goals over 7 games"? 'Cause I think that's how many the Habs "destroyed" them by. Good thing too, as the PP and PK (which were decently strong against Washington) were pretty bad at times against Pittsburgh.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 09:36 PM
  #428
Max Levine
Registered User
 
Max Levine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
By "destroyed", do you mean "had 3 more 5-on-5 goals over 7 games"? 'Cause I think that's how many the Habs "destroyed" them by. Good thing too, as the PP and PK (which were decently strong against Washington) were pretty bad at times against Pittsburgh.
Imagine if the PP would have hit 25%. Would have been a short series

I don't think stats tell the whole story. I think Montreal performed better than Pittsburgh at even strength. Now, whether Habs outplayed their opponent or the Penguins simply sucked most of the series is another question.

Max Levine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 10:01 PM
  #429
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
By "destroyed", do you mean "had 3 more 5-on-5 goals over 7 games"? 'Cause I think that's how many the Habs "destroyed" them by. Good thing too, as the PP and PK (which were decently strong against Washington) were pretty bad at times against Pittsburgh.
Montreal's 5 on 5 goals against Pitts: 13
Pittsburgh's 5 on 5 goals against Montreal: 8

Note: I am not including EN goals, because I don't think that is a fair representation of 5 on 5 play.

Thirteen goals 5 on 5 in 7 games is pretty damn impressive in the playoffs, almost 2 goals per game. Especially when you factor in that the Habs were only allowing about 1 5 on 5 goal in per game.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 10:47 PM
  #430
Little Nilan
Registered User
 
Little Nilan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Praha
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 8,209
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Little Nilan
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Montreal's 5 on 5 goals against Pitts: 13
Pittsburgh's 5 on 5 goals against Montreal: 8

Note: I am not including EN goals, because I don't think that is a fair representation of 5 on 5 play.

Thirteen goals 5 on 5 in 7 games is pretty damn impressive in the playoffs, almost 2 goals per game. Especially when you factor in that the Habs were only allowing about 1 5 on 5 goal in per game.
naaaaaaaaah.

Little Nilan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 10:52 PM
  #431
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotty hates Sergei View Post
naaaaaaaaah.
Ah, who am I kidding. The only reason we won the first two series was because of Halak.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 10:52 PM
  #432
Sandvich
VERY NICE
 
Sandvich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Ah, who am I kidding. The only reason we won the first two series was because of Halak.
Wroooooooongggggggggggg

Pouliot was the reason.

Sandvich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 11:19 PM
  #433
JeromeHP
@Jerome_Berube
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yarfangor View Post
I also heard that Ruefrontenac refused to properly source their source...something like that, its starting a whole hoopla vs RDS, TSN and other medias.
i don't know if its what you mean. but media own by Pierre-Karl Peladeau refused to give credit to rue frontenac for their scoop. agence QMI and canoe.ca gave absolutely ZERO credit to rue frontenac wich is beyond pathetic

the journal de montreal journalist have been on a strike for what 2 years now ? don't know how you can and want to work for such an ass hole like Pierre Karl Peladeau is beyond me.

how anyone would want to cheers for the nhl Quebec team own by him.... personnaly i would had a hard time cheering for the habs if that ****ers bought the habs last year. thankyou molson family

JeromeHP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 11:37 PM
  #434
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,922
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The Habs certainly did not have a "good team defense", and the problem with "clutch scoring" is that it's a lot less reliable than consistent offense. And hoping Halak will continue to goal like he did is unrealistic, unless he is going to finish his career as the best goalie in NHL history. That's a lot of planets that have to align... again.

Intangibles are nice, but if your team is bad at defense and bad at offense, your intangibles aren't doing enough to help you.
To answer your question: if the Habs play next year every night like they played in the playoffs against Washington and Pittsburgh, will they win more than their share? Yes!

It is absolutely NORMAL for a team that plays with the lead to get less chances to score in the latter part of the game. However, the Habs generally EARNED their leads. they played mostly good offensive first periods against both Washington and Pittsburgh. Even the losses in games 2, 3 and 4 to Washington, the Habs played very good first periods.

When you play with a lead, you will win most of your games, especially with a goaltender stopping pucks at a .923 clip (which while very good, is absolutely NOT the best clip in the history of the world, as you absurdly claimed).

BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2010, 11:49 PM
  #435
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
To answer your question: if the Habs play next year every night like they played in the playoffs against Washington and Pittsburgh, will they win more than their share? Yes!
I don't see how it's humanly possible. You'd need both the goaltending and the shooting to continue to operate vastly in excess of what the best teams ever have been able to do over the length a season. Sure, it happens over short stretches, but surely, you cannot ask Halak to be better than Hasek... AND Cammy to shoot better than Hull?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
It is absolutely NORMAL for a team that plays with the lead to get less chances to score in the latter part of the game.
I know this. But for a team to win, say, game that was tied for much its duration despite being outchanced 22-7 is not normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
However, the Habs generally EARNED their leads. they played mostly good offensive first periods against both Washington and Pittsburgh.
They were outchanced with the score tied by both teams. They did okayish against Washington, and managed to take early leads in games 5-6-7 but the way they were dominated after that, it's a miracle they didn't blow any of them. Against Pittsburgh, they actually came back from behind in 3 of their 4 wins, so getting outchanced while behind and tied was a very real problem.

(Actually, at http://enattendantlesnordiques.blogs...la-chance.html is a nice set of charts listing scoring chances for and against for every game depending on score state, so you can see for yourself. Even if you don't read French, the charts are self-explanatory; if you do, this is an amazing blog that's worth following.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballCoach View Post
When you play with a lead, you will win most of your games, especially with a goaltender stopping pucks at a .923 clip (which while very good, is absolutely NOT the best clip in the history of the world, as you absurdly claimed).
The NHL record for career save percentage is .922, held by Dominik Hasek. If Halak can goal at a .923 clip for the duration of his career, then yes -- it would literally be the best clip in the history of the world.

Which is not to say, of course, that goalies cannot achieve this over a season occasionally, but it is not reasonable to expect it on a consistent basis. .923 is a "career season" type number, not something that's sustainable by anyone.

Expecting Hasek to maintain his current career average of .919 -- an elite number -- would be awesome enough!

MathMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 01:36 AM
  #436
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Ah, who am I kidding. The only reason we won the first two series was because of Halak.
The vast majority of people consider him the "main" or biggest reason, not the only reason. Sarcastic hyperbole really doesn't lend strength to any argument/point.

And yeah, I counted EN goals. If Montreal (or their opponent) had scored with the goalie pulled, you likely would have counted them as even strength (I assume I can use that term instead, as I'm sure you didn't double-check to see if any of either team's goals were scored 4-on-4 either). You can't have it both ways just to suit your fancy.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 02:08 AM
  #437
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
The vast majority of people consider him the "main" or biggest reason, not the only reason. Sarcastic hyperbole really doesn't lend strength to any argument/point.
It was a joke dude, take it as one.

Quote:
And yeah, I counted EN goals. If Montreal (or their opponent) had scored with the goalie pulled, you likely would have counted them as even strength (I assume I can use that term instead, as I'm sure you didn't double-check to see if any of either team's goals were scored 4-on-4 either). You can't have it both ways just to suit your fancy.
Oh come on, do you actually think I would have counted the Habs EN goals? I think you know me better than that OJ. I rarely use stats to back up my arguments, and I sure as hell don't fudge them to fit my argument.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 06:00 AM
  #438
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
It was a joke dude, take it as one.
To be honest, I really didn't know how to take it. I consider special teams (NOT EV strength play) to be the main reason we got past Washington, thought EV strength play was marginally better against Pittsburgh (sustained pressure at times, for a change, but still allowing way too many shots and chances... which were still tipped markedly in Pitts' favour overall), then you go from talk of destroying Pitts 5-on-5 followed by something about goaltending that usually at least has some kind of smilie with it. Hard to spy the cut o' yer jib on that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buddahsmoka1 View Post
Oh come on, do you actually think I would have counted the Habs EN goals? I think you know me better than that OJ. I rarely use stats to back up my arguments, and I sure as hell don't fudge them to fit my argument.
Why not? I think Montreal's prevailing inability to score EN goals when the opportunity arises also points to the weakness of the team's 5-man units at keeping pressure out of the defensive zone, or skating/moving the puck over the red line, period. Counting the ones other teams get is sort of like my way of penalizing Montreal for not getting theirs. It might sound weird, but I assure you, it makes sense to me.

But was mostly commenting on the "EV" vs 5-on-5 separate from 4-on-4, etc. After all, we came up with the same number of goals, and while I didn't double-check to see if any of the goals were 4-on-4 either, I also didn't try to pick, like, 4 players that were already taken in the mock draft. I think we know that 4-on-4 goals (while even strength) skew the picture favourably for the Habs, and would mask their problem which is creating offensive chances and pressure without the extra open ice. But that's probably for a different thread altogether.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:30 AM
  #439
LesCanadiens
Registered User
 
LesCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Okanagan Baby!
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
MathMan....using stats and singling out single players to make an argument does not flatter you. You're a pretty smart guy from what I've gathered on these boards, but IMO, it appears you're getting tunnel-vision.

The best way to judge a team is based on the game-by-game, period-by-period, shift-by-shift play and flow. Shots can literally mean piss-all...as can all other stats.

What was very clear to ME, as a student of the game for almost 4 decades, is that Pitt had no chance to win the series - based on the flow and details within the framework of each game, period and shift. We physically (physical containment) and psychologically dominated Pittsburg for the most part. I felt we outplayed them in this manner, even in some of the games we lost.

Bottom line is, this was clearly a team effort. Halak only did what ANY goalie should do in the playoffs. He did his job, he stopped pucks. But, our D and forwards also for the most part neutrilized Pitts' mega-star players, including the best player in the world.

Anyone that knows anything about hockey, knows that it takes a team effort to accomplish this. The only reason, IMO, we couldn't do it to Philly, was that we ran out of gas, and mental toughness, due to waaaay too many injuries to some of our key guys.

LesCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:44 AM
  #440
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
MathMan....using stats and singling out single players to make an argument does not flatter you. You're a pretty smart guy from what I've gathered on these boards, but IMO, it appears you're getting tunnel-vision.
While you all have valid points, you are all somewhat guilty of mob mentality here and just piling on him by completely rejecting any validity in what he has to say with regards to the fact that patterns in stats DO often correct misconceptions that your eyes can lead you to. I have seen very few *if any* posters even recognize an iota of truth/validity in what he's saying. In fact, most have resorted to the pedestrian "stats are dumb and don't tell the whole story, so you're wrong" response.

I anticipate lots of flaming in response, but it's not like I have any particular love for the guy or anything.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:51 AM
  #441
coolasprICE
Registered User
 
coolasprICE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
While you all have valid points, you are all somewhat guilty of mob mentality here and just piling on him by completely rejecting any validity in what he has to say with regards to the fact that patterns in stats DO often correct misconceptions that your eyes can lead you to. I have seen very few *if any* posters even recognize an iota of truth/validity in what he's saying. In fact, most have resorted to the pedestrian "stats are dumb and don't tell the whole story, so you're wrong" response.

I anticipate lots of flaming in response, but it's not like I have any particular love for the guy or anything.
Nobody rejects MathMan's approach, it's just there needs to be a healthy balance between observation (and "gut" feel) with those statistics... There's a reason why game strategies / adjustments and line changes are still done by human beings.

coolasprICE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:57 AM
  #442
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
MathMan....using stats and singling out single players to make an argument does not flatter you. You're a pretty smart guy from what I've gathered on these boards, but IMO, it appears you're getting tunnel-vision.
I might be, TBH, but I really do think that Martin's system is holding the team back and that improvement inside it is largely impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
The best way to judge a team is based on the game-by-game, period-by-period, shift-by-shift play and flow. Shots can literally mean piss-all...as can all other stats.
Shots and Corsi are actually pretty good measures of shift-by-shift play and flow; they're heavily correlated with puck possession. If your perceptions tell you one thing, and the shot metrics don't agree, there's a very good chance that it's your perceptions that are off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
What was very clear to ME, as a student of the game for almost 4 decades, is that Pitt had no chance to win the series - based on the flow and details within the framework of each game, period and shift.
"No chance"? Seriously? That was clear to you? I'm afraid I have to question what your "almost for decades" of studying the game have taught you then, if you're going to make such a bold claim after the way that series went (not least because it went to 7 games!). Pittsburgh was far outplaying the Habs during most of the series by pretty much any objective measure that didn't involve goaltending. And if you eyeballed it without trying to fit the process to the result, it was also obvious to the naked eye.

But hey, don't take my word for it; here's what another student of the game with no personal stake in the matter found out when he went over and re-examined all the scoring chances -- this isn't so much stats as a guy going over video and counting things:

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/20...ce-details-for

MathMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:58 AM
  #443
CareyClutch
Doing the job
 
CareyClutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: North Korea
Posts: 4,942
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CareyClutch
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
While you all have valid points, you are all somewhat guilty of mob mentality here and just piling on him by completely rejecting any validity in what he has to say with regards to the fact that patterns in stats DO often correct misconceptions that your eyes can lead you to. I have seen very few *if any* posters even recognize an iota of truth/validity in what he's saying. In fact, most have resorted to the pedestrian "stats are dumb and don't tell the whole story, so you're wrong" response.

I anticipate lots of flaming in response, but it's not like I have any particular love for the guy or anything.
Hey, u can find love everywhere..even on HF

CareyClutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:02 AM
  #444
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolasprICE View Post
Nobody rejects MathMan's approach, it's just there needs to be a healthy balance between observation (and "gut" feel) with those statistics... There's a reason why game strategies / adjustments and line changes are still done by human beings.
... who factor available stats and measurable performance metrics into their decisions... but I know what you're sayin'.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:05 AM
  #445
The Right Price
Registered User
 
The Right Price's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koseegin View Post
You guys are all clowns. The guy wants to coach in the nhl. He owes nothing to Montreal and Montreal owes nothing to him. Montreal and rookie coaches have not gone well.

You are going to get mad at the organization because a guy wants to take a better job that will pay better, okay guys get real. I can understand you being mad/disappointed, but to start going crazy on the organization is just ridiculous.

Montreal will not test having rookie coaches again, let Boucher break his shoes in with Tampa, if it works, good, if not, then we always have a chance to take him back.

It's not the end of the world.

Montreal hired boucher last year to coach the ahl, he wasn't ready for nhl duties at that time. We needed a veteren coach and we got one. No one could have guessed that Boucher would have immidiate success. How can you guarentee that he will have immidiate success with Tampa?
/Thread.. some people here should grow up.

The Right Price is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:24 AM
  #446
LesCanadiens
Registered User
 
LesCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Okanagan Baby!
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I might be, TBH, but I really do think that Martin's system is holding the team back and that improvement inside it is largely impossible.



Shots and Corsi are actually pretty good measures of shift-by-shift play and flow; they're heavily correlated with puck possession. If your perceptions tell you one thing, and the shot metrics don't agree, there's a very good chance that it's your perceptions that are off.



"No chance"? Seriously? That was clear to you? I'm afraid I have to question what your "almost for decades" of studying the game have taught you then, if you're going to make such a bold claim after the way that series went (not least because it went to 7 games!). Pittsburgh was far outplaying the Habs during most of the series by pretty much any objective measure that didn't involve goaltending. And if you eyeballed it without trying to fit the process to the result, it was also obvious to the naked eye.

But hey, don't take my word for it; here's what another student of the game with no personal stake in the matter found out when he went over and re-examined all the scoring chances -- this isn't so much stats as a guy going over video and counting things:

http://www.behindthenethockey.com/20...ce-details-for
Time to access that underutilized right side of your brain, MM...

I don't have time atm to slash and burn your entire post . But I'll get back to it....got a company to run and a baby to feed.

I will say this though, some guy analyzing shots and from where they were taken...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....does not properly and accurately convey how the game and the series actually played out to the ones that count, IE the players. It's like trying to tell me that a computer is as capable as a human...not going to happen, stats don't count psycological and emotional state of mind or effect - and the end-result depending on which side of the fence someone is on. They'd somehow manage to fan on the puck, or to shoot it wide...or at the goalie.

The basic idea is, even if Pitt had a way more scoring chances than Mtl, it didn't matter, we "had their number"...and that number does not show up in the stat book.

Funny thing is, if there was a global calamity or alien invasion....who do you think would have a better chance to survive? The math/computer geek, trying to figure out stats and probability? Or the creative, and instinctual individual? I put my dough on the latter, every day of the week.

LesCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:33 AM
  #447
MathMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
Time to access that underutilized right side of your brain, MM...
The problem here is that we saw the same game, yet we have very different interpretations.

I'm not sure how I can put this nicely, so here goes: what I'm reading from you is a lot of superstition, really. We "had their number"? If anyone had the Pens' number, it was Halak, because otherwise, the Habs were getting their ***** handed to them. How is saying "we had their number" a better assessment than actually analyzing what happened on the ice? If there are psychological and emotional effects -- intangibles -- that affect the game, why aren't they reflected on the ice, where the stats would pick them up?

At some point, someone is going to have to explain to me how you can be said to outplay a team that's basically always owning the puck and taking dangerous shots from prime scoring areas while you aren't. Because I don't care if you count it with stats or just eyeball it, if you don't think that team is not being badly outplayed, then quite frankly I think you're just deluding yourself.

Or are you arguing that the Pens really did get all their scoring chances and just continually messed up on them for some intangible reason? Fine, that's debatable, but at that point I'm going to ask: how is that good team defense by the Habs, as opposed to the Pens shooting themselves in the foot? Because the Habs only have control over the former.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LesCanadiens View Post
Funny thing is, if there was a global calamity or alien invasion....who do you think would have a better chance to survive? The math/computer geek, trying to figure out stats and probability? Or the creative, and instinctual individual? I put my dough on the latter, every day of the week.
I'm not sure I agree -- and I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand anyway. I do know that without the science geeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, or a whole lot of real technological progress for that matter.

MathMan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:38 AM
  #448
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
Well, it's hard to imagine Boucher actually doing worse than Martin's craptastic let-them-bomb-us system. I'll take the unproven quantity over the guy who's proven his obsolescence any day.

The big mistake people are making is thinking that Martin "got us" to the SCEF just because the Habs got there. He didn't "take" anyone there. He was carried along -- practically kicking and screaming, considering how his system allowed the Habs to be thoroughly dominated in ways rarely seen in playoff series.
Pretty much. The Habs will be a borderline playoff team next season.

Kimota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 07:37 PM
  #449
LesCanadiens
Registered User
 
LesCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Okanagan Baby!
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem here is that we saw the same game, yet we have very different interpretations.

I'm not sure how I can put this nicely, so here goes: what I'm reading from you is a lot of superstition, really. We "had their number"? If anyone had the Pens' number, it was Halak, because otherwise, the Habs were getting their ***** handed to them. How is saying "we had their number" a better assessment than actually analyzing what happened on the ice? If there are psychological and emotional effects -- intangibles -- that affect the game, why aren't they reflected on the ice, where the stats would pick them up?

At some point, someone is going to have to explain to me how you can be said to outplay a team that's basically always owning the puck and taking dangerous shots from prime scoring areas while you aren't. Because I don't care if you count it with stats or just eyeball it, if you don't think that team is not being badly outplayed, then quite frankly I think you're just deluding yourself.

Or are you arguing that the Pens really did get all their scoring chances and just continually messed up on them for some intangible reason? Fine, that's debatable, but at that point I'm going to ask: how is that good team defense by the Habs, as opposed to the Pens shooting themselves in the foot? Because the Habs only have control over the former.

I'm not sure I agree -- and I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand anyway. I do know that without the science geeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, or a whole lot of real technological progress for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
The problem here is that we saw the same game, yet we have very different interpretations.
No kiddin'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm not sure how I can put this nicely, so here goes: what I'm reading from you is a lot of superstition, really. We "had their number"?
No need for niceties. So here goes, superstition? Grab a clue MM...this isn't superstition, it's actually a proven psychology...that's why stuff like what Camalleri does with visualization actually has been proven to work...same idea here...if you see teams saying stuff like: "We gotta find a way...", "We're snake-bitten"...etc etc, they're usually doomed. This is all very much accepted..and like I said, if you ask the people that count, the players...they'll agree for the most part.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
How is saying "we had their number" a better assessment than actually analyzing what happened on the ice? If there are psychological and emotional effects -- intangibles -- that affect the game, why aren't they reflected on the ice, where the stats would pick them up?
I do analyze what happened on the ice. The difference with me is, I'm not dependent on or fazed by shots on goal and other mostly useless stats. They make no difference, because for one thing, we outplayed them even if it means our goaltender badly outplayed theirs...last I checked, Halak is part of the team. Why is it baseball teams aren't belittled for having superhuman pitching? Same difference in my opinion. So if you use logic, which you've carved out your niche here on, logic says: The Habs are a hockey team, Halak is a Hab, Halak stoned the Pens, therefore the Habs stoned the Pens .

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan View Post
I'm not sure I agree -- and I fail to see what this has to do with the matter at hand anyway. I do know that without the science geeks, we wouldn't be having this conversation on the Internet, or a whole lot of real technological progress for that matter.
Yes...I know. I have a diploma of technology in computer systems from BCIT...Trust me, I fully understand the impact of technology....btw, know how to calculate the address space on a... ? I'm getting a migraine just thing about it, lol.

That said, I know from experience that instincts, confidence, attitude, fear, intimidation and other intagibles are as important, if not more important, than statistics, odds and such as far as human competition goes...whether it be a hockey game or a survival game of life or death. That simply, was my point.

LesCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:03 PM
  #450
guest1467
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 24,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
While you all have valid points, you are all somewhat guilty of mob mentality here and just piling on him by completely rejecting any validity in what he has to say with regards to the fact that patterns in stats DO often correct misconceptions that your eyes can lead you to. I have seen very few *if any* posters even recognize an iota of truth/validity in what he's saying. In fact, most have resorted to the pedestrian "stats are dumb and don't tell the whole story, so you're wrong" response.

I anticipate lots of flaming in response, but it's not like I have any particular love for the guy or anything.
I don't think anyone is falling to the trap of "mob mentality" here. Its pretty alarming when copious amounts of people jump on someone for pretty much the same reasons. MathMan, as a HABS fan has discredited any credit of Martin, and the team as whole and placed it solely on Halak and luck, you would be hard pressed to find a majority of Habs fans that would agree with the assessment, and rightfully so.

guest1467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.