Nov 5th - You guys won in shootout (Sabres 2 points - Sens 1 point)
Nov 11th - You guys win in regulation (Sabres 4 points - Sens 1 point)
Dec 13th - Sens win in OT (Sabres 5 points - Sens 3 points)
Dec 20th - Sens win in regulation (Sabres 5 points - Sens 5 points)
Dec 31st - Sens win in shootout (Sabres 6 points - Sens 7 points)
March 10th - Sabres win in Shootout (Sabres 8 points - Sens 8 points)
Oh, never mind then.... but then it would go to the goal differential, and the Sens edge Sabres in that category.
I am beginning to think a loss tonight in Toronto could be best--at least for my nerves. Just get it over with.
We lose a shocker in regulation tonight and we're cooked. If that's going to happen anyway, almost better to do it now than on the last day of the season in Boston.
I'd like to see it and I can't imagine that's correct. With all the number geeks that each team employs, I would surmise that the coaches would take every possible statistical advantage available to them. You're essentially asserting that 30 coaches are knowingly going against the numbers. Again, I can't imagine that to be true.
Lindy was quoted in an article just two weeks ago as saying he doesn't even think about it. They're not knowingly going against the numbers, they just don't know what the numbers are. Or care.
The NHL is old-school. Embracing stats just isn't something they do. Brian Burke said it himself at the MIT-Sloan Analytics conference a couple of years ago.
Quote:
Home teams have the choice to shoot first or last and most go first. Sabres coach Lindy Ruff was one of the first to go with that exclusively when given the option a few years ago.
"I like to try to apply the pressure to the other team. Get the first goal," Ruff said Friday. "I think I've done it once where I let the other team shoot first. It might come to just switching things up though. I've thought about letting the other team go. I've thought about standing on my head behind the bench too."
"I had no idea about those numbers," said captain Jason Pominville, one of Buffalo's regular shooters. "I don't know why we always shoot first. I never really thought about it. I don't know if there's a difference. The coaches made the choice early on, we stuck with it and every team kind of follows that way of doing it."
Nov 5th - You guys won in shootout (Sabres 2 points - Sens 1 point)
Nov 11th - You guys win in regulation (Sabres 4 points - Sens 1 point)
Dec 13th - Sens win in OT (Sabres 5 points - Sens 3 points)
Dec 20th - Sens win in regulation (Sabres 5 points - Sens 5 points)
Dec 31st - Sens win in shootout (Sabres 6 points - Sens 7 points)
March 10th - Sabres win in Shootout (Sabres 8 points - Sens 8 points)
Next tiebreaker after that is goal differential, and Ottawa leads in that category by 20.
Buffalo would need to gain an average of +5 goal differential versus Ottawa in its remaining 4 games to catch up. Seems unlikely.
ESPN did a 30 second piece on the Sabres-Penguins game this morning. The headline was, "Crosby scores." They showed 4 of the Penguins goals, and none of the Sabres. I'm not even sure they said the Sabres' name....
Lindy was quoted in an article just two weeks ago as saying he doesn't even think about it. They're not knowingly going against the numbers, they just don't know what the numbers are. Or care.
If Lindy doesn't ever think about it, who's to say nobody else does either?
I think Lindy has it exactly wrong. The shooter has the statistically tougher job. Put the pressure on the other team's shooter when he goes first.
By the same token, you take pressure of your shooter when he goes second, assuming the opposing first shooter does not score. Which more often than not, he will not.
You get "last ups" in baseball for strategy reasons.... no strategy in shootout ....
All you're doing is trying to put pressure on the opposing team by scoring first.
Roymustgo is exactly right. In THEORY, you shoot first to "put the pressure on the other team."
Here's the problem - in the NHL, the goalie makes a save roughly 70% of the time on average. Thus, by shooting first, the numbers say that, on average, you are not putting pressure on the other team and are, in fact, putting pressure on yourself. It's stupid.
Roymustgo is exactly right. In THEORY, you shoot first to "put the pressure on the other team."
Here's the problem - in the NHL, the goalie makes a save roughly 70% of the time on average if you just want to reduce it to independent trials. Thus, by shooting first, the numbers say that, on average, you are not putting pressure on the other team and are, in fact, putting pressure on yourself. It's stupid.
How? Following your logic, your goaltender, on average, will stop the opponent's first shooter, as well. I'm in the process of finding out whether the team shooting first wins more, but I know I've heard PxP guys saying that the teams who shoot first have won a majority of shootouts this season.
You clearly have strong subjective feelings on the matter. But if the objective numbers say the team shooting first wins 54% of the time--and that's the number I recall hearing a couple weeks ago--then you shoot first. Period.
How? Following your logic, your goaltender, on average, will stop the opponent's first shooter, as well. I'm in the process of finding out whether the team shooting first wins more, but I know I've heard PxP guys saying that the teams who shoot first have won a majority of shootouts this season.
You clearly have strong subjective feelings on the matter. But if the objective numbers say the team shooting first wins 54% of the time--and that's the number I recall hearing a couple weeks ago--then you shoot first. Period.
Agreed. If that's now the number, you go with it.
Keep in mind though, in order to conduct a scientifically valid analysis, you should ONLY include cases where the home team chooses to shoot first. If the home team chooses to shoot second and the road team, shooting first, wins, that isn't really helpful in our analysis, as the circumstances are different and we can't isolate the causality.
ESPN did a 30 second piece on the Sabres-Penguins game this morning. The headline was, "Crosby scores." They showed 4 of the Penguins goals, and none of the Sabres. I'm not even sure they said the Sabres' name....
It's disgusting, honestly.
Sportscenter was the exact same.. I guess it is what it is
How? Following your logic, your goaltender, on average, will stop the opponent's first shooter, as well. I'm in the process of finding out whether the team shooting first wins more, but I know I've heard PxP guys saying that the teams who shoot first have won a majority of shootouts this season.
You clearly have strong subjective feelings on the matter. But if the objective numbers say the team shooting first wins 54% of the time--and that's the number I recall hearing a couple weeks ago--then you shoot first. Period.
Exactly this.
But as a fan ... I don't care if my team shoots first or not.
End of the day.. you have to beat their goaltender more then they
beat yours. I think people overthink this issue way too much.
ESPN did a 30 second piece on the Sabres-Penguins game this morning. The headline was, "Crosby scores." They showed 4 of the Penguins goals, and none of the Sabres. I'm not even sure they said the Sabres' name....
It's disgusting, honestly.
It's not just in the States.
Ottawa finally got the national game on HNIC a week ago over Toronto or Montreal.
I'm fairly sure that I've heard a statistic regarding shooting second that suggests some sort of difference. It was something like 60-40, which is outrageous.
Sportscenter was the exact same.. I guess it is what it is
I find for most sports except for big games or the case of big stars on both teams, when they go through their highlight package they tend to only show the winning team scoring/saving/doing something good.
Exceptions are for big stars on both sides, history making things sometimes, really close games sometimes, top-10 (or not top-10) worthy plays and football.
If the data clearly shows that one method has a significant increase in win odds over the other, that absolutely needs to be taken into consideration.
And that's the case for everybody, not just those who are pro-sports analytics.
Not really.
Because everyone gets the same opportunities .. no matter what.
There is absolutely no strategy in shootouts. Except for a coach
choosing who shoots...and that has no bearing on this issue.
Like i said.. the only factor that could be determined is "pressure" and there is no scientific way to determine the pressure felt by each
player. It's basically a crap shoot.
Because everyone gets the same opportunities .. no matter what.
There is absolutely no strategy in shootouts. Except for a coach
choosing who shoots...and that has no bearing on this issue.
Like i said.. the only factor that could be determined is "pressure" and there is no scientific way to determine the pressure felt by each
player. It's basically a crap shoot.
If it's scientifically determined that *something* is affecting these players enough to throw off the apparently even chances, why not go with what seems to have the advantage?
If it's scientifically determined that *something* is affecting these players enough to throw off the apparently even chances, why not go with what seems to have the advantage?
How do you determine scientifically that something is affecting the players?
? not one of them?
