I don't buy into chance or even the law of averages.

Look at our Power-Play. I don't think we are ever "due" for one. It's completely up in the air with each new opportunity. Same thing with the Cup. No one is ever "due" or "owed" via some otherworldly force.

I don't buy into chance or even the law of averages.

Look at our Power-Play. I don't think we are ever "due" for one. It's completely up in the air with each new opportunity. Same thing with the Cup. No one is ever "due" or "owed" via some otherworldly force.

This.

Everytime I hear about bounces or being due, it hits a nerve. Good teams dont wait for random chances, they make them.

I havent seen any improvement whatsoever in this team in the past couple of years. Power play and offense still sucks ****. And every time this team does give me hope, they drop a **** game like they did last night. How exactly can I have ANY hope?

I don't think you know what the word "Superstition" means...

Someone that is basing the outcome of a game on the ancient history of an 80 year old franchise and whose argument is "if history didn't matter, they would have won one by now", is in no position to lecture me on anything and insult my intelligence.

I don't buy into chance or even the law of averages.

Look at our Power-Play. I don't think we are ever "due" for one. It's completely up in the air with each new opportunity. Same thing with the Cup. No one is ever "due" or "owed" via some otherworldly force.

That's true in a way, however the more opportunities you get on the powerplay the higher the chances that you will eventually score are. You're not "due", but the chances of you not scoring go down.

Here's a couple of math exercises to consider:

Say you have a terrible PP that only has a 10% chance of scoring. This is not perfect since there are so many factors that go in to scoring on PP. Just because you have up to that point had 10% success rate DOESN'T mean that you have a 10% chance to score on a given PP. However, just to make it simple we'll use a terrible PP that has a 10% chance of scoring. A simple exercise to show that the more PPs you get the better chance you have of scoring.

Say you have 9 PPs. The chances of you not scoring in this flawed example are 0.9 (10% chance of scoring, 90% chance of failure) to the power of 9. That's about 39%. The chances of you not scoring if there are 10 PPs are about 35%. Not a huge difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Now, here's the thing, 35% is still the highest possible outcome of all possible individual outcomes. Basically that's still higher odds than say not scoring on the first 9 and scoring on the last one. However, when you consider how many different possible outcomes there are it's really a small chance. There are 2 to the power of 10 possible outcomes, that's 1,024. So the other 1,023 possible outcomes of you not going 0 for 10 that have about a 65% chance of happening. With each successive PP the chances when taken as a whole of the possible outcome being going 0 for, decrease.

That said, if you already had 9 PPs where you didn't score a goal, then chances that you won't score on the 10th PP are still 90%, they won't decrease because of the other 9 PPs failing. Just taken as a whole, if you frame the question what is the chance of this bad PP team failing 10 straight times on the PP, the answer is worse than failing 9 straight times, and not very good.

I don't buy into chance or even the law of averages.

Look at our Power-Play. I don't think we are ever "due" for one. It's completely up in the air with each new opportunity. Same thing with the Cup. No one is ever "due" or "owed" via some otherworldly force.

That's not the same thing. A random stat like team history in game 7's is just chance, small sample size, has nothing to do with skill and is completely irrelevant to now.

Regarding the powerplay of course you're never "due" for one. You're never "due" for anything. That's just the gamblers fallacy. Our 5 on 4 powerplay for the year scored a goal approximately every 12 minutes which essentially means (if we assume this number is meaningful) that we have a 16% success rate on a regular 5 on 4 powerplay.
Thus our chance of not scoring a goal on:
1 PP = 84%
2 consecutive PP = 71%
3 consecutive PP = 59%
4 consecutive PP = 50%
5 consecutive PP = 42%
6 consecutive PP = 35%
7 consecutive PP = 30%
8 consecutive PP = 25%
9 consecutive PP = 21%
10 consecutive PP = 17%

Now versus a bad PK like the caps obviously our chances of scoring will be higher since our 16% would be in general assumed to be against the league average (or the average of the teams we faced which should come out around average).

So you can see here when given a powerplay as poor as ours if you even take a string of 10 consecutive powerplays 1 out of every 5 times we will still not score.

Now if you take a PP like the Caps who scored a PPG every 6 minutes which would equate to a 33% success ratio on full 5 on 4's

And there's nothing to buy into with chance or law of averages. It's a real thing that exists. And it's used LONG TERM. Short term it doesn't tell you much. Saying "well we haven't scored on 10 consecutive powerplays so we are due to score on one soon" is obviously incorrect and flawed logic.

edit: lol @ exact same post as the one just before me. Perhaps I need to type and compile numbers quicker.

When two events are said to be independent of each other, what this means is that the probability that one event occurs in no way affects the probability of the other event occurring. An example of two independent events is as follows; say you rolled a die and flipped a coin. The probability of getting any number face on the die in no way influences the probability of getting a head or a tail on the coin.

Because you fail on one power play, it does NOT mean the chances are better the next. At all.

We might win game 6. We won't win game 7 unless Henrik delivers a SO. We've been useless in DC. Losing my believe in this team. Hank, Steps, Brass, Zucchini and the majority of the D-men are performing. Nash, Cally, Richards, Hags etc.. I expected more.

That's not the same thing. A random stat like team history in game 7's is just chance, small sample size, and completely irrelevant to now.

Regarding the powerplay of course you're never "due" for one. You're never "due" for anything. That's just the gamblers fallacy. Our 5 on 4 powerplay for the year scored a goal approximately every 12 minutes which essentially means (if we assume this number is meaningful) that we have a 16% success rate on a regular 5 on 4 powerplay.
Thus our chance of not scoring a goal on:
1 PP = 84%
2 consecutive PP = 71%
3 consecutive PP = 59%
4 consecutive PP = 50%
5 consecutive PP = 42%
6 consecutive PP = 35%
7 consecutive PP = 30%
8 consecutive PP = 25%
9 consecutive PP = 21%
10 consecutive PP = 17%

Now versus a bad PK like the caps obviously our chances of scoring will be higher since our 16% would be in general assumed to be against the league average (or the average of the teams we faced which should come out around average).

So you can see here when given a powerplay as poor as ours if you even take a string of 10 consecutive powerplays 1 out of every 5 times we will still not score.

Now if you take a PP like the Caps who scored a PPG every 6 minutes which would equate to a 33% success ratio on full 5 on 4's

And there's nothing to buy into with chance or law of averages. It's a real thing that exists. And it's used LONG TERM. Short term it doesn't tell you much. Saying "well we haven't scored on 10 consecutive powerplays so we are due to score on one soon" is obviously incorrect and flawed logic.

Hey copycat! Pretty much said the same thing, except I used an arbitrary number. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a great way of looking at this. If the Rangers have a 20% PP for the season, I don't think that means that every PP they have they have a 20% chance of scoring on. If I go out 6 nights a week and end up getting a woman's phone numbers 3 times on average. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of getting a woman's phone's number on any given night? I'm not sure that's how it works. That said, for lack of a better method I did the same thing as you.

It's look at in the big picture. Failing on 10 consecutive PPs is less likely than failing on 9 consecutive PPs. Failing on 10 consecutive PPs is improbable. However, if you already beat the odds and failed on 9 consecutive PP, then the chances that you fail on the 10th is exactly the same as any other individual PP.

We might win game 6. We won't win game 7 unless Henrik delivers a SO. We've been useless in DC. Losing my believe in this team. Hank, Steps, Brass, Zucchini and the majority of the D-men are performing. Nash, Cally, Richards, Hags etc.. I expected more.

Hags has gotten 2G, 4Pts. He has the same point total of Nash, Richards, and Callahan, COMBINED!

Because you fail on one power play, it does NOT mean the chances are better the next. At all.

And I personally have conceded that point:

Quote:

That said, if you already had 9 PPs where you didn't score a goal, then chances that you won't score on the 10th PP are still 90%, they won't decrease because of the other 9 PPs failing

Hey copycat! Pretty much said the same thing, except I used an arbitrary number. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a great way of looking at this. If the Rangers have a 20% PP for the season, I don't think that means that every PP they have they have a 20% chance of scoring on. If I go out 6 nights a week and end up getting a woman's phone numbers 3 times on average. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of getting a woman's phone's number on any given night? I'm not sure that's how it works. That said, for lack of a better method I did the same thing as you.

See, you make a point and then instantly use an analogy which forces me to reread the post like....6 times.

Everytime I hear about bounces or being due, it hits a nerve. Good teams dont wait for random chances, they make them.

I havent seen any improvement whatsoever in this team in the past couple of years. Power play and offense still sucks ****. And every time this team does give me hope, they drop a **** game like they did last night. How exactly can I have ANY hope?

Good teams get bounces because they earn them, mediocre and bad teams count on them.

Hey copycat! Pretty much said the same thing, except I used an arbitrary number. For what it's worth, I don't think it's a great way of looking at this. If the Rangers have a 20% PP for the season, I don't think that means that every PP they have they have a 20% chance of scoring on. If I go out 6 nights a week and end up getting a woman's phone numbers 3 times on average. Does that mean that I have a 50% chance of getting a woman's phone's number on any given night? I'm not sure that's how it works. That said, for lack of a better method I did the same thing as you.

It's look at in the big picture. Failing on 10 consecutive PPs is less likely than failing on 9 consecutive PPs. Failing on 10 consecutive PPs is improbable. However, if you already beat the odds and failed on 9 consecutive PP, then the chances that you fail on the 10th is exactly the same as any other individual PP.

Well they don't have, say 20% as you said, on every individual powerplay due to factors like

1. Opposing team PK
2. Players on ice (maybe the top line was on the shift just before the penalty so we have to start with lesser guys)
3. Etc..

But longterm if you look back on the season and look at a random sample of games that's the trend you will see.

Against the Caps we should have a much better PP than usual given how awful their PK is. I mean it's been horrible but it's really been no worse than in the regular season. It's 2/21 which is obviously a real small sample but just add one more goal (say Boyles that was just as it ended) and now its 3/21 and 15% just about or above our regular season. Say we scored 2 more and its 4/21 and now its like 19%. Things change too much when the denominator is small.

Good teams get bounces because they earn them, mediocre and bad teams count on them.

Teams get bounces against us because we collapse our entire defense in front of the net so now there are like 5+ guys in front so point shots have a high likelihood of hitting something. We don't get those bounces because opposing defenses don't give us the opportunity to do that.

Teams get bounces against us because we collapse our entire defense in front of the net so now there are like 5+ guys in front so point shots have a high likelihood of hitting something. We don't get those bounces because opposing defenses don't give us the opportunity to do that.

The quote was general and not specific to the Caps.

When it comes to collapsing d you're preaching to the choir

The 2 things that make me pull what's left of my hair out watching this team is collapsing D and not driving to the net/no net front presence.