NHL

[Deraldin]

*grumble grumble*

 

Boston beat Montreal 4-2 tonight. Chara broke a 2-2 tie about 12 minutes into the third on a power play goal. Kessel scored an empty netter from Lucic with 13 seconds left. Boston had control for much of the first period, but Montreal fought back and it was pretty even through much of the second and third.

[alanschu]

Chicago wasting no time in the overtime period. Woo!

 

Some chippiness at the end of the Boston Montreal game.

 

 

Detroit is a pretty good team too I hear.

 

Oh and Hurlshot, you'll be happy to know I am pulling for your Sharks

[alanschu]

Ooo I think that that was a pretty poor decision by Cheechoo to make that desperate dive for the puck so far away from your own zone. They got nipped for it too.

 

I've been really impressed with San Jose's stick work though. They seem to do a good job of keeping the Anaheim players from doing much with it, especially when in the Anaheim defensive zone.

 

Been a good game to watch for sure.

[Hurlshort]

Ugh, Hiller is playing extremely good. The Sharks also aren't passing crisply enough, especially on the powerplay. Well, hopefully the offense will show up in the second game.

[alanschu]

Excellent game by Hiller and solid penalty killing by Anaheim.

 

It's funny because I thought to myself "Hmmm, I could see Getzlaf being the type of guy to score coming out of the penalty box" and then he does

 

 

Good game though.

[Hurlshort]

The Ducks have a few guys that are absolute snipers. I was really underwhelmed by the Sharks shooting, every shot was low and very few had much power behind them. A few young guys seemed to be gripping the stick a bit too tightly, I suppose. Boyle rang a nice one off the post.

[alanschu]

That was a sweet play by Boyle to take it in for that shot. A few beat Hiller, but rang off the iron.

 

 

Getzlaf's shot was just amazing though. So fast and so perfect, just off the inside of the post.

[alanschu]

HAHAHA

 

[Kor Qel Droma]

That second one was hilarious.

[alanschu]

A lot of people are making a big deal about the OT game winner for Chicago.

 

Am I the only one that thought that the interference was minimal, in large part due to Leopold bumping the player, in addition to Kipprusoff trying to sell it a bit?

[alanschu]

Nice goal by Bill Guerin and tough break for the Devils, though the 'Canes were totally dominating that overtime.

[Deraldin]

Better night tonight for me. 2-1, but Philadelphia needs to step it up a tad.

[alanschu]

Wow what a dirty, dirty play by Bieksa at the end of the game. Total intentional trip on the player at the end of the game.

[Deraldin]

Wow what a dirty, dirty play by Bieksa at the end of the game. Total intentional trip on the player at the end of the game.

Agreed. It wasn't even slightly justifiable. There was like three seconds left on the clock and he jams his stick under the other guy's skate. Totally uncalled for.

[alanschu]

Ooo, wasn't expecting the Rangers to be up 2-0 in the series for sure.

[taks]

I could cite several examples from the past, but you seem intent on ignoring history.

because history is immaterial.

 

I demonstrated that the indicators you used to predict post-season success are not particularly good ones.

my "predictors" weren't predictors, only an assessment of how well the teams match up now.

 

I used actual data to support my conclusion.

no, you used past examples that have no bearing on this series.

 

Stop! I cannot honestly believe you think I feel there's a CAUSAL relationship between other teams playing and two teams playing now. It has as much causal effect as St. Louis winning the last game 4-2, and as much causal effect as St. Louis playing well down the stretch. There fact that Vancouver lost 4-2 in their last game (you were pretty quick to ignore that just 10 days earlier, Vancouver won 3-0 btw) has little bearing on these playoff games.

so, wait a minute, you admit the events are independent, yet somehow they are also relevant? take your pick, alanschu, either they are causally related or independent. there's no in-between. if they are independent, then you have no case.

 

oh, and for the record, i did not "ignore" the 3-0 loss 10 days prior to the last (it was actually 7). i clearly stated they went 2-2 on the whole season, and just that the last game they played the blues won. nothing more, nothing less.

 

Because it's not the truth, unless you're misreading what I am saying. Quite frankly, you're wrong, but you're just being stubborn about it.

no, i don't think you understand that if there is no causal relationship, i.e., the events are independent, then they have no influence on the outcome and are thus meaningless. i'm not wrong. it's a pretty easy definition to find on the web or in any freshman statistics book. no causal relationship = independent. i'm stubborn because i'm right about this point and you keep contradicting yourself.

 

But if you're willing to claim that past events are meaningless, I'd love to see you argue that at a AAAI conference on Machine Learning.

you mean, in a situation in which there is a causal relationship? c'mon, alanschu, you keep contradicting yourself. apples and oranges, dude.

 

If you catch 1000 fish, 999 of them are Salmon and 1 of them are Cod, you can make a pretty solid prediction of what the next fish caught will be.

your example here is about a statistical relationship, i.e., P(salmon) = 0.999. you cannot extrapolate such a relationship to your argument about history in sports (and, for the record, at least one of your predictors was the opposite, i.e., that a favored team ended up losing in spite of having the high probability).

 

two teams playing each other does not have any statistical relationship connected to past events OTHER than their own, current, playing statistics. past statistics of other teams means nothing with few exceptions, e.g., a team that is down 3-0 has a low probability of winning (and the blues being down 2-0 doesn't help their cause, either). however, that's not because of past statistics, that's because the team down 3-0 is more than likely outmatched currently. for the record, if the blues lose their first home game, it would indicate as such. they, like vancouver, play much better at home, so i'm expecting a good game (didn't get to watch last night, playing pool).

 

Does it guarantee that you're prediction will be right? Of course not. I made no such claim that it would.

actually, it depends. and actually #2, you did make a claim that past occurences somehow have an effect on the current series.

 

taks

Edited April 18, 2009 by taks

[Hurlshort]

Hiller is killing me! He's standing on his head, the Sharks are doing everything they need to do to win the game and it is still 1-1.

[Krookie]

OFF THE POST, NOOOOOOOO

[Hurlshort]

I really don't know what to say. The Sharks just look broken. They have too much talent to look too bad out there, but there is definitely something wrong. It's been evident in the last 20 games of the season, it's like their offense has just stopped clicking. The first half of the season was phenomenal, the passes were crisp, the shots were on target, the movement was perfect. Now it's just a hair off, more shots missing the net, guys aren't connecting on passes.

 

I'm sure Anaheim deserves some credit, but they doubled the shot totals of the Ducks in the last two games. You'd think they would at least split the series.

[Oerwinde]

The 'nucks are looking good, maybe they'll make it past the 2nd round this year.

[alanschu]

San Jose is really going to be feeling the pressure now. I wonder if they're going to make changes if they can't get deep into the playoffs.

 

Vancouver has a stranglehold on their series for sure. It's looking like the other Western Canadian team is destined for an early playoff exit. Rumors are that Keenan will get the axe if that's the case.

[Volourn]

As much as I like Keenan, if they can't beat the Hawks, he should be fired. No excuse for losing to Chicago. Hawks have some talent but they are a newbie team to the playoffs basically, and Keenan has a great team.

[alanschu]

I know Calgary has some injury woes and I'm not sure I agree that Calgary has a "great" team, but I did expect more of a fight. There's something off with the Flames organization as I know they were so far up against the cap they couldn't call players up and were limited to dressing 15 skaters for their last games.

 

Youth certainly does seem to be an issue for the playoffs, which was my primary reason for picking Vancouver above St. Louis. Chicago, however, I feel has enough talent to make a bit of noise these playoffs, which is why I picked them over Calgary. I am a big fan of Jonathan Toews.

 

 

Having said that, I do agree that this year will be a disappointment for Calgary if they don't make it past the first round. Though it's Keenan's second year, so it's possible management might consider some roster moves instead. Though coaches are usually the first to go.

Edited April 20, 2009 by alanschu

[mkreku]

No pressure, Ovechkin, but.. It's basically a must-win tonight and you haven't scored yet. Lundqvist has your number. Yeah, no pressure.

[mkreku]

Letting Ovechkin and Semin play on the same line so far seems like a stroke of genius. The Rangers just could not contain those two guys at the same time in period one. Let's see what they bring to period two.