NHL

[alanschu]

maybe, maybe not. that the blues bested them 4-2 just 20 days ago, however, is telling, and at this point, 4-1 would be a rout given that information.

 

The Canucks beat the Blues 3-0 just 30 days ago. The other time St. Louis beat the Canucks, Jason Labarbera was in net.

 

 

The other stuff I posted was to demonstrate that what happens in the regular season doesn't necessarily have much of an indication of what has happened in the playoffs. The head to head matchup had Cleveland spanking Chicago. The head to head matchup had Detroit spanking Edmonton.

my only point with this is that those cases have no bearing on THIS case.

 

Only because you don't want it to - I obviously feel that St. Louis will be similar. The point is, history has several examples of teams going into matchups with big advantages on paper, only to have the outcome of the series go to the other team. The second hottest team in the league over the time St. Louis was #1 was the Vancouver Canucks.

 

Because Edmonton beat Detroit doesn't guarantee that St. Louis won't win. I bring up these examples (also, Detroit beat Edmonton twice during their 20 game point streak to finish up the 2006 season) because it shows that just as easily, St. Louis' regular season finish doesn't preclude them having success in the post season either.

[mkreku]

Solid first period between Washington and the Rangers. Ovechkin is as fun to watch as usual. In between scoring chances, he's bulldozing his opponents with fantastic hits. Lundqvist has started off strong and is looking as good as he can be. No goals so far.

 

If only I wasn't so tired..

[alanschu]

Nice little play by Mottau to get the first goal for New Jersey.

 

 

EDIT: I thought Tambellini's press conference was a good one.

Edited April 16, 2009 by alanschu

[mkreku]

Ovechkin solved Lundqvist!!

 

Edit: And Gomez immediately answers with one of his own! Great game so far!

Edited April 16, 2009 by mkreku

[Volourn]

Lunqvist > Theodore

 

Avery > DALLAS WUSSIES + ALL CRYBABIES

[Deraldin]

Lunqvist > Theodore

 

Has anyone ever said otherwise?

 

My teams are 0/3 tonight so far. Come on Vancouver!

[Volourn]

"Has anyone ever said otherwise?"

 

Then why whine about it?

 

Just because I posted soemthing doesn't mean its argumentative. Not all posts are directed at individuals.

 

Again, if I'm not quoting someone or mention someone by name, don't worry about.

 

P.S. King Lundqvist rules!

[Deraldin]

Wow, Chris Mason has an awesome playoff beard!

[alanschu]

He must have had a head start!

 

 

Volo: I think it's just that your statement is like saying the Sun is hot haha.

[Deraldin]

He must have had a head start!

 

 

Volo: I think it's just that your statement is like saying the Sun is hot haha.

 

Someone made some comment that he started it 2 months ago, because that was when the Blues needed to start playing playoff hockey.

[alanschu]

Haha.

 

I only caught the first period of the Canucks-Blues, but it looked like a pretty intense game.

 

Washington-New York was a gooder for sure.

 

 

As I kind of suspected New Jersey had their way with Carolina.

[taks]

Only because you don't want it to - I obviously feel that St. Louis will be similar. The point is, history has several examples of teams going into matchups with big advantages on paper, only to have the outcome of the series go to the other team. The second hottest team in the league over the time St. Louis was #1 was the Vancouver Canucks.

no, not because i don't want it to, because history does not have a memory like you are assuming. what has happened in the past has no bearing in any way shape or form on this series, period. really, tell me how any previous game between other teams has any influence on these two teams - it's not like there's some cosmic connection and the hockey gods know that such things must come to pass?

 

btw, st. louis does not have any advantage on paper, nor did i ever imply as much (just that they've been hot), so that point is lost, too.

 

overall, they played pretty evenly tonight, and it was a good game. i watched it on versus HD. mason missed the pass on the first goal, and got screwed on the deflection for the second. the blues had too many shots in luongo's chest to even the game out in terms of scores. even a bad goalie can stop it when you put it in his chest. dang. all three scores, btw, were during a man advantage (even the first because of the delayed penalty vancouver had pulled luongo).

 

taks

[alanschu]

no, not because i don't want it to, because history does not have a memory like you are assuming. what has happened in the past has no bearing in any way shape or form on this series, period. really, tell me how any previous game between other teams has any influence on these two teams - it's not like there's some cosmic connection and the hockey gods know that such things must come to pass? wink.gif

 

 

All it shows is that it's not uncommon for teams that do well in the regular season to have completely different results in the postseason. Sorry I'm picking on your team, but you're starting to be obtuse now. You made a claim, and I provided previous examples that counteracted your claim (citing that a team that goes into the playoffs hot need not necessarily do well in the post-season) that led to me drawing my conclusion. Closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going "lalalalalalalalalalala" doesn't dispute the information for why I drew my conclusion.

 

Hockey games are all individual, and on any given night any team can beat another team. The fact that St. Louis finished the season very strong isn't lost on me. I don't think they'll carry it over into the postseason. Given history, it's not exactly like I am making an off the wall decision here, given that there's been plenty of examples of teams that were significantly better than this St. Louis Blues team that lost to teams I would consider inferior to these Vancouver Canucks, despite having better records against these teams and hot play down the stretch of the regular season. I provided two examples (one from Hockey and one from Basketball) to illustrate that it is, in fact, possible for a hot team (or a team that dominated another team during the regular season) to lose in a playoff series. If you're not happy with the rationale for why I based my decision, then that is your problem.

 

Quite frankly, I am done discussing this. Enjoy the rest of the playoffs.

Edited April 16, 2009 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

I remember when St. Louis won the President's trophy and the Sharks knocked them out in the first round. A Blues defenseman actually threw the puck in his own net at one point.

 

I was scared to death that the Blues would finish 8th and return the favor to San Jose this year. Thankfully they are only playing the team that won the Cup a couple years ago. Oddly enough, Pronger has played against San Jose quite a bit in the playoffs in all three jerseys he has worn in the NHL.

[alanschu]

Pronger also played for Hartford

 

 

EDIT: I remember that season. Pronger's MVP season where he finished +52. That Blues team was scary good. San Jose shocked them by going up 3-1 in the series though.

Edited April 16, 2009 by alanschu

[Volourn]

"Volo: I think it's just that your statement is like saying the Sun is hot haha."

 

Touche.

[taks]

All it shows is that it's not uncommon for teams that do well in the regular season to have completely different results in the postseason.

which i've never disagreed with. that doesn't change the fact that it doesn't matter.

 

Sorry I'm picking on your team, but you're starting to be obtuse now.

i couldn't care less that you're picking on the blues. i already said i doubt they'll win. you seem to think that past examples somehow shed some obscure light on this situation, which clearly is not true.

 

You made a claim, and I provided previous examples that counteracted your claim (citing that a team that goes into the playoffs hot need not necessarily do well in the post-season) that led to me drawing my conclusion.

all i ever said was that previous examples have no bearing on this case, which is a true statement.

 

Closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and going "lalalalalalalalalalala" doesn't dispute the information for why I drew my conclusion.

now you're simply making things up. all i said is that other examples have nothing to do with this one.

 

Hockey games are all individual, and on any given night any team can beat another team.

no kidding. as such, no other series has any bearing on this one. that's all i've said.

 

nothing personal, but i have always found it humorous that people are willing to look at the statistics from unrelated contests, and perhaps even the oddball flukes in which the heavily favored teams lose, or the underdog pulls it off, as justification that "it's happened before, it can happen again." what happened in the past is irrelevant to what is happening now unless you compare the same teams in a reasonable time frame (teams change fairly rapidly). there is no "memory" to influence the outcome other than fan support (i'm sure it hurt the aints when people showed up wearing unknown comic bags over their heads), and that gets lost on the split between sites anyway. most people don't understand why doing so is nonsensical.

 

that is the only reason i took issue with your statements. quite frankly, it surprised me that you of all people would make such comparisons given what i know of your technical background. sorry if you took offense, it was not meant to be offending.

 

taks

[taks]

I remember when St. Louis won the President's trophy and the Sharks knocked them out in the first round. A Blues defenseman actually threw the puck in his own net at one point.

i think i threw a puck at the tv. yeah, that one hurt real bad. 114 points that season. of course, 114 points after they started this 1 point for an OTL crap doesn't mean as much, but if you take away half their OTL points, i think they still ended up around 105 or so, which still ain't too shabby.

 

i'm just glad i don't root for the avalanche, btw. that would suck.

 

taks

[alanschu]

Well it seems I'm not done with this. You asked my why I feel they'll lose in 5. I gave my explanation. I don't think they'll do well. I've seen teams that went hot into the playoffs lose in the first round, and I believe St. Louis will be the same.

 

Then you decided to go and say "oh it surprised me that you of all people."

 

Here's a question for you. What does St. Louis' hot play down the stretch have to do with anything? I see no precedent that it's an indicator of post-season success. What does St. Louis going 2-2 against Vancouver in the regular season have to do with anything? Is there a precedent that regular season success has a bearing on success in a playoff series?

 

You want to play the "oh it surprised me card?" I considered saying the same thing to you. I presented my case, citing evidence of other teams that had similar hot streaks as a way of substantiating my position. All you said was "Hey they finished the regular season strong." So what? Many teams have finished the regular season strong. I can only assume that you're making the assertion that "teams that finish the regular season strong will do well in the playoffs." Otherwise why bother saying it? I provided a counterpoint, that teams can indeed finish the regular season strong, and still do poorly in the playoffs. At least I supported my statement with actual data, which I would have expected someone of your technical background to have appreciated. Instead it's you reiterating "Oh well they did well against Vancouver, including beating them 4-2 in their most recent game. They're also hot down the stretch." All I have to say is "So what?" I provided actual data indicating that that's not a very strong predictor. All you've said is "nah doesn't matter in this case." Why not?

 

 

Unless I am mistaken, you claimed that St. Louis finishing the regular season hot and having an even 2-2 record against Vancouver as a predictor for the series being a close one right? Am I correct in this assumption? How the **** is your assumption and use of predictors valid, but my counterpoints asserting, based on ACTUAL DATA, that your predictors are in fact poor ones, somehow invalid? If I remember correctly, you're an engineer. If someone in your field makes a claim indicating some type of possible predictor of an outcome in some situation, and you yourself present a host of data that shows similar situations where the claimant's supposed predictors were incorrect, you'd accept a response that goes "well those are different situations." Your claims of a hot end to this season, in addition to an even matchup during the regular season, would be excellent predictors if there wasn't a host of data that contradicted them.

 

 

 

As for the "technical background" shot, this IS technical background. Machine Learning is all about looking at past data and trying to make a prediction. You made claims based on this season and made predictions based on it. I found examples based on your prediction criteria that proved a counterpoint to your claim. By stating "oh well that doesn't mean anything in this case" is patently absurd, and you basically just told an entire field of Artificial Intelligence research that their entire foundation for making predictions about future events has no bearing on anything. If you're not going to look at empirical data to make your predictions, then what is the point? The fact that you've caught 1000 Salmon in a particular fishing area, and only 3 Cod, has no bearing on what the fish caught is going to be. But you sure as **** can make a pretty decent prediction on what the next fish caught will actually be. Is it perfect? No. Predictive measures rarely are, unless you've determined a specific causal relationship.

Edited April 16, 2009 by alanschu

[mkreku]

Lundqvist totally stole that game. Of course, I went to bed when it was 3-3 because I couldn't keep my eyes open

[taks]

I don't think they'll do well.

that's fine. all you needed to say. instead you offer up some nonsense about past instances completely unrelated to this series.

 

Then you decided to go and say "oh it surprised me that you of all people."

yeah, you should understand that two independent events do not influence each other.

 

Here's a question for you. What does St. Louis' hot play down the stretch have to do with anything? I see no precedent that it's an indicator of post-season success.

no, it is an indicator that they are playing well. the team that murray put together finally gelled. the goalie situation finally resolved itself. that is relevant.

 

What does St. Louis going 2-2 against Vancouver in the regular season have to do with anything? Is there a precedent that regular season success has a bearing on success in a playoff series?

it's an indicator that they are two evenly matched teams, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I presented my case, citing evidence of other teams that had similar hot streaks as a way of substantiating my position.

you cited independent events, alanschu.

 

How the **** is your assumption and use of predictors valid, but my counterpoints asserting, based on ACTUAL DATA, that your predictors are in fact poor ones, somehow invalid?

because my "predictors" actually a) involve the two teams in this series and b) regard the current playing level of both teams. yours were events independent of the current situation. how can you not see this? do you think there is a such thing as fate that drives team scores? silly notion, alanschu. that's why i was surprised.

 

As for the "technical background" shot, this IS technical background.

yes, and i figured you would understand for two independent events A and B, P(A|B) = P(A). in other words, two other teams playing at two other times has no causal effect on two teams playing today.

 

as an engineer, i do understand this. i figured you would, too, sorry.

 

taks

 

edit: the only point i ever made, which you took exception to, is that precedents are meaningless. if you cannot understand why this is there's nothing more you can ever understand about my point. i don't really understand why you got so bent out of shape about that simple truth.

Edited April 16, 2009 by taks

[Volourn]

"Lundqvist totally stole that game"

 

Nah. More like Theodore threw it away. Lunqvist had an aweosme 1st period; but he was merely okay in the last two periods. But, Theodore was just plain crap.

[alanschu]

that's fine. all you needed to say. instead you offer up some nonsense about past instances completely unrelated to this series.

 

It clearly isn't all I needed to say, because you challenged my prediction from the get go. I didn't offer up some nonsense about past instances completely unrelated to the series for nothing. I brought them up in response to your points about hot finishes and regular season success, which you brought up first when you said: "not sure how you come up with that. they were 2-2 against each other during the season, and the blues are going in to this round on a serious hot streak." All I did was point out that the arguments you used to challenge my initial claim weren't solid. Had you never brought them up, I would have never bothered discussing the past. When you decided to state that there was "no evidence vancouver is capable of a 4-1 rout over st. louis after only going 2-2 in regular season play (the last time they played, the blues won 4-2). winning, yes, but 4-1, low probability, particularly given how hot the blues have been in the past two months," I provided examples of teams that done just that.

 

no, it is an indicator that they are playing well. the team that murray put together finally gelled. the goalie situation finally resolved itself. that is relevant.

 

So they played well in the regular season. Regular season is independent of the playoffs. If they only played the Vancouver Canucks during their hot streak it'd mean something, but they didn't. The fact that St. Louis beat Columbus (or any other team) down the stretch is independent of how well they may or may not do against the Vancouver Canucks.

 

 

it's an indicator that they are two evenly matched teams, nothing more, nothing less.

 

A poor one. All it means is during the regular season each team won two games. Given that there's random variance from the fact that, on any given night one team is (and without equal probability) able to beat another team in the NHL makes this indicator a weak one at best. I could cite several examples from the past, but you seem intent on ignoring history.

 

you cited independent events, alanschu.

 

I demonstrated that the indicators you used to predict post-season success are not particularly good ones. I used actual data to support my conclusion. You have nothing.

 

 

because my "predictors" actually a) involve the two teams in this series and b) regard the current playing level of both teams. yours were events independent of the current situation. how can you not see this? do you think there is a such thing as fate that drives team scores? silly notion, alanschu. that's why i was surprised.

 

You're grasping at straws if you think that I feel that fate drives the teams scores. I feel that St. Louis success down the stretch is irrelevant. My support for feeling this way is that it's not an uncommon occurrence in sports. I made a prediction. Could I be wrong? Yes. Of course the two teams are still going to have to play each other and my prediction can be entirely wrong. But my skepticism of the Blues' late season regular season success is substantiated. Does this guarantee that St. Louis will lose in 5. Of course not. If you thought I was saying this, then I don't know what to say.

 

 

yes, and i figured you would understand for two independent events A and B, P(A|B) = P(A). in other words, two other teams playing at two other times has no causal effect on two teams playing today.

 

as an engineer, i do understand this. i figured you would, too, sorry.

 

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.

 

Lets look at what you said this post: "it is an indicator that they are playing well. the team that murray put together finally gelled"

 

By my interpretation, you seem to be concluding that P(7 Game series | Strong Regular Season Finish) > P(Blues Losing in 5 | Strong Regular Season Finish). The only reason you can draw this conclusion is based on a belief that strong ends to regular seasons predict better playoff performance. Now imagine this hypothetical example: If I were to show you that 100% of the time prior to this series, of a large sample size, teams that finished strong in the regular season did poorly in the playoffs and lost in 4 or 5 games to their first round opponent, would you still sit there and go "well, those are independent events" when making your prediction? Sure, it's POSSIBLE that they'd do differently, because as you say there's no causal relationship and as I have said, at any given time one team can beat another team (with unequal probabilities). But I have a sneaking suspicion you'd be less willing to challenge my assertion that St. Louis would lose in 5 games, given that every other time this situation has happened has resulted in the team losing in 4 or 5 games. (To reiterate, hypothetical example, used to demonstrate how people can, and do, use past events to predict future ones). I'd be surprised if you didn't have more conviction if I showed that 100% of the time, teams with hot finishes did well in the playoffs.

 

 

the only point i ever made, which you took exception to, is that precedents are meaningless. if you cannot understand why this is there's nothing more you can ever understand about my point. i don't really understand why you got so bent out of shape about that simple truth.

 

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. Then take a look at Machine Learning and how it is used to predict independent events based on previously recorded data. You seem to be foolish enough to think that I was implying a causal relationship...that because Detroit lost to Edmonton in spite of a hot finish and a better regular season record, then therefore St. Louis MUST lose to Vancouver. I said no such thing. I cited such examples because they undermine the assertion that you made regarding the team playing well and the effect you feel that they will do better in the playoffs than I predict.

 

I never went P(St. Louis Losing now | Detroit Losing in 2006) or P(St. Louis Losing now | Cleveland losing in 1989). Of course that's independent and of course that's abusrd. I went P(St. Louis Losing now | a hot regular season finish). If you truly believed that P(St. Louis losing now | a hot regular season finish) = P(St. Louis losing now) [i.e. that they are independent events], you would have never mentioned it.

 

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

Edited April 16, 2009 by alanschu

[mkreku]

Hmm, Red Wings aren't looking as dominant as they probably should. Columbus are playing good so far.

 

Edit: Haha, 15 seconds after I posted that, Red Wings score!

 

Edit 2: Aha! Columbus scores! Told you they're playing good!

 

Edit 3: Holy crap, they needed like 5 seconds on the power play to score 3-1! Fantastic powerplay!

Edited April 17, 2009 by mkreku

[alanschu]

LOL.

 

I'm working on a paper at the moment so can't watch much for sports