NJDevs4978 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 This. But others are SUPER confident that Theodore will start against us. lol. Right. Well Theodore IS their starting goaltender, it'd be pretty unusual for a team to open a series with the backup - unless you're the Flyers and don't have a starter to begin with in certain years. I'm sure they'd go to Clem at some point but it won't be Game 1. Game 2 probably, if they lost Game 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Again, though. You don't beat a team in 5 games without getting either phenomenal goaltending or phenomenal shooting (or both), and I don't see that much reason to expect either thing to happen. Regular season head to head records don't mean anything. That's way too simplistic, re: how 5-game series victories are recorded. It could also come down to poor shooting or execution on the other team, which means the winning team may not need to score a whole lot to win, or the opposing goaltender may not have to be at the top of his game if he's not facing a lot of prime scoring chances. And if you had had access to them at the time, you would have spat these same numbers out before that Ranger series and Flyer series, as to why the Devils probably wouldn't have lost in five. This is the problem with being over-scientific and over-reliant on data...you never account for the exceptions to the rule. And as far as the Rangers go, is it much of a stretch to think that Lundqvist could be pretty spectacular in a potential Devils-Rangers series? Or at the very least, is highly unlikely to beat himself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hey this is a forum for peoples thoughts so keep posting them, but I love how folks try to predict something. And even more so when trying to use history in their prediction. The players aren't held to history, they create history. In '95, the upstart Devils facing the Wings. Who predicted it would be a Sweep ? and for the Devils ? Devils: 22-18-8 52 points. 136 GF, 121 GA +15 goals Wings: 33-11-4 70 points 180 GF, 117 GA +63 goals Final: 4-0 Devs 16 GF, 7 GA They gotta play the games to see how it turns out. Everything before hand is just hot air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hey this is a forum for peoples thoughts so keep posting them, but I love how folks try to predict something. And even more so when trying to use history in their prediction. The players aren't held to history, they create history. In '95, the upstart Devils facing the Wings. Who predicted it would be a Sweep ? and for the Devils ? Devils: 22-18-8 52 points. 136 GF, 121 GA +15 goals Wings: 33-11-4 70 points 180 GF, 117 GA +63 goals Final: 4-0 Devs 16 GF, 7 GA They gotta play the games to see how it turns out. Everything before hand is just hot air. This is my point. No one would've expected a Devils sweep in that series, if this board had been around then, everyone would've been saying Wings in 5, Wings in 6, and so forth. Which is to say that a series can go any way and no one has much of an idea how it will turn out. And if you had had access to them at the time, you would have spat these same numbers out before that Ranger series and Flyer series, as to why the Devils probably wouldn't have lost in five. This is the problem with being over-scientific and over-reliant on data...you never account for the exceptions to the rule. What? I would've said the Devils probably wouldn't lose in 5. How is this anything other than what happened, despite the fact that they lost in 5? The Devils shot horribly against the Flyers and Brodeur was atrocious against the Rangers. My point is that you'd have no cause to predict either thing to happen - who saw Brian Boucher playing like Georges Vezina? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Hey this is a forum for peoples thoughts so keep posting them, but I love how folks try to predict something. And even more so when trying to use history in their prediction. The players aren't held to history, they create history. In '95, the upstart Devils facing the Wings. Who predicted it would be a Sweep ? and for the Devils ? Devils: 22-18-8 52 points. 136 GF, 121 GA +15 goals Wings: 33-11-4 70 points 180 GF, 117 GA +63 goals Final: 4-0 Devs 16 GF, 7 GA They gotta play the games to see how it turns out. Everything before hand is just hot air. Well, yeah, of course, no one can predict these things with 100% accuracy, no matter how knowledgable they are, or how much they watch the games. No one could've predicted that the '95 Devils would suddenly turn back into the '94 Devils come playoff time, after looking like the '96 Devils for almost all of the regular season. Doesn't mean we all can't speculate what we THINK might happen, and share our reasons why. EDIT: Speaking of '95, they had a classic series show on the NHL channel about the '95 series...they showed a pre-game interview with some of the Wings (like Yzerman) before Game 4, and you could see how stunned they all were...none of them could believe they were trailing 3-0 in that series. Edited March 29, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 What? I would've said the Devils probably wouldn't lose in 5. How is this anything other than what happened, despite the fact that they lost in 5? The Devils shot horribly against the Flyers and Brodeur was atrocious against the Rangers. My point is that you'd have no cause to predict either thing to happen - who saw Brian Boucher playing like Georges Vezina? I already explained why I thought those things would happen at the time...I thought they were bad matchups for the Devils, and I had a bad feeling they'd spend a lot of those series looking overwhelmed and slower than their opponents...I also pointed out that the Devils just seemed bad at receiving passes, as players always seemed to be looking down at the puck as it came to them (giving the opposition time to swarm down on them), or watching as pucks would bounce off their sticks. Though some of those moments came up in the Carolina series, the Devils played much better against them than I thought they would, and damned near won the series...on that one I was dead wrong...I was predicting a repeat of the '06 series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I already explained why I thought those things would happen at the time...I thought they were bad matchups for the Devils, and I had a bad feeling they'd spend a lot of those series looking overwhelmed and slower than their opponents...I also pointed out that the Devils just seemed bad at receiving passes, as players always seemed to be looking down at the puck as it came to them (giving the opposition time to swarm down on them), or watching as pucks would bounce off their sticks. Though some of those moments came up in the Carolina series, the Devils played much better against them than I thought they would, and damned near won the series...on that one I was dead wrong...I was predicting a repeat of the '06 series. I agree with you on the Philly and Rags series. Going in, I thought we had absolutely no chance against either. Both had our number during the regular season. I was actually on a plane coming back from England (for a school trip) with a plane full of Flyers fans during the the last game of the season. I was praying the Rags would win so we would have played MTL. When we landed in Newark, a few hours after the Flyers one that shootout, I called Flyers in 5 or 6. Our soft defense had no answer to their strong forecheck. Tri, I know Brian Boucher had an unbelievable series, but you have do admit you probably had an eerie feeling going in. Anyway, the last three times we made the playoffs, we've gotten extremely unfavorable matchups. It'd be nice to get an opponent we SHOULD beat if we play up to our potential Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 I already explained why I thought those things would happen at the time...I thought they were bad matchups for the Devils, and I had a bad feeling they'd spend a lot of those series looking overwhelmed and slower than their opponents...I also pointed out that the Devils just seemed bad at receiving passes, as players always seemed to be looking down at the puck as it came to them (giving the opposition time to swarm down on them), or watching as pucks would bounce off their sticks. You can't know that going in. That's my point. The series has a range of possible outcomes, and Flyers in 5 is not one of the more likely ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) I agree with you on the Philly and Rags series. Going in, I thought we had absolutely no chance against either. Both had our number during the regular season. I was actually on a plane coming back from England (for a school trip) with a plane full of Flyers fans during the the last game of the season. I was praying the Rags would win so we would have played MTL. When we landed in Newark, a few hours after the Flyers one that shootout, I called Flyers in 5 or 6. Our soft defense had no answer to their strong forecheck. Tri, I know Brian Boucher had an unbelievable series, but you have do admit you probably had an eerie feeling going in. Anyway, the last three times we made the playoffs, we've gotten extremely unfavorable matchups. It'd be nice to get an opponent we SHOULD beat if we play up to our potential It's funny, I remember pointing out when the series was 2-1 Flyers, that it was pretty much going exactly the way I expected it to, then Tri getting pissy about me saying that, then the Devils going on to lose in 5. Tri can get robotically so lost in the statistical aspect of analysis that there are times that I don't know if he ever has actual fan-like feelings regarding any given playoff series. Edited March 29, 2012 by Colorado Rockies 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 You can't know that going in. That's my point. The series has a range of possible outcomes, and Flyers in 5 is not one of the more likely ones. Well, it was to me at that time. It wasn't based on mounds of empirical data, it was a strong hunch based on each teams' strengths and weaknesses, and a strong feeling of what would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 It's funny, I remember pointing out when the series was 2-1 Flyers, that it was pretty much going exactly the way I expected it to, then Tri getting pissy about me saying that, then the Devils going on to lose in 5. Tri can get robotically so lost in the statistical aspect of analysis that there are times that I don't know if he ever has actual fan-like feelings regarding any given playoff series. Of course I do, I just ignore them, because I don't think it's relevant. Everyone has feelings on these things, we tend to remember when we were right and ignore when we were wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer91 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Of course I do, I just ignore them, because I don't think it's relevant. Everyone has feelings on these things, we tend to remember when we were right and ignore when we were wrong. I applaud you for being able to do that, I use my own feelings to how the team is playing vs stats. I often lose playing poker because I go with my 'gut' as opposed to the odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Of course I do, I just ignore them, because I don't think it's relevant. Everyone has feelings on these things, we tend to remember when we were right and ignore when we were wrong. I pointed out I was wrong about the Carolina series (at least in how it played out). And I'll be the first to admit I thought the Devils were going out in the first round in 2000 against the Panthers. Tri, you SHOULD share your feelings on what you think might happen, even if it's not heavily backed up by numbers. It doesn't always have to be about fenwicks, corsis and cut-and-pasting stats and probability tables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I pointed out I was wrong about the Carolina series (at least in how it played out). And I'll be the first to admit I thought the Devils were going out in the first round in 2000 against the Panthers. Tri, you SHOULD share your feelings on what you think might happen, even if it's not heavily backed up by numbers. It doesn't always have to be about fenwicks, corsis and cut-and-pasting stats and probability tables. I suppose that's why the playoffs are fun. It's the time of year when you have to throw out the spreadsheets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I suppose that's why the playoffs are fun. It's the time of year when you have to throw out the spreadsheets. Heaven forbid that will ever happen to some of the members here on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 I suppose that's why the playoffs are fun. It's the time of year when you have to throw out the spreadsheets. It's funny that this is what you all are saying, because that's precisely MY point. This discussion got started because 4978 said that he thought the Rangers or Boston would beat the Devils in 5. I said that's preposterous to predict that - it may well happen, but is far from the likeliest outcome, even if you think that Boston is 'way better' (in NHL terms) than New Jersey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Dose Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 If the Devils are 40% to win any given game, they're 30% to win the series. I don't have the chops to figure out what it would take for Boston in 5 to be the most likely series outcome, but it would mean Boston being an amazingly good team, which they're not. I know you don't mean Boston in 5 being the majority of outcomes - that would mean them being the greatest team in NHL history. I don't think that's true for any team facing any team in the playoffs besides truly elite teams against truly miserable teams, or you'd see more 120-130 point teams in the regular season. Did it. If the Devils are 25-40% to win any game, then losing in 5 is the most likely outcome of the series. However, they would have to be 22% or less to win any game (in other words, completely outclassed underdogs) in order for it to be more likely that the series is lost in 5 than lost in 6, 7, or won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 It's funny that this is what you all are saying, because that's precisely MY point. This discussion got started because 4978 said that he thought the Rangers or Boston would beat the Devils in 5. I said that's preposterous to predict that - it may well happen, but is far from the likeliest outcome, even if you think that Boston is 'way better' (in NHL terms) than New Jersey. Except that it isn't...your point is based on probabilities and likelihoods based on across-the-board percentages...there's almost no human element to it. 4978's predictions aren't at all preposterous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 Did it. If the Devils are 25-40% to win any game, then losing in 5 is the most likely outcome of the series. However, they would have to be 22% or less to win any game (in other words, completely outclassed underdogs) in order for it to be more likely that the series is lost in 5 than lost in 6, 7, or won. Awesome - pretty much what I expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Is it true that if the Devils win and Washington loses in regulation they clinch a playoff spot? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Fan Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Is it true that if the Devils win and Washington loses in regulation they clinch a playoff spot? Although I said it in the Out of Town Scoreboard, but the Devils can still clinch if hey lose in OT/SO provided the Bruins beat the Caps in regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted March 29, 2012 Author Share Posted March 29, 2012 Except that it isn't...your point is based on probabilities and likelihoods based on across-the-board percentages...there's almost no human element to it. 4978's predictions aren't at all preposterous. Argh. You're totally missing my point. BlueSkirt also made it, even though he was disagreeing with me. I guess there's a middle ground here, that it's perfectly okay to feel that your team will e.g. sweep or be swept, or win or lose in 5, but those aren't the most likely outcomes at all, and that basically anything can happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I usually find that those types of people have never put on a pair of skates or picked up a stick (or ball, bat what have you). They just don't see it from another perspective or have the personal experience of participating in what they think they know all about. I see that sort of thing every day on a popular baseball board i belong to. They all try to be Bill James prodigys. While these people can be extemely intelligent and organized, they also tend to be very robotic, stubborn and condescending/rude to anyone who speaks other to them. Then when they are wrong, they are almost bipolar in their reactions. Not sure how much of that pertains to any of the stat people here, but usually they are birds of a flock. +100000000000000000000000000000000000 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Is it true that if the Devils win and Washington loses in regulation they clinch a playoff spot? A Devils win and 'any' Caps loss means they clinch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 A Devils win and 'any' Caps loss means they clinch. I believe the Devils can also clinch even if they lose in OT or a shootout, as long as Washington loses in regulation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.