341 replies to this topic

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

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.

[SMantzas]

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

[Triumph]

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.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

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 by Colorado Rockies 1976, 29 March 2012 - 09:30 AM.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[lucifer91]

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.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

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.

[Daniel]

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.

[DevsMan84]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[Devils Dose]

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.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[Marv4Life]

Is it true that if the Devils win and Washington loses in regulation they clinch a playoff spot?

[Devil Fan]

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.

[Triumph]

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.

[DevsMan84]

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

[NJDevs4978]

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.

[MadDog2020]

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.