Jump to content

PLAYOFFS: The "Don't Jinx It" Thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, Martyisth3b3st said:

It took me five minutes to realize that I wasn't "MB" in this post and was wondering what the hell you were talking about. 

You're always referred to as MITB in my posts, heh heh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 420
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'll bet you $5 that if Hall signs an extension, you'll complain about the color of ink in the pen. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hall said he adores the system here, its the first time he's feeling chemistry with other players, first time he's treated the way he is with the GM and coach etc etc the guy knows more than all of us

The Devils currently have a 100% chance at making the playoffs.

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

And of course, in the GDT, MB had to point out that the Devils should be trying to take away low-danger chances as well, in reference to the bang-bang goal (sometimes sh!t happens, an uber-clean faceoff loss in your own zone leads to a quick goal for the opposition)...so I guess that means medium-danger chances are OK, heh heh. 

I vote for trying to take away ALL chances. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Sammy Semantics is at it again.  Good lord.  It was so much better when you just posted your cringe-inducing recaps and called it a day. 

As for this for HDSV% crap...you don't really need that stat to see that the Devils haven't been getting great goaltending for a while...and it seems like breaking out that "8th is HDSV chances against since mid-Nov" stat is a way to try make the defense sound better than it's really been.  Cory was fine through 12/27, whatever his HDSV% was...he was at .923 for the season to that point...stopping over 92% of the shots overall coming his way was good enough for me.  He was at .871 in the seven starts after, giving up at least 3+ in all of them...yeah, that's not good...some of that was due to bad luck and some due to defensive issues, but Cory himself would tell you that he needs to be better.  KK has been pretty good in four out of his last five (he was very good last night), but it's still too hard to tell what you're going to get from him from start to start.  mfitz made it pretty simple...if Devils ever get to a point where it's a constant struggle to give up less than three goals most nights, they'll be in trouble.    

Again, don't tell me that because his SV% was .923 at one point that he was playing well.  He was facing like 35 shots a game.  The league average when goalies face 30+ shots is .927.  The .923 he had was basically league average due to the raw number of shots he was facing.

The Devils have been good defensively for the past 2 months.  If you don't like HD chances, fine.  They're top 10 in shots allowed, and shot attempts allowed too.

You also have no right to tell me what I understand or don't understand.  I didn't quite understand the question he was asking.  At least I didn't just make up what he said and put words in his mouth like you always do to me.

7 hours ago, mfitz804 said:

Let me see. 

01010101 01101110 01101100 01100101 01110011 01110011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100100 01110010 01100001 01110111 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100100 01101001 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101110 01100011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01100010 01100101 01110100 01110111 01100101 01100101 01101110 00100000 01100111 01101111 01100001 01101100 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100111 01101111 01100001 01101100 01101001 01100101 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100110 01100001 01110101 01101100 01110100 00101100 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01100111 01101111 01100001 01101100 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01100100 01100101 01100110 01100101 01101110 01110011 01100101 00100111 01110011 00100000 01100110 01100001 01110101 01101100 01110100 00101100 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01110100 00100000 01101001 01110100 00111111

Is that better?

What do binary conversions have to do with anything?  All I want is for you to rephrase the question differently so I can understand it.  You worded it in a weird way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic: the Islanders and Flyers both lost in regulation today. Needless to say, a regulation win over the Flyers tomorrow would make things look pretty damn peachy. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Martyisth3b3st said:

Back on topic: the Islanders and Flyers both lost in regulation today. Needless to say, a regulation win over the Flyers tomorrow would make things look pretty damn peachy. 

Following the standings day by day is not a good way to determine how "peachy" things are.  Bottom line is, even if the Devils do win tomorrow night, we all know 60 points won't be enough to make the playoffs. 

You need to look at it from a big picture point of view and just worry about what needs to be done the rest of the way.  If the Devils go .500 the rest of the way, they give themselves a better than 50% chance at making it.  But in order to really get a strange hold on a playoff spot, they really only need to go 2 or 3 games above .500.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mike Brown said:

Again, don't tell me that because his SV% was .923 at one point that he was playing well.  He was facing like 35 shots a game.  The league average when goalies face 30+ shots is .927.  The .923 he had was basically league average due to the raw number of shots he was facing.

The Devils have been good defensively for the past 2 months.  If you don't like HD chances, fine.  They're top 10 in shots allowed, and shot attempts allowed too.

You also have no right to tell me what I understand or don't understand.  I didn't quite understand the question he was asking.  At least I didn't just make up what he said and put words in his mouth like you always do to me.

What do binary conversions have to do with anything?  All I want is for you to rephrase the question differently so I can understand it.  You worded it in a weird way.

How many of those goalies were routinely facing that number?  Cory hasn't been good lately and I've acknowledged that, but in general he was good up until 12/27...my only real beef with him in that stretch is that he sometimes gave up a big goal when you really needed him to slam the door shut, but the D didn't always help him out either. 

Re:  the bolded...oh please, I don't really bother that much with you, for reasons like the final sentences in the post I quoted.  It's just constantly about semantics, and that's how you've rolled since you joined the site...though at least you don't post 20 times a day anymore...so I guess that qualifies as some sort of evolution. 

8 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said:

Back on topic: the Islanders and Flyers both lost in regulation today. Needless to say, a regulation win over the Flyers tomorrow would make things look pretty damn peachy. 

Isles are 10-15-3 since 12/1, and have given up 113 goals (right around 4 GPG) in those games...they've also lost by 3 or more goals 10 times in that stretch.  The NHL is crazy and teams that seem borderline hopeless at times can suddenly appear to figure things out, but the Isles are looking more and more like they're not going to be much of a factor down the stretch. 

A win over the Flyers would be nice...hopefully they're a little gassed tonight, after having played last night. 

Devils went 3-6-2 in January...by far and away their worst month.  Can't see the Devils being able to overcome another month like that.  Nine divisional games coming up in February.  Hope they have a big month in them...feels like February can really make or break this team. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

How many of those goalies were routinely facing that number?  Cory hasn't been good lately and I've acknowledged that, but in general he was good up until 12/27...my only real beef with him in that stretch is that he sometimes gave up a big goal when you really needed him to slam the door shut, but the D didn't always help him out either. 

Re:  the bolded...oh please, I don't really bother that much with you, for reasons like the final sentences in the post I quoted.  It's just constantly about semantics, and that's how you've rolled since you joined the site...though at least you don't post 20 times a day anymore...so I guess that qualifies as some sort of evolution. 

Ever since they started keeping track of shots as an official statistic, believe it or not this season is seeing the highest number of shots per game of all time at 31.7 per game per team.

When you constantly claim I say one thing, but I say something completely different, that's not semantics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mike Brown said:

Ever since they started keeping track of shots as an official statistic, believe it or not this season is seeing the highest number of shots per game of all time at 31.7 per game per team.

When you constantly claim I say one thing, but I say something completely different, that's not semantics.

But you do say one thing and then say something else...many times.  Hell in many of your Game recap posts you even contradict yourself in the same recap.

No, I will not go back and show examples as 1) I don't care enough and 2) You will just pull the semantics card again thus repeating the cycle forever with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DevsMan84 said:

But you do say one thing and then say something else...many times.  Hell in many of your Game recap posts you even contradict yourself in the same recap.

No, I will not go back and show examples as 1) I don't care enough and 2) You will just pull the semantics card again thus repeating the cycle forever with you.

False.  Everything about this post is false.  You won't go find examples because there are none.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mike Brown said:

Following the standings day by day is not a good way to determine how "peachy" things are.  Bottom line is, even if the Devils do win tomorrow night, we all know 60 points won't be enough to make the playoffs. 

You need to look at it from a big picture point of view and just worry about what needs to be done the rest of the way.  If the Devils go .500 the rest of the way, they give themselves a better than 50% chance at making it.  But in order to really get a strange hold on a playoff spot, they really only need to go 2 or 3 games above .500.

Oh for God's sake you literally are this forum's version of genital warts. I agree that 60 points won't be enough to make the playoffs. I understand that playoff attendance cards won't be given out after the game tomorrow. 

Following the standings day-by-day is absolutely a good way to determine how we stand....today. It's not predictive, nor am I saying it is.

  • I know that I need to look at the big picture.
  • That's why I created this thread.
  • I went over the big picture in the first post of this thread.
  • That I created. 
  • Saying exactly what you just posted there.
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mike Brown said:

Again, don't tell me that because his SV% was .923 at one point that he was playing well.  He was facing like 35 shots a game.  The league average when goalies face 30+ shots is .927.  The .923 he had was basically league average due to the raw number of shots he was facing.

But...he's...still stopping those shots...:mellow:

I don't see how you can say a goalie's save percentage is less significant or impressive because he's facing a lot of shots.  That's what the stat is all about.  I know this whole stupid debate has been about "High Danger Shots Against" or whatever the fvck that acronym stands for, and sure there are certainly teams that subscribe to the theory of "when it doubt, throw pucks on net", hell, I'm someone who also believes it's always good to create some chances and bounces by throwing sh!t on net and seeing what happens, but you'd be hard pressed to find many games at all with 30-40 some shots where any more than 20 or 25% of those shots were "low danger".  Even when a team is struggling to create quality chances and they decide to start shooting more than usual, it's still in the form of some type of sustained pressure -- it's not like they're out there just mindlessly throwing the puck on net from center ice.  

I know I'm going to regret having responded to this.  *Says to himself* Please, please don't let me get sucked in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike Brown said:

False.  Everything about this post is false.  You won't go find examples because there are none.

I told you why I won't go looking for examples but you glanced over that part.  I am surprised too since I thought your CPU was a neuro-net processor, a learning computer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Martyisth3b3st said:

Oh for God's sake you literally are this forum's version of genital warts. I agree that 60 points won't be enough to make the playoffs. I understand that playoff attendance cards won't be given out after the game tomorrow. 

Following the standings day-by-day is absolutely a good way to determine how we stand....today. It's not predictive, nor am I saying it is.

  • I know that I need to look at the big picture.
  • That's why I created this thread.
  • I went over the big picture in the first post of this thread.
  • That I created. 
  • Saying exactly what you just posted there.

If it's not predictive, then it's not a good way to determine anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NJDfan1711 said:

But...he's...still stopping those shots...:mellow:

I don't see how you can say a goalie's save percentage is less significant or impressive because he's facing a lot of shots.  That's what the stat is all about.  I know this whole stupid debate has been about "High Danger Shots Against" or whatever the fvck that acronym stands for, and sure there are certainly teams that subscribe to the theory of "when it doubt, throw pucks on net", hell, I'm someone who also believes it's always good to create some chances and bounces by throwing sh!t on net and seeing what happens, but you'd be hard pressed to find many games at all with 30-40 some shots where any more than 20 or 25% of those shots were "low danger".  Even when a team is struggling to create quality chances and they decide to start shooting more than usual, it's still in the form of some type of sustained pressure -- it's not like they're out there just mindlessly throwing the puck on net from center ice.  

I know I'm going to regret having responded to this.  *Says to himself* Please, please don't let me get sucked in.

Fact.  Every team in the league both allows and generates between 9 and 13 HD chances per 60 minutes.  It's why there is an inflation effect with SV% and facing a high number of shots a lot.  Every goalie since they started keeping track of SV% has a higher cumulative SV% when they face 30 or more shots and play 50 minutes than when they face 29 or fewer shots and play 50 minutes.  Also, the league average SV% every year is higher when goalies face 30 or more shots than when they face 29 or fewer shots.  It's why Quick and Brodeur have deflated SV%'s despite playing at an elite level.  Bottom line, SV% is a very flawed stat.

59 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I told you why I won't go looking for examples but you glanced over that part.  I am surprised too since I thought your CPU was a neuro-net processor, a learning computer.

Then you have no right to make an accusation unless you have proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.