mikeford Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 No. Games at the beginning of the season mean less than games towards the end of the season. Football Outsiders factors this into their DVOA stat, and I am factoring that mindset into my point. Certainly games Peter Vrana and Sheldon Brookbank played in mean infinitely less to the makeup of the team as it currently stands than those that they didn't play in, would you not agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jas0nMacIsaac Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I don't get the negativity. People watch sports for entertainment, to vicariously enjoy the victories of others.... but of what use is it do wallow in the defeats?It's one thing to discuss the pros and cons and ways to improve.... but stating as fact (fact that someone won't back up by putting their money where their mouth is) that it is all going to be a disaster and that we can't be considered contenders this year or next... is that supposed to be constructive? Or is this just misery looking for company? Do you actually think that you are HELPING the other Devils fans out there by spitting on the team like that? Is that a positive contribution to the forum? One thing that *I* know for a fact is that the overwhelming negativity found here when the Devils are slumping has pushed away some damn good posters. What good is taking an activity that is supposed to be fun and making it into a grueling experience? Great post, I used to get angry when the Devils lost but now...I just go to bed and wake up the next morning. I have no affiliation to the team, they don't pay me. Why should I get angry over them losing. They are still my favorite team and its fun to speculate whats wrong with them. Get angry, not in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 No. Games at the beginning of the season mean less than games towards the end of the season. Football Outsiders factors this into their DVOA stat, and I am factoring that mindset into my point. Certainly games Peter Vrana and Sheldon Brookbank played in mean infinitely less to the makeup of the team as it currently stands than those that they didn't play in, would you not agree? well it's great that you name-dropped DVOA but forgot the lesson that DVOA teaches (if there is one, considering the last two super bowls) - we can't just ignore the start of the season, either. and my reason for taking out the last 6 games was that it is clear that the last 6 games are the aberration and the rest of the season is closer to 'true' - that is, purely from a statistical point of view. there may be actual causes why the devils are sucking beyond simply playing bad for a few games - zajac may be worn out, paul martin might be hiding an injury, the whole team is being paid by the rangers to throw the season - but just looking at the numbers, there's no reason this should continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeford Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 How is it clear? Because you say it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 (edited) well it's great that you name-dropped DVOA but forgot the lesson that DVOA teaches (if there is one, considering the last two super bowls) - we can't just ignore the start of the season, either. and my reason for taking out the last 6 games was that it is clear that the last 6 games are the aberration and the rest of the season is closer to 'true' - that is, purely from a statistical point of view. there may be actual causes why the devils are sucking beyond simply playing bad for a few games - zajac may be worn out, paul martin might be hiding an injury, the whole team is being paid by the rangers to throw the season - but just looking at the numbers, there's no reason this should continue. Also, using a 16 game football season as a comparison for a hockey season seems to make less sense to me compared to using baseball or basketball stat ideas would be. So now since we're cherry picking games where Vrana or Brookbank played should we throw out last nights games because Elias didn't play? Should we take out the entire portion of the season Marty didn't play since the lineups aren't matching up? Someone just posted how a lot of the last cup winners went into the playoffs at .500 or so over their last stretch of games, Detroit even had a horrific stretch in the second half of last season, so that would seem to suggest that recent play before the playoffs isn't a great indicator to playoff success. If I want to use baseball, where a lot more stat research has been done than anywhere else, then there is no evidence that teams "streak" affect the next game they play. A team loses 5 in a row and if they're a .600 winning team then they're odds of winning the next game, excluding pitching matchups, is .600 modified by the other teams value. It doesn't take into account if a team is on a "streak" or not. Edited April 2, 2009 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 How is it clear? Because you say it is? 731 elaborated on it, but if i have a sample of 70 games and one of 6, which one am i going to think is more relevant? if the devils go on a 6 game winning streak to close out the season, is that now going to be more relevant than the 76 games that came before? i don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsChamps3x Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I have been a die hard devils fan ever since i was born, I have seen all 3 cups live in the stands and have been there when they couldnt have a winning season for sh!t. All i can say is, it does not matter what happens a true fan stays with his team .... no matter what. I read some of these forums and it made me so mad to see people give up on a team like this. WE HAVE CLINCHED A PLAYOFF SPOT. We have the division if we win. We are not the fvcken islanders, were the New Jersey Devils for fvck sake. We are a dynasty, we are a team that gets no respect no time no where. Fans are regarded as the most pompous a$$holes on the face of the earth. I am a proud devils fan. And we will do this. I believe that this team is capable of playing on a level better then any team in this league. Parise is an ace, elias is hot. Jamie has cooled down but so has the team. If we can get our sh!t together against a poor lightning team without Vinny Lacavlier we will build some confidence. I have playoff seats and im keeping them. Becuase regardless of loosing i will stand behind my fvcken team any day of the week. So stop the whining it doesnt help. Stand behind ur team and stop the bullsh!t. We will be fine. LETS GO DEVILS!!@!@!@@!!@!@!@!@@!!@!@!@ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hit the post Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I would like to offer to buy the whole team 5 hour energy drink for the rest of the season and the playoff's---Maybe we can give the old timer's 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 I think there is a common misconception here. Some people are at a loss for words. They are searching for answers. They are frustrated and confused. But I don't think that should be confused for giving up. I don't know if anyone has said this team is finished at all, nor should they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted April 3, 2009 Author Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) you are making claims about past events. you are making claims about what is true right now. to that end, based on your knowledge of the past and present, i do not at all see the difficulty with trying to predict the future. either that, or you don't trust what's true about your claims re: the past and present.sickman's post is right on, by the way. jason: i want to get 2 to 1. re: old players - i think that argument stinks. was carolina burdened by weight, recchi, and wesley? how about detroit in 02 - robitaille, yzerman, hull, chelios, larionov a problem? if the devils are losing it's not because they have old players, it's because the old players they do have aren't that good. You don't think there's a difference between giving my opinions on past/present events, and trying to predict the future? I just stated my claims, I said all along I wasn't happy with the moves made, and at least on paper, half of this team is full of..shall we say, not very good players. When half of the team isn't that good, and the amount of players that can be fully counted on can be counted on one hand, yet they still approach 50 wins, that's called overachieving in my book. And just because I don't think the team is that good doesn't mean I'd bet against them. Do you bet on everything that you 'trust' yourself with? If a coin has 66% chance of landing on heads, would you bet $1000 with someone on the next coin flip being heads? I wouldn't. I'm just not a betting man. I just love how you people turn me not wanting to bet on my observations with the team into me not really trusting what I'm saying, and me opting to hang out with my friends instead of watching a devils game as not being a real fan or something. Also, I don't recall saying that I was giving up any and all hope. All I said was that the team was playing the way I expected them to be playing all season. I'm sorry I don't 'drink the kool aid' with people like holik and rolston. Edited April 3, 2009 by metallidevils Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 (edited) Video from TSN's Off the Record with the panel discussing what is wrong in Jersey. Pretty interesting talk. http://watch.tsn.ca/featured/#clip157045 Edited April 3, 2009 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Facepainter Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 That was interesting, but nothing we haven't mentioned. Most of the comments were about a coaching change, and I don't think this team needs a coaching change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 bet me please. you are a fool. oops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 oops you are still a fool. i was way a favorite in that bet. if i'm able to get 2 to 1 odds on a coin flip, i win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 keep talking please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) you are still a fool. i was way a favorite in that bet. if i'm able to get 2 to 1 odds on a coin flip, i win. You were wrong and would have lost. Even though he didn't make the bet, metallidevils was correct. And even though you were creating a great bet for yourself that wasn't the point. He saw this team going down in the first round, and you didn't even see that as an option it seemed. Edited April 29, 2009 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theamazingtiny Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 oops lololololol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) You were wrong and would have lost. Even though he didn't make the bet, metallidevils was correct. And evem though you were creating a great bet for yourself that wasn't the point.He saw this team going down in the first round, and you didn't even see that as an option it seemed. huh? i wanted 2 to 1 odds, so i did see it as an option. you really don't understand probability and gambling at all, do you? the point is that from the series, it's clear that the devils probably should have been slight favorites, despite the fact that they lost. if i had gotten a 2 to 1 bet, i come out ahead more often than i come out behind. Edited April 29, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) huh? i wanted 2 to 1 odds, so i did see it as an option. you really don't understand probability and gambling at all, do you? the point is that from the series, it's clear that the devils probably should have been slight favorites, despite the fact that they lost. if i had gotten a 2 to 1 bet, i come out ahead more often than i come out behind. Trust me I get it. But you are avoiding the main point. You would have lost. That is why he bumped the thread. He had no interest in gambling with you, so there is no point in bringing up some odds you created for a non-existent bet. You were wrong about the team down the stretch. And sure you might never admit it, but this thread was never about a bet anyway. Edited April 29, 2009 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Trust me I get it. But you are avoiding the main point. You would have lost. That is why he bumped the thread. He had no interest in gambling with you, so there is no point in bringing up some odds you created for a non-existent bet. You were wrong about the team don the stretch.And sure you might never admit it, but this thread was never about a bet anyway. there is no doubt if the devils had played pittsburgh in the 1st round i would've predicted a devils first round loss. the point that everyone's missing because they're so distraught about the devils coming so agonizingly close is that they came so close. everyone has offered up 15 reasons why the devils lost and they're both right and wrong. this series could've went either way and it didn't go to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 there is no doubt if the devils had played pittsburgh in the 1st round i would've predicted a devils first round loss. the point that everyone's missing because they're so distraught about the devils coming so agonizingly close is that they came so close. everyone has offered up 15 reasons why the devils lost and they're both right and wrong. this series could've went either way and it didn't go to us. Absolutely, but the real problem is that is should have never been so close. And I am not saying that from the start of the series. The Devils were a different team after March 17th and I can't figure what happened. It was more than a slump. It just became a different team. The Devils gave up 42, 48, 37, 37, 22, and 37 shots respectively in 6 straight games down the stretch. That continued into the playoffs when they gave up 46, 44, 37, and 31 in their last 4. When Scott Clemmensen was in nets, this team didn't give up breakaways, or 2 on 1s or any odd man rushes. They didn't give up real good scoring chances and this was against all the best teams. They averaged 17 shots against in two games against Pittsburgh. They split a pair of 1-0 games against Boston. There is no way they play a pair of 1-0 games against Boston now. The only way the Devils play a 1-0 game is if Marty Brodeur makes 44 saves and has the game of his life. And a lot of it has to do with how good the East got late in the year. And this was a major fear of mine. The gap between the best and the worst (of playoff teams) closed so quickly it's incredible. You just said you expected Pittsburgh to beat the Devils. We're talking about a team a few months ago that wasn't even in the playoffs, while the Devils were right at the top. And this is why everyone feels like sh!t. They feel swindled by this team. This was different than the top team getting knocked by a hot goalie that we see so often. This was different than the Sharks losing to the Ducks. And it goes back to the question first asked in this thread. What happened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 (edited) Absolutely, but the real problem is that is should have never been so close. And I am not saying that from the start of the series. The Devils were a different team after March 17th and I can't figure what happened. It was more than a slump. It just became a different team. The Devils gave up 42, 48, 37, 37, 22, and 37 shots respectively in 6 straight games down the stretch. That continued into the playoffs when they gave up 46, 44, 37, and 31 in their last 4.When Scott Clemmensen was in nets, this team didn't give up breakaways, or 2 on 1s or any odd man rushes. They didn't give up real good scoring chances and this was against all the best teams. They averaged 17 shots against in two games against Pittsburgh. They split a pair of 1-0 games against Boston. There is no way they play a pair of 1-0 games against Boston now. The only way the Devils play a 1-0 game is if Marty Brodeur makes 44 saves and has the game of his life. And a lot of it has to do with how good the East got late in the year. And this was a major fear of mine. The gap between the best and the worst (of playoff teams) closed so quickly it's incredible. You just said you expected Pittsburgh to beat the Devils. We're talking about a team a few months ago that wasn't even in the playoffs, while the Devils were right at the top. And this is why everyone feels like sh!t. They feel swindled by this team. This was different than the top team getting knocked by a hot goalie that we see so often. This was different than the Sharks losing to the Ducks. And it goes back to the question first asked in this thread. What happened? this is an excellent post, and i will address it when i have more time. i will say that metallidevils came it from exactly the wrong point of view. Edited April 29, 2009 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beezer34 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 Video from TSN's Off the Record with the panel discussing what is wrong in Jersey. Pretty interesting talk.http://watch.tsn.ca/featured/#clip157045 Great thoughts overall. *Bob McGill: "All of a sudden they got Brodeur the wins record, and then the team seemed to exhale." -too true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlizzardCyclone Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 this is an excellent post, and i will address it when i have more time. i will say that metallidevils came it from exactly the wrong point of view. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metallidevils Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 this is an excellent post, and i will address it when i have more time. i will say that metallidevils came it from exactly the wrong point of view. Why? Because I approach is as 'why were we so good in the beginning of the year' as opposed to 'why were we so bad at the ending?' It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this shouldn't be a 51 win team. The team overachieved and came back down to earth. +1 considering he's been wrong about everything else lately, and is still talking about gambling, you're definitely choosing the right side here. 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.