Devils Pride 26 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Some excellent responses in this thread, great discussion guys. One other thing I meant to talk about was/is the myth that lemaire is a much better coach holding onto a lead. This has killed us the last two games alone. Look at the Kings game. How about the leafs going up 1-0 and looking pretty good then fall asleep? And the last couple of weeks, we have had many leads to blow anyway. Sure there's going to be people saying I'm a spoiled jaded jackass but when you see this happening to a team right before your eyes its kinda depressing. This team is flawed, like every other team in the league. The difference is other teams adapt. The only thing we have adapted too is putting L's in the column. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I'm not saying that they are getting pucks on net. Thats the biggest problem with those players to begin with and its why they've never amounted to anything more than third liners in the NHL. They can't get shots on net. But, when they do get the puck deep in the other end, more often than not they are able to get a decent cycle going. I'm not saying anything comes of it, but I was using it as a case of "look, the best we've got at this aspect of the game are the players who will do absolutely nothing with it." None of the other lines are getting effective cycles consistently and those are the lines with the talent to finish on the opportunity. Zajac's line obviously will get its cycles going and be much more effective at finishing or at least getting a few shots on goal in the process, but the issue there is that during this funk even that line has been having major issues getting in there to start the cycle and sustain the pressure. Maybe it just comes down to a lack of Paul Martin and Anssi Salmela keeping it in at the points. I'm interested to see if Martin, Clarkson and Salmela cure many of these problems. I think that they will certainly help on the breakout and that Clarkson will definitely help on the cycle with whichever line he winds up on, but I think the biggest problems that I talked about weren't even the offensive problems, they were the defensive issues where our defense isn't taking the hit to make the play, isn't hitting the other team in our zone, and is generally playing a very passive game. i just disagree ND5, the devils are outshooting the opposition at even strength over this time, and they're doing it by a not-insignificant margin. the devils are possessing the puck in the offensive zone more than the other team; they are attempting more shots than the other team. pandolfo's cycling ability, which i don't think exists because in my view that line is terrible in the offensive zone, is irrelevant since they don't ever do anything with it; it's not hard to cycle the puck if the end goal is cycling the puck, plus the opponents will just let you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRASHER Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Sure there's going to be people saying I'm a spoiled jaded jackass but when you see this happening to a team right before your eyes its kinda depressing. This team is flawed, like every other team in the league. The difference is other teams adapt. The only thing we have adapted too is putting L's in the column. If every team successfully adapted every year, wouldn't every team win the Stanley Cup every year??? Foolish statement Welcome to the rest of the pack in the NHL, we've been there a long time... now it's finally getting to them in the REGULAR season that's all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Some excellent responses in this thread, great discussion guys. One other thing I meant to talk about was/is the myth that lemaire is a much better coach holding onto a lead. This has killed us the last two games alone. Look at the Kings game. How about the leafs going up 1-0 and looking pretty good then fall asleep? And the last couple of weeks, we have had many leads to blow anyway. Sure there's going to be people saying I'm a spoiled jaded jackass but when you see this happening to a team right before your eyes its kinda depressing. This team is flawed, like every other team in the league. The difference is other teams adapt. The only thing we have adapted too is putting L's in the column. i'll call you a spoiled, jaded jackass - the devils are 4th in the league in winning percentage with a lead after 1 period. they are 3rd in the NHL in winning percentage with a lead after 2. i'm not going to attribute that lead-keeping to jacques lemaire, but calling that a flaw of jacques lemaire is like saying ilya kovalchuk's shot is too fast to be deflectable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 i'll call you a spoiled, jaded jackass - the devils are 4th in the league in winning percentage with a lead after 1 period. they are 3rd in the NHL in winning percentage with a lead after 2. i'm not going to attribute that lead-keeping to jacques lemaire, but calling that a flaw of jacques lemaire is like saying ilya kovalchuk's shot is too fast to be deflectable. what have you done for me lately? As in 2010. What the Devils did in october, november dont mean a whole hell of a lot when the blow two, 2-0 vs philly in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) Sure there's going to be people saying I'm a spoiled jaded jackass but when you see this happening to a team right before your eyes its kinda depressing. This team is flawed, like every other team in the league. The difference is other teams adapt. The only thing we have adapted too is putting L's in the column. The people screaming about fans being spoiled in this context are just being defensive and not looking at the situation clearly.. We're saying that the team isn't doing well right now and we're trying to figure out what could be the source of the issues as of late.. Obviously something is wrong if we have been doing worse for a month.. All I've been saying is that you can't deem this a slump until we go back to winning consistently again.. Saying it's a slump and we should just try to ride it out is assuming this team will get back to the way it was, and no one can predict the future so I choose not to be quite so optimistic.. I do feel the team should eventually get better, but since I don't know for sure I certainly don't want to go around being the Complaint Police telling everyone how this is a slump because my crystal ball says so.. Last season after we lost to Carolina (March 18th, I believe) I said I thought that loss could really hurt the team's future because it could derail the consistently good play.. But I got absolutely BLASTED on here for thinking that..... Sometimes when you lose you forget how you were playing when you were winning.. And that's pretty much exactly what happened.. We lost a streak of games and were out in round 1 to the same team that started the downward spiral for us.. Now who really are the spoiled fans? The ones who complain we haven't won a cup in 7 years and demand we win one now! The ones who show up to 1 game a year and complain after the team doesn't win that game, who care so little but expect so much.. I'm not spoiled because this this past month of hockey has been tough to watch and I want to discuss some reasons why.. I'm not spoiled because I think we are underachieving and should be playing better.. That's just simple assessment.. If I didn't think we had a good team I wouldn't be on here demanding we be better.. Spoiled is asking a bad team to win the Cup.. I'm asking a good team to play at the level I know they're capable of Edited February 11, 2010 by Colin226 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 If every team successfully adapted every year, wouldn't every team win the Stanley Cup every year??? Foolish statement Welcome to the rest of the pack in the NHL, we've been there a long time... now it's finally getting to them in the REGULAR season that's all Was it you who had 'insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result' in your sig? I'm not talking about successfully, I'm talking about just not continuing to do the same thing over and over, especially when it's not working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 We're injured and tired and need time to practice. Make this thread if they still arent winning mid to late March Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SatansDevils Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 I wanted the Devils and Lou to hire Dave tippett as well for the next Devils coach. tippett is doing a great job in Phoenix and will have that team in the playoffs in the WC this year. Tippett most likely will get coach of the year and he is doing just as good maybe even better than what Lemaire has done. Both are good coaches, but really wanted Tippett. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 what have you done for me lately? As in 2010. What the Devils did in october, november dont mean a whole hell of a lot when the blow two, 2-0 vs philly in a row. uh, no. there's a ton of luck involved in constantly hanging on to leads. as i've shown, the devils have been exceptionally unlucky when doing so lately; i'm almost sure they were exceptionally lucky early in the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devlman Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) what have you done for me lately? As in 2010. What the Devils did in october, november dont mean a whole hell of a lot when the blow two, 2-0 vs philly in a row. So lets fire a coach anytime we go on a little slump (which btw, as triumph has pointed out, is largely due to a lack of luck) Edited February 11, 2010 by devlman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 the devils are 4th in the league in winning percentage with a lead after 1 period. they are 3rd in the NHL in winning percentage with a lead after 2. i'm not going to attribute that lead-keeping to jacques lemaire, but calling that a flaw of jacques lemaire is like saying ilya kovalchuk's shot is too fast to be deflectable. You're using statistics that incorporate 2 different teams.. The Devils from opening night to the 4-0 win against Dallas look way different to me than the Devils in the past month.. Your statistics are being supported by a team that was top 3 in the league for about 3 months and only playing poorly for 1 month.. Recompute your stuff using only the past month's games and tell me what our figures look like now. Because it's nice to know we were playing well for 3 months but recent history is a little more persuasive of future play for me than what we were doing 2-4 months ago when winning and holding leads seemed to come easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marv4Life Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 So lets fire a coach anytime we go on a little slump (which btw, as triumph has pointed out, is largely due to a lack of luck) This is MORE than a slump. Don't sugarcoat it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 So lets fire a coach anytime we go on a little slump ok, you'll come around when we get fvcked up in the first round. at this point i just hope to god its not the rangers or flyers. believe me, i want to believe in this team. btw, i am a mets fan. you know what we said 2-3 years ago? 'ohh well its better to slump now before the playoffs so we heat up when we make it'. This has the end of last season written all over it and this team means to much to all of us for that to happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Recompute your stuff using only the past month's games and tell me what our figures look like now. Because it's nice to know we were playing well for 3 months but recent history is a little more persuasive of future play for me than what we were doing 2-4 months ago when winning and holding leads seemed to come easy That isn't true at all. Using less data is almost never a better indicator than using more data unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The only reason to do so here is to try and make the numbers look as poor as possible, by purposefully ignoring better earlier numbers, so there is no reason only to look at the recent games. On the flip side, if the Devils win their last 2 games before the break could I make a case that I should only use those 2 games because those are indicative of their most recent play? No, that would be equally as silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 uh, no. there's a ton of luck involved in constantly hanging on to leads. as i've shown, the devils have been exceptionally unlucky when doing so lately; i'm almost sure they were exceptionally lucky early in the season. Tri.. Luck? I thought you were the stats guy who proves his points with math hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Tri.. Luck? I thought you were the stats guy who proves his points with math hahaha Math and Stats both tell you there is a lot of randomness the smaller the sample you're looking at. That's why you try to look at as big a set of data as possible to eliminate the fluctuations of randomness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 That isn't true at all. Using less data is almost never a better indicator than using more data unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The only reason to do so here is to try and make the numbers look as poor as possible, by purposefully ignoring better earlier numbers, so there is no reason only to look at the recent games. On the flip side, if the Devils win their last 2 games before the break could I make a case that I should only use those 2 games because those are indicative of their most recent play? No, that would be equally as silly. So you're saying that in this past month we look and play like the same team as earlier in the season? Talk about silly comments... I'm saying we look like 2 different teams between then and now.. And I want to know how the "now" team is doing compared to the league because that's the team that is playing right NOW haha.. So yeah when looking ahead I want to know how our team right now is playing because we won't win games by telling teams we were good a few months ago.. If we win the next 2 games I'll consider it a good finish heading to the Olympics Here's my example: Last season the Habs were really good through December and January but got cold.. And it wasn't a slump.. And through the remainder of the season they slowly fell through the standings and eventually missed the playoffs.. I'm not saying that will happen to us at all.. But since I don't know if we will get better, stay the same, or even get worse I don't want to go around acting like we will definitely get better.. And that's just personal preference you can't argue someone's outlook on the future haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) ok, you'll come around when we get fvcked up in the first round. at this point i just hope to god its not the rangers or flyers. believe me, i want to believe in this team. btw, i am a mets fan. you know what we said 2-3 years ago? 'ohh well its better to slump now before the playoffs so we heat up when we make it'. This has the end of last season written all over it and this team means to much to all of us for that to happen again. Don't even remind me, I already made the '07 Mets comparison in another blog because this has that kind of feeling - a team playing dreadfully for a prolonged period that somehow remains in the division lead until the end of the season. The difference being we won't actually miss the playoffs by crapping away the division, we'd probably just crap away in the first round again instead. And I remember that season arguing with the homer Met fans on another board who wanted to insist that 'oh if you take out this many games the Mets are still playing well'...bull. If there's a prolonged malaise it is cause for concern and it's legit to debate why. It's not being spoiled, fans like to throw around the spoiled word too much. Do I expect a Lemaire coached and Brodeur goaltended team to blow FOUR two-goal leads in a two and a half week span? Absolutely not. Am I entitled to be annoyed (like Dano was last night) when the team doesn't make life difficult for Jeff Carter after he physically removed one of our players from a game and completely changed the home-and-home? Absolutely. Spoiled to me is complaining after every single loss that the loss was because you didn't play well, not having anything to do with the other team but when it becomes a trend, that's a horse of another color. I wasn't even that concerned until they no-showed in Ottawa after two days off, then I started to look at this 'slump' another way. And quite honestly Lou HAS fired coaches for less than this, but he won't fire Lemaire. That all being said, no panic buttons should be pushed until after the Olympics and we have a (hopefully) healthy roster. Edited February 11, 2010 by Hasan4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 So you're saying that in this past month we look and play like the same team as earlier in the season? Talk about silly comments... I'm saying we look like 2 different teams between then and now.. And I want to know how the "now" team is doing compared to the league because that's the team that is playing right NOW haha.. So yeah when looking ahead I want to know how our team right now is playing because we won't win games by telling teams we were good a few months ago.. If we win the next 2 games I'll consider it a good finish heading to the Olympics Here's my example: Last season the Habs were really good through December and January but got cold.. And it wasn't a slump.. And through the remainder of the season they slowly fell through the standings and eventually missed the playoffs.. I'm not saying that will happen to us at all.. But since I don't know if we will get better, stay the same, or even get worse I don't want to go around acting like we will definitely get better.. And that's just personal preference you can't argue someone's outlook on the future haha first off, the habs didn't miss the playoffs last year, they sneaked in at 8th. we're not two different teams. the team is composed of by and large the same players. the point is that you are artificially reducing the sample size (by calling us 2 teams), then saying one is vastly different from the other, when they're made up of basically the same players. it doesn't make any sense to do that. yes, players are human, they play better when confident and they don't play as well when they're not sure. there's a human element being left out here, for sure. but the devils are much, much better than last year's Habs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 Don't even remind me, I already made the '07 Mets comparison in another blog because this has that kind of feeling - a team playing dreadfully for a prolonged period that somehow remains in the division lead until the end of the season. The difference being we won't actually miss the playoffs by crapping away the division, we'd probably just crap away in the first round again instead. And I remember that season arguing with the homer Met fans on another board who wanted to insist that 'oh if you take out this many games the Mets are still playing well'...bull. If there's a prolonged malaise it is cause for concern and it's legit to debate why. agree 100%. this is exactly how i feel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 So you're saying that in this past month we look and play like the same team as earlier in the season? Talk about silly comments... I'm saying we look like 2 different teams between then and now.. And I want to know how the "now" team is doing compared to the league because that's the team that is playing right NOW haha.. So yeah when looking ahead I want to know how our team right now is playing because we won't win games by telling teams we were good a few months ago.. And you think if you had looked at numbers the team before the slump happened you would have said, "well this team will obviously slump starting next game"? No, you probably wouldn't have. Teams gravitate towards their normal play and Tri gave a spate of numbers showing why the recent play is under performing even bad teams normal play. This is like a baseball playing hitting .400 over a 10 game streak so you pitch around him in the 11th game when there is no reason to think the player will continue to hit .400. It's also like when a team win 10 games in a row and then loses 3 of their next 4. Based on teams being "hot" or "playing like they're great" those guys on the hot streaks should never stop being hot or winning, but they do, because eventually they start playing like their regular selves again. All players and teams have ups and downs, sometimes little ones and sometimes big ones, you can't predict the next game or at bat based on what has happened immediately prior, you're much better off predicting based on what the team or player will do under regular circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Math and Stats both tell you there is a lot of randomness the smaller the sample you're looking at. That's why you try to look at as big a set of data as possible to eliminate the fluctuations of randomness. Well most of the time you use a sample set of data to simulate the population, or total data.. I'm choosing to use a sample set that is recent because I feel that in this context it makes the most sense looking forward.. Using data from months ago when we (in my view) looked like a different team and were playing 100x better will not give us as accurate a measure as using data from a more recent time with a team looking much the same as it does now.. Like I said earlier, just look at last year's team.. We were on fire during January, February, and early March.. Absolutely en fuego baby.. But in our remaining games heading into the playoffs we looked like crap.. Now looking at our first series against the Canes you could have argued your position which is "We were better than them all year, our season stats prove it, so we will beat them" while I looked at it and said "Yeah we were good earlier in the season but our last few games have looked sloppy and are not indicative of our entire season. I feel like this team will continue to play the way it has of late so I don't see us dominating this series despite us being better than the Canes during the regular season"... The Canes were worse than us if you compared season long statistics BUT if you only looked at the last few games leading up to the playoffs you will see that we played bad and the Canes were on a hot streak.. So who really had the advantage heading into the series? Well by your method we did because months ago we had played well.. Makes no sense to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin226 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 first off, the habs didn't miss the playoffs last year, they sneaked in at 8th. we're not two different teams. the team is composed of by and large the same players. the point is that you are artificially reducing the sample size (by calling us 2 teams), then saying one is vastly different from the other, when they're made up of basically the same players. it doesn't make any sense to do that. yes, players are human, they play better when confident and they don't play as well when they're not sure. there's a human element being left out here, for sure. but the devils are much, much better than last year's Habs. Ok so they yeah they sneaked in and were out in 5 minutes haha.. Ok so you and I agree upon what you called the "human element" and that it exists in sports, you just choose not to factor that in when picking your sample size.. I mean it's a difference of opinion but I respect it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Well most of the time you use a sample set of data to simulate the population, or total data..I'm choosing to use a sample set that is recent because I feel that in this context it makes the most sense looking forward.. Using data from months ago when we (in my view) looked like a different team and were playing 100x better will not give us as accurate a measure as using data from a more recent time with a team looking much the same as it does now.. You really can't do that because you're pre-judging the data. You're picking an artificial point to start collecting data because that's the data that most supports the point you want to use, that the team is poor. You try not to limit sample size whenever possible, and in most cases you'd like a sample size to be at least 30 in most cases, but in the case of a sports season there really isn't much reason to not use the whole season, except in cases of major roster changes and the only major roster change for the Devils very recently is a positive one. The Canes were worse than us if you compared season long statistics BUT if you only looked at the last few games leading up to the playoffs you will see that we played bad and the Canes were on a hot streak.. So who really had the advantage heading into the series? Well by your method we did because months ago we had played well.. Makes no sense to me And the Devils outplayed the Canes but still lost, that happens. If the Devils were say favorites going into the Canes series, 60/40 or 55/45 then you have to understand that there is still a significant chance the Devils lose, even if they are the better team. With the parity of the salary cap most playoff series are really close affairs. 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.