No Reason For Optimism

[Devils731]

Major League 2? Please tell me you can do better than that.

Reference to bad movies aside, I'm not booing anyone when I'm at a game, even on those 0 for 6 powerplay nights. I always thought fan forums were supposed to be a place where people were more free to sound off. But apparently I've angered some of the Commissars here.

The PP is soooooooooooo bad. It's 15th in the league and under .5% away from being 9th(.5% was picked because that's what it would take to bump the Devils to 16th).

You haven't angered people, you're being silly, nonsensical, and not responding to things with much meat to your arguments. I guess people aren't free to respond to your opinions but you want to be free to make them.....or are you angry now?

[Daniel]

The PP is soooooooooooo bad. It's 15th in the league and under .5% away from being 9th(.5% was picked because that's what it would take to bump the Devils to 16th).

You haven't angered people, you're being silly, nonsensical, and not responding to things with much meat to your arguments. I guess people aren't free to respond to your opinions but you want to be free to make them.....or are you angry now?

Again, much of the powerplay's success statistically speaking came from the beginning of the season when the team was on fire. Since the "slump" began, it's been bad, I don't see how you can say otherwise.

Don't worry, I can take the criticism.

ADDENDUM: I also pledge that if I'm right, I won't do one of those told you so threads, except if it's one of those "where do go from here" discussions (I also pledge that I won't say "blow up the team"). But feel free to pour it on if I'm wrong.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Daniel

[Devils731]

Again, much of the powerplay's success statistically speaking came from the beginning of the season when the team was on fire. Since the "slump" began, it's been bad, I don't see how you can say otherwise.

Don't worry, I can take the criticism.

So very recently the PP has been on fire, which do I believe? The really long term? The really recent? The semi recent? The slightly longer than semi but still recent? The kinda long term but not the whole season?

Anyway, if recent PP performance was what was bothering me I'd look to the fact that the PP has started to look pretty good recently, and scoring, while for awhile it wasn't scoring and didn't look good. Or I could like at the whole season and say that the PP has been pretty decent over the longest amount of time I can measure.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Right now I see a team with ... a good goalie, but an awful blue-line, a fossil of a coach ...

So a good goalie, an awful blue line and a fossil of a coach all combined to create the team that allowed the fewest goals so far this season? Come on, man. You're not giving this defensive corps (which was missing its top guy most of the season) or the coach their due. We've been spoiled by the Stevenses and Niedermayers of the world to the point where we expect perfection, and all of the sudden Best In The League isn't good enough anymore. That's pretty ridiculous.

[Daniel]

So very recently the PP has been on fire, which do I believe? The really long term? The really recent? The semi recent? The slightly longer than semi but still recent? The kinda long term but not the whole season?

Anyway, if recent PP performance was what was bothering me I'd look to the fact that the PP has started to look pretty good recently, and scoring, while for awhile it wasn't scoring and didn't look good. Or I could like at the whole season and say that the PP has been pretty decent over the longest amount of time I can measure.

Ok fine. What I'm seeing is that the powerplay since January 1, which I think is a pretty good sample, has been bad. I agree that it's looked a little better recently, but many of the goals were banked against bad teams like Columbus, who earlier this year got the Rangers powerplay out of its doldrums.

In any event, if it were kind of up and down all season, then I would be more comfortable just looking at the season average. But, again, based on what I've seen, which is roughly 85% of the games, it's effectiveness has dropped precipitously since this teams troubles began.

Just to be clear, I think the talent is obviously there. I just hate the umbrella formation where players aren't moving their feet.

[David Puddy]

If you can't deal with that, it's not my problem.

The problem is not that people can't deal with it... The problem is that you don't realize that going on and on about it on this message board achieves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and if you do realize it, you're just a troll.

While I realize we as fans have very little effect on how the team plays, this is just a bad attitude to have in life. You don't achieve goals by convincing yourself you're not good enough.

[Daniel]

So a good goalie, an awful blue line and a fossil of a coach all combined to create the team that allowed the fewest goals so far this season? Come on, man. You're not giving this defensive corps (which was missing its top guy most of the season) or the coach their due. We've been spoiled by the Stevenses and Niedermayers of the world to the point where we expect perfection, and all of the sudden Best In The League isn't good enough anymore. That's pretty ridiculous.

I have never been one of those, oh-they-just-play the trap kind of guys. But the one thing I will give Jacques credit for is making sure that all of the forwards do their share in their own end, which, in addition to Marty, explains the low goals against, and also the low goals for (second lowest of all Eastern Conference teams still in the playoff hunt).

When I watch games, I see our blue-liners turning the puck over way too much in our end, and just as importantly, not really contributing anything significant to the offense. No, a Stevens and Niedermeyer aren't necessary for success, but I think you need to have at least two blue-liners that are more than just a body in the offensive end. We all hated the 5 forward powerplay, but until Martin got back, was there a defenseman you could put out there and realistically hope for him to do anything more than not screw up.

[Daniel]

The problem is not that people can't deal with it... The problem is that you don't realize that going on and on about it on this message board achieves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and if you do realize it, you're just a troll.

While I realize we as fans have very little effect on how the team plays, this is just a bad attitude to have in life. You don't achieve goals by convincing yourself you're not good enough.

Honestly, I don't think anything on a message board achieves anything. It's just for fun. And if there's a single guy on the team who's reading what anyone says in here, the team's in worse trouble than even I think.

I also don't know how I can be described as a troll. Admittedly I get hysterical from time to time, but a troll would be a Rangers fan coming in here and posting "Matteau, Matteau".

[NewarkDevil5]

We all hated the 5 forward powerplay, but until Martin got back, was there a defenseman you could put out there and realistically hope for him to do anything more than not screw up.

Actually, for a very large portion of the early part of this season, Andy Greene not only performed admirably on the powerplay, but was scoring consistently on it.

[Devil Dan 56]

Finally, I could care less about comparisons to Get Real/Lucifer's Dog (bones, clams or whatever you call them). Again, I've been rooting for this team longer than I'd guess 90% of the people here. Right now I see a team with two and half really good lines, a good goalie, but an awful blue-line, a fossil of a coach, and a powerplay that good teams (and many not-so-good teams) have seemed to figure out. I don't think that translates into playoff success. If you can't deal with that, it's not my problem.

I gotta say man... I know we don't agree on what the team can do in the playoffs, but I appreciate the hell out of a good Lebowski quote, and you've thrown in several in this thread.

[Devils731]

Ok fine. What I'm seeing is that the powerplay since January 1, which I think is a pretty good sample, has been bad. I agree that it's looked a little better recently, but many of the goals were banked against bad teams like Columbus, who earlier this year got the Rangers powerplay out of its doldrums.

In any event, if it were kind of up and down all season, then I would be more comfortable just looking at the season average. But, again, based on what I've seen, which is roughly 85% of the games, it's effectiveness has dropped precipitously since this teams troubles began.

Just to be clear, I think the talent is obviously there. I just hate the umbrella formation where players aren't moving their feet.

I've watched, I believe, 100% of the games so does that trump 85% or can we stop with how long a fan type crap that is a deflection from arguing the points.

The PP effectiveness has risen dramatically ever since the team really worked hard on it 2 weeks ago and the results and the visual effectiveness reflect that hard work.

I don't see how it can make sense to argue the recent success isn't reflective of the PP and the long term success isn't reflective, but the last few months(but ignoring the very recent play) is reflective. It's definitely picking a sample size that fits your goal and not choosing something that makes sense and seeing what the answer is.

[David Puddy]

I don't see how it can make sense to argue the recent success isn't reflective of the PP and the long term success isn't reflective, but the last few months(but ignoring the very recent play) is reflective. It's definitely picking a sample size that fits your goal and not choosing something that makes sense and seeing what the answer is.

"Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

[Triumph]

one thing daniel is certainly doing in this thread is way overstating the edge that good teams have against bad ones. besides edmonton, there really isn't a bad team in the NHL. besides washington, there really isn't a great team in the NHL.

[Daniel]

one thing daniel is certainly doing in this thread is way overstating the edge that good teams have against bad ones. besides edmonton, there really isn't a bad team in the NHL. besides washington, there really isn't a great team in the NHL.

one bad team? that's absurd. Leafs, Blue Jackets, Florida are all bad teams. Minnesota, Lightning and Carolina are borderline bad teams.

the point for an overtime loss creates a lot of false parity

[David Puddy]

I don't see how it can make sense to argue the recent success isn't reflective of the PP and the long term success isn't reflective, but the last few months(but ignoring the very recent play) is reflective. It's definitely picking a sample size that fits your goal and not choosing something that makes sense and seeing what the answer is.

"Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Edit: Somehow this double posted even after an hour even though I didn't resubmit it... weird.

Edited April 7, 2010 by David Puddy

[Devil Dan 56]

one bad team? that's absurd. Leafs, Blue Jackets, Florida are all bad teams. Minnesota, Lightning and Carolina are borderline bad teams.

the point for an overtime loss creates a lot of false parity

The Leafs are 10-6-3 since the Olympics. Using your logic, doesn't that make them good, since they have been consistently good for that stretch?

It's the season as a whole that makes them a bad team. Just as the season as a whole makes the Devils a good team. All of these teams play the same 82 game schedule.

[Triumph]

one bad team? that's absurd. Leafs, Blue Jackets, Florida are all bad teams. Minnesota, Lightning and Carolina are borderline bad teams.

the point for an overtime loss creates a lot of false parity

no, it doesn't. GD is of course, goal differential.

2010:

oilers -67 GD

leafs -48 GD

lightning -47 GD

blue jackets -39 GD

florida -36 GD

minnesota -27 GD

carolina -27 GD

let's go back to your favorite seasons when you were a great fan. how's about 1991? put on your flannel shirts for this:

nordiques -118 GD

leafs -77 GD

canucks -72 GD

islanders -67 GD

that's a random year, non-expansion. keep in mind that teams used their backup goalie more often during these seasons than they do now, something which (i would think) deflates goal differential with bad teams, because they're probably facing backups more than 50% of the time.

and this is just goal differential, if you want to normalize teams' records, calling all shootouts ties, and awarding points 2-1-0 without a loser point, you'll find the same thing. you will also find that goal differentials among top teams is lower.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Triumph

[Daniel]

The Leafs are 10-6-3 since the Olympics. Using your logic, doesn't that make them good, since they have been consistently good for that stretch?

It's the season as a whole that makes them a bad team. Just as the season as a whole makes the Devils a good team. All of these teams play the same 82 game schedule.

You're resorting to attacking two straw men. First, I'm not concerned only about post-Olympic record, but the record since January 1. My point about the post-Olympic record is that it doesn't in my mind show that things have turned around as some here would like to believe.

Second, the whole point of my argument is not whether the Devils have been good or bad this season, but whether they're going anywhere in the playoffs. The Leafs are a bad team that happens to be on a decent streak as of late, that's all.

A logical extension of my argument could be that if the Leafs were in the playoff picture and were playing this well down the stretch, then I would think their chances were pretty good in the playoffs.

[Triumph]

You're resorting to attacking two straw men. First, I'm not concerned only about post-Olympic record, but the record since January 1. My point about the post-Olympic record is that it doesn't in my mind show that things have turned around as some here would like to believe.

Second, the whole point of my argument is not whether the Devils have been good or bad this season, but whether they're going anywhere in the playoffs. The Leafs are a bad team that happens to be on a decent streak as of late, that's all.

A logical extension of my argument could be that if the Leafs were in the playoff picture and were playing this well down the stretch, then I would think their chances were pretty good in the playoffs.

full season record more important than 2nd half record in determining who will win playoff games and series

[sundstrom]

This. Last year, when the team was up 3-2 going into game 6, no one was saying they were gonna lose. When they lost in Game 7, though, a lot of people 'knew' it was going to happen and could 'see it coming'.

FWIW, a bunch of people thought this was going 7 before it even started and late second collapses had already happened to this team.

i'm too lazy to go and find it but I'm quoting myself before the series started "this series is going 7. whatever happens in games 1-6, no matter how it happens, is all noise. this gets decided in the 3rd period of game 7."

Nine and nine since the Olympic break. A loss is a loss so far as I'm concerned, whether in OT, shoot-out or dance-off. But more to the point, I don't see anyone here can say with a straight face they've been playing well since the Olympic break, and certainly not since January 1. Some good wins here and there, but the losses to the Oilers, Flames, Islanders, Rangers and Toronto don't inspire too much confidence.

Finally, I could care less about comparisons to Get Real/Lucifer's Dog (bones, clams or whatever you call them). Again, I've been rooting for this team longer than I'd guess 90% of the people here. Right now I see a team with two and half really good lines, a good goalie, but an awful blue-line, a fossil of a coach, and a powerplay that good teams (and many not-so-good teams) have seemed to figure out. I don't think that translates into playoff success. If you can't deal with that, it's not my problem.

going to the well w/ the lebowski quotes. i saw devildan found it but i was sure it was going to get missed. i'm not sure it's really valid for this either.

[Daniel]

full season record more important than 2nd half record in determining who will win playoff games and series

Are you the love child of Bill James and Sherry Ross?

The sabremetrics can only go so far. It's not just that their second half record/performance wasn't as good, it's been bad. As Doc alluded to last night, the unreal hot streak at the beginning of the year is the reason the Devils aren't battling it out with the Bruins, Rangers and Flyers for a playoff spot.

[Triumph]

Are you the love child of Bill James and Sherry Ross?

The sabremetrics can only go so far. It's not just that their second half record/performance wasn't as good, it's been bad. As Doc alluded to last night, the unreal hot streak at the beginning of the year is the reason the Devils aren't battling it out with the Bruins, Rangers and Flyers for a playoff spot.

sigh. don't you see that that hot streak makes it more likely that the devils are a better team than them? that the devils have a better goal differential than all 3 teams, and with the bruins and rangers it isn't particularly close? you can't suggest alternate universes where that didn't happen, mostly because they don't exist - it did happen. the devils shot out to that hot start because they won an inordinate number of 1 goal games, and recently they have been losing an inordinate number of 1 goal games.

each game a team wins slightly increases the idea that they are a good team. each game a team loses slightly decreases the idea that they are a good team. it doesn't matter when in the season these things happen.

[Devils731]

It's not just that their second half record/performance wasn't as good, it's been bad.

The performance since the Olympic break has been pretty good, +10 goal differential in those 18 games. It's +24 for the whole season. So, as usual, you'd like to ignore the most recent 18 games and ignore the season as a whole, and focus on an in-between number of games, for no particular reason other than that where you believe it backs you up the most.

Edit: Tried to take out shootout goals, don't think I missed any.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Devils731

[Devils731]

Just for kicks the Devils are +1 in goal differential in the New Year. So the Pre-Olympic New Year and the Post-Olympic New Year are basically canceling each other out. So the team was +23 last year, then -9 Pre-Olympic, and then +10 Post Olympic. So that looks like 2 good stretches and 1 bad. Yet the one bad, over 22 games at -9, tells us the truth but the good, over 18 games and +10, and the very good over 39 games at +23, apparently tell us nothing.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Devils731