Sweez Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Either way, there's still one more chance, and the Sabres can still get it done on Tuesday night. Let's put this one behind us, get Roy and hopefully Hecht back for Tuesday and close this series out. Also, I'd take a 2 minute slashing penalty on McCormick if he just took out Pronger's hand. Too bad he doesn't play on the PK since Pronger won't be seeing any even strength time. Wait wait, so you're saying Richards is a dirty player and you want him suspended, but you want McCormick to intentionally hurt an injured player?
SabresFan526 Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Wait wait, so you're saying Richards is a dirty player and you want him suspended, but you want McCormick to intentionally hurt an injured player? That's right. Eye-for-an-eye. Those guys are so dirty, starting with Richards and Pronger. Pronger is the dirtiest player in the NHL. What sickens me more than anything else is that Richards wears a C and Pronger wears an A. And they are the dirtiest players in the NHL. If the NHL does nothing to punish the Flyers and Richards, then the Sabres have to do it on the ice. I am just so upset right now, and admittedly, I am likely lacking any rationality in my posts.
... Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 But with all due respect, that's not how probability works. You have to take into account MANY factors. Probability isn't just it happens or doesn't happen. For some stats to make you want to blow your head off ==> Hockey Analytics Haha, damned if I do, damned if I don't. See this thread: http://forums.sabrespace.com/topic/19294-all-time-record-when-down-2-games-to-1/ The probability that the Sabres win game 7 and the series is 50/50. There are only two possible outcomes. The first 6 games do not influence whether Buffalo wins game 7, and thus, the series. Strictly speaking. I am sure there are copius ways to parse stats to determine the probability of winning a game based on certain scenarios. However, the application of the stats is, ultimately, subjective, and have no bearing on the outcome of game 7 between the Sabres and the Flyers.
Sweez Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 That's right. Eye-for-an-eye. Those guys are so dirty, starting with Richards and Pronger. Pronger is the dirtiest player in the NHL. What sickens me more than anything else is that Richards wears a C and Pronger wears an A. And they are the dirtiest players in the NHL. If the NHL does nothing to punish the Flyers and Richards, then the Sabres have to do it on the ice. I am just so upset right now, and admittedly, I am likely lacking any rationality in my posts. I would think Carcillo and Pronger are the 2 dirtiest players on the Flyers. Hartnell being the 3'rd. Every team has goons, just look at Kaleta.
OverPowerYou Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I think we all overlooked a very minor detail about Tuesday's game. They will be playing game 7... That's right, I said #7... Maybe somewhere up there in hockey heaven, we'll get a hand from our #7 Do this for Rick Martin!
Freeezo Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 So, Would the Sabres typically travel tonite or practice tomorrow in Buff and travel tomorrow nite?
Freeezo Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Interesting the dude on wgr site say's he thinks Connolly has a shoulder injury. For Timmy's case, I hope that is true
Braedon Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Haha, damned if I do, damned if I don't. See this thread: http://forums.sabres...n-2-games-to-1/ The probability that the Sabres win game 7 and the series is 50/50. There are only two possible outcomes. The first 6 games do not influence whether Buffalo wins game 7, and thus, the series. Strictly speaking. I am sure there are copius ways to parse stats to determine the probability of winning a game based on certain scenarios. However, the application of the stats is, ultimately, subjective, and have no bearing on the outcome of game 7 between the Sabres and the Flyers. I disagree. You're working under the assumption that a hockey game is an independent trial, like the flip of a coin. I contest that it isn't. Yes, it is a binomial trial (win/lose), but you have many confounding variables and predictors. Also, you are basing your probability on both teams being evenly weighed, which they certainly are not (home ice has the most explained variance). Yes, in many ways statistics is subjective based on your inference. But your reasoning is flawed. This is by no means a jab, but confusing binomial outcome with it's probability is a common one (see the high school physics teacher about half way through): Daily Show
thesportsbuff Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Interesting the dude on wgr site say's he thinks Connolly has a shoulder injury. For Timmy's case, I hope that is true That is odd, considering Lindy wouldn't outright deny a concussion in the post-game. He did say he didn't want to speculate, but you'd think shoulder injury OR head, they would have given him the concussion test and at least have some idea. I mean if it's just a shoulder, it's just a shoulder..
dudacek Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 My observations: 1) I saw no evidence of a lack of effort with the Sabres. I saw a lack of ability and/or decision making at times, but they never stopped battling. 2) Thomas Vanek has five goals in six games — exactly the same amount as playoff Superman Danny Briere. His between-the-legs second goal was a sick move. Why was no one talking about him? 3) Chris Butler has come a long way in the past three months. I finally see him having a future with this team. But he is not good enough, not yet, for the first pair duties he's been given. 4) Mike Grier's game one was the last gasp of a fine old pro at the end of his career. But it's been downhill since. He's just looks too slow out there. 5) I thought I would be saying the same about Rob Neidermayer. But he's been our steadiest forward. 6) Brad Boyes has to stop thinking and just play. 7) Staff played his ass off, but he had to bury that two-on-one in the third. That was the game-winner. 8) Poms gets smacked pretty hard on this board and Timmy harder than anyone. But we missed them big time in this one. Their smarts are taken for granted and no one was capable of picking up their minutes. 9) I thought the Flyers had the league's best forwards going in to this series and they've done nothing to change that. 10) Winning 1-0 or losing 5-4, Miller is our MVP.
Freeezo Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Yeah dudacek I think they should consider putting mancari in for Grier. Imagine the Filly goalies trying to stop a 105 mile slap shot from that dude...
thesportsbuff Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Yeah dudacek I think they should consider putting mancari in for Grier. Imagine the Filly goalies trying to stop a 105 mile slap shot from that dude... I think Ellis should stay in for Grier. Mancari's 105 mph slapper didn't do much in the reg season... he had ample time to produce, couldn't do it.
Freeezo Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I think Ellis should stay in for Grier. Mancari's 105 mph slapper didn't do much in the reg season... he had ample time to produce, couldn't do it. Yeah that's deff the other side of the coin isn't it...
thesportsbuff Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Yeah that's deff the other side of the coin isn't it... Ellis, to me, is basically the same player as Grier, but a little less responsible defensively (still pretty responsible tho) and a more affective/physical forecheck.
dudacek Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Looks like Roy's in for Connolly Any news on Hecht? If they're ready, that's two guys that can handle three-line hockey. We basically finished the game with eight forwards.
thesportsbuff Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Why did McCormick play virtually the same as Pronger? That fourth line could have helped. You'd think after losing Connolly he could have got some more ice time. He's earned it this year imo.
dudacek Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I was wondering the same thing. That said, he hasn't had the impact in this series he did against Boston last year. Maybe it's because the rest of the team showed up this year.
bunomatic Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Disappointing loss, but this has been and will be a tight series, right down to the wire. Glad they have performed well enough in the series to earn another shot at winning it - rather than losing in 5 or 6. Good post and I agree 100%. I thought if the sabres were to beat this team it would take 7 games. Keeping the faith and I'll not rag on the boys til its all over win or lose. I can't be disappointed til they're officially out and being that there's a 7th game they ain't out yet. They can still make us proud. Go Sabres!
... Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I am not confusing anything. You can apply confounding variables and predictors to a coin toss as well. You can apply confounding variables and predictors to any event with an unpredictable outcome. It's a choice whether you factor in those variables or not when predicting probability. The outcome, being independent from the predictors, is still unknown. The additional factors in predicting probability only enhance the accuracy of the prediction, assuming the additional factors are valid. And before calculating error. So, in this case, I can choose to add the game tally as a factor, and still be at 50%. If I add shut-outs as a factor (based on shut-outs), then the probability increases to 66.7%, but I'm sure some would argue the validity of that factor. Once you're beyond the base number of possible outcomes, the validity of nearly any additional factor can be disputed. Perhaps if you can provide something a little more elucidating than a Daily Show sketch, I might be able to see how an equation such as "teams going into game 7 missing X number of players who have won 2 games via shut-out with an average player height of 5' 10.5" with a three prior month record of Y wins in rinks with a medium-rated ice surface have P probability of winning" has any greater meaning than "the team will win or the team will lose". :D
dudacek Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Good post and I agree 100%. I thought if the sabres were to beat this team it would take 7 games. Keeping the faith and I'll not rag on the boys til its all over win or lose. I can't be disappointed til they're officially out and being that there's a 7th game they ain't out yet. They can still make us proud. Go Sabres! I'm sure not giving up. We've battled our ###### off against a good team. It's great to see this team developing the mental (and physical) toughness it has been lacking. It's dead even after six. No reason why we can't win game seven.
Braedon Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I am not confusing anything. You can apply confounding variables and predictors to a coin toss as well. You can apply confounding variables and predictors to any event with an unpredictable outcome. It's a choice whether you factor in those variables or not when predicting probability. The outcome, being independent from the predictors, is still unknown. The additional factors in predicting probability only enhance the accuracy of the prediction, assuming the additional factors are valid. And before calculating error. So, in this case, I can choose to add the game tally as a factor, and still be at 50%. If I add shut-outs as a factor (based on shut-outs), then the probability increases to 66.7%, but I'm sure some would argue the validity of that factor. Once you're beyond the base number of possible outcomes, the validity of nearly any additional factor can be disputed. Perhaps if you can provide something a little more elucidating than a Daily Show sketch, I might be able to see how an equation such as "teams going into game 7 missing X number of players who have won 2 games via shut-out with an average player height of 5' 10.5" with a three prior month record of Y wins in rinks with a medium-rated ice surface have P probability of winning" has any greater meaning than "the team will win or the team will lose". :D You're talking about 2 different things. The "meaning" lies in my ability to predict the dependent variable, i.e. Outcome. If you go by what you are stating above, you're using a a fixed factor of game tally. You're right, it would give you 50/50. But by using a predictor, you have a different argument than your previous one -"'The probability that the Sabres win game 7 and the series is 50/50. There are only two possible outcomes." That argument is precisely what was in the daily show sketch. The coin toss scenario is most often used as an example of 1) equal weight and 2) independence. You can't add confounders or predictors (at least it won't do you any good) if you are operating on those two assumptions. You can certainly change your assumptions, but the previous forum you linked doesn't seem to use it in that context. As for providing you something "elucidating", I will certainly try. Don't need all those predictors you gave me, just one: .620. The all time winning percentage of home teams in NHL Game 7s. My model beats up your model. :D
thesportsbuff Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 After watching the replay several times I've changed my mind. I think Richards deserves a suspension.
Freeezo Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I like our chances. Filly will go in favored, expected to win at home. They could be pretty tight
LaLaLaFontaine Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Oh man, we lost this one. Drew could have closed the box with the 5:3. The evil hit by Richards against TC only gave aminor. This is nearly a bad joke like the Chara incident. One fact that disturbes me is, that Philadelphia seems to be most of the time in our zone (in most of the other games too) an thta they win most of the board battles Sometimes they won these battle although two Philiies battled against three Sabres. If they had a useful goalie they would not have had so many problems with us. Yesterday minimum goal 1 and 4 were eggs by Leighton and Boucher. Nevertheless: Never give up, never surrender! We can win game nr.7!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.