Buffalo Wings 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! About the only complaint I have is that they couldn't close the deal. Philly's good, but you can't blow two different 2-goal leads in the playoffs. They played well enough to win, though Miller could have been better (even though I thought he was in some tough spots). If Stafford doesn't hit the post early in the third, they win that game. I had the feeling that they needed to win yesterday, because I didn't see them winning Game 7 on the road. As I think more about it, they can win tomorrow night if they give the same effort as they have all series.
Buffalo Wings 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. I'd have to watch it again, but Richards won't get suspended. If it was a Giroux or Carcillo or Leino, then maybe. The league isn't bold enough to suspend the Flyers' captain.
LGR4GM Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Derek Roy's time has come. Pommers, Roy, Hecht, TC all not in our lineup is not acceptable. At this point if roy can hold a stick and skate he is on the bench. I think he can do more and I think the emotional boast as well as the boast to our center position could help us. After watching yesterdays god awful spectacle of a game by the sabres, I think we need to make some hard defensive decisions this summer. We have 5 really young def. Myers, Sekera, MAG, Weber, Butler and out of those I think one needs to be traded.
LGR4GM Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 If anyone is thinking miller isnt worth his salt after yesterday which I am positive appears somewhere earlier in this thread please refer to a fascinating article from puck daddy and look at the playoff goalie rankings. the 3 wins that miller has are 1,2, 4 on the list. http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Stat-Nerd-Sunday-Better-measuring-NHL-goalie-gr;_ylt=AhpvG.yrBgW97WQZJEMb9lF7vLYF?urn=nhl-wp3312
chuck schick Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 About the only complaint I have is that they couldn't close the deal. Philly's good, but you can't blow two different 2-goal leads in the playoffs. They played well enough to win, though Miller could have been better (even though I thought he was in some tough spots). If Stafford doesn't hit the post early in the third, they win that game. I had the feeling that they needed to win yesterday, because I didn't see them winning Game 7 on the road. As I think more about it, they can win tomorrow night if they give the same effort as they have all series. my first thought after the OT goal was "We're done". We may end up being done, but I'm going to look at it a different way: I have no delusions about winning the Cup this year, so why not just enjoy the ride? Game 7s are great because you've built up a great story line, hostilities, etc.and this one has all the ngredients. I'm a hell of a lot more excited about this game than a potential Game 1 vs the Caps.
LabattBlue 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... Last time I looked, the NHL doesn't include skills competitions in the playoffs. ;)
sabresnutinphoenix 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. I was shocked it was only a 2 minute penalty...
sabresnutinphoenix Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 my first thought after the OT goal was "We're done". We may end up being done, but I'm going to look at it a different way: I have no delusions about winning the Cup this year, so why not just enjoy the ride? Game 7s are great because you've built up a great story line, hostilities, etc.and this one has all the ngredients. I'm a hell of a lot more excited about this game than a potential Game 1 vs the Caps. That's how I feel...Does anyone here really feel as though we can win the cup....
Braedon Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 my first thought after the OT goal was "We're done". We may end up being done, but I'm going to look at it a different way: I have no delusions about winning the Cup this year, so why not just enjoy the ride? Game 7s are great because you've built up a great story line, hostilities, etc.and this one has all the ngredients. I'm a hell of a lot more excited about this game than a potential Game 1 vs the Caps. The only reason I'm more excited for Game 1 Vs Caps is that it means I can enjoy the ride for at least 4 more games. But completely agree that 1) not going to SCF and 2) Game 7s are great. Since I'm not as invested in (1), I think Ill be able to sit back a little more and enjoy this game. Unfortunately that's the same thing I said in '06, and there was no sitting back.
LabattBlue Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Am I the only one who doesn't want to hear about other teams blowing leads as a justification to the reason why the Sabres are doing exactly the same? Blowing a two goal lead going into the 2nd period and a 1 goal lead in the 3rd period is unacceptable at home and in a potential series clinching game. Outshot 49-33? You have to be kidding me.
That Aud Smell Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 sorry that i won't be able to read through the thread. regardless of how tuesday turns out, i feel very, very good about what the team has done in 2011 -- in terms of pushing into the playoffs, taking a very good team to the limit (yeah they're down a carter and a pronger -- but, damn, that's still a great group of skaters), and doing it all in a way that makes clear that they've left it all on the ice. go sabres.
LGR4GM Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 That's how I feel...Does anyone here really feel as though we can win the cup.... ...after what I have seen, yes.
carpandean Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 my first thought after the OT goal was "We're done". According to the Flyers' message board GDT from game 6, that's the same thought that most of their fans had after their OT loss.
nobody Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Am I the only one who doesn't want to hear about other teams blowing leads as a justification to the reason why the Sabres are doing exactly the same? Blowing a two goal lead going into the 2nd period and a 1 goal lead in the 3rd period is unacceptable at home and in a potential series clinching game. Outshot 49-33? You have to be kidding me. :thumbsup: Too many lost leads in this series. Too much time spent in their own zone. I think we have to hope for another Miller 1-0 shutout.
Buffalo Wings Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 That's how I feel...Does anyone here really feel as though we can win the cup.... I doubt it, but they might as well go as far as they can. The Sabres should have a "nothing to lose" attitude going into Game 7.
nobody Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Has any team in the playoffs looked unstoppable so far this year? As of right now it has seemed pretty wide open. I'm sure as the playoffs progresses some teams will start to look more so.
Wyldnwoody44 Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Has any team in the playoffs looked unstoppable so far this year? As of right now it has seemed pretty wide open. I'm sure as the playoffs progresses some teams will start to look more so. Cough detroit cough : )
OverPowerYou Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Cough detroit cough : ) I'm sure even the Sabres would look unstoppable if they played teams like Phoenix and Nashville in the 1st round every year. Detroit has had it easy the last few years.
LabattBlue Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 I'm sure even the Sabres would look unstoppable if they played teams like Phoenix and Nashville in the 1st round every year. Detroit has had it easy the last few years. Phoenix had a very good team this year. It's not like Detroit was facing the Oilers in the playoffs.
carpandean Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 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. 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 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 Interesting discussion guys. Brings up a lot of questions when it comes to empirical analysis and modeling of hockey games. The Hockey Analytics article is certainly an interesting one, especially for predicting regular season results. One quick note, so that my post in Sizzle's link is not misinterpreted. When I talked about games being independent trials, I was referring to series across 40 years of playing, not within a series. Games within a series are almost certainly not independent. In the second part of it, I also specifically used this disclaimer "If teams are evenly matched and you ignore momentum, home ice, etc., ..." before providing some odds of a team winning. This does not mean that any of those assumptions are reasonable; rather, they are most likely not. I was simply using it as a baseline to show that the observed results weren't that unreasonable. Analyzing/modeling playoffs hockey is a very interesting problem. While there is likely strong correlation between regular season results (a relatively large sample) and playoff performance, it is generally accepted that playoffs are a different beast (e.g., "some guys know how take it to another level" or "teams play a different game in the playoffs" or "that's playoff hockey.") So, you have a relatively small true sample and an incredibly large number of factors to analyze, which will make estimation very unreliable, even with a secondary source of somewhat correlated data. Add in carryover (learning, etc.) effects from game-to-game and it's nearly impossible to expect any reliable estimate of the true probability of a win. Not to mention the fact that you need a large number of results in order to assess your model after you create it (flipping a coin in Vegas 20 and getting 10 heads still doesn't tell you that the coin is weighted.) One final note: historically, yes, the home team has won more (statistically significant, I believe) than half game 7's, but last year all three game 7's were won by the road team; 4 of 6 were won by the road team in 2008-09. Also, over the last two seasons, the away team has won over 55% of all round 1 games. Which set of statistics are more relevant? I won't say that 50/50 is the best estimate of the odds of winning just because there are two outcomes, but it's also nearly impossible to justify any other estimate as being necessarily better, and would be truly impossible to prove it based on the actual outcome.
LabattBlue Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Game 6 ES SOG... Phi 41 Buf 22. I need to stop looking at the Game 6 stats and look forward to Game 7.
Braedon Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Interesting discussion guys. Brings up a lot of questions when it comes to empirical analysis and modeling of hockey games. The Hockey Analytics article is certainly an interesting one, especially for predicting regular season results. One quick note, so that my post in Sizzle's link is not misinterpreted. When I talked about games being independent trials, I was referring to series across 40 years of playing, not within a series. Games within a series are almost certainly not independent. In the second part of it, I also specifically used this disclaimer "If teams are evenly matched and you ignore momentum, home ice, etc., ..." before providing some odds of a team winning. This does not mean that any of those assumptions are reasonable; rather, they are most likely not. I was simply using it as a baseline to show that the observed results weren't that unreasonable. Analyzing/modeling playoffs hockey is a very interesting problem. While there is likely strong correlation between regular season results (a relatively large sample) and playoff performance, it is generally accepted that playoffs are a different beast (e.g., "some guys know how take it to another level" or "teams play a different game in the playoffs" or "that's playoff hockey.") So, you have a relatively small true sample and an incredibly large number of factors to analyze, which will make estimation very unreliable, even with a secondary source of somewhat correlated data. Add in carryover (learning, etc.) effects from game-to-game and it's nearly impossible to expect any reliable estimate of the true probability of a win. Not to mention the fact that you need a large number of results in order to assess your model after you create it (flipping a coin in Vegas 20 and getting 10 heads still doesn't tell you that the coin is weighted.) One final note: historically, yes, the home team has won more (statistically significant, I believe) than half game 7's, but last year all three game 7's were won by the road team; 4 of 6 were won by the road team in 2008-09. Also, over the last two seasons, the away team has won over 55% of all round 1 games. Which set of statistics are more relevant? I won't say that 50/50 is the best estimate of the odds of winning just because there are two outcomes, but it's also nearly impossible to justify any other estimate as being necessarily better, and would be truly impossible to prove it based on the actual outcome. Love it Carp, thanks for the $.02. Certainly impossible to infer based on one predictor (or even many), however last year could be treated as an outlier. Much like your explanation of basing it on 40 years of hockey rather than one series, the more data you have, the better picture you have. If I'm trying to build my model using IVs with the highest beta weights, I'm going to pick home ice. That said, I'm certainly not going to say that will predict tomorrow nights outcome, however if I use that IV every year, I bet my model would be relatively stronger. Sizzle has great points, love that this turned into a stats debate (so far since I've been back, talked my 3 favorite things - hockey, stats, and whisky). In the end, you hit the nail on the head with the difficulty of hockey. So many moving parts. However to disregard those moving parts based on subjectivity or small variance is no reason to defer to a predictor based on 6 games. In the end, there is a greater chance of error with an IV of such small representation.
spndnchz Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 TPegs. Man this guy loves hockey. At the game yesterday - where was he? Sitting in the owners box? Nope. He stashed himself in a little room next to the press box. Watched the game all by himself. I heard before from Black that they needed to tell people in his box that they needed to not talk to him during the game. This is one way of doing it. Had his daughter Jess stop by and an assistant bring him pops during the game, but he never left. I <3 TPegs.
Braedon Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 TPegs. Man this guy loves hockey. At the game yesterday - where was he? Sitting in the owners box? Nope. He stashed himself in a little room next to the press box. Watched the game all by himself. I heard before from Black that they needed to tell people in his box that they needed to not talk to him during the game. This is one way of doing it. Had his daughter Jess stop by and an assistant bring him pops during the game, but he never left. I <3 TPegs. Not true. He was adjusting the business tax incentives of his customers so that the partial tax holiday did not affect.........Oh sorry. Wrong ownership
nobody Posted April 25, 2011 Report Posted April 25, 2011 Cough detroit cough : ) I'm sure even the Sabres would look unstoppable if they played teams like Phoenix and Nashville in the 1st round every year. Detroit has had it easy the last few years. Phoenix had a very good team this year. It's not like Detroit was facing the Oilers in the playoffs. I didn't see Detroit looking like they were unbeatable - even though they did win 4 straight. Jimmy Howard can easily go on a bad streak as he did a few times during the season.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.