Guest Sloth Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Empty net w/ over 3 to play. Yay.... Quote
... Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Wow. LA is classy. They could easily turn it on and get that empty better. Quote
Guest Sloth Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 And this series is over. Quick won't lose 4 straight. Quote
Iron Crotch Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 The Rangers played hard and threw everything they could at 'em, but the Kings just have more talent. Monster game for Quick. Quote
qwksndmonster Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Wow. LA is classy. They could easily turn it on and get that empty better. I don't really see that as classy one way or the other. Good game. Rangers just can't buy a bucket. Quick made about 3 unreal paddle saves. Quote
Eleven Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 The Rangers played hard and threw everything they could at 'em, but the Kings just have more talent. Monster game for Quick. The Rags really don't belong in the finals. They're there, but they don't belong. If Price weren't Kreidered, if Mason had played, etc. It's the easiest path to the finals that I have seen in a long time. The Kings, on the other hand, well, they had to beat at least two really good teams, and one could argue three, to get there. The two teams are not on the same level. Quote
Wyldnwoody44 Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 That was pure domination by the kings, numbers show the rags had "better" chances.... But they had what, 6 power plays?!? NY cannot figure LA out, probably because they aren't anywhere as good. Quote
Andrew Amerk Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Most matchups had been good in the playoffs, until tonight's game happened. Oh, those poor fans who spent WAAAAY too much money for tix tonight. Quote
Jsixspd Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Fat lady is warming up for her song. I figured the Stanley Cup final would be anti-climatic; the series between LA and Chicago was the series that decided the Cup. I thought NY would stretch it out longer though. They may still force a Game 5, but I can't see it going much further than that. 24 out of 25 times, teams that have won the first 3 games of the Stanley Cup Finals have gone on to win the Cup. So the Rangers only have a 4% chance right now. Quote
Eleven Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Fat lady is warming up for her song. I figured the Stanley Cup final would be anti-climatic; the series between LA and Chicago was the series that decided the Cup. I thought NY would stretch it out longer though. They may still force a Game 5, but I can't see it going much further than that. 24 out of 25 times, teams that have won the first 3 games of the Stanley Cup Finals have gone on to win the Cup. So the Rangers only have a 4% chance right now. Again, that is not how statistics work! The past does not predict the future. It never has. It never will. With a 50-50 chance of winning a game, the Rags have a 6.25% chance of winning it all. But, knowing that the Rags are lucky even to be there, the chances drop to near zero. Quote
Iron Crotch Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 I picked the Kings in 5 before the series started and I'm sticking with that. If the Rangers have any pride at all, they'll win one at home before the Kings clinch back in L.A. I always like it when a team wins the Cup at home instead of on the road. Quote
JJFIVEOH Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Again, that is not how statistics work! The past does not predict the future. It never has. It never will. With a 50-50 chance of winning a game, the Rags have a 6.25% chance of winning it all. But, knowing that the Rags are lucky even to be there, the chances drop to near zero. You're not basing that on the past are you? :P Quote
Kristian Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Has anyone seen Rick Nash lately? Are we talking "Rick Nashin", or is he perhaps playing hurt? Quote
JJFIVEOH Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 (edited) Has anyone seen Rick Nash lately? Are we talking "Rick Nashin", or is he perhaps playing hurt? He's been a playoff failure all his life. 3 goals in 22 games this year. 2 goals in 16 games previously. He's no more hurt than everybody else. Instead of trading the entire team for Nash, we traded the entire team for draft picks. I think we made out on the deal. The only thing that sucks about all the big name is hype is Pegula actually wasted a night wining and dining Richards. Edited June 10, 2014 by JJFIVEOH Quote
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 I should find the Hockey Names thread and post this there, but I'm going to forge ahead here. in his post-game remarks, Richards remarked that "Cartsy's goal was the big one." That one's not as odd as the 'Fuhr-zee' I once heard, but it's solid. The Rags really don't belong in the finals. They're there, but they don't belong. If Price weren't Kreidered, if Mason had played, etc. It's the easiest path to the finals that I have seen in a long time. The Kings, on the other hand, well, they had to beat at least two really good teams, and one could argue three, to get there. The two teams are not on the same level. Maybe I give too much obeisance to The Cup's mythology, but I'm of a mind that, if you're there, you belong. And I will admit: My watching's been spotty. Even so, a pair of thrilling road OT games to start, and the Rangers don't belong? They've never look overwhelmed or outclassed to me. It's more like they've become unlucky at the wrong time, and at times even snakebitten, against what is this year's best NHL team. There's no shame in that. Quote
carpandean Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 I hope that the Rangers take game 4 and then LA wins game 5. It's so underwhelming when a team wins the Cup on the road. I want to see a home celebration. Quote
TrueBlueGED Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Has anyone seen Rick Nash lately? Are we talking "Rick Nashin", or is he perhaps playing hurt? I've long thought Nash is vastly overrated (I swear Freeman you will concede this point eventually!). However, I don't think he has been invisible at all. He leads the playoffs in shots and is generating a log of chances, just not getting any bounces (his shooting percentage is like 8 points below his career average last I checked), which can easily happen over a small number of games. And now Vigneault has foolishly nuked his power play time. I find this amusing, since Vigneault has been praised as being patient and not making knee jerk decisions. Quote
Jsixspd Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Poor Robyn Regehr still hasn't been able to play. I hope he can get out on the ice Wednesday - could be his last chance to get in a game. He's only played 8 games in the post season, but managed to get 2 points. Quote
SwampD Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 He's been a playoff failure all his life. 3 goals in 22 games this year. 2 goals in 16 games previously. He's no more hurt than everybody else. Instead of trading the entire team for Nash, we traded the entire team for draft picks. I think we made out on the deal. The only thing that sucks about all the big name is hype is Pegula actually wasted a night wining and dining Richards. Since Richards has been on the Rangers, they have been to a conference final, the second round, and now a SCF. Not really sure that is hype. Some day, Sabres fans will be excited about actually playing in June as opposed to the thrill of a draft pick playing in June possibly maybe in like 4 to 6 years. Quote
Weave Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 This is a trip. Wow. What a useless X axis. Let's put the goalie-years in the order that creates a negative slope. Quote
SwampD Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Wow. What a useless X axis. Let's put the goalie-years in the order that creates a negative slope. :lol: How about putting them in alphabetical order, then,… well, then they would be in alphabetical order. Quote
That Aud Smell Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Wow. What a useless X axis. Let's put the goalie-years in the order that creates a negative slope. It is a bit clunky. I think all it's meant to show is how Quick would be the bookends ('12 and '14). Quote
Kristian Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Poor Robyn Regehr still hasn't been able to play. I hope he can get out on the ice Wednesday - could be his last chance to get in a game. He's only played 8 games in the post season, but managed to get 2 points. I like Regehr, but unless someone else is banged up worse than he, why play him? It's not like they're missing him, it seems? Quote
carpandean Posted June 10, 2014 Report Posted June 10, 2014 Wow. What a useless X axis. Let's put the goalie-years in the order that creates a negative slope. It's not useless and it is not meant to be taken as a slope. Much like a Pareto chart, it's specifically put in decreasing order of y from highest to lowest, so that you can clearly see who/what falls at the ends and their levels relative to the rest of the data points. In this case, it shows Quick at the "book ends" and illustrates how unusual high his first run was and low this one seems to be. Quote
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.