Worse spot after game 4 - LA series or Pittsburgh series
- Thread starter Kokoschka
- Start date
Whiplash27
Quattro!!
I'd say worse only because LA is better than Pittsburgh and the Rangers matched up better against Pittsburgh.
Either way, win Game 5 and the tone of the series completely changes.
Either way, win Game 5 and the tone of the series completely changes.
17futurecap
Registered User
Worse now, Kings are much better than the Pens. Girardi and Staal look dreadful, nice to get a win though. Keep it going Friday.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
I would say LA because they're a mentally strong team. Even if we beat them in game 5 we have to do it again two more times.
Once we beat the Pens in game 5 I was extremely confident because that team doesn't respond well to adversity. Once you start the ball rolling down the hill, that team unravels.
Once we beat the Pens in game 5 I was extremely confident because that team doesn't respond well to adversity. Once you start the ball rolling down the hill, that team unravels.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
LA
Pittsburgh, while one of the best teams in the East, struggles in the playoffs. The Kings are elite and are a massive hill to climb; whether you are down or not.
Pittsburgh, while one of the best teams in the East, struggles in the playoffs. The Kings are elite and are a massive hill to climb; whether you are down or not.
trilobyte
Regulated User
Does anybody else think the Rangers just do not draw strength from home ice the way other teams seem to, the way it proverbially works in sports?
OverTheCap
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2009
- 10,454
- 184
Obviously we are in a worse spot now. LA is a better all around team than Pitt. They can beat you in a number of ways - skill, grit, etc. And they make their opponents pay for their mistakes.
Also, lots of our players are struggling now and they weren't earlier against Pitt. Girardi, Staal, Richards, etc. are all playing worse than they were 2 rounds ago.
Also, lots of our players are struggling now and they weren't earlier against Pitt. Girardi, Staal, Richards, etc. are all playing worse than they were 2 rounds ago.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Um. Do you remember game 4 against the Pens? Rangers only put 15 shots on goal in that game, no period with more than 6, looked thoroughly dominated all game long, not just the last 30... and they lost. This after getting shutout the two prior games.
That being said, team's come back from down 3-1 around 8% of the time. Teams come back from down 3-0 about 0.0000000001% of the time. We're still in a worse spot despite the win.
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
Well coming back from 3-0 is no longer a relevant stat, since it's now 3-1.
Just like if a series ends up 3-3, it doesn't really matter how it got there.
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
We were a better team than Pitt post January, despite the narrative.
We're not the better team here.
Not even a question.
We're not the better team here.
Not even a question.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Please, that's nonsense. The team won 1 game of the 4 they need to win in a row in order to complete a comeback. The mountain is exactly the same height as it was before the game tonight.
jerseyjinx94
I jinx players.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
The stats for teams coming back from 3-1 after being down 3-0 are exactly the same as the stats for teams being down 3-0.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Teams that get swept are in the same category as teams that lose in 5, 6, or 7. Team's that win 4 in a row are in the other category.
Swedish Fish
CONQUERED
jerseyjinx94
I jinx players.
Yeah but it doesn't matter.
Look from here on out. We're down 3-1. Whether we won Game 1, 2, 3, or 4, we're down 3-1.
That's not how statistics work.
Teams that are swept were also down 3-0 series. Let's say as an example (and to keep it simple) that out of a 100 instances when a team went down 3-0 in a series, 6 teams managed to win. Let's also say there were 15 sweeps.
Statistically six out of 100 teams would come back from being down 3-0 or 6%. Six out of the remaining 85 teams (7%) would come back from being down 3-1.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Nice overcomplication, but it doesn't work for what we're talking about. There's only two kinds of teams in this scenario. The ones that win 4 in a row and the ones that don't.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
I simplified it, I did not complicate it.
Actually it's not, since the scenario has changed. They don't need to win 4 in a row, they need to win 3 in a row.
If you look at probability of winning four straight (provided two equal teams, discounting outside factors like fatigue and refs), it's 6,25%. The probability of winning three straight is 12,5%.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
They need to win 3 more in a row. The scenario is no different. They still need to put together a stretch of 4. You can't separate the scenario just because part of it is in the past now.
Look, I'm rooting for them to do it. I really hope they do. But there's a reason why this has only happened 4 times in NHL history. I'm just keeping any "belief" down, because there's really not much hope. Let the players take it one game at a time. That's their job. Not much point in us doing it.
