Post-Game Talk: Canucks 2 - LA 1 (SO) Part 3 -- "We knew we could beat them." - Henrik

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Since we're essentially a "lock", do we put Markstrom or Miller in for one of the next 2 games? (if hes up for it that is), or keep playing lack?

You keep going with Lack until we officially clinch. This team better not go counting its chickens.

This game...wow. So great to see the team come up with such a huge effort, but it all started with the Twins and Lack. Just fantastic games from those guys. The win was especially gratifying given all the pre-game smack the Kings were talking. Stoll and Doughty saying they want the Canucks' spot in the standings, Doughty saying the only reason the Canucks won the previous game was because the Kings played poorly, etc. etc...hope they enjoy their crow.

 

[m9]

I think there are always scenarios where a goaltender change could occur regardless of the players involved. If Lack gets pulled in Game 1 and Miller plays well the rest of the game, it should surprise nobody if Miller starts Game 2. Aside from that exact scenario, I think Lack is the goaltender for the first two games of the playoffs at the very least.

The narrative I don't like is people thinking that the $ has anything to do with it. Coaches don't care about what the guys make, you can ask almost any coach in any league. We've seen it this year in Ottawa. We've seen it here a bunch of times with Luongo v Schneider or Lack. We've seen Keith Ballard and David Booth scratched for guys making a fraction of what they made.

Lots of coaches are loyal to a fault when it comes to veterans in general, and Desjardins seems to be not exception. But I don't think that's the same as playing someone based on money.

 

[m9]

I'm not counting my damned chickens until that last egg hatches. I'm still desperately afraid of losing out on a spot.

Can't ask for a much better schedule though.

The Canucks have a 99% chance of making the playoffs. There is nothing to be "desperately afraid" of.

 

[fancouver]

You keep going with Lack until we officially clinch. This team better not go counting its chickens.

This game...wow. So great to see the team come up with such a huge effort, but it all started with the Twins and Lack. Just fantastic games from those guys. The win was especially gratifying given all the pre-game smack the Kings were talking. Stoll and Doughty saying they want the Canucks' spot in the standings, Doughty saying the only reason the Canucks won the previous game was because the Kings played poorly, etc. etc...hope they enjoy their crow.

Markstom won against Coyotes last time, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to put him back in. If Markstrom can't win against Arizona and/or Edmonton, then we'll need a new backup next year.

 

[Samzilla]

I'm not counting my damned chickens until that last egg hatches. I'm still desperately afraid of losing out on a spot.

Can't ask for a much better schedule though.

Agreed. Sometimes the near impossible happens. Just as an example, I was playing a poker tournament and got it all in preflop. I flopped the nut flush against a player who flopped a single pair of 8's (he had Q8). Guess who won the hand?

Turn was an 8. River was an 8. Quad 8's beat my nut flush. Any guesses on the chances of that happening? It's 1 in 990...or 1 tenth of a 1 percent chance of happening. But it happened to me. And I've taken bad beats like this more than once. In backgammon you'll see even crazier stuff.

So when people say 99.9% is as good as in the playoffs...I just chuckle because on a long enough timeline, if something can happen (like us missing the playoffs), it will happen.

 

[Lundface*]

I think there are always scenarios where a goaltender change could occur regardless of the players involved. If Lack gets pulled in Game 1 and Miller plays well the rest of the game, it should surprise nobody if Miller starts Game 2. Aside from that exact scenario, I think Lack is the goaltender for the first two games of the playoffs at the very least.

The narrative I don't like is people thinking that the $ has anything to do with it. Coaches don't care about what the guys make, you can ask almost any coach in any league. We've seen it this year in Ottawa. We've seen it here a bunch of times with Luongo v Schneider or Lack. We've seen Keith Ballard and David Booth scratched for guys making a fraction of what they made.

Lots of coaches are loyal to a fault when it comes to veterans in general, and Desjardins seems to be not exception. But I don't think that's the same as playing someone based on money.

That's the same thing. Picking players based on anything other than who gives the team the best chance to win is idiotic. Whether that's because of money, being in the league longer, or you coached a player in junior.

 

[HankNDank]

Anyone have an image/gif/video of Horvart almost getting killed by a Sbisa slapshot? When he was sitting on the ice, back to the point and Sbisa laid into it, just missing him?

 

[NuxFan09]

The Canucks have a 99% chance of making the playoffs. There is nothing to be "desperately afraid" of.

It's in Canucks fans' blood. I mean, should we have been desperately afraid of going to OT in Game 7 in that Blackhawks series in 2011? No, but look what happened.

Honestly, people shouldn't have a problem with others talking like this. Fans of this team throughout its history have suffered some horrible and unimaginable disappointments. Not trying to be dramatic here, but I swear it's a form of self-preservation.

 

[Lundface*]

93.3 % of teams up 2-0 in the Stanley Cup Finals go on to win.

 

[arsmaster*]

93.3 % of teams up 2-0 in the Stanley Cup Finals go on to win.

 

[NuxFan09]

93.3 % of teams up 2-0 in the Stanley Cup Finals go on to win.

Exactly. Not to get all negative here, but this is also a team who lost 4-0 in Game 7 of the Cup finals, arguably the most important game in their franchise's existence. I just refuse to take any minuscule thing for granted with this team.

 

[m9]

Agreed. Sometimes the near impossible happens. Just as an example, I was playing a poker tournament and got it all in preflop. I flopped the nut flush against a player who flopped a single pair of 8's (he had Q8). Guess who won the hand?

Turn was an 8. River was an 8. Quad 8's beat my nut flush. Any guesses on the chances of that happening? It's 1 in 990...or 1 tenth of a 1 percent chance of happening. But it happened to me. And I've taken bad beats like this more than once. In backgammon you'll see even crazier stuff.

So when people say 99.9% is as good as in the playoffs...I just chuckle because on a long enough timeline, if something can happen (like us missing the playoffs), it will happen.

Sure, but when you play thousands of hands like you do in poker the odds will catch you sometimes. It's still an anomaly.

Besides, you are picking an arbitrary point in the hand. As you mentioned, you were already all-in pre-flop so your odds were significantly lower when you started the hand.

 

[m9]

That's the same thing. Picking players based on anything other than who gives the team the best chance to win is idiotic. Whether that's because of money, being in the league longer, or you coached a player in junior.

It's not the same thing, but agreed it's just as bad. My point was that I don't think $ is the big factor in these decisions to coaches, it's more the veteran/loyalty thing. That doesn't make the result any better.

 

[van22]

 

[Samzilla]

Sure, but when you play thousands of hands like you do in poker the odds will catch you sometimes. It's still an anomaly.

Besides, you are picking an arbitrary point in the hand. As you mentioned, you were already all-in pre-flop so your odds were significantly lower when you started the hand.

sure, when the chips went in it was 60/40. but with only 2 cards left go, i had it essentially all sewn up.

no different than picking an arbitrary point in the season such as after 80 games, with only 2 games left to go, where our odds of making it are very similar.

 

[arsmaster*]

I think there are always scenarios where a goaltender change could occur regardless of the players involved. If Lack gets pulled in Game 1 and Miller plays well the rest of the game, it should surprise nobody if Miller starts Game 2. Aside from that exact scenario, I think Lack is the goaltender for the first two games of the playoffs at the very least.

The narrative I don't like is people thinking that the $ has anything to do with it. Coaches don't care about what the guys make, you can ask almost any coach in any league. We've seen it this year in Ottawa. We've seen it here a bunch of times with Luongo v Schneider or Lack. We've seen Keith Ballard and David Booth scratched for guys making a fraction of what they made.

Lots of coaches are loyal to a fault when it comes to veterans in general, and Desjardins seems to be not exception. But I don't think that's the same as playing someone based on money.

I don't think that is true of this regime though.

I know it's unpopular and probably makes me a "hater", but this coach has played the hell out of his new boss' acquisitions:

- rode Miller like Lack was Markstrom to start the year (on pace for barely 20 starts before injury).

-Sbisa (especially saddling Hamhuis with him in the first half)

-Dorsett

-Vey on PP1, Vey at all

I think management has some say or at least plays a factor into some of these decisions.

 

[thepuckmonster]

I don't think that is true of this regime though.

I know it's unpopular and probably makes me a "hater", but this coach has played the hell out of his new boss' acquisitions:

- rode Miller like Lack was Markstrom to start the year (on pace for barely 20 starts before injury).

-Sbisa

-Dorsett

-Vey on PP1, Vey at all

I think management has some say or at least plays a factor into some of these decisions.

I don't think he was disagreeing with you. I think his point is that salary isn't the reason why Willie plays favourites.

 

[m9]

sure, when the chips went in it was 60/40. but with only 2 cards left go, i had it essentially all sewn up.

no different than picking an arbitrary point in the season such as after 80 games, with only 2 games left to go, where our odds of making it are very similar.

So when you are playing poker now and are a 99% favorite after the flop are you scared to play? Of course not. Because despite your anomaly scenario, there are 99 other times out of 100 in a similar scenario when you win the hand.

 

[m9]

I don't think he was disagreeing with you. I think his point is that salary isn't the reason why Willie plays favourites.

Yeah.

I know for a fact AV didn't care what you were making. Ask the goalies, Ballard, Brad Richards, etc. It's the same of most coaches. But they certainly have their guys they are loyal to for whatever reasons.

 

[The Stig]

 

[The Stig]

 

[Soth]

am i the only one who gets the impression that, despite lack's play, benning/desjardins just can't wait to put miller back in?

I do get the feeling that Benning has a crush on Miller, but I expect Willie knows the net is Lack's for now.

I like both our goalies, but the net should belong to Lack at least until he has a poor playoff game. Benning has said many times stuff like Miller is a guy you can count on in big games though, so he is prob itching to put him in for playoffs.

 

[Samzilla]

So when you are playing poker now and are a 99% favorite after the flop are you scared to play? Of course not. Because despite your anomaly scenario, there are 99 other times out of 100 in a similar scenario when you win the hand.

i'm a pessimist, i always expect the bad beat

 

[Grifter3511]

So in other words.......

Flames and Kings both win tonight?

 

[bobbyb2009]

That's the same thing. Picking players based on anything other than who gives the team the best chance to win is idiotic. Whether that's because of money, being in the league longer, or you coached a player in junior.

Have you ever led or coached an elite sport? Not being nasty, just asking?

In my view, the whole idea "who gives us the best chance to win" is a much bigger thought than "in this particular game." Making those decisions and not playing some veteran at the wrong time, or playing a rookie when, although he might be better for this game, he has not been acting in the best interests of the team, can have an effect of destroying the team chemistry and identity to the point that in the end, although the player was best for that game, we lost more games over time than we would have, playing the veteran that day.

Introducing new roles into teams creates all kinds of waves and shakes people up. While this can be a good thing, it can absolutely destroy a team if done in the wrong way.

Not saying it is as it should be, but as a leader, you need to be tactical about how you handle veterans while creating the best possible conditions for bringing new deserving people into new roles.