New York Islanders: First Round Playoff Talk Thread: Islanders vs Hurricanes

Doshell Propivo

Registered User
Dec 5, 2005
13,276
7,291
Statistically home teams lose game 6s more often than not when they were down 3-1 (.347 win pct) vs coming off a road win 2-2 (.563 win pct) I'd assume that is because if you were down 3-1 it means you are more mismatched than if you were 2-2. Therefore I am way less confident than I was vs WSH in 2015/FLA 2016 or any 2021 series
That's an interesting stat. I was thinking about something similar. Seems to me that it is better going into a home game 6 losing game 4 and winning game 5 as opposed to winning game 4 and losing game 5? No? Got the momentum... Kinda... MN is in a similar situation. Heading home for a game 6 down 3-2. However, they lost 4-0 last night and blew an opportunity to make Friday's a clinching game. Gotta think that the Isles are feeling a bit better about their situation than the Wild are about theirs...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarsTBOW

13th Floor

Registered User
Oct 10, 2008
19,025
8,472
Statistically home teams lose game 6s more often than not when they were down 3-1 (.347 win pct) vs coming off a road win 2-2 (.563 win pct) I'd assume that is because if you were down 3-1 it means you are more mismatched than if you were 2-2. Therefore I am way less confident than I was vs WSH in 2015/FLA 2016 or any 2021 series

Interesting. What about the splits on the game 5 outcome for your second scenario? That is, I wonder if the team coming home with a 3-2 lead to close out the series and avoid needing to go back out on the road for game 7 has a better winning percentage than the inverse, which is similar (but not the same) to our situation in that we need to win game 6 to force game 7.

But like you said it's probably mostly that the team that was up 3-1 was just better, and the better team winning in 6 is pretty common.
 

doublechili

For all intensive purposes, your nuts
Apr 11, 2006
18,655
15,026
Statistically home teams lose game 6s more often than not when they were down 3-1 (.347 win pct) vs coming off a road win 2-2 (.563 win pct) I'd assume that is because if you were down 3-1 it means you are more mismatched than if you were 2-2. Therefore I am way less confident than I was vs WSH in 2015/FLA 2016 or any 2021 series
Are you saying that going into game 6 the .347% team is down 3-2 and the .563% team is up 3-2 in the series?

If so, I think it's the mismatch thing. If a team is home for game 6, they're the lower seed. So there are bad mismatches built into the stats.
 

Crispy385

Registered User
Jul 23, 2008
3,265
31
I propose a trade with Carolina.

Our 8 and our Sebastian Aho for their 8 and their Sebastian Aho. Algebraically, that's equal so it's a fair deal
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TMI and MarsTBOW

YearlyLottery

The Pooch Report
Feb 7, 2013
11,404
7,714
South Carolina
Success is not linear. Look this Isles team is not bad and this series could easily be 2-2. Reality is that it is 3-1.

If the Islanders can find a way to steal game 5 on the road tomorrow anything is possible. You win game 5 and all of a sudden you are going back to the f***ing zoo that UBS is for game 6. Game 7 anything can happen.

I truly think game 5 would be the most difficult to win for the Islanders. Carolina smells blood, the PP has been putrid, and they are coming off their worst loss of the year.

Everything in the bold was true heading into game 5. Heading into game 6 only one of these things are true.
 

saintunspecified

Registered User
Nov 30, 2017
6,066
4,358
Statistically home teams lose game 6s more often than not when they were down 3-1 (.347 win pct) vs coming off a road win 2-2 (.563 win pct) I'd assume that is because if you were down 3-1 it means you are more mismatched than if you were 2-2. Therefore I am way less confident than I was vs WSH in 2015/FLA 2016 or any 2021 series
I think that's true in this case. another reason is that it's got to be exhausting in several ways to play in elimination games. And playing on the brink of elimination multiple times seems likely a disadvantage.
 

doublechili

For all intensive purposes, your nuts
Apr 11, 2006
18,655
15,026
Yeah, you didn't seem to get the joke. Now I understand why you said 'what'. The joke was that they are bad at fortune telling, therefore unemployed (unemployed fortune tellers). Not that they are actually unemployed from any job.
I've never understood the occupation of fortune teller. You can tell the future, so you charge $45 an hour to sit and talk to people rather than just picking horses or stocks and sitting on a beach somewhere living the life of luxury?

Unless....

I’d hire Quenneville in a heartbeat once he’s cleared.
When I allow myself to think beyond the playoffs, this is a name that keeps on popping up in my head. Wouldn't surprise me a little bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeapOnOver

Duanesutter12

Member of Lou's Orchestra
Jul 8, 2013
2,745
1,470
Hong Kong
I've never understood the occupation of fortune teller. You can tell the future, so you charge $45 an hour to sit and talk to people rather than just picking horses or stocks and sitting on a beach somewhere living the life of luxury?

Unless....
Well it's because they can only tell an individual's future by reading the lines in the palms of their hands. If they had a access to a horse's hoof I'd imagine they'd be able to pick a couple of races. The true clairvoyant however are those that can talk to the dead. Why they can't just contact JFK and tell us who really shot him is still a mystery but being able to have a conversation with pure air..... That's a real talent!
 
  • Like
Reactions: doublechili

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad