Post-Game Talk: There was a game tonight

[odin1981]

No we're not, we're 3-1-2. I hate it when people twist our record like that to make us seem worse than we are, as if the loser point shouldn't count for us when it does for everyone else

What is the second word in the third column that the 2 is under? I'll keep it simple for you overtime loss no different than the word above the 1 in the second column. People can try to deflect all they want and feel good about losing in extra time but bottom line it means we still got beat. We where a sub .50% percentage team last year being 3 games under .500 as well.

 

[Icegoat]

Good two periods turns into the team playing prevent for the 3rd and ultimately losing. It's a Babcock staple.

The PP is a nutshell of it all, content with just taking low percentage shots from the point. They never try and force the play down low at the side of the net, lots of standing around, rarely someone sneaks into a soft spot for a quick shot....and when someone does there is hesitation on the part of the puck carrier to make an aggressive, cross ice pass. Everything is passive, out on the perimeter. Really frustrating to watch.

That's what has been driving me nuts with the speed and shiftiness the Wings have shown this season. When the PP comes out and they just don't move around to make things happen. It just goes back and forth to Kronwall or DK most of the time for a point shot that has not been working.

 

[JPE123]

The 5 on 5 game has looked much better so far this year over last year but ugggghhhh that PP. Hard to figure out. I don't know maybe try Brendan Smith for entry, not like he can do any worse

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Wow, lots of whining in this thread.

The no goal call was questionable, if not downright incorrect.

With that said, it was an entertaining hockey game, and the Wings played a decent/good road game against one of the better teams in the league.

Both teams looked overmatched at points, but there was some exciting hockey. I really wish the goal would have stood, not just for an extra point in the standings but because of how great of a highlight it would have been for Pav.

If the Wings can take 3/4 points against Montreal and Pittsburgh they'll be in very good shape.

Not sure about the lots of whining part, The goaltender interference call on Abby after Price made the initial contact was bogus. Never mind the goaltender interference against Howard on DD game winning goal for Montreal. I guess Montreal can win games on Goaltender Interference but Detroit can't.

 

[LeighDx59]

We were two sketchy calls away from being 5-0-1 right now. Sure we have our problems (powerplay and offense) but lets face it, this is the best this team has been playing since Lidstrom was here. Our PK has been fantastic, and our defense has been surprisingly good thusfar. Will it keep up? Maybe, maybe not. But i'm thrilled with how good the team has been so far.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

The Getzlaf play was also not the fault of the ref. There was no trip whatsoever and the hook/slash was absolutely borderline at best. The real culprit of that goal was a team not backchecking when there were four people around him with such a short time, there is NO WAY at all a player should be able to walk through that much ice all alone with four bodies around him. Just poor play on the part of the players on the ice and a good play by Getzlaf.

I believe there was a hooking call that went against the Wings which was a carbon copy of the Getzlaf hook.

Also you cannot blame the team for not backchecking in time when they were waiting for a breakout pass and were not in a position to defend against a play which was not expected (they trust Kronwall to make a safe play) and Getzlaf only took a short time to score.

 

[chances14]

What is the second word in the third column that the 2 is under? I'll keep it simple for you overtime loss no different than the word above the 1 in the second column. People can try to deflect all they want and feel good about losing in extra time but bottom line it means we still got beat. We where a sub .50% percentage team last year being 3 games under .500 as well.

i don't consider losing in the shootout as getting beat because it is completely irrelevant to the rest of the game. I think all shootouts, win or loss, should be considered ties. so i consider our record as being 3-2 with one tie

 

[ArGarBarGar]

What is the second word in the third column that the 2 is under? I'll keep it simple for you overtime loss no different than the word above the 1 in the second column. People can try to deflect all they want and feel good about losing in extra time but bottom line it means we still got beat. We where a sub .50% percentage team last year being 3 games under .500 as well.

Nobody bases winning percentage on games you outright won versus all games you lost.

 

[odin1981]

Nobody bases winning percentage on games you outright won versus all games you lost.

They should. There are only two results since ties where taken away. You win or you lose. OT/SO L are still loses. The only reason that it isn't factored into winning % is the ******** attempt Buttman and his cronies enforce to say there is "parity" in the league. There never has nor ever will be parity at any point in time since the o6 era.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

They should. There are only two results since ties where taken away. You win or you lose. OT/SO L are still loses. The only reason that it isn't factored into winning % is the ******** attempt Buttman and his cronies enforce to say there is "parity" in the league. There never has nor ever will be parity at any point in time since the o6 era.

You are making your argument under the idea that the loser point doesn't exist. It does and it affects the standings whether you like it or not.

Points are what affects the standings. The NHL does not go by wins like other leagues.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I might be in the minority but I didn't hate the incidental contact call. It was definitely borderline, and I wouldn't have called it, but it does seem consistent with the way the rules have been interpreted. If Abby's foot wasn't in the crease it would have been different. Yea Price sold it, but nonetheless. I'm okay as long as these calls are consistent.

The one aspect of it that I hate was that it wasn't reviewable. I don't even understand why it wasn't. It was a call to wave off a goal. Isn't that basically what reviews are for?

Or was it reviewable and the refs just didn't feel the need to review?

 

[TheOtherOne]

What is the second word in the third column that the 2 is under? I'll keep it simple for you overtime loss no different than the word above the 1 in the second column. People can try to deflect all they want and feel good about losing in extra time but bottom line it means we still got beat. We where a sub .50% percentage team last year being 3 games under .500 as well.

Reasons for specifying "3-1-2":
- It's more informative
- A 4 on 4 loss or a shootout loss has zero bearing on what the outcome would have been had they been using playoff rules
- It clearly shows how many games were close enough that a single lucky break could have swung the outcome
- It shows the 2 extra points that have a real effect on the standings under the official rules

Reasons for specifying "3-3":
- The second and third column headings have the word "loss" in common?
- Because someone needs to be Debbie Downer?

 

[odin1981]

Reasons for specifying "3-1-2":
- It's more informative
- A 4 on 4 loss or a shootout loss has zero bearing on what the outcome would have been had they been using playoff rules
- It clearly shows how many games were close enough that a single lucky break could have swung the outcome
- It shows the 2 extra points that have a real effect on the standings under the official rules

Reasons for specifying "3-3":
- The second and third column headings have the word "loss" in common?
- Because someone needs to be Debbie Downer?

A loss is a loss no matter how it was attained it is still a loss. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Thankfully most competitive athletes don't think like a majority of fans and make excuses for losses. Most successful competitive athletes hate losing. And have a "will to win" not accepting anything less. The minute anyone on Detroit started acting like getting 1 point is alright is the second they should be shipped off the team at any cost immediately.

 

[Frk It]

A loss is a loss no matter how it was attained it is still a loss. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Thankfully most competitive athletes don't think like a majority of fans and make excuses for losses. Most successful competitive athletes hate losing. And have a "will to win" not accepting anything less. The minute anyone on Detroit started acting like getting 1 point is alright is the second they should be shipped off the team at any cost immediately.

The guys say "at least we got a point" in interviews quite often, if I'm not mistaken. I mean they can't act like it doesn't matter, when the league says it does.

 

[odin1981]

The guys say "at least we got a point" in interviews quite often, if I'm not mistaken. I mean they can't act like it doesn't matter, when the league says it does.

And people wonder why we have fallen from the mountain top?

 

[Henkka]

Reasons for specifying "3-1-2":
- It's more informative
- A 4 on 4 loss or a shootout loss has zero bearing on what the outcome would have been had they been using playoff rules
- It clearly shows how many games were close enough that a single lucky break could have swung the outcome
- It shows the 2 extra points that have a real effect on the standings under the official rules

This is exactly how I like to view things.

Shootouts and 4-on-4 OT losses, who cares. That's not real hockey, just a different sports entertainment played with NHL players. We will it the playoffs in every case.

 

[Pavels Dog]

A loss is a loss no matter how it was attained it is still a loss. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Thankfully most competitive athletes don't think like a majority of fans and make excuses for losses. Most successful competitive athletes hate losing. And have a "will to win" not accepting anything less. The minute anyone on Detroit started acting like getting 1 point is alright is the second they should be shipped off the team at any cost immediately.

And people wonder why we have fallen from the mountain top?

What exactly is it you want? It seems to either be a Wings team that goes 82-0-0 or a Wings team that is heartbroken, angry and upset every time they lose a shootout.

It's only been 6 games so you can't say much about our record. Except that we've had a tough schedule so far and we've done a good job of picking up points.

Btw, would you be disappointed if this team went 41-14-27 ? That's 109 points.

 

[Flowah]

The guys say "at least we got a point" in interviews quite often, if I'm not mistaken. I mean they can't act like it doesn't matter, when the league says it does.

Okay, to me, the "it doesn't matter" bit has nothing to do with the points system.

Yes, you get a point, but points are ultimately a proxy for how good your team is. An imperfect proxy given the points system. What an overtime/shootout loss really means in the end is that you were NOT the better team that night.

You can get a lot of points through the loser point. Enough to make the playoffs. But in reality, you will have lost more games than you won. The Wings did that last year. They only won 39. They lost 43. And come playoff time, that's all that matters. It doesn't matter how you lose, it just matters that you lost.

That's the point of discussing absolute wins and losses. I cannot be confident in the chances of a team who ended up losing more games than they won.

4-on-4 OT losses, who cares. That's not real hockey,

We lost a real game a couple nights ago during a couple real minutes of real 4 on 4 hockey and dropped a real point for it.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Your entire argument falls apart when you ignore the fact that shootouts don't exist in the playoffs, and neither does 4 on 4 hockey by default.

Watch the games and make your determination. The Wings did not pass the eye test last year and the fact they had to squeak in was a reason for that. This year the Wings have passed the eye test and so far are doing well despite their "losing" record.

People who focus on one thing or the other are quite frankly arguing from an ignorant perspective.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Ansar Khan @AnsarKhanMLive · 18 min 18 minuuttia sitten
Same lines: Abdelkader-Zetterberg-Datysuk, Tatar-Sheahan-Nyquist, Nestrasil-Helm-Jurco, Miller-Glendening-Andersson. Weiss. Cleary extras.

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 16 min16 minuuttia sitten
Same D pairs as last game: Kronwall-Ericsson, Quincey-DeKeyser, Smith-Kindl (Lashoff rotating in). Babcock said yesterday Howard starting.

Ansar Khan @AnsarKhanMLive · 11 min 11 minuuttia sitten
Jurco working on first power play with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Helm, Kronwall. Nyquist on 2nd PP with Sheahan, Tatar, Nestrasil, DeKeyser.

 

[Hammettf2b]

Ansar Khan @AnsarKhanMLive · 18 min 18 minuuttia sitten
Same lines: Abdelkader-Zetterberg-Datysuk, Tatar-Sheahan-Nyquist, Nestrasil-Helm-Jurco, Miller-Glendening-Andersson. Weiss. Cleary extras.

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 16 min16 minuuttia sitten
Same D pairs as last game: Kronwall-Ericsson, Quincey-DeKeyser, Smith-Kindl (Lashoff rotating in). Babcock said yesterday Howard starting.

Ansar Khan @AnsarKhanMLive · 11 min 11 minuuttia sitten
Jurco working on first power play with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Helm, Kronwall. Nyquist on 2nd PP with Sheahan, Tatar, Nestrasil, DeKeyser.

Put Smith in for Nestrasil already Babs, c'mon!!!

 

[SirloinUB]

A loss is a loss no matter how it was attained it is still a loss. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

This is just factually false. The NHL (rightly or wrongly) has defined some losses to be worth a point, some worth zero. To say "a loss is a loss", is inherently wrong by NHL rules.

 

[detredWINgs]

Still not a huge fan of the lines. Would prefer to see Datsyuk and Hank split up. Since he's gotten his legs under him, Z has been producing with everyone. Try him with someone who needs to get going and see what happens.

 

[Frk It]

Ansar Khan @AnsarKhanMLive · 18 min 18 minuuttia sitten
Same lines: Abdelkader-Zetterberg-Datysuk, Tatar-Sheahan-Nyquist, Nestrasil-Helm-Jurco, Miller-Glendening-Andersson. Weiss. Cleary extras.

Ansar Khan ‏@AnsarKhanMLive 16 min16 minuuttia sitten
Same D pairs as last game: Kronwall-Ericsson, Quincey-DeKeyser, Smith-Kindl (Lashoff rotating in). Babcock said yesterday Howard starting.

Ansar Khan @AnsarKhanMLive · 11 min 11 minuuttia sitten
Jurco working on first power play with Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Helm, Kronwall. Nyquist on 2nd PP with Sheahan, Tatar, Nestrasil, DeKeyser.

Don't like those d pairs. Also Smith on the PP, just do it.

 

[Flowah]

Your entire argument falls apart when you ignore the fact that shootouts don't exist in the playoffs, and neither does 4 on 4 hockey by default.

Watch the games and make your determination. The Wings did not pass the eye test last year and the fact they had to squeak in was a reason for that. This year the Wings have passed the eye test and so far are doing well despite their "losing" record.

People who focus on one thing or the other are quite frankly arguing from an ignorant perspective.

My argument is fine, you just misunderstood me.

So far this year the Wings look better, yes. I think the sample size is far too small right now to make any judgments based on it. But if at the end of the year the Wings again have more total losses than wins, then I say that means we just weren't that good a hockey club.

There aren't that many games in which the team getting beat somehow manages to win in OT/SO. Usually the better team ends up winning, whether it be in regulation or OT.

Also, 4v4 hockey isn't that rare or that fundamentally different from 5v5 hockey. At least not to the degree that a shootout is.

This is just factually false. The NHL (rightly or wrongly) has defined some losses to be worth a point, some worth zero. To say "a loss is a loss", is inherently wrong by NHL rules.

Uh... just because they give you a point for certain types of losses doesn't mean they aren't still losses. A loss is still a loss. You just get a point for some and not for others.