Post-Game Talk: There was a game tonight

[ArGarBarGar]

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.



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.

Uh, absolutely it is. And I understood your argument fine. You focus on total wins and losses, you ignore context and argue from an ignorant perspective.

 

[kilgoretrout]

So, the only player with a powerplay goal on this team has been demoted to the 2nd unit.

 

[Flowah]

Uh, absolutely it is. And I understood your argument fine. You focus on total wins and losses, you ignore context and argue from an ignorant perspective.

If you say so. 4v4 is a common enough occurrence in the sport *and* it's really just one player. You still have forwards and defensemen. You still have breakouts, dump ins, cycling, passing. If it "absolutely" is so different, then please elaborate how. What's in 5v5 hockey that isn't present in 4v4 hockey? And is that enough to make it not "real" hockey and not relevant? After all, 4v5 changes the dynamics of the game. So does 3v5 and that's pretty damn rare. Would you say that's not real hockey either?

But you do still misunderstand. You thought I was applying it to the current season. That's just not true. It's the sort of thing that can only be applied after a sufficient amount of games. If you end the regular season with more total losses than wins, that means you weren't very good. Period. Pointing to inflated points in which you lost the game is deceptive. The *fact* is that as a general rule you were not the better team on the nights you lost, whether that loss is in OT, SO, or regulation. There are the odd games where the better team manages to steal a win in the shootout, but that happens in regulation games as well.

You say I'm ignoring context. I'm not. I'm using total wins/losses for a different perspective on the team. I'm not saying to throw away SO/OT losses as a category. I'm saying that when you want to know "is my team winning more often or losing more often" you have to take total losses. And that such a comparison of total wins/losses is better for seeing how competitive your team is. Too many people look at just total points and say "that's a high number! Good enough to make the playoffs!" That's actual ignoring of context. When you break it down and see that a lot of those points come from OT/SO losses, you should realize that a lot of those points are from games in which you were not the better team. The better team tends to win in all scenarios. You can repeat it all day long that it's not real hockey and maybe it isn't. But the fact remains that the team that wins is usually the better team.

I'm also pretty sure that I've had my posts edited and been issued warnings for making posts the same tone as what you're doing now.

So, the only player with a powerplay goal on this team has been demoted to the 2nd unit.

I see it more as putting the hottest goal scorer on the team on the second unit to try and get it going.

 

[kilgoretrout]

^^
I guess so, but it's not like the first unit doesn't need to "get going."

Also it just seems so obvious that Smith would likely boost the 2nd unit, and allow our best offensive players to play on the top powerplay.

 

[Flowah]

^^
I guess so, but it's not like the first unit doesn't need to "get going."

Also it just seems so obvious that Smith would likely boost the 2nd unit, and allow our best offensive players to play on the top powerplay.

1st unit has Datsyuk now. As long as no more goals get called back, that should be a good spark. 2nd unit with just Tatar, Sheahan, Nestrasil, Dekeyser is not good enough. Yes, we all want Smith to have a shot, but if that isn't going to happen (and it looks like it never will) then I'm fine with putting Nyquist there.

Besides, I've always been a fan of keeping lines together for PP/ES. If you can develop chemistry together at ES, it just makes sense to keep that line together for the PP. Putting Nyquist with one group for ES and another for PP breaks that up since he's playing with Tatar/Sheahan now. Let them get into a groove with a bunch of ES shifts together and then hope it translates to PP goals. Oh please lord let it translate to PP goals.

 

[Pavels Dog]

^^
I guess so, but it's not like the first unit doesn't need to "get going."

Also it just seems so obvious that Smith would likely boost the 2nd unit, and allow our best offensive players to play on the top powerplay.

I think it's overkill to have Dats, Z AND Nyquist on the top unit. Gus and Tatar are a good combo to make unit 2 dangerous.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

If you say so. 4v4 is a common enough occurrence in the sport *and* it's really just one player. You still have forwards and defensemen. You still have breakouts, dump ins, cycling, passing. If it "absolutely" is so different, then please elaborate how. What's in 5v5 hockey that isn't present in 4v4 hockey? And is that enough to make it not "real" hockey and not relevant? After all, 4v5 changes the dynamics of the game. So does 3v5 and that's pretty damn rare. Would you say that's not real hockey either?

I'm not saying it is not real hockey, but you are talking about equating 5 minutes of 4 on 4 (which I can't imagine has every happened in the history of playoff hockey) to 20 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey as if they are exactly the same and would equate to playoff hockey just because You only remove one player from the equation.

I'm not going to explain systems and how things can be drasticaly different depending on who a coach decides to put out there (1 D or 2 D?) or what kind of scheme they utilize which can be affected by the fact they no longer have 5 guys.

But you do still misunderstand. You thought I was applying it to the current season. That's just not true. It's the sort of thing that can only be applied after a sufficient amount of games. If you end the regular season with more total losses than wins, that means you weren't very good. Period. Pointing to inflated points in which you lost the game is deceptive. The *fact* is that as a general rule you were not the better team on the nights you lost, whether that loss is in OT, SO, or regulation. There are the odd games where the better team manages to steal a win in the shootout, but that happens in regulation games as well.

I think it is an ignorant perspective regardless of what season you apply it to.

You say I'm ignoring context. I'm not. I'm using total wins/losses for a different perspective on the team.

And focusing on it. You are twisting the record around to make it look a certain way based on your own perspective of "real" wins and losses.

I'm not saying to throw away SO/OT losses as a category. I'm saying that when you want to know "is my team winning more often or losing more often" you have to take total losses. And that such a comparison of total wins/losses is better for seeing how competitive your team is. Too many people look at just total points and say "that's a high number! Good enough to make the playoffs!" That's actual ignoring of context. When you break it down and see that a lot of those points come from OT/SO losses, you should realize that a lot of those points are from games in which you were not the better team. The better team tends to win in all scenarios. You can repeat it all day long that it's not real hockey and maybe it isn't. But the fact remains that the team that wins is usually the better team.

First bolded: And if you ignore the context then you come out with an inherently flawed conclusion. You say you aren't doing it, but when you lump all types of losses together and just call them losses, you strip the games of their context.

When two teams end regulation at 60 minutes tied, you would expect they had a similar performance overall. After 5 minutes of overtime, you would think that opinion is confirmed.

A shootout is not necessarily a representation of who the better team is on a given night. To equate that as the same type of loss as a regulation loss (hell, a 5-1 loss) is flawed.

There is a reason that you receive a point for overtime and shootout losses. That context matters.

I'm also pretty sure that I've had my posts edited and been issued warnings for making posts the same tone as what you're doing now.

I said your perspective was ignorant. I didn't attack you personally.

 

[TheOtherOne]

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.

When did I say "getting 1 point is alright"?

I did say "getting 1 point is different from getting 0 points".

Ignore the former because it's a strawman and try to argue against the latter.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I'm saying that when you want to know "is my team winning more often or losing more often" you have to take total losses. And that such a comparison of total wins/losses is better for seeing how competitive your team is. Too many people look at just total points and say "that's a high number! Good enough to make the playoffs!" That's actual ignoring of context.

You talk about ignoring context but the view you're advocating is PURPOSELY ignoring accessible context.

If your question is "how is my team doing?" you have a whole spectrum of detail which you can use to answer it.

less detail
v
v
v
"we played a bunch of games"
"we won 3 and lost 3"
"we won 3, lost 1, and lost 2 in OT or SO"
"we won game 1 with a score of..., game 2..., etc"
v
v
v
more detail

You're talking about purposely ignoring the EXTRA detail and context that you have available to you and trying to describe a detailed scenario with 2 numbers.

If two teams went 0-82, but team 1 lost every game in overtime, and team 2 lost every game by a score of 10-0, would you describe the two teams as identical?

Obviously including every detail about every game is overkill and difficult to do in the format of a message board post. But the difference between less detail -> 3-3, and 3-1-2 -> more detail, is a matter of 1 number and a hyphen. Surely you can include 2 keyboard presses to provide a lot of useful context.

 

[Flowah]

Again, you are *still* not understanding me. It's like the difference between Corsi and Fenwick and shots on net. They're useful for different things. Sometimes you want to take shots blocked into account. For example, WIIM did an analysis on the Wing's PK and used Fenwick because it did take that into account. In a PK situation, shot blocking is useful for trying to see how good your team is at blocking shots and preventing shots on net. That's an important skill. That's what you're trying to measure. You're not trying to measure possession.

On the other hand, if you are trying to measure possession, then Corsi is better. Because even if you block a shot, it means the other team had the puck in your zone and was able to direct a shot towards your net, blocked or not. It's not ignoring context to use one or the other. It's about using the one properly suited for the purpose.

So yes, counting the points from SO/OT losses is important and useful when you're trying to look at some things. But I'm not looking at what you're looking at. I am just looking at the strength of the team overall. And yes, if you can't win even half your games, I don't think that bodes well for your team. If you are getting a significant number of points from OT/SO losses, then you're just not that good a team.

Plus, what I'm doing is not even that different from looking at total points, it's just a different approach. Total points is used to point to better and worse teams. Better teams tend to have more points. Is that always the case? No. Is it possible to steal points while not being the better team? Sure. Does every team have the same kind of schedule and travel? No. Are you really going to say that means when I look at points as an indication of team competitiveness that I'm "ignoring the context?"

Do you have a fundamental issue with my assertion that even in OT/SO, the better team tends to win? Are there inferior teams out there that are winning in SO/OT at a higher than expected clip?

And I'll be sure to include the word "perspective" next time to avoid mod edits. Thanks for the tip.

If two teams went 0-82, but team 1 lost every game in overtime, and team 2 lost every game by a score of 10-0, would you describe the two teams as identical?

I'm not trying to compare two teams. I'm trying to look at just ONE team. I just do not have confidence that a team that loses more games than it wins can go far in the playoffs. We're looking at different things. It's a blunt tool for a blunt purpose. "Is this team good enough?" When was the last time a team that had more total losses than wins made it far into the playoffs? I think when you separate the losses, it loses that effect. You are encouraged by the fact that the regulation losses is a lower number than the wins column. I think when you are asking yourself "How good is this team?" that separation creates false hope.

 

[ricky0034]

Again, you are *still* not understanding me. It's like the difference between Corsi and Fenwick and shots on net. They're useful for different things. Sometimes you want to take shots blocked into account. For example, WIIM did an analysis on the Wing's PK and used Fenwick because it did take that into account. In a PK situation, shot blocking is useful for trying to see how good your team is at blocking shots and preventing shots on net. That's an important skill. That's what you're trying to measure. You're not trying to measure possession.

On the other hand, if you are trying to measure possession, then Corsi is better. Because even if you block a shot, it means the other team had the puck in your zone and was able to direct a shot towards your net, blocked or not. It's not ignoring context to use one or the other. It's about using the one properly suited for the purpose.

So yes, counting the points from SO/OT losses is important and useful when you're trying to look at some things. But I'm not looking at what you're looking at. I am just looking at the strength of the team overall. And yes, if you can't win even half your games, I don't think that bodes well for your team. If you are getting a significant number of points from OT/SO losses, then you're just not that good a team.

Plus, what I'm doing is not even that different from looking at total points, it's just a different approach. Total points is used to point to better and worse teams. Better teams tend to have more points. Is that always the case? No. Is it possible to steal points while not being the better team? Sure. Does every team have the same kind of schedule and travel? No. Are you really going to say that means when I look at points as an indication of team competitiveness that I'm "ignoring the context?"

Do you have a fundamental issue with my assertion that even in OT/SO, the better team tends to win? Are there inferior teams out there that are winning in SO/OT at a higher than expected clip?

And I'll be sure to include the word "perspective" next time to avoid mod edits. Thanks for the tip.


I'm not trying to compare two teams. I'm trying to look at just ONE team. I just do not have confidence that a team that loses more games than it wins can go far in the playoffs. We're looking at different things. It's a blunt tool for a blunt purpose. "Is this team good enough?" When was the last time a team that had more total losses than wins made it far into the playoffs? I think when you separate the losses, it loses that effect. You are encouraged by the fact that the regulation losses is a lower number than the wins column. I think when you are asking yourself "How good is this team?" that separation creates false hope.

2012 comes to mind immedietely

the Kings won the cup with a 40-27-15 record

and i'd certainly challenge the notion that good teams don't lose a lot of games in overtime/shootouts,it happens they just tend to win a lot of games too because they're you know good teams

Chicago was tied for second in the league in OT/SO losses last year at 15 for example

 

[opivy]

As long as we have a good goal differential I am comfortable.

 

[ricky0034]

I dug a little deeper into Chicago's record last year and in overtime/shootout they were 7-15

meanwhile in regulation they were 39-21

that really shows how silly it can be to just lump all this together

in some peoples minds a team that went 39-21 in regulation is a 46-36 team because they did poorly in 4 on 4 overtimes and shootouts

think about that one

 

[odin1981]

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.

Its a .500 team that would be a prime example of a early round upset. I am not foolish enough to believe any team could go 82-0 but a team that strives to compete for a W every night they play as long as talent is there over a whole season should be able to win at least at a 51-49% split or more. So in other words the team should be capable of a 42-40 (split the 40 however the hell you want two into the two loser columns).

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.

No what you are doing is making a excuse for losing by saying a type of a loss is good. I give two ***** about what you get when you lose you still lost. Which apparently is too hard for quite a few people to understand.

When did I say "getting 1 point is alright"?

I did say "getting 1 point is different from getting 0 points".

Ignore the former because it's a strawman and try to argue against the latter.

Sorry I'm not a cool guy that understands whatever the hell a strawman argument means. Mind actually explaining it out with words rather than a 2 word phrase that all the hip people on the internet try to throw out every time a argument starts. I will defend any contention I make but people have to actually define what they say. And my contention is as above in my reply to SirloinUB. A loss is still a loss no matter how you slice it.

 

[Winger98]

As long as we have a good goal differential I am comfortable.

Pretty much, though I also like to see a special teams combined above 100% success. we obviously need to win enough to get into the playoffs, but if you have good goal differentials and special teams, making the playoffs shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Sorry I'm not a cool guy that understands whatever the hell a strawman argument means. Mind actually explaining it out with words rather than a 2 word phrase that all the hip people on the internet try to throw out every time a argument starts. I will defend any contention I make but people have to actually define what they say. And my contention is as above in my reply to SirloinUB. A loss is still a loss no matter how you slice it.

You don't have to be a "cool guy" to know how to google something.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman
a person compared to a straw image; a sham.
a sham argument set up to be defeated.

i.e. you won the argument that "1 point is alright" because nobody was actually making that argument. You set it up yourself as a strawman. The argument I actually made was that 1 point is different than 0 points and the two results should be distinguished.


Flowah: I'm not going to quote your whole post but you say you're trying to look at "the strength of the team overall". All I'm saying is that saying 3-1-2 instead of 3-3 tells you MORE about the strength of your team. Specifying that games were lost in OT or SO rather than in regulation is important when you consider the overall strength of the team. A shootout loss is WAY different from a 5-0 blowout.

And to answer your question, yes, I think the team that played worse overall can EASILY win in OT or SO. Obviously the overall trend is that the better team wins. And if you're talking about an average over a 1000 game sample size of course you're going to be right. But if you're talking about a 7 game series, or a 28 game playoffs, where 10 games are close enough to be won or lost by a single random bounce or a single bad call or a single rookie mistake, then yes, the winner can easily be the worse of the two teams. That's why it's incredibly important to specify exactly how many losses were actually regulation ties.

To make a long story short, 3-1-2 simply tells you more than 3-3 no matter how you cut it. That's the whole point.

 

[opivy]

You don't have to be a "cool guy" to know how to google something.

i.e. you won the argument that "1 point is alright" because nobody was actually making that argument. You set it up yourself as a strawman. The argument I actually made was that 1 point is different than 0 points and the two results should be distinguished.