GDT: WCSF Game 4 Golden Knights @ Canucks | 7:30PM | NBCSN, CBC, SN, TVAS | VGK Lead 2-1

[IceNeophyte]

That's a plausible assumption, not a big one.

You can't defend the plausibility of what-ifs that can never be tested because time travel hasn't been invented yet. Whatever the what-if, its equally implausible. So, yes, its a big assumption because one can never know, and neither is plausible....they are both impossible because they have been played. I get the agenda, though....wanting to push a pro-Fleury or anti-Fleury narrative.

 

[Vegan Knight]

You can't defend the plausibility of what-ifs that can never be tested because time travel hasn't been invented yet. Whatever the what-if, its equally implausible. So, yes, its a big assumption because one can never know, and neither is plausible....they are both impossible because they have been played. I get the agenda, though....wanting to push a pro-Fleury or anti-Fleury narrative.

I think it's a bigger assumption an .893, 2.67 goals against goalie could get the same 7 of 9 wins that a .921, 2.08 goals against goalie did.

 

[nihlify]

You can't defend the plausibility of what-ifs that can never be tested because time travel hasn't been invented yet. Whatever the what-if, its equally implausible. So, yes, its a big assumption because one can never know, and neither is plausible....they are both impossible because they have been played. I get the agenda, though....wanting to push a pro-Fleury or anti-Fleury narrative.

Lol, it's statistics, there's no agenda here. You can make reasonable assumptions about things without having to resort to time travel... If I make an assumption that if we actually had a literal bag of potatoes in net the for the all the previous games in the playoffs we would have lost all of them. That's not a big assumption.

But call that a big assumption if you like because you can't prove it... Let me guess, you are one of those people that think every outcome with two options is 50-50?

 

[Vegan Knight]

Lol, it's statistics, there's no agenda here. You can make reasonable assumptions about things without having to resort to time travel... If I make an assumption that if we actually had a literal bag of potatoes in net the for the all the previous games in the playoffs we would have lost all of them. That's not a big assumption.

But call that a big assumption if you like because you can't prove it... Let me guess, you are one of those people that think every outcome with two options is 50-50?

I mean, a big enough bag of potatoes could get shutout after shutout.

 

[nihlify]

Fair enough. Assume it's this one instead:

 

[IceNeophyte]

Lol, it's statistics, there's no agenda here. You can make reasonable assumptions about things without having to resort to time travel... If I make an assumption that if we actually had a literal bag of potatoes in net the for the all the previous games in the playoffs we would have lost all of them. That's not a big assumption.

But call that a big assumption if you like because you can't prove it... Let me guess, you are one of those people that think every outcome with two options is 50-50?

No, saying "Fleury would not have had a good record if Lehner weren't here" is not statistics, it's surmisal. Statistics are based on history. There is no history to go off, because Lehner is here and starting. Using regular season bereavement record would be beyond disingenuous. The only thing we can say, statistically, is that since Lehner arrived, he has lost two games and Fleury has lost one and that Lehner's save percentage is higher and Lehner has played more games by a large margin. Saying "Fleury would have lost more games, it's statistical" is agenda driven silliness.

 

[IceNeophyte]

I mean, a big enough bag of potatoes could get shutout after shutout.

Two shutouts could hardly be generalized as shutout after shutout. Maybe a shutout after a shutout. Marc's had a couple shutouts himself ya know.

 

[Vegan Knight]

Two shutouts could hardly be generalized as shutout after shutout. Maybe a shutout after a shutout. Marc's had a couple shutouts himself ya know.

I wasn't talking about Lehner I was talking about a giant bag of potatoes.

A big enough bag of potatoes would be expected to beat out Lehner and Fleury for the starting spot.

 

[willy702]

How many wins isn't the question. It's a question of does the team get to where it stands today and more importantly could it advance to the next round just the same? I'm not picking favorites, just as always have been of the belief most overvalue goalie play in the context of a teams success purely depends on finding a way to win each series. If you spend too many resources on goalies to the extent you can't improve other areas then that isn't good team management

 

[Vegan Knight]

How many wins isn't the question. It's a question of does the team get to where it stands today and more importantly could it advance to the next round just the same? I'm not picking favorites, just as always have been of the belief most overvalue goalie play in the context of a teams success purely depends on finding a way to win each series. If you spend too many resources on goalies to the extent you can't improve other areas then that isn't good team management

I think we lose to Colorado beat Arizona and now are playing Dallas in a trickier series with a greater prospect of the Avalanche waiting after if we only had Fleury.

 

[IceNeophyte]

I think we lose to Colorado beat Arizona and now are playing Dallas in a trickier series with a greater prospect of the Avalanche waiting after if we only had Fleury.

But again, that is pure, 100% conjecture.We gave up 3 goals and scored 4 to beat Colorado. That performance is within both goalies' GAA.

To Willy's point, there were a couple games the goalie kept us in, but we're getting most wins on the basis of tenacity and firepower.

 

[Vegan Knight]

But again, that is pure, 100% conjecture.We gave up 3 goals and scored 4 to beat Colorado. That performance is within both goalies' GAA.

To Willy's point, there were a couple games the goalie kept us in, but we're getting most wins on the basis of tenacity and firepower.

I believe you had a quote yourself echoing identical feelings about Fleury in the game thread of that same Colorado game.

(I didn't go combing for a quote but remember you replying we would be down 4-2 if we played Fleury during the game because I remember thinking similar.)

The team has been able to play well but lesser goaltending, and what we've seen so far is lesser goaltending from Fleury than they've gotten when Lehner started, certainly could easily throw them out of their game or force them to play a different way for parts of the game, that could affect outcomes.

 

[nihlify]

No, saying "Fleury would not have had a good record if Lehner weren't here" is not statistics, it's surmisal. Statistics are based on history. There is no history to go off, because Lehner is here and starting. Using regular season bereavement record would be beyond disingenuous. The only thing we can say, statistically, is that since Lehner arrived, he has lost two games and Fleury has lost one and that Lehner's save percentage is higher and Lehner has played more games by a large margin. Saying "Fleury would have lost more games, it's statistical" is agenda driven silliness.

Call it what you like, it's still not a "big assumption." (the original point I was responding to, not the strawman you wrote above, but whatever). And if someone state for a fact that we would have lost more games, then that would be silly yes. That's not what you do when assigning probabilities. You saying we have no way to based it on is also disingenuous.

But again, that is pure, 100% conjecture.We gave up 3 goals and scored 4 to beat Colorado. That performance is within both goalies' GAA.

To Willy's point, there were a couple games the goalie kept us in, but we're getting most wins on the basis of tenacity and firepower.

Yes, we still don't have time travel to prove anything. Doesn't mean you can't make reasonable assumptions...

 

[IceNeophyte]

Call it what you like, it's still not a "big assumption." (the original point I was responding to, not the strawman you wrote above, but whatever). And if someone state for a fact that we would have lost more games, then that would be silly yes. That's not what you do when assigning probabilities. You saying we have no way to based it on is also disingenuous.



Yes, we still don't have time travel to prove anything. Doesn't mean you can't make reasonable assumptions...

Self-described reasonable. Modern logic.