Post-Game Talk: #10 - 10/29/19 | lightning @ RANGERS

[Irishguy42]

They did not have 23 quality chances. Repeating it does not make it factual. All it does is mislead and twist the narrative. Is that your point?

Do you really want us to believe that while we thoroughly beat Buffalo, they actually shelled us with 23 scoring chances? LOL

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

You say this like it wasn't a regularly occurring thing for this team in the past ~4 years LOL

Yes, it is highly believable.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

They did not have 23 quality chances. Repeating it does not make it factual. All it does is mislead and twist the narrative. Is that your point?

Do you really want us to believe that while we thoroughly beat Buffalo, they actually shelled us with 23 scoring chances? LOL

Do you know how stupid that sounds? It's truly an impossibility.

You’ve literately done nothing to refute it besides saying “it can’t be, they won!!”

 

[Irishguy42]

You’ve literately done nothing to refute it besides saying “it can’t be, they won!!”

"The score was 6-2, obviously they sucked!"

 

[Machinehead]

Remember game 1 if the SCF where the Pens had like 0.00000001 xGF and scored 5?

This conversation reminded me of that.

 

[ohbaby]

You’ve literately done nothing to refute it besides saying “it can’t be, they won!!”

I must be in Bizarro World,.. if you guys are defending this position. They have this thing called video tape replay if you guys wish to join reality again.

 

[GeorgeKaplan]

I must be in Bizarro World,.. if you guys are defending this position. They have this thing called video tape replay if you guys wish to join reality again.

Yeah, I watched the game, the Rangers did what every team does when they have a big lead after the first period, which is take their foot off the gas, while Buffalo started taking more offensive chances to get the game closer. This kind of thing happens a lot and isn’t as crazy as you’re trying to make it out to be

 

[Irishguy42]

I must be in Bizarro World,.. if you guys are defending this position. They have this thing called video tape if you guys wish to join reality again.

Can't wait until you learn that a lot of analytics and advanced stats are based on...

...wait for it...

...watching the game.

In fact, it requires watching video multiple times in order to get the numbers right.

"Watch the game, nerd" folks in shambles because they can't handle the truth that most people who record the data used in analytics watch the game more than they do.

We're done here.

 

[ohbaby]

Yeah, I watched the game, the Rangers did what every team does when they have a big lead after the first period, which is take their foot off the gas, while Buffalo started taking more offensive chances to get the game closer. This kind of thing happens a lot and isn’t as crazy as you’re trying to make it out to be

Normally I would agree with you on this, but not this game. We kept the pressure on. Cause normally after taking your foot off the gas, the other team comes back. But in this game we kept at it. Played close to 60 minutes. This game went a long way in securing our win vs TB. We learned how to play with the lead against Buffalo. And in turn, kept the pressure on Tampa late when we took the lead.

 

[ohbaby]

We're done here.

Yeah, stick a fork in, you're done alright.

 

[Mac n Gs]

They did not have 23 quality chances. Repeating it does not make it factual. All it does is mislead and twist the narrative. Is that your point?

Do you really want us to believe that while we thoroughly beat Buffalo, they actually shelled us with 23 scoring chances? LOL

Do you know how stupid that sounds? It's truly an impossibility.

You're being obtuse just for the sake of it at this point. You're going on about semantics regarding quality scoring chances, when I literally told you that these are also quantified and are labeled as high-danger corsi for (HDCF). In our game against Buffalo, we had 8, they had 5. The 23 number that you keep citing are just a generically labeled scoring chance and no one really uses it. The most used numbers to reflect the quality chances that you're talking about are HDCF and xGF, which is exactly what I told you in my original post.

Also, c'mon man, saying that you've played EA NHL to understand probabilities? That's borderline trolling.

 

[Deleted member 23124]

I feel like that's archaic thinking at this point.

True -- unfortunately, it still holds up until the truth emerges.

As it turns out, the Post today says it's a neck injury.

 

[Larrybiv]

Fox and Georgie boy were obvious. But believe it or not, most of our dmen were outstanding. I also voted for Smith and Brady. Skeji's best game by far and Smitty had an all around solid effort with good offense to boot. Tough guy and is really showing his worth with his effort.

 

[ohbaby]

You're being obtuse just for the sake of it at this point. You're going on about semantics regarding quality scoring chances, when I literally told you that these are also quantified and are labeled as high-danger corsi for (HDCF). In our game against Buffalo, we had 8, they had 5. The 23 number that you keep citing are just a generically labeled scoring chance and no one really uses it.

Well someone did to argue our effort was not great against Buffalo. But thanks for showing us again there were only 5 good chances against.