Post-Game Talk: Controversy, thy name is Bruins vs Jets; Jets win 5-4 in SO

[10Ducky10]

That's your opinion. My opinion is most would be more cautious, especially when killing off a five minute major, and none of the replays showed it conclusively offside.

Maurice said he would call that again in regular season but probably not in playoffs.

 

[AlphaLackey]

_____________________________________________________
I really think your "missing the point here." We were up a goal and outplaying them badly. If the call was not challenged, Boston would need 2 goals to win, and that's without the Jets scoring a goal. Percentages are you just don't make that challenge.
This is not like "tennis"--where you can zoom in on the puck and see if it was out just 1 or 2 millemeters --it's impossible to tell really. I don't like the call at all.

If the call was not challenged, we'd have about a 76% chance of winning. If the challenge was successful, we'd have about a 92% chance of winning. If we were much closer to the end of the game, that's one thing. Being up 2 is barely much better than being up 1 with (say) 2 minutes left. With 18.5 minutes left, that 2nd goal still has a lot of value. And the cost of failure isn't a whole goal against -- it just looks like it because they scored on the 5v3.

Maintaining a 3-1 lead is about +16% to win rate. Getting that goal scored against us to tie the game was only about -26% win rate. But combined with the fact that the "win" of a challenge is a goal off the board and the cost of a challenge is only about 0.5 goals against even in this EXTREME circumstance (normally it's only about 0.2 goals against), 50/50 still makes it a correct call, just going by percentages.

Now, again, you think it's not a 50/50 call? That's another thing. Estimating that percent is a skill I want our video crew to get better at. But if you, the video guy, tell me that in your judgment it's 50/50 to get overturned? Even in that spot I challenge every time. I trust your judgment. Your my teammate, right? Even though we're both 'suits' we're still both on teammates, and teammates need to trust each other

 

[AlphaLackey]

Maurice said he would call that again in regular season but probably not in playoffs.

Unless he's alluding to a much lower chance of an overturn in the playoffs, I hate this line of reasoning. Score, manpower, clock, success rate; those are the only variables that matter.

 

[AlphaLackey]

That's cool too I meant as the audio to the Laine clip though.

OH yeah, I'm not skilled enough to do that editing. You'll just have to sync them up in two windows yourself

 

[Shazzam]

If it's 50/50, as in "it was real close either way", you challenge each and every time. The math on this has been hammered out repeatedly, including in this thread.

If you want to talk about not letting emotions influence better judgment, then that means not being scared of the bad optics of a "mistake of proaction", and if it's a mathematically sound decision you do it, no matter how angry some fans might get. Why do you think coaches have for decades been far too timid in pulling their goalie, and it took a zero-****s-given man like Patrick Roy to open people's eyes? Why are football coaches petrified to gamble on a 3rd / 4th down conversion in CFL / NFL games? They're letting their emotions (in this case, fear) influence their better judgment.

Like, we definitely agree that it's bad when coaches do that, so that's good.

Although I have not seen the debates on the math you refer to, I can appreciate the concept of of why you might challenge a call in a 50/50 situation. But there's a lot of moving parts here, the key being that we were killing off a 5 minute major. The risk/reward here seems to me to be too high to make that call. IMO, the replays supported an on side decision, but that's beside the fact.

 

[10Ducky10]

Unless he's alluding to a much lower chance of an overturn in the playoffs, I hate this line of reasoning. Score, manpower, clock, success rate; those are the only variables that matter.

I would say that it is weighted heavier in a playoff game...especially compared to a game that probably won't help you move up or down in the standings.

 

[raideralex99]

I liked the challenge ... what do you have to lose? The Jets are not going to catch the Preds and the Wild is not going to catch the Jets. As it turned out the Jets answered the bell.
It's nice to finally see no one knocking Tanev. I saw him early in the season here in Vancouver and was impressed, I thought he was one of the fastest skaters and liked his game. I just shook my head reading all the knocks on him. I loved that second goal ... slashed twice by Marchand and still scored. Was there a delayed penalty on Marchand on that play?
Is it me or does it seem when the Jets scored a couple of PP goals the next game they don't get very many PPs.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Although I have not seen the debates on the math you refer to, I can appreciate the concept of of why you might challenge a call in a 50/50 situation. But there's a lot of moving parts here, the key being that we were killing off a 5 minute major. The risk/reward here seems to me to be too high to make that call. IMO, the replays supported an on side decision, but that's beside the fact.

Oh absolutely, the "moving parts" as you call them are really crazy here. I don't think I've seen a bigger set of circumstances against, not the least of which is the major we're on. Like the "risk" part is more skewed than I've ever seen it (score, going 5v3 over 5v4 >> going 5v4 over 5v5, we're already up by 2, &c &c). And I think a lot of people have pointed out that it really wasn't that close. Which is absolutely fair and although I saw it as offside, obviously the NHL disagreed

The only thing I'm really kind of fanatical about disproving is the notion that we should only challenge if it's 100% or close to it. As a statistical kinda thinker, this strikes me as the kind of reasoning that has made coaches hesitant to pull goalies when they should or gamble for first downs on 3rd/4th and short. I don't want Maurice passing on what he thinks is "the right call" just because he's scared of looking bad.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I would say that it is weighted heavier in a playoff game...especially compared to a game that probably won't help you move up or down in the standings.

I think there's a very solid argument to suggest that the off-ice officials *also* have a strong bias to prefer a "mistake by inaction" versus a "mistake by proaction". How often have we heard about officials "deciding close games" by making calls that probably shouldn't be made at the time? We never really discuss that when the ultimate game authority decides not to act, they too have decided the close game. Like to quote Rush for the second night in a row, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".

But I like what you touched on here. Really, this game meant next to nothing save for slightly increasing our home ice chances in a possible 3rd round match against exactly one team. 2nd in the division was a near lock going in and it's a near lock coming out.

 

[Robinson2187]

The only good thing to ever come from Boston..

Dropkick Murphys.

That's it. Unless Boston Creampie originated there also.

Aw c'mon. The Cars. The Pixies. Leonard Nimoy. I'm sure there's lotsa good clam chowder

 

[AlphaLackey]

I trust the DOS will make the right decision pertaining to Morrissey

I'm sure they will give the roulette wheel of their patented "RNG Rules Enforcement" a fair and honest spin

 

[AlphaLackey]

Aw c'mon. The Cars. The Pixies. Leonard Nimoy. I'm sure there's lotsa good clam chowder

MIT was always my mid-life crisis "if I could go anywhere to further my education" school. And of course, there's Fallout 4 and I'm pretty much always going to call a meatball sub a "spuckie" as a result.

 

[Evil Little]

I'd say Marchand is a piece of shit, but that's an insult to innocent bowel movements everywhere.

 

[AlphaLackey]

Didn't mind Morrissey penalty at all really. It was an easy 5 min but he lost it when Scheif looked hurt.

When we weren't getting mixed up in BS we handled them well.

The call on the ice was correct. A minor suspension for a player with zero history of such thuggery and for whom this is CLEARLY out of character would still be warranted, given that it's basically garbage time for the Jets and we should be resting him anyways (like the DOPS can give him 2 games off and PMo can give him a limo ride to the peelers with the corporate credit card). But I completely understand it and I completely understand why JoMo did what he did. That's our star center that had liberties taken with. I'd be pretty incensed too.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I'd say Marchand is a piece of ****, but that's an insult to innocent bowel movements everywhere.

The piece of shit I just passed 24 hours after vodka-blasting my brains out thanks you for your kind consideration. Like when Marchand went in on a breakaway with 5s left in OT I was like "... another slow day today, God?"

 

[AlphaLackey]

Hahahaha

The ref/linesmam was funny . Does he really need to come that close to the puck to point at it?

It's the Ed Hochuli / Earl Hebner effect -- refs figuring they're actually the ones the fans are paying to see do their thing

 

[NotCommitted]

Another quick take...hated Laine’s play at the end of his shift in OT where he coughed up possession trying to drive into their zone.

I think he’s goal hungry to catch Ovi. It wasn’t a smart play.

I didn't like that play either, it was stupid. But to me it looked more like a frustration play than goal hungry... or maybe they are the same thing. You could see during the game he was super pissed for the chances he missed. After that he made a couple plays that were similar, ofc in OT the cost of losing posession is way higher.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I didn't like that play either, it was stupid. But to me it looked more like a frustration play than goal hungry... or maybe they are the same thing. You could see during the game he was super pissed for the chances he missed. After that he made a couple plays that were similar, ofc in OT the cost of losing posession is way higher.

Not disagreeing one iota with the assessment of Laine's play.

Only going to remind everyone -- and mostly, remind myself -- that Laine is NINETEEN. Even the almighty Selanne when he came to us was 24.

Every time I watch Laine play I get dollar signs in my eyes. By the 2020s he will go down as the next great player since Ovechkin. His talent knows no bounds.

 

[snowkiddin]

Aw c'mon. The Cars. The Pixies. Leonard Nimoy. I'm sure there's lotsa good clam chowder

Love The Cars. They're seriously in my top 5 for bands. The Pixies and Leonard Nimoy are cool too. Love Boston Cream donuts too. But I still hate the Bruins.

 

[snowkiddin]

The fans of the team with Marchand are over on the main boards whining and complaining about how dirty the Jets are. The irony is severely overwhelming.

 

[AlphaLackey]

The fans of the team with Marchand are over on the main boards whining and complaining about how dirty the Jets are. The irony is severely overwhelming.

I mean, I guess, every dog knows their own, right? Who better than a follower of a Marchand-led team could know what "dirty" is? Lucic, maybe?

 

[Tommigun]

The fans of the team with Marchand are over on the main boards whining and complaining about how dirty the Jets are. The irony is severely overwhelming.

I think they are right, the Morrissey hit was just awful. Imagine if that had happened against us? I really hope he victim recovers quickly.

 

[AlphaLackey]

I think they are right, the Morrissey hit was just awful. Imagine if that had happened against us? I really hope he victim recovers quickly.

Let me make no bones about it -- the Morrissey hit was horrific. Absolutely disgusting and something that hockey must purge from its ranks, yesterday if possible but today if we must.

But to suggest that Morrissey is a "dirty player"? To suggest that Jomo's history is even one metric f***ing iota as distained as Marchand's is?

Even this Devil's Advocate champion ain't gonna entertain an argument that intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Tommigun]

The call on the ice was correct. A minor suspension for a player with zero history of such thuggery and for whom this is CLEARLY out of character would still be warranted, given that it's basically garbage time for the Jets and we should be resting him anyways (like the DOPS can give him 2 games off and PMo can give him a limo ride to the peelers with the corporate credit card). But I completely understand it and I completely understand why JoMo did what he did. That's our star center that had liberties taken with. I'd be pretty incensed too.

But Scheifele was not taken liberties with. The hit on Scheif was completely legal and pretty tame to begin with, JoMo just lost it and to make matters worse retaliated on a player who was not even involved in the play.

 

[AlphaLackey]

But Scheifele was not taken liberties with. The hit on Scheif was completely legal and pretty tame to begin with, JoMo just lost it and to make matters worse retaliated on a player who was not even involved in the play.

Couldn't agree more with either of your points here.

My defence is solely for Jomo who lost it -- I think we both agree on that! -- and that his history is insignificant.. like, is this not the first borderline dirty hit he's dished out in his life? The first time he "lost it", as it were?