GDT: Merged GAME 17 | Sens Rally in Raleigh | Sat Nov 16 2024, 7PM | SN1, TVAS 2

[Micklebot]

I think I understand what this poster is saying. Even if you accept that the refs made bad calls, could the Senators make up a 3 goal differential through some combination of scoring goals on their PPs and preventing goals while on their PKs? I’m saying three goals as there was an empty net goal. Maybe its only a 2 goal differential, as one of the Cane goals was scored from a really bad angle behind the line. So, that goal was preventable and under the Senator’s control.

So, it seems reasonable enough that they could overcome a 2 goal differential. I would say good teams do this a few times each season and would hope that the Senators will be able to do this as well.

Nobody was suggesting that we couldn't have just played better to overcome the bad calls that lead to a 3 goal swing though, of course teams can overcome a bad call or a bad bounce or even several and win the game.

The claim though was that if not for a pair of brutally bad calls, that game was tied going into the third, a period which we were the better team despite not being able to close the gap.

We could have gotten a point out of that game playing the way we did if the refs were competent. Maybe we still lose, maybe we win, who knows. The only thing we do know is the three goal swing the refs handed the canes was one we could not overcome without playing better than we did.

Saying we didn't play well enough to win that game regardless of the bad calls is just as unsubstantiated as saying we would have won without them, since without them it's a tie game.

 

[LiseL]

They were never going maintain that level of play and the Bruins and Leafs didn’t show up anyway. This team buckles to high tempo teams and the Canes are the definition of that.

I wish the coaching staff would adjust the team's style of play when warranted. Green said Carolina plays they way the Sens want to play, but they're not there yet. Should play more of a trap game against these types of teams: clog up the neutral zone, be very physical and wait for opportunities. Also, when the Sens are behind, they have trouble scoring. Clutch, they are not.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Nobody was suggesting that we couldn't have just played better to overcome the bad calls that lead to a 3 goal swing though, of course teams can overcome a bad call or a bad bounce or even several and win the game.

The claim though was that if not for a pair of brutally bad calls, that game was tied going into the third, a period which we were the better team despite not being able to close the gap.

We could have gotten a point out of that game playing the way we did if the refs were competent. Maybe we still lose, maybe we win, who knows. The only thing we do know is the three goal swing the refs handed the canes was one we could not overcome without playing better than we did.

Saying we didn't play well enough to win that game regardless of the bad calls is just as unsubstantiated as saying we would have won without them, since without them it's a tie game.

If Forsberg stopped that preventable goal from a shot behind the line, it might have been a 2 goal differential.

Lots of things can affect the outcome of a game. In this game specifically (and other games in general), the list would include:

a. The goalie making an extra stop as mentioned above.

b. Senators scoring more on their PP opportunities.

c. Senators preventing goals on their PKs

d. Any combination of a., b., and c.

e. The ref making fewer (or no) bad calls.

It didn’t seem like anyone was saying there weren’t bad calls, or that the bad calls had zero impact. Maybe I had to go way back (many pages further back) to see that though.

One thing I found a little disappointing is that we didn’t capitalize on our PP opportunities. Our PP has been good this year, but last night we had problems getting into the o-zone. But, Canes are good at making that difficult to do. I think the Canes goalie played pretty well as well.

We’ve had problems winning against the Canes in the past iirc correctly. They are a good team, so we have to bring our A game to win. Maybe we’ll win in the next tilt against them. But, in the meantime, we need to win our games against lesser opponents as well.

 

[Micklebot]

If Forsberg stopped that preventable goal from a shot behind the line, it might have been a 2 goal differential.

Lots of things can affect the outcome of a game. In this game specifically (and other games in general), the list would include:

a. The goalie making an extra stop as mentioned above.

b. Senators scoring more on their PP opportunities.

c. Senators preventing goals on their PKs

d. Any combination of a., b., and c.

e. The ref making fewer (or no) bad calls.

It didn’t seem like anyone was saying there weren’t bad calls, or that the bad calls had zero impact. Maybe I had to go way back (many pages further back) to see that though.

One thing I found a little disappointing is that we didn’t capitalize on our PP opportunities. Our PP has been good this year, but last night we had problems getting into the o-zone. But, Canes are good at making that difficult to do. I think the Canes goalie played pretty well as well.

We’ve had problems winning against the Canes in the past iirc correctly. They are a good team, so we have to bring our A game to win. Maybe we’ll win in the next tilt against them. But, in the meantime, we need to win our games against lesser opponents as well.

The whole original point was that refs altered the outcome though, telling me we could have just played better and the refs making egregiously bad calls wouldn't have mattered doesn't change the fact that those terrible calls did matter, and that's really the only point that was being made, those calls mattered and did affect the outcome, at least up to the start of the third, there's really no telling how the game would have played out in the third had they not botched those calls.

Saying we didn't play well enough anyway (debatable, as the underlying numbers suggest we were at worst pretty evenly matched after the first goal) so those botched call are irrelevant ignores the fact that a) without them, it's a tie game, and b) teams often win games they are outplayed in.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

The whole original point was that refs altered the outcome though, telling me we could have just played better and the refs making egregiously bad calls wouldn't have mattered doesn't change the fact that those terrible calls did matter, and that's really the only point that was being made, those calls mattered and did affect the outcome, at least up to the start of the third, there's really no telling how the game would have played out in the third had they not botched those calls.

Saying we didn't play well enough anyway (debatable, as the underlying numbers suggest we were at worst pretty evenly matched after the first goal) so those botched call are irrelevant ignores the fact that a) without them, it's a tie game, and b) teams often win games they are outplayed in.

I didn’t see any statements like the bad calls wouldn’t have mattered.

What I did see were statements like (I’m quoting that poster) “There were some bad calls but I don’t think we can blame everything ……”. In another post, the poster said “I agree there were bad calls”. In another post, this was stated: "Its not just what a ref does, but its also what we do and what our opponent does that affects the outcome”.

It looks to me like the poster was saying there were multiple reasons for the loss including bad calls.

 

[Micklebot]

I didn’t see any statements like the bad calls wouldn’t have mattered.

What I did see were statements like (I’m quoting that poster) “There were some bad calls but I don’t think we can blame everything ……”. In another post, the poster said “I agree there were bad calls”. In another post, this was stated: "Its not just what a ref does, but its also what we do and what our opponent does that affects the outcome”.

It looks to me like the poster was saying there were multiple reasons for the loss including bad calls.

You notably stop your first quote before "and the outcome", seems to alter the sentiment a bit no?

 

[Big Muddy]

You notably stop your first quote before "and the outcome", seems to alter the sentiment a bit no?