Post-Game Talk: Rangers @ Caps Game 5: see you on sunday

[SnowblindNYR]

I honestly can't tell if you're arguing against me or with me or whatnot.

Not sure if you're talking to me or SA. If you're talking to me. It's a matter of what you're trying to figure out. However, I will say I agree with you, that on an individual basis you're not ever due. Your failures on the first 9 PPs will not mean that your chances are better on the 10th. That's obviously including straight probability and not including psychological factors and factors of luck. It's possible that psychologically, by the 10th PP the players "grip their sticks tighter". However, let's not include that because that's not something that you can in any way shape or form gauge. Here are three questions that can be asked:

If the question is:

1) If you didn't score on the first 9 PPs, are you more likely to score on the 10th?

The answer is a resounding NO! Each event is independent (although that's not necessarily true in sports, but is for this example for simplicity purposes). You have the same exact chance. So if your PP sucks and you have a 10% chance every time to score. Then on the 10th PP you have a 10% chance to score. So in that sense, I believe this is what you're talking about. You're not ever "due" to score. The chances of you scoring aren't higher in this instance.

2) Does a team have a better chance to score if they get 10 PPs than if they get 9?

The answer is YES. 0.9 to the power to 10 (chances you go 0 for 10) is lower than 0.9 to the power of 9 (chances you go 0 for 9).

3) Does a team have a good chance to go 0 for 10 on a PP in general?

This depends on what the probability of success and failure on each PP is. If probability of failure is absurdly high like 99%, then the chances of failure are still absurdly high. 0.99 to the power of 10 is still about 90%. However, if it's not absurdly high and you drop it just to 90%, (which is still really high), you get 0.9 to the power of 10. That's about 35%. So even if your PP blows chunks, you have a 35% of going 0 for 10. Now that's still the highest possible individual outcome. As I said there are 1,024 outcomes (2 to the power of 10). Each of the other 1,023 outcomes are less likely to happen. However, if you take all of the other 1,023 outcomes you get 65% (and that's significant, each likely outcome isn't).

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Not sure if you're talking to me or SA. If you're talking to me. It's a matter of what you're trying to figure out. However, I will say I agree with you, that on an individual basis you're not ever due. Your failures on the first 9 PPs will not mean that your chances are better on the 10th. That's obviously including straight probability and not including psychological factors and factors of luck. It's possible that psychologically, by the 10th PP the players "grip their sticks tighter". However, let's not include that because that's not something that you can in any way shape or form gauge. Here are three questions that can be asked:

If the question is:

1) If you didn't score on the first 9 PPs, are you more likely to score on the 10th?

The answer is a resounding NO! Each event is independent (although that's not necessarily true in sports, but is for this example for simplicity purposes). You have the same exact chance. So if your PP sucks and you have a 10% chance every time to score. Then on the 10th PP you have a 10% chance to score. So in that sense, I believe this is what you're talking about. You're not ever "due" to score. The chances of you scoring aren't higher in this instance.

2) Does a team have a better chance to score if they get 10 PPs than if they get 9?

The answer is YES. 0.9 to the power to 10 (chances you go 0 for 10) is lower than 0.9 to the power of 9 (chances you go 0 for 9).

3) Does a team have a good chance to go 0 for 10 on a PP in general?

This depends on what the probability of success and failure on each PP is. If probability of failure is absurdly high like 99%, then the chances of failure are still absurdly high. 0.99 to the power of 10 is still about 90%. However, if it's not absurdly high and you drop it just to 90%, (which is still really high), you get 0.9 to the power of 10. That's about 35%. So even if your PP blows chunks, you have a 35% of going 0 for 10. Now that's still the highest possible individual outcome. As I said there are 1,024 outcomes (2 to the power of 10). Each of the other 1,023 outcomes are less likely to happen. However, if you take all of the other 1,023 outcomes you get 65% (and that's significant, each likely outcome isn't).

Well, I was actually referring to SA16, but with this point, I believe I see what both of you are getting at and I find myself in agreement.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Well they don't have, say 20% as you said, on every individual powerplay due to factors like

1. Opposing team PK
2. Players on ice (maybe the top line was on the shift just before the penalty so we have to start with lesser guys)
3. Etc..

But longterm if you look back on the season and look at a random sample of games that's the trend you will see.

Against the Caps we should have a much better PP than usual given how awful their PK is. I mean it's been horrible but it's really been no worse than in the regular season. It's 2/21 which is obviously a real small sample but just add one more goal (say Boyles that was just as it ended) and now its 3/21 and 15% just about or above our regular season. Say we scored 2 more and its 4/21 and now its like 19%. Things change too much when the denominator is small.

Too many factors, IMO. This is not like flipping the coin or playing roulette where there are objective odds. That's why what we're arguing, IMO, is more to illustrate a point. 10% is a good low number to illustrate the point. I can say, hey look even if your PP blows chunks, chances of going 0 for 10 are very low. If I tried using 15%, it would lose the effect.

 

[Hockey Team]

I can sum up all the power play discussion with 1 simple stat:

There's a 100% chance sullivan sucks. Fire his ass.

 

[Kwayry]

Moore and Stralman were on that last OT goal. that is interesting. i am actually glad they were on instead of Girardi and McD, they will learn from it.
The reason for the loss is failure to score on the PP. it's interesting that the Rangers won every game they scored a PP goal in in the series.
In the latter stages of the game, the only threat to score was the Cally-Step-Hagelin line.
Hagelin needs to spend his summer practicing his breakaways, he will get a ton of them in his career with his speed, he needs to learn to finish. incidentally, why wasn't that a PS? It was clearly a scoring opportunity, and it was clearly a trip.
Nash needs to shoot the puck, forget about being a playmaker, shoot the puck, it may get deflected, get a rebound.
One more note about the PP, the caps clearly adjusted from the last game. The only adjustment Torts is making is changing players on the PP. And why was Brad on the PP? What was he rewarded for?
Brass gets benched and Brad gets rewarded, whatever.
I have a feeling Kreider will be Brad's wing in game 6.
The last 2 games in DC required an OT, the games in MSG were not that close. That bodes well for game 6.
Lastly, i feel for Hank, he must be very frustrated, 2 great games in DC and nothing to show for it.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I can sum up all the power play discussion with 1 simple stat:

There's a 100% chance sullivan sucks. Fire his ass.

Agree with this. He is useless as of right now and will continue to be ineffective at running the ST's

 

[Zappy]

My this sounds familiar.

But you're also citing one game from last years, in my opinion, underachieving playoff run. Rangers played 20 games in that post season.

My point is that we traded a team that had a ton of history, a ton of cohesion, and a great team culture for a bunch of question marks.

I do like Nash's game better than Gaboriks. I like Brassard's better than Artie's (though AA was better on the boards). Moore has been a revelation. I miss the hell out of Dubinsky.

Torts had HIS team last year. Tough hockey, forecheck like hell, block shots, grind wins out. That locker room culture was custom built around the guys we had. There was a real band of brothers thing going on, and they played harder for it.

and now, 3/4ths of our team hasn't even seen a Torts training camp. And people are SURPRISED when we look unprepared. I think we may see some of that in the coming years. The team gets to know itself a bit better, maybe. You don't just throw a bunch of names into a lineup and expect them to play like a team.

Pretty much all of your posts in this thread FTW.

The amazing things about these threads is that one person will blame this player, one person will blame another player, one person will blame the coach, etc. A loss is not a result of one player. So for anyone here to be arguing that a certain player is the sole reason a game is lost, you should really save your energy. Expressing opinions, totally understandable. But saying "BOYLE IS SELFISH, WE LOST BECAUSE OF HIM" and arguing against people about it is flat out idiotic. You are severely in denial if you think our team is flawless every game with the exception of one player that somehow messed everything up.

I am positive yet realistic. So, I personally didn't expect the Rangers to make it into the playoffs, let alone into the second round. Why? Because we have a different team from last year that didn't practice under Tort's "system" due to the lockout and due to mid season acquisition. It was apparent during many games that the team could win, but it was pretty much for a different reason every game. One game Hank dominated. One game we suddenly scored 4+ goals. One game we blocked a ton of shots and it ended up being the difference. That is all good and well for the regular season, but that won't work in the post season when you are playing the same playoff caliber opponent night after night.

The team isn't bad, in my opinion, by any stretch of the imagination. But there is a lot working against them and they are going to need another season to really fix all of the chemistry issues.

Why do you think you guys blame Nash, Cally, Hank, Pyatt, Hagelin, MDZ, Girardi, etc night after night? Look at the laundry list of players you complain about. There is a reason there are 10 players to complain about and not just one. And that is the reason this is not our year.

All just my opinion of course...

 

[SA16]

Well, I was actually referring to SA16, but with this point, I believe I see what both of you are getting at and I find myself in agreement.

I'm basically saying the exact same thing as Snowblind.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

I honestly don't think I've seen a single instance in any sport where one player lost the entire game for his team.

 

[Fataldogg]

i genuinely wonder if holtby broke a sweat last night.

LOL, I know.

Giving the Capitals all they can handle?

I wonder if this guy is watching the games. Lundqvist is giving the Capitals all they can handle.

Holtby hasn't been tested for half the series. All they can handle? That's a laugh.

If this is the most they Rangers can contend with the Capitals, then we might as well fire Tortorella now, and really shift the focus of this team, because we aren't going anywhere if that is the case.

 

[SA16]

I honestly don't think I've seen a single instance in any sport where one player lost the entire game for his team.

Have you watched Mark Sanchez play quarterback?

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Have you watched Mark Sanchez play quarterback?

Well, I don't want to derail this thread into the NFL, but the Jets woes ran far deeper than just Sanchez.

There are a lot of variables that go into losses so blaming a single player doesn't make much sense.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Bob, check out Patrick Stefan's empty net against Edmonton, that's a shining example

 

[SA16]

Fine. How about Vin Mazzaro in 2011 Royals vs. Indians allowing 14 runs in 2.1 innings. I would say that does the trick.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Bob, check out Patrick Stefan's empty net against Edmonton, that's a shining example

LOL. That was absolutely hilarious but it plays into my point. Too much weight is attributed to mistakes.

What Stefan did was dumb, but the Oilers still scaled the entire length of the ice in like 10 seconds to tie it back up.

Also, the Stars won that game anyway so it doesn't even work.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I honestly don't think I've seen a single instance in any sport where one player lost the entire game for his team.

Yes, but if there is one play or a series of plays that were really egregious then you can blame that player more than most. Boyle wasn't the reason we lost the game, but he made a selfish play that has no place in a team sport. He deserves most of the blame.

 

[NYGBleedBlueNYR]

The fact that our power play is more likely to give the opposition momentum than us,let alone get a goal, is a fireable offense for Torts & Sullivan both IMO.

 

[Kershaw]

I honestly don't think I've seen a single instance in any sport where one player lost the entire game for his team.

Braves former 2B Brooks Conrad committed 3 errors in NLDS game vs. the Giants a few years back. I remember it being statistically the one instance of a player single handily losing the game for their team.

he real story will be the terrible performance by Brooks Conrad. Conrad was 0-3 at the plate for a -.116 WPA, including a failed bunt attempt in the top of th 8th inning down by one run. His fielding performance, however will go down as historically bad, as two of his three errors were at least partially responsible for two of the three runs scored by San Francisco tonight.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nlds-game-three-review-atlanta/

 

[*Bob Richards*]

Braves former 2B Brooks Conrad committed 3 errors in NLDS game vs. the Giants a few years back. I remember it being statistically the one instance of a player single handily losing the game for their team.



http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/nlds-game-three-review-atlanta/

Makes sense to me that an instance like this would be in baseball. It is a team sport, but there a **** ton of moments of one on one.

 

[LieutenantLackluster]

I still cant get over Callahan with a wide open lane missing the net. I'd bench him after that. The **** play the rest of the series is enough for me.

 

[Zappy]

Yes, but if there is one play or a series of plays that were really egregious then you can blame that player more than most. Boyle wasn't the reason we lost the game, but he made a selfish play that has no place in a team sport. He deserves most of the blame.

A game in which most of our offense provided nothing but missed opportunities calls for Boyle getting most of the blame? Truly amazing.

 

[SA16]

A game in which most of our offense provided nothing but missed opportunities calls for Boyle getting most of the blame?

Everything he said seems fine to me. I'm pretty sure he admits our offense was not good yesterday but we got one goal and Boyle took a highly unnecessary stupid penalty that without we would have likely won the game (Of course you can't say this for sure since if the Caps were down 1 instead of tied they likely would have tried to push the pace even more and send more guys to attack)

 

[GFiP*]

I think we can all agree that del zotto has not developed into the power play specialist that we hoped for. We need guys on the point with confidence, not del zaster or beaver.

 

[GFiP*]

I still cant get over Callahan with a wide open lane missing the net. I'd bench him after that. The **** play the rest of the series is enough for me.

That was truly embarrassing

Inb4 he has one good one and people forgive his garbage play all series long.

 

[Zappy]

Everything he said seems fine to me. I'm pretty sure he admits our offense was not good yesterday but we got one goal and Boyle took a highly unnecessary stupid penalty that without we would have likely won the game (Of course you can't say this for sure since if the Caps were down 1 instead of tied they likely would have tried to push the pace even more and send more guys to attack)

So.. we would have "likely won the game" but you "can't say that for sure." You invalidated your own argument.

I'll just agree to disagree. Momentum is a big part of sports and taking a penalty in OT is not what you want, but there is a collective reason why we lost that game, not one reason. I put most of the blame on the offense as a whole, not Boyle.