Worse spot after game 4 - LA series or Pittsburgh series

[SixGoalieSystem]

They need to win 3 more in a row. The scenario is no different. They still need to put together a stretch of 4.

Look, I'm rooting for them to do it. I really hope they do. But there's a reason why this has only happened 4 times in NHL history. I'm just keeping any "belief" down, because there's really not much hope. Let the players take it one game at a time. That's their job. Not much point in us doing it.

This has nothing to do with faith or belief for my part. It's just statistics and probability. They obviously have a better chance of winning the series now than they did four hours ago. Winning game four means they no longer need to get four consecutive wins, they "only" need three. Statistically winning game four does not make winning game five less likely (and so on).

 

[Tawnos]

This has nothing to do with faith or belief for my part. It's just statistics and probability. They obviously have a better chance of winning the series now than they did four hours ago. Winning game four means they no longer need to get four consecutive wins, they "only" need three. Statistically winning game four does not make winning game five less likely (and so on).

These aren't coin flips. A lot of stats guys get so wrapped up in that aspect of statistics that they forget that trends are typically more powerful than probabilities are.

 

[Hockey Team]

Please, that's nonsense. The team won 1 game of the 4 they need to win in a row in order to complete a comeback. The mountain is exactly the same height as it was before the game tonight.

wtf?

The mountain is 3/4ths of the height.

Instead of the team needing to win 4 in a row, they now need to win 3 in a row.

The mountain's still huge, but it's not as big as it was yesterday.

Or if you insist the mountain's still the same height, the team has climbed 1/4th of the mountain, so effectively it's still 3/4ths of the original height.

Damn this is a bad analogy.

 

[Tawnos]

wtf?

The mountain is 3/4ths of the height.

Instead of the team needing to win 4 in a row, they now need to win 3 in a row.

The mountain's still huge, but it's not as big as it was yesterday.

Or if you insist the mountain's still the same height, the team has climbed 1/4th of the mountain, so effectively it's still 3/4ths of the original height.

Damn this is a bad analogy.

In that analogy, the mountain is still the same height and you expended energy to just reach the quarter mark. You probably won't have enough to reach the summit.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

These aren't coin flips. A lot of stats guys get so wrapped up in that aspect of statistics that they forget that trends are typically more powerful than probabilities are.

Trends are valuable when evaluating statistical data, but they are worthless if you are going to ignore the instances who are no longer an option (a Kings sweep).

The Rangers need to win four in a row starting with tonights win. Since they already got that win, the scenario changes and you should look at the following: When coming back from 3-0 to make it 3-1, how many teams wound up winning. The scenario is no longer: Down 3-0.

 

[Hockey Team]

In that analogy, the mountain is still the same height and you expended energy to just reach the quarter mark. You probably won't have enough to reach the summit.

Not true at all. It's not like we played a game and the kings didn't.

This isn't like you needing to run 2 miles to escape a bear and are 1/2 a mile through and would rather get eaten then continue running.

The rangers made camp on the side of the mountain and are now resting for the next 1/4th of the trip.

 

[Tawnos]

Trends are valuable when evaluating statistical data, but they are worthless if you are going to ignore the instances who are no longer an option (a Kings sweep).

The Rangers need to win four in a row starting with tonights win. Since they already got that win, the scenario changes and you should look at the following: When coming back from 3-0 to make it 3-1, how many teams wound up winning. The scenario is no longer: Down 3-0.

There's the difference between what we're talking about though. A Kings sweep is no different of an option, to me, than a Kings victory 4-1, 4-2, or 4-3. In other words, the scenario doesn't change as the series goes along. The Rangers are still trying to fight their way out of a 3-0 series deficit. They've won one of the required games. They still need to end up with 4, or the result is the same: a series loss.

 

[CommaSynapse]

I'd say this is the deeper hole. No questions--it's a HUGE hill to climb against a very well-built Kings team, but I would never have imagined we would get this far back when Lundqvist was really struggling back around November. Whatever happens, I'm glad the team pulled it together and pushed this far.

I've stressed a heck of a lot over these games, but I'm just going to enjoy the ride for the rest of what happens. No point in getting upset. Fans of other teams are going to talk ****, but we made it farther than 28 others when very few gave us a shot. Yeah, game 3 was a huge disappointment, but, hey--it happens. We had some good puck luck tonight.

It's easy to say "what if" regarding games one and two, but it is what it is. I'm hoping we can be a real ECF (if not SCF) threat for the next few years, but who knows. For now, just going to enjoy the ride to whatever end it reaches.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

I think in the Pitt series we played worse... We could've won both first games very easily but we had bad luck and were playing better in this series

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

There's the difference between what we're talking about though. A Kings sweep is no different of an option, to me, than a Kings victory 4-1, 4-2, or 4-3. In other words, the scenario doesn't change as the series goes along. The Rangers are still trying to fight their way out of a 3-0 series deficit. They've won one of the required games. They still need to end up with 4, or the result is the same: a series loss.

They are still different outcomes, even if the consequence in the end is the same. Winning four straight is hard, but you lose 100% of the series where you lose the first game. You lose a little less than 100% of the series where you win that game. You lose even fewer of the series where you win the next game too and so on. With every win you get, you have a slightly better chance of winning the series.

 

[Tawnos]

They are still different outcomes, even if the consequence in the end is the same. Winning four straight is hard, but you lose 100% of the series where you lose the first game. You lose a little less than 100% of the series where you win that game. You lose even fewer of the series where you win game two and so on. With every win you get, you have a slightly better chance of winning the series.

The end result is a binary state. 4 series in all of NHL history have ended on one side. The rest have ended on the other side.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Worst spot vs. LA because the Rangers were thoroughly dominated tonight in comparison to game 4 vs. the Pens.

The Rangers were thoroughly dominated in game 4 vs. the Pens too, I don't know what you were watching. Also Lundqvist was mediocre in that game. That said worse spot vs. LA because LA>>>>>>>>>>>Pittsburgh.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

The end result is a binary state. 4 series in all of NHL history have ended on one side. The rest have ended on the other side.

As you move up the series the numerator stays the same, but the denominator gets smaller. If by some miracle this goes to 7, you can't seriously pretend that the Rangers will have as little a chance of winning the cup as they do now.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Um. Do you remember game 4 against the Pens? Rangers only put 15 shots on goal in that game, no period with more than 6, looked thoroughly dominated all game long, not just the last 30... and they lost. This after getting shutout the two prior games.

That being said, team's come back from down 3-1 around 8% of the time. Teams come back from down 3-0 about 0.0000000001% of the time. We're still in a worse spot despite the win.

I'd be interested to see what how teams that were down 3-0 and won game 4 compare percentage-wise (win series out of total). Remember that 3-0 is not 3-1, lots of team don't even win game 4, so you have to ignore those teams since they're not relevant to the Rangers. I'd be interested to see if there's a significant difference. The only difference there should be is either random or if you believe in it, mental.

 

[Tawnos]

As you move up the series the numerator stays the same, but the denominator gets smaller. If by some miracle this goes to 7, you can't seriously pretend that the Rangers will have as little a chance of winning the cup as they do now.

I wouldn't be pretending it to be true. I would point out that 4 of 9 teams that have forced game 7 after a 3-0 hole gave won game 7. I don't view this as a probability though. Until they win, they're still at the whim of the fact that they're trying to put together 4 wins in a row.

 

[Tawnos]

I'd be interested to see what how teams that were down 3-0 and won game 4 compare percentage-wise (win series out of total). Remember that 3-0 is not 3-1, lots of team don't even win game 4, so you have to ignore those teams since they're not relevant to the Rangers. I'd be interested to see if there's a significant difference. The only difference there should be is either random or if you believe in it, mental.

Including this year, but not this round, there have been 177 3-0 in the history of the NHL. 62% of the teams up 3-0 have completed the sweep. That means 67 teams have won game 4. Only 4 of them have won the series. 5.97% compared to 2.26%.

 

[skymachine]

Easily LA. This team is looking physically and mentally spent, seems half the team is struggling out there more than usual.

 

[Giacomin]

I am going to say the Rangers were worse off in the Pittsburgh series because they looked dead after game 4. Tonight the Rangers played like a desperate team that was tired but they didn't look dead!

 

[vladmyir111]

Disagree completely. Winning 4 in a row is harder than winning 4 of 5.

Gamblers Fallacy. Losing after being down 3-1 is completely different than 3-0. 65% of all teams down 3-0 have lost game 4 in the history of the NHL in all rounds.

You realize that a team that has made it to game 7 after being down 3-0 has one a good quarter of the time since at that point it has nothing to do with the previous 6 games?

Not saying their chances are good, but making it past game 4 is the biggest hurdle by far.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Including this year, but not this round, there have been 177 3-0 in the history of the NHL. 62% of the teams up 3-0 have completed the sweep. That means 67 teams have won game 4. Only 4 of them have won the series. 5.97% compared to 2.26%.

Ugh, I get stats through 2010 for 3-1 comebacks and would like to do the research to see 3-1 after 3-0 versus any other permutation. But it's too late for that.

 

[gardenparty]

Easily LA. They would have eaten that Pittsburgh team for breakfast. The Kings are one of the best teams in the Stanley Cup in many years IMHO. I can't find a weakness. 4 strong lines, big strong defense with offensive flair (Doughty), solid goaltending, and well coached.

I keep waiting for all of their Game 7s to catch up to them but, if anything, they seem to get stronger as the game goes along. Now another quick turnaround (Friday) that, in theory, should favor the Rangers. But the Kings are better used to all the travel than the Rangers.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Gamblers Fallacy. Losing after being down 3-1 is completely different than 3-0. 65% of all teams down 3-0 have lost game 4 in the history of the NHL in all rounds.

You realize that a team that has made it to game 7 after being down 3-0 has one a good quarter of the time since at that point it has nothing to do with the previous 6 games?

Not saying their chances are good, but making it past game 4 is the biggest hurdle by far.

I said the same thing, maybe tomorrow, I will do the research from 2010-2014 (not including the finals) and piece it together to see if there's a difference between 3-1 after losing the first 3 and otherwise. The only difference really should be either random, or maybe mental, the latter of which would make it not normal probability, and negate the gambler's fallacy.

 

[vladmyir111]

Easily LA. They would have eaten that Pittsburgh team for breakfast. The Kings are one of the best teams in the Stanley Cup in many years IMHO. I can't find a weakness. 4 strong lines, big strong defense with offensive flair (Doughty), solid goaltending, and well coached.

I keep waiting for all of their Game 7s to catch up to them but, if anything, they seem to get stronger as the game goes along. Now another quick turnaround (Friday) that, in theory, should favor the Rangers. But the Kings are better used to all the travel than the Rangers.

haha keep the faith, Im still waiting for them to hit the proverbial brick wall. You never know, montreal was quite spry until all of a sudden game six they just hit a wall and **** the bed. Kings have been unreal with the stamina though thats for sure.

 

[vladmyir111]

I said the same thing, maybe tomorrow, I will do the research from 2010-2014 (not including the finals) and piece it together to see if there's a difference between 3-1 after losing the first 3 and otherwise. The only difference really should be either random, or maybe mental, the latter of which would make it not normal probability, and negate the gambler's fallacy.

The mental aspect is the only thing that can throw off the gamblers fallacy aspect of it. An inanimate object (dice) is not deciding things here so if the players think they cant win they wont. But stats over 80+ years do show that 3-0 ends in 4 games 65%+ of the time so that does support things. Once the mental aspect of "oh **** we're done" is conquered the odds swing hard towards a possibility of a comeback.

Winning 4 games in a row in hockey is hard regardless of anything in any case though due to just random bounces and reffing so it's not like I'd be betting on the Rangers in any case at this point.

 

[Kokoschka]

Boy, what a landslide. Well, at least I created some discussion.

I honestly would've expected this to be a little closer. Make no mistake, I'd say we're worse off in this series as well. But given the mood after game 4 vs. PIT which was "OMG GUISE CANT SCOAR, BREAK UP THE TEAM, WE'RE GONNA DIE TOMORROW" and the fact that Evgeni Malkin appeared ready to eat us alive and given the mood now which is "meh, we're still not winning this, but perhaps they can get one or two more wins" I thought it would be a legit question.

Might be some revisionist history going on as well, but I don't blame anybody if that's the truth.