Worse spot after game 4 - LA series or Pittsburgh series

[bernmeister]

Compare teams to get your answer:

Pitt 2 world class players, one the game's best, + couple of others who are good/decent + a goalie I thought I remember reading somewhere tested for phenomenal reflexes, but apparently obviously does not have enough skill to control his talent.

We shut down Crosby +, suffered around Malkin, and once we could solve MAF, were were good, just had to out work them.

LA -
Their G as good as our G (to extent of being able to shut us down and vice versa).
Their best D a little better than McD on balance 'cause he is also gifted offensively.
Rest of D, we have small edge.

Fs, rest of, they have small medium edge
Fs, best of, they have big edge except Kreider

it does not help that
MSL is barely getting it done
Nash is semi absent, trying but not getting it done
Richards should not be playing, should be Miller

also, because extended so many series are they tired???

It's not conditioning.
We are faster. They are stronger.
We need a couple of more horses, have to trade and take chances to do that.

otherwise only luck and return of Divine Intervention for this year.
Can't say but DI returned to our goal last night! 2x!

 

[Fletch]

worse spot now mostly because it's the finals and they have played more hockey. When you're a down team, you seem to expend more energy trying to come back. At this juncture, expending energy means getting tired, and getting tired makes it tougher to win. Also, they went through that emotional PITT series. They went through six games against Montreal. They lose three straight against LA. It's also mentally exhausting. So, this is a tougher place to come back from than being down 3-1 against PITT. Not giving an opinion on the outcome, just saying this will is much better to come back from.

 

[FOD]

Worse now, Kings are much better than the Pens. Girardi and Staal look dreadful, nice to get a win though. Keep it going Friday.

Staal was good last night. Had some rough games earlier in the series but he was good last night and was physical. Girardi was ok but got burned a few times because he is pretty slow.

 

[rangersfaninmtl]

Why are you viewing it like that?

So if somehow we get to Game 7, our chances to win haven't improved because we lost the first 3 and won the next 3? I don't see it like that. You put the games behind you and look forward. What are the odds of us winning down 3-1? That's the relevant statistic at this point.

Or taken even further, if we are up 5-0 with 20 seconds left in game 7, we'd still have low odds of winning since we started out down 3-0 ?

And in fact at that point you probably couldn't ever find any team that had come back from 3-0 down in games to lead game 7 5-0. Reminds me of http://xkcd.com/1122/

Edit: "We" haha, oh well...

Edit 2: Added a ? to comment to show that I don't believe the reasoning

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Or taken even further, if we are up 5-0 with 20 seconds left in game 7, we'd still have low odds of winning since we started out down 3-0.

And in fact at that point you probably couldn't ever find any team that had come back from 3-0 down in games to lead game 7 5-0. Reminds me of http://xkcd.com/1122/

Edit: "We" haha, oh well...

2 things:

1. Have you ever watched online poker? The % of winning changes as your cards get better or worse vs. the other player. So no, our chances of winning at 5-0 in a game 7 in real time are pretty good. haha

2: Momentum: If you take two 3-1 situations, 1 coming off a loss, and 1 coming off a win, which situation would you rather be in?

 

[Fletch]

2 things:

1. Have you ever watched online poker? The % of winning changes as your cards get better or worse vs. the other player. So no, our chances of winning at 5-0 in a game 7 in real time are pretty good. haha

2: Momentum: If you take two 3-1 situations, 1 coming off a loss, and 1 coming off a win, which situation would you rather be in?

Each situation is kind of mutually exclusive. The Rangers lost game four against PITT to go down 3-1. They regrouped and it was like a new series. So in that situation, coming off a loss and winning three in a row instead of four in a row seemed to work. Can't say advantageous since the other situation didn't play out. Is there momentum? In a way, hopefully not, since then each game would be treated mutually exclusive which would bode well for the Rangers and lends itself to one game at a time. Could say the opposite, too, of course, which is always funny. Hopefully we see three more wins. Agree with point #1.

 

[rangersfaninmtl]

2 things:

1. Have you ever watched online poker? The % of winning changes as your cards get better or worse vs. the other player. So no, our chances of winning at 5-0 in a game 7 in real time are pretty good. haha

2: Momentum: If you take two 3-1 situations, 1 coming off a loss, and 1 coming off a win, which situation would you rather be in?

I think we are agreeing but you misunderstood me

Regarding #1, that was my point. The argument was that 3-1 was as bad as 3-0 because the Rangers *had* been down 3-0. So I was pointing out that if they are up 5-0 in game 7 then using the same reasoning, they are still in trouble since they had been down 3 games to none. Of course this makes no sense. And of course it's better to be down 3-1 and it's irrelevant how many times a team has come back from 3-0 at this point.

Regarding momentum, I don't think it makes that much difference in the end. I've seen too many times where teams recover from huge losses that should in theory hurt their momentum but don't.

That said, momentum if anything would further my point. In that perhaps it's actually *better* given that you somehow made it to a game 7, that you actually were down 3-0 and the other team mentally feels like they blew a lead.

Someone pointed out that teams coming back from 3-0 to tie are 4-5 in game 7s. Given how close that is to 50-50 it supports the idea that it doesn't matter how you got to game 7, just that you did. Unfortunately the sample sizes are so small that we can't really get a true sense of this though as if it were 3-6 instead of 4-5 (just a few bounces), we'd conclude "Teams get really tired to make it to game 7 and can only win 1/3 of their games"

 

[rangersfaninmtl]

Each situation is kind of mutually exclusive. The Rangers lost game four against PITT to go down 3-1. They regrouped and it was like a new series. So in that situation, coming off a loss and winning three in a row instead of four in a row seemed to work. Can't say advantageous since the other situation didn't play out. Is there momentum? In a way, hopefully not, since then each game would be treated mutually exclusive which would bode well for the Rangers and lends itself to one game at a time. Could say the opposite, too, of course, which is always funny. Hopefully we see three more wins. Agree with point #1.

Right, if momentum really mattered I would think 2 straight shutouts followed by a dreadful performance in game 4 would stop the Rangers.

I also think the Capitals would lose game 6 two years ago after the Richards/Staal combo. Different sport, but the Yankees would never have lost the 2001 World Series. That was the ultimate "momentum from game to game doesn't really matter in professional sports" moment.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Grasping at straws. The smart money had the Rangers as favorites over Pitt. Sure, being down 3-1 was not good, but the Rangers were better than Pitt from January on and it's frankly not very surprising the better team found a way to win.

LAK is A LOT better than Pittsburgh. If we pull off the W it will be the biggest choke in playoff history.

 

[rangersfaninmtl]

Grasping at straws. The smart money had the Rangers as favorites over Pitt. Sure, being down 3-1 was not good, but the Rangers were better than Pitt from January on and it's frankly not very surprising the better team found a way to win.

LAK is A LOT better than Pittsburgh. If we pull off the W it will be the biggest choke in playoff history.

Right, the most concerning part to me, oddly, is in the Pittsburgh series we looked *terrible* in games 2-4. It was so bad that the Rangers barely looked like an NHL team. It seemed hard to believe they could actually be that bad.

Kind of weird logic, it seems like it should be encouraging that the Rangers have looked good for the most part (the 3rd period of yesterday aside!)

 

[CDiablo]

Im going to say Pittsburgh. Against Pit(Remember the pathetic, tired 15 shot game that left the team marked for death) we went into game 5 coming in off one of our worst performances and a loss. Against LA we went into game 5 coming in off one of our worst performances and a win.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

So what about all the teams that were down 3-1, but never down 3-0 in the series, that went on to win the series? You know, like the Rangers against the Pens.

The problem here is you are trying to determine the odds of the Rangers winning the next 3, while others are saying that the odds of winning 4 in a row haven't changed. You are talking about 2 different things.

Except this is clearly incorrect since odds change as circumstances and scenarios change. The odds of winning four in a row when you already won one are way better than the odds of winning four in a row when you have yet to win any games.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

My statistics are still right though. The same number of teams have won after being down 3-0 as have won being down 3-1 after being down 3-0.

"Number of teams" is not relevant, you need to look at proportions. Again: The nominator stays the same, but the denominator decreases.

4/177 is not the same as 4/67

 

[Fletch]

whatever the odds are, the Rangers are not mathematically out of it and need to take it one game at a time. There is no real statistical probability for the Rangers to win. Even in statistics there is a variable which is subjective, and therefore you can makeup every number you want, in reality. You can follow a real statistical model, but all the variables should be the same to get a real outcome. You start with odds coming back from down three games. If they win one game, do you then have odds coming back from three games to zero having won a game, or are you now at odds winning down two games? Do you includes the number of games played to date also to add in a variable that might be relevant and thus give you a better estimate, or do you not and therefore you do have subjectivity in the model since one needs to agree on the variables. It's an infinite loop, as is everything in life, except these playoffs since it has a definite point of ending, assuming the teams do not stay deadlocked and never score. So, the Rangers are still in it and let's look at the best odds - the odds at winning each game on a mutually exclusive basis.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

I don't know which is worse. In both series at this point you got the feeling the Rangers were being outclassed too much of the time, they were making too many mistakes, they couldn't sustain offensive pressure, the ice was slanted against them, etc.

One good lesson from the Pitt series is that it can turn & the Rangers can take control.

Hope they get it done tonight.

 

[mandiblesofdoom]

Worse now, Kings are much better than the Pens. Girardi and Staal look dreadful, nice to get a win though. Keep it going Friday.

I thought Staal looked decent in game 4.

 

[Tawnos]

"Number of teams" is not relevant, you need to look at proportions. Again: The nominator stays the same, but the denominator decreases.

4/177 is not the same as 4/67

It's like talking to a wall. The way that I'm looking at it, the number that's irrelevant is 4/67. In a lot of ways, 4/177 is irrelevant. The number is 4 times in the entire history of the league, which spans 80+ years. And the way that I'm looking at it is more in line with the reality of the situation than taking it as an abstract statistical problem. You know why? Because 177 versions of the 2014 Rangers haven't gone down 3-0 in the series. 67 versions of the 2014 Rangers haven't won game 4 after being down 3-0.

The point in looking at the number of teams is to show that the instances of teams overcoming that deficit is exceedingly rare, not to lay a probability on the scenario. It's a statistic that informs a qualitative assessment of the situation.

This isn't an exercise in probabilities because there aren't any numbers that can realistically applied to this particular team.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

It's like talking to a wall. The way that I'm looking at it, the number that's irrelevant is 4/67. In a lot of ways, 4/177 is irrelevant. The number is 4 times in the entire history of the league, which spans 80+ years. And the way that I'm looking at it is more in line with the reality of the situation than taking it as an abstract statistical problem. You know why? Because 177 versions of the 2014 Rangers haven't gone down 3-0 in the series. 67 versions of the 2014 Rangers haven't won game 4 after being down 3-0.

The point in looking at the number of teams is to show that the instances of teams overcoming that deficit is exceedingly rare, not to lay a probability on the scenario. It's a statistic that informs a qualitative assessment of the situation.

This isn't an exercise in probabilities because there aren't any numbers that can realistically applied to this particular team.

Look. No one is saying this is not a tough task or that it's not still highly unlikely. This discussion started with you making this claim: The stats for teams coming back from 3-1 after being down 3-0 are exactly the same as the stats for teams being down 3-0.

That claim was obviously false. For each game the Rangers win they increase their chances of actually taking this.

 

[GordonGecko]

The odds of winning four in a row when you already won one are way better than the odds of winning four in a row when you have yet to win any games.

Who needs to win 4 in a row? Rangers only need to win one (three times)

 

[dstoffa]

They need to win 3 more in a row. The scenario is no different. They still need to put together a stretch of 4. You can't separate the scenario just because part of it is in the past now.

Of course you can. And you should.

Do the odds of a seven being thrown change when the bones roll off the table? No, they do not. The bones have no memory, we humans do. But in the end, you will see humans taking their bets down or turning them off more often than not after the shooter throws too hard.

What occurred in the past does not impact the events that are upcoming. As someone else posted, the Rangers only need to win three in a row. Period.

And the Rangers are in better shape now because the are in the STANLEY CUP FINALS, and not the Metropolitan Division Finals....


Cheers!
-Doug

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I actually think post-game 4 in Pittsburgh was a worse spot. I dont think the Rangers looked anywhere near as listless in this series as they were after game 4 vs. Pittsburgh.

At the same time, the Kings are a much better team.

Tonight is a really critical game beyond the elimination stuff. If the Rangers win and force it back to the Garden for a game 6, thats really when you're talking about some undeniable pressure setting in on the Kings.

 

[Tawnos]

Look. No one is saying this is not a tough task or that it's not still highly unlikely. This discussion started with you making this claim: The stats for teams coming back from 3-1 after being down 3-0 are exactly the same as the stats for teams being down 3-0.

That claim was obviously false. For each game the Rangers win they increase their chances of actually taking this.

Not all the stats are the same, admittedly. Just the relevant ones.

 

[GordonGecko]

If the Rangers win and force it back to the Garden for a game 6, thats really when you're talking about some undeniable pressure setting in on the Kings.

Yeah agree, Kings have zero pressure and I would bet that to a man every one of them expects to skate off with the cup tonight. Rangers need to find that extra gear and just completely bash their brains in repeatedly and take this back to New York. Just go at them hard & fast for 60 minutes, they'll never see it coming

 

[vipernsx]

Rangers looked bad against Pittsburgh until they turned it around.

The first two games in LA they were the better team. Game one could have gone either way and the game was determined by a luck of a bounce this way or that. Game two the Rangers won as the game should have never gone to OT. The Rangers ran into a hot Goalie in game 3 and let that get into their head. They ended up laying up a sticking which less one game in Montreal, they haven't played that poorly since Pittsburgh. The looked better in 4 then 3, though the compete needs to be for 60 minutes and that's been an issue all series.

If it weren't for Marty St. Louis, the Rangers were done in Pittsburgh. Here they have a chance to win games and have looked better early in the series. Get back to that and they can win the series, however unlikely it is.

Yeah agree, Kings have zero pressure and I would bet that to a man every one of them expects to skate off with the cup tonight. Rangers need to find that extra gear and just completely bash their brains in repeatedly and take this back to New York. Just go at them hard & fast for 60 minutes, they'll never see it coming

All season the Rangers have played better on the road, this series is no different. If they play like they did in the first two games and keep the pressure going in the 3rd rather than letting up, they can win.

 

[SixGoalieSystem]

Not all the stats are the same, admittedly. Just the relevant ones.

Except you specifically mentioned percentages.