Jump to content
The Official Site of the Carolina Hurricanes
Sign in to follow this  
OBXer

2015/16 In-Season Talk

Recommended Posts

Maybe Calgary is this year's Colorado. The Avs went from 1st overall pick (McKinnon) to the playoffs 2 years ago, then back to the bottom of their division last year (and not off to a good start this year). Maybe both teams just had 1 year where all of the bounces, breaks and one-goal games went their way.

An item of concern, did anyone else hear Forslund on 99.9 Thursday talking about Lindholm? I can't remember the exact words but the gist was that he needed to give a more consistent effort throughout each game. Troubling to hear that about such a young player, on whom we used such a high draft pick. Forslund seemed to think Lindholm could be "coached out" of this issue. I sure hope so, and hope Lindy did not suffer any long-term injury tonight.

I think Lindy is struggling because he's seen big minutes and then markedly fewer, being shuttled between the first and third lines so far this season. BP needs to make up his mind, and when he does, Lindholm will find his groove. I think he's better with Rask, and wish BP would just commit to E-Rask-Lindy already, and stop fiddling.

 

Then again, the team's won three straight, so what do I know :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindy did try and come back, so maybe a week off, that was scary... Lindy hopefully when he comes back, finds that smoothness, to his game, we have seen in past..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want to hang your hat on being 21st in "goals against" then, I guess.  I'm just saying it's hard to win when you don't score.  I may not be a rocket surgeon, but I'd bet my hat on that idea.

well stats are stats for sure, seems if we get to that 3  goals a game/its a winner, chicken dinner:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears Semin is now being scratched on a nightly basis. I guess his initial scoring was a false alarm.

 

It's a shame because there's so much potential.  A bigger shame that because of JR's knee-jerk signings, the Hurricanes are still paying him millions of dollars a year to sit in the pressbox for another team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good point about "luck" or in statistical terms, random variation.  While I would disagree that it's even close to 1/3 of the equation, I believe it's a very real component in the outcome of many sporting events, at least to some extent or another.  Many people discount it with aphorisms like "you make your own luck".

Interesting discussion! My view is compared to other real time versus sports like basketball and football, hockey does involve a lot more "luck" mostly due to the lack of scoring inherent in the game. In basketball, because of the ample scoring, the team that plays better THAT game wins probably 95+% of the time. They may not be the better team overall, just that they played best that night such that fluke plays and bad calls by the refs (i.e., "luck") are swallowed up by the 50+ other scoring plays. Football has less scoring, so a bizarre play or bad call plays a role in the outcome more often, but I'd still say the team that played better that game wins 90% or more. In hockey, 'luck' or whatever you wish to term it plays a much bigger role because scoring is so scarce. Maybe only 80% of the time does the team that plays better win as a goal from a fluke or bad call can be a major difference maker in the game. I think this big 'luck' element is an adjustment for fans that first come to the game from a football or basketball perspective. In fact for my friends that are more basketball or football fans than hockey, they tell me this aspect of the game is very frustrating!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It's early, and I don't want to put too much emphasis on it (for fear of jinxing things, speaking of puck luck!), but winning this particular back-to-back - coming home after a long trip and wanting to establish that we're not going to roll over in our own barn - is the closest thing we've seen in quite some time to, uh, what's that called again? Hmmmm... THAT'S RIGHT, DETERMINATION (a.k.a., the will to win). And Peters doesn't strike me as a guy who's about to take his foot off the gas.

 

I was thinking along the same lines, top-shelf.  I don't recall 3 games including a back to back like this since maybe the lockout season high.

 

Tell you what.  Sunday's game will include the real "home from the trip" hangover.  If they can find it Sunday and beat or at least put up a real showing against TB, I'll give Remkin a ring and help him get the boat out of storage and join him in his initial inspection of the island.

 

Of course, I'll be at that game, so it will be a disaster.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But from my couch, put me in the "mostly played hard" camp.  Couple of player exceptions, and every team will have a few down games, but even after we were way out of it last year I thought most of the team played hard.   I didn't see the team in general mailing it in.

 

I hear ya, but my issues seem to be more with the unwillingness to stand in front of the goal, stand up for team mates, take a hit to make a play, etc.  They can skate hard and put forth an effort, but what I haven't seen is players getting so tired of losing that they are willing to do whatever it takes. 

 

I have played a lot of sports teams (never at a high level) and played on a lot of bad teams.  Losing sucks.  Somebody has to say "enough".

 

 

edit...

 

On the other hand, a few days ago, coastal posted that he was leaving to go on an extended hunting trip and had some kind of 32 hour drive.  Since he left, the Canes are undefeated.  Cause and effect?

Edited by super_dave_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, coastal must stay out of the continental US, and dog butler must work during every game.

 

And here we were blaming coaching, goaltending, and the Staals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking along the same lines, top-shelf.  I don't recall 3 games including a back to back like this since maybe the lockout season high.

 

Tell you what.  Sunday's game will include the real "home from the trip" hangover.  If they can find it Sunday and beat or at least put up a real showing against TB, I'll give Remkin a ring and help him get the boat out of storage and join him in his initial inspection of the island.

 

 

 

We've all been on here a while or if not, have been following this team a long time. We know better than to predict great things (end up finding yourself out on some sort of Island when this team finds way after way to underperform). So we are all understandably slow to allow ourselves to get too excited.

 

But there really are good things going on. I've listed a bunch of them, but the bottom line is that we have won 5 of 8 games, 7 of which were part of our only road trip more than 4 games for the year, and a back to back return home that was a set up for a let down. I agree that this particular 3 game streak is all the more notable because we beat two teams in their barn, and that dreaded first home game back and it was a 3 games in 4 nights scenario.

 

We really could have won every game of the road trip except the back end of the back to back in Washington.

 

The thing the Island was built on was the fact that multiple players, particularly, but not exclusively forwards, had been dramatically underperforming their historically proven ability. Guys just had to get back to around 85% of their best years and we'd have made the playoffs. BTW the Island claim was that this team could make the playoffs, even I never claimed we were the Blackhawks. We are still one elite , one more fast/clever winger, and the defense we that will hopefully have in a couple of years away from being in that neighborhood.

 

This team, on paper has even less talent that the Island team. But unlike that team, this team seems to be building something as a team.

 

That said there is still a ton of still unrealized offense in this team: Eric Staal, Jeff Skinner, Jordan Staal, Elias Lindholm, Nathan Gerbe, are all STILL, WAY off their expected production right now. To be honest, even Rask is off where he is capable, though he is better. Only Chris Versteeg is on his typical pace, and even he needs more goals. and only Riley Nash is ahead of projections. Heck even Nestrasil w/ zero points is flying below his potential.

 

There is a whole lot more potential offense stored up in this team's ability. The rest of the game seems to be getting there. Get that offense going and it could get unusually fun around here.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears Semin is now being scratched on a nightly basis. I guess his initial scoring was a false alarm.

 

I'm actually glad about that. Proves it was him, not us. In case there was any doubt.

Edited by remkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game plan IMO has been to have the scoring come from the blue line in some shape or form and we are seeing that.

 

I guess if the long term plan is to build from the back out, then technically the blue line is closer to the back than the forwards in the O zone. But we need to keep gettting more and more offense up front if this is to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion! My view is compared to other real time versus sports like basketball and football, hockey does involve a lot more "luck" mostly due to the lack of scoring inherent in the game. In basketball, because of the ample scoring, the team that plays better THAT game wins probably 95+% of the time. They may not be the better team overall, just that they played best that night such that fluke plays and bad calls by the refs (i.e., "luck") are swallowed up by the 50+ other scoring plays. Football has less scoring, so a bizarre play or bad call plays a role in the outcome more often, but I'd still say the team that played better that game wins 90% or more. In hockey, 'luck' or whatever you wish to term it plays a much bigger role because scoring is so scarce. Maybe only 80% of the time does the team that plays better win as a goal from a fluke or bad call can be a major difference maker in the game. I think this big 'luck' element is an adjustment for fans that first come to the game from a football or basketball perspective. In fact for my friends that are more basketball or football fans than hockey, they tell me this aspect of the game is very frustrating!

 

Very good point Red.  I don't know that I'd put it at only 80% of the time that a team that plays best wins (not sure what I'd put it at), but I do agree with your point. 

 

I can get a lot closer to 80% if we break what I call "random variation" down into two parts.  Let's call the first "pure luck", i.e., things that are mostly independent of what either team does on the ice (bad calls by the officials or calls that could go either way, bad bounces, fluky injuries, etc.).  Part 2 is variation in singular key plays by teams that you wouldn't consider "typical", i.e., you wouldn't realistically expect it to happen most of the time. Things like a good goalie giving up a soft goal, an average goalie legitimately standing on his head (as compared to having pucks fired into his chest) and stealing a game, taking a poorly timed penalty a player wouldn't typically take, etc. That seems like a different kind of "luck" to me in that while it isn't independent of what either team does, you couldn't realistically expect it to happen most of the time. I'd put Mrazeks turnover resulting in Rasks goal into that category.  Include that second piece and I could see your percentage getting closer to 80%.

 

I think one could make the point that we're finally catching some breaks in our mini-streak: Mrazek's turnover (although let's also credit Rask for being there to take advantage of it), the goal that trickled through Greiss(?), etc. Seems like last year almost all of those went the other way. 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good point Red.  I don't know that I'd put it at only 80% of the time that a team that plays best wins (not sure what I'd put it at), but I do agree with your point. 

 

I can get a lot closer to 80% if we break what I call "random variation" down into two parts.  Let's call the first "pure luck", i.e., things that are mostly independent of what either team does on the ice (bad calls by the officials or calls that could go either way, bad bounces, fluky injuries, etc.).  Part 2 is variation in singular key plays by teams that you wouldn't consider "typical", i.e., you wouldn't realistically expect it to happen most of the time. Things like a good goalie giving up a soft goal, an average goalie legitimately standing on his head (as compared to having pucks fired into his chest) and stealing a game, taking a poorly timed penalty a player wouldn't typically take, etc. That seems like a different kind of "luck" to me in that while it isn't independent of what either team does, you couldn't realistically expect it to happen most of the time. I'd put Mrazeks turnover resulting in Rasks goal into that category.  Include that second piece and I could see your percentage getting closer to 80%.

 

I think one could make the point that we're finally catching some breaks in our mini-streak: Mrazek's turnover (although let's also credit Rask for being there to take advantage of it), the goal that trickled through Greiss(?), etc. Seems like last year almost all of those went the other way.

My percentages are tripe, I agree...haha. I don't watch a lot of basketball, but do lots and lots of football and hockey and there's a clear difference in the number of times the team based on their play that game "didn't deserve to win" or "got the lucky breaks" or "good bounces" wins in hockey vs football. Quantifying that difference along with determining the proper scope of random variation would get someone a PhD. I will contribute 4 bits to the board's scholarship fund if it will help find someone to solve this conundrum....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My percentages are tripe, I agree...haha. I don't watch a lot of basketball, but do lots and lots of football and hockey and there's a clear difference in the number of times the team based on their play that game "didn't deserve to win" or "got the lucky breaks" or "good bounces" wins in hockey vs football. Quantifying that difference along with determining the proper scope of random variation would get someone a PhD. I will contribute 4 bits to the board's scholarship fund if it will help find someone to solve this conundrum....

 

Not so sure we need to pin down the exact number; to me it's very useful to identify the principle and acknowledge that it does exist. Again, going back to the 2014 Cup, how many people view the 4-1 Kings win as dominating without recognizing that just two calls might have easily swung the outcome in the other direction? Because if you do consider the "luck" part, it makes the Kings missing the playoffs the following year just a bit less shocking and the Rangers winning the Presidents Cup a bit more predictable (before the season, wouldn't many have expected the winner to come out of the West?). 

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sunday's game will include the real "home from the trip" hangover.

Agree 2000 percent. Sunday is a huge measure of their mettle. It's followed by four days off, and pulling the record to .500 will make those down days well deserved.

 

I don't want a good effort. I want a win, and if they do too, they'll get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, coastal must stay out of the continental US, and dog butler must work during every game.

 

And here we were blaming coaching, goaltending, and the Staals.

I stream all Canes games through my PS4 using Game-Center Live.

The last three games I've used my black controller instead of the gray one.

Of course the next time we lose it will be back to the gray one.

The volume number on my tv and stereo also seem to have an effect.

I've been trying to crack the code for the past few years, it's a work in progress...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that October is in the books, I think now November will be the new measuring stick as far as what this team does this season. 13 games, only two back-to-backs; almost playing every other night. If this team can continue this consistency we've seen over the past 3 games the glimmer could expand from a pin hole light to a flash-light.

 

Tampa is playing tonight against the Bruins in Tampa at 7pm. So they'll travel here for a 5pm game. :crossfingers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to Tampa being a measuring stick as the true back to home cooking let down game, I'll buy that. Tampa has given us fits at times. They are loaded and really a cup contender. I would not freak if we do have a let down, (though I'll be disappointed since I'll be there), but if we do play well and especially win, it will be a very good sign.

 

On the luck factor in hockey, some magazine, I want to say SI, but I'm not sure, came up with a bar and plotted how much luck factors into each sport. Not sure how rigorous their stats were, but of the major sports hockey had by far the most luck associated with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stream all Canes games through my PS4 using Game-Center Live.

The last three games I've used my black controller instead of the gray one.

Of course the next time we lose it will be back to the gray one.

The volume number on my tv and stereo also seem to have an effect.

I've been trying to crack the code for the past few years, it's a work in progress...

 

It's left, left, triangle, square, right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My percentages are tripe, I agree...haha. I don't watch a lot of basketball, but do lots and lots of football and hockey and there's a clear difference in the number of times the team based on their play that game "didn't deserve to win" or "got the lucky breaks" or "good bounces" wins in hockey vs football. Quantifying that difference along with determining the proper scope of random variation would get someone a PhD. I will contribute 4 bits to the board's scholarship fund if it will help find someone to solve this conundrum....

 

The off-setting difference, however, is that over an 82-game season a hockey team can easily overcome the occasional bad luck / bad call game.  In football where they play a measly 16-game (14?  not sure...), a couple bad call games and your season is shot.  Likewise the 1-game 'winner take all' when they reach the playoffs.  A bad luck goal or two in a best-of-4 series can be overcome... a bad call in a playoff football game and whoops - there go your hopes and dreams...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The off-setting difference, however, is that over an 82-game season a hockey team can easily overcome the occasional bad luck / bad call game.  In football where they play a measly 16-game (14?  not sure...), a couple bad call games and your season is shot.  Likewise the 1-game 'winner take all' when they reach the playoffs.  A bad luck goal or two in a best-of-4 series can be overcome... a bad call in a playoff football game and whoops - there go your hopes and dreams...

 

I think you've got a valid point, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion once you take a number of additional factors into account.

 

Seems that scoring is less frequent in hockey than football, hence more of a potential impact when something "random" does influence a goal.  E.g., I'd bet there are a lot more 1-0 or 2-1 NHL games than there are 7-0 or 10-7 NFL games. 

 

By definition, hockey is actually played for 60 full minutes, the action is basically continuous, and the speed is much faster than football.  I read that in an average 60 minute NFL game there's only 11 minutes of actual play (http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/pie-chart-actual-football-watching-nfl-game-vs-replays-commercials-etc/). So rather than flowing action, football is a limited series of discrete, relatively slow moving plays. Which would seem to make football games much easier to officiate and less prone to error than hockey (and that doesn't even factor in the NFLs much broader challenge rules).

 

Since hockey has so much more actual continuous "play" time, seems like it has more opportunity for "random variation" due to factors other than officiating.  Like the centering pass that deflects off of what might be a reasonably well positioned defenseman's skate into his own goal.  Even if football has something similar (I can't think of anything off of the top of my head), I'm sure it doesn't happen with near the frequency as things in hockey. 

 

And again, I'll go back to the 2014 Cup where just 2 calls might have very well influenced the eventual outcome.

 

Hey, if all other things were equal your point about the odds of things evening out over 82 NHL games vs. 16 NFL games is very valid,  But I'd wager there's a lot more "randomness" in a hockey game than in a football game.  And statistically, 82 isn't a particularly large number if the variation in the model is reasonably high.

Edited by LakeLivin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...