Context is Key
by Becca H on Dec 16, 2010 11:01 AM EST
Email
PrintIt’s amazing how context can shape reactions and impressions - the way things are framed often impacts how we perceive them, for better or for worse.
A perfect example would be last night’s premiere of "24/7", where the twelve-game win streak of the Penguins was presented in harsh juxtaposition to the six-game losing streak of the Capitals. While unscripted, the storylines fell into place almost like a screenplay – using the two teams as foils to one another, on and off the ice, the good and the bad in perfect contrast. The Penguins, happy-go-lucky, enjoying Christmas parties and hotel pranks; the Capitals, somber, frustrated and foul-mouthed.
Sometimes it’s important to step back from the narrative for a moment, though, and focus on the reality. The Pens are presented as seemingly always happy and laughing but there’s no way their games and practices were carried out without a frustrating moment. And as we all know, winning makes locker rooms light, makes chemistry seem stronger, makes teams appear tighter.
At the same time, while mired in their losing streak the Caps haven’t just been moping around. Practices are more businesslike, perhaps, and no one likes to lose – but there are smiles and there is laughter and fun, even if we don’t see it on TV. This is still very much a team, and a close one at that, and any perception that perhaps the chemistry is better in the Penguins’ room or that the Caps are a team in disarray as a result of this show is only seeing what’s being spoon-fed.
And just as HBO has identified the storylines for episode one of this series and framed the footage accordingly, so too in a way has this most recent loss been framed by those that preceded it. As positive as so many Caps fans are today after what is widely viewed as their "best" loss in awhile, there’s still that lingering awareness that it was the seventh straight and the slump continues undisturbed despite the team’s best efforts. A loss that usually would be, if not celebrated, at least given mild applause for the type of loss it was, instead serves as just another reminder that this team hasn’t won in two weeks.
It’s frustrating to watch the Caps lose. It’s frustrating to see the fun Pittsburgh’s having and know that the Caps could be having just as much fun, that they have characters on their team who are just as colorful as the Marc-Andre Fleurys and the Max Talbots but who are being overshadowed by the losing streak.
But the losing will end, sooner rather than later. Last night’s performance feels like a turning point and the light at the end of the tunnel is becoming visible…and then perhaps the smiles will appear on TV once more.
225 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is still very much a team, and a close one at that,
How do we know this? We know Ovi and Semin are close. Ovi and Backs too. But can we really extrapolate that this or any team is close based upon our view from outside the locker room?
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
Well, not definitively…but I’ve seen them interact at practice before, including during this losing streak, and if they’re not close they’re really good actors. As much as you can surmise that the Pens are close from their portrayal in 24/7 (and I’ve seen people suggest as much, that they seem more like a cohesive unit and their team is more fun based on the show), you can get the same feeling by watching this team in practice.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Watch Juice boy and try to tell me they aren’t close. Most of the guys participate and look like they have fun doing it.
I tweet far too much. Follow me!
Pleasure and pain, though directly opposite are contrived to be constant companions.
But the losing will end, sooner rather than later. Last night’s performance feels like a turning point and the light at the end of the tunnel is becoming visible…and then perhaps the smiles will appear on TV once more.
That being said, didn’t Saturday night’s performance feel like a turning point as well?
Somewhat, but there were still more troubling things in the Colorado game than last night’s – the Caps controlled more of the play against Anaheim, they were (relatively) more disciplined, they took it to OT, they got better goaltending, they forechecked more effectively and they almost completely shut down the top line.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Last night’s game was better. I’ll grant you that. But the lack of offense was still there. The powerplay still failed to produce. They hit a few pipes, yes, but pipes aren’t goals. The Caps have only scored more than two goals once in this losing streak, and it was a game in which they collapsed during the third to let the other team back in.
I’m more of the mind that “this too shall pass;” even the Islanders eventually beat the Devils. This team just has too much talent and too much scoring prowess to keep losing. The real question for me is whether they’ll keep winning.
They hit a few pipes, yes, but pipes aren’t goals.
Sometimes the puck bounces the right way, sometimes it doesn’t. I’m totally unconvinced that players control whether they hit the pipe or score on the close calls. Add in Backstrom’s hitting the tiny bit of net Hiller was covering with his stick and you’ve got an offense that was clicking pretty well, but not scoring. The bounces will come eventually, and the Caps got a metric shitload of them last season.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
And how many pipes were hit against the Rags? Just saying.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
Just saying what? Sometimes teams get unlucky for extended stretches. Against the Rangers, the pipes weren’t all that stood between them and a huge victory. In this case, they were,
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
Just saying that close doesn’t count. Just like and OT loss is still a loss.
IIRC, there were five shots that rang the pipes against the Rangers. If all those went it – even if it was in a loss – I think the conversation and attitude around the team would be a lot different. We could say that the offense so lacking these past weeks has returned. The game itself might have gone differently as teams adjusted to the score and the situation on the ice.
I just don’t see how ringing the pipe (many more times) on one night is meaningless, but significant on another. It still wasn’t enough to win and that is the bottom line.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
I just don’t see how ringing the pipe (many more times) on one night is meaningless, but significant on another. It still wasn’t enough to win and that is the bottom line.
Not at all what I was trying to say. Pipes are meaningful in both scenarios, with the difference being that if half the shots that hit the pipe had gone in during the Ducks game, the Caps are skating off with two points in regulation, while during the Rangers game, they’re still taking a lopsided beating.
I’m far more concerned with predictive stuff, rather than postdictive. If you’re hitting a bunch of pipes, you’re probably going to have those become goals sooner or later, because you’re getting chances that allow you to beat the goalie. The Caps largely controlled the play in this game, which is a better indicator going forward than anything that happened on the scoreboard.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Sorry if I misinterpreted. But I have to say that we really don’t know what the outcome would have been if those missed opportunities went our way.
The Ducks could have rallied in the waning minutes and still forced an OT and subsequent win – like Toronto did.
And the Rangers could have become despondent and crumbled believing that the sleeping giant of the Caps offense had been re-awakened and their defeat was inevitable.
My issue is that we’ve been ringing pipes all season, not just during the slump. So I’m not all that impressed by what I saw last night or the against the Rangers. SSDD.
Maybe it’s the context of the slump that is jaundicing my view, and I would see things differently if I looked at this as an individual game. But I’m having a hard time not seeing it a part of a larger pattern.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
But I have to say that we really don’t know what the outcome would have been if those missed opportunities went our way.
We don’t know, but we can make good guesses, I think. I see the Leafs comeback and the Rangers suddenly crumbling as a low probability event. Could something wild have happened? Sure, but it’s definitionally not a likely outcome.
My issue is that we’ve been ringing pipes all season, not just during the slump. So I’m not all that impressed by what I saw last night or the against the Rangers. SSDD.
Sure, all teams do. The question is the ratio of pipes hit with solid scoring chances. If a lot of the solid chances are pipes, I have real trouble believing that’s anything but luck, as far as the player is concerned. I just don’t think they can control their shots to the inch or so that makes a difference with the post and the goal at full game speed.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
I agree with you Knee High. To Gin and Tonic’s point, though, you really can’t predict what would have happened in the alternate-reality Ducks or Rangers games with any certitude, even using likelihoods. Regardless, I think both of you have valid points.
The only thing I would add to the discussion is that it may appear we have indeed had a whole lot of bad “luck” this season, so I’m not convinced that Almighty God has smitten us with bad fortunes. Something is blatantly and flagrantly off in our game, off just enough to microscopically tilt things against our favor. I’ve been to 3 games in the past 2 weeks and seen firsthand things Ovie would have done the past 4 season that would have led to goals that were just off enough to miss the net by a few inches.
And that’s sadly quite encouraging – we’re only off by an inch and not by a mile. The trick is, how do we identify that and correct it with the appropriate amount of subtlety without affecting other areas of our game? The NY Rangers game was an example of how NOT to do it, while I think the Ducks game was a step in the right direction.
"Baseball was my first love... hockey is a sultry temptress and stole my heart." - Corey Masisak
i’ve noted this before, but my opinion is hitting a post is no more bad luck or a bad bounce than missing by six inches. Typically players hit posts because the goalie is in such a position where the only opening to shoot at is on the edges of the goals. So, IMO, hitting posts aren’t just bad luck or a bad bounce, but evidence that they arent doing enough to get the goalie out of position or are taking low percentage shots.
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
by dcsportsfan1 on Dec 16, 2010 12:54 PM EST up reply actions
Or the goalie never sees it and it hits a post (Knuble last night). Or it changes directions and hits a post. Or the goalie never moves (like AO’s breakaway) and hits the post even though they’ve beaten the goalie cleanly. The difference between a post and a goal is tiny, a few inches or a degree of angle from 30-40 feet away. I believe that most players are shooting at the same spots and whether it hits the post, misses, or goes in is mostly out of their control.
I think our disagreement here actually comes from how we’re using the word ‘luck’. I’m using it to mean anything the players can’t consistently control. In a sense, everything on the ice is purely causal, exactly the way that a roll of a dice is purely causal. The physical forces that govern it aren’t random, but the ability to hit the exact tolerances sure look like they are, from the perspective of the guy throwing the dice, or shooting the puck.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
The difference between a post and a goal is tiny, a few inches or a degree of angle from 30-40 feet away. I believe that most players are shooting at the same spots and whether it hits the post, misses, or goes in is mostly out of their control.
See, I disagree with this. Not counting deflections, shots are totally within their control. They pick the sticks and take the shots. Whether they hit the post or not is totally up to whether they shoot in the right spot or not. If they hit the post when the net is otherwise open, it’s a bad shot just as if the puck sailed 6 feet wide. Clearly it’s hard to pick corners and hit the target on every shot, but it’s not out of their control.
Saying a shot is “unlucky” because it hit the post suggets that the player did everything they could to put the puck in the net but for some reason it hit a post. IMO, either the goalie forced the shot to hit the post or the guy failed to put the puck where he should have. Neither has anything to do with luck. If the puck hit a rut in the ice and bounce wide, that would be unlucky.
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
by dcsportsfan1 on Dec 16, 2010 1:35 PM EST up reply actions
If what happened on the ice was all a matter of luck, you wouldn’t see the same guys leading the league in scoring year after year.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 1:38 PM EST up reply actions
No one is saying it’s completely luck. But to deny that there’s luck involved suggests that we ought to see the exact same results every time two teams hit the ice against each other.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
See, I disagree with this. Not counting deflections, shots are totally within their control.
Ask them to shoot at the exact same spot and you’ll get a distribution that looks awfully Gaussian in two dimensions. How tight that distribution is depends on how good they are at shooting, but it’s absolutely not in their control within that range.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
Right, it’s not feasible to expect a player to be able to hit a small target every time. But if they don’t, its because they did something different than the time before, not due to luck.
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
by dcsportsfan1 on Dec 16, 2010 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Even if they’re standing still, shooting at the dryer, they can’t control those small fluctuations with any regularity. That’s luck from their perspective and is modeled extremely well by weighted coinflips.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
Getting it to the general area you want to hit is a skill.
Getting it there with plenty of sizzle on it is a skill.
The outcome – whether the goalie stops it or whether it hits a post or finds the twine – is then completely out of the shooter’s control.
How else would you define luck?
Patron saint of quality footwear.
There’s no way that pipes are anything but luck; or, if you prefer, a random fluctuation.
Look at how many of those guys fail to break a target or two (or three) in the skills competition. And that’s standing still, rested, at point blank range, with no defense on them. Further note that that’s “skilled forwards” that are shooting for the most part.
Add in defense, the fact that they’re moving, the puck is moving, fatigue, shot distance and angle and any number of other variables and it comes down to the shooter aiming for an area and hoping the G doesn’t stop it. If it ends up behind the G, the shooter has done his job; a kindly post/crossbar is just a freak result.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
My overall point is that I don’t see how hitting s 1-2" wide piece of iron is unlucky, but shooting 3" wide and missing the post is not. The shooter shot it there because he was influenced by the position of the goalie and/or he just made a bad shot. I don’t believe making a bad shot is unlucky.
Was Hiller save on Backs last night lucky or was Backs unlucky with his shot?
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
by dcsportsfan1 on Dec 16, 2010 2:33 PM EST up reply actions
They’re not mutally exclusive. Hitting the post is a specific kind of miss that was very close to going in. The closer you make the tolerance, the more luck governs the outcome.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
You make your own luck with hard work. A deflection off a stick or body and into the goal is not the product of luck. It’s a matter of battling for position and effort.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You make your own luck with hard work
Definitionally false. Luck is something you can’t control — you can control the proportion of results that luck accounts for (somewhat), but you can’t control luck.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Definition of LUCK
1a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual
2: favoring chance;
Nowhere does it say that luck is independent of other influences.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Wait, what?
To me, “a force that brings good fortune or adversity” is simply stating “independent of other influences” in different words.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
That’s your interpretation then. I don’t believe in luck any more than I believe in the hockey gods. Luck is purely subjective and apparently is discerned by looking back at a sequence of events, not predicting future ones.
And one can certainly influence the “events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual.”
I’m actually surprised that I’m having to have a discussion on the nature and existence of luck in a place typically dominated by rational statistics.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 2:50 PM EST up reply actions
Dude, seriously? You know that the entire field of statistics is dedicated to studying the phenomena of random variation? If it’s random, it’s not controllable by you. It’s another way of saying luck, whether or not you want to accept its existence.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
That’s what you get for using imprecise language.
G&T, it’s stochastic.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Dec 17, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance: He had no luck finding work.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
He had no luck finding work.
He was either unqualified, had a shitty resume, or in a saturated market. Not unlucky.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 2:51 PM EST up reply actions
He has total control over whether or not the job market was saturated. Not unlucky at all.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 2:53 PM EST up reply actions
He has control over the qualifications he attains and the career path he chooses. Not luck.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
Not if two years ago when you started “attaining your qualifications” (aka education) the job market was markedly better. Bad luck.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
If you get rear-ended while stopped at a red light, can I call you a bad driver?
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
by SmallZ827 on Dec 16, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If you speed through a red light and barely miss another car, can I call you a good driver?
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
By which I mean, speeding through a red light and getting into an accident is bad driving. Being stopped at a red light and getting into an accident is bad luck. What do you say to the driver who was stopped at the red light and got rear-ended? “Maybe you should’ve taken a different road”?
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
Would running a red light and narrowly missing another car make you lucky?
It’s all just circumstance and interpretation.
FYI, I was rear-ended at a red light in September. It was unfortunate. But I took action previously to make sure my car was insured in the event the other driver wasn’t. In this case he was and I took action to ensure that he reported the accident and filed a claim.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:16 PM EST up reply actions
It was unfortunate.
Not controllable
But I took action previously to make sure my car was insured
Controllable
in the event the other driver wasn’t.
Not controllable
In this case he was and I took action to ensure that he reported the accident and filed a claim.
Controllable
You did what you could to minimize the downside of bad luck, but you still got your car banged up. The other driver having insurance is purely chance, you being at that particular red light is purely chance.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
Not controllable by me. But the other driver could have kept his foot on the brake and not drive into me.
Same with the insurance. Not controllable by me, but certainly by the other driver.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
Not controllable by you is as far as you need to go. We’re concerned with things you can control. For you, the rest is luck.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
But there are things he doesn’t have control over, like the state of the market upon his graduation.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
The unemployed Rinkers get all up in arms… :)
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve reviewed resumes, interviewed, and hired people. I didn’t make any decision on a whim. Some were fortunate, others weren’t – but luck didn’t play a role from where I sat.
I really don’t want to go down this path. I made a mistake pursuing it. Careers and jobs cut a little too close these days. Besides I’m sounding like a Randian freemarketer, which I am definitely not.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
but luck didn’t play a role from where I sat.
We aren’t talking about from your seat. We’re talking about from the pile of applicants. And believe it or not, luck had something to do with the quality of your applicant pool.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
Maybe if the recruiter is picking names at random to send to me for evaluation. But luck doesn’t factor in to whether someone searched for the opening and applied. And it doesn’t factor in to whether they meet the qualifications for the position.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
You’re missing the point. Whatever.
Basically you just don’t believe luck exists.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
I think I’ve been pretty clear on that from the start. Random events happen, they can be good or bad, in hindsight you can call it luck if you want.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Random events happening to you that you have no control over (such as not finding a job due to an over-saturated market+bad economy, or being rear-ended) are successes and failures that are apparently brought by chance rather than through one’s own actions.
That’s what luck is. That is literally the definition of luck.
The guy is Peter Schumpmaker. Lord knows what a schump is, but you can bet your bippy his ancestors made them. What he's doing is far worse than crafting fine schumps.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Dec 16, 2010 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Nope. Every single person who is unemployed is lazy.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
Not my belief at all. Never meant to imply that.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
Again, it’s subjective. Not controlled by me, but controlled by others. But still controlled.
I’m just trying to see it from an outside position. Perhaps too outside in this case.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 5:19 PM EST up reply actions
No. It really isn’t. It says so right in the definition. It says by one’s own actions. Meaning the person that the action happened to. There really is no ambiguity about whose actions it references. None.
The guy is Peter Schumpmaker. Lord knows what a schump is, but you can bet your bippy his ancestors made them. What he's doing is far worse than crafting fine schumps.
by Steckel Me Elmo on Dec 16, 2010 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Despite the fact that there are lots of things that are controlled by nobody. Who controls the weather? Who controls cancer? Are you going to just say “God” and then say that nothing is luck because He controls it?
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
But it does factor in to whether the position I may be perfectly qualified for goes to someone who is notably overqualified for the position because the job market is terrible and unemployment is over 9%.
But as F&B said…whatever. I’m done with this.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
The key phrase here is where you sat. Luck isn’t necessarily exogenous. Using the dice-rolling example, the dice aren’t lucky or unlucky to land where they do, it’s purely causal. If you roll the dice, however, your outcome is luck; you don’t know which face is going to come up because no human is close to having enough control over those types of bounces and interactions.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:15 PM EST up reply actions
And that’s why I said luck was subjective.
On your example – the dice are neither lucky or unlucky. And neither is the roller – over a brief enough period of time – the rolls could go favorably or unfavorably. But over a long enough period of time it will all even out according to the dictates of probability.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:21 PM EST up reply actions
So what you’re saying is that luck does exist, not
I don’t believe in luck any more than I believe in the hockey gods.
the rolls could go favorably or unfavorably.
Of course they can. Which it is determines whether the rollers were lucky or unlucky on a given night. It’s independent of prior results and non-predictable in the future, but the actual outcomes versus the expected define the concept of lucky or unlucky.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:28 PM EST up reply actions
And he has exactly no control over what technological advances or market forces can cause those skills or fields to become obsolete.
There are things over which you have no control. Maybe a freak tornado blew in and destroyed the entire industrial complex in which he worked. That’s luck and it does occasionally happen. Maybe the economy tanked and there are no more jobs in a previously vital area.
Maybe an abbreviated cylinder bounced on its edge and went to the wrong spot.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
As someone who has had “no luck finding work”…a saturated market or shitty economy is an unlucky situation to be in.
You make your own luck with hard work.
I said something similar the other day, but after defending it I am changing my tune. If “luck” is things like bad bounces, your skate getting caught in a rut, etc…you don’t necessarily make your own. What you CAN do, is set yourself and your team up to counter bad luck and take advantage of good luck. Bad bounce? Recover with a hard back check. Your shot bounces off the post? Play aggressively enough to rebound and get another chance. I’m with you in that “bad luck” is a lame excuse for a 0-7 streak (almost as lame as "hot goalie), but it’s not a factor you can totally discount.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 2:55 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not saying that unfortunate things don’t happen randomly, or fortunate ones for that matter. They do. But it’s an entirely subjective claim to call it luck – either good or bad.
All I’m saying is that by hard work (or play in this case) you can be in the position to capitalize or mitigate those circumstances when confronted with them.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
unfortunate things don’t happen randomly, or fortunate ones for that matter
That’s what luck – good or bad – is!!!
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 3:29 PM EST up reply actions
How about: “The harder you work, the luckier you get.”
or
“If it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have no luck. And if it weren’t for reeaal bad luck, I wouldn’t have no luck at all.”
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
This proves what, exactly? That someone doesn’t understand what the word luck means? Working hard puts you in more +EV situations, or improves your odds. But they can’t control the observed versus the expected outcome.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:44 PM EST up reply actions
I was just joking around – the first is a Gary Player quote, and the second is an Albert King song.
ftr, I am on the side of posts being posts, not “unlucky”.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
And I do believe, in sports, that Gary Player was on the money. The better teams seem to get all the breaks.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
Yep, the 2006 Oilers were much better than the 2006 Red Wings and commensurately got all the breaks.
Dude, come on. The better teams put themselves in the best position to win with the most +EV, whether it’s through better individual events or more individual events. Whether or not they match that expected value is luck.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
What can I say, it’s what I think, and you disagree.
I could point out that the 1991 Redskins were the best team in the league and all the bounces seemed to go their way and then where would we be?
It’s really only a perception and I can’t offer any examples that are any more anecdotal than yours.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
Hiding behind “it’s what I think” isn’t going to cut it. You admit that it’s really only a perception of yours and that you can’t offer examples to prove your point systematically.
And I do believe, in sports, that Gary Player was on the money. The better teams seem to get all the breaks.
I offered a counter-example, which is sufficient to break the universal applicability of what Gary Player said. You offering a great team that did get all the breaks (like winning the toss against Warren Moon’s Oilers in OT) only shows that there’s an example on either side of the argument, which points to great teams getting both lucky and unlucky.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
As much as I’d love to parse words and argue back and forth with you about this, and I don’t, I agree with Gary Player and have absolutely no non-anecdotal evidence to support it. I’m not trying to offer any examples to try to prove my point systematically – only offering a perspective on what luck means in sports (and in Life). I promise that if it came across otherwise, it was not intended.
And yes, I agree with you, great teams get lucky and unlucky. My belief (which I can’t prove and have no desire to) is in line with GP.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
Someone can understand something means and still think it is non-existant or irrelevant.
I understand what the word leprechaun means. Doesn’t mean that they exist or have any relevance to the real world.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:57 PM EST up reply actions
If you truly think luck is non-existent I would like to play cards with you.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
Or see you explain that to a child with leukemia.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
Really? You took it there?
Good thing I don’t believe in God or I would say that the parents must either be wicked and they are being punished or pious and they are being tested.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
Is there really something so wrong with taking it there? All I’m trying to show you is that luck, i.e. things that are good or bad but beyond your control, do happen. You just deny the existence of it. Feel free to explain why this example is so low.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
Just that you are comparing bad bounces in a hockey game to childhood leukemia – but whatever.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:35 PM EST up reply actions
We’re comparing whatever we can just to explain luck. I’m not saying a bad bounce in a hockey game is the same kind of luck as leukemia. Again, this is why I said it’s pointless trying to explain this to you.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
And for the record your response is much more offensive than my initial example.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
I apologize if you took it as blasphemy and if it offended you.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:36 PM EST up reply actions
You didn’t offend me. But I happen to have lots of personal experience with children with leukemia and I know for a fact if you suggested to the parents (many of which are exceptional people) that they were wicked and their children were being punished it would be highly offensive.
It’s not blasphemy, it has nothing to do with religion. More just an asshole comment. Like when the religious right says that Katrina was punishment for our sins.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
You missed the part when I said that for pious, exceptional people a child born with disability or disease is a test or evidence of God’s opinion of them i.e. they can deal with it because they are exceptional.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:44 PM EST up reply actions
And I was pretty irreverent towards the workings of God, which is blasphemy.
But thanks for insulting me when I tried to apologize.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
This is getting toxic. Time for everyone to take a step back.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:47 PM EST up reply actions
And even in your example the behavior of the parents is bad luck for the child being punished.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
Actually it’s biblical -
Exodus 34:7
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:34 PM EST up reply actions
We’re going to stop going down this road, because we’re expressly prohibited from talking politics or religion.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:42 PM EST up reply actions
And if you believe that it’s luck that makes the difference I’m sure Daniel Negreanu and Phil Helmuth would like to play cards with you.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:22 PM EST up reply actions
I’m sure they could both regale you with stories of bad beats. Why is there a new winner of the main event every year?
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:26 PM EST up reply actions
Which they could also ascribe to making a bad read, a bad call, or misjudging the probability of outcome based on the cards in play.
Otherwise Johnny Chan was very lucky in 87-88, Stu Ungar in 80-81, and Doyle Brunson in 76-77.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Shouldn’t the fact that it’s been 22 years since the last repeat winner tell you something?
For the last time: Both luck and skill are present in all of these outcomes. They are not exclusionary.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:41 PM EST up reply actions
And again. You call it luck, I call it random events. Hard work and skill is what will turn it to a positive or a negative outcome.
That’s my opinion. Or we can just blast away from the blue line all game and wait until we get “lucky.”
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:49 PM EST up reply actions
I think it’s probably time for everyone to take a deep breath and put this discussion down for a bit, no?
We all want the same things, and when we’re wrangling amongst ourselves over the issue of luck, it’s probably reached the point of diminishing returns.
This would be a dumb reason to get banned, right?
Patron saint of quality footwear.
You call it luck, I call it random events.
Explain the difference as it applies over a definite period of time and a definite series of outcomes.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:55 PM EST up reply actions
Dude, I’m tellin’ ya, this one has reached no-win territory.
Altough for the record my beliefs on this subject coincide with yours.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
You’re right, it’s time to cut the sunk costs and stop throwing good time after bad.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
Do you really want to use a guy in your example who is most famous for saying that if it weren’t for luck he’d win them all?
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
Good for him. Sounds like someone who doesn’t like to admit he makes mistakes.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
You make your own luck with hard work.
I think you can control how many times you might get lucky, but not how much (proportionally) you do get lucky (i.e. controlling whether you get 10 or 20 near-goals, but not whether 5 or 15 of them go in)
My blog and Twitter, featuring coverage of the most unpredictable team in the NHL and where we defend Mike Green, Alex Ovechkin, and Alexander Semin until the bitter end. That is to say, when someone tries to call BS on the Corsi numbers.
If you don't know how to use Timeonice, read this.
"Numbers don't lie, they just don't agree with you"--George E. Ays
by red army line on Dec 16, 2010 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
I concur. Sometimes you have to create your own luck with hard work and determination.
"Baseball was my first love... hockey is a sultry temptress and stole my heart." - Corey Masisak
They hit a few pipes, yes, but pipes aren’t goals.
This is true and drives me nuts in soccer and hockey. “Man, if that hadn’t hit a post, then we would’ve scored.”
Yes, but you did and you didn’t. The posts are there for a reason and the score does not reflect posts clanged, only who won or lost.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
They shut down the top line except for in OT. I know Carlson is a rookie, but you can’t let Getzlaf walk out of the corner like that.
Well, the line that was assigned to their top line shut them down – and did a tremendous job. It’s not surprising at all that Getzlaf scored on what was probably the only shift he was out there without Steckel or Bradley or Laich on him.
…but there’s a decent discussion about the OT GWG in the Clips thread, I think some people agree (although I’ve seen comments about Visnovsky preventing Carlson from doing anything). I’ll admit I didn’t really see it – I sit at the other end of the arena – and haven’t watched it yet so I can’t comment.
(Also, welcome :P)
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Well, it was, wasn’t it? I mean, we got a point last night.
by DrinkingPartner on Dec 16, 2010 11:22 AM EST up reply actions
We got a point in the Toronto game, too. I don’t take much consolation in that, especially when the Caps can’t score, and they lost last night due to a continued inability to score.
Getting a point against Toronto was hardly consolation for having blown a lead – getting a point that actually feels like you earned it rather than losing the second point is preferable, no?
And there’s no way the offense stays this dried up. Posts aren’t goals, sure, but they’re so close – they’ve beaten the goalie and are just millimeters away from being goals. It’s just one of those things. Sometimes it happens to one player, in this case it appears to be a team-wide thing. With the guys we have on this team there’s no way they don’t start scoring more eventually.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
I think they loss because of exactly what Dean Evason said. Players continue failing to compete and get in the other team’s faces.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 11:47 AM EST up reply actions
And lack of focus. Ovie’s post would have been a goal any other season but this one.
Suspend Colin Campbell!
Lack of hustle. Hiller was giving up the rebounds, we could have put some more away if there was a little more fight in the team.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
That sounds depressingly familiar…
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 12:42 PM EST up reply actions
There were a ton of times when a F camped directly in the crease, screened Hiller, and Hiller gave up a rebound. The rebound unfortunately nearly always dropped directly between the F’s feet, which is the worst place for it, and the Ducks D did a nice job tieing up sticks and bodies.
That’s more luck. If a rebound or two had squirted out where the F could get a stick on it, you’re looking at another high quality chance, and the chance for another rebound.
They’re colder than an eskimo’s balls right now, which is how it goes. But I smell a breakout coming. You can smell the end of a losing streak when a team wins games that it doesn’t deserve, and the converse is true here.
Patron saint of quality footwear.
I’ll start with the disclaimer that I was unable to watch the game last night, so it’s possible this was different. In the Avs game we almost always had someone right in front of the goalie, but all the rebounds were going right past him to open space about ten feet away…without a Caps player in sight. We need the whole team to crash the net, not just one guy planted in front screening the goalie.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 2:28 PM EST up reply actions
This wasn’t like that game. Only a few times did the puck squirt to an area a Cap had just vacated. This game had several Caps and Duck battling over rebounds tightly around the goal and behind the net – lots of digging and attempting to stuff it. There were also plenty of times, as f_d mentioned, where the puck ended up between the feet of someone with lots of sticks trying to jab at it.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
and the Ducks D did a nice job tieing up sticks and bodies.
Sounds like hard work or smart play to me. Or were the Ducks lucky and the Caps unlucky.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
Or neither of them is mutually exclusive and figuring out the proportion of each that was driving results is the interesting exercise.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:02 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly. And why it purely a subjective one at that.
For me personally, I just don’t like the idea of luck. It seems like a crutch or an excuse. Calling it bad luck is a bit arrogant and implies that there is nothing that you can do – all you have to do is wait for the universe to catch up to you and reward your actions.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:32 PM EST up reply actions
That’s just wrong. That’s not what luck means, but I don’t think there’s any point trying to explain it to you any more.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
That’s just wrong.
Actually, it’s my opinion. I thought we don’t brusquesly dismiss others for having an opinion that differs from yours here at the Rink.
but I don’t think there’s any point trying to explain it to you any more.
Please elaborate on what you mean with this statement. I hope your not implying that I’m too dense to understand what your opinion on luck is.
And I just have to say that I’m damn disappointed that my most substantive conversation here as of late has been an argument over the existence/impact of luck.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:04 PM EST up reply actions
No. You don’t get to opine on the definitions of words.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
by SmallZ827 on Dec 16, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Not opining on the definition. Opining on the relevance.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
No, you have, and continue to, opine on the definition.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
Have no quibble with the definition of luck.
I just interpret it differently, which is perfectly valid.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:59 PM EST up reply actions
Okay, and the way you’ve interpreted, for example, poker, is completely wrong and every single poker player would tell you that. If I have AA, and you have 2-7 and you go all in, and I call you and you win, it’s not because you played better than I did.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
And you’ve had no opportunity to judge the strength of the opponents hand through the bets on the flop, the turn, or the river?
No chance to read his reactions?
Okay I’m wrong it’s all luck.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 5:10 PM EST up reply actions
Calling it bad luck is a bit arrogant and implies that there is nothing that you can do – all you have to do is wait for the universe to catch up to you and reward your actions.
That’s wrong, and it’s not the position anyone here has taken. You can fight and work to overcome bad luck, but you can’t change luck, by definition. The reality of the world is some things are simply out of your control. You seem to disagree. That makes not sense. You’ve been presented with numerous examples of luck and have utterly failed to explain them. The best one would be the car crash at a red light, to which you made a response that actually supports the existence of luck, seemingly unwittingly. (If you run a light and don’t hit anyone you are lucky! Not a good driver.) That’s why there’s no point trying to explain it to you.
Halak was hot as balls. The timing of that hot streak is luck. Were the Caps unlucky? Yes. Could they have done more to overcome that? Of course. They both had bad luck and didn’t sufficiently control what they could control. Is luck an excuse? I’d say no, and that teams that use it as one deserve to lose. But it is also very real.
It’s your fault if your most substantive discussion is on the (non-) existence of luck.
Drunk Guy: "Alex Ovechkin is playing more like Magic Johnson than Michael Jordan this year."
Laichitor: "He has AIDS?"
by Rob Parker on Dec 16, 2010 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Actually, it’s my opinion. I thought we don’t brusquesly dismiss others for having an opinion that differs from yours here at the Rink.
It’s a positive statement while being an opinion. To borrow your example, I can say that leprechauns exist and it will be both my opinion and a positive statement, but I’d get called out for it. It’s never been demonstrated that they exist, ever.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
all you have to do is wait for the universe to catch up to you and reward your actions.
That’s true…if you have unlimited time to wait. Unfortunately, hockey games are 60 minutes long and decidedly less than the fullness of time, or even the amount of time required to get a reading to within 30% of a team’s true ability. It drives me nuts when Locker says the bounces will even out over the course of a game. The bounces may not even out over the course of a season, forget a single game.
If the team decides to stop trying because they’re not getting lucky, then it’s an excuse. If they do, then they also don’t understand that luck is not predictive; the dice have no memory and neither does the puck. All they can do it go out and control the parts that they can. The rest is on the universe, like it or not.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
If the team decides to stop trying because they’re not getting lucky, then it’s an excuse. If they do, then they also don’t understand that luck is not predictive; the dice have no memory and neither does the puck. All they can do it go out and control the parts that they can. The rest is on the universe, like it or not.
I think we are in agreement. Over time it is skill/hard work that will make the difference. Not luck.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody is questioning the convergence of skill/hard work over time. The question is how long does it take to converge and the answer is much longer than one season for a team and even longer than that for a particular player.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 4:12 PM EST up reply actions
Then I’m not really sure what this discussion is about at all.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
For me personally, I just don’t like the idea of luck.
I don’t like the idea of the Pittsburgh Penguins, but the do exist.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Dec 17, 2010 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Wait and See on the Turning Point
I saw a lot of good things last night with the forechecking, energy and extra step some players seemed to have (I don’t think I’ve seen Steckel move that fast…ever…). But here’s my grain of salt: Anaheim is a Western conference team that rarely sees Washington so they’re not going to have as much background and motivation to game plan for us. I’m glad we’re playing some more Eastern Conference teams in the next few, teams that know us, and then, I’ll be convinced that perhaps we’re about to see a turning point.
Everything sounds smarter in Tikkanesse....
Well, sure. Which is why I say it “feels like” a turning point…until they actually come out of this losing streak and get back to playing the way they can, we’ll just have to wait and see ;)
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
For sure. And in that sense, I was trying to highlight what it means that they played this way against a Western Conference team. On the one hand, Anaheim isn’t going to game plan as much (in theory). But on the other hand, it’s probably really tempting for the Caps to “play the way they’ve always played.” In that sense, yesterday is encouraging (so I’m trying to look at the other side of the coin on my comment!). Your point is very well taken.
Everything sounds smarter in Tikkanesse....
They said it at the very end…teams are never as bad as they appear when things are going wrong, and never as good when things are going right.
Based on that brief footage, I am starting to worry there are not enough leaders in the locker room.
Choking since 1985.
But was there something in the brief footage of the Pens that led you to believe they had the right amount of leaders? We’re getting to see more than usual but we’re still not seeing everything that happens, and the Caps were very actively being presented as somber and frustrated – if anyone spoke up they didn’t show it, but I’d be surprised if during the three losses not one player addressed the room in any way.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
i see what you’re saying – but to most people watching that show, they haven’t been living in the hell we have dissecting every ounce of this capitals losing streak…so they kind of needed to bang it into the viewers head what was going on.
I thought they did a great job of it, I liked to see Bruce (and sorry if I sound like a schoolgirl but OMG OMG OMG Dean “grow a sack” Evason) really giving it to the players. I liked the show a lot.
Oh, completely agree. I don’t mean this to bash HBO, because I thought they did a phenomenal job and I don’t think they had to stretch too much to paint the pictures they painted – it’s an amazing show (albeit painful right now). The narrative is there for a reason. Just pointing out to those who have lived through it – and perhaps non-Caps fans who may not be aware – that it’s not ALL sadness just because that’s all we see.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
It’s just that some of the things BB was saying I wish he didn’t have to say. Specifically about moping around and being so defeated when you’re down 1 goal.
You need a player, a good player, to be that kind of force. Unfortunately none of the Caps good players have that kind of persona.
Choking since 1985.
And I find it hard to believe that if a player stood up and gave a rousing speech in the locker room in attempt to motivate the team, that HBO wouldn’t show it.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Right, but I think we’ve all been programmed by the movies and TV to think guys stand up and give rousing speeches in the first place. Coaches do, to some extent, but from what little I’ve seen it seems like players are more likely to yell out random stuff to get themselves pumped up.
We saw a little of that last night – was there more? Possibly. It’s only an hour show, the Caps only got half of that time and they lost a lot of games in that span, there’s a lot to cover. And you have to have room for the BB f-bomb party.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
I heard the random stuff being yelled out, only once could I attribute it to a player (Chimera), but to me it sounded half-hearted and forced.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
Yea, the normal player to player pump up/shouting seemed seriously lacking
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
I’d agree with that. Of what we heard, it sounded somewhat half-hearted.
Do you remember when the Caps were on their winning streak last year, and Boudreau (and others) made mention of the fact that it just always felt like you were going to win each night? It’s the benefit of being on a role: confidence. They also, however, alluded to the fact that it works both ways, that a losing streak makes you feel like you’re never going to win again no matter what you do.
I can’t imagine confidence being all that high in that 7-0 game, where it kind of slipped away so easily, guys see one goal go in and think “here we go again”. Some of its a “woe is me” mentality that needs to go away but that’s human nature, they’re not feeling it. It’s why a game like last night is so key – they had a strong game and almost won. They had chances. They played well defensively. And they didn’t get down on themselves for giving up the tying goal, it didn’t unravel.
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Can I say it? What about Ovechkin? Sure he yells at the bench to “fucking come on” right after the fight, but did he say anything to his team in between periods? If he did I didn’t hear it or HBO didn’t show it.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 12:52 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe they didn’t show it. Maybe he didn’t say it.
But honestly it comes back to the fact that if this team needs someone to yell at them – after their coach has already screamed at them no less – then they’re not the professionals we think they are. I’m not really a believer in teams needing that rah-rah speech to pump them up. If they do, if that’s the only thing that motivates them, they need to grow the hell up or change jobs.
Do you think there was a guy in that room who, down 4-0 or 5-0, didn’t know they needed to play harder?
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
It’s not about telling them they need to play harder, it’s about snapping them out of their depression. It’s about pumping them up. It’s about changing the attitude. They may be pros, but they’re also people, and people get into funky moods when you’re losing yet another game. Once you get pushed out of that funk you draw on other things (your love for the game, your drive to win, blah blah blah) to keep you going. But a lot of people just need that initial boost. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
And to be honest, Bruce doesn’t seem capable of it. I know his “get your heads out of your fucking asses” speech was intended to help with that process, but I really had a tough time taking him seriously through that.
G&T’s got it right, Ovi needs to step up in that case and give the team the “fucking come on” speech during intermission, where they can start to feed off of each other and come out swinging.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 1:17 PM EST up reply actions
In fairness, he gave them the “fucking come on” on the ice and then sat in the box for it. I think he felt that would fire them up, and clearly BB did too. His comment at the end was pretty much “you have the best player in the world out there fighting, isn’t anyone else going to follow suit?”.
If Lurking equaled Learning, I'd be a force to be reckoned with.
In another life, I was in the Army. Maybe others will disagree, but in my opinion, never discount the value of a well-timed and sincere “rah rah” speech even among professionals.
That being said, and I would love to see it. I wasn’t really going for that. I was talking more about Ovi telling them specific things that they needed to do to succeed. Someone has to since that’s wasn’t in BB’s speech. Maybe he doesn’t see the ice that way, maybe that’s out of his scope of abilities. I’m just saying it would be nice to see from the Captain.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
never discount the value of a well-timed and sincere "rah rah" speech even among professionals.
Yup.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
Bravo Gin! I think that the time for a “rah rah” speech is well overdue along with a “let’s go out and kick *ss and take names” speech. It always worked for me in my other life!
Combine it with a “you better unfuck yourself before I do it for you” and you have a winning combination.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
Never thought about how one unF’s oneself, but I buy the general gist of your point. The main thing is we need to see leadership from ALL corners of the locker room and especially from the C stepping up and reading the riot act.
A more vulgar version of “square yourself away” but you got the idea.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 5:01 PM EST up reply actions
Based onthat brief footagewhat I’ve seen over the past 8 months, I am starting to worry there are not enough leaders in the locker room.
Fixed that for you.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Dec 16, 2010 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Hendricks
Hendricks face in this picture is classic. Bad lighting? Or black eye?
by _Skullduggery_ on Dec 16, 2010 11:26 AM EST reply actions
Yes.
He’s got a nasty bruise and stitches under there, but the lighting for photos at VC is always a little dark, IMO.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Black eye, five stitches.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
And a great smile even so.
You perhaps knew me better as "Your Nation's Capital." Same great commentary, now with 100% more transparency!
A little OT but may I just say that I have a giagantic married lady crush on Hendricks?
Or, to put it more mildly, I’m loving this guy on this team. Sure it’s been said around here before. His body language while sitting with Ovi in the box vs. the Rangers says it all. He’s loyal, he’s proud (not prideful), and he’s an honest player. Gives off almost a bit of a throwback from the olden days (as in pre-seventies) vibe. And, while maybe not the most skillful, he brings a certain energy, chemistry and drive (see his between the skates goal vs. Avs). Like him!
Hi, I am a longtime Caps fan with a hopeful outlook regarding the team - and I haven't even touched a drop of the devil juice! I swear!
Hey Buzzsaw Man - Hootenanny!
Zombie Hendricks!
No man is an Islander.
by Flash in the Pan on Dec 16, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
THis is really a once in a lifetime opportunity to see what the players are truly like in the locker rooms, and its very disappointing to see it during this loosing streak. We wanna see the caps having fun!
"I ain't no rodman... I don't have no blond hair, red hair. I'm Reggie Evans"
Speaking of context-
I sure wish I could see BB coaching when we are winning, because as it stands I am totally unimpressed.
I get that some will be inspired by his passion and emotion. That’s great, but he didn’t tell them what they need to do in the game. The jokers in my section who yell “Play better” down to the ice, could have given the same speech providing they add a few “fucks” and know what is their head and what is their ass and how to extricate the one from the other. It just looked like an unproductive tantrum to me.
By contrast, Bylsma goes in and talks to his team like a general addressing his troops. He compliments the players in some areas and criticizes them in others. He tells them exactly what he wants them to do in the next period. Then, not to be outdone he throws in a few “fucks” for good measure in a motivational sentence. Quick, direct, business-like, and you can’t tell from his demeanor or statements if they were winning or losing.
That’s a guy who I would want in charge. Maybe BB is like that when we are winning, but who knows. I’m interested in seeing Bylsma’s approach during the two recent losses. But I can see why he was able to turn the team around and win it all.
Let me also say that I was a bit disturbed by the idea that BB is trying to change the system the Caps play, and still allows his key players to miss practice by taking an option. I am not saying that they need to be on the ice all the time, but they should be there – especially Ovi, who should be working on some new moves to overcome his predictability.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 1:04 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think you saw very little of BB doing pregame strategy like you did w/ Bylsma. The focus on the Caps was totally on the meltdowns during the game. You did see BB during a spirited practice and got some insight into his desire for the guys to practice hard to simulate game action.
When did key players miss practice as an option (and not due to injury) other than perhaps the morning after a road night game? Morning skates yes, but I dont recall too many top guys missing practices as an option.
Just trying to capture the spirit of the thing...
by dcsportsfan1 on Dec 16, 2010 1:13 PM EST up reply actions
I recognize that we are looking at this through HBO’s lens and that context plays a role.
But we did see the two coaches addressing their teams in between periods. The styles and content were very different, and perhaps BB was not well represented but that’s all I’ve seen and the only thing on which I can base my judgment. I saw BB yell and curse without giving concrete instruction. Bylsma was very different between periods. I just hope so is BB when the team is winning.
I don’t track attendance at practice, but it is my impression that if guy’s are given the option to skip practice – more often than not the top guys do. I remember it being a big deal during the Montreal series. Maybe it’s not a big deal, but it seem like bad optics to me.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 1:31 PM EST up reply actions
Did anyone read this:
I know it doesn’t mean much, but it sort of reinforces many Rink members’ feelings that Boudreau isn’t a very good coach when it comes to the “strategy” aspect of the game…
You mean the part where he wrote the keys to the game out in complete sentences? Or the part where, unlike Bylsma, he wiped the boards for the intermissions?
I didn’t see much there that tells you anything about Boudreau’s strategy, one way or another.
Unfortunately, we didn’t get nearly as good of a look at Boudreau’s full whiteboard set-up, although there’s one concerning shot in their home rink during the eff-bomb speech where there’s literally nothing but those “Keys to Victory” in the middle of two near-blank boards). But you know that somewhere, he’s written out similar information for his players.
Still, I always preferred to have it laid out and left in front of me for the entirety of the game.
- * *
Hopefully sometime next week we’ll get to really pick Boudreau’s board apart too. I’m sure he’s got his own effective methods, and I think we’ll glimpse those before the series is over.
I ain’t arguing the broader point — I’m just saying that HBO didn’t show Boudreau’s preparation, so we don’t know one way or the other.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Dec 17, 2010 12:51 AM EST up reply actions
HBO very clearly was juxtaposing the two coaches because they have a story to tell – the brilliant, boyish tactician and the folksy, sloppy, old, clueless rube. I’m fine with the former, perhaps, but the latter is being played up in a big way for the TV. It’s an incomplete depiction, to be sure.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
I think some people made more of a deal about the option during the playoffs than others did. It didn’t concern me too much because the guys not on the ice were still doing other things in the facility. They were also the ones logging the most minutes throughout the season. This year, I’ve only heard comments about the morning skate.
(Yes, I know about the avatar hounding - just pretend mine is invisible.)
Count me in with the unimpressed – at least in the beginning. He actually said to one of the players: “I don’t mean to pick on you – Sasha did it too.” Maybe I’m cherry picking a line, but seriously, is he worried about offending one of his player’s sensibilities or hurting his feelings?
Of course, he is the winningest coach in hockey over the last three years so he’s obviously doing something right. But if he continually tells the guys to do something different, and if each period he’s telling them to get their heads out of their asses, and they aren’t responding to it – then it’s time to worry.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
I don’t know. If and and two of my colleagues consistently slacked off in exactly the same manner, but our manager only ripped on me about it, I’d probably wonder why he never ripped on the other guys, either.
I viewed it more as him telling Sasha “you didn’t get away with this, either.”
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
To borrow the cliché, BB has forgotten more about hockey than I’ll ever know, but….
I just didn’t like the “I don’t mean to pick on you, but…”
I would prefer, “Gosh darn it – that’s two times in a row – first Sasha, and then you.” Which leads to what CVD says just below this, why the heck didn’t he say something to the guy who messed up the first time. Sounds like he lets Sasha get away with stuff that if the second guy didn’t do the same thing, goes unnoticed.
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
There was another clip from practice where BB said a winger had to play back, but he only called it out after it didn’t happen a second time. Well, why let it go the first time?
I really hope we see more of Bruce in action and interacting with GM. There’s lots and lots of footage cut out, but seeing Bylsma and BB was like night and day.
Really, who am I kidding…I can’t get over the wing sauce on BB’s face. Come on, dude.
I don’t know, Becca. I’m biased, but I felt like (if 24/7 were scripted) the Caps were being set up as the Cinderella team. Maybe I watch too many movies but I thought they were portrayed in a sympathetic way and I turned off the TV thinking that 24/7 was going to bring in a lot more new Caps fans than Pens fans. People cheer for the underdog. Again, I’m not exactly objective. The best Pens moment for me was when Fleury said “Max is a douche” and they all laughed at the “inside” joke. Even on a 12 game win streak, they still think of Ovi and the Caps. :)
If Lurking equaled Learning, I'd be a force to be reckoned with.
Oh, I definitely think they were portrayed sympathetically – my heart was breaking each time they showed the boys looking sad. It would just be nice to see them playful and happy for a change, especially knowing that even during this streak it’s not all doom and gloom in the dressing room.
I laughed at the Fleury comment, that was funny. Jerks. :P
If anyone needs me, I'll be at Kettler.
Agreed, there were definitely some heart-breaking moments. How did you feel about the practice scenes? I was smiling from ear to ear when Bruce talked about getting back (Sasha and others) even when they were tired. It was really good to see that they’re working on those things, and talking about the challenges for some (AO) to completely change their mindset. I almost wish the show had been on before the game, though. As it was, I was thrilled to see the improvements on the fore/backchecks. It would have been even more gratifying to know that they were the result of listening to their coach and trying to implement his changes. :)
If Lurking equaled Learning, I'd be a force to be reckoned with.
refresh my memory – why does “douche” relate to the caps?
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
Talbot called Ovi a douche in an interview a while back.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:40 PM EST up reply actions
Max Talbot called Ovechkin a douche in some radio interview relating to the Winter Classic. He said he’d met him with Geno. He took a bit of heat, but nothing too bad. I believe Ovi just laughed it off and said something like “the ice will tell”.
If Lurking equaled Learning, I'd be a force to be reckoned with.
As colorful as everyone was for Pittsburgh, Ovie’s “maybe he just has sensitive skin” was the line of the night, BY FAR. Seriously, it was deadpanned and given with the perfect timing like a pro.
Great article Becca!
Be original. This means don't do things like say "I love the smell of Irony early in the morning" or post a picture of a nerd and say, "Mom's basement" in an internet forum. You will not even have been in the first 1,000,000 people to have done it. Etc...
I still say “We’re going to find out who did this. And probably do nothing about it” is my favorite
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Dec 17, 2010 12:52 AM EST up reply actions
What’s preventing the Capitals from just coming out on opening face off and bulldozing their opponents?? They usually start with the 3rd or 4th line. Why is the fire not there? From what I saw on 24/7, thats what the coaches were asking for.
Apparently luck. Or so I have been told.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
I actually read every comment before posting, I thought my head was going to explode. I guess I got lucky.
That is completely misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting everything F&B, KHTAD and I were arguing. None of us dismissed the fact that the “fire” and hard work are necessary for success. In this particular case, there is something else wrong.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Lighten up, okay. I was joking.
He doesn’t think they have that “fire” and neither do I. You all seem to think they do so it must be luck that’s missing. I think it’s somthing else.
by Gin and Tonic on Dec 16, 2010 5:05 PM EST up reply actions
That’s not what people said. You either are, as you said, dense, or being deliberately obtuse. People said that a puck going a millimeter one way or another is a factor of luck, because it’s literally impossible for a human being to control every aspect of that situation, or there would be a shooter who’d never miss.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
Nobody has said anything about the team having fire. They don’t. They look sleepy, disorganized, and uninspired. And KHTAD and F&B have been two of the more outspoken Rink members with those observations. All we were arguing is that sometimes you can have all of those things and still lose due to a bad bounce or “bad luck”. Not coming out giving 100% at the opening faceoff is not one of those times.
Less drama, more hockey
by SeattleCapsFan on Dec 16, 2010 5:12 PM EST up reply actions
What’s preventing the Capitals from just coming out on opening face off and bulldozing their opponents??
The other team. They are also good hockey players trying hard.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Dec 17, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I officially apologize to Becca for mucking up her (very well-written) Context post with too much of this.
Eat, drink, and be merry! And then drink some more.
2 minutes in the box for you! And you better feel some shame.
Becca, great post, even if I haven’t seen 24/7 yet.
Pledge Drive 2010-2011: SO KIDS CAN!! Help build a playground
Excellent point re: Context. A lot of the time fans take what is said by meda/snippets of quotes etc. etc. as gospel when they are completely out of context.
"The only way out is in a body bag. Go Leafs Go." - Blinky
Frivolous Ornamentation
by Karina on Dec 16, 2010 5:46 PM EST reply actions
I’m glad I was at work today so I didn’t have to sit through that whole discussion about luck. Hilarious in a sad way. In my opinion posts are posts, but obviously when you’re that close to beating the goalie you’re doing something right. So many bitched so much when we were having bounces go our way during “bad wins” yet fail to find any redeeming quality in a “good loss” simply because it’s a loss. As usual the answer is somewhere in the middle, as the HBO special so aptly pointed out last night, no team on a long winning streak is as good as it seems and no team on a losing streak is as bad as it seems.
The gloom and doom is thick. There were plenty of good points to discuss about last night’s game. Let’s see if they stick around and how they apply them to the rest of their normally good game when they find it again.
Everything ends badly...otherwise it wouldn't end.
I’m glad I was too busy to get near a computer—that whole discussion about luck would have made my head explode. It boiled down to whether one accepted the word “luck” or not or how one defined the word.
Remember that game—against the Avs I believe—where one of their player’s shot hit the post and the damn thing bounced backwards right into the Caps’ net. Whereas against the Ducks the many pucks hitting the post all bounced out and not a single rebound landed at the feet of one of our players, and we did have players around the net.
They can’t control how the puck bounces if it hits the post but they can control how often and how well they shoot the puck, and how hard they work for the rebound. The more high percentage shots they shoot and the more often players crash the net looking for that rebound then their “luck” or “opportunity” (or whatever one wants to call it) will change. This is IMHO where the hard work ethic part comes in—where a player makes his own luck.
Alright, confess-how many goals are you going to make this year?
"I'm not going to tell!"
Well can you at least guarantee fifty?
"No way. I have a different objective. To win."
by capsyoungguns on Dec 16, 2010 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
I’m glad I was too busy to get near a computer—that whole discussion about luck would have made my head explode. It boiled down to whether one accepted the word "luck" or not or how one defined the word.
Once again, I’d disagree. The more salient point was the proportional role of luck in team sports, specifically vis a vis the team we cheer for. It’s larger than most people are comfortable admitting.
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" George E.P. Box
by Knee high to a duck on Dec 16, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions
Well I didn’t read the thread carefully (my head was too busy exploding) but it seemed as if you and several others were defining luck in a precise manner as random or out of one’s control whereas G&T was interpreting the word luck much more loosely and was reacting to its use by players as just an excuse instead of accepting responsibility for bad play. And thus there was a disconnect in communication. If I’ve misunderstood the debate then I apologize. I don’t think I’m up to re-reading the thread.
For the record, I concur with your precise definition of the word luck, and I was really trying to say that it doesn’t matter what word one used—luck, random event, or more loosely opportunity—in the end that many pucks hitting the bar should eventually start going in. When I was reading the thread all I could think of was that damn puck hitting the bar and actually bouncing into the net behind our goalie. I said at the time “what damn bad luck!”, thus buttressing your point above.
Alright, confess-how many goals are you going to make this year?
"I'm not going to tell!"
Well can you at least guarantee fifty?
"No way. I have a different objective. To win."
by capsyoungguns on Dec 16, 2010 10:55 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
The Vault
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
