Giroux - "We will make the playoffs this year"

[ruxpin]

I heard on the radio this morning that Giroux is proclaiming that the Flyers will make the playoffs this year. It is early in the season and they aren't that far out of a playoff spot....

Wow!!

Here is the link.....

http://flyers.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=687883&navid=DL|PHI|home

Giroux needs to stfu. His empty-headed proclamations followed by his empty-headed play is not endearing himself to anyone.

I mean, his "bold" (pronounced "stupid") proclamation before the Penguins game was ridiculous. He keeps doing that no one is going to pay a damn bit of attention to a thing he says. His statements will simply become noise, and people will say "pay no mind. His prediction Tourettes gets worse when he eats paste."

[ruxpin]

Bold prediction for a team that is playing like they've lost their direction...

I read that "...lost their erection."

Also true.

Viagra cakes for the whole team!

[brelic]

The Flyers pretty much need to play .610 or so from here on in to make the playoffs, which would mean a 45-29 record over the remaining 74 games. That would give them 92 points, the cut off during the last full season.

 

To put it in perspective, the Flyers were 6th overall that year (.628 winning pct, 103 points).

 

So, yeah, they *need* to be a top 10 team for the rest of the year just to qualify at the bottom of the pile.

[Polaris922]

I was just trying to post a similar thread.

Coincidentally, I was reading Elliotte Friedman's post last night:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports-content/hockey/opinion/2013/10/30-thoughts-playoff-chase-begins-early-in-nhl.html

In last week's 30 Thoughts, there was one statistic a few people asked about, that just three of 32 NHL teams at least four points out of a playoff spot on Nov. 1 recovered to make the playoffs from 2005-06 to 2011-12 (Sources say no hockey was played by that date in 2012-13).

It is amazing to see how the "loser point" has changed the NHL game. The last season before its introduction was 1998-99. Back then, you got two points for a win, one for a tie and nothing if you lost in overtime. There was no shootout.

That year, the two worst teams in the NHL as we threw out our Halloween costumes were the Colorado Avalanche (2-6-1) and San Jose Sharks (1-6-2). They were four and five points out of the playoffs, respectively. The Avalanche were a powerhouse and recovered to finish second in the Western Conference and reach the conference final. Their first-round opponent? The Sharks.

That simply does not happen anymore. Since the shootout entered the NHL, we've never had a season in which two teams came from that far back to make it. And only one of the three comeback kings was more than four points out. That was Calgary. The Flames were seven points out in 2006-07, then went 40-22-9 to make it. The other survivors were the Buffalo Sabres (2010-11) and Boston Bruins (2011-12). The Sabres went 40-22-8; the Bruins, 45-22-4.

Generally, working yourself into a panic about what your team does in the first 10 games is a bad idea. But what really stands out about this particular season is how many teams are in danger of falling so far behind.

For example, the highest number of teams to fall at least four points out of the playoffs by Nov. 1 in our sample size is seven. That was 2006-07, the year Calgary made it. The lowest was two. This year, there are, potentially, seven such teams in the Eastern Conference (remember the crossovers). The West has three.

Anyway, that's the explanation. The optimists will say, "Well, it's happened each of the last two full seasons, so it can be done again." Just don't show the pessimists the numbers.

Doesn't look good for the Flyers...

Very poorly written article. The excuse is that one point from shoot outs? Notice it doesn't say how often teams came back or didn't come back before the shoot out? It just gives one example where the Avs and Sharks both did. Shoot outs are won or lost by talented players. Sure it's not a whole team philosophy, but its generally a teams best players against another teams best players.

What if we looked back and found the odds of making it to the playoffs from 6 points down were worse before the shoot out granted that extra point? Or maybe the team was 6 points down already because they just sucked. And since they sucked they weren't making it regardless of shoot outs?

Not knocking you @brelic and I'm glad you posted it, but the author tries tying a cause effect issue here that has so many holes in it, I can't believe someone published it!

[flyercanuck]

@Polaris922

 

 I think the point is (and I'd say it proven) is that it's a lot harder to make up points now with all the 3 point games. Even if you're winning, a team that's "losing" may still be getting points.

 

 It's your own fault for starting out slow though.

[doom88]

At one point this season, the Devils with ZERO wins were ahead of the Flyers (1 win) in the standings. I hate the shootout and the 3 point game. Why should a Nashville like team lose a shootout because their forwards aren't Crosby and Malkin tier? If the two teams pushed that far against each other fair and square, they should either tie or continue OT. Boiling down to an individual contest isn't fair at all. It's bullshit, just like the loser point.

[ruxpin]

At one point this season, the Devils with ZERO wins were ahead of the Flyers (1 win) in the standings. I hate the shootout and the 3 point game. Why should a Nashville like team lose a shootout because their forwards aren't Crosby and Malkin tier? If the two teams pushed that far against each other fair and square, they should either tie or continue OT. Boiling down to an individual contest isn't fair at all. It's bullshit, just like the loser point.

What doom said

[Polaris922]

So you wanna go back to both teams get one point for not winning?? Loser points for both? Look how tight the standings have been most seasons since having a deciding score. Every team but the bottom feeders has a few talents to put out there. If not, maybe that should be incentive to press harder. I hated teams "playing for the tie" before the shoot outs.

[doom88]

Now they play for OT. Not really different. I also suggested continuous OT, and prefer it.

[Polaris922]

Now they play for OT. Not really different. I also suggested continuous OT, and prefer it.

It's different because they already have the point so nothing to lose going for the two. Continuous OT is great till you have a six period game on a back to back night.

[doom88]

It's different because they already have the point so nothing to lose going for the two. Continuous OT is great till you have a six period game on a back to back night.

It's not fair to teams who handle business in regulation. All games should have the same value, be it two or three. There are drawbacks to most options, but I'd prefer fairness myself.

If they keep the shootout crap, at least award regulation wins 3 points, an OT/Shootout win 2 and an OL/Shootout loss 1.

Personally, I'd love to devalue the shootout such that each team only gets one point, but let the shootout winner tiebreaker matter for playoffs.

[TedZep]

Since the shootout entered the NHL...

 

It's a gimmick, not Hockey and is worse than the instigator rule.  If ties were good enough for Toe Blake, they should be good enough for anyone playing today. If being only two games back with 88% of the season left is usually insurmountable, this sport isn't as great as I thought it was.

 

 

Since Giroux' comment they played the Pens strong and then won two straight, even scoring at least 3 goals in one game!  Keep it rolling, Jimmy.

[ruxpin]

So you wanna go back to both teams get one point for not winning?? Loser points for both? Look how tight the standings have been most seasons since having a deciding score. Every team but the bottom feeders has a few talents to put out there. If not, maybe that should be incentive to press harder. I hated teams "playing for the tie" before the shoot outs.

 

I completely hate the shootout and always have.   I would much prefer the tie.  And that's not just because my team has always sucked at it. 

[brelic]

It's not fair to teams who handle business in regulation. All games should have the same value, be it two or three. There are drawbacks to most options, but I'd prefer fairness myself.

 

Bingo! I really don't understand why a 2 point game becomes a 3 point game as soon as it hits OT. Is it some sort of accomplishment to make it to OT? Not really... it means neither team was good enough to clearly win. And if you end it there like when there were ties, they split the 2 points. They're not getting each a point for losing, they're getting half the points they could have gotten if only they'd won.

 

If you lose after 60 minutes, you get 0 points. If you lose after 65 minutes, you should also get 0 points. And if you lose in the ridiculous shootout, you should also get 0 points.

 

Because in all 3 cases, you lost. Period. 

[flyercanuck]

@brelic

 

 While I agree you shouldn't get a point for losing, a single player should also not have the opportunity to win a team game in a lousy shootout.

[brelic]

@brelic

 

 While I agree you shouldn't get a point for losing, a single player should also not have the opportunity to win a team game in a lousy shootout.

Agreed. I was never a supporter of the shootout. I understand it in international play because of time constraints and the need for a clear winner when it comes to seeding and medals.

But we have 82 games to let things shake out. No need for a shootout to break every single "tie". Take away the shootout, extend the 4 on 4 OT to 10 minutes, and if there's still no winner, so be it. They each walk away with 1 point.

[ruxpin]

Agreed. I was never a supporter of the shootout. I understand it in international play because of time constraints and the need for a clear winner when it comes to seeding and medals.

But we have 82 games to let things shake out. No need for a shootout to break every single "tie". Take away the shootout, extend the 4 on 4 OT to 10 minutes, and if there's still no winner, so be it. They each walk away with 1 point.

 

I vote for this.

[ruxpin]

Are NHL hockey players strange creatures or are there as clear cut examples in other sports of players instantly taking advantage of rule changes in ways that aren't exactly sportsmanlike?

 

You have a tie with points set up and instantly teams simply play to not lose the point rather than going gangbusters for the extra one.

You start penalizing hits from behind, so instantly you have moron players bending over with their head to the boards with a sign on their ass saying "tap me here."

You have tripping penalties, so you have a handful of players throwing themselves on the ice (glances at Crosby and Briere)

You start penalizing open ice hits on "unsuspecting players" so instantly you have moron players caressing the puck with their head down through the neutral zone and across the blue line.

 

Probably a lot of other examples.  But I don't see wide receivers, in response to pass interference rules, simply throwing themselves on the ground when a cornerback comes near them.  The NFL is trying to take away helmet to helmet, but I don't see any real perceivable change in the behavior of running backs or tight ends or crossing receivers.   

 

Am I naive or is this something unique to hockey players, and why?

[radoran]

Are NHL hockey players strange creatures or are there as clear cut examples in other sports of players instantly taking advantage of rule changes in ways that aren't exactly sportsmanlike?

 

You have a tie with points set up and instantly teams simply play to not lose the point rather than going gangbusters for the extra one.

You start penalizing hits from behind, so instantly you have moron players bending over with their head to the boards with a sign on their ass saying "tap me here."

You have tripping penalties, so you have a handful of players throwing themselves on the ice (glances at Crosby and Briere)

You start penalizing open ice hits on "unsuspecting players" so instantly you have moron players caressing the puck with their head down through the neutral zone and across the blue line.

 

Probably a lot of other examples.  But I don't see wide receivers, in response to pass interference rules, simply throwing themselves on the ground when a cornerback comes near them.  The NFL is trying to take away helmet to helmet, but I don't see any real perceivable change in the behavior of running backs or tight ends or crossing receivers.   

 

Am I naive or is this something unique to hockey players, and why?

 

Well, I do see just about every NFL receiver on just about every NFL incompletion come up waving their arms and seeking a flag.

 

There are fewer examples in other sports, IMO, because of the speed of the game and the almost total reliance on the judgement of the referee.

 

NFL refs, for example, are aware that "holding" happens on just about every play, but are more judicious about calling it when they see it really affect the outcome of a play.

 

NHL refs tend to blow the whistle first and worry about "make up calls" later.

 

Hockey players, again IMO, are seeking the best advantage they can find for their team. If they can fool a ref, they will do it.