• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
MabusIncarnate

Conflict in the Crease

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Buppy said:

"Playing the hot hand" is something of a gambler's fallacy. Fortunately, the difference between Howard and Mrazek is fairly small so it probably doesn't matter. 

In gambling it is. Not when talking about people and sports though. Mental status and confidence plays a big role in ability and outcome. I don't see the comparison between playing cards and people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of a Wing said:

In gambling it is. Not when talking about people and sports though. Mental status and confidence plays a big role in ability and outcome. I don't see the comparison between playing cards and people.

Same basic principle applies. Past performance does not influence future results. Mental status and confidence may play a big role, but the fact is you never know when those things are going to change. You can't tell if a goalie is "hot" until after the fact. That a goalie has played well in any number of past games is not of any value in predicting whether or not he will play well in the next game.

With allowances for fatigue and keeping your backup in game shape, starting the better goalie is the better option. And the determination of who is better needs to be a far more in-depth analysis than just looking at the results of their most recent few games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DickieDunn said:

Gambling is pure numbers. Sports isn't.

Don't get too caught up in names. It's the fallacious logic that's important.

Sports also isn't just the last handful of games. You need to focus on more than that to make good decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Buppy said:

Don't get too caught up in names. It's the fallacious logic that's important.

Sports also isn't just the last handful of games. You need to focus on more than that to make good decisions.

A conversation that did not happen in 2008:

"Sorry Ozzy, I know Hasek been playing badly and you've been playing very well, but we're still going to go with him for the rest of these playoffs anyway because thinking that you could currently be the better option is the gambler's fallacy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Richdg said:

And the hot roll comes to an end. Howard wasn't to blame but of course he will get heat for it. Fact is this team stinks. GK is the one deep and talented position we have.

No it doesn't, we're average. Saying we stink is just hyperbole.

Go to the league standings, we rank in a 4 way tie for 11th place. We look great some games, we look bad some games. We win 6 in a row, we lose 5 in a row. We are an average middle of the pack team with a ceiling of probably 2nd or 3rd in our division, and a floor of probably missing the playoffs from anywhere between 1 - 10 points. We are not a contender, we are not a lottery team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Richdg said:

And the hot roll comes to an end. Howard wasn't to blame but of course he will get heat for it. Fact is this team stinks. GK is the one deep and talented position we have.

Yep he'll get blamed. Just like Mrazek was for the goals that weren't his fault. We all knew Jimmy couldn't sustain 2 GA and under per game forever. As a goalie on this team, once you have an off night, you're gonna end up with 5 behind you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

A conversation that did not happen in 2008:

"Sorry Ozzy, I know Hasek been playing badly and you've been playing very well, but we're still going to go with him for the rest of these playoffs anyway because thinking that you could currently be the better option is the gambler's fallacy."

Lol!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 11, 2016 at 10:26 PM, DickieDunn said:

There are #1s because they have a proven track record, and there are #1s because someone labeled them that for other reasons. You go back to a guy in group A quicker than a guy in group B because one is proven, the other is not.

Don't tell me your saying that Howard is "proven"? LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

A conversation that did not happen in 2008:

"Sorry Ozzy, I know Hasek been playing badly and you've been playing very well, but we're still going to go with him for the rest of these playoffs anyway because thinking that you could currently be the better option is the gambler's fallacy."

That year Osgood posted a .914 sv% to Hasek's .902, each with 40 starts. I would argue that Hasek never should have started in the first place, and only did so because he had a couple good games at the end of the regular season while Osgood had a couple poor games. I would also argue that Osgood was successful because he was an excellent goalie, and not because he was "hot". I might also point out that this "hot hand" logic would suggest that we should have gone back to Hasek after 3 straight somewhat weak games against Dallas. 

To repeat what I said earlier, "the determination of who is better needs to be a far more in-depth analysis than just looking at the results of their most recent few games".

So what does tonight's game tell us? Is Howard no longer "hot" because he had one statistically poor game? Is Mrazek no longer "cold" because he stopped a few shots at the end of a blowout game? Who's going to be better next game? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Buppy said:

That year Osgood posted a .914 sv% to Hasek's .902, each with 40 starts. I would argue that Hasek never should have started in the first place, and only did so because he had a couple good games at the end of the regular season while Osgood had a couple poor games. I would also argue that Osgood was successful because he was an excellent goalie, and not because he was "hot". I might also point out that this "hot hand" logic would suggest that we should have gone back to Hasek after 3 straight somewhat weak games against Dallas. 

To repeat what I said earlier, "the determination of who is better needs to be a far more in-depth analysis than just looking at the results of their most recent few games".

So what does tonight's game tell us? Is Howard no longer "hot" because he had one statistically poor game? Is Mrazek no longer "cold" because he stopped a few shots at the end of a blowout game? Who's going to be better next game? 

First of all, I don't think anyone argued that we shouldn't take more than the past few games into account. If Howard was McCollum and came up and one a game, I don't think he'd get more starts over Mrazek. Howard was recently our workhorse and a very good goalie. Mrazek's great but hasn't proven to be consistent yet in his short time in the NHL. Those are some of the many other factors you would take into consideration. But playing the hot hand is pretty much coaching 101. Players who are playing well should be played. I can't really believe that needs to be argued.

As for your account of the Osgood/Hasek situation that's not the way the record tells it all: (last 10 games of that season)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007–08_Detroit_Red_Wings_season#Schedule_and_results

March 16: Detroit        3 – 4 Columbus  Hasek  

March 19: Columbus  1 – 3 Detroit        Osgood      

March 20: Detroit        6 – 3 Nashville    Hasek      

March 22: Detroit        4 – 1 Columbus  Hasek        

March 25: Detroit        2 – 1 St. Louis    Osgood    

March 28: St. Louis    4 – 3  Detroit       Osgood     

March 30: Nashville    0 – 1  Detroit       Hasek        

April 2:      Detroit        2 – 6  Chicago    Hasek         

April 3:      Columbus  2 – 3  Detroit       Hasek        

April 6:      Chicago     1  - 4  Detroit      Hasek          

If you're arguing that we chose Hasek because he was the hot hand, you'd have to ignore us getting blown out 6-2 in the 3rd last game. If we were just going with the hot hand, Osgood would have gotten the next game then. In those years - when we were clearly in the playoffs - I think we used to decide who was starting the playoffs early and give them the last 4-5 games to get ready. Both goalies were playing well. Hasek was injured in February and had worse numbers over the season. I think he got the nod because he was the established star. Or maybe because he was 3 and 1 in games against the Preds while Osgood went 2 and 2 vs the Preds that season. Either way, that is not "playing the hot hand."

Then he struggled in the playoffs and we went with the other really good option. This past stretch, Mrazek struggled a bit, we road the other really good option. Now Howard struggled a bit (even if the goals weren't all his fault), let's give Mrazek a shot again. As it should be.

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kliq said:

I would go Mrazek. He typically plays better against TB, plus Howie did start quite a few in a row.

I agree, this one should be Mrazek starting. He tends to play well against them and I'm sure Tampa view him as a hard nut to crack, you want to get into their heads prior to puckdrop if you can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

First of all, I don't think anyone argued that we shouldn't take more than the past few games into account. If Howard was McCollum and came up and one a game, I don't think he'd get more starts over Mrazek. Howard was recently our workhorse and a very good goalie. Mrazek's great but hasn't proven to be consistent yet in his short time in the NHL. Those are some of the many other factors you would take into consideration. But playing the hot hand is pretty much coaching 101. Players who are playing well should be played. I can't really believe that needs to be argued.

.... This past stretch, Mrazek struggled a bit, we road the other really good option. Now Howard struggled a bit (even if the goals weren't all his fault), let's give Mrazek a shot again. As it should be.

I'm sure a lot of coach's do believe in it, just like a lot of coach's and players have superstitions. Doesn't mean the logic isn't faulty. 

I was just saying that recent play alone (much less recent results, which is a bit different) shouldn't be the determining factor, and it seems you agree, you're just arguing that "hot hand" really means more than just that. If used to help choose between two good, basically equal, options, fine. Likely no worse than any other method of choice. Which is why I added the part about Mrazek and Howard being close enough that it probably wouldn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this