Jacksoni 418 Report post Posted November 12, 2016 Jimmy is on a roll and yes it seems he'll go head to head against Carey Price. Ansar Khan confirmes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted November 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jacksoni said: Jimmy is on a roll and yes it seems he'll go head to head against Carey Price. Ansar Khan confirmes: Its really hard to argue against those numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted November 12, 2016 "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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kickazz 5,459 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 34 minutes 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. Lol this guy. 1 kliq reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Son of a Wing 1,644 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 Gambling is pure numbers. Sports isn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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
PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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." 3 krsmith17, TheXym and kliq reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Richdg 267 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,763 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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. 4 roboturner, krsmith17, chaps80 and 1 other reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chaps80 1,591 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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
kickazz 5,459 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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
chaps80 1,591 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 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? 1 puckloo39 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
e_prime 1,936 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 Surprised there isn't a couple over turned cars and a couch on fire in this thread this morning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeftWinger 5,153 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 He played a bad game...maybe it's going to be only one. But, Holland better get on the horn to trade him before Top Fuel Jimmy becomes Unleaded Jimmy again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joesuffP 1,746 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 (edited) Edit: wrong thread Edited November 13, 2016 by joesuffP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DickieDunn 2,571 Report post Posted November 13, 2016 Don't tell me your saying that Howard is "proven"? LOLNo, In saying Mrazek isn't. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FireCaptain 563 Report post Posted November 14, 2016 Feel bad for Howie's last game.. Over half of the goals were almost perfect/unstoppable but more importantly even if he had stopped them... ZERO goals in support isn't gonna win you any games.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PavelValerievichDatsyuk 1,935 Report post Posted November 14, 2016 (edited) 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 November 14, 2016 by PavelValerievichDatsyuk 2 krsmith17 and kickazz reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kliq 3,763 Report post Posted November 14, 2016 11 minutes ago, F.Michael said: Big decision for Blashill...Give Jimmy another shot, or to start Mrazek Tuesday night against TB? I would go Mrazek. He typically plays better against TB, plus Howie did start quite a few in a row. 2 PavelValerievichDatsyuk and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jacksoni 418 Report post Posted November 14, 2016 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. 3 kliq, Wheelchairsuperhero and krsmith17 reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted November 14, 2016 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