There is a study I saw recently - and I would find it now but I'm in a hurry - that proved that the outcome of one goal games is essentially random.

Therefore, yes the Sabres could easily be a playoff team if not for luck. The Canadiens have something like the fifth or sixth best possession rates in the NHL and a roster filled with excellent players.

Yes, goaltending cost them a bunch of games, but they also went through a period where they couldn't by a goal no matter how many chances they had.
- James_Tanner

I don't think teams that have gotten it done in close games over the years are doing it continually through luck. And those who more often that not end up on the wrong side, are just having bad luck

I think this is an instance where you willfully ignore parts of what it takes to be successful in pro sports because it can't be quantified.

This is not fact.

This is your opinion, assumption, or extrapolation from your stats.

Your problem, and the problem with most of the advanced stats community, is that you start with the assumption that whatever stats you like or want to use are perfectly indicative of whatever you are trying to prove.

Then, if it turns out that reality belies what your pet stats would indicate, it is all about luck.

It could never be that the stats don't indicate what you think they do, or worse, that you might not even be attempting to measure the right thing.
- Aetherial

The stats that we like are the stats that correlate heaviest with winning.

But just because results differ from stats doesn't mean stats are wrong. It means that nothing is 100% predictive.

It's not like luck is an excuse - it's a fact of life. If the probability of a team missing the Playoffs with less than a 45% Corsi is 90%, then if that team makes it, that is just luck.

What else would you call it?

Not sure how Montreal is "much" better then Florida, Detroit or Boston. Seems like a random idiotic statement about a team that relies on one player more then any other team in the league. And who has been the worst team in the league since he was injured.
- Newgod77

Montreal is the fifth best score-adjusted possession team in the NHL. Detroit is 10th, Boston is 17th Florida is 20th.

Therefore you could argue that all three of those teams have to rely on their goalie more than Montreal does, because they are worse teams.

This will go on forever


The nhl can't be boiled down to just numbers imo. It's far too fluid and nuanced

I couldn't possibly be convinced through possession stats that it's all councedence and bad luck that the Habs have nosedived after price went down.

I doubt they even make the playoffs with Price.

They need 40 points in the last 26 games. Not going t happen.

Shelf Price for the year, look for a new coach, move out the dead wood, deal for Drouin and draft wisely.

Part of me thinks they should trade Price in the off season for a boat load of talent and picks.

I totally get this


The whole "your team sucks without price" doesn't really matter as they didn't have to think about it. "Well we have price and our team doesn't suck"


But, I think we're seeing they're a bubble team at best without him. And I didn't think they were ever a true contender even with price. Better than the teams you mentioned? Maybe. But they aren't truly elite either imo
- HB77

yeah agreed.

Most people felt that the Habs, without Price, would have to fight for a playoff spot.

So far, after a pretty small sample size, it seems that they are worse than that. I think to get a real good idea you would have to see them without Price and the immediate disappointment of losing him, and the uncertainty of his return... over a longer period of time.

I can't believe they are as bad as their record over the last couple months indicates.

yeah agreed.

Most people felt that the Habs, without Price, would have to fight for a playoff spot.

So far, after a pretty small sample size, it seems that they are worse than that. I think to get a real good idea you would have to see them without Price and the immediate disappointment of losing him, and the uncertainty of his return... over a longer period of time.

I can't believe they are as bad as their record over the last couple months indicates.
- Aetherial

How much confidence did he give them? How massive was that big save at just the right time for the outcome of the game?

I look at their roster and I think a full season in front of condon or scrivens and you may very well see them bottom feeding. But at best I see them middle of the pack battling for one of the final spots. Just like they are now. Without price.

The stats that we like are the stats that correlate heaviest with winning.

But just because results differ from stats doesn't mean stats are wrong. It means that nothing is 100% predictive.

It's not like luck is an excuse - it's a fact of life. If the probability of a team missing the Playoffs with less than a 45% Corsi is 90%, then if that team makes it, that is just luck.

What else would you call it?
- James_Tanner

I would always allow for luck. I also happen to believe the Habs have had some bad luck. I get this from watching games and seeing otherwise consistent players go stone cold.

What I won't allow for is the significance placed on Corsi. This is because there have been way too many examples, some even over large sample sizes, where it has not been a good predictor. In fact, by its definition there are times where Corsi in no way indicates possession. The advanced stats community not only assumes a correlation, they assign significance to the correlation and assume it is so strong that the advanced stats are often referred to simply as "posession".

Your argument above is a perfect example of the problem, It starts with the premise that Corsi is significant and if it is not predictive, then the reason is luck. You bend reality to suit Corsi, by coming up with excuses.

You know, if a bunch of mathematicians are trapped in a pit, they can't get their way out by "Assume there is a ladder".

This will go on forever


The nhl can't be boiled down to just numbers imo. It's far too fluid and nuanced

I couldn't possibly be convinced through possession stats that it's all councedence and bad luck that the Habs have nosedived after price went down.
- HB77

In December, the Habs played 14 games and won 3. They scored more than 2 goals just twice out of those 14 games (which is about 12% of a season).

In those 14 games they held the other team to 3 goals or less in 12 games.


The point is, scoring, not goaltending caused them to go 3-11 that month. It just doesn't fit the convenient narrative.

I used to think people were trolling pretty hard when they said this, but I am now afraid that I actually believe that you just don't understand what this means.

It is a proven fact that until 72 games have been played, luck has more impact on the standings than skill. This does not mean that skill only matters after game 73, but jesus, I really think that's what you think.

How is this even a difficult concept to grasp?
- James_Tanner

Intelligent and objective people don't say things like that. That's not meant to suggest you're stupid, my point is I think you're better than this.

I would always allow for luck. I also happen to believe the Habs have had some bad luck. I get this from watching games and seeing otherwise consistent players go stone cold.

What I won't allow for is the significance placed on Corsi. This is because there have been way too many examples, some even over large sample sizes, where it has not been a good predictor.

Your argument above is a perfect example of the problem, It starts with the premise that Corsi is significant and if it is not predictive, then the reason is luck. You bend reality to suit Corsi, by coming up with excuses.

You know, if a bunch of mathematicians are trapped in a pit, they can't get their way out by "Assume there is a ladder".
- Aetherial

It seems to me you're discounting something because you don't understand it.

Everything has a probability. Everything. If something occurs where the probability of it happening was less than 50% then by definition, that is luck.

In December, the Habs played 14 games and won 3. They scored more than 2 goals just twice out of those 14 games (which is about 12% of a season).

In those 14 games they held the other team to 3 goals or less in 12 games.


The point is, scoring, not goaltending caused them to go 3-11 that month. It just doesn't fit the convenient narrative.
- James_Tanner

Are you suggesting that goaltending and scoring are not related?

You can't just sever the relationships between actors in a complex system.

It seems to me you're discounting something because you don't understand it.

Everything has a probability. Everything. If something occurs where the probability of it happening was less than 50% then by definition, that is luck.
- James_Tanner

And there it is...

"You don't understand".

yeah, we're done. You are too blind to even see the fundamental flaw in your reasoning.

You go ahead and "assume a ladder".

In December, the Habs played 14 games and won 3. They scored more than 2 goals just twice out of those 14 games (which is about 12% of a season).

In those 14 games they held the other team to 3 goals or less in 12 games.


The point is, scoring, not goaltending caused them to go 3-11 that month. It just doesn't fit the convenient narrative.
- James_Tanner

Are we allowing for the confidence and ability to take chances that price gave them?

With a much inferior goalie, they didn't have those luxuries and had to play accordingly

I don't think it was coincidence

Its 90% luck, 10% skill