darksabre

I literally did it after the Edmonton game but no one cared because they were too busy flipping out.

Sure it is. And I have no idea what you mean by the first bolded. As to the second bolded, as the team gets better, they won't need as much luck, because it will mean that they are exercising control over more variables than they were previously. Kind of like how knowing what you're doing is better than not knowing what you're doing at the casino. That's why Jack, who still needs luck, doesn't need to be as lucky as a less talented player like Larsson. Because he has more control. Just not infinite control.

Jack has worked on that exact shot hundreds of thousands of times? The one in that occurred uniquely in time and space last night? I had no idea Jack was a time traveler.

I feel like people are taking my calling it "lucky" as some kind of diss on Jack.

Okay, if we're going to be pedantic, then fine. The odds are the odds. If this is gambling we know that some games of chance have better odds than others right. Games of chance. Luck and chance are the same thing, right? It's something where the outcome is based not just on the actions you take, but on the environment around you. Things you can control vs things you can't. So Jack, taking control of all of the things he has control over, can only do so much there, right? He can only impose his will so much there to make that goal happen. And he probably knows what things he can control in that situation. He knows he's shooting the puck when he starts that drive to the net, but he doesn't know if the goalie is going to give him that hole or not, especially at that angle. And he knows it's a bad angle. So, taking the chance, he shoots anyway. And wouldn't you know it: he gets lucky. Everything he didn't have any control over came together with all of the things he did have control over to let that puck in the net. So what we're arguing over is how much control it is fair to say Jack has over that situation. That's what this is. And my calling it lucky is totally justified given how little control Jack had over all of the variables that make that particular goal so difficult and unique.

I don't want Jack to think about that. I would want Larsson to, though. To add on, I think what we're seeing on the PP1 with its failures is that Jack and the other skill guys are thinking about the odds too much. They know their abilities and they can assess situations faster than a guy like Larsson. This leads them to avoid taking chances and letting luck play a role.

You're missing the mark. When things are routine, they're routine. Luck beats the odds, no? Jack's goal wasn't routine. It beat the odds. It was lucky. And it was great.

I don't think every goal scored is luck, mostly because not all goals are created equal. The events that lead to them, the quality of the area where the shot comes from, the capabilities of the shooter and the goalie. I could go on. There are a lot of non-luck variables that go into any given goal. That's what makes Jack's OT winner so great. Yes, he's a great shooter, but he was shooting from a spot where few have success, and Rittich had things pretty well covered up except for the tiniest of holes which Jack just managed to get the puck through. Everything had to be just right for that goal to happen. I don't think he would score that goal 9 times out of 10. He's good, but he also had a horseshoe in his pants in that overtime.

Ridiculous? More condescension that I'm just supposed to ignore eh? The window Jack had to hit to get that puck in the net was incredibly small. Like, Luke using the force to blow up the Death Star small. It's amazing that he put the puck where he did on that goal. Absolutely amazing. I'd love to see him hit it twice in a row.

The real comments or the fabricated ones?

It's not a negative post at all. You're projecting.

I think that would make sense for things that are more controversial or possibly offensive. But this isn't any of those things lol

@... The problem here is that if you read, say, my post you quoted as negative that's YOUR problem. You're projecting on to my posts something that isn't there. That's not my fault in any way.

Again, literally no one is saying that. I accept PA's apology then.

It's not a thing. He called me out because he didn't like my analysis of the Eichel goal. It upset him. So I hit back. Again, don't start nothing...

Again, this isn't even a thing. You're literally making up some perceived attack.

The condescending overtones are largely imagined, in my opinion. There seems to be a perception among a certain group that the stats people are here to make everyone else sad or something. God forbid the stats people find the stats and discussion fun. Damn them! The anti-stats people seem to love to snipe at the stats crowd and then get upset when the stats crowd gives it back. I don't know why anyone is surprised. Don't start nothin wont be nothin. And hell, my comment about Eichel's shot wasn't even a stats comment. It was mostly eye test based on knowing how the position is played. But that simple analysis was STILL too much for PA. Basically, the anti-stats people need to stop acting like the way they enjoy the game is under attack. There's a lot of disingenuous cross-bearing going on.

No one is trying to convince you it's not marvelous. Actually, no one is trying to convince you of anything. But if you, like a lot of people, want to understand why the Sabres won 10 in a row and are now not doing that, looking at the improbability of those 3 marvelous goals is a pretty good place to start. It's all about how much you want to dig. If you don't want to dig, fine. But the people who want to dig aren't obligated to care too much about people who find that digging upsetting or offensive or whatever.

I think most fans are this way. The trick is that there are some fans who don't even want to see people talking about the score. Because seeing people talking about the score upsets them. They think the score and the people talking about it are doing it to ruin the music for them. I made a comment about Eichel's goal being pretty lucky and it was PA who took offense. He could have, I don't know, not been a huge baby about it? But apparently my simply discussing that goal was enough to provoke ANGST. I'm RUINING THE GAME for him. ?

No one is actually doing this.

He very clearly wasn't. But this is also a smidgen of trolling.

This argument only makes sense if you can argue that hockey is the same as it has always been and nothing has changed. That's obviously not true though. Guys don't show up for camp with a pack of Marlboros after taking the summer off anymore. And you can't be successful as a GM by evaluating talent like the game is still stuck in that era either. We're learning a ton about the game, especially as the game has changed. Every single player in the NHL is faster, stronger and better trained than at any point in the history of the game. This isn't Perrault scoring on a low slapper because the goalies had no concept of the butterfly anymore. Those days are gone. The game is no longer that simple. And neither is how we analyze and discuss it.

Bingo.

Agreed. My hope was that with more playing time he would refine his movements and find some consistency. It appears to be happening and I'm glad.

It's fine to just admit you like watching hockey but don't actually care to understand it.