...

That was due to Sheary not taking the extra stride to keep it in Vancouver's zone.

Sheary that was a WEAK-ASS effort.

Skinner is fun.

Yay. KO.

Tonight's first period in animated GIF.

Both. Please.

I hope they have more than 12 and half minutes of NHL hockey in them tonight.

I give you the 2018-2019 Sabres.

ERod...what's your assignment?

I'm sure there's a stat for that.

Offside? WTF.

Ruh roh. At least it wasn't within two minutes after their goal...or was it?

There is a crowd in those seats, no?

Finally! They looked sharp all period so far. Even Pommenstein looks spry.

LET'S GO BUFF-A-LO!

I think RR isn't on for the first hour, but after that he's great. Great stories. Totally worth the listen if you have time.

This thread can't be serious. How about a time out?

Hmm, not sure about that today!

That's my conclusion at the end. HOWEVER... I've been banned for approaching my posting that way. I don't believe there is consensus on that philosophy - that you are not responsible for how someone interprets your posts.

While "convince" might not be the most accurate word, it is close. I can see how people interpret many posts that use some AS as the foundation of the argument as trying to "convince" others that what they are seeing isn't good/right/nice/joyful/etc. So, I can enter Smell's post earlier as evidence: "I'm talking about the fact that 2 SOG in the 3rd is generally a sign of a team that is not getting the better of play at the game's end. I'm talking about the fact that going 3 for 3 in the team's final 3 SOG is not a formula for long-term success. I'm talking about a desire to see the team's overall underlying metrics move in a positive direction (they've been fairly stuck in or around the same mediocre spot for months now). I'm talking about how a team that has those kind of positive metrics is getting the better of play and will tend to win more games than they lose (unless they're Carolina, I guess)." or your own: "If you look at the shot chart from last night vs the game against Edmonton, you can see that Calgary managed nearly as many opportunities from high danger areas as Edmonton did. We just got lucky that half of them didn't go in this time." Doesn't matter whether you think you're being all factual and objective, it comes off as being down on the team - in the moment. It's a two sided street. I, personally, understand you're not trying to be negative. The regulars here who pull out the stats as a means of forwarding the conversation are clearly fans and love the team - they wouldn't be regulars. But, context and timing are important, too. Posts like the two above, immediately following a game (win or lose), are going to be viewed from people emotionally engaged in the moment. You can not fault people for that. I think both sides should just stand down. Unless it's a stranger coming in here posting weird things, we all "know" each other and we all "know" we're fans and here for the same fundamental thing.

Well, this will get us through tomorrow night.

I think you're being too generous, then.

I have no idea why you included this in your point on how stats are muffling the joy of watching a hockey game. Anyway, to the quoted: you have clearly and obviously not played street or pond hockey. That is where the joy of the sport is created in kids. 3x3 with or without goalies is definitely, without question, hockey. I wish people would do this for economics, civics, religion, philosophy, history and politics. But, no, the world is one big GDT of people who think they know everything.