...

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.

Jack actually tried the exact same approach and, if memory serves, shot that led to them to recovering the puck in the neutral zone. I was under the impression after the GWG that he had saw something the first time and was sure he could make it work again, hence the reason he kept it and tried again.

This is all true. It's the kind of thing that was working for them during the 10-game streak and working against them lately. I have to wonder if there's another factor involved that's not being measured, some combination of metrics that, essentially, measures "the luck you make or give up for yourself".

So...same team, same coach, totally different game. Obviously a different result. Same system and same manner of player usage. The conclusion?

That's because his play in the offensive zone just prior led to a turn over.

This was a good game by the Sabres, though. Even with one point, no one should have complained. Except about Sheary. And maybe Bogo.

Yeah, and Sheary BLEW IT. That guy is as useful as Okposo.

They earned those two points. Let's hope they remember what it takes, now.

NICE!

The D is alive!

Dahlin.

So, after that period I want to watch the third.

Good pressure.

No Eichel?

Bogo not having a good game. Skinner is possessed!

Boy, if we ever needed a goal, that was it.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERod!

That right there SHOULD change the momentum of the game.

Ho ho ho! Ullmark!

They really didn't look too bad. Bogo with the boo-boo at the very end there.

That's not a lot to go on.