It's ESPN, what do those dummies know, the leaf should have been the favourites, based on their future greatness .......... and the Senators should have been given no chance in hell, should have been swept based on the "underlying numbers"


- D0PPELGANGER

Duh, it wasn't a poll for the future, it was a poll for round 1.

In case you missed it ...... they had it in them, as you can see





Thursday, April 27 7 p.m. NY Rangers at Ottawa CNBC, CBC, TVA Sports

Saturday, April 29 3 p.m. NY Rangers at Ottawa NBC, CBC, TVA Sports

Tuesday, May 2 7 p.m. Ottawa at NY Rangers NBCSN, CBC, TVA Sports

Thursday, May 4 7:30 p.m. Ottawa at NY Rangers NBCSN, CBC, TVA Sports

*Saturday, May 6 TBD NY Rangers at Ottawa TBD

*Tuesday, May 9 TBD Ottawa at NY Rangers TBD

*Thursday, May 11 TBD NY Rangers at Ottawa TBD
- D0PPELGANGER

Your insecurity is amazing

It's ESPN, what do those dummies know, the leaf should have been the favourites, based on their future greatness .......... and the Senators should have been given no chance in hell, should have been swept based on the "underlying numbers"


- D0PPELGANGER

weren't you the one who posted that in the first place?

the contenders








- Pie

Dig up the list of all the writers who had the Leafs out in 5, they mainly had the Sens out quickly too.

Hockey reference and money puck also had them as the underdogs.

I think the vegas odds were against Ottawa too, but I don't pay much attention to those, so I can't be sure.
- Feeling Glucky?

I have no idea what point you are making. I thought the Sens would beat the Bruins. Last time I checked, it was OK to believe one team would beat another team, even if other people disagreed. I think if both teams were healthy it would be a coin toss.

I believe the Rangers will beat the Senators.

I have no idea what point you are making. I thought the Sens would beat the Bruins. Last time I checked, it was OK to believe one team would beat another team, even if other people disagreed. I think if both teams were healthy it would be a coin toss.

I believe the Rangers will beat the Senators.
- Aetherial

It was damn near a draw - 4 games when to OT, 3 of which were won by the senaturds. It was a damn close series, and that's with the Bruins missing 3 of their top 4 D. The sens really missing one key dman.

You think adding almost an entire top 2 pairings would only have won the Bruins a single additional game? Of course not, don't be silly. You really have been coming up with some ridiculous posts lately.

All healthy, the Bruins would have steamrolled the senaturds. And I don't think the Rags let it get past 5 games this series. It'll be quick and easy for them.

that said, I'll agree, I don't really think the vegas odds for a series that's in the past matter at this point. Most thought the Bruins would win, that's true. That's because they're a better team than the senaturds. the best team doesn't always win. Irrelevant at this point though.

I have no idea what point you are making. I thought the Sens would beat the Bruins. Last time I checked, it was OK to believe one team would beat another team, even if other people disagreed. I think if both teams were healthy it would be a coin toss.

I believe the Rangers will beat the Senators.
- Aetherial

Yea I think we're misscommunicating here

I thought you were arguing against my point that Ottawa was generally seen as the underdog.

It was damn near a draw - 4 games when to OT, 3 of which were won by the senaturds. It was a damn close series, and that's with the Bruins missing 3 of their top 4 D. The sens really missing one key dman.

You think adding almost an entire top 2 pairings would only have won the Bruins a single additional game? Of course not, don't be silly. You really have been coming up with some ridiculous posts lately.

All healthy, the Bruins would have steamrolled the senaturds. And I don't think the Rags let it get past 5 games this series. It'll be quick and easy for them.

that said, I'll agree, I don't really think the vegas odds for a series that's in the past matter at this point. Most thought the Bruins would win, that's true. That's because they're a better team than the senaturds. the best team doesn't always win. Irrelevant at this point though.
- prock

Welp we have won 8 straight against them at home and swept the reg season series,even when they were healthy the couldnt beat us .So when is it no longer considered a fluke??And we can say we have the better team??

LOL, is that what we want?

I don't really care what the "experts" say. Really, it's just a second opinion on what Leaf fans already know - that the Leafs will be a dominant team for the next decade. senatards will yell and scream that they have a great team, with great youth, but when we point to the 'experts', it's really just pointing out that no one outside ottawa really thinks much of the senaturds.

Pretty sure most publications see the senaturds for what they are, and it's near unanimous that they won't beat the Rangers. If the Bruins weren't missing 3 of their top 4 dman, the senaturds probably don't get past the first round this year.

I'm pretty sure of that. Pointing to what the 'experts' think, is just really validating my opinion.
- prock

Sure. It is time to get rid of the scoreboard.

It was damn near a draw - 4 games when to OT, 3 of which were won by the senaturds. It was a damn close series, and that's with the Bruins missing 3 of their top 4 D. The sens really missing one key dman.

You think adding almost an entire top 2 pairings would only have won the Bruins a single additional game? Of course not, don't be silly. You really have been coming up with some ridiculous posts lately.

All healthy, the Bruins would have steamrolled the senaturds. And I don't think the Rags let it get past 5 games this series. It'll be quick and easy for them.

that said, I'll agree, I don't really think the vegas odds for a series that's in the past matter at this point. Most thought the Bruins would win, that's true. That's because they're a better team than the senaturds. the best team doesn't always win. Irrelevant at this point though.
- prock

So, besides chirping me, which you have been doing for a couple pages, what was your point.

I thought the Sens would win, and they did. Somehow this is a ridiculous post. Maybe you still feel all butthurt that the Sens have one of the top 5 players in the league in Karlsson and you don't like what I think he is worth. I don't care Prock, just quit embarrassing yourself trying too hard to troll someone simply because they don't agree with you. Clearly you aren't even semi-rational about anything to do with the Sens.

Yea I think we're misscommunicating here

I thought you were arguing against my point that Ottawa was generally seen as the underdog.
- Feeling Glucky?

Honestly, I never saw your post and I was unaware of who was the "underdog". Is that WTF Prock is on about?

I just don't think much of the Bruins and I do believe the Sens were underrated. I also think the Sens this year were adopting a style that was more suited to the playoffs.

Now, I don't see why so many people here are picking the Sens to beat the Rangers?

Besides, I don't come to this thread to attack Leafs fans. I come here for my daily comedy from Sens fans. Prock doesn't know exactly why he is here. He is like someone blind drunk taking wild swings at everyone around him, and he doesn't even know he pissed his pants.

So, besides chirping me, which you have been doing for a couple pages, what was your point.

I thought the Sens would win, and they did. Somehow this is a ridiculous post. Maybe you still feel all butthurt that the Sens have one of the top 5 players in the league in Karlsson and you don't like what I think he is worth. I don't care Prock, just quit embarrassing yourself trying to hard too troll someone simply because they don't agree with you. Clearly you aren't even semi-rational about anything to do with the Sens.
- Aetherial

Chirping you? I'm not really chirping you - basically, by saying both teams healthy, the game is a toss, you're basically saying that adding 3 of their top 4 dman back to the mix would make a one game difference. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't think that's reasonable at all.

the fact that it was such a close series, with the Bruins defense decimated like that, is not flattering at all. To a quality team a series like that against such a banged up borderline playoff team should be a cakewalk.

Honestly, I never saw your post and I was unaware of who was the "underdog". Is that WTF Prock is on about?

I just don't think much of the Bruins and I do believe the Sens were underrated. I also think the Sens this year were adopting a style that was more suited to the playoffs.

Now, I don't see why so many people here are picking the Sens to beat the Rangers?
- Aetherial

No, I'm merely addressing that you say adding 3 of a team's top dmen back to their team makes no more difference than a series mostly decided by some overtime goals to a coin toss.

I think you're drastically underestimating what missing 3 out of your top 4 dmen can do in a 7 game series. That's all.

Chirping you? I'm not really chirping you - basically, by saying both teams healthy, the game is a toss, you're basically saying that adding 3 of their top 4 dman back to the mix would make a one game difference. Do you think that's reasonable? I don't think that's reasonable at all.

the fact that it was such a close series, with the Bruins defense decimated like that, is not flattering at all. To a quality team a series like that against such a banged up team should be a cakewalk.
- prock

Yes, you are.

I don't give a (frank) what you think about the Sens chances or anything else for that matter.

Sober up before our next discussion.

It was damn near a draw - 4 games when to OT, 3 of which were won by the senaturds. It was a damn close series, and that's with the Bruins missing 3 of their top 4 D. The sens really missing one key dman.

You think adding almost an entire top 2 pairings would only have won the Bruins a single additional game? Of course not, don't be silly. You really have been coming up with some ridiculous posts lately.

All healthy, the Bruins would have steamrolled the senaturds. And I don't think the Rags let it get past 5 games this series. It'll be quick and easy for them.

that said, I'll agree, I don't really think the vegas odds for a series that's in the past matter at this point. Most thought the Bruins would win, that's true. That's because they're a better team than the senaturds. the best team doesn't always win. Irrelevant at this point though.
- prock

Now your just getting boring. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Your always wrong. Perhaps you might get it right just once. But, overall, would you not have more success if you just gave greater respect to the scoreboard? Or, maybe you think the scoreboard does not matter?

Now your just getting boring. You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Your always wrong. Perhaps you might get it right just once. But, overall, would you not have more success if you just gave greater respect to the scoreboard? Or, maybe you think the scoreboard does not matter?
- spatso

Only the "underlying numbers" and the "fancy boy stats" matter, because they can be interpreted in any way to prove anything you wish & pray, could happen in the future.

Honestly, I never saw your post and I was unaware of who was the "underdog". Is that WTF Prock is on about?

I just don't think much of the Bruins and I do believe the Sens were underrated. I also think the Sens this year were adopting a style that was more suited to the playoffs.

Now, I don't see why so many people here are picking the Sens to beat the Rangers?

Besides, I don't come to this thread to attack Leafs fans. I come here for my daily comedy from Sens fans. Prock doesn't know exactly why he is here. He is like someone blind drunk taking wild swings at everyone around him, and he doesn't even know he pissed his pants.
- Aetherial

Oh he knows... he knows

posting this because its interesting

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
Re: NHL analytics. Call this the 'Contact' approach - surely the long-standing approach to team management cannot be optimal

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
Replying to @behindthenet
Almost 60% of NHL GMs played in the NHL. Another 25% are the children of NHL execs. That's a tiny pool to be picking from.

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
The remaining spots are filled by guys who didn't make it to the NHL, guys with long track records as total insiders, and John Chayka

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
The irony is that the pool used to be larger. In 1969, you had 12 teams and Scotty Bowman, Sam Pollock, Tommy Ivan and Wren Blair were GMs

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
The average age of an NHL GM was 46 in 1969. Today it's 54. MLB went 52 -> 44. NHL GMs are the oldest of the big 4 sports.

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
So we literally have a 30-team league with 30 GMs who were educated at the same school. Per 'Contact' - surely there must be others to hire

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
Seems strange that 50 years ago a guy on your softball team who liked hockey could become GM (Sam Pollock) but today options are narrower

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
One item that always shocked me: the spread of outcomes in drafting round 2 onwards indicates no skill on the part of teams

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
i.e. randomly shuffling picks 31-250 gave you same spread of games played, etc... Groupthink - recruiting from a small pool - enables this

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
If I look at MLB, the major accomplishment is driving down player share of revenue without a true salary cap.

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
View it as legal collusion: bring in people not wedded to groupthink, they don't overpay crappy players conventional wisdom says are good

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
As a GM, you need 5-7 years to pull off your strategy but need to face the press after ~5-7 games. Playing it safe lets you keep your job

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
Winnipeg's a great example. Absurdly loyal fan base. No downside to taking risk. Went with all hockey men and are just as bad as Atlanta

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
I don't know Kevin Cheveldayoff, but he didn't draw the same conclusions as Billy Beane did from being a failed 1st round pick!

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
At any rate, there's still low-hanging fruit, people with a better approach will clean it up, and the GM mix will change soon enough

Yes, you are.

I don't give a (frank) what you think about the Sens chances or anything else for that matter.

Sober up before our next discussion.
- Aetherial

Lighten up, Francis, you're way too sensitive. I'm not chirping you.

Perhaps you're a little defensive because you know you said some stupid things?

Only the "underlying numbers" and the "fancy boy stats" matter, because they can be interpreted in any way to prove anything you wish & pray, could happen in the future.
- D0PPELGANGER

It's amazing how resistant you are to anything that involves a modicum of intellect.

posting this because its interesting
- senstroll

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
One item that always shocked me: the spread of outcomes in drafting round 2 onwards indicates no skill on the part of teams

Hawerchuk‏ @behindthenet
i.e. randomly shuffling picks 31-250 gave you same spread of games played, etc... Groupthink - recruiting from a small pool - enables this

if true that's funny. you'd have to imagine some teams are getting it right more often than others though.

Lighten up, Francis, you're way too sensitive. I'm not chirping you.

Perhaps you're a little defensive because you know you said some stupid things?
- prock

Sure. except I haven't taken back what I said. I believe Karlsson is that good. He would be right around McDavid/Matthews/Crosby if i was starting a team from scratch.

if true that's funny. you'd have to imagine some teams are getting it right more often than others though.
- daeth

The round 2 onwards comment just goes to show how much of a crapshoot it all is.

I think there is just no way to always be sure how good most players that young will become.