1. Perhaps it's because of unprecedented media coverage, but that International Tournament felt even more ridiculous than usual.
First of all, who cares about a tournament going on simultaneously to the NHL Playoffs?
Second, in all the Laine vs Matthews hype, why does almost no one point out that Laine is playing with NHL players and dominating teams like France? Or that it's pretty stupid to take small tournaments (i.e sample size) and make any determinations from them when there is an entire year of previous scouting.
I think everyone should take five minutes and learn about recency bias.
If Matthews was the best prospect for an entire year, nothing that happens in ten days should change that for any person capable of applying a reasonable amount of logic to the situation.
2. Since we are the topic of terrible logic, perhaps the most ridiculous thing that happens in the NHL is that we work backwards to connect the results of the game to the decisions made before hand, when, in reality we are talking about a two-outcome game (at least in the Playoffs).
Take the St.Louis goalie situation as an example.
The Blues decide to remove the player who has been the best goalie in the NHL this year, in favor of their back-up, a goalie who is also good and who no-one would bat an eye if he was made the starter in the future or if both goalies were awarded a co-Vezina Trophy for their work this year.
Now, what is annoying is that you are taught to think about things independent of the result, but almost no one does that. Changing the goalie is either a good move, or it's a bad move and you know that before the game is played. The result doesn't change anything because results depend on a multitude of factors and outside of simulating something a million times on a computer, there is no way to know (in the real world) if the result had anything to do with the change.
Playoff Hockey is a two-outcome situation, so if you think that changing the goalie is going to spark the team, and that team wins, which they will do about 50% of the time, it isn't correct to then credit the goalie change for a win that likely would have happened anyways.
Changing the goalie to "spark the team" is a poorly thought out construct with no possible real-world application. Logically, what "spark" do a bunch of players playing for the most important game of their lives really need? It seems if they did need a spark in this situation, they most likely wouldn't have been able to hack it as professionals in the first place.
And yet, since there is only two outcomes, and since the teams (at this point) are so evenly matched as to make the result of any game a virtual coin-flip, it is going to seem like swapping the goalie was a good move about 50% of the time.
Once the Blues win, everyone can say "What a Great Move to Change the Goalie," while, in reality, there was always only two outcomes and about an even chance the team would win regardless of who was in net.
It's applying credit to something after the fact that in all likelihood didn't matter.
But that doesn't change the fact that a) Elliott has been the best goalie in the NHL this year and b) playing a worse goalie lowers your chances of winning or c) Allen is also good and gives the team a decent chance to win when he plays regardless.
In the end, changing the goalie was a mistake that just didn't end up costing the Blues. However, to credit the change for "sparking" the team, is really and truly a ridiculous application of non-sense logic.
3) Even more insane is staring Fleury over Murray.
Matt Murray is - at this point - a decent enough candidate to win the Conn Smythe Trophy as Playoff MVP. Fleury hadn't played a game in a month and a half.
At his peak, Fleury was - at best - an average goalie on a great team.
Starting him in place of Murray was the worst coaching decision of the Playoffs so far. However, at least this one is somewhat understandable.
Fleary is the incumbent who lost his job to injury. He had that job for a decade and was a big part of a team that has consistently been among the best in the NHL over that time. So while it's really stupid to play him, from a human perspective, I can see how giving him a chance seemed like the decent thing to do.
That being said, it's the NHL and maybe a more Machiavellian approach is appropriate at this level.
So, while the logic behind staring Jake Allen is galling and stupid, at least Jake Allen is also one of the NHL's best goalies. Inserting Fleury when he's barely played is worse because he isn't that good when he's on his game.
Just goes to show that even at the highest levels, Sports are emotional and baffling and that there is always room for improvement with the application of critical thinking.
Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»