Don't ever pocket the 8-ball in the wrong one. "Oh, you just won on a technicality."

First off, player for player nurse for Trouba is debatable. Trouba isn't miles ahead in development and lots of potential left for both. But arm chair gm tanner thinks it's a no brainer. But when you put it in a real hockey situation called reality it becomes clear that oilers simply could not do that trade. They traded from a position of strength to acquire Larson and help fill a weakness. Have to do the same here if there's any chance for Trouba. Would it make sense to trade Hall for Gaudreau, no it wouldn't so no different with nurse and Trouba. Secondly, totally agree about NAT. Most exciting team to watch and deserved to be in the semi's. But what I can't understand is how the "most exciting team in the tourney" be constructed by the "the dumbest and worst gm" in the NHL?...#JT?

I don't buy the excuse that it was easy to pick that team or a bunch of drunk monkeys could have picked it because we've seen what a poorly constructed or coached team can do (team USA).
- hockey_talk079

Trouba is only a year older than Nurse, and he's played in three times as many games. He is also miles and miles ahead of him in development.

Right now, Trouba is a very solid #2 dman with the potential (even liklihood) of becoming a #1.

Right now Darnell Nurse is a below average third pairing D who hasn't established himself as an NHL regular. Based on his career so far, there is a good chance he never becomes as good as Trouba is right now.

So yes, Nurse for Trouba is automatic if WPG would do it, Edmonton would win that trade by six miles.


And I don't think Chiarelli deserves any credit for being GM of NA - the player selections were fairly obvious and anyone - even you or me - would have had the same basic roster out there.

Don't ever pocket the 8-ball in the wrong one. "Oh, you just won on a technicality."
- Blackstrom2

The NA did lose on a technicality.

First, instead of a 3 way tie in which they would have moved on due to goal differential, Sweden got in automatically because of a stupid rule that values regulation wins.

It's a stupid rule because there are no ties in the WCOH. The rule was only instituted to get teams to try and score goals instead of playing for the tie/shoot-out. Since that isn't a factor in this tournament, it's a pretty dumb rule to have.

So they lost because of an arbitrary rule. That is the definition of saying something is a technicality. Shooting the 8 Ball could be an example of that, depending on how you wanted to argue it, but I would consider that a pretty fundamental and sensible rule, so I don't know if I would say that myself.

The NA did lose on a technicality.

First, instead of a 3 way tie in which they would have moved on due to goal differential, Sweden got in automatically because of a stupid rule that values regulation wins.

It's a stupid rule because there are no ties in the WCOH. The rule was only instituted to get teams to try and score goals instead of playing for the tie/shoot-out. Since that isn't a factor in this tournament, it's a pretty dumb rule to have.

So they lost because of an arbitrary rule. That is the definition of saying something is a technicality. Shooting the 8 Ball could be an example of that, depending on how you wanted to argue it, but I would consider that a pretty fundamental and sensible rule, so I don't know if I would say that myself.
- James_Tanner

Winning in Regulation being valued more is not stupid. Soccer has used that forever. They give 3pts to regulation win. Winning in regualtion is worth more value b/c it vaulues a regulation win more than OT, as it should. A regulation win is more decisive than "needing" OT to win.

The NA did lose on a technicality.

First, instead of a 3 way tie in which they would have moved on due to goal differential, Sweden got in automatically because of a stupid rule that values regulation wins.

It's a stupid rule because there are no ties in the WCOH. The rule was only instituted to get teams to try and score goals instead of playing for the tie/shoot-out. Since that isn't a factor in this tournament, it's a pretty dumb rule to have.

So they lost because of an arbitrary rule. That is the definition of saying something is a technicality. Shooting the 8 Ball could be an example of that, depending on how you wanted to argue it, but I would consider that a pretty fundamental and sensible rule, so I don't know if I would say that myself.
- James_Tanner

Goal differential is just as arbitrary and is also a technicality. Who cares if you win by two or you win by three. Sure offensive teams are more fun to watch, but are they automatically better than a team with a more defensive focus?

Why should Sweden get punished for not getting to play a game against an eliminated team? Finland had clearly checked out when they played Russia.

Unless they're going to let games go 5v5 until there's a winner, there's always going to be stupid tiebreaking procedures. I think the ones they have are about as good as they can do. Winning in regulation, 100% percent should be rewarded. They just need to stop rewarding losers.

Winning in Regulation being valued more is not stupid. Soccer has used that forever. They give 3pts to regulation win. Winning in regualtion is worth more value b/c it vaulues a regulation win more than OT, as it should. A regulation win is more decisive than "needing" OT to win.
- rrentz

Soccer only uses extra time and penalties in knockout tournaments, not in regular league play. 3 points is standard for a win, as in 1 for a draw.

Making the case that they didn't move on due to experience is ridiculous . They lost on a technicality that has nothing to do with their play.
- James_Tanner

Yes it does, that's how tournaments work. The teams who play the best move on. Even if it wasn't OT vs Regulation wins, I'd say Russia still had the edge because they beat TNA head to head.

I think Team Europe advancing to the finals really proves that experience and structure is a very important part of winning meaningful games. This is why teams don't just ice all their rookies and lets them do whatever.

Soccer only uses extra time and penalties in knockout tournaments, not in regular league play. 3 points is standard for a win, as in 1 for a draw.
- lumlums

Exactly!!!

Isn't the World Cup a tournement?

The NA did lose on a technicality.

First, instead of a 3 way tie in which they would have moved on due to goal differential, Sweden got in automatically because of a stupid rule that values regulation wins.

It's a stupid rule because there are no ties in the WCOH. The rule was only instituted to get teams to try and score goals instead of playing for the tie/shoot-out. Since that isn't a factor in this tournament, it's a pretty dumb rule to have.

So they lost because of an arbitrary rule. That is the definition of saying something is a technicality. Shooting the 8 Ball could be an example of that, depending on how you wanted to argue it, but I would consider that a pretty fundamental and sensible rule, so I don't know if I would say that myself.
- James_Tanner

Goal differential is more arbitrary than regulation vs OT wins. Amount of goals scored has no bearing on winning a game. Head to head is a more fair gauge than both of those in my opinion and Russia wins out on that too.

Winning in Regulation being valued more is not stupid. Soccer has used that forever. They give 3pts to regulation win. Winning in regualtion is worth more value b/c it vaulues a regulation win more than OT, as it should. A regulation win is more decisive than "needing" OT to win.
- rrentz

Why? Because you arbitrarily say so?

Goal differential is more arbitrary than regulation vs OT wins. Amount of goals scored has no bearing on winning a game. Head to head is a more fair gauge than both of those in my opinion and Russia wins out on that too.
- 13sundin13

It's only arbitrary if the teams don't know the rules. They all knew the rules and it was a level playing field. North America's play in the final 10 minutes against Sweden alone is enough to have sent them home.

Like cry me a friggin river

It's only arbitrary if the teams don't know the rules. They all knew the rules and it was a level playing field. North America's play in the final 10 minutes against Sweden alone is enough to have sent them home.

Like cry me a friggin river
- DoubleDown

Yeah totally.

Why? Because you arbitrarily say so?
- James_Tanner

They just clearly explained it to you, and it makes a lot of sense.

The NA did lose on a technicality.

First, instead of a 3 way tie in which they would have moved on due to goal differential, Sweden got in automatically because of a stupid rule that values regulation wins.

It's a stupid rule because there are no ties in the WCOH. The rule was only instituted to get teams to try and score goals instead of playing for the tie/shoot-out. Since that isn't a factor in this tournament, it's a pretty dumb rule to have.

So they lost because of an arbitrary rule. That is the definition of saying something is a technicality. Shooting the 8 Ball could be an example of that, depending on how you wanted to argue it, but I would consider that a pretty fundamental and sensible rule, so I don't know if I would say that myself.
- James_Tanner

How hard is to say, "I was wrong. The tie break was not based on ROW it was in fact based on which team won the head-to-head matchup between those two teams. Thank you for enlightening me."

Why? Because you arbitrarily say so?
- James_Tanner

Kind of how you arbitrarily say that goal differential should be the tie breaker?

How hard is to say, "I was wrong. The tie break was not based on ROW it was in fact based on which team won the head-to-head matchup between those two teams. Thank you for enlightening me."
- Njuice

Apparently it's basically impossible.

Why? Because you arbitrarily say so?
- James_Tanner

He just explained it to you. Logically and thoroughly

You do understand that goal differential, at best, is ALSO an arbitrary method for breaking a tie

You get that, right?

It's only arbitrary if the teams don't know the rules. They all knew the rules and it was a level playing field. North America's play in the final 10 minutes against Sweden alone is enough to have sent them home.

Like cry me a friggin river
- DoubleDown

I don't think you know what arbitrary means. Everyone knowing the rules doesn't effect whether or not something is arbitrary.

When you're deciding the game based on something meaningless, and almost random, that's arbitrary.

They just clearly explained it to you, and it makes a lot of sense.
- 13sundin13

Clearly?

"Winning in regulation is worth more because it values a regulation win more than OT, as it should"

Yes, that is clear. At least, clear in the way that you might use the word your defining in the definition, and then saying because.

I don't think you know what arbitrary means. Everyone knowing the rules doesn't effect whether or not something is arbitrary.

When you're deciding the game based on something meaningless, and almost random, that's arbitrary.
- James_Tanner

Well, yes, and I think the point is, if you know that the rules are that you get through with head to head wins, or by goal differential, it's not really all that random when you're TRYING to win the games against those you're vying for a marginal spot against, or TRYING to win by as many goals as you can against all opponents.

How hard is to say, "I was wrong. The tie break was not based on ROW it was in fact based on which team won the head-to-head matchup between those two teams. Thank you for enlightening me."
- Njuice

Well, no, I am not wrong, so I guess it would be pretty hard.

All three teams finished with identical 2-1 records. Sweden was ranked first because they lost a game in overtime and thus had more points.

So that's your first tie breaker. Want to argue semantics and say it wasn't a tie in the first place? Be my guest, but don't do it with me.

This left Russia and NA tied, and Russia won with the better head to head record. But that's a stupid way to settle a tie. It's much smarter to use something like goal dif, or goals for because at least those things cover the entire scope of the tourny and don't just retroactively make a game that already happened suddenly worth more.

Kind of how you arbitrarily say that goal differential should be the tie breaker?
- Hunkulese

At least if you use stats that encompass the whole tournament you are giving each team a fair chance and not ret-conning an old game. I can't believe this is controversial.

He just explained it to you. Logically and thoroughly

You do understand that goal differential, at best, is ALSO an arbitrary method for breaking a tie

You get that, right?
- AxlRose91

I love this. Logically and thoroughly? Do you even want what you say to have credibility? As I proved above, his explanation was not good.

Clearly?

"Winning in regulation is worth more because it values a regulation win more than OT, as it should"

Yes, that is clear. At least, clear in the way that you might use the word your defining in the definition, and then saying because.
- James_Tanner

*you're

Well, no, I am not wrong, so I guess it would be pretty hard.

All three teams finished with identical 2-1 records. Sweden was ranked first because they lost a game in overtime and thus had more points.

So that's your first tie breaker. Want to argue semantics and say it wasn't a tie in the first place? Be my guest, but don't do it with me.

This left Russia and NA tied, and Russia won with the better head to head record. But that's a stupid way to settle a tie. It's much smarter to use something like goal dif, or goals for because at least those things cover the entire scope of the tourny and don't just retroactively make a game that already happened suddenly worth more.
- James_Tanner

You think one team beating the other is a stupid way to settle a tie?

That's how all playoffs are settled. Should playoffs be round robin format too?

Head to head is the ultimate way to settle a tie.