I don't see how anyone could have watched that game using the eye test or statistics and say the Penguins played well. Did they win? Yeah. Would I count on that result moving forward? My homer goggles don't have strong enough prescription to delude myself into thinking that that type of play will win a series.

This is where you're wrong. A million times out of a million, the team that plays the best wins. Because they won. Because playing the best means doing the exact thing you need to do at the right time to win the game. None of the other times in the game matter. And that's the problem with fancy stats. Useful tools perhaps, but they're not the be-all and end-all of athletic competition.
- Kineada

- j.boyd919

Do you have a problem with my statement?

.943 vs .857

Fleury deserved that win.
- madmike71

But Holtby is so much better... so over hearing that too.

What is why? You continue to make no sense.
- Kineada

Buddy, your response was bad. You should probably delete your account after that whole million times out of a million BS.

Do you have a problem with my statement?
- Kineada

Nah, I don't have a problem with it, it's just a clueless opinion. That's all.

Buddy, your response was bad. You should probably delete your account after that whole million times out of a million BS.
- j.boyd919

Why is that?

What defines who is the best? It's who wins, right?

How could the loser be the best? They lost.

I suppose if you really wanted to get technical, you could probably make a case for x times out of a million someone...I don't know...fails a drug test or something and wins are invalidated. So maybe a million out of a million is hyperbole. But you get the drift.

Win/lose is pretty black and white. It doesn't matter if you win fifty face-offs, hold on to the puck for fifty-nine out of sixty minutes, and deliver two-hundred hits during a game....if you score less goals than the other guy, you lose. And you didn't play the best.

I agree the pens got severely outplayed the second half of the game. Not going to deny that and I certainly would not like to see that continue. However, I am curious if anyone has a shot attempt heatmap? I feel like I saw the caps constantly throwing the puck to the point and the D shooting it towards the net. Pretty low odds when you have 6 players standing in the way.

Also, is it me or did it look like a Rugby match at times in front of the Flower?

Why is that?

What defines who is the best? It's who wins, right?

How could the loser be the best? They lost.

I suppose if you really wanted to get technical, you could probably make a case for x times out of a million someone...I don't know...fails a drug test or something and wins are invalidated. So maybe a million out of a million is hyperbole. But you get the drift.

Win/lose is pretty black and white. It doesn't matter if you win fifty face-offs, hold on to the puck for fifty-nine out of sixty minutes, and deliver two-hundred hits during a game....if you score less goals than the other guy, you lose. And you didn't play the best.
- Kineada

So you don't believe in luck then?

I agree the pens got severely outplayed the second half of the game. Not going to deny that and I certainly would not like to see that continue. However, I am curious if anyone has a shot attempt heatmap? I feel like I saw the caps constantly throwing the puck to the point and the D shooting it towards the net. Pretty low odds when you have 6 players standing in the way.

Also, is it me or did it look like a Rugby match at times in front of the Flower?
- seaofgreen

So you don't believe in luck then?
- j.boyd919

Show me quantifiable luck. Go on.

But hey, let's say I do. Why not? If so, then the winner LUCKED better than the loser. Which leads to a win. Which means they were the best.

It's really rather simple. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about it.

If the level of effort the Penguins displayed last night alarmed you, then fine, that's a valid concern. I'd probably even agree with you and suggest to them that they don't keep putting in that level of effort.

But at the final buzzer, it didn't matter. During the key points of the game, the Penguins put more pucks into their opponent's net than they allowed into theirs. Keep in mind, the goalie is part of the team as well, so it's inherently wrong to say his performance wasn't part of the team effort.

So, last night, the team that played the best won. I hope that continues to be the Penguins.

Show me quantifiable luck. Go on.

But hey, let's say I do. Why not? If so, then the winner LUCKED better than the loser. Which leads to a win. Which means they were the best.

It's really rather simple. I don't understand what is so hard to grasp about it.

If the level of effort the Penguins displayed last night alarmed you, then fine, that's a valid concern. I'd probably even agree with you and suggest to them that they don't keep putting in that level of effort.

But at the final buzzer, it didn't matter. During the key points of the game, the Penguins put more pucks into their opponent's net than they allowed into theirs. Keep in mind, the goalie is part of the team as well, so it's inherently wrong to say his performance wasn't part of the team effort.

So, last night, the team that played the best won. I hope that continues to be the Penguins.
- Kineada

I am actually just going to concede here, because I don't feel like wasting my time. Peace.

- j.boyd919

Thanks man.. Kinda shows what I was thinking. Lots of crap thrown at the net from long range.

Thanks man.. Kinda shows what I was thinking. Lots of crap thrown at the net from long range.
- seaofgreen

I would say lots of crap thrown at the net from everywhere lol

I am actually just going to concede here, because I don't feel like wasting my time. Peace.
- j.boyd919

See, you got it! That's exactly how it works!

See, you got it! That's exactly how it works!
- Kineada

Nah.

See, you got it! That's exactly how it works!
- Kineada

You are insane

Not only that, but what do you want, a boring recap that I stole from someone who actually went to the game? I ain't ever going to do that. My job - as I see it- is just to anaylze what happened. Since it's a Caps blog, doesn't it make sense to point out that the Caps probably win that game nine and a half times out of ten?.
- james_tanner1

Actually, the Caps lose that game 1 out of 1 times since that IS what happened.

You are insane
- Mordecai

LOL right? I read those comments and just went. Welp. I'm out.

Nah.
- j.boyd919

It is. The best commenter (me) won!

I will relish my victory. You were a worthy opponent. Your Corsi was excellent and your Fenwich as well. Unfortunately, you just couldn't stand up to the severe Lucking Factor I had on my side!

Cheers, and better luck next time!

You are insane
- Mordecai

Can you please define insane for me?

While you're at it, can you define "best" and "win"? Thanks.

It is. The best commenter (me) won!

I will relish my victory. You were a worthy opponent. Your Corsi was excellent and your Fenwich as well. Unfortunately, you just couldn't stand up to the severe Lucking Factor I had on my side!

Cheers, and better luck next time!
- Kineada

No, it's actually not. That's a lame cliche taken from 1970s Narcotics Anonymous and isn't the definition of anything.
- james_tanner1

The "insanity" quote is actually attributed to Einstein.

Can you please define insane for me?

While you're at it, can you define "best" and "win"? Thanks.
- Kineada

1 million times out of 1 millions times something cool happens

The "insanity" quote is actually attributed to Einstein.
- mont23

It's not tho