Blues vs Canucks - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Lemonade Stand > Lemonade Stand Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2003, 07:36 PM   #181
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
i am not dismissing everything between the face off and final buzzer. i am taking into account the goals, the only stat the counts in determining the victor. im not saying you cant win and play badly, i am just saying, whoever wins, outplayed the other team. This is because the goal of any hockey game is to score my goals, and whoever does this has done a better job than the other team. You cant deny that.

in other words, the object of the game of hockey is to score more goals. i think we can agree on that. thus playing the game of hockey is trying to score more goals. we should be able to agree on that too. thus, whoever scores more goals, has outplayed the other team. i dont see why we cant agree on that.
__________________

__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 07:51 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
This is because the goal of any hockey game is to score my goals, and whoever does this has done a better job than the other team. You cant deny that.
Actually, yes, I can deny that. To score more goals requires a full set of variables. Sometimes the goals will occur despite not fullfilling those variables as well as the other team. If you define number of goals scored to be more important than anything else in deciding who played better, than by definition, nothing else matters. However, my point is that the ultimate objective (scoring more goals than the other team) is contingent on many other factors.

What if, for the sake of argument, a team scores 3 goals in very lucky fasion. Let's suppose the first goal went in off the ref, the 2nd goal bounced off three players' butts, and the 3rd goal was kicked in and allowed, but shouldn't have counted. Now let's say the other team scored 2 beautiful goals (end to end rushes and incredible passing plays), and outworked, outchanced, outshot (by a margin of 55-10), and played better than the other team in every aspect of the game, but for whatever reasons, couldn't buy a third or fourth goal. The only thing was, they didn't get a lucky goal and an illegal goal to count. Now, would you still say that the winning team outplayed the losing team? If so, you really have no leg to stand on. But if you were to say that in this case you have to concur, then you will have to retract on your retraction. Which will it be Chizip?
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 07:56 PM   #183
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
if goals come by illegally, than that is different.

but if they are all legal goals, than i will say the team who scored more goals, no matter how they came by, outplayed the other team. because, as i stated before, the only goal of hockey is to score more goals, thus to play hockey is to try to score more goals, thus, whoever scores more goals has outplayed the other team. if you wanna call it luck or whatever, thats fine. a team may not deserve to win, but if they scored more goals, than they outplayed the other team. end of story.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:00 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
So you concede that a team may not deserve to win, but even if they don't they have still outplayed the other team because they have scored more goals no matter how lucky. Riiggghhht. Can you pass over whatever it is your smoking?
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:03 PM   #185
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
yes

to play hockey is to try to score more goals

to outscore an opponent is to outplay your opponent

you make your own luck, people who blame losing on luck are just bitter whiners
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:04 PM   #186
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
hey have you seen the movie rounders?
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:04 PM   #187
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Okay, you've totally dismissed my entire argument. You are only right by your own defintion. It's called a circular argument. I'm going to go watch the Edmonton game now...
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:06 PM   #188
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
edmonton has already blown it, dallas got lucky with power plays
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:06 PM   #189
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
hey have you seen the movie rounders?
No, I don't think so. Which one was that?
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:08 PM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Chizip
edmonton has already blown it, dallas got lucky with power plays
See, that's not the type of luck I was referring to in my argument.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:11 PM   #191
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
it's a gambling movie with matt damon and john malkovich (sp?)

since you havent seen it, i wont really get into it much with you, but damon lost 30 grand on a hand of poker to john, where john had the only 2 cards in the deck that could have beaten damon. now this would be considered "lucky" to you, but damon realized it wasnt luck, he told someone, "it wasnt luck, i got out played", and once he realized this he was then able to finally beat him. the point i was gonna make was that people tend to use the "luck" card a little too much, instead of putting the blame on themselves. so maybe bouncing a puck in off the ref can be considered "lucky", or maybe it wasnt luck, maybe you were just outplayed.

but anyway, i dont think we are gonna agree, so we can just agree to disagree.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:12 PM   #192
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
Quote:
See, that's not the type of luck I was referring to in my argument
i know, i was just being facetious.


although there are some people that would say they got unlucky because the refs screwed them in a game. isnt the argument that refs made more bad calls against you saying that you got unlucky?
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:23 PM   #193
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
Yes, I agree that people do play the luck card too often, but luck wasn't the real essense of my argument. It was one aspect among many others that I used in order to show that teams can lose and still outplay their opponents.

As for officiating, yes, sometimes teams do get more bad calls against than others. I concede that it is up to every team to over-come such obstacles, and not to use them as excuses. However, in such cases, they may still lose, and I wouldn't say they were outplayed necessarily. On this last point is where you and I differ, because we define "outplayed" differently. You define it as scoring more goals than your opponent, regardless of any other factors whatsoever (with the exception of illegal goals, it turns out), where as I prefer to define it within the entire framework of the game. That's fair enough.
__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
Old 04-17-2003, 08:26 PM   #194
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: gone
Posts: 17,891
Local Time: 10:54 AM
alright, i think that is enough of that topic. i think the only thing i was really trying to say is i hate whiners, if you lose, be man enough to admit you were outplayed and dont blame it on other things. whiners suck. (i am not saying you are a whiner, i respect you and think you are a good fan, even is sometimes you are blinded by your homerism )

well here is the pre game info on the last canuck game of the year:


Quote:
GAME: St. Louis Blues at Vancouver Canucks.

PLAYOFF SERIES: Western Conference quarterfinal; Blues lead 3-1.

TIME: Friday, 9 p.m. EDT.

Even their best game of the series wasn't good enough for the Vancouver Canucks.

Chris Osgood and the St. Louis Blues look to finish off the Canucks and advance to the Western Conference semifinals when the teams meet in Game 5 at GM Place.

An outstanding 32-save performance by Osgood and two goals and an assist from Martin Rucinsky sent the Blues to a 4-1 victory in Game 4 Wednesday, and pushed the Canucks to the brink of elimination.

Dallas Drake and Chris Pronger each added a goal and an assist for St. Louis, which can secure a place in the conference semifinals for the third straight season with a victory Friday.

"If they lose, they are done," Pronger said. "We need to put a dagger in them quick, because there's nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal."

Osgood continued his superb play, offsetting a 33-20 advantage in shots for Vancouver.

"He was the best player on the ice, hands down," Drake said. "Some of those saves were unbelievable."

While Anaheim's Jean-Sebastien Giguere and Colorado's Patrick Roy have gotten most of the notoriety during these playoffs, Osgood has done everything the Blues could have hoped for when they acquired him from the New York Islanders at the trade deadline.

Osgood has stopped 86 of 90 shots in the series for a .956 save percentage.

The Canucks were second in the NHL with 264 goals in the regular season, trailing only the Red Wings. But they've been outscored 14-4 in the first four games.

"I thought it was our best game of the series," Vancouver coach Marc Crawford said. "Sometimes, you get beat by the goaltender on the other side and I think that's what happened tonight."

Vancouver, a better road team during the regular season, hopes a return to home ice for Game 5 will help it avoid a first-round exit for the third consecutive year.

"I think it will make all the difference in the world," forward Trent Klatt said. "You saw what a boisterous crowd can do, and I think our crowd will be even louder."

Already playing without defenseman Al MacInnis, the Blues were without right wing Scott Mellanby on Wednesday. Mellanby was scratched with flu-like symptoms.

MacInnis is expected to be sidelined at least two weeks and Mellanby's status for Friday is uncertain.

The only good news for the Canucks from Wednesday's loss was the first-period goal scored by captain Markus Naslund - the first goal in this series from Vancouver's top line, which scored 119 times during the regular season.

The goal staked Vancouver to a 1-0 lead, but St. Louis was a league-best 22-15-3-6 when giving up the game's first goal during the regular season.

"You're not going to keep Naslund and those guys off the board for seven games," Blues center Doug Weight said. "This team has gone through so much adversity this season, and to get down like that, it can put a dagger in your heart. But we always believe we can come back."

While Osgood has been St. Louis' best player in this series, Weight has been the team's best forward. He leads the Blues with three goals, four assists and seven points after totaling just two points in 10 playoff games last season.

Should the Canucks avoid elimination, Game 6 would be Sunday at the Savvis Center.

HOW THEY GOT HERE: Blues - 99 points; 5th seed. Canucks - 104 points; 4th seed.

PLAYOFF TEAM LEADERS: Blues - Weight, 3 goals, 4 assists and 7 points; Keith Tkachuk and Barret Jackman, 10 PIM. Canucks - Four with 1 goal; Todd Bertuzzi and Daniel Sedin, 2 assists; four with 2 points; Bertuzzi, 24 PIM.

PLAYOFF SPECIAL TEAMS: Blues - Power play: 19.4 percent (6 for 31). Penalty killing: 90.0 percent (27 for 30). Canucks - Power play: 10.0 percent (3 for 30). Penalty killing: 80.6 percent (25 for 31).

GOALTENDERS: Blues - Osgood (3-1, 1 SO, 1.00 GAA); Brent Johnson (no appearances). Canucks - Dan Cloutier (1-3, 3.26); Alex Auld (no appearances).

REGULAR SEASON SERIES: Canucks, 2-1-1. The teams combined for 33 goals in four games. Vancouver went 2-0-1 in the first three meetings before the Blues posted a 6-4 victory at home March 18. Brendan Morrison had four goals and six points for the Canucks.
__________________
Chizip is offline  
Old 04-18-2003, 04:00 AM   #195
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Michael Griffiths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Playa Del Carmen, Mexico
Posts: 3,925
Local Time: 03:54 PM
And I won't even get to watch the game tomorrow night (Friday)! I have to go out for dinner. I guess I can tape it. Will you watch it for me Chizip?
__________________

__________________
Michael Griffiths is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com