Blues vs Canucks

[Chizip]

please, you make your own luck

in a 7 game series you cant blame losing on luck, maybe if it was 1 game, but thats why it is best out of 7, to really determine the best team

the "luck", and "not getting the breaks" argument truly is the weak one.

it's the argument every loser makes. ive been reading the wings message boards and they are saying the exact same thing, no luck or breaks. why dont you just admit the other team played better than you and lose with class?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

And so the fact they outplayed them in all the afformentioned areas has no barring for how well they played? You don't agree that the game of hockey is made up of all those areas? You don't agree that it is possible to play well, but still lose? If not, I can't argue with you, because you're not listening to reason.

 

[Chizip]

yes you can play well and lose. but you cant dominate another team and still lose 4-1, which is what you are trying to say.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

On the first point: so are you saying the Canucks played well?

On the second point: I have to disagree. I've seen lop-sided scores that were *purely* the result of one goaltender playing poorly and the other standing on his head. Granted, goaltending is part of team play, but not the only part.

 

[Chizip]

i think you forget that the only stat that really means anything is the final score. all other stats are pretty much meaningless compared to that.

and yes the canucks played well last night, just not as well as us.

 

[Chizip]

Hey looks like the all knowing tsn agrees with me as well

from tsn.ca, check out the bold


Vancouver 1 St. Louis 4

Sports Network

St. Louis, MO (Sports Network) - Martin Rucinsky posted two goals and an assist as the St. Louis Blues pounded the Vancouver Canucks, 4-1, to grab a commanding three games to one lead in their Western Conference quarterfinal series. Game 5 is scheduled for Friday evening at GM Place in Vancouver.

Dallas Drake recorded a goal and an assist and Doug Weight added two helpers for the Blues, who once again kept the high-powered Vancouver offense under check. Chris Osgood turned aside 32 shots in the victory.

St. Louis has dominated the first four games, outscoring the Canucks by a 14-4 margin.

Markus Naslund scored the lone goal for the Canucks, who will need to beat the Blues three straight times to avoid losing in the opening round for the third consecutive year. The goal was the first of the series for Naslund, who finished second in the NHL in scoring this season with 104 points

Dan Cloutier stopped just 16-of-20 shots for Vancouver. (what a great "return to form" )

The Blues tied the score at 1-1 on Chris Pronger's goal at 4:35 of the second period. The defenseman attempted a slap shot from the point and the puck hit off a Vancouver player's stick. The puck then knuckled through the air and somehow found its way past a confused Cloutier.

Drake's tally would give St. Louis a 2-1 edge with 4:53 left in the middle period. Weight raced into the zone and dished a pass into the slot for Drake, who one-timed a shot inside the left post.

The Blues pushed their advantage to 3-1 on Rucinsky's goal with 5:51 left in the third period. Drake carried a puck into the zone on a 2-on-1 and sent a bouncing pass across for Rucinsky. The winger reached the puck at the bottom of the right circle and chipped a shot over a fallen Cloutier.

Rucinsky handed St. Louis a three-goal cushion on a backhand from the right circle with 4:14 left in the contest.

The Canucks had grabbed a 1-0 lead with 8:03 left in the first period when Naslund scored. Naslund skated near the blue line and wheeled to the top of the left circle, where he let go of a wrist shot. The puck sailed past a crowd of players before finding its way into the upper right corner of the net.


GAME NOTES:
Blues All-Star defenseman Al MacInnis missed his second straight game with a shoulder injury. MacInnis is expected to miss the remainder of the series with the injury...The Canucks went 0-for-6 on the power play, while St. Louis failed to score on five opportunities with the man advantage.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Ah, so now you concede that the Canucks played well last night. So I assume you take back the following statement, or are you going to embrace the hypocrisy of it all.

"only a biased, blinded by fandom homer would think it is possible...[that] the Canucks played well last night."

 

[Chizip]

haha, ok, i meant to say "dominated" and/or "outplayed the blues", sorry, got a little over zealous

 

[Michael Griffiths]

That article is considering the 4 games as a whole, not individually. That's why the stats are combined. Sheesh.

 

[Chizip]

well considering we lost 1 of the games, it would have to be true that we dominated the other 3 games, because only dominating 2 out of 4 games could not be considered overall domination. thus, we must have dominated last night

 

[Michael Griffiths]

haha, ok, i meant to say "dominated" and/or "outplayed the blues", sorry, got a little over zealous

So you don't think it is possible to outplay a team, but lose?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

well considering we lost 1 of the games, it would have to be true that we dominated the other 3 games, because only dominating 2 out of 4 games could not be considered overall domination. thus, we must have dominated last night

Yes, but the article is using the combined stats - even those from the Canucks victory, which, according to you logic, would have been a game in that the Canucks dominated. Therefore, they are not using the number of games to define "domination" but the number of total goals for and against. It's inherent in the article.

 

[Chizip]

it is possible, but usually when that happens it is usually a 1 or 2 goal differential, not 3. and if you lost than there had to be some area where you did get outplayed, and last night it was in goal.

so how much weight do you put on goaltenders when you try to determine who outplayed who? it's all very subjective. but i really think there are only rare exceptions when you lose by 3 goals in which you outplayed the opponent. last night was not one of those instances.

 

[Chizip]

well anyway you look at it, the blues have dominated this series, including last night.

not bad for a team with 2 captains out to injury, and another key player out.

especially againt an "elite" team.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I agree the Canucks were outplayed in goal, but I think the other areas in which they outplayed the Blues made up for it in terms of over-all play. You have to factor in all the lines, all the chances by each of them, all the shots on goal (and lack thereof by the Blues), all the face-offs, the amount of puck possession, the amount of winning the battles along the boards for lose pucks, etc, etc. If you take all of it into account, the Canucks out-played them. You can't factor in the goals scored, because we are trying to figure out who played better regardless of victory. Since the goals causally determine the outcome of the score (ie, victory), we cannot use that variable.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Alright, I think I've made my point. I have to go eat. I'm starving.

 

[Chizip]

does determining who "played better regardless of victory" really mean anything? whats the point of that? would it make you feel better to lose in the first round having played well, or winning the cup not playing as well? i would take the cup anyday, but either way, i think playing well and victory go hand in hand anyway. only losers think otherwise. "well we played well even though we lost." in my opinion that's a loser's mentality. if you didnt win than you didnt do enough to earn it. if you blame it on anything else than you just arent holding yourself accountable. you can only blame yourself when you lose.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Now you're changing the subject. We were arguing whether the Canucks outplayed the Blues last night, not whether it matters.

 

[Chizip]

and im saying if you lost you were outplayed, no if ands or buts about it. well maybe a few butts, big ones!

if you think otherwise than you have a loser mentality.

end of story, have a good lunch.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Ah, so now your retracting your previous statements. That's fair enough. I have to go eat now.

 

[Chizip]

well i have had more time to think about it. so yes i do retract them.

if you lose, dont try to make excuses and rationalize things by saying, well at least we outplayed them. thats bullshit, to outplay someone means to beat them on the scoreboard, and thats it. no other stats matter except whats on the scoreboard.

instead of thinking excuses of why you didnt win, try to think of ways you can win the next one. that is what a winner does, it's all about accountability.

so yes, if you lose a game, no matter what, you were outplayed.

 

[cujo]

and im saying if you lost you were outplayed, no if ands or buts about it. well maybe a few butts, big ones!

if you think otherwise than you have a loser mentality.

end of story, have a good lunch.

A loser mentality is one that describes an opponent with a lack of respect. Maybe that's what happened with the Wings... (I don't think so personally).

instead of thinking excuses of why you didnt win, try to think of ways you can win the next one. that is what a winner does, it's all about accountability.

Well I guess we can all gather that you are the oldest Blues fan in the world... "try to think of ways you can win the next one..."

Biggest reason why the Blues won't win (not necessarily this series):

Winners don't talk, they win.

 

[Chizip]

i dont see what you are getting at? are you saying the blues have been talking and described their opponents with a lack of respect?

if the blues don't win it is going to be because they were outplayed, plain and simple. and im afraid that may happen next round facing forsberg and roy.

 

[cujo]

I'm saying certain Blues fans have been showing a lack of respect... but it's all in good fun I guess...

 

[Chizip]

i dont think i have been too disrespectful. my only arguements have been that the blues have outplayed the canucks, a fact many people would agree with.

and i think i have been making valid points, if i were just saying, the canucks suck, eat shit griffiths, the blues rule!!!!, than that would be disrespectful.

and i dont think what the fans have to say is gonna be what dooms the blues

thats some good analysis though. the blues will not win because their fans are talking smack. you could work on espn with analysis like that

 

[cujo]

Work on ESPN, I wouldn't want to be a foreigner taking your job away... it's interesting that you say that my analysis is worthless, because by my estimation you were saying the same thing to Mikey.

Originally posted by Dipshit
thats bullshit, to outplay someone means to beat them on the scoreboard

I have a feeling that you'll regret saying that... especially if you get the pleasure of playing Anaheim.

 

[Chizip]

hey if we lose, i will admit that we were outplayed, i have no problems admitting that.


on a lighter note:

 

[cujo]

What I was getting at is that usually fans are representative of their favorite team. If the team is a whiner the fan is a whiner, if the team is arrogant and full of shit, the fan is arrogant and full of shit. No offense to you chizip... I wouldn't call you a whiner.

 

[Chizip]

i dont know if i would agree with that, i think every team has the same type of fans. every team has the classy fans, whiners, complainers, bandwagoners, etc... just for some teams, some are more vocal than others.

i could see how if the fans only heard the players whining and complaining, than i guess fans might do that as well, so maybe you do have a point.

such as all the canucks after the game yesterday were saying how well they played, now all their fans are echoing the same sentiments. some are even quoting them from last night , so you probably do have a point, so i apologize.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

well i have had more time to think about it. so yes i do retract them.

so yes, if you lose a game, no matter what, you were outplayed.

So you are now saying that it is impossible to play better than the other team and lose? That's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you type, for you would also have to commit to the supposition that it is impossible to win and play badly. You are forgetting all the ingredients that go into playing well and badly. Yes, the bottom line is to win, and that is the most important thing. But to suggest that playing well is of no importance unless you win is to suggest that how you win is of no consequence. And to suggest that, you would be tredding on very shaky ground because it is an integral component of any result, be it victory or loss. Therefore, to stick to the claim, "If you lose a game, no matter what, you were outplayed," would be to dismiss all the things in between the opening face-off and the final buzzer.