Predators Begin Another Losing Streak vs. Sharks

Well, we all know that a few days ago, the Predators performed a miracle in beating the Sharks in San Jose. And tonight's result, a 4-1 loss, is indicative of the Predators' style of play backfiring.

The Preds rely on speed much of the time, and look (hair-pullingly, agonizingly) for the perfect shot. And this serves them well many times. But with a team like the Sharks, it's hard to pull the speed/perfect shot game for a variety of reasons.

1st, the Sharks are way bigger than the Preds. It's like watching boys play men. The physicality of the game is easy for the Sharks, and the Preds overcompensate, and they get penalized. So then, this bigger team gets numerous power plays and they suck the life right out of the ever-tiring players. The speed factor is then wiped out.

2nd, the Sharks play the positioning game about as good as any team I've ever seen. They are always in the right place to make a play. I don't think I've ever mistaken a Preds team with this kind of observation. They are constantly allowing pucks to skip by them, and passes left to be cleaned up towards the net are never in the proximity of anyone. Plus...I like J.P. Dumont and all but I've never seen (or heard on the radio) a guy get so many chances towards the net and miss his opportunity.

3rd, as we have mentioned since the team's inception, the constant looking for the best shot often robs them of pressure. You see the Sharks (and other nemeses like the Red Wings) always take a chance and have guys crash towards the net and get multiple opportunities, but you only see the Preds get that one shot. It rarely adds up to a flurry.

I hope Jason Arnott is OK...that crash to the net looked awful. Hopefully others will take his lead...only more carefully.

Predators End Long Losing Streak Vs. Sharks

They had lost 7 in a row, and hadn't won since April 13 in the 2006-2007 playoffs against the Sharks. And, this looked like a lot of the other games for a long time, only worse. The Sharks got off 57 shots in this game, a franchise record, but only 3 would go in. Dan Ellis came up with "one of those games."

Beating the Sharks 4-3 in overtime is one of the most excellent feelings I've had in sports this year. And it happened on the Sharks' home ice. It was sweet.

I bought into the NHL hockey package on the internet this year. It costs $159, but I went monthly on it so I didn't have to take such a huge hit. So I've actually been able to see some games this year. It's been pretty cool. Every once in awhile, it has to buffer and it stops now and then, but for the most part it's good.

So Why Is the MLB and NHL Champ More Random?

I started out writing this as a comment, but I think it's a subject worthy of study and decided to make it a post.

True, true. MLB and NHL have more random champs than anyone. I wonder, though, how much of the data is skewed between the four sports depending on these factors:

1. Number of teams allowed in the playoffs.

The MLB allows 8, the NHL 16, the NBA 16, and the NFL 12.

My theory, and I would be wrong based purely on this data, is that the more teams allowed in the playoffs, the more random it gets. It wouldn't explain the NBA's higher winning percentage, and wouldn't explain the MLB's lower winning percentage.

It makes me wonder: is the NBA the sport where talent matters the most, and isn't as susceptible to randomness like the other sports?

And then I take a look at the difference between the NCAA tourney and the NBA: randomness occurs far more often, probably because it's one-and-done.

2. Number of games played in the season, skewing winning percentages.

NBA 82, NHL 82, MLB 162, NFL 16.

I think most teams can get into the playoffs with a 10-6 record in the NFL, with some exceptions being lower. 10-6 works out to .625, and even 9-7 is .562. Remember this is your usual wild-card team, so there are teams with better records. It's not uncommon to have a couple of 13-3 (.812) or 14-2 (.875) teams in the mix.

The reason I bring this up is that you don't find teams in any other sport that win more than 80% of their games. In the MLB, 80% is 129-33 (never has happened), the NBA and NHL it's 65-17, which isn't exactly common. I think we can take the NFL out of the "better winning percentage" category based on how skewed the records are due to the amount of games played. Your worst NFL playoff team has winning percentage right around the best of baseball teams.

It still doesn't explain the NBA, though. With the exact amount of games played and number of teams allowed in the playoffs as the NHL, why are those two sports so different?

Could it be that goaltending is an integral part of the NHL, and is a foul in the NBA?

I wonder how the NHL would be without a goaltender (and to the point that an NHL ref could award a goal to a team if the puck is about to go in the goal and is blocked). Your skill guys would take over, and it would be less random. Just a theory. The NBA, meanwhile, mostly allows guys to shoot towards the basket with a reasonable expectation that it won't get blocked. This allows your best shooters to do what they do best. And while shooting is not the only part of the game, and is susceptible to some randomness, I think your skill guys have a better chance to thrive in the NBA.

Meanwhile, in the MLB, there is an obvious randomness that leads a sport with only 8 teams in the playoffs to crown unworthy champs. I've always disliked the idea that in a short series, a team with two good pitchers will find a way to use those guys as often as possible (and we're in the age of the 5-man rotation), and teams get more days off in a week than they do in a week in the regular season. The playoffs are played differently, and therefore, it's mostly a different game.

NHL, same thing. Overtime games are not the same, you no longer have the shootout, and it seems like (and I don't know how to verify this quickly) more penalties are called. I still think the NHL's real reason for having more random champs is just the randomness of the sport itself. Skill guys, while having a better chance at helping their team win, are still subject to the whims of the game.

And in the NFL, this sport is famous for not calling as many penalties in the playoffs, especially the Super Bowl, and therefore the game is changed. Plus, the neutral site (which I don't favor, at all, and the MLB is mulling it over...ugh) for the Super Bowl takes away the home crowd.

So perhaps the NBA has two things going for it: the games aren't played much differently other than harder and more physical, and your skill guys have a better chance to thrive. Therefore, your better teams are going to win more often than not.

Anyone care to comment, refute, or support?

Two More Years

This is the song I've been singing to myself because of this.

This won't last forever, but it will last at least two more years. I have trouble believing he'll find what's needed to win a playoff series.

UPDATE: But THIS is the best news I've heard all day. I knew Krivsky was a loser when he hired one of his best friends as manager. Hey, maybe the Reds will be good in three or four years!

Nashville Predators Fall Again

Once again, the Predators lose in the playoffs. And once again, they lost for the same reasons they always do.

I still don't understand why the Predators have so many people who are tentative about shooting towards the goal. How many times do you see a perfectly good shot that is not taken in order to pass, which is inevitably broken up?

And seriously, did Chris Osgood play that great for the Red Wings? How could we know with the amount of pressure he got on him ever since he replaced Dominick Hasek in Game 4? He had one goal scored against him over that span.

As much as I'm angry about the crazy-ass goal Lidstrom scored from his own blue line, short-handed, and yet another goal allowed after the Red Wings were offsides, it didn't matter. The Predators cannot score. And they can't score because they just don't learn the lesson, year after year. You have to shoot to score. You would think the lesson was learned in Games 3 and 4, but it wasn't.

And this game was just a frustrating one to watch. Not only because they never shoot, but because of poor puck handling and a Red Wings defense that played much harder and disrupted play in every way.

It's an uncertain future for the franchise, as always. If they want to make noise, they'll have to stop this bull-headed bide-your-time nonsense that seems to rule every game.

Look at this: they played the Red Wings in 2004 and the results were the exact same then as they are this year. They lost 2, they won 2, they lost 2. And we all know that the previous years, 2006-2007 were 5-game dominations by the San Jose Sharks. Just too similar for all 4 years in the playoffs. You can say the same thing about each of the series. There is no progress, and I still wonder if Barry Trotz is the guy who needs to coach this team.

Speaking of the Sharks: had Nashville won they would probably have had to face them again in the next round. Now that Nashville has lost, congratulations to the Calgary Flames for pulling out the next two games against the Sharks. Because it would figure that a playoff scenario in which Nashville no longer had to worry about the Sharks would be one in which they were eliminated.

I'll just continue pulling my hair out for awhile.

Game 5

That hurts. Ellis deserves more than that. Power plays amounted to nothing, they hit us all over the place, and were scary every time they got past the blue line. They looked intimidated much of the night, and I they'd better do better on Sunday.

I've seen three of the five games, of course the three that they loss, and this has happened in previous years as well! Should I watch the game on Sunday, or just listen on the radio?