2018 Winter Olympics Thread

Just read this post of yours where you seem to minimize the importance of a shot on net.

sempel said:

I've also never understood # shots in hockey. Simply put, I understand it's considered a shot on goal where the goalie has to make some effort to save it. But I think there are shots that will almost never score (like from a big angle - almost no chance) but the number goes up. Don't know but does a shot that hits the post get counted? I'd argue the latter is more of a shot than the first. They should measure "good" shots versus "bad" shots i.e. shots where there was a real possibility of scoring versus ones where the goalie just had to sit/stand there.

Click to expand...

That is what is classically called a case of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You tried using the argument that the US outplayed Canada in the 2-1 because they outshot us. Are you counting all the shots or just the ones that you determine are "good" shots by your definition. What a joke.

As well, you are claiming that you know enough to determine and declare who is better despite who wins gold yet you don't even understand shots on net.

I hope you don't try to double down on your assertion.

BTW, let me help you understand the game. A shot on goal means that if the goalie didn't stop it, then the puck would have gone in. If it hits the post, it means that the goalie did not stop it and the puck did not go in. I will let you figure out the rest from there.

shack said:

I did. You won't like it.


Canada has won 10 World championships to the U.S 7 along with the 4 consecutive Olympics before this year.

That argument is out the window.

Is that what determines the better team, shots? FYI goalies are a part of the team, not just the players taking shots. I guess you could say that Canada outgoaltended them. Our goalies made more saves.

Another argument out the window.


What about 4 golds in a row. Also meaningless? They got lucky 4 times in a row? Hahahaha.

What does? Shots on goal and your opinion determine who is best because you have no actual facts?

BTW, in almost every sport, a win at the Olympics ranks higher than at an annual world championship so extra credit to our women for those 4 consecutive Olympic golds.

I could even accept that the two teams are basically even but your assertion that Canada is historically 2nd best in women's hockey is laughable. Go argue with the SPs some more in that other thread. You have a better chance there.

Click to expand...

shack said:

Just read this post of yours where you seem to minimize the importance of a shot on net.



That is what is classically called a case of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You tried using the argument that the US outplayed Canada in the 2-1 because they outshot us. Are you counting all the shots or just the ones that you determine are "good" shots by your definition. What a joke.

As well, you are claiming that you know enough to determine and declare who is better despite who wins gold yet you don't even understand shots on net.

I hope you don't try to double down on your assertion.

BTW, let me help you understand the game. A shot on goal means that if the goalie didn't stop it, then the puck would have gone in. If it hits the post, it means that the goalie did not stop it and the puck did not go in. I will let you figure out the rest from there.

Click to expand...

When I say "investigate" the unspoken word is "properly". I am not going to delve into all the research but a simple Wikipedia of the women's hockey shows the US winning 7/8 world championships in the last 8 years - 7! For the last two Olympics (probably 3), the Canadians were not favored to win but they did.

I also am relaying what the commentators said after the 2-1 win which was the US played better and the Canadians were lucky to get a win.

And I love it when people quote me because it shows they think they understand what I'm saying but they don't. Can you agree that a team that outshoots another in most cases has more puck possession and more opportunity = outplaying? My point about shots is if a team has the puck most of the time but takes crap shots, why measure shots? The other team had way lower shots but scored. So it's a useless stat to quote the way it's being quoted. But a higher shot count generally indicates more possession/chances.

So nice try but a massive fail. I will say that when I wrote what I wrote, I was thinking about the last 3 Olympics, not the first 3 where Canada won the gold in the second and third where they probably were favored, especially since I saw they won all the world championships, including the ones before Nagano and Salt Lake City. But the US won in 2005, the year before Turin, and before both Vancouver and Sochi, and even the one last year before Pyeongchang. So going into each one of these, the US was favored.

Yes you could say that it's back and forth and the Canadians win a few and lose a few depending on the tournament. But even leading up to this tournament the Americans won more matches and most of the Canadian wins were OT.

Then to your point about shot, I know the definition but it doesn't make sense. A shot that hits the post is clearly a better shot than one right at the goalie who's standing there doing nothing. Result is the same, no goal, but clearly the shot hitting the post was better.

I see the argument about quoting stats improperly though is lost on you. Stating Canada having won 10 world championships but neglecting WHEN they won it is akin to me saying the Leafs are great because they won a bunch of Stanley Cups but failing to mention the last one was in 1967,

sempel said:

When I say "investigate" the unspoken word is "properly". I am not going to delve into all the research but a simple Wikipedia of the women's hockey shows the US winning 7/8 world championships in the last 8 years - 7! For the last two Olympics (probably 3), the Canadians were not favored to win but they did.

I also am relaying what the commentators said after the 2-1 win which was the US played better and the Canadians were lucky to get a win.

And I love it when people quote me because it shows they think they understand what I'm saying but they don't. Can you agree that a team that outshoots another in most cases has more puck possession and more opportunity = outplaying? My point about shots is if a team has the puck most of the time but takes crap shots, why measure shots? The other team had way lower shots but scored. So it's a useless stat to quote the way it's being quoted. But a higher shot count generally indicates more possession/chances.

So nice try but a massive fail. I will say that when I wrote what I wrote, I was thinking about the last 3 Olympics, not the first 3 where Canada won the gold in the second and third where they probably were favored, especially since I saw they won all the world championships, including the ones before Nagano and Salt Lake City. But the US won in 2005, the year before Turin, and before both Vancouver and Sochi, and even the one last year before Pyeongchang. So going into each one of these, the US was favored.

Yes you could say that it's back and forth and the Canadians win a few and lose a few depending on the tournament. But even leading up to this tournament the Americans won more matches and most of the Canadian wins were OT.

I see the argument about quoting stats improperly though is lost on you. Stating Canada having won 10 world championships but neglecting WHEN they won it is akin to me saying the Leafs are great because they won a bunch of Stanley Cups but failing to mention the last one was in 1967,

Click to expand...

Let's start with your initial claim that "Canada is historically second best" which is what I take issue with.

You are right that the US has been more dominant in the last 7-8 years at the annual world championship. Is that as far back as the word historically goes? The dominance of countries goes through ebbs and flows. Canada used to be and now it is the US, but it does not negate the "history" of the sport prior. So historically Canada has been more dominant although the US is narrowing the gap. That is an accurate statement.

Historically I don't think it is proper to seemingly totally discount Canada winning 4 out of the last 5 Olympics. An Olympics gold is more important than a world championship. That is an accurate statement. Those 4 in a row certainly diminishes in value the US recent success in the worlds. So Canada's prior dominance at the worlds should put them ahead overall, historically. There's that word again, meaning all the years prior.

As far as which team is favoured does not make a team better. It is who is better on the ice when the time came, and that was Canada. And that wasn't just a one off. They had 4 in a row. That has to be taken seriously.

Re: the shots on net argument is a total fallacy. Remember, this is a team game and last time I looked a goalie is part of the team. The shots on net do indeed give a good indication of which team's skaters held a territorial advantage. They probably had more puck possession and spent more time in the other team's zone. In that way they were dominant. As I said prior, this is the skaters not the goalies, so it is totally disregarding the talents and efforts of the goalies and they are part of the complete team. For sure a goalie can steal a game but that doesn't mean he is not part of the team.

IMO, most of the time the final score is a fair indicator of which team was better. Not which team had a territorial advantage. I think one way in which it would not be a fair indicator is when some terribly deficient refereeing comes into play, like calling an inordinate/unfair number of fouls against one of the teams or in the extreme, disqualifying a team for something like crowd misbehaviour when they are winning in all aspects.

shack said:

Let's start with your initial claim that "Canada is historically second best" which is what I take issue with.

You are right that the US has been more dominant in the last 7-8 years at the annual world championship. Is that as far back as the word historically goes? The dominance of countries goes through ebbs and flows. Canada used to be and now it is the US, but it does not negate the "history" of the sport prior. So historically Canada has been more dominant although the US is narrowing the gap. That is an accurate statement.

Historically I don't think it is proper to seemingly totally discount Canada winning 4 out of the last 5 Olympics. An Olympics gold is more important than a world championship. That is an accurate statement. Those 4 in a row certainly diminishes in value the US recent success in the worlds. So Canada's prior dominance at the worlds should put them ahead overall, historically. There's that word again, meaning all the years prior.

As far as which team is favoured does not make a team better. It is who is better on the ice when the time came, and that was Canada. And that wasn't just a one off. They had 4 in a row. That has to be taken seriously.

Re: the shots on net argument is a total fallacy. Remember, this is a team game and last time I looked a goalie is part of the team. The shots on net do indeed give a good indication of which team's skaters held a territorial advantage. They probably had more puck possession and spent more time in the other team's zone. In that way they were dominant. As I said prior, this is the skaters not the goalies, so it is totally disregarding the talents and efforts of the goalies and they are part of the complete team. For sure a goalie can steal a game but that doesn't mean he is not part of the team.

IMO, most of the time the final score is a fair indicator of which team was better. Not which team had a territorial advantage. I think one way in which it would not be a fair indicator is when some terribly deficient refereeing comes into play, like calling an inordinate/unfair number of fouls against one of the teams or in the extreme, disqualifying a team for something like crowd misbehaviour when they are winning in all aspects.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was only referring to the more recent Olympics, not all the way back to 1998 when it started so I can accept that Canada was the best early on but more recently the US has been up there too.

Yes a goalie can make a difference (Carey Price when he won the Vezina, Frederik Andersen for this year's Leafs) and Szabados is fantastic (she one of the few women who have played with men professionally). However, nobody will ever say a team is better/dominant purely based on the strength of their goaltending, even though that could result in a higher number of wins.

Agreed about scores - most of the time. But not always and in some specific cases, it tells a completely different picture. There have been soccer games where one team dominated completely but could not get that ball in the net after numerous chances. Meanwhile, the other team either wins on penalties or with one random goal on a counterattack. That scoreline doesn't really reflect which team was the better of the two.

sempel said:

.

Agreed about scores - most of the time. But not always and in some specific cases, it tells a completely different picture. There have been soccer games where one team dominated completely but could not get that ball in the net after numerous chances. Meanwhile, the other team either wins on penalties or with one random goal on a counterattack. That scoreline doesn't really reflect which team was the better of the two.

Click to expand...

Agree to a degree. But if a team has chances but doesn't have what it takes to finish, that means on that day, they did not play well enough/did not have the talent as a team to win and the other team did.

I never said that winning is "purely" due to the goaltending, but that people were not taking it into consideration at all and just discussing the territorial/shot advantage. It's a combination of factors and some days the goalie is more important than others.

Reminds me of the movie "Dumb and Dumber".

shack said:

Agree to a degree. But if a team has chances but doesn't have what it takes to finish, that means on that day, they did not play well enough/did not have the talent as a team to win and the other team did.

I never said that winning is "purely" due to the goaltending, but that people were not taking it into consideration at all and just discussing the territorial/shot advantage. It's a combination of factors and some days the goalie is more important than others.

Click to expand...

I've played hockey for many years and sometimes the better team loses due to bad luck. Seen bad bounces, sticks break at inopportune times, equipment failures, etc. that resulted in goals for the other team. Yes, one can argue that a significantly better team should always win and you make your own destiny, but when one team is only marginally better they can be felled by luck.