dekedangle_rpfanon | #26 — Vanek! with a Jurco

This is the twenty-sixth post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means.
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.

Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post.

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

DA

Watching it I thought they must have known because that last shift was pretty frantic before the OT like they were really pushing to get the regulation win but didn't want to risk the empty netter against. Guess not.

a-ayrt-rt

Even not wanting to risk the empty netter was pretty dumb in this situation, if they really were aware of how the tiebreak worked. They had almost nothing to lose by pulling the goalie, because the difference between an OT win and a regulation loss for them was needing Finland to win versus needing Finland to win in regulation. Whereas the difference between a regulation win and OT win was a clinch versus a likely elimination. I'd guess the coaching staff knew they hadn't advanced (how could they not, the league PR even tweeted clinching scenarios), but didn't fully understand the ramifications of the tiebreak scenario.

sa

Or I could be given McLellan and co. too much credit, since I've just seen that Gaudreau didn't know either. Wow.

AYRT

Yeah I guess it still would have been a poor choice if it was on purpose, but it didn't seem generally crazy of a situation to me because of that conservative coaching mentality some have. Or at least it's the kind of bad decisions I expect sometimes.

Just plain not knowing is negligent. A shame if that robs us of a chance to watch this team again.

ayrt

Yeah. I mean, I think not pulling the goalie on purpose would also have been plain negligent, because it's a bad decision the coach could only make if he didn't really understand what needed to happen for them to advance in all situations. Being conservative is one thing, being conservative when there's nothing to conserve is another. But you're right, plain not knowing all together is a whole different level of stupid.

na

Yeah, not pulling the goalie on purpose IS crazy in this situation because you play conservatively to get to OT to ensure you get at least the loser point, right? But the one loser point here would have been literally worthless to NA, because they would have needed Finland to win in regulation regardless, because of Russia holding the tiebreak.

(The only difference the loser point would have made was guaranteeing Finland's mathematical elimination, because otherwise Finland could have advanced if NA lost in regulation and Finland beat Russian by... 7 goals. Hmm.)

NA

I'm a little confused as to how winning in regulation would help NA more than winning in OT. The tiebreaker is head to head, not regulation wins, so I can't see how it matters.

Sweden got a point by winning in OT, so they're automatically in first. If they hadn't it would have been potentially setting up a three way tie which would have been decided by goal differential, which I think NA has the advantage in. Nothing was guaranteed either way, but because they lost head to head vs Russia they're more screwed than they would have been if it had been the three teams.

Oh, got it. Thanks for explaining! Looking at the standings, that would have given them a way better shot, as that would mean Russia would have to win by 4 goals to get in over NA. It's not immediately obvious to me as a fan, but it's shocking that the coaching staff apparently didn't have this all in their heads going into the game.

ayrt
Yeah, I've been confused about group B, but the coaches should have the resources or knowledge or SOMETHING to be able to figure it out. NHL PR posted a tweet which clearly says "in regulation"!! https://twitter.com/PR_NHL/status/778604788640546816

Caveat. I'm drunk deke-ing so this might be obvious and I'm just not getting it. If they'd pitted the goalie and given up the ENG they'd get no points. Doesn't the point they got keep them in?? Yes it puts their fate in Finland's hands. But if they lose in regulation they're basically screwed right??

*hides in shame because wtf autocorrect have pity on me and the wine*

As long as they kept the score close, a regulation loss wouldn't have killed them completely because the possibility of a three-way tie with Russia and Finland at 2 points apiece was still on the table. Here's how it could have gone down, with their potential outcomes from today followed by what they'd have needed from Finland-Russia:

Regulation loss - Finland win in regulation but not a major (like, seriously major) blowout
OT/SO loss - Finland win in regulation with any score
OT win - Finland win of any kind
Regulation win - Any outcome but Russia winning in regulation and catching up in goal differential

Oops, that last scenario should be that they clinch. And I don't even have the excuse of being drunk!

not going to lie. Despite the benefits that would come with pulling the goalie and securing a regulation win. I'm not sure I would have done it either.

But I'm a chicken.

And also there's wine.

Nothing was guaranteed either way

No, if they'd won in regulation, they would have clinched! Because it was the last game for both NA and Sweden, they both would have 4 points, but NA would have better goal diff. So if it were a three way tie, Sweden would automatically be behind NA, and it would just depend on where Russia was. If NA had scored with the extra attacker, they would have clinched, and Russia would have needed to beat Finland by 3 goals in order to get in over Sweden (Sweden's goal diff is 2, Russia's right now is 0, Sweden has the head-to-head), and by 4 goals to take first place over NA.

sa

and by 4 goals to take first place over NA.

Correction, they only would have needed 3 goals for first place, as they have the H2H against NA. So funnily, in the three way tie scenario, Russia either tops the group or gets eliminated.

#26 — Vanek! with a Jurco

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016

Re: Game day thread 21 Sept 2016