PDA

View Full Version : Surprises Galore



Tinner
03-30-2005, 10:56 AM
Well.......I didn't predict some of the games and the way some of the series are going, but, there are certainly some big surprises. You may not think they are because they involve your team but league wide, there are big upsets in the making.

First off, the Rebels up 2-1 when I predicted MH in 5, believing it would most likely be a sweep. Van up on Kel is a upset in the making, and Cgy up on Let to a certain degree also qualifies (although we know Cgy has a team if playing good is good) and lastly PA running over Sas. And of course, Kam over Ktn is without question, the biggest surprise so far.

The Bran/MJ, Port/Ev, Sea/Tri series are pretty much going the way most thought they would.....back and forth.....even up type of hockey aside from Bran.

Could make for some interesting semi's if the trends continue. :burningma

Beaner
03-30-2005, 11:01 AM
I think you missed the biggest upset in the making right now, KAM 2-1 on KTN.

Jovorock
03-30-2005, 11:11 AM
I think you missed the biggest upset in the making right now, KAM 2-1 on KTN.
Kamloops doesn't surprise me at all, I have been totally impressed with the Blazers after the trade deadline. They are hard working and have no more cancer (Brown, Upshall) in the dressing room. Since they got rid of Cunning and Lukin it is a new team with a excellent goalie that can win a game by himself.

Raiders up on the Blades is a surprise, but by the higlights on TV the Raiders are out playing them.

I would never be surpirsed by a Sutter team, the REbels could win this series and I wouldn't be shocked.

RocketMan
03-30-2005, 11:19 AM
I think you missed the biggest upset in the making right now, KAM 2-1 on KTN.I wouldn't say so. Kootenay's just discovering what the BC division is really like. JovoRock is right, the Blazers are a much improved team. Though, I still expect the Ice to win the series.

Beaner
03-30-2005, 12:20 PM
Well guys, considering that almost everyone in our little informal predict the playoff series picked the Ice in either 4 or 5 games ( a couple said Ice in 6/7, and out of all the picks you only had 2 people predicting Kamloops) I think this is a surprise as to how well Kamloops is handling the Ice Series.

As much of a surprise as any other series right now.

RocketMan
03-30-2005, 12:31 PM
Well guys, considering that almost everyone in our little informal predict the playoff series picked the Ice in either 4 or 5 games ( a couple said Ice in 6/7, and out of all the picks you only had 2 people predicting Kamloops) I think this is a surprise as to how well Kamloops is handling the Ice Series.

As much of a surprise as any other series right now.Well to some perhaps, but they didn't look at the regular season schedulling differences (I don't, however, want to prove that again). I picked Kootenay to win mostly b/c they had home ice and are a better team, though not by as much as their record indicates. I thought it would be a long series with the blazers proving to be a stubborn opponent and so far the results are bearing that out.

Joe Hallenback
03-30-2005, 03:56 PM
PA over the Blades is no surprise especially if you watched the way the blades played the last few months. Couple that with the fact they are a very soft team(minus guys like Barnes,Haw and Setoguchi) and that PA plays an aggressive game its not all that suprising.

Rebel66
03-30-2005, 04:16 PM
First off, the Rebels up 2-1 when I predicted MH in 5, believing it would most likely be a sweep.

No, you did predict the Tigers in a sweep on the playoff prediction thread. You also thought that the Tigers were the best matchup for the Rebels over the Canes but still predicted a four game shutout. Perish the thought if we'd actually met the Canes then. How bad would that have been :)

tazndevil
03-30-2005, 04:30 PM
I'm thinking the surprise that everyone is talking about in the PA series is not the fact that they are beating the Blades, but that they seem to be doing it so easily.

As far as the Central goes, I think a big thanks is owed to the Rebs for losing that last game against Lethbridge, giving the Hitmen the Canes, and the Rebs got the Tigers. Both matchups favor the 'underdogs' much better.

I think this is going to be a crazy playoff year with a lot of upsets. Who would have thought realistcally that the Ice, Rockets, Tigers, and Canes could all be out in the first round?

Just my thoughts

Taz

RunTheGoalie
03-30-2005, 04:31 PM
I wouldn't say so. Kootenay's just discovering what the BC division is really like. JovoRock is right, the Blazers are a much improved team. Though, I still expect the Ice to win the series.

Kootenay did very well against a superior Central division, so I dont think the supposed quality of the BC division is a factor. Right now, it's just looking like a surprise in the making.

Though I still expect that all of Kootenay, Kelowna and Medicine Hat will win their series. My fantasy team certantly hopes so. :p

Tinner
03-30-2005, 05:51 PM
you are right, I did predict a sweep and I also said that I thought we would have a better shot facing MH in the first round, and why?......as I said, my heart said Rebels, but my head says bet MH, and bet a sweep. Also, if we got past MH in the first round, we would have a far better chance of advancing because of the "roll" the boys would be on. They, by most opinions, have the more skilled team, with us having the "unknown" category covered.

Betting on your home team is a no brainer, but stepping out and betting to win is another and its pretty easy to sit back and say your a winner after the fact. Yes the Rebels now have a taste of what it takes to win and hopefully it can carry the day. Honestly, would you have or did you bet for the Rebels or any other underdog team that is winning to be in a position to win a series.

RocketMan
03-30-2005, 06:16 PM
Kootenay did very well against a superior Central divisionSuperior?? Hardly. Kelowna did better against the central getting 21 out of a possible 28 pts while playing only 4 of 14 at home. That's a 0.750 point percentage. But, I've gone over this ground before and don't really wish to cover it again. You're welcome to your opinion, whatever it's based on.
Though I still expect that all of Kootenay, Kelowna and Medicine Hat will win their series.Well as far as Kelowna's concerned, I hope you're right.

Tito9
03-30-2005, 06:18 PM
I'm not entirely shocked other than the Kootenay series. Remember the Hockey News predicted Calgary, Vancouver, and Prince Albert as the top 3 contenders. Not just for the reason season. They are big teams build for the playoffs. I know kootenay wasn't supposed to contend for the division only just for a playoff spot. But Jeff Glass was not a proven goalie and now he is. I would not be suprised at all if Calgary, Vancouver, and Prince Albert upset there series. And continue to shock in more teams throughout the playoffs.

RunTheGoalie
03-31-2005, 12:40 AM
Superior?? Hardly. Kelowna did better against the central getting 21 out of a possible 28 pts while playing only 4 of 14 at home. That's a 0.750 point percentage. But, I've gone over this ground before and don't really wish to cover it again. You're welcome to your opinion, whatever it's based on.Well as far as Kelowna's concerned, I hope you're right.

Superior overall.

Kelowna owning the Central in no way, shape or form makes up for the rest of the BC division.

RocketMan
03-31-2005, 01:27 AM
Superior overall.Based on what? Wishful thinking.
Kelowna owning the Central in no way, shape or form makes up for the rest of the BC division.Hmmm, so you want to exclude the Rockets, how about the ice as well. That should even it out. If you exclude the top two from each division and compare the results. Out of the 24 head-to-head games, the central got 28 out of a possible 48 pts. Only 7 more than the bottom 3 BC teams took. That's hardly a compelling case for this alledged overall superiority. What makes it worse is that in those match-ups, the central teams had three times as many home games. Three times.
The central is a good division, but still came out third in the head-to-head inter-divisional match-ups. They had a losing record against the US division as well, although the lopsided advantage in home ice they enjoyed over the BC teams was reversed in that case. BTW, the reason the central teams had so many points is b/c they killed the east division. They didn't, however, fare as well out west.

But as I said, you are entitled to your opinion. I am out until someone comes by with a stonger case.

Chipper
03-31-2005, 07:04 AM
Based on what? Wishful thinking.Hmmm, so you want to exclude the Rockets, how about the ice as well. That should even it out. If you exclude the top two from each division and compare the results. Out of the 24 head-to-head games, the central got 28 out of a possible 48 pts. Only 7 more than the bottom 3 BC teams took. That's hardly a compelling case for this alledged overall superiority. What makes it worse is that in those match-ups, the central teams had three times as many home games. Three times.
The central is a good division, but still came out third in the head-to-head inter-divisional match-ups. They had a losing record against the US division as well, although the lopsided advantage in home ice they enjoyed over the BC teams was reversed in that case. BTW, the reason the central teams had so many points is b/c they killed the east division. They didn't, however, fare as well out west.

But as I said, you are entitled to your opinion. I am out until someone comes by with a stonger case.
you must get frustrated that no one listens to you when trying to convince all the uninformed fans that your view is the only one that has any merit but all I see is every body but you thinking that the central div is the overall strongest div in the league. All your stats and ranting still can't change anyones mind.

RocketMan
03-31-2005, 09:29 AM
you must get frustrated that no one listens to you when trying to convince all the uninformed fans that your view is the only one that has any merit but all I see is every body but you thinking that the central div is the overall strongest div in the league. All your stats and ranting still can't change anyones mind.How do you know. Do you speak for everyone? Besides, an appeal to popular beliefs is a logical fallacy. It does nothing to change the truth. But, I am not suprised you didn't know that. If anyone is frustrated it's you, as you and your kind can't help but resort to attacking the messenger instead of the message as your last post and others you made clearly show. Why can't you come up with better arguments to support your case?

Spungy
03-31-2005, 10:28 AM
i'm thinking it is time to give up the discussion that the central isn't the strongest division out there.

ok, maybe their teams were all just balanced or something. But the general opinion seems to be that central is the stongest.

I get that the numbers don't seem to show it in your opinion. We get that you see the BC division as the strongest... time to agree to have our own opinions overall i think!

Cuz this discussion has gone in circles so many times already!

RocketMan
03-31-2005, 10:56 AM
i'm thinking it is time to give up the discussion that the central isn't the strongest division out there.

ok, maybe their teams were all just balanced or something. But the general opinion seems to be that central is the stongest.Perhaps, but that is only opinion. Maybe most that hold that haven't actually looked at the results.
I get that the numbers don't seem to show it in your opinion.They're results, how is my interpretation of them incorrect?? I never get that answer, all I seem to get from ice fans is personal attacks mostly b/c they don't like the results and their implications so they attack the messenger, not the message.
Cuz this discussion has gone in circles so many times already!Right, as I clearly stated more than once in this thread in posts number 6 and 12. However, seems Chipper wants to make it personal again.
i'm thinking it is time to give up the discussion that the central isn't the strongest division out there.Agreed, lets move on.

grumphy
03-31-2005, 11:43 AM
Hate to get involved with this one, but finally felt I had to add my 2cents.
I think when the central is considered the toughest they are refering to the parity within the division, there is just no easy games. As far as inter divisional there are strong teams in each division but they also have more weak sisters than you find in the central------just my read on it

RunTheGoalie
03-31-2005, 12:03 PM
One only has to look at the standings.

The BC division has the two best teams in the league, but after that, the division gets real mediocre, real fast.

Vancouver and Kamloops dont make the playoffs if they are in the Central. In fact, they dont even come close.

RocketMan
03-31-2005, 12:19 PM
One only has to look at the standings.

The BC division has the two best teams in the league, but after that, the division gets real mediocre, real fast.There are so many problems with that thinking I don't know where to begin. Comparing standings when the teams do not play the same schedules or opponents is about as wrong a method as you can get. If you want to debate this topic we can take it to email, otherwise I know where it will lead as some just don't like the results when you use the only sound method: head-to-head inter-divisional play.
Vancouver and Kamloops dont make the playoffs if they are in the Central. In fact, they dont even come close.Making unsubstantiated assertions like your last two inflammatory sentences lead to no good. You may have the last word, unless you want to discuss it elsewhere. Cheers.

Jovorock
03-31-2005, 02:11 PM
Vancouver and Kamloops dont make the playoffs if they are in the Central. In fact, they dont even come close.
Maybe they don't in the standing, but the Blazers and Giants are alot better teams than you think. Giants are slow out of the gate and are giving the Rockets a excellent series. The Blazers are alot better team after the trade deadline and the rest of the Ice series will be excellent hockey.

RunTheGoalie
04-01-2005, 11:28 AM
There are so many problems with that thinking I don't know where to begin. Comparing standings when the teams do not play the same schedules or opponents is about as wrong a method as you can get. If you want to debate this topic we can take it to email, otherwise I know where it will lead as some just don't like the results when you use the only sound method: head-to-head inter-divisional play.

Head-to-head inter divisional play is just as wrong a meathod as using overall record for the exact same reason you argue against overall record: different schedules.

Hell, teams dont even play standard schedules within their own divisions.

You only prefer head-to-head play because it supports your argument. It has no greater value as evidence than overall records do.

Afterall, the WHL plays a 72 game season involving 20 teams. It does not play a random season involving five.

Statistically, we each have a case. Subjectively, EVERYONE says that the Central is the toughest division in the league. You would be hard pressed to find an observer - other than BC division fans suffering from an inferiority complex - that would consider the BC division from top to bottom to be superior to the Central.

RunTheGoalie
04-01-2005, 11:39 AM
Maybe they don't in the standing, but the Blazers and Giants are alot better teams than you think. Giants are slow out of the gate and are giving the Rockets a excellent series. The Blazers are alot better team after the trade deadline and the rest of the Ice series will be excellent hockey.

Ok, so long as we are making excuses, I take back my comment that Kelowna and Kootenay are the two best teams in the league. Calgary also had a "slow start", and is truely the best team in the league. THN told us so!

"They started slow" is a rather weak excuse for the Gaints, and only proves my point. A slow start put the Giants into third in the BC division. A slow start would have buried the Giants in the Central.

As for the Blazers, they did improve. However, you have to consider the starting point. They started off as the worst team in the division, though I must say that the Blazers post-trade deadline record of 11-16-5-2 impressed the hell out of me. :laugh:

Beaner
04-01-2005, 11:54 AM
"They started slow" is a rather weak excuse for the Gaints, and only proves my point. A slow start put the Giants into third in the BC division. A slow start would have buried the Giants in the Central.


But who knows how Vancouver, or any other team for that matter, would do in the Central? They would have a different schedule, different travel, maybe Fistric doesnt go down with the Jaw injury in the 2nd game, another team from the Central would have to be bumped out, blah blah blah.

I can say that MH, that finished first in the Central, would have only finished 3rd in the BC division based on that logic.

There are just too many variables that come into play. Just moving Vancouver over to the central and then saying you wouldnt have made the playoffs just doesn't work.

It's kind of like debating wether the 80's oilers were a better team then the 70's Canadians. You just can't prove the arguement either way.

Makes talking sports great, but it's all just idle speculation.

RunTheGoalie
04-01-2005, 12:04 PM
Truthfully, I agree. That is one of the reasons why I am laughing at the "head to head play proves all" argument.

Simply put, it proves nothing.

Really, this is all subjective. Top to bottom, nearly everyone takes the Central. I'll go with the overwhelming majority on this one.

Chipper
04-01-2005, 12:19 PM
Truthfully, I agree. That is one of the reasons why I am laughing at the "head to head play proves all" argument.

Simply put, it proves nothing.

Really, this is all subjective. Top to bottom, nearly everyone takes the Central. I'll go with the overwhelming majority on this one.I agree with you runthegoalie no one can win this argument, head to head realy won't prove any thing and stats can be manipulated to make your point where ever you play. We will all see who is the best when the east meets west .