Profile | Entries | Thread Author | Posts | Activity |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by benhogan76:
.Lucky for him when he gets SO it is because other teams best players laid eggs, when Oil lose it is because of him. The Vegas offense observation is purely factual, their top scorers stunk in that series relative to their reg. season efforts. But just because they stunk, it doesn't mean Skinner's twice shutting them out weren't good efforts, as I noted but you deliberately chose not to because it undermined the point you thought you were making. If the worst teams in the NHL get shut out, the opposing goalie put in a good effort no matter how bad his opponent was (short of his opponent never getting a single shot on goal). 'Sun rises in the morning' stuff. |
dyamarik | 12 |
|
![]() |
There's been little that's been consistently wrong with his efforts in these playoffs ever since he got a rough start vs. LA out of the way. Recency bias aside, that's all that matters. In the game just gone he made what turned out to be the tide-turning 1v1 save at 1-3 down, and managed crucial stops in OT I doubt Skinner would've mirrored. When the Panthers did bring the heat, he stood up. His sole error was being too loose in his crease re the late tying goal, but his wasn't the only defensive error in that scoring sequence. He must be there for every game now, irrespective of the next game's result. Skinner is no one's SCF winner, nothing against the guy who obviously put in good results against Dallas and consecutive shutouts to finish off Vegas (but Vegas' top reg. season scorers laid huge eggs in that series, Skinner's results there show more how bad Vegas offense was rather than how good he, Skinner, "really is"). |
dyamarik | 12 |
|
![]() |
@nattyorange Or did he feign being hurt? Are you a doctor? |
mastermexi | 9 |
|
![]() |
Go Leafs |
GASportsDoc | 39 |
|
![]() |
Since the 1st round expanded in 1984 to involve 16 teams, no set of road teams have ever gone 4-0 SU in the four game 1's to start the 2nd round. |
masterkush | 3 |
|
![]() |
@spicycurry Last year was almost completely against the trends, but the 8 years before that with them (that's excepting the 2020 postseason for the reason explained in the initial post), the last 2 emphatically so: 19-5 to Under in games 6s & 7s for 2022+2023's postseasons.
I wouldn't write this off due to one outlier set of results. Show me 3 or 4 2024's in a row and I'd concede it was time to retire this angle. That said, this is still only one angle. Multiple elements go into making for a total result, and I wouldn't say to anyone to use these trends as the lone basis to make a bet. It's something to factor in. |
BetCrimes1984 | 11 |
|
![]() |
claw, iceman
trends really kick in when the weak teams are eliminated and the better teams match-up from the 2R onwards |
BetCrimes1984 | 11 |
|
![]() |
@jvarghese That gap between the two LA fixtures is where the cut & paste from another site didn't carry over the H/GS game for whatever reason (prob because it was underlined) |
BetCrimes1984 | 11 |
|
![]() |
Throwing you degenerates a bone. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Playoff basketball brings the the table sudden-death basketball, which is a scenario perfect for the manifestation of Under results - tight players executing deliberate plays isn't the ground upon which liberal scoring is made.
|
BetCrimes1984 | 11 |
|
![]() |
|
footballguys | 3 |
|
![]() |
Jan. 2004 Back in the day the best threads were always in the penalty box. Dudes went stir crazy in confinement. |
Ragone15 | 134 |
|
![]() |
Excuse me for 'hijacking' your thread, van, but I think these stats deserve to be viewed (& obv. this thread is well viewed) and it might be useful for you to learn as well going forward:
Couple of historical scoreline angles that I can't see being ignored... |
vanzack | 799 |
|
![]() |
2nd Round & onwards of playoffs All Elimination Games: U/O 61-48-1 Elimination Games being game 4 or 5 of a Series: U/O 17-25 Elimination Games being game 6 or 7 of a Series: U/O 44-23-1 ![]() ![]() |
hustle_man | 4 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by LeRinkRat: Penguins @ Rangers this series becomes only the fourth best-of-7 /NHL playoff series to follow a win/site order of LLWLWW @ HHVVHV through six games. In each of the previous three such instances, the team posting that win/site order won Game 7 at home. The last team to do so: The Washington Capitals over the New York Rangers in their 2009 NHL Preliminary-round series Considering win order; considering site order: The team tied LLWWWL with site order HHVVHV (Anaheim) has the following best-of-7 playoff series and games record through the 2017 NHL and Preliminary rounds: Game 7 record, NHL only, all rounds: 4-5 (.444) Game 7 record, NHL only, Quarterfinals round: 1-3 (.250) Thanks for these, Rat. The history that matters to me first & foremost is the specific win order married to venue order, round irrelevant.
|
Lippsman | 26 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by jmag805: Betcrimes, are you betting the under? According to your numbers the under is the play for the 2nd half. I post at another site basically, so saw your post too late to respond re the 2h starting. I bet live, so looked for a good 2h under line live.
|
jmag805 | 11 |
|
![]() |
the 2h pts scoring for 1h totals of 120 pts or more in the playoffs so far
1h ---2h 120 - 111 121 - 107 121 - 111 123 - 105 123 - 110 123 - 111 125 - 92 130 - 96 |
jmag805 | 11 |
|
![]() |
The Indians conceded only 3 total runs in their 4 LCS wins. Since the LCS went to the best-of-7 format in 1985, there have only been 10 other teams (out of 61) who conceded 6 total runs or less in their 4 LCS wins. Of those 10 teams, 4 achieved the feat in the same year as their opposite LCS winner thus met in the WS which nullifies their stats (obv. 1 had to be a WS winner & 1 had to be a WS loser). Of the remaining 6 teams? They went 0-6 in the WS.
GL with Cleveland being the first team to win the WS when facing a team who conceded 7+ runs in their 4 LCS wins.
![]() |
famaroneinc | 7 |
|
![]() |
Quote Originally Posted by mrcoo168: why? It's because the previous commish was an idiot.
|
mrcoo168 | 7 |
|
![]() |
- Only 3 of the last 12 WS g1's have totaled less than 8 runs - Only 3 of the last 16 WS g1's have totaled less than 7 runs. - Since 1991 only 2 of 15 WS g1's played in an AL park have totaled less than 7 runs. Recent history is with your bet, GL
![]() |
Algorithm | 3 |
|
![]() |
- Only 3 of the last 12 WS g1's have totaled less than 8 runs - Only 3 of the last 16 WS g1's have totaled less than 7 runs. - Since 1991 only 2 of 15 WS g1's played in an AL park have totaled less than 7 runs Recent history is with your total bet. GL
![]() |
scheer_bets | 3 |
|
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.