[PGT] Kings win 3-2 in OT

[DIBdaQUIB]

Don't really care if you're tired of it.

You've been around long enough to see the obvious bandwagon effect that takes place here every time the team has hit a speed bump - there are people venting, and there are is a significant gaggle of bandwagoners who flock in to do little other than whine.

I'm not necessarily "tired" of them - I choose to be entertained by it - but if I have to read a thousand of their posts after every loss, I'm not really going to heed a request not to post a bandwagon reference - which I very rarely do by the way - this thread might actually be the first time I've used that term.

The label applies quite accurately to a significant portion of these boards.

Problem 1) the definition of "bandwagoner" does not apply to the comments you reference. Problem2) there are almost as many posters referring to others as "bandwagoners' after a loss as those who post the stuff you object to.

Definition - Bandwagoner

In sports, someone who shamelessly cheers for a particular team not because he likes them or follows them faithfully, but only because that particular team is the "popular" choice or has been or is the top team in their specific sport recently. When that team which bandwagoners follow falls from grace, they gleefully jump on the next teams bandwagon and cheer for that team.

[73 Percent]

Problem 1) the definition of "bandwagoner" does not apply to the comments you reference. Problem2) there are almost as many posters referring to others as "bandwagoners' after a loss as those who post the stuff you object to.

Definition - Bandwagoner

In sports, someone who shamelessly cheers for a particular team not because he likes them or follows them faithfully, but only because that particular team is the "popular" choice or has been or is the top team in their specific sport recently. When that team which bandwagoners follow falls from grace, they gleefully jump on the next teams bandwagon and cheer for that team.

THANK YOU. FINALLY SOMEONE ELSE UNDERSTANDS!

[oldnews]

Some people aren't going to like my post, but I'm saying it anyways.

This team is, and has been for most this season, a top 6 puck possession team. In 85% of the games this yr, they've given up below league avg # of scoring chances. In the w. conference, only STL, LA give up fewer shots against per game. What I'm saying? This team is really good defensivly. Like really good. This is extra amazing because they don't play a trap it up, defense first, clutch and grab style of hockey like LA/ STL and many other w. conference teams.

YET..... of the top 10 puck possession teams in league, Vancouver has given up more goals than ANY of them. By a large margin. In the w. conference you know the only 2 teams who've given up more goals against than Van? Edmonton freekin' Oilers and Winnipeg Jets. I kid you not.

There is no excuse, repeat NO excuse for a team with those defensive #'s to give up that many goals against. It boils down to goaltending IMO. It's boiled down to goaltending all season IMO. Luongo has been sporting one of the leagues worst EV SV% from day 1. The only starting goaltender in the w. conference with a worse EV SV% is in Edm and Cgy. Again, been like this all season.

This team isn't scoring goals. I get it. But no one is in the w conference - except Chi. Van is not built like Chi. Van is built from the goaltending position out. They are a team who needs to rely on goaltending and strong defense to win games - and all people in those important positions are paid hefty sums to do so. A massive amount of cap space is allocated to them.

Luongo needs to step up. I'm not asking for him to be extraordinary. He needs to be the Luongo we've seen for the majority of his NHL career - the guy who's posted elite EV SV% yr after yr. The guy who's a top 5 goaltender in the league. If this guy doesn't show up, I have serious concerns about the Canucks missing the playoffs.

I think you've nailed it RunningWild.

I agree that whipping Luongo is far too overdone, and he hasn't been playing poorly, nor can these losses be entirely hung on Luongo, but the bottom line is that he is getting outplayed by the opponent's goaltender on a very regular basis. There happen to be a lot of quality goaltenders in the NHL, and they also seem to bring their A game on a regular basis (Bobrovsky's performance aside, the Canucks haven't really scored many soft goals this season).

To his credit, Luongo has owned it in his interviews - he's acknowledged precisely what you are saying - the reality is that other goaltenders aren't necessarily getting more goal support than he is, and that he essentially needs to make one more save a night.

Still, I am pleased with the progress that he seems to have made regarding his style/technique - with the exception of the Clifford goal last night, there are very few instances of him lunging/flopping/over-reacting and getting himself out of position.

And the counterpoint to him needing to make one more save is obviously his teammates needing to bury one more opportunity.

[TheTruthHurts]

Don't really care if you're tired of it.

You've been around long enough to see the obvious bandwagon effect that takes place here every time the team has hit a speed bump - there are people venting, and there are is a significant gaggle of bandwagoners who flock in to do little other than whine.

I'm not necessarily "tired" of them - I choose to be entertained by it - but if I have to read a thousand of their posts after every loss, I'm not really going to heed a request not to post a bandwagon reference - which I very rarely do by the way - this thread might actually be the first time I've used that term.

The label applies quite accurately to a significant portion of these boards.

I said it once and I will say it again. You can't have bandwagoners for a team that isn't a contender. If they were bandwagoners they would have been off the bandwagon long ago.

[-DLC-]

For some reason, when I read your posts, I get a vision of that little old lady who used to sit ring-side at WWF events and periodically beat a wrestler with her chair.

Nailed it.

[oldnews]

Problem 1) the definition of "bandwagoner" does not apply to the comments you reference. Problem2) there are almost as many posters referring to others as "bandwagoners' after a loss as those who post the stuff you object to.

Definition - Bandwagoner

In sports, someone who shamelessly cheers for a particular team not because he likes them or follows them faithfully, but only because that particular team is the "popular" choice or has been or is the top team in their specific sport recently. When that team which bandwagoners follow falls from grace, they gleefully jump on the next teams bandwagon and cheer for that team.

The definition you chose is convenient, but certainly not exhaustive.

From the same source....

2. bandwagoner

A fan of a particular sports team who had no previous interest in the team until they began winning.

[in other words, dependent upon winning. And when that particular team is no longer winning....flock onto CDC to cry about every last aspect of that team and pronounce their divorce, ad infinitum.]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole disidentification thing is part and parcel of it.

Vancouver certainly isn't immune to the bandwagon effect. Is it a coincidence that the sellout phenomena has come to an end? A pretty tangible aspect of it. No longer so cool for all the suits who can afford tickets to identify with the team?

[oldnews]

I said it once and I will say it again. You can't have bandwagoners for a team that isn't a contender. If they were bandwagoners they would have been off the bandwagon long ago.

The team is "popular" - that's the definition we are working with here - and they're certainly popular locally - the "contender" thing may apply to bandwagoners in other cities, and there appear to be those, as there have been a lot of Canucks fans popping up in markets all through the US - but in terms of the homegrown bandwagoners, if people want to deny the phenomena, that's fine. I honestly don't care enough about it to dig in and argue a whole lot of semantics.

If anyone wants to properly rename the phenomena I was referring to, feel free. I will endorse your corrections if you can do so.

[LeanBeef]

I still can't stop thinking about the Kassian fight....

Even Weise beat Carcillo.... WEISE

[RUPERTKBD]

Wow this ship is headed towards some rocks right now.

Game was OK, no PP really really hurts us I'm amazed at how bad it is.

My only other real beef is with all the muscle on the ice how does Ryan Stanton end up fighting Jordan Nolan??? Really liking Stanton but that is Sesito's job...

Sestito was trying to goad Doughty into scrapping during that scrum. DD, understandably wanted no part of it.

While I agree that an enforcer's job is to take on other enforcers, I would take the Doughty for Nolan trade of every time and twice on Sundays. It didn't work out (in fact, it's my belief that the 'Nucks got the extra penalty because Doughty was the only "star" involved) but I can't blame Sestito for trying to take LA's top defender off the ice for 5 minutes.

[RUPERTKBD]

I just want to make one point about the defensive lapses that have been resulting in tying and winning goals against lately...

After the Chicago game I speculated that it might be a case of defensemen trying a bit too much to help out the offense and getting caught in bad pinches, etc.

It doesn't explain Edler's decision last night, but Alex Auld mentioned between periods that the Canucks had been instructed by the coaching staff to "err on the side of aggressiveness". The odd-man rushes we've seen lately are the result.

It sucks, but the alternative is to "play for the tie", something CDC collectively complained about throughout Alain Vigneault's tenure (with the exception of 2010-2011) I think it bears mentioning that the Canucks' aggressive play resulted in a A-1 scoring chance for Kesler, just a few minutes before the tying goal. Canuck teams of the past would have buried that chance, (and likely several others) but as Shorty pointed out last night, the team is starting to question themselves; expecting the worst.

As we have seen lately, when your team mentality is this fragile, things break rather easily.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

5. band wagoner

someone who only likes a certain thing because its "popular"

Sheila is a band wagoner only likes the dodgers when they're winning and hates them when they are losing

I think there are many different terms you can be defined as a bandwagoner/ fair weather fan. People tend to over use the term (as well as troll) any time someone disagrees with their own beliefs. However I do feel that the term bandwagoner does serve purpose to people that don’t stick in cheering for their team even when the team is in the rut. We lose a game and everyone gives up hope on this team saying they are done, not making playoffs, Then we win and they cheer on how great the team is and are going to win the cup. It get ridiculous getting how many praise/ hate threads there will be after a loss/win.

I honestly think someone needs to make a thread for this situation. Can someone please make this thread for me, I don’t have time to update this all the time or I would, maybe jazz it up add an image or two.

Official 2013/14 Bandwagon

Many of this team’s fans are pretty much like a revolving door, We lose a few games and people make countless threads of how this team sucks and is going nowhere for the next 10 years. We win a few games and the same people are making threads on how are the greatest canucks team in existence. So how ever feel now is your chance to make that claim in front of all CDC. If you think the canucks are done this year and will not make playoffs, state you user name and give a small explanation why you are giving up hope on the team this year (it’ll reduce the amount of trolls). It will show that you are officially off this teams bandwagon this year. If you think this team will make playoffs and have any sort of a playoff run again state you user name and give a small explanation. You can even state changes/trades that you think could help this team out to go further. You will not be labelled a bandwagoner unless you make the claim.

There is just one small hitch, something to be wary of is, Users ON the bandwagon can bail at any time, just remember once you claim you are off the bandwagon you are officially off, there is no ladder to climb back on to the wagon, You will be considered a cast away, if you are caught making thread praising the team’s success or cheering on the team in playoffs (GDT or PGT) you will be called out and will feel terrible shame, it will haunt generations of your offspring. You will not get to celebrate and share the joy with all the other users on the band wagon if the canucks make a deep playoff run. So think long and hard before you make a claim of saying canucks are not going to the post season in the spring of 2014.

Users on the bandwagon Users off the bandwagon

-

-

-

-

[oldnews]

I still can't stop thinking about the Kassian fight....

Even Weise beat Carcillo.... WEISE

Carcillo got extremely lucky that it ended with Kassian losing balance.

[oldnews]

I just want to make one point about the defensive lapses that have been resulting in tying and winning goals against lately...

After the Chicago game I speculated that it might be a case of defensemen trying a bit too much to help out the offense and getting caught in bad pinches, etc.

It doesn't explain Edler's decision last night, but Alex Auld mentioned between periods that the Canucks had been instructed by the coaching staff to "err on the side of aggressiveness". The odd-man rushes we've seen lately are the result.

It sucks, but the alternative is to "play for the tie", something CDC collectively complained about throughout Alain Vigneault's tenure (with the exception of 2010-2011) I think it bears mentioning that the Canucks' aggressive play resulted in a A-1 scoring chance for Kesler, just a few minutes before the tying goal. Canuck teams of the past would have buried that chance, (and likely several others) but as Shorty pointed out last night, the team is starting to question themselves; expecting the worst.

As we have seen lately, when your team mentality is this fragile, things break rather easily.

I agree with you.

People seem to be under the impression that hockey isn't played at an exceptionally torrid pace, particularly in the heat of a close game with the final minutes counting down.

Edler has been getting ripped constantly for not being aggressive enough, being too cautious....ie. where's the Edler we used to know? Well, being healthier may be a part of it, but also, he is notably more aggressive, and it has resulted in a lot of good defensive play thus far. He makes an error in judgement (he did play 28 minutes last night), that wasn't fatal in itself - it still required another blown coverage in front of the net and a failed save - and he's instantly back to scapegoat (if it ever ceased).

I personally am relieved by Tortorella's post game response - the odd mistake is going to happen, particularly when erring on the side of aggression, but keep at it. I like the trajectory that Edler is on - I could care less about isolated stats like +/- that take his situational play out of context - I hope he continues to take risks and play with some edge. When he's managed that in the past, he has neutralized some very good opponents (nailing Patrick Kane, who disappeared thereafter comes to mind).

Same goes for Bieksa - he missed a puck that was on edge and it wound up on the stick of an opponent. It happens. It really has nothing to do with sucking or being a terrible defense corps.

[TheTruthHurts]

The team is "popular" - that's the definition we are working with here - and they're certainly popular locally - the "contender" thing may apply to bandwagoners in other cities, and there appear to be those, as there have been a lot of Canucks fans popping up in markets all through the US - but in terms of the homegrown bandwagoners, if people want to deny the phenomena, that's fine. I honestly don't care enough about it to dig in and argue a whole lot of semantics.

If anyone wants to properly rename the phenomena I was referring to, feel free. I will endorse your corrections if you can do so.

Definition of 'Bandwagon Effect'

A psychological phenomenon whereby people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override. The bandwagon effect has wide implications, but is commonly seen in politics and consumer behavior. This phenomenon can also be seen during bull markets and the growth of asset bubbles.

This tendency of people to align their beliefs and behaviors with those of a group is also called "herd mentality."

Now unfortunately for you this definition cannot apply to popularity. Why? There are no network externalities that give reason to do so. (Look it up). So this definition primarily rests on the principle that people will follow the Canucks only if there is a benefit. But there is no benefit. They aren't going to make the playoffs(most likely). So why even watch? They are not bandwagoners just fans who criticize their team. How many people do you think are still fans after the Canucks lost in the 2011 finals? Most dropped off the bandwagon(that existed at the time because the Canucks were the favorite to win). Had the Canucks not been favorites there would not have been a bandwagon to even go to because no one would care. That is why bandwagoners don't exist for this team as of right now. What is the benefit? What would be the point? No, it is just people who have watched the Canucks for some time and want improvements. This is loyalty. Not the bandwagon effect.

Edit: If you can't infer from it. Let me spell it out for you. Network externalities is the proper term.

[oldnews]

Definition of 'Bandwagon Effect'

A psychological phenomenon whereby people do something primarily because other people are doing it, regardless of their own beliefs, which they may ignore or override. The bandwagon effect has wide implications, but is commonly seen in politics and consumer behavior. This phenomenon can also be seen during bull markets and the growth of asset bubbles.

This tendency of people to align their beliefs and behaviors with those of a group is also called "herd mentality."

Now unfortunately for you this definition cannot apply to popularity. Why? There are no network externalities that give reason to do so. (Look it up). So this definition primarily rests on the principle that people will follow the Canucks only if there is a benefit. But there is no benefit. They aren't going to make the playoffs(most likely). So why even watch? They are not bandwagoners just fans who criticize their team. How many people do you think are still fans after the Canucks lost in the 2011 finals? Most dropped off the bandwagon(that existed at the time because the Canucks were the favorite to win). Had the Canucks not been favorites there would not have been a bandwagon to even go to because no one would care. That is why bandwagoners don't exist for this team as of right now. What is the benefit? What would be the point? No, it is just people who have watched the Canucks for some time and want improvements. This is loyalty. Not the bandwagon effect.

Edit: If you can't infer from it. Let me spell it out for you. Network externalities is the proper term.

Great. Call it 'network externalities' if you will. The alternative that could be inferred, without your having spelled it out - "loyalty" - is definitely not as convincing.

[TheTruthHurts]

Great. Call it 'network externalities' if you will. The alternative that could be inferred, without your having spelled it out - "loyalty" - is definitely not as convincing.

Loyalty does not include popularity in its definition. So you can't infer it. Try again.

[coastal1]

Yeah, you're right, we should trade him for a bag of puckZ!!

He should score goalz toooooo!!!

Not good enufffff!!!

All I'm saying is that it is not like he is a shining light in this mess. He is now worse or better than the other 'stars' on the team. Kelser's man scores the tying and winning goals It would be nice if Luongo had bailed out Kelser on one of those two mistakes he made. But he didn't.

[oldnews]

Loyalty does not include popularity in its definition. So you can't infer it. Try again.

Don't care about splitting even more hairs over essentially contested definitions of the word 'bandwagon'.

Done.

[TheTruthHurts]

Don't care about splitting even more hairs over essentially contested definitions of the word 'bandwagon'.

Done.

But I thought you were going to correct anyone? You haven't corrected me. Perhaps you can't? And the definition I produced is from a credible source not some urban crap. That definition is essentially the same as yours. It has two parts. The first one relates directly to yours and I showed why that's not the case. The second will follow. Which is the point of the poster you were arguing above with.

[oldnews]

But I thought you were going to correct anyone? You haven't corrected me. Perhaps you can't? And the definition I produced is from a credible source not some urban crap. That definition is essentially the same as yours. It has two parts. The first one relates directly to yours and I showed why that's not the case. The second will follow. Which is the point of the poster you were arguing above with.

No. You've gotten it bass ackwards. I could care less to make an effort to correct you - in fact welcomed anyone to correct me - and fairly clearly said that I don't really care to continue to argue semantics or wrestle over whose definition is officially more authoritative.

Your definition is fine. Thanks.