carpandean

Yeah, I'm confused, too. Bylsma was Pittsburgh's AHL coach when he was hired.

For reference, in their final 32GP: 2010-11: 20-7-5 2011-12: 18-8-6 That would get the 58 point and 55 points this year, respectively. Really don't see it happening and pretty much hope that it doesn't (unless Darcy makes big moves between now and the deadline, and then they pull a Kings from last season ... but we all know that's not happening.) One key, though, is getting games to OT.

Their method is fairly simple: it is just Monte Carlo simulation. They randomly generate a score differential for each game each time they run a season (sample path.) Using 50/50, the probabilities are equal for the two teams with long-run historical averages determining the probabilities of each type of outcome. Something like (0.40, 0.06, 0.04, 0.04, 0.06, 0.40) for (RW, OTW, SOW, SOL, OTL, RL), with each of the RW/RL including chances of larger point differentials than 1 goal. Using weighted, they use the current records (in the sample path, too, not just initially, I believe) of the two teams and a slight bump for home ice advantage to generate the probability distributions of point differential instead. Again, probably based on sort of loose historical (statistical) analysis of differential given those factors. They run millions of such paths and then estimate the probabilities of each position as (# paths in a given spot) / (total paths). The reason that they get "100% chance" of finishing first when going 32-0 is that they never had a sample path occur (or too few occurred given their level of rounding) with both a 32-0 finish and one of the other teams finishing, say, 29-3 or better. Each is so unlikely that it is not surprising that they never (very rarely) occurred together.

It takes more than touching. A defensive player has to carry or pass the puck back into his own zone in order for offsides to be ignored. Any deflection off of a defensive player caused by an action from an offensive player does not result in offsides being waived off.

http://youtu.be/YDXf_2Ct54o From TSN article on game: "The league already verified that it should have been an offside," Nashville coach Barry Trotz said shortly after the game. "The explanation from the crew here was that we passed it back. We didn't pass it back. That's why they didn't blow the whistle. The league's already talked to us about it. There's no fix. It's just one of those things. Everybody has a bad day."

To me, it's the word "definition" that seems misapplied. It may be an example of insanity, but as you say, it's far from a typical one; certainly not a defining one. If it were simply "It's insane to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results," then that would make more sense.

Only because of the # games that the Sabres have played. Through 14GP, the Sabres had 11 points, which was 5 behind the Senators who had 16 points (8th best through 14GP.) In the worst case scenario, through 16GP, the Sabres' 13 points would be 6 behind the 8th-best Lightning's 19 points. There are some scenarios through 16 GP where they would have gained ground in those two games, but that would take a lot of looking into who plays who in there games-in-hand to figure out exactly.

Just to add to the possible TOI explanation: Year PPTOI SHTOI ESTOI Total (per game) 09-10 0.59 2.91 13.27 16.77 10-11 0.64 2.41 13.02 16.06 11-12 2.37 1.17 16.00 19.53 That's a huge shift in usage. Over 1.5 minutes/game shifted from SH to PP, plus over 2.5 additional minutes on ES. His faceoffs also jumped from just over 1000 to almost 1450 (winning % still well above 50%), also suggesting a different role. Not saying that you're wrong, but there's definitely a strong alternative to the "contract year" argument.

I agree. It's never good for the league when good players go down.

I hear that he's pretty good with a long spear on foot.

Especially bad now that Ehrhoff and Sulzer are now (often) an NHL pairing, not just an international competition one.

I like consistency in my charts from year-to-year. Basically, by shortening the schedule, the league said that everyone is tied through 34GP. So, that's what I did with my charts. It will be a fun year to look back at in, say, 2016.

Doesn't the new CBA allow teams to retain some of the cap hit when trading a player? Wouldn't that allow for the same thing if, say, the Islanders were to trade a high salary player, but keep a big chunk of the cap hit?

Brad Boyes circa March 5, 2012: 4 GP w/ Sabres, 2 Goals, 2 Assists, +4

Sabres are definitely the top-heavier team: Sabres: #1 Line: 18G Bottom 9: 5G Defense: 4G Total: 27G Canucks: #1 Line: 7G Bottom 9: 8G Defense: 7G Total: 22G

I think it was Paul Hamilton who talked about this yesterday. Said that he spoke with Lindy and that all that happened was that Thomas was winded, so when Lindy asked if he was ready to take a shift with the 4th line, he said he couldn't because he wouldn't be ready for his line's shift right after it. Apparently, Lindy said it was not a big deal at all. He wanted to get him more minutes if he was ready, but he wasn't that time around (he had taken such a shift earlier.) Take it for what it is worth. Lindy's on right now, so maybe they'll ask him.

This is pretty cool: http://www.icethetics.info/blog/2013/2/1/canucks-celebrate-millionaires.html http://www.fortnucks.com/post/42029010296/kesler-millionaires-1-p-m-tuesday-january-8

Stafford isn't Kassian big, but he's big enough that he should (and on rare occasions does) play a more power game. He's wasted his size and skill. Hodgson is definitely smaller than Drew, but also works very hard on and off of the ice. They are very different players with different skills and different shortcomings. Again, it just seems like an odd choice.

That's a strange comparison. I don't see much similarity at all. I understood where you were coming from with the small skill forward claim, but not where this comparison comes from.

So, do you think that Vanek and Pominville are better than the Sedins? I think that I know your answer, but I'm legitimately asking. If your answer is no, then does that mean that adding Hodgson to a weaker pair (or, at least, not a better one) has thus far been more productive, as a line, than adding Kassian to a stronger pair? 33 points in 20 man games vs. 17 points in 21 man games.

Is Hodgson benefiting from being with Vanek/Pommer more than, less than or the same as Kassian is benefiting from being with Sedin/Sedin? Remember, if you answer "same as" or "more than", then you are acknowledging that Vanek/Pommer are as good as or better than Sedin/Sedin at making their teammates better.

A comparison with Ron Jeremy ... so many ways that can be a bad thing and only one way that can be good.

For what it's worth: Hodgson TOI/GP 5on5: 15.25 PP: 2.86 SH: 1.63 Kassian TOI/GP 5on5: 12.69 PP: 3.27 SH: 0.00

Nah, just pushing 40.

More or less. The first chart uses 93/82 = 1.134 PPG as the axis. I simply started the current season with a net (points - pace) of 0 through 34 games. Basically, I spotted them 39 points. Technically, it's biased high relative to the the 93 point pace, since it is net of a 1.25 PPG pace instead.) The other two charts are net of 0 points through game 34 and then net of a 54 points in 48 games pace (approximately, 1.25 PPG) for the rest. IKP, I know what you're saying, as it would more or less shrink the old chart to the scale of a 48-game, 1.25 PPG pace. If I have time, I'll see what it will look like, but I suspect that scaling the x-axis would be problematic given the integrality of GP.