JujuFish Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 oh my god, what the f*ck barbeque...i like that :thumbsup: Welcome to the intarweb.
Two or less Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Yeah good call. Now go play Lotto. ;) Butler got just over 23 minutes tonight. I think I caught one oopsy from him. His passing is really solid. A stark contrast to Lydman, whose passing results in turnovers. Also, I'm slightly encouraged that I did not once notice Paetsch. Butler played great tonight. He did far more great things out there then not. He did have a few mistakes. One of them Miller had to make an amazing, no stick save, on Cullymore. I thought Butler did a great job though. I always noticed him out there when Sabres defense was doing good things. I think Sabres defense had 2 different times keeping Florida without a shot for a 10 minute slot. And i think Butler played a major role in that.
carpandean Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Its still the GWG. Its like if Ales had scored in the 1st period to go up 1-0 and then Roy scores after him to go up 2-0, if the other team doesn't put a goal up on the board in any period, Ales still has the GWG, you can't just give it Roy based on a "what if this happened", because it didn't happen. You can't argue "what ifs" only "what did happens". Except that Al's goal DID win it. What if Al didn't score? Then Florida would have shot a third time and what if he made it? At best, Roy would not have the GWG and at worst, Buffalo would not have even won. The fact of the matter is that Florida scored 0 goals in the shootout so the 0+1 goal is the game winner. That belongs to Ales. I disagree. While Roy's goal sealed the win, much like an empty-netter, it was not the goal that was the deciding margin of victory. By that measure Ales' goal, by virtue of being the first goal scored by a Sabre versus none for the Panthers, is the game-deciding goal. Playing "what if" doesn't change anything. There is one significant difference: here, both goals are equally important. Take away either goal and the game is not over. With an empty netter, if you take away either it or the GWG, the game is still over and the team still wins. It took one goal to win it, so the first scorer gets the game winner. Now, consider the shootout. Take away Al's goal and we go to the third round up 1-0. Take away Roy's goal and we go the third round up 1-0. It takes both goals to end the game after just two rounds. They don't play the third round because one of two things would happen: (1) Florida doesn't score and we win 2-0 (or 3-0) with Al getting the game winner; or (2) Florida does score and we win 2-1 (or 3-1) with Roy getting the game winner. Without that third shot, there is no way to discern who had the game winner. The combination and only the combination (i.e., not one individually) was sufficient to win it. The choice of giving it to the first shooter is arbitrary and, to me, not fair to the second shooter.
wjag Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Game thoughts -- Was a tough game to watch. Florida seemed to win all puck battles last night. Miller saved the game when he made the save without his stick. That was a scary, frenetic sequence... Hecht's game has all but disappeared. Booth had almost the same opportunity late in the game that he got on the penalty shot... When Lydman wants to chop you down, he does it.. Buffalo scored two goals in regulation and two goals in the Shootout and 75% of them were garbage... Me like.. I still don't know how you give that goal to TC. Lydman was the last Sabre to touch the puck... Lydman got robbed... The goal to tie the game was slick.. Zednick attacks Roy and gets him to turn over the puck. Then he passes the puck backhanded through his legs to the Horton who lifts it past Miller... We all knew this was a tough one... Happy to leave healthy and with two points...
rbochan Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 What the hell corp. I came on here this am and saw no GDT. I come back about 9 pm tonight and I see a game is on. I missed the 1st and 2nd and part of the third. This is unacceptable. clicky clicky ............................................________........................ ....................................,.-??...................``~.,.................. .............................,.-?...................................?-.,............ .........................,/...............................................?:,........ .....................,?......................................................\,..... .................../...........................................................,}.... ................./......................................................,:`^`..}.... .............../...................................................,:?........./..... ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../..... ............./__.(.....?~-,_..............................,:`........../........ .........../(_....?~,_........?~,_....................,:`........_/........... ..........{.._$;_......?=,_.......?-,_.......,.-~-,},.~?;/....}........... ...........((.....*~_.......?=-._......?;,,./`..../?............../............ ...,,,___.\`~,......?~.,....................`.....}............../............. ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-?............... ............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\................... .............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__........... ,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,.... .....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\........................ ...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\....................... ................................`:,,...........................`\..............__.. .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``....... ........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\............... ...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\..............
JujuFish Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 There is one significant difference: here, both goals are equally important. Take away either goal and the game is not over. With an empty netter, if you take away either it or the GWG, the game is still over and the team still wins. It took one goal to win it, so the first scorer gets the game winner. Now, consider the shootout. Take away Al's goal and we go to the third round up 1-0. Take away Roy's goal and we go the third round up 1-0. It takes both goals to end the game after just two rounds. They don't play the third round because one of two things would happen: (1) Florida doesn't score and we win 2-0 (or 3-0) with Al getting the game winner; or (2) Florida does score and we win 2-1 (or 3-1) with Roy getting the game winner. Without that third shot, there is no way to discern who had the game winner. The combination and only the combination (i.e., not one individually) was sufficient to win it. The choice of giving it to the first shooter is arbitrary and, to me, not fair to the second shooter. Take away an insurance goal and a team dead in the water still has life. It's a lot easier to score 1 goal in the final minute than 2. Tack on an insurance goal and perhaps the other team becomes flat. Don't tack it on and perhaps the other team plays as though their life depends on it and scores. The point is, you can't play the "what if" game.
BuffalOhio Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I went HD as opposed to RJ and just went back to RJ. Those guys are horrible. Edit.. FL has a package where you get a ticket, food, *and* $5 gas card to pay for the commute to the game. Awesome. And it costs, $17.00! Free parking, too! What a deal, and they still can't fill the place!
BuffalOhio Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 It was Connolly's harassment that caused the Florida player to mishandle the puck. However, I'm not sure he actually touched it. Connolly whacked Campbell's stick to make him lose control of the puck. A trick that really works in hockey, I can tell you firsthand!
BuffalOhio Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Roy had a rare give-away... Horton beat Miller Top shelf Buffalo: :worthy: :worthy: Florida: :censored: :censored: Terrible time and location to F$!K with the puck, Roy! Dammit!
nucci Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Yep. The shootout belongs in the Skills Competition at the All-Star game, not at the end of regular-season games impacting playoff races. (Don't get me started on the PC "everybody wins" crap of awarding the losers a point just for playing hard and not losing in regulation.) Not that anyone asked but this is how I would like to see things. If the game is tied after 60 minutes, play 4 on 4 sudden death for 20 minutes instead of 5 minutes. 2 points for a win and ZERO points for a loss. You should not be rewarded for losing a game! This way teams would play hard for a win instead of settling for 1 point. It would make the games more meaningful and exciting. If after 20 minutes there is no scoring then it ends in a tie and 1 point for each team. I think there would be less ties in this system as teams would play for the win. Thoughts?
DR HOLLIDAY Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Not that anyone asked but this is how I would like to see things. If the game is tied after 60 minutes, play 4 on 4 sudden death for 20 minutes instead of 5 minutes. 2 points for a win and ZERO points for a loss. You should not be rewarded for losing a game! This way teams would play hard for a win instead of settling for 1 point. It would make the games more meaningful and exciting. If after 20 minutes there is no scoring then it ends in a tie and 1 point for each team. I think there would be less ties in this system as teams would play for the win. Thoughts? Season is way to long to have 20 minute OT............Maybe 10 min and a tie for each team.
nucci Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Season is way to long to have 20 minute OT............Maybe 10 min and a tie for each team. That would work. I would just like to get away from giving the losing team 1 point.
ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 That would work. I would just like to get away from giving the losing team 1 point. The best way I can think of both giving the team a point and taking it away is changing an OT win so the losing team gets no points and in the shootout they get one point. Or vice verse. Not sure which way would play out better because i think just as many games go into OT as they do into shootouts. I think if you tack this logic onto the 5 on 5 10 minute OT that would be the best way to do it.
nucci Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 The best way I can think of both giving the team a point and taking it away is changing an OT win so the losing team gets no points and in the shootout they get one point. Or vice verse. Not sure which way would play out better because i think just as many games go into OT as they do into shootouts. I think if you tack this logic onto the 5 on 5 10 minute OT that would be the best way to do it. Sounds good but I would like to get rid of the shoot out. However long OT is , if no one score then you have a tie and 1 point each. If you lose in OT then it's 2 points to none. I feel games would be harder fought.
That Aud Smell Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Best miss I ever saw by Roy there. Was Roy's move on the shootout deliberately that slick, or accidental? Looked on purpose to me... The fact that he kept with the motion all throughout the shot makes me think it was intentional. Damn, that was sweet. No way that was on purpose. I think his reaction after said it all, but who cares, like someone else said, he scored so he meant it. seeing it on replay, i think it's pretty clear that roy lost control of the puck just a bit, and that the puck wound up going straight through voukon's [sic?] pads as voukon moved laterally to follow roy. the effect was not unlike the pass-shot that people used to abuse on sega's nhl 93 (94? 95?). roy's approach to shootouts is, i think, instructive in this way: unless you're just an assassin shootout finisher with a couple of patented moves (i.e., kotalik), you're better off using speed to press your advantage with the goalie. a guy who's coming in with good speed has a decent chance of getting a flukey one like roy did -- a guy who's coming in without speed is going to get stoned unless he makes a good split-second decision and then executes flawlessly (which is something only a small percentage of guys can do consistently). it was also nice to see roy seal the deal when he arguably caused the tying goal.
LabattBlue Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I didn't see most of the first two periods(I was busy screwing around with my PC which was rendered useless by a virus :angry: ), but I caught the 3rd period and OT and was glad to see the Sabres get two points after an absolutely horrible play leaving a Florida player all alone in front of the net to tie the game at two. Nice road win and hope they pound Tampa and head to the 5 day vacation...I mean all star break, on a winning note.
scottnc Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Sounds good but I would like to get rid of the shoot out. However long OT is , if no one score then you have a tie and 1 point each. If you lose in OT then it's 2 points to none. I feel games would be harder fought. That's how it used to be, 2 points to none. I believe the league reasoning in guaranteeing one point if you got to overtime was teams used to be incredibly conservative in overtime to avoid giving up the 1 point for a tie. The wanted teams to open up a bit in the extra period. Obviously that was before the shootout came into being, which I can't stand. I am a fan of the 3 point regulation win.
Stoner Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 I didn't see most of the first two periods(I was busy screwing around with my PC which was rendered useless by a virus :angry: ), but I caught the 3rd period and OT and was glad to see the Sabres get two points after an absolutely horrible play leaving a Florida player all alone in front of the net to tie the game at two. Nice road win and hope they pound Tampa and head to the 5 day vacation...I mean all star break, on a winning note. I'm a MacArthur.
ROC Sabres Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 That's how it used to be, 2 points to none. I believe the league reasoning in guaranteeing one point if you got to overtime was teams used to be incredibly conservative in overtime to avoid giving up the 1 point for a tie. The wanted teams to open up a bit in the extra period. Obviously that was before the shootout came into being, which I can't stand. I am a fan of the 3 point regulation win. So would that be 3 for the winner, 2 for OT loser and 1 for SO loser? Gimme some examples. Nice little article about how that extra point doesn't matter (according to the article). Interesting to see how everything plays out with the numbers. Link Just an FYI, Florida is listed twice in the second list instead of Buffalo at 10th or something (and these are from last years numbers).
carpandean Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Take away an insurance goal and a team dead in the water still has life. It's a lot easier to score 1 goal in the final minute than 2. Tack on an insurance goal and perhaps the other team becomes flat. Don't tack it on and perhaps the other team plays as though their life depends on it and scores. The point is, you can't play the "what if" game. The point is, with or without the insurance goal, the game would have ended. If you are sitting 20:00 into the third with a 3-1 win, you could take away that third goal (or the second) and the outcome is the same. Sure, it gave the other team less of a chance to come back (maybe not if it was an EN at 19:59), but the game is over and they didn't get a second goal of their own. There is no more time for "what ifs". With or without the extra goal, that's it; no more time. Talking about how differently they would have played is changing time already played. The same is not true for the shootout. Take away either goal and the game would not have ended where it did. Both were required to end the game after two rounds. Without Roy's goal (or Kotalik's), there's a third round. Kotalik's goal was not sufficient to end the game when it did. Period. Call it a "what if", but it's time that wasn't played and the reason it wasn't was Roy's goal (at least as much as Kotalik's) put it out of reach (which is technically not true with an insurance goal, which only makes it harder to come back, not impossible as Roy's goal does here.) Basically, the Sabres won the shootout with a score of "at least two" to "no more than one", not 2-0 because a shootout is three round, not all of which were completed. It would be like saying that you can't score more than one goal per period in regulation, so if you have a two-goal lead after two, we won't bother playing the third period. Who's goal is the game winner? With just the first, they play 20 more minutes where the other team has a chance to even it up. Both goals are equally necessary to end it early and secure the win. Both players should share the game winner. This may be a case where we have to agree to disagree because, to me, logically Kotalik's goal was not sufficient to win it and, therefore, Roy and Kotalik are both equally responsible for winning the game (unlike an insurance goal.)
nucci Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 That's how it used to be, 2 points to none. I believe the league reasoning in guaranteeing one point if you got to overtime was teams used to be incredibly conservative in overtime to avoid giving up the 1 point for a tie. The wanted teams to open up a bit in the extra period. Obviously that was before the shootout came into being, which I can't stand. I am a fan of the 3 point regulation win. I guess I just want to get it back to that. I don't care for the shootout and I don't think you should get a point if you lose the game.
carpandean Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 So would that be 3 for the winner, 2 for OT loser and 1 for SO loser? No. A three point game is 3 for winning in regulation, 2 for winning in OT/SO, 1 for losing in OT/SO and 0 for losing in regulation. Basically, if a loss in not a loss (OT losses have different points than regulation losses), then a win is not a win. If you, as the winning team, let the other team take it to OT/SO, then they get one of your three points. This, the 2/0 system and the 2/1/0 (1 for tie) are the only fair systems.
NowDoYouBelieve Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 No. A three point game is 3 for winning in regulation, 2 for winning in OT/SO, 1 for losing in OT/SO and 0 for losing in regulation. Basically, if a loss in not a loss (OT losses have different points than regulation losses), then a win is not a win. If you, as the winning team, let the other team take it to OT/SO, then they get one of your three points. This, the 2/0 system and the 2/1/0 (1 for tie) are the only fair systems. Yeah, that system is what I would suggest to the NHL if I were in some way in charge. Most soccer leagues use this system and it's pretty effective. What I would REALLY prefer, however, is simply calling a win a win and a loss a loss. 2 points for a win, no matter how it occurs and 0 for a loss. It really doesn't have to be complicated.
nfreeman Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 it was also nice to see roy seal the deal when he arguably caused the tying goal. Nothing arguable about it, IMHO. That was an atrocious giveaway. Separately: I like the shootout. I detested ties. I also am fine with each team getting a point if they are tied after regulation. What I don't like is having the OT or SO loser not having the game count as a loss in the loss category in the standings. It makes way too many teams look like they are over .500 when in fact they have lost more games than they won. End of sermon.
NowDoYouBelieve Posted January 20, 2009 Report Posted January 20, 2009 Nothing arguable about it, IMHO. That was an atrocious giveaway. Separately: I like the shootout. I detested ties. I also am fine with each team getting a point if they are tied after regulation. What I don't like is having the OT or SO loser not having the game count as a loss in the loss category in the standings. It makes way too many teams look like they are over .500 when in fact they have lost more games than they won. End of sermon. I just don't see the logic behind the shootout. Why should a multitude of games be decided on penalty shots, when you might see all of 5 penalty shots throughout a regular season if you follow one team? It's not a big part of the game. To me, the tie was always a necessary evil. Hockey is the kind of game where tie scores are very common, and it's also the type of game where a team that is forced to play 80 or 100 minutes might show severe repercussions for the next couple games.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.