Stoner Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 It would be interesting to see Lindy's record in back to backs, and three-in-four situations, over the years. It seems to me he's had the maddening tendency from the get-go to poormouth such situations -- "We're in tough."
Calvin Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 If the Sabres are to get back in to the post season, they need to earn more than 50% of the available points in these back to back games, or be absolutely outstanding in every game that isn't back to back. So far, they aren't off to a very good start. Thank you, that was exactly the point I was trying to make. In an 82-game season, there are 164 total points on offer - of this 72 are on back-to-back days. If we go .500 on these, that's 36 of the 164 already gone, leaving a ceiling of 128. We've seen that a 100 point total is pretty safe to make playoffs (and maybe even get ranked in the 4-6 range too). Apart from the 36 pts from the back-to-backs, that means we'll have to get 64 points on 46 games, approx. 1.4 points per game, or 14 points for every 10 games (a record of 6-2-2). It's not impossible, but it's quite an ask - this is where this team needs to show us what it's really made of.
cdexchange Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Having really poor backup goaltending since Biron left hasn't helped our back-to-back and 3-in-4 record much either.
Derrico Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Were they .500 in back to backs because they were a .500 team, as you posit, or were they .500 because they only played .500 in back to back games? Your premise is wrong from the get go, because the Sabres weren't a .500 team last year. Their actual record was 41-32-9. This means they were substantially better than .500 when NOT playing back to back games. I agree with the original poster. I thought his post was very insightful. If the Sabres are to get back in to the post season, they need to earn more than 50% of the available points in these back to back games, or be absolutely outstanding in every game that isn't back to back. So far, they aren't off to a very good start. Sorry, but I must disagree with your post. I believe that you may have the wrong premise from the get go. You must look at statistically what the average winning percentage was of back to back games last year in the NHL. Certainly a team playing the second game in two nights is going to have less energy (especially if there was any kind of travel involved) then a team focusing soley on that opponent for a couple of days. I guarentee you that if you took the time (I don't have the time and am too lazy) then you would see that even the better teams in the league have a lower winning percentage than their overall record.
shrader Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 It would be interesting to see Lindy's record in back to backs, and three-in-four situations, over the years. It seems to me he's had the maddening tendency from the get-go to poormouth such situations -- "We're in tough." Or how about league-wide records in back to back games? edit: It lookes like Derek was hitting on that idea.
Calvin Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Or how about league-wide records in back to back games? edit: It lookes like Derek was hitting on that idea. good point Shrader - getting a league-wide average would give a more accurate picture. however, we look like we're still worse than most teams who are also on a back-to-back run, eg Islanders on Saturday. They had just beaten the Caps the day before.
shrader Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 good point Shrader - getting a league-wide average would give a more accurate picture. however, we look like we're still worse than most teams who are also on a back-to-back run, eg Islanders on Saturday. They had just beaten the Caps the day before. Someone had to win it. One game hardly paints a clear picture.
SwampD Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Were they .500 in back to backs because they were a .500 team, as you posit, or were they .500 because they only played .500 in back to back games? Your premise is wrong from the get go, because the Sabres weren't a .500 team last year. Their actual record was 41-32-9. This means they were substantially better than .500 when NOT playing back to back games. I agree with the original poster. I thought his post was very insightful. If the Sabres are to get back in to the post season, they need to earn more than 50% of the available points in these back to back games, or be absolutely outstanding in every game that isn't back to back. So far, they aren't off to a very good start. I still think that 41-32-9 is really just 41 wins and 41 losses, especially if you figure that in 4 of the back to backs they had, a win came in OT or the shoot out to a playoff team.
inkman Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Having really poor backup goaltending since Biron left hasn't helped our back-to-back and 3-in-4 record much either. Here is Marty's career stats. His numbers drop (rise?) drastically when he's not playing a majority of the time. Lalime isn't much different. Same goes for Conklin. One can argue the catch 22 circumstance involved with playing a back up. Do you play him enough to have respectable numbers or do you let him rust and take your losses? I'm just sick and tired of hearing about how the back ups suck when they have had success in the NHL, then come to Buffalo, play 5 games and suck.
cdexchange Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Here is Marty's career stats. His numbers drop (rise?) drastically when he's not playing a majority of the time. Lalime isn't much different. Same goes for Conklin. One can argue the catch 22 circumstance involved with playing a back up. Do you play him enough to have respectable numbers or do you let him rust and take your losses? I'm just sick and tired of hearing about how the back ups suck when they have had success in the NHL, then come to Buffalo, play 5 games and suck. I agree with you. I'm not necessarily blaming the goaltenders here, as I think Ruff should take most of the blame for this. Nevertheless, the backup goaltending has been bad here, regardless of who's to blame, so my point remains.
spndnchz Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 FWIW, Lindy this morning said he's going to be playing LaLime more in November.
shrader Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 FWIW, Lindy this morning said he's going to be playing LaLime more in November. Not that it really takes much to do that. 2 starts=playing Lalime more in November.
LabattBlue Posted November 3, 2009 Report Posted November 3, 2009 Not that it really takes much to do that. 2 starts=playing Lalime more in November. I thought the same thing, but I've beaten the backup goaltending nightmare drum enough already.
bottlecap Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 I thought the same thing, but I've beaten the backup goaltending nightmare drum enough already. I'm not sure who can be an effective backup, whether it's a washed up ex starter or a young, up and coming goalie. Probably neither. Maybe you need a middle-aged goalie who almost made it. In baseball, you put in a relief pitcher, a specialist. They have a "closer" mentality. I'd like to think a backup goalie would have a specialist too. Someone who can stop the bleeding and make the quality spot start against cold teams. To me the greatest backup of all was our own Gilles Villemure to Ed Giacomin. The coach has to find the comfort level of both goalies, there has to be a balance so the starter remains fresh without getting overused throughout the season and the backup has enough reps so he isn't rusty. Besides stopping the bleeding when the starter gets rocked, maybe a good rhythm might be to start the backup the first or second end of back-to-back games against the cold teams in the league. I don't think Lalime is the answer, he's proved it again and again. Buffalo needs two reliable goalies.
shrader Posted November 4, 2009 Report Posted November 4, 2009 I don't think Lalime is the answer, he's proved it again and again. Buffalo needs two reliable goalies. He's proved it again and again based off of one season of limited starts and a single start so far this season? :unsure:
Calvin Posted November 10, 2009 Report Posted November 10, 2009 - Last season, we had a total of 18 back-to-back sets, a total of 36 games with 72 points at stake. The breakdown of points taken is as follows: 4pts x 2, 3pts x 3, 2pts x 8, 1pt x 1, 0pts x 3 = 34 points. - This season, we have a total of 18 back-to-back sets again, 72 points at stake again. So far we have had three back-to-back games, and we have 4 of the 12 points on offer. It might be early in the season, but we need to sort out our issues with playing twice in two days, pretty quick!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.