matter2003 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 The Sabres have been nothing short of a revelation on defense this year, and of course in goal with Miller(and now even Lalime), allowing the fewest goals in the NHL. I don't think anyone could have seen this coming at the start of the year----I know I sure didn't. Myers is not only the leading rookie of the year candidate in the league, but he also might just be an All-Star, if they were holding the game, that is. Tallinder has been playing very well...much closer to his form during the Sabres deep playoff runs...Rivet, Butler, Lydman, Sekera and Montador have all been playing solid if unspectacular hockey. They just seem to really stifle the opposition's scoring chances and force a lot of shots from the outside. Very rarely are they allowing really good scoring chances and when they do, Miller is usually there to bail them out. Really is surprising just how good defensively this team has become..including the forwards who are getting back to break up tons of plays as well... Might not be the most exciting hockey to watch, but if the team consistently wins playing this way, no complaints from me...
Stoner Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 They're actually just a bit behind the Hawks. Unless you are going by total goals against... Still, close enough. The penalty killing has been huge.
Two or less Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 Best penalty killing team in the league since November 11th.... something like 96%.
FogBat Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 I'll take the egg in my face for all my criticizing and whining about lackluster play and roster-building. Maybe the Wizard of Oz helped put together the right crew this season.
Stoner Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 I'll take the egg in my face for all my criticizing and whining about lackluster play and roster-building. Maybe the Wizard of Oz helped put together the right crew this season. The exciting thing is that this team hasn't come close to peaking, IMHO. Hopefully the streaky team really gets on a roll after the Olympics. If only this power play could get itself going -- and Tom.
Calvin Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 The exciting thing is that this team hasn't come close to peaking, IMHO. Hopefully the streaky team really gets on a roll after the Olympics. If only this power play could get itself going -- and Tom. I think Thomas going on a major roll is a matter of when, not if.. and it's going to be serious, like 10 goals in 10 games.. i really like the physical effort he's been putting the last few games, scrapping and fighting for the puck
matter2003 Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Posted December 12, 2009 They're actually just a bit behind the Hawks. Unless you are going by total goals against... Still, close enough. The penalty killing has been huge. As of tonite's games, they are the best both in goals per game allowed and total goals allowed. Sabres 2.12 GA/G Devils 2.23 Hawks 2.23 Coyotes 2.29 Flames 2.40 Bruins 2.46
JujuFish Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 As of tonite's games, they are the best both in goals per game allowed and total goals allowed. Sabres 2.12 GA/G Devils 2.23 Hawks 2.23 Coyotes 2.29 Flames 2.40 Bruins 2.46 1 CHI 2.13 2 BUF 2.17 3 NJD 2.20 4 PHX 2.26
shrader Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 As of tonite's games, they are the best both in goals per game allowed and total goals allowed. Sabres 2.12 GA/G Devils 2.23 Hawks 2.23 Coyotes 2.29 Flames 2.40 Bruins 2.46 1 CHI 2.13 2 BUF 2.17 3 NJD 2.20 4 PHX 2.26 I'm too lazy to look it up, but it looks like we've got an issue here with that goal added to the GA column when you lose in a shootout. If I remember correctly, the Sabres haven't lost in a shootout this season, so I don't know why you two would be getting different numbers for Buffalo.
JujuFish Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 I'm too lazy to look it up, but it looks like we've got an issue here with that goal added to the GA column when you lose in a shootout. If I remember correctly, the Sabres haven't lost in a shootout this season, so I don't know why you two would be getting different numbers for Buffalo. I took my numbers from NHL.com. http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20102ALLAAAAll&sort=avgGoalsAgainstPerGame&viewName=goalsAgainst Maybe NHL's stats aren't updated yet, but I've found they're usually the first place to update.
carpandean Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 Chicago is listed in the standings as having 67 GA in 30 GP, which is 2.23 GAPG. However, they have three SO losses, which count as a GA in the standings, so they really have 64 GA (2.13 GAPG), as shown in Juju's link.
matter2003 Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Posted December 12, 2009 Chicago is listed in the standings as having 67 GA in 30 GP, which is 2.23 GAPG. However, they have three SO losses, which count as a GA in the standings, so they really have 64 GA (2.13 GAPG), as shown in Juju's link. it counts in the standings regardless
JujuFish Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 it counts in the standings regardless Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Look at the link I gave. Chicago is shown as having 64 goals against; that would indicate that SO loss "goals" do not, in fact, count "in the standings".
deluca67 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 A thread that should be simply titled 'Ryan Miller'.
carpandean Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Look at the link I gave. Chicago is shown as having 64 goals against; that would indicate that SO loss "goals" do not, in fact, count "in the standings". I think he meant that in the standings those goals count. If I remember correctly, isn't goal differential somewhere in the list of tiebreakers? If so, then those SO goals definitely count in the standings. The question is do you include them when ranking the "best" defensive team. The fact that the NHL statistics list GA without those SO goals suggests that, while they do acknowledge them in the standings, they don't feel they are the same as other GA. Edit: In the event teams are tied in the standings, the following tiebreakers are applied to determine which team receives the higher seeding. 1. The fewer number of games played (i.e., superior points percentage). 2. The greater number of games won. 3. The greater number of points earned in games between the tied clubs. If two clubs are tied, and have not played an equal number of home games against each other, points earned in the first game played in the city that had the extra game shall not be included. If more than two clubs are tied, the higher percentage of available points earned in games among those clubs, and not including any "odd" games, shall be used to determine the standing. 4. Goal differential
shrader Posted December 12, 2009 Report Posted December 12, 2009 I think he meant that in the standings those goals count. If I remember correctly, isn't goal differential somewhere in the list of tiebreakers? If so, then those SO goals definitely count in the standings. The question is do you include them when ranking the "best" defensive team. The fact that the NHL statistics list GA without those SO goals suggests that, while they do acknowledge them in the standings, they don't feel they are the same as other GA. Edit: Yeah, it's hard to hold something against a team's defense when they're not even on the ice.
Stoner Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 I think he meant that in the standings those goals count. If I remember correctly, isn't goal differential somewhere in the list of tiebreakers? If so, then those SO goals definitely count in the standings. The question is do you include them when ranking the "best" defensive team. The fact that the NHL statistics list GA without those SO goals suggests that, while they do acknowledge them in the standings, they don't feel they are the same as other GA. Edit: Why is number 1 even there? The seedings are determined after 82 games.
carpandean Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 Why is number 1 even there? The seedings are determined after 82 games. The final seedings are done after 82 games, making (1) a non-factor at that point, but they constantly seed the team in their official standings.
Stoner Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 The final seedings are done after 82 games, making (1) a non-factor at that point, but they constantly seed the team in their official standings. I'm probably splitting semantic hairs again, but you can't seed until after the regular season is over. "If the playoffs started today" is just fun for the fans and media. The NHL shouldn't have a superfluous tie-breaker for the fans and media.
carpandean Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 I'm probably splitting semantic hairs again, but you can't seed until after the regular season is over. "If the playoffs started today" is just fun for the fans and media. The NHL shouldn't have a superfluous tie-breaker for the fans and media. Why not? They wouldn't have a league without the fans and the media. What does it hurt? It doesn't change things when the final seeds are actually made, and they do keep a running standing ("If the playoffs started today"), which requires the extra tie-breaker. Would it make you feel better if they started with (2) and put a foot note saying "to appease our fans, we keep a silly, meaningless running seeding, which may require seeding the team with fewer games played higher when points are the same?"
Stoner Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 Why not? They wouldn't have a league without the fans and the media. What does it hurt? It doesn't change things when the final seeds are actually made, and they do keep a running standing ("If the playoffs started today"), which requires the extra tie-breaker. Would it make you feel better if they started with (2) and put a foot note saying "to appease our fans, we keep a silly, meaningless running seeding, which may require seeding the team with fewer games played higher when points are the same?" It hurts because it casts the league, again, as a bunch of blockheads. "In the event teams are tied in the standings, the following tiebreakers are applied to determine which team receives the higher seeding." That's a post-regular season scenario. You can't receive a seeding until then! Yes, that list needs to start with 2. 1. can be a footnote explaining how the silly "If the playoffs started today..." works. This is a league that always talks about getting new fans, but the rulebook is a shambles. Imagine a new fan going to that resource after the regular season to figure out where his team is seeded. Would 1. make any sense?
carpandean Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 It hurts because it casts the league, again, as a bunch of blockheads. "In the event teams are tied in the standings, the following tiebreakers are applied to determine which team receives the higher seeding." That's a post-regular season scenario. You can't receive a seeding until then! Yes, that list needs to start with 2. 1. can be a footnote explaining how the silly "If the playoffs started today..." works. This is a league that always talks about getting new fans, but the rulebook is a shambles. Imagine a new fan going to that resource after the regular season to figure out where his team is seeded. Would 1. make any sense? :blink: 1) As avid a fan as I am, I had to look up those rules to know what they are for sure. So, how many new or potential fans are judging the league by that list? How many have ever even seen it? 2) A new fan could just go to "Standings" on NHL.com to figure out where his team is seeded. Now, if (s)he doesn't understand why one team is above another and goes to that list, (s)he will simply read #1, note that it isn't breaking the tie, and then move on to #2. Or, do you really think that (s)he will stop and think "hmm, that's really dumb; why am I following the sport again?" 3) If a fan isn't smart enough to figure out that #1 is in there for "if the playoffs started today" seedings, then (s)he should just watch movies or reality TV, because there are many, many things in hockey or any major sport that are far more confusing. Basically, what I'm saying is that I believe that you are stretching it ... a lot ... on this one and would be surprised if one potential/former fan anywhere ever used it as part of reason not to follow hockey. It's a tiebreaker that is used, whether stated or not, by every major sport in making their "current standings". Where they put it just isn't that big of a deal.
Taro T Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 Why is number 1 even there? The seedings are determined after 82 games. Because although EXTREMELY unlikely (as there haven't been teams playing differing #'s of games since the Wanderers folded), it is possible that for some reason at least 1 game doesn't end up getting played. The most likely cause would be a players' strike which occurs towards the end of the season and is resolved before the playoffs have to be scrapped, but not soon enough to work all the missed games back into the schedule before holding a delayed playoffs. As often as the league gets criticized (rightly so on most occassions) for making stuff up "on the fly", why criticize them for having a tie-breaking procedure in place that actually takes contingencies into consideration before the fact? "Shoot, they were planning for something that was unlikely, what a bunch of maroons." :huh:
Stoner Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 Because although EXTREMELY unlikely (as there haven't been teams playing differing #'s of games since the Wanderers folded), it is possible that for some reason at least 1 game doesn't end up getting played. The most likely cause would be a players' strike which occurs towards the end of the season and is resolved before the playoffs have to be scrapped, but not soon enough to work all the missed games back into the schedule before holding a delayed playoffs. As often as the league gets criticized (rightly so on most occassions) for making stuff up "on the fly", why criticize them for having a tie-breaking procedure in place that actually takes contingencies into consideration before the fact? "Shoot, they were planning for something that was unlikely, what a bunch of maroons." :huh: Oh jeez. What's the league's contingency for two teams still being tied after looking at goal differential? Guess they'll have to make something up...
Stoner Posted December 20, 2009 Report Posted December 20, 2009 :blink: 1) As avid a fan as I am, I had to look up those rules to know what they are for sure. So, how many new or potential fans are judging the league by that list? How many have ever even seen it? 2) A new fan could just go to "Standings" on NHL.com to figure out where his team is seeded. Now, if (s)he doesn't understand why one team is above another and goes to that list, (s)he will simply read #1, note that it isn't breaking the tie, and then move on to #2. Or, do you really think that (s)he will stop and think "hmm, that's really dumb; why am I following the sport again?" 3) If a fan isn't smart enough to figure out that #1 is in there for "if the playoffs started today" seedings, then (s)he should just watch movies or reality TV, because there are many, many things in hockey or any major sport that are far more confusing. Basically, what I'm saying is that I believe that you are stretching it ... a lot ... on this one and would be surprised if one potential/former fan anywhere ever used it as part of reason not to follow hockey. It's a tiebreaker that is used, whether stated or not, by every major sport in making their "current standings". Where they put it just isn't that big of a deal. I was referring to the chaotic rulebook. If I were a new fan, trying to take the sport seriously, I'd go to the rulebook when trying to understand, say, what charging is. Would "distance traveled" make any sense? Would the definition of puck possession line up with the penalty for interference? There are a lot of examples like that. See the rulebook thread. This is a garage league and everyone knows it. I counted FIVE times last night when a delayed penalty was whistled off BEFORE the penalized team controlled the puck. Each time, the puck was ABOUT to be controlled. That was good enough for the ref. One in a thousand times, that puck will hit a rut in the ice and bound over the stick. And then what? What if you just lost a series because of it? The league is not detail-oriented. Don't you think "mainstream" sports fans, who watch serious leagues, might get a chuckle out of that headset that they try to fit through a round hole in the glass? Or the carbon copies the refs get from the coaches before the shootouts? :) I don't think the tiebreaking procedures are even in the rulebook though. The procedures, at the bottom of the conference standings page for all to see, are slightly different than what you posted. For example, on that page, 4. reads "The greater differential between goals for and against for the entire regular season." That's more explicit than "goal differential," which could be read as goal differential in games between the two tied teams.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.