Game Discussion Thread

[PromoTheRobot]

The hate is strong in you.

Methinks doth protest too much.

 

PTR

[Punch]

Problem is, as PTR pointed out, some of the wins for every team would also be ties under the old system. Without looking up each team's complete result history, it's impossible to make the calculation.

Only the shooutout wins (coupled with shootout losses) would be combined for the total number of ties--- and the shootout wins would also be subtracted from the total wins, with "loser point" OT losses counting as regulation losses.

 

Was the OT period 10 minutes pre-lockout? I guess PTR is right, then, because there's no way to truly gauge what would have happened with 5 extra minutes of OT.

[Lanny]

Four game unbeaten streak!

 

 

*waits to see if Deluca's head explodes*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY-03vYYAjA

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Wow, you need to chill a bit guy. Overtime losses are considered different by most everyone in hockey because you get a point so it is different. You can dislike Regier for lots of reasons, but saying you are .500 based on regulation wins and losses is how most anyone would talk about it except for a few here on this board. It is hardly Enron-like.

 

Again....if you truly believe what you type and aren't just being a homer....I fear for our country.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

The idea of the classic "500" measure was that you knew a team was above average. If there are only wins and losses, then it's easy. With the current system, the "500" is a measure of your ability to gain point. However, "average" is actually around "560" and isn't constant.

 

There are plenty of better measures for "average" under the current system. Deluca's 500 is one, I use my 93 point "playoff pace" as basically another (though, I'd probably use 91 or 92, which corresponds to 0.560, for average; 93 is to be relatively certain of making it), and the one that PA showed is another. None of them are perfect, because the 2/3-point system doesn't allow for a perfect system like the W/L system.

 

Carp....thank you for your patience. You want to teach, while I want to stock up on ammo and bunker down from the zombies.

[LGR4GM]

Carp....thank you for your patience. You want to teach, while I want to stock up on ammo and bunker down from the zombies.

Rule #1: Cardio, Rule #2: Double Tap them zombies ain't getting me.

 

Anyone else sad to see the sabres give up that late goal? We are playing smarter but still had A.D.D. moments now and again. Vanek couldn't score in a bleeding WH07E house as my irish soccer coach used to say. Guess we continue to wait for him to get hot. He should have 6 more goals than he does at this point but hopefully he is saving it for the playoffs.

[wjag]

Again....if you truly believe what you type and aren't just being a homer....I fear for our country.

 

 

Carp....thank you for your patience. You want to teach, while I want to stock up on ammo and bunker down from the zombies.

 

 

LOL.. You're on a roll today...

[SwampD]

Carp....thank you for your patience. You want to teach, while I want to stock up on ammo and bunker down from the zombies.

Did you make a bet on the Sabres not making the playoffs? It seems like the closer we get to them making it, the more sour you are becoming. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the show. I was just wondering.

[PromoTheRobot]

Only the shooutout wins (coupled with shootout losses) would be combined for the total number of ties--- and the shootout wins would also be subtracted from the total wins, with "loser point" OT losses counting as regulation losses.

 

Was the OT period 10 minutes pre-lockout? I guess PTR is right, then, because there's no way to truly gauge what would have happened with 5 extra minutes of OT.

Wikipedia OT

 

In 1983-84 the NHL added the 5-minute OT. If no one scored the game remained was called a tie. In 2005-2006 the shootout was added. So before 1984 games that ended at a tie remained tied and worth 1pt to each team. I've looked all over NHL.co0m and without going through every 1-goal victory to see if it was won in OT I can't figure our just how many Sabre wins would be ties in the old NHL.

 

PTR

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Did you make a bet on the Sabres not making the playoffs? It seems like the closer we get to them making it, the more sour you are becoming. Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the show. I was just wondering.

 

Darcy got me riled up. I was driving the 90 and heard his entire interview. He said with a straight face the Sabres are .500 at home......now I will accept an 18 year old message boarder saying that....but the GM of the team? 500 in what?

 

I'm actually excited at the prospects of having hockey when the weather is above 30 degrees. While I don't believe this team will do anything, and I'm not convinced they won't spit the bit over the next 2 weeks, they deserve some credit. I think in the back of my head I just know if they make the playoffs, it will be deemed a success and GM/Coach for life will be here for the better part of this decade.

 

If the Sabres make it in and actually win the first round against a top team, I will say that they deserve more time to show what they can do. It's just impossible to convince someone about their limitations when excuses are accepted though. At least guys like Gerbe and Weber are players I can get behind. It's the Staffords and Gaustads and Sekeras and Connollys that I am waiting to watch revert to what they know best. There aren't many Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman stories in real life. We still have too many whores and I doubt just because Pegula is here we get to see their golden hearts.

[JujuFish]

Darcy got me riled up. I was driving the 90 and heard his entire interview. He said with a straight face the Sabres are .500 at home......now I will accept an 18 year old message boarder saying that....but the GM of the team? 500 in what?

For all your condescension, I would have thought you'd be smart enough to figure out that he's referring to points percentage, which was undeniably true. And since NHL standings are decided upon by points percentage rather than winning percentage (one team can have a higher seed than another team despite fewer wins at the end of the season, such as Boston and Philly last year), it is rather laughable how worked up you're getting over this.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

For all your condescension, I would have thought you'd be smart enough to figure out that he's referring to points percentage, which was undeniably true. And since NHL standings are decided upon by points percentage rather than winning percentage (one team can have a higher seed than another team despite fewer wins at the end of the season, such as Boston and Philly last year), it is rather laughable how worked up you're getting over this.

 

Points percentage?

 

Really?

 

Going into last night the Sabres were 16-16-4 at home.

 

That means there were 76 points awarded in those games.

 

The Sabres captured 36 of those 76 points.

 

36/76 = .473

 

 

Tell me again.....500 in what?

[JujuFish]

Points percentage?

 

Really?

 

Going into last night the Sabres were 16-16-4 at home.

 

That means there were 76 points awarded in those games.

 

The Sabres captured 36 of those 76 points.

 

36/76 = .473

 

 

Tell me again.....500 in what?

You don't know what points percentage means, do you?

 

It means the total number of points gained divided by the total possible number of points gained.

 

36/72 = .500

 

Do you need me to spell it out even more simply for you?

[X. Benedict]

Points percentage?

 

Really?

 

Going into last night the Sabres were 16-16-4 at home.

 

That means there were 76 points awarded in those games.

 

The Sabres captured 36 of those 76 points.

 

36/76 = .473

 

 

Tell me again.....500 in what?

 

:blink: 76? We are counting the 3 point games for ties?

Very Delucan.

[Wraith]

Points percentage?

 

Really?

 

Going into last night the Sabres were 16-16-4 at home.

 

That means there were 76 points awarded in those games.

 

The Sabres captured 36 of those 76 points.

 

36/76 = .473

 

 

Tell me again.....500 in what?

 

I know you already know the answer to this and have just twisted the numbers to fit your foul mood, but I'm going to explain it anyway because I am a glutton for punishment. You just referenced 36 home games. In what universe could the Sabres have gained 76 points in 36 games? Not this one. The most they could've gained was 72. They earned 36. They earned 50% of the possible points they could've.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

If fans want to mindf### themselves into believing certain statistics are a good thing....awesome......denial is deadly, but comforting.

 

When the head of hockey operations tries to SELL me his Microsoft Excel '97 spreadsheet bologna....I take offense. Either he is unqualified, or a liar. Sweet little Darcy knows where his bread is buttered. I would love to have lunch with Ted Black for an hour and give a presentation on the culture that is still entrenched. If the new crew is as sincere as they say they are about things, there should be some serious hesitation on their part by supporting the status quo.

 

Is it about truth and the best interests of the emotional stakeholders....the fans? Or is it about placating a malleable consumer base and keeping the gravy train rolling. If it's the first, there is no tollerance on my part for statements that were made yesterday if I own this team.

[JujuFish]

Washington is the hottest team in the East. Or maybe you're predicting that by Wednesday, the Rangers and Sabres will be.

With the Rangers' win today, they're 8-1-1 in their last 10, slightly edging out Washington's 8-2-0. If the playoffs started today, those two would be facing each other. I'd really like to see that happen, actually. One thing's for certain, I'm glad that the Sabres won't be facing a hot Lundqvist in the first round should they make it.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I know you already know the answer to this and have just twisted the numbers to fit your foul mood, but I'm going to explain it anyway because I am a glutton for punishment. You just referenced 36 home games. In what universe could the Sabres have gained 76 points in 36 games? Not this one. The most they could've gained was 72. They earned 36. They earned 50% of the possible points they could've.

 

The entire standings is based on 3 point games. They are part of the overall pie. An artificial point earned for losing a game is the bastard child of the NHL.

 

Saying that you are 500 in that system is like bragging you won the silver medal when there are only 2 people in the race.

 

Again...if you want to homer it up, fine. If you are actually holding the Sabres to that standard, then I don't want you setting the bar for my accomplishments.

 

I'd love to go into business with someone where we both do the same amount of work, risk the same capital, and I get to keep 53% of the profit and you 47%. That's what you are advocating.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

:blink: 76? We are counting the 3 point games for ties?

Very Delucan.

 

You are too smart and too honest to seriously advocate anything else.

[LGR4GM]

You don't know what points percentage means, do you?

 

It means the total number of points gained divided by the total possible number of points gained.

 

36/72 = .500

 

Do you need me to spell it out even more simply for you?

Not to agree or disagree with anyone but, 16-16-4 was our home record. That is what we are discussing correct? So that means we are talking about 36 games right? Now the premise is whether or not the OT/SO losses count in a specific way right? so out of 36 games you could get at the most 72 pts. Your team can not get 3 pts no matter what. so the sabres had 32pts + 4 = 36. So technically we are at .500 however I understand why you would think to add an extra 4 points but again you cant just do that because we didn't earn an extra 4 points at home. A three point game does not mean a team could have gotten three points so you can not count them that way.

[JujuFish]

Saying that you are 500 in that system is like bragging you won the silver medal when there are only 2 people in the race.

The real problem comes down to anyone bragging about being .500 under any circumstances. Being content with mediocrity in any form is inexcusable.

[BetweenThePipes00]

The entire standings is based on 3 point games. They are part of the overall pie. An artificial point earned for losing a game is the bastard child of the NHL.

 

 

I am not going to enter the "Are they 500 at home" argument. No matter what they have not been good enough.

 

But the problem with the current NHL is NOT the loser point. the loser point has been there since the beginning of time. When we were kids, there was a such thing as a GOOD tie. But there was also a penalty to both teams for NOT winning. Now only ONE team is penalized for not winning. The problems started when they started giving the extra "winner" point for the skills competition.

[X. Benedict]

You are too smart and too honest to seriously advocate anything else.

Why not the 4 OT wins at home to go with the 4 OT losses (all three point games), shouldn't it be 80 pts in 32 games?

[Weave]

The real problem comes down to anyone bragging about being .500 under any circumstances. Being content with mediocrity in any form is inexcusable.

 

Now we are getting somewhere. Until now it is just a semantics exercize in defining level of mediocrity.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

I am not going to enter the "Are they 500 at home" argument. No matter what they have not been good enough.

 

But the problem with the current NHL is NOT the loser point. the loser point has been there since the beginning of time. When we were kids, there was a such thing as a GOOD tie. But there was also a penalty to both teams for NOT winning. Now only ONE team is penalized for not winning. The problems started when they started giving the extra "winner" point for the skills competition.

 

I agree in full.

 

Say you have two teams like Nashville and Buffalo in opposite conferences, battling to make the playoffs. Wouldn't it be easy to play for the tie, knowing you both get rewarded and can't be hurt? Settle it in OT.

 

This system is an insult to fans in all honesty. You would see much better hockey if mediocrity wasn't rewarded.