Game Discussion Thread

[Wraith]

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.

You're too smart to actually believe this. You're saying that the best a team can do, even if they win every single game, is 164 out of 246 points (0.666). If that were actually the case, then 0.473 would be pretty damn good.

[Punch]

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

 

Hmmm... I must be misunderstanding something. The Sabres have 9 "loser points", ie, losses in either OT or SO. Their SO record is 5-1. That means they've lost 8 in OT. It didn't matter if a team won or lost in OT, pre-lockout---- those games were worth 2 pts for a W and 0 for a L. Any result beyond OT (in other words, all SO results) would count as a tie for each team. So, this should be easy to calculate, so long as we have the SO records, which we do.

 

I did actually make a miscalculation by not subtracting the OT losses from the total losses, but that only inflated the loss totals and did not affect the wins, total points or ties. The Sabres record according to the old system would be 32-36-6. As you point out, OTs had been 5 minutes for some time (thanks, I couldn't remember and did not look it up), so the only thing affecting W/L/OT/SO/etc, is each team's approach to the extra period and shootout, which has no doubt changed with the existence of the SO.

 

Right? Maybe I'm overlooking something but I think this is correct.

[SwampD]

Is 500 (even if it was 18-18-0) at home supposed to be good anyway?

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

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?

 

So what you are saying is that there are only 6 teams in the NHL currently under 500?

 

People wonder why I get grumpy?

 

Because you have the patsy GM trumpeting triumph, and his band of merry men defending him. It's disgusting. I don't want to believe that fans are either 1) this stupid, or 2) this dishonest.

 

It isn't semantics because it is being sold as some sort of accomplishment based on an equal playing field.

 

 

I jumped in to begin with because DeLuca is 100% correct and was taking over the top flack. You want to know why DeLuca stays dour? Because it is impossible to change a corrupt system when everyone continues to support it. By seemingly intelligent and normal fans going out of their way to claim success, it only extends the reign of mediocrity that frustrated fans have to deal with. If you're happy with hamburger....enjoy. But those of us who would love some surf and turf are stuck eating hamburger because the masses are satisfied.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

Is 500 (even if it was 18-18-0) at home supposed to be good anyway?

 

No, but again, the claim was it is success. There are 6 teams in the NHL under 500 if we go with the position Darcy takes. That is the sad part. I don't care if the fans want to pacify themselves....it's that I'm being told with a straight face from the head of the hockey department that it is nothing to be ashamed of.

[LGR4GM]

So what you are saying is that there are only 6 teams in the NHL currently under 500?

 

People wonder why I get grumpy?

 

Because you have the patsy GM trumpeting triumph, and his band of merry men defending him. It's disgusting. I don't want to believe that fans are either 1) this stupid, or 2) this dishonest.

 

It isn't semantics because it is being sold as some sort of accomplishment based on an equal playing field.

 

 

I jumped in to begin with because DeLuca is 100% correct and was taking over the top flack. You want to know why DeLuca stays dour? Because it is impossible to change a corrupt system when everyone continues to support it. By seemingly intelligent and normal fans going out of their way to claim success, it only extends the reign of mediocrity that frustrated fans have to deal with. If you're happy with hamburger....enjoy. But those of us who would love some surf and turf are stuck eating hamburger because the masses are satisfied.

To clarify I think are record sucks and i dont give a rats ass if we are just under 500 or a million times over it. If we make the playoffs and do well there I care. If we suck again this year which we could, I will be more than happy to say regier is full of indian food and we need some major turnover in our roster.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

To clarify I think are record sucks and i dont give a rats ass if we are just under 500 or a million times over it. If we make the playoffs and do well there I care. If we suck again this year which we could, I will be more than happy to say regier is full of stuff and we need some major turnover in our roster.

 

I got you. He is FOS no matter what. That's what has me riled.

 

Then to hear Schopp gargle Darcy..."Congratulations on a successful turnaround!"

 

You have to be @^#$#^^#@&ing me!

[X. Benedict]

So what you are saying is that there are only 6 teams in the NHL currently under 500?

 

People wonder why I get grumpy?

 

Because you have the patsy GM trumpeting triumph, and his band of merry men defending him. It's disgusting. I don't want to believe that fans are either 1) this stupid, or 2) this dishonest.

 

It isn't semantics because it is being sold as some sort of accomplishment based on an equal playing field.

 

 

I jumped in to begin with because DeLuca is 100% correct and was taking over the top flack. You want to know why DeLuca stays dour? Because it is impossible to change a corrupt system when everyone continues to support it. By seemingly intelligent and normal fans going out of their way to claim success, it only extends the reign of mediocrity that frustrated fans have to deal with. If you're happy with hamburger....enjoy. But those of us who would love some surf and turf are stuck eating hamburger because the masses are satisfied.

Whoa. I really intended no implications.

 

I just wanted to know what your methodology was.

[Dave Dryden]

You might want to spend some time looking at the standings. .500 means playoffs in the East. The 8 teams .500 and above hold playoff spots. 7 teams under do not. As I stated months ago, patting myself on the back, .500 and goal differential were the stats to watch. All 7 teams not holding a playoff spot have negative goal differentials. The only team in the East that bucks that trend are the Lightning, 4 games over and a minus 7.

That is merely serendipitous. A 41-41-0 team will not make the playoffs. Your point works only if a team has a fair number of overtime losses. You need to be about 10 games over .500 in regulation to make the playoffs. Your metric adds nothing to that.

[Dave Dryden]

You are correct. They are missing the point. They are talking about seeding while I'm talking about "gauging performance" as you said.

 

 

I would consider a team with 42 wins on par with a team with only 40, 2 wins is a very small differential. I used this example before, I would consider a team that went 41-41 a much better team than one that went 0-0-82. They would have the same amount of points, one is clearly a better team than the other.

But given how the NHL keeps score--who cares. You could third period goals more than first period goals if you like, anything that suits your opinion. It still does not change the fact that 105 points would get you in the playoffs, and the 84 point team will not, notwithstanding your opinion on their equality.

[Dave Dryden]

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

OK. It has nothing to do with being a homer, it's just a fact how the NHL keeps score. Try not to fear too much, it's bad for you and the horses.

[Weave]

OK. It has nothing to do with being a homer, it's just a fact how the NHL keeps score. Try not to fear too much, it's bad for you and the horses.

 

:blink:

:doh:

 

But the Deluca500 (that is what we are still talking about, right?) isn't about how the league keeps score. It is an alternative performance metric. Nothing more than another way to look at the data. It is a different POV.

 

 

 

Why do I bother?

[Dave Dryden]

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.

Now that is a reasonable argument--you don't like the system. But it is what it is until changed, and denying that makes little sense to me.

[Dave Dryden]

:blink:

:doh:

 

But the Deluca500 (that is what we are still talking about, right?) isn't about how the league keeps score. It is an alternative performance metric. Nothing more than another way to look at the data. It is a different POV.

 

 

 

Why do I bother?

It's OK if it informs you of something.. then to that extent it is helpful to someone. To me, looking at how many games you are over.500 in regulation is more direct and informative and the DeLuca .500 adds nothing to that. But to each his own.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

OK. It has nothing to do with being a homer, it's just a fact how the NHL keeps score. Try not to fear too much, it's bad for you and the horses.

 

Again, the conversation with Darcy went something like "Why is the home record so bad, do you have any ideas?"

 

At which point in the follow up he pulls, "Well we are 500 at home now". In context it was supposed to be an accomplishment, much like it is used here.

 

 

If I ran a horse for you, and I go...."Yeah, not bad at all, he came in 4th."

 

But I failed to tell you there were 5 horses in the race and he lost by 15 lengths......would you feel happy with the nominal statement that he finished 4th? Am I being honest with you in my assesment for the future potential of that horse at that level if that is the only information I give you?

 

That is the crux of the conversation. By claiming they are 500, in the context of traditional measurement of a sports team and their record, it is being disingenuous because the point system and record is not set up on a finite basis. Yes, your slice of the pie is maxed out at a nominal number, but in relation to the others at the table eating the pie, you are getting short changed and not receiving your proportionate share of the pie by accepting you "meal" as 500.

 

If you are a fan, you are only short changing yourself. If you are charged with the fiduciary responsibility of running this team and representing it in the community, you are trying to bamboozle the constituency by tricking them into accepting that nominal piece of pie as fair.

 

It is clear as day to an honest broker.

 

I can't afford to lie to myself when it comes to evaluating performance because it costs me too much $$$.

[Dave Dryden]

Again, the conversation with Darcy went something like "Why is the home record so bad, do you have any ideas?"

 

At which point in the follow up he pulls, "Well we are 500 at home now". In context it was supposed to be an accomplishment, much like it is used here.

 

 

If I ran a horse for you, and I go...."Yeah, not bad at all, he came in 4th."

 

But I failed to tell you there were 5 horses in the race and he lost by 15 lengths......would you feel happy with the nominal statement that he finished 4th? Am I being honest with you in my assesment for the future potential of that horse at that level if that is the only information I give you?

 

That is the crux of the conversation. By claiming they are 500, in the context of traditional measurement of a sports team and their record, it is being disingenuous because the point system and record is not set up on a finite basis. Yes, your slice of the pie is maxed out at a nominal number, but in relation to the others at the table eating the pie, you are getting short changed and not receiving your proportionate share of the pie by accepting you "meal" as 500.

 

If you are a fan, you are only short changing yourself. If you are charged with the fiduciary responsibility of running this team and representing it in the community, you are trying to bamboozle the constituency by tricking them into accepting that nominal piece of pie as fair.

 

It is clear as day to an honest broker.

 

I can't afford to lie to myself when it comes to evaluating performance because it costs me too much $$$.

I did not hear him, but if he said being .500 at home is somehow good, or adequate or an achievement.. I agree with you he is full of s%$t. But I would think that if you say they are at .500 or four games under .500. A good team needs to be about 10 games over .500 in regulation games at home. The Sabres road record, which is very good, is the only thing that has them in this given their dismal play at home.

[wjag]

I did not hear him, but if he said being .500 at home is somehow good, or adequate or an achievement.. I agree with you he is full of s%$t.

 

 

I should know better than to way in here, but I can't help myself. Sure .500 at home is not great. .500 at home after that horrendous start is saying something. They have been much better of late. I think 5-1-1. They're putting it together. Enjoy the ride.

 

I think we need to lobby the Oxford folks for two new additions that have achieved common acceptance. If they can accept OMG, then we should be to get the Deluca500 and Delucan in there too.

[darksabre]

Again, the conversation with Darcy went something like "Why is the home record so bad, do you have any ideas?"

 

At which point in the follow up he pulls, "Well we are 500 at home now". In context it was supposed to be an accomplishment, much like it is used here.

 

 

If I ran a horse for you, and I go...."Yeah, not bad at all, he came in 4th."

 

But I failed to tell you there were 5 horses in the race and he lost by 15 lengths......would you feel happy with the nominal statement that he finished 4th? Am I being honest with you in my assesment for the future potential of that horse at that level if that is the only information I give you?

 

That is the crux of the conversation. By claiming they are 500, in the context of traditional measurement of a sports team and their record, it is being disingenuous because the point system and record is not set up on a finite basis. Yes, your slice of the pie is maxed out at a nominal number, but in relation to the others at the table eating the pie, you are getting short changed and not receiving your proportionate share of the pie by accepting you "meal" as 500.

 

If you are a fan, you are only short changing yourself. If you are charged with the fiduciary responsibility of running this team and representing it in the community, you are trying to bamboozle the constituency by tricking them into accepting that nominal piece of pie as fair.

 

It is clear as day to an honest broker.

 

I can't afford to lie to myself when it comes to evaluating performance because it costs me too much $$$.

 

:worthy: