frissonic Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 I have *never* understood why it is that some people insist that this time of year is more important to win games. Using this season as a perfect example, the month of October, the Sabres went 3-7-2. If we had won even just 4 more games JUST in October, we would be on top of the division and in 3rd place right now. JUST with those 4 more wins in October. So ... why is it that the playoff push starts in January? Why the urgency after the all-star break to *really* get points?
Eleven Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 I have *never* understood why it is that some people insist that this time of year is more important to win games. Using this season as a perfect example, the month of October, the Sabres went 3-7-2. If we had won even just 4 more games JUST in October, we would be on top of the division and in 3rd place right now. JUST with those 4 more wins in October. So ... why is it that the playoff push starts in January? Why the urgency after the all-star break to *really* get points? That's just this year, because they had to recover. Last year and 2007 were very different.
frissonic Posted March 27, 2011 Author Report Posted March 27, 2011 That's just this year, because they had to recover. Last year and 2007 were very different. I'm not talking about just this year, or the last few years, or even just the Sabres. I'm talking about sports in general. it's the same in basketball. After their all-star break, out here, everyone starts talking about "must-win" games for the Jazz. Here's a novel approach: How about trying to win them ALL? Not that any basketball, baseball or hockey team will ever have a perfect season (because really, what are the odds of winning 82 or 162 games?), but it's the concept that games later in the season matter more. They don't! Every game carries with it a potential two points: from day one until the final horn blows on the final game. So why the "playoff push" mentality after the all-star break?
will Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 i bet there's a correlation someone could point to about the winner of the president's trophy hardly ever winning the stanley cup. and i only bring that up in response to the notion that a franchise "[tries] to win them ALL." i think there's a significant risk of a team burning out if they're going pedal to the metal to win as many games as possible at all times during the season. it's a looooong season, regardless of what sport you consider. i think most of the time before the all-star break, teams are just looking to hang around with the pack, stay healthy, work on development, identify weaknesses/strengths, etc. the "playoff push" you refer to isn't necessarily an actual mode that teams jump into, but rather the identifying of a time when more weight is put on the outcomes of the games that are being played. yes, two points in october carry the same weight as two points in late march, but you never refer to games in october and november by anything other than "early season struggles/success." to summarize, the "playoff push" is a just a name for a certain time of the season, not an actual change in behavior, whether it be the media using the term, or the players themselves. or at least, that's how i see it. a tilt in november is never referred to as a "must win" game because there's plenty of time between then and the end of the season to make up for a loss, if that is the outcome.
Taro T Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 I'm not talking about just this year, or the last few years, or even just the Sabres. I'm talking about sports in general. it's the same in basketball. After their all-star break, out here, everyone starts talking about "must-win" games for the Jazz. Here's a novel approach: How about trying to win them ALL? Not that any basketball, baseball or hockey team will ever have a perfect season (because really, what are the odds of winning 82 or 162 games?), but it's the concept that games later in the season matter more. They don't! Every game carries with it a potential two points: from day one until the final horn blows on the final game. So why the "playoff push" mentality after the all-star break? While every game counts the same in the end, the later season games are considered to be 'must win' more than the earlier ones because if you go on a bad streak at the beginning of the season, there is still time to go on a hot streak and make up for it. If you tank at the end of the year, you're hosed. I agree w/ you about all games being equal (in reality, not perception) and that is what the +'s and -'s are in my sig. A pace of 6 wins per every 10 games gives you 96 points after 80 games and a virtual lock on the playoffs. (The 2 extra games at the end are gravy.) As long as your overall pace is 'even' then just win 3 of the next 5 (6 out of 10, whatever) each and every time and you almost assuredly will make the playoffs. If you pocket a couple of extra wins early, still go for that 6 out of 10 as you'll maintain that cushion to use when the inevitable slump hits (even the top teams hit a slump or 2 over the full season). (In football, win 3 of each 4, and you will likely have a bye in the 1st round w/ your 12 W's.) Scotty Bowman used to break the season into 10 game increments and have targets for the team to go each 10. It worked for him, I like the philosophy.
Eleven Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 I'm not talking about just this year, or the last few years, or even just the Sabres. I'm talking about sports in general. it's the same in basketball. After their all-star break, out here, everyone starts talking about "must-win" games for the Jazz. Here's a novel approach: How about trying to win them ALL? Not that any basketball, baseball or hockey team will ever have a perfect season (because really, what are the odds of winning 82 or 162 games?), but it's the concept that games later in the season matter more. They don't! Every game carries with it a potential two points: from day one until the final horn blows on the final game. So why the "playoff push" mentality after the all-star break? I see. Well, all games do count equally, that's for sure. Games closer to the end of a season have an effect on the postseason that is easier to perceive (and even calculate). For example, take an NFL team that starts a season 4-0 or even 5-1. They've gotta make the playoffs, right? They did their work up front and won 5/6 of their games. But a couple of months later, when that same team is 9-6 and playing a bunch of third-stringers with the playoffs on the line in the last week of the season, that last game seems to count more. That's because at that point, the team knows that it's in if it wins, and out if it loses. The team didn't know in September that its week 2 win would make the difference between a 9 win and 10 win season (and thus, the playoffs), but in December, the team knows that the last game will make the difference between a 9 win and 10 win season (and the playoffs). So what does a team do? Hypothetically, it pulls out all the stops, plays harder than ever before, and finds a way to win a critical game. (Just like teams play harder in the playoffs than they do in the regular season.) In reality, the team loses to a bunch of third-stringers. I guess that's why there's a playoff push mentality. As the season nears its end, teams know whether (1) they must win or (2) it doesn't matter.
Stoner Posted March 27, 2011 Report Posted March 27, 2011 I have *never* understood why it is that some people insist that this time of year is more important to win games. Using this season as a perfect example, the month of October, the Sabres went 3-7-2. If we had won even just 4 more games JUST in October, we would be on top of the division and in 3rd place right now. JUST with those 4 more wins in October. So ... why is it that the playoff push starts in January? Why the urgency after the all-star break to *really* get points? I think Lindy does have that philosophy early in the season, and it might be counter-productive in that he's afraid to play his backup even before Christmas.
BeachedNLA Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Although it is true that all games count the same, you want your team "peaking" at the end of the season / when they get to the playoffs. This post (this thread) thus-far uses the Sabres this season as an example, but I'll go to the most-recent / biggest playoff disappointment for our franchise... The President's Cup year, what was it, 2006-07(? Think so, without going back to look at stats)... That was the season that the Sabres set a records "out of the box", starting off something like no losses / regulation losses (primarily all wins, I think in their first 11/13 games or such). Early in that season, they far & away were the best team in the league (my opinion, obviously, but they DID garnish the most points of ALL teams). However, they got very defensively sloppy as the season went on, and were by no means playing their best hockey of the year (and had a slight struggle that Miller saved them in the Islander series, then a huge struggle against the Rangers in Playoffs which that Drury Game Six, 7 seconds left thriller bailed them out of, and then they got handled by Ottawa, despite the home-ice advantage...). Ever since that season, it's my opinion that late-season momentum is NOT over-rated (I like the fact the Sabres have to work for playoff aspirations this season, as-opposed to fact they had the division sowed up pretty much a few weeks before playoff time last season). Ideally, you don't want ot "lose" in the beginning of the season, but you also don't win the Stanley cup in October (maybe help yourself with better playoff positioning..., assuming you don't blow yourself out of the playoff hunt, like the Sabres almost did with THEIR October / early November...). As always... GO SABRES!!
cdexchange Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 The Sabres are a better road team than home team this year, so I'm glad we're 7th and not 3rd. Also, high expectations often result in team "tightness" and extra pressure, which doesn't help either. I'm happy that the Sabres are going to be the "underdog" in every playoff series they play this year.
wjag Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 The Sabres are a better road team than home team this year, so I'm glad we're 7th and not 3rd. Also, high expectations often result in team "tightness" and extra pressure, which doesn't help either. I'm happy that the Sabres are going to be the "underdog" in every playoff series they play this year. I understand this sentiment, but I don't think I agree with it. The home crowds are amping up the decibels and excitement. Wednesday night will be a good tell. It will be a meaningful game regardless of the outcome of Tuesday's game in Toronto. If Buffalo can beat a rested NYR team on the back-end of a back-to-back, I'd say I'd rather take my chances at home.
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 The Sabres are a better road team than home team this year, so I'm glad we're 7th and not 3rd. Also, high expectations often result in team "tightness" and extra pressure, which doesn't help either. I'm happy that the Sabres are going to be the "underdog" in every playoff series they play this year. I'll counter your point with the point that 3 of the 4 top seeds have better home records than the Sabres have away records, effectively cancelling out any thought of the Sabres having a chance. I'll go one further and say that 3 of the top 4 seeds have better away records than the Sabres have as well. Further pushing the statistical fact that if the Sabres were to face any one of Philadelpia, Washington or Pittsburg, they would be swept in 4 games. Boston appears to be the only opponent statistically on the win/loss ratio for home/away that falls in some type of parity with Buffalo, but what are the odds we face them in the 1st round? And if we did and do defeat them, statistically speaking, we could very well be facing one of the 3 previously listed teams that, in accordance with the current statistics on home/away records, would sweep us in a series. I am not happy about the Sabres going in as underdogs. There isn't alot of fun in that thought, atleast to me.
cdexchange Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I'll counter your point with the point that 3 of the 4 top seeds have better home records than the Sabres have away records, effectively cancelling out any thought of the Sabres having a chance. I'll go one further and say that 3 of the top 4 seeds have better away records than the Sabres have as well. Further pushing the statistical fact that if the Sabres were to face any one of Philadelpia, Washington or Pittsburg, they would be swept in 4 games. Boston appears to be the only opponent statistically on the win/loss ratio for home/away that falls in some type of parity with Buffalo, but what are the odds we face them in the 1st round? And if we did and do defeat them, statistically speaking, we could very well be facing one of the 3 previously listed teams that, in accordance with the current statistics on home/away records, would sweep us in a series. I am not happy about the Sabres going in as underdogs. There isn't alot of fun in that thought, atleast to me. That's ridiculous. It's certainly a possibility that we could get swept, but it's not likely. How the Sabres total win/loss record for the whole year (and therefore seeding) stacks up against the top four teams in the East does not concern me at all. This is clearly not the same team that it was in the first half of the season. I don't have time to do the work, but I'd love to see somebody break down JUST the second half of the season and then seed the playoffs based on that. I guarantee we'd be the "home" team in at least the first round in that scenario. How they've played lately is way more important than how they played in Sept/Oct/Nov. I am not happy about the Sabres going in as underdogs. There isn't alot of fun in that thought, atleast to me. Totally disagree. Underdogs is WAY more fun. Just contrast the '06 playoffs with the '07 playoffs. It's not even close.
X. Benedict Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I'll counter your point with the point that 3 of the 4 top seeds have better home records than the Sabres have away records, effectively cancelling out any thought of the Sabres having a chance. I'll go one further and say that 3 of the top 4 seeds have better away records than the Sabres have as well. Further pushing the statistical fact that if the Sabres were to face any one of Philadelpia, Washington or Pittsburg, they would be swept in 4 games. Statistical fact is very different than belief. If that's what you believe that's fine, but that's quite a non sequitur as far as stats go.
dumb_dumb88 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Statistical fact is very different than belief. If that's what you believe that's fine, but that's quite a non sequitur as far as stats go. Oh, it's not what I believe, cd made the comment on the Sabres away record and said he was glad we were 7th and not 3rd. I was merely pointing out that based on the current season records of the top 4 seeds, the Sabres away record becomes a moot point given the success of these teams home records. Then I further proceeded to point out the away record as well of these top seeded teams. The Sabres away record is what becomes a non sequitur when you look at it from the regular season records of those seeds and the position the Sabres find themselves in. With that said, anything can happen in any given game, not just a series and Buffalo will have just as much of a chance to make a deep run as 15 other teams will, but normally home ice advantage is nice to have, atleast from this fans prospective.
X. Benedict Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Oh, it's not what I believe,..... With that said, anything can happen in any given game, not just a series and Buffalo will have just as much of a chance to make a deep run as 15 other teams will, but normally home ice advantage is nice to have, atleast from this fans prospective. Thanks. I was curious about that sweep comment.
Eleven Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I am not happy about the Sabres going in as underdogs. There isn't alot of fun in that thought, atleast to me. I'll bet that on November 1, that thought was a lot of fun. Totally disagree. Underdogs is WAY more fun. Just contrast the '06 playoffs with the '07 playoffs. It's not even close. Yep!
Calvin Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 it's human nature. it's physically impossible (or close) to be at 100+% all the time. think about it in terms of your job - how many days in the year are you able to push the boundaries and strain yourself to be perfect, and how long does that last? when there is an end goal in sight (eg playoffs), it's easier to motivate yourself and stay on the edge. it's easy to say that when people are getting paid as much as they are in pro sports, that motivation should come easy, but it doesn't. now if only all salaries were performance-based, even in pro-sports, then we would really see if Timmay could should up every night to earn his check.
Sabre Dance Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 I have *never* understood why it is that some people insist that this time of year is more important to win games. Using this season as a perfect example, the month of October, the Sabres went 3-7-2. If we had won even just 4 more games JUST in October, we would be on top of the division and in 3rd place right now. JUST with those 4 more wins in October. So ... why is it that the playoff push starts in January? Why the urgency after the all-star break to *really* get points? Same reason people wait until April 14 to do their taxes.... or as the case is this year, April 17.
Eleven Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Same reason people wait until April 14 to do their taxes.... or as the case is this year, April 17. October 15, after the extension.
Taro T Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 October 15, after the extension. November 15, for businesses after the extension.
Sabre Dance Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 October 15, after the extension. November 15, for businesses after the extension. See?
bagjr387 Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 That's ridiculous. It's certainly a possibility that we could get swept, but it's not likely. How the Sabres total win/loss record for the whole year (and therefore seeding) stacks up against the top four teams in the East does not concern me at all. This is clearly not the same team that it was in the first half of the season. I don't have time to do the work, but I'd love to see somebody break down JUST the second half of the season and then seed the playoffs based on that. I guarantee we'd be the "home" team in at least the first round in that scenario. How they've played lately is way more important than how they played in Sept/Oct/Nov. Totally disagree. Underdogs is WAY more fun. Just contrast the '06 playoffs with the '07 playoffs. It's not even close. Well i did some work because i am new to the forum! Sabres 24-10-5 since 1-1-11 (15-19-4 before) only 2 teams did better with my quick homework, and those were new jersey and vancouver. even with as well as they have played, there were still games i thought they had a poor effort. this should be a bad first round matchup for any of the top 3. Sabres are 4-1-1 against boston this year. obviously every team is streaky and has slumps in a season. but if the sabres had been equally successful in oct/nov/dec, they would be in first place in the eastern conference. IMO, this is the perfect "getting hot at the right time" scenario for the sabres. everybody is talking about philly and pittsburgh, nothing about the sabres. definitly underdogs. and its way more exciting that way
spndnchz Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Well i did some work because i am new to the forum! Sabres 24-10-5 since 1-1-11 (15-19-4 before) only 2 teams did better with my quick homework, and those were new jersey and vancouver. even with as well as they have played, there were still games i thought they had a poor effort. this should be a bad first round matchup for any of the top 3. Sabres are 4-1-1 against boston this year. obviously every team is streaky and has slumps in a season. but if the sabres had been equally successful in oct/nov/dec, they would be in first place in the eastern conference. IMO, this is the perfect "getting hot at the right time" scenario for the sabres. everybody is talking about philly and pittsburgh, nothing about the sabres. definitly underdogs. and its way more exciting that way :thumbsup:
shrader Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 Well i did some work because i am new to the forum! Sabres 24-10-5 since 1-1-11 (15-19-4 before) only 2 teams did better with my quick homework, and those were new jersey and vancouver. even with as well as they have played, there were still games i thought they had a poor effort. this should be a bad first round matchup for any of the top 3. Sabres are 4-1-1 against boston this year. obviously every team is streaky and has slumps in a season. but if the sabres had been equally successful in oct/nov/dec, they would be in first place in the eastern conference. IMO, this is the perfect "getting hot at the right time" scenario for the sabres. everybody is talking about philly and pittsburgh, nothing about the sabres. definitly underdogs. and its way more exciting that way You wouldn't happen to still have those numbers would you? I'd be curious to see how little ground Jersey gained on us over that time.
Stoner Posted March 31, 2011 Report Posted March 31, 2011 You wouldn't happen to still have those numbers would you? I'd be curious to see how little ground Jersey gained on us over that time. Here's a good site. http://www.shrpsports.com/nhl/stand.htm Pull down to "conference choose date" and January 1.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.