Overwhelming guilt

[Claude_Verret]

Here we go again...is 50 games way too early to tell whether we are going the way of the Oilers, Blackhawks or somewhere in between?  Yes.

 

 

If in three years it looks like we're entrenched in an Oilers like rut I'll still have zero regrets about tanking.

[pi2000]

Where do those numbers come from?

 

 

permutational mathematics.. duh!

[WildCard]

That is actually the reason for the name. I'm his oldest son, he is the one who showed me this site. I am more than willing to change the name if needed though.

I'm beyond stoked that Riff Raff is Neo's son. 

Every time I see an Eichel goal i'll try to remind myself that Tanking is for losers.

:beer:

 

Exactly.  Taylor Hall has scored a ton of goals too. 

We aren't even remotely built like the Oilers. ROR, Risto, Zemgus, Pysyk, McCabe,  and a wealth of goal-tending would like to show you otherwise

[That Aud Smell]

The only thing that has changed is that those numbers are then carried over for the 2nd and 3rd pick as well (excluding the winner of the previous picks).  So there is no issue with that at all.

 

Carrying over the numbers to subsequent picks -- well, there's the rub, yes? If you're DFL and have a 20% shot at #1, but someone behind you gets the #1, do you then have a lower chance of picking #2 (17.48% per that sheet), notwithstanding the fact that there's one less team involved in vying for #2 and you're the DFL team?

 

My instinct is that if DFL lost out on #1, it would have a slightly higher chance of getting #2. And if DFL lost out on #2, it would have yet again a slightly better shot at #3 than it did for #2. That GoogleDocs sheet seems to indicate the opposite -- that DFL's chances of #2 and #3 are lower than its chance at #1.

 

Seems like those odds would be more fluid, and re-set depending on who gets picks 1 and 2.

 

Maybe I just don't get how this sort of stuff works.

 

Fwiw, the draft simulator site that I linked seemed to indicate pretty consistently that a DFL team had a ~65% of picking in the top 3. 

 

Colour me confused.

 

permutational mathematics.. duh!

 

Oh, right. Thanks.

Edited January 27, 2016 by That Aud Smell

[Randall Flagg]

This team is going to have to start winning, but not winning enough to be great, at some point. It's not just going to go from lottery pick (this year or last year) to being a contender. They've gotten three core pieces at the top of a draft. I'm ready for them to close out this year strong even if that means sacrificing a good chance at one of the top four. If the step is taken later rather than sooner, the real winning will come later rather than sooner, won't it? If we bottom out this year, get Puljujarvi or someone, and are still struggling to start next year, can't I say the same thing next year? That hey, we're struggling, obviously we still need a big piece.

 

I feel that we are one season away from hearing the Oilers comparison creep into Sabres discussion both among Sabres fans and around the NHL in general, if we are going to focus on losing games like one or two 2016 tank supporters we have here (I honestly am in shock that there is even one person thinking like this; and I don't mean the OP of this thread) instead of focusing on the development that our players are making and its translation to the standings, as well as the importance of eventually just starting to win a little bit more than we have been.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Randall Flagg

[shrader]

Carrying over the numbers to subsequent picks -- well, there's the rub, yes? If you're DFL and have a 20% shot at #1, but someone behind you gets the #1, do you then have a lower chance of picking #2 (17.48% per that sheet), notwithstanding the fact that there's one less team involved in vying for #2 and you're the DFL team?

 

My instinct is that if DFL lost out on #1, it would have a slightly higher chance of getting #2. And if DFL lost out on #2, it would have yet again a slightly better shot at #3 than it did for #2. That GoogleDocs sheet seems to indicate the opposite -- that DFL's chances of #2 and #3 are lower than its chance at #1.

 

Seems like those odds would be more fluid, and re-set depending on who gets picks 1 and 2.

 

Maybe I just don't get how this sort of stuff works.

Right, you do have a better chance of being drawn second GIVEN that you've already missed out on the first pick. What the table shows though is the overall chance of drafting second in all possible outcomes. If you win the lottery and pick #1, you can't pick number 2 as well. You're missing that possibility in your logic process. The same idea will follow for picking 3rd.

 

Fwiw, the draft simulator site that I linked seemed to indicate pretty consistently that a DFL team had a ~65% of picking in the top 3. 

 

Colour me confused.

That number is showing the chance the team had at picking in the top three given the way that specific simulation played out. I'm struggling to find a useful meaning to that number.  It is saying that if Buffalo won the lottery, Edmonton picked 2nd, and Toronto 3rd, Columbus had a XX.X% chance of being drawn at some point in that process.  It has no meaning whatsoever given that the drawing has already been made.  If I told you you had a 1 in a million chance of winning the powerball last week, why do you care?  You've already lost.

[beerme1]

Where do those numbers come from?

 

 

Fancypants stats! Analytics.

 

 

I think anyone rooting for the bottom again is misguided. We will be improving not getting worse. Some other teams will really get worse at the sell off er, trade deadline. I don't know that anyone we move is going to have a big negative impact to our record. I doubt we're making a deal like we did in picking up Kane. But there are other teams that will.

 

I think for us to draft top 5 GMTM will have to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

[Taro T]

Carrying over the numbers to subsequent picks -- well, there's the rub, yes? If you're DFL and have a 20% shot at #1, but someone behind you gets the #1, do you then have a lower chance of picking #2 (17.48% per that sheet), notwithstanding the fact that there's one less team involved in vying for #2 and you're the DFL team?

 

My instinct is that if DFL lost out on #1, it would have a slightly higher chance of getting #2. And if DFL lost out on #2, it would have yet again a slightly better shot at #3 than it did for #2. That GoogleDocs sheet seems to indicate the opposite -- that DFL's chances of #2 and #3 are lower than its chance at #1.

 

Seems like those odds would be more fluid, and re-set depending on who gets picks 1 and 2.

 

Maybe I just don't get how this sort of stuff works.

 

Fwiw, the draft simulator site that I linked seemed to indicate pretty consistently that a DFL team had a ~65% of picking in the top 3. 

 

Colour me confused.

 

 

 

Oh, right. Thanks.

The top 3 have their odds of winning draw 2 or draw 3 decrease relative to draw 1. The other teams odds go up each round. Just an artifact of the %ages chosen by the NHL & nothing sinister in it. Just another example of math not always being intuitively obvious. ;)

 

And that is all prior to knowing the outcome of an individual draw. After that, whoever won that round has their subsequent odds reduced to 0 and all other teams odds increase proportionally.

[nfreeman]

Here we go again...is 50 games way too early to tell whether we are going the way of the Oilers, Blackhawks or somewhere in between?  Yes.

 

 

If in three years it looks like we're entrenched in an Oilers like rut I'll still have zero regrets about tanking.

 

I agree that it's way too early.

 

However:  why would you not have any regrets if the Sabres look like the Oilers in 3 years?

 

I'm beyond stoked that Riff Raff is Neo's son. 

:beer:

 

We aren't even remotely built like the Oilers. ROR, Risto, Zemgus, Pysyk, McCabe,  and a wealth of goal-tending would like to show you otherwise

 

The bolded is awfully generous.

[Claude_Verret]

I agree that it's way too early.

 

However:  why would you not have any regrets if the Sabres look like the Oilers in 3 years?

 

 

The bolded is awfully generous.

 

 

Well if the Sabres do end up like the Oilers, then sure if I had a time machine I'd wish that we had gone a different route, so perhaps regret isn't the best word.  I suppose a better way to put it would be that I acknowledged the possibility that becoming another Oilers was a risk that came along with tanking in the first place, but it was risk I was willing to accept and then live with if it ended up becoming reality.

[Taro T]

Carrying over the numbers to subsequent picks -- well, there's the rub, yes? If you're DFL and have a 20% shot at #1, but someone behind you gets the #1, do you then have a lower chance of picking #2 (17.48% per that sheet), notwithstanding the fact that there's one less team involved in vying for #2 and you're the DFL team?

 

My instinct is that if DFL lost out on #1, it would have a slightly higher chance of getting #2. And if DFL lost out on #2, it would have yet again a slightly better shot at #3 than it did for #2. That GoogleDocs sheet seems to indicate the opposite -- that DFL's chances of #2 and #3 are lower than its chance at #1.

 

Seems like those odds would be more fluid, and re-set depending on who gets picks 1 and 2.

 

Maybe I just don't get how this sort of stuff works.

 

Fwiw, the draft simulator site that I linked seemed to indicate pretty consistently that a DFL team had a ~65% of picking in the top 3. 

 

Colour me confused.

 

 

 

Oh, right. Thanks.

Sorry to separately quote this same post twice, but forgot to mention this.

 

IF we know DFL did NOT win the lottery, their chance of winning goes up to ~21.9%. It's over 23% if team 29 wins & 20.2% if team 17 wins.

[That Aud Smell]

Right, you do have a better chance of being drawn second GIVEN that you've already missed out on the first pick. What the table shows though is the overall chance of drafting second in all possible outcomes. If you win the lottery and pick #1, you can't pick number 2 as well. You're missing that possibility in your logic process. The same idea will follow for picking 3rd

 

Helpful. I think I'm getting it now. I had a sense that the original shot at #1 was flavouring things, even if DFL missed out.

The top 3 have their odds of winning draw 2 or draw 3 decrease relative to draw 1. The other teams odds go up each round. Just an artifact of the %ages chosen by the NHL & nothing sinister in it. Just another example of math not always being intuitively obvious. ;)

 

Also helpful. And, as you say, sorta of counter-intuitive. MATH!

[pi2000]

Well if the Sabres do end up like the Oilers, then sure if I had a time machine I'd wish that we had gone a different route, so perhaps regret isn't the best word.  I suppose a better way to put it would be that I acknowledged the possibility that becoming another Oilers was a risk that came along with tanking in the first place, but it was risk I was willing to accept and then live with if it ended up becoming reality.

 

Speaking of the Darcy let themOilers, imagine if  sign Vanek and took their 5 first round picks a     eam and maybe they wouldn't have had such n the fold, but what if t ended up with hey did?   We'd have ended up with guys nd Yakupov if they took the same guys.  s compensation back in 2007?    Man oh man oh malike Eberle, Hall, an....  the league would be completely different.    I understand EDM wohigh picks with Vanek iuld've been a different t Maybe BUF  would'veMcDavid too?

[clintwestwood]

Speaking of the Darcy let themOilers, imagine if  sign Vanek and took their 5 first round picks a     eam and maybe they wouldn't have had such n the fold, but what if t ended up with hey did?   We'd have ended up with guys nd Yakupov if they took the same guys.  s compensation back in 2007?    Man oh man oh malike Eberle, Hall, an....  the league would be completely different.    I understand EDM wohigh picks with Vanek iuld've been a different t Maybe BUF  would'veMcDavid too?

:huh:

[Ogre]

:huh:

Stroke?

[Stoner]

Stroke?

Age 50-plus, new Smart Phone, 500 ringers of kaopectate stat!

[Ogre]

Age 50-plus, new Smart Phone, 500 ringers of kaopectate stat!

Oh I know. I'm not 50+ but I struggle daily. I just like to tease. Us Ironworkers reaaaallllllyyyy like to bust balls. It's all we have.

[Neo]

Thank you all for the gracious welcome to my son. I posted without acknowledging the relationship earlier today because, frankly, I didn't know HE wanted it known. I am a load. He is a good man. I am a lucky man. His mom's awesome sauce. Grateful, all ... and keep up the good work, Junior!

[beerme1]

Thank you all for the gracious welcome to my son. I posted without acknowledging the relationship earlier today because, frankly, I didn't know HE wanted it known. I am a load. He is a good man. I am a lucky man. His mom's awesome sauce. Grateful, all ... and keep up the good work, Junior!

 

 

Nice. Terms of endearment and praise for the family. Nice.

 

ON A FREAKING SABRES BOARD!!! What are you hiding lol :w00t:

Stroke?

 

 

 

Is it wrong that I laughejd at this?

 

[Ogre]

Strokes are no laughing matter. My father has had one and hasn't been the same since....He's been better than ever. He's forgotten anger and hatred. He's forgotten abuse and wrong. He's the man he should have always been....

He spoke nonsense for two weeks....Strokes are no jokes but like my father before me, I am an Ahole...

[Sabel79]

Thank you all for the gracious welcome to my son. I posted without acknowledging the relationship earlier today because, frankly, I didn't know HE wanted it known. I am a load. He is a good man. I am a lucky man. His mom's awesome sauce. Grateful, all ... and keep up the good work, Junior!

Hmmmm.  Didn't mean to out him unnecessarily; I was certain it was acknowledged in another thread.  In fact, how would I have known otherwise? 

[Neo]

Hmmmm.  Didn't mean to out him unnecessarily; I was certain it was acknowledged in another thread.  In fact, how would I have known otherwise?

 

Oh, you didn't! I'm happy! He is, too ... just talked to him.

 

I realize now that my last post may have read like an "outing". Not my thought at all. With the handle, I don't think it was his thought, either. In fact, I know it wasn't his intention to keep a secret. Although, with me as the dad, who'd blame him.

 

You made my day.

 

 

PS ... Riff Raff reference by WildCard cracked me up. Mrs Neo. .... "Who's that?!" She knows we're all boys at heart.

[Thorner]

Every time I see an Eichel goal i'll try to remind myself that Tanking is for losers.

 

Last year was a special circumstance, that allowed me and others to support a "tank". There were two "generational" players in the draft, and finishing DFL guaranteed one. Those circumstances aren't in effect this year. Which leads me to Randall Flagg's post:

 

This team is going to have to start winning, but not winning enough to be great, at some point. It's not just going to go from lottery pick (this year or last year) to being a contender. They've gotten three core pieces at the top of a draft. I'm ready for them to close out this year strong even if that means sacrificing a good chance at one of the top four. If the step is taken later rather than sooner, the real winning will come later rather than sooner, won't it? If we bottom out this year, get Puljujarvi or someone, and are still struggling to start next year, can't I say the same thing next year? That hey, we're struggling, obviously we still need a big piece.

 

I feel that we are one season away from hearing the Oilers comparison creep into Sabres discussion both among Sabres fans and around the NHL in general, if we are going to focus on losing games like one or two 2016 tank supporters we have here (I honestly am in shock that there is even one person thinking like this; and I don't mean the OP of this thread) instead of focusing on the development that our players are making and its translation to the standings, as well as the importance of eventually just starting to win a little bit more than we have been.

 

Well stated, particularly the bolded. If we improve so much that we don't finish at or near the bottom of the standings, that's a good thing this year. It will mean massive continued improvement from our youth, the guys we are counting on for the future. The benefits of that would, to me, outweigh that of another high pick this year. As Randall's post said, where does it end? Improvement is what we want now.

 

Now, that's not to say we can't expect lots of development from the kids next year, even if we finish near the bottom this year. And I would be excited for the player we'd pick this year, if we do end up with a high one. But it would be more promising in my opinion to see substantial improvement in the post all-star break portion of the season.

 

Whereas getting a top pick last year was the goal, this year it would be a silver lining, a consolation prize.

[SABRES 0311]

Create an NHL Gamecenter account on NHL.com.  You can watch games on XBOX Live or many other media devices after the game has ended and after midnight in respect to where the game was played. 

Edited January 28, 2016 by RambosKnife

[Crusader1969]

I have to remind myself the same thing every time I look at where we are in the standings.

 

Granted, they haven't improved much if you look at the Standings but I would argue that you are looking at the wrong thing if you are trying analyze the Sabres season and look solely on the standings.

 

Lets not forget that after 50 games this team had 31 points last season and were on a 14 game losing streak.