Charts - 2018-19 Edition

[carpandean]

Been a while since they made me care enough, but seems like a good time to bring these back.

 

Historical:

 

Eastern Conference:

 

Atlantic Division:

 

(Note: "Playoffs" is a somewhat arbitrary 95-point pace.)

Updated: 3/23/2019

 

Edited March 24, 2019 by carpandean

[Sabres Fan in NS]

These are fantastic.  Thanks.

You are so right that it has not been worth your trouble doing the beloved charts in 5+ years.

Right now it looks like we need to watch what happens with the Rangers and Carolina.  As of now 5 of the 8 playoff teams in the East are in the Atlantic.

Awesome.  Always love and appreciate the charts.

Edited December 22, 2018 by New Scotland (NS)

[...]

Thanks!  Like olde tymes!

[carpandean]

Thanks for the support.

One thing that I did notice is that we have waaaaaay too many teams with red or blue primary colors in the East.

[dudacek]

I know people are getting nervous about Boston and Montreal.

The thing is, the gap between us and the Islanders remains at nine points. Not only do the Islanders have to close that gap in the remaining 45 games, but five other teams have to outplay us as well, while playing each other.

We win more than we lose we’ll be fine.

Edited December 23, 2018 by dudacek

[Sabres Fan in NS]

7 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I know people are getting nervous about Boston and Montreal.

The thing is, the gap between us and the Islanders remains at nine points. Not only do the Islanders have to close that gap in the remaining 45 games, but five other teams have to outplay us as well, while playing each other.

We win more than we lose we’ll be fine.

This is the way to look at it.

We need to watch the 9th place team, whoever that is, and now it's the Islanders.  The Sabres are in a playoff spot and playing well.  With each passing day it is becoming more and more likely that the drought will end.  The question, so long as the Sabres keep playing well, is in what spot will they be.

[carpandean]

Speaking of the Islanders ... somehow forgot them (well, their logo, anyway.)  They're on today's EC chart.

I'm seriously thinking about letting the Lightning just go off of the page.

[Doohicksie]

[Doohicksie]

Here's the interesting thing:  Leading into The Streak, the Sabres were already playing at something like a playoff pace.  They were at the very least a bubble team.  The Streak allowed them to bank some points.  I'd like to see them continue an upward march.

[R_Dudley]

Here Ye, here He,

All hail the charts?️

[Stoner]

So the 0 line is a projected 93-point pace? How do I read the end of the winning streak?

[Taro T]

20 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

So the 0 line is a projected 93-point pace? How do I read the end of the winning streak?

Trick question?  'Cause the simple answer is where the inflection point occurs after 10 consecutive data points since the prior inflection.  Pretty sure that wasn't what you were after.

[Stoner]

13 hours ago, Taro T said:

Trick question?  'Cause the simple answer is where the inflection point occurs after 10 consecutive data points since the prior inflection.  Pretty sure that wasn't what you were after.

It looks like the end of the winning streak corresponds to the Sabres being on about a 101-point pace, but that doesn't seem right.

[Doohicksie]

They were on a 121 point pace when they won the 10th in a row (17-6-2 for 36 points in 25 games).  They were 8 points over the 93 point pace at that point, which is where I think you got the 101 from (93+8).  They were 8 points over the 93 point pace, but they were earning significantly higher than the 93 point pace; given the same rate of points per game, they would have pulled further and further from the 93 point pace as the season went on.

 

[Taro T]

11 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

It looks like the end of the winning streak corresponds to the Sabres being on about a 101-point pace, but that doesn't seem right.

The chart shows how many points above or below the 93 point pace the team has been on to that point. It does not project that pace out further than that as the chart would become meaningless.  For example, a team that won its 1st game of the year would be on a 164 point pace & would be pacing to be 71 points over that pace at that point.  And a team that had lost in regulation would be pacing to be 93 points below that pace.

What the chart actually shows is how many points the team has picked up to that point relative to a steady 93 point pace to that date.  To get 93 points over 82 games, you need ~1.13 (not exactly correct, but close enough for this example), so that team that won game 1 would now be 0.87 points above the 93 point line & the team that lost via regulation would be 1.13 points below that line and the team that loses in OT/SO would be 0.13 below that 93 point line.  Each game then shifts a team's results relative to that 93 point line by 0.87, -1.13, or -0.13 from where they were after the prior game.

The chart shows how much better or worse each team has done to that point relative to Carp's chosen 93 point playoff pace.  And if the team performs the rest of the season at that pace (taking ~11, 11, & 12 points each following 10 game segment), then it will end the year that many points away from 93.  So if the Sabres play on a 93 game pace from here on out, they'd end the year 5 points above 93 at 98 & per Carp's assumptions would be in the playoffs.

And to find out how many points the team would have staying on the pace they've been at to date, draw a straight line from the origin through that current game & project that out to game 82 & add 93 to that.

Pretty sure somebody else can explain that more concisely.

Edited December 25, 2018 by Taro T

[carpandean]

Changed to a 95-point playoff pace.

Should be clear just how important these games against Boston are.

Edited December 28, 2018 by carpandean

[darksabre]

I can't get to the point where I think that win streak was a total fluke, so I think they're due for a good week or two pretty soon.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, darksabre said:

I can't get to the point where I think that win streak was a total fluke, so I think they're due for a good week or two pretty soon.

This is pie in the sky thinking, but maybe the Sabres' fairly brutal schedule during the winning streak finally caught up with them. They played, and won, six games in nine nights. Then they had a three-game road trip and had to play Toronto the day after it ended. The Florida game was the third in four nights, the first two on the road. Then yesterday was a travel and play day.

The next seven games will be telling. Mostly at home, short road trips, nothing too crazy in terms of three in four days etc. (just one back to back). And they're ahead of every team except Tampa in the standings. It's time to get busy living or get busy dying.

Edited December 28, 2018 by PASabreFan
NS can't tell Jack's front from his back; it threw me off

[Stoner]

On 12/28/2018 at 2:57 PM, PASabreFan said:

This is pie in the sky thinking, but maybe the Sabres' fairly brutal schedule during the winning streak finally caught up with them. They played, and won, six games in nine nights. Then they had a three-game road trip and had to play Toronto the day after it ended. The Florida game was the third in four nights, the first two on the road. Then yesterday was a travel and play day.

The next seven games will be telling. Mostly at home, short road trips, nothing too crazy in terms of three in four days etc. (just one back to back). And they're ahead of every team except Tampa in the standings. It's time to get busy living or get busy dying.

Five points in those seven games. They've fashioned a noose, and the stool is wobbling.

[darksabre]

Tampa's graph is ridiculous 

[carpandean]

Not only did the Sabres finally fall out of the playoffs (for equal games played), but they have also fallen below the 2008-09 Sabres.  Oh, and they're just 5 points above 2016-17.

[carpandean]

Who says these Sabres aren't consistent:

Also, they have caught the 2011-12 Sabres and are chasing down (pun intended) 2015-16 and 2016-17.  This could be the worst season in which we did not finish last since before the 2004-05 lockout.

[SwampD]

Who says we didn’t need Berglund?

[carpandean]

18 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Who says we didn’t need Berglund?

I believe that most people who said that were assuming that the Sabres would use the cap space to go after a 2nd-line center.  Clearly, that did not happen. ☹️

[Taro T]

22 minutes ago, SwampD said:

Who says we didn’t need Berglund?

 

2 minutes ago, carpandean said:

I believe that most people who said that were assuming that the Sabres would use the cap space to go after a 2nd-line center.  Clearly, that did not happen. ☹️

Correct.  Also, those of us that considered his leaving a good thing were looking at it from the perspective of the LT gain of cap space as outweighing the ST hit to talent.  Further, he watched several games of the winning streak from the press box & had participated in a few of the following losses prior to walking away.

His leaving had less of an effect than Hutton's & Eichel's injuries had.  And, his cap hit SHOULD have been replaced.