What do you need to see before you're totally bought in?

[nfreeman]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

Positive. They have three more wins than losses. Deluca .500 is not relevant. 

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

[Hank]

9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

A deluca .500 record of 42-40-0 would not get you into the playoffs. An NHL .500 record of 40-27-15 could, even though you're two games under deluca .500. Until the NHL stops awarding points for OT/SO losses deluca .500 just doesn't matter. 

But, to answer your question, no, it is not likely, but, it is possible. 

[shrader]

25 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

A team 10 games below your .500 cutoff was 1 game away from the western conference finals last year.

[jsb]

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

DeLuca is our made up BS. They have 31 points in 28 games, that's over .500 in my book. Which if followed out is on a 91 point season, which probably doesn't get them in the playoffs although right this minute it does. And that my friend is an above .500 season. 

Plus flip that coin a different way, they didn't lose 18 out of 28 games in regulation, which in my Sabres recent history is outstanding. 

[SwampD]

7 hours ago, Hank said:

A deluca .500 record of 42-40-0 would not get you into the playoffs. An NHL .500 record of 40-27-15 could, even though you're two games under deluca .500. Until the NHL stops awarding points for OT/SO losses deluca .500 just doesn't matter. 

But, to answer your question, no, it is not likely, but, it is possible. 

I like this post.

[nfreeman]

Just so we are clear:

- last year, one out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 46 wins -- i.e. 4 games over DeLuca .500.

- the year before last, zero out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 42 wins -- i.e. exactly at DeLuca .500.

- the year before that, two out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 40 wins -- i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500.

So, the literalists are correct that it is possible to make the playoffs with a sub-DeLuca .500 record, but only 1 of the last 32 playoff teams (and 3 of the last 48) was below DeLuca .500, and it hasn't happened in the EC in the last 2 years.

If you want the Sabres to be a playoff team, you should understand that they almost certainly need to win a few more games than they lose, regardless of OTLs.

 

[pi2000]

17 hours ago, SwampD said:

I like this post.

how about this post?

[shrader]

3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Just so we are clear:

- last year, one out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 46 wins -- i.e. 4 games over DeLuca .500.

- the year before last, zero out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 42 wins -- i.e. exactly at DeLuca .500.

- the year before that, two out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 40 wins -- i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500.

So, the literalists are correct that it is possible to make the playoffs with a sub-DeLuca .500 record, but only 1 of the last 32 playoff teams (and 3 of the last 48) was below DeLuca .500, and it hasn't happened in the EC in the last 2 years.

If you want the Sabres to be a playoff team, you should understand that they almost certainly need to win a few more games than they lose, regardless of OTLs.

 

It's a completely arbitrary cutoff though.  You've just shown that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  The points per game metric though, is identical to the actual standings.  The top 3 teams in each division in points per game always make the playoffs.  Then the top team in points per game out of the remaining teams in the conference also makes the playoffs.  Tie breakers will be used in rare cases, but these criteria are met 100% of the time.  So if you want to talk about literalists, points per game literally does decide who makes the playoffs.

So yeah, if you want to push for a different metric, that's fine.  But I'll stick with the one that the actual standings use.

[nfreeman]

6 minutes ago, shrader said:

It's a completely arbitrary cutoff though.  You've just shown that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  The points per game metric though, is identical to the actual standings.  The top 3 teams in each division in points per game always make the playoffs.  Then the top team in points per game out of the remaining teams in the conference also makes the playoffs.  Tie breakers will be used in rare cases, but these criteria are met 100% of the time.  So if you want to talk about literalists, points per game literally does decide who makes the playoffs.

So yeah, if you want to push for a different metric, that's fine.  But I'll stick with the one that the actual standings use.

This is fine, and I agree that DeLuca .500 is far from scientific (although I think it's much more correlative than "sometimes they do, sometimes they don't").  But saying a 17-17-7 team is a .500 team and therefore they're doing OK, which is what some posters were saying upthread, is completely misplaced IMHO and is not what the actual standings use either.

[shrader]

4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This is fine, and I agree that DeLuca .500 is far from scientific (although I think it's much more correlative than "sometimes they do, sometimes they don't").  But saying a 17-17-7 team is a .500 team and therefore they're doing OK, which is what some posters were saying upthread, is completely misplaced IMHO and is not what the actual standings use either.

When are the playoff teams determined?  At the end of the season.  So the only column in the standings that matters at that point is the points column (other than tie breakers).  So if one team has more points than the other, aren't they doing better?

[dudacek]

Deluca .500 is just a way of translating the significance of the pre-OT NHL .500 to the modern significance and only really matters to us fans who grew up in the ‘70s when .500 meant something it no longer means.

What we old guys tend to forget that muddies the issue is that half the league misses the playoffs now, as opposed to 5 teams back in the day.

Also, Deluca .500 equates OT losses as actual losses, when actually they are ties. It’s the OT wins that actually skew things.

Translating today’s standings to Adams Division rules: Buffalo 10/10/8 for 28 points, exactly a .500 team.

Boston 18/3/7 43

Buffalo 10/10/8 28

Montreal 9/10/9 27

Tampa 10/9/6 26

Florida 8/9/10 26

Toronto 9/13/8 26

Ottawa 10/16/3 23

Detroit 6/20/4 16

Edited December 5, 2019 by dudacek

[MattPie]

It's time to retire the DeLuca .500, since while it's generally indicative, it has flaws in that if completely ignores OTL points.

 

I'd like to introduce the Pi .600. A team who hits .600 PPG is a good team. You're welcome.

Edited December 6, 2019 by MattPie

[Curt]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Deluca .500 is just a way of translating the significance of the pre-OT NHL .500 to the modern significance and only really matters to us fans who grew up in the ‘70s when .500 meant something it no longer means.

What we old guys tend to forget that muddies the issue is that half the league misses the playoffs now, as opposed to 5 teams back in the day.

Also, Deluca .500 equates OT losses as actual losses, when actually they are ties. It’s the OT wins that actually skew things.

Translating today’s standings to Adams Division rules: Buffalo 10/10/8 for 28 points, exactly a .500 team.

Boston 18/3/7 43

Buffalo 10/10/8 28

Montreal 9/10/9 27

Tampa 10/9/6 26

Florida 8/9/10 26

Toronto 9/13/8 26

Ottawa 10/16/3 23

Detroit 6/20/4 16

I’ve long thought this is the best measure of how a team is really doing.  Take out the OT games.  OT/SO is a crapshoot.

[nfreeman]

21 hours ago, shrader said:

When are the playoff teams determined?  At the end of the season.  So the only column in the standings that matters at that point is the points column (other than tie breakers).  So if one team has more points than the other, aren't they doing better?

Of course.  My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain troglodytes upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, MattPie said:

It's time to retire the DeLuca .500, since while it's generally indicative, it has flaws in that if completely ignores OTL points.

 

I'd like to introduce the Pi .580. A team who hits .580 PPG is a good team. You're welcome.

Except your Pi 580 (isn't that a news Radio station?) only gets a team to 95 points which can fairly often still result in a playoff miss.

Pick up 12 points every 10 games (0.600) and you sit at 96 points after 80 games which typically gets a team into the playoffs. 

IF that is still looking in from the outside that team can win up to 2 more games.  NOBODY misses when hitting 100.

In the land of the "bonus" point for not being good enough to win under the normal rules 0.600 is the benchmark.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Taro T

[Hank]

14 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Of course.  My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain barbarians upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

We all get your point, it's just that some of us don't share your opinion on deluca .500, and that's okay. It's okay to disagree. 

 

 

 

Barbarian? If that's used in a derogatory way, and I'm pretty sure it is, how is that any better/worse than calling someone a snowflake? Shouldn't you be above that, being as you're a moderator who brings down the ban-hammer?

[Curt]

18 minutes ago, Hank said:

We all get your point, it's just that some of us don't share your opinion on deluca .500, and that's okay. It's okay to disagree. 

 

 

 

Barbarian? If that's used in a derogatory way, and I'm pretty sure it is, how is that any better/worse than calling someone a snowflake? Shouldn't you be above that, being as you're a moderator who brings down the ban-hammer?

I thought it was a joke.  Sarcasm.

[Hank]

4 minutes ago, Curt said:

I thought it was a joke.  Sarcasm.

I'm sure it was. Just taking a poke at him. All in fun. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

58 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Of course.  My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain barbarians upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

You make a good point, as usual.  

May I ask that you replace the word barbarians with just about any more civil word you can think of.  Thanks.

20 minutes ago, Curt said:

I thought it was a joke.  Sarcasm.

Even if it was, which it probably was.  It's not funny.

[Hank]

40 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

You make a good point, as usual.  

May I ask that you replace the word barbarians with just about any more civil word you can think of.  Thanks.

Even if it was, which it probably was.  It's not funny.

I would argue it's not really a good point, because NHL .500, bonus points and all, is how you make the playoffs, not deluca .500. But, I understand why people like to use it, right or wrong. 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

28 minutes ago, Hank said:

I would argue it's not really a good point, because NHL .500, bonus points and all, is how you make the playoffs, not deluca .500. But, I understand why people like to use it, right or wrong. 

I am not fan of Deluca 500 in and of itself.  The only good thing about it is that it eliminates the idiotic loser point.  I want ties back and scrap OT and the even more terrible SO.

[Hank]

6 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

I am not fan of Deluca 500 in and of itself.  The only good thing about it is that it eliminates the idiotic loser point.  I want ties back and scrap OT and the even more terrible SO.

I agree the loser point is idiotic, but it's the system they use. 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

I would argue it's not really a good point, because NHL .500, bonus points and all, is how you make the playoffs, not deluca .500. But, I understand why people like to use it, right or wrong. 

But NHL 0.500 is not how teams make the playoffs.  82 points doesn't get teams anywhere near the playoffs.  Now, if you went w/ NHL 0.600 ...

[MattPie]

4 hours ago, Taro T said:

Except your Pi 580 (isn't that a news Radio station?) only gets a team to 95 points which can fairly often still result in a playoff miss.

Pick up 12 points every 10 games (0.600) and you sit at 96 points after 80 games which typically gets a team into the playoffs. 

IF that is still looking in from the outside that team can win up to 2 more games.  NOBODY misses when hitting 100.

In the land of the "bonus" point for not being good enough to win under the normal rules 0.600 is the benchmark.

Good call. The Taro Pie 0.600 now the new meter-stick for a good team.

Also: https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/04/taste-test-mcdonalds-taro-pie/

[Randall Flagg]

I understand that the NHL standings don't use De Luca .500, but the standings i look at most often don't display points percentage. Given the impressive accuracy the De Luca .500 benchmark is for playoff teams, and that adding integers is much easier than dividing them, it's a really handy, quick way to figure out how your team is doing and whether they're good to keep cruising the way they are, or need to put their foot on the gas.

Especially when you're looking at the standings with 50+ games left to play - everything is equally useless at that point because so much can happen, but when you're hovering at or above De Luca .500, you know you're in a good place and can move on to more intricate discussions of the position of your team.

Plus, the extreme scenarios that illustrate why you can be good enough for the playoffs while being significantly below it literally never ever happen