Why should we consider this different than "the streak" in 2019?

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

When 24 teams made the playoffs, there were NO DeLuca 0.500 teams that missed the playoffs?

When everybody played in their own division & the top 1/2 of the division made the playoffs & the bottom 1/2 didn't, there were NO DeLuca 0.500 teams that missed the playoffs?

Both of those are truly shocking outcomes (if you aren't good at math).  😉

When Moe-ray-all went 44-30-8 and missed the playoffs in '18-'19, was that NOT a DeLuca 0.500 team?

 

Yes, having a .600 points percentage (or 700, or 800) is more revelatory of a playoff team than a deluca .500 team, which merely "almost always" makes the playoffs, rather than it being a certainty. I've already conceded that - If my bullet points for why I like the deluca .500 number don't bare conversation, we can leave it at this. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Thorny

[Taro T]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Yes, having a .600 points percentage (or 700, or 800) is more revelatory of a playoff team than a deluca .500 team, which merely "almost always" makes the playoffs, rather than it being a certainty. I've already conceded that - If my bullet points for why I like the deluca .500 number don't bare conversation, we can leave it at this. 

To a degree it is splitting hairs, but again almost positive there are years where 4 teams have hit the mythical "DeLuca 0.500" and yet miss the playoffs.  (Posted the data here somewhere, but the search function is not overly helpful and don't feel like going through 20+ years of standings again to verify that).  If reaching that milestone can still leave a 20% chance of missing out and in almost every season at least 1 team reaching it misses, then IMHO it isn't the "almost always" sure thing that it gets mythologized towards.

And 0.600 is chosen as the cutoff because though some teams get into the playoffs below it, That's the demarcation point that pretty much does guarantee it and even teams that are really close (such as the '19 Habs) don't necessarily get in even though they were a full 6 games over the DeLuca 0.500.  If you can have nearly 15% of a season's worth of wins over the line and still miss out, what's the point?  And if 20% of the team's reaching the threshold can miss out, again what's the point? 

My 2 cents.  Sorry for beating this one to death. 🍺

 

[Marvin]

My $2*10**-2:

I like DeLuca 0.500 for "average".  That's what I think of for the old 80 points in 80 games seasons.  Because of statistical variances, scheduling differences, OTL, and the fact that the league splits the playoffs into 4 groups of 4 instead of the top 16, we can expect 1-2 teams a year who meet this standard but miss the playoffs like the 1985-6 Sabres -- except that it is very unlikely that a DeLuca 0.500 team would miss the playoffs yet be better than 1/3 of the teams which did make them and including an entire division...

I look at a "good" team as having 0.550 by the DeLuca standard (88 points in 80 games, which was the historic minimum for most Stanley Cup winners in a best-of-7 Final), or about 0.600 points percentage nowadays (98.4 points).

If the Sabres get to 80 points this year, I will probably be OK unless it is because of a long swoon.  If they are DeLuca 0.500 at the end of the season, I will be overjoyed.

 

[pi2000]

I remain skeptical largely because the teams they've played are near the bottom of the league standings.    

[Thorner]

Disclaimer - only read if you care about meaningless things

Deluca .500 isn't a "line you reach" though, like a points percentage. It's not linear. It's not like when you "reach" .500 points percentage, where you can specifically say, ok, your team is now average. Deluca .500 doesn't work like that. Example:

The Sabres start the season with an OT loss (Sabres, lose? get real. but, bear with me), 0-0-1. Below deluca. 

The next game, they win, thereby "reaching" deluca .500. Their record? 1-0-1. Their resultant points pace? 123 points. 

Deluca .500 isn't "average", nor is "reaching it" specifically "reaching average". Not like when you reach .500 points percentage, and you can still see how far you have to go, in order, above you. 

Deluca .500 means you are winning as much or more than you lose, it means you are very likely in the top half of the NHL, and it means you are at least average. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Thorny

[PerreaultForever]

Well, the way I see it that streak was primarily driven by one superstar line and this is more of a team effort. 

So for the numerical analysis you'd have to sperate out the stats for when the Eichel line was on the ice from the rest of that team. I'm sure you'd find a huge disparity, whereas on this team I think you'd find much less difference between lines. This is more sustainable and can last longer with 2 potential issues:

1) depth. Not sure we have any. How Mitts plays when he returns will be important, but if we get a run on injuries at some point, as most teams do, not sure how that'll play out. 

2) teams will see through this and there already does seem to be a few weaknesses and  thus, much like with the last streak, when they take us seriously and prep properly and we are seen as the tougher team in a back to back and face the #1 goalie and when the league tightens up second half as it always does, well then I still see this all falling apart. 

So 18th? Possible. With luck. I think somewhere around 25th is more likely. 

[nfreeman]

As others have said upthread, and as I think most would agree, Deluca .500 would be a great season for this team and a huge surprise.

IMHO they've gotten a substantial amount of puck luck in the last 2 games (TB and Anaheim), so it's possible that their current results are closer to the 2019 mirage than we'd like to admit.  If they keep playing that way they will lose a bunch of 5-2 games and finish below NHL .500, let alone Deluca .500.

Having said that, I'll note in response to @PerreaultForever's point about a run of injuries in their future that they've already lost their #1 or #2 C in Mitts, a top-pair defenseman in Joker and their #3C in Eakin.  (Anyone can chuckle all he likes at those players having those designations, but they are the correct designations on this team.)  They also lost Samuelsson, who might've forced his way into the lineup with a strong training camp.  Those are 3 or 4 real injury losses.

[Doohicksie]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

Disclaimer - only read if you care about meaningless things

I have to admit.... just like it said on the wrapper.

[triumph_communes]

Let’s go back to discussing triumph instead of averageness

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, triumph_communes said:

Let’s go back to discussing triumph instead of averageness

One of the greatest workout songs is "All the Way."

All the Way

But "Magic Power" is their best song.

Magic Power

 

 

[Broken Ankles]

18 hours ago, Taro T said:

One of the greatest workout songs is "All the Way."

All the Way

But "Magic Power" is their best song.

Magic Power

 

 

  I always viewed Triumph as a poor mans Rush.  Perhaps unfairly.  But doesn’t Lay it on the Line qualify as their best?

 

[Marvin]

Given what we have seen here over the past decade, God Help us, shouldn't we just treat this start as "just another hot streak" until proven otherwise?

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, Broken Ankles said:

  I always viewed Triumph as a poor mans Rush.  Perhaps unfairly.  But doesn’t Lay it on the Line qualify as their best?

 

That one is close.  But "Magic Power" can take you from a horrible mood to a manic great one in less that 5 minutes.  It wins.  😉

 

[nfreeman]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Definitely comes a point where there’s a downside to waiting. A situation where the asset merely expires isn’t good asset management in the slightest. There’s certainly value in acquiring an asset sooner rather than later. A 2023 1st is worth more than a 2024 first, for example 

There is no downside to waiting, provided the return is maximized to the point of making the wait worth it 

If we were to get no return, a lesser return, or an equal return after waiting, all 3 of those scenarios would represent a downside to waiting 

In theory, yes.

In practice, I think there is zero downside to wait until draft day 2022.  I don't think the trade return that day will be worse than what is available now and I think it's substantially likely to be better.  I agree that waiting beyond draft 2022 would be prejudicial, as the draft picks received in trade at that point would be 2023 picks at the earliest.