GDT: Coyotes @ Sabres 8 November 2022, 7 PM MSG-B, BSAZ

[zow2]

Can't really kill the Sabres for their recent efforts. They are skating ok, they are getting shots....they are possessing the puck better than in the past. It's just the same old frustrating stuff.  They struggle to score against other teams no-name goalies, some backups.  The opponent somehow gets the big tie breaking goal, or game changing goal,,,and their goalie makes the big save at the big time.  Meanwhile the Sabres are victimized by "unlucky" bounces or don't get the big save often enough.  On an off night they never seem to get these games to OT and even get a losers point (which are critical to making a playoff run).  I'm sure Buffalo will get a few bounces along the way in their favor, but will they get the saves?

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, MattPie said:

To be honest, 1 team per year is 6.25%, so it's probably enough that it's a questionable measuring stick. I don't think 0.600 points has ever missed, but it's not as easy to look at a record and figure out.

Since the last time the Sabres were in the post-season tourney, ZERO teams at an NHL 0.600 missed the playoffs.

The # of teams missing the dance w/ a DeLuca 0.500 over that same period: 2, 0, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4*, 0, & 1.

And the number of teams making the dance but not reaching the DeLuca 0.500: 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0.

So, 13 teams in 10 years made the DeLuca 0.500 and were on the outside looking in and 7 teams missed the cut but still were good enough to be there.  (Ignoring the 70ish game season.  It bolsters the case when included.)

Well in each season having 1.3 teams reaching that threshold and not getting in & 0.7 missing it but getting in doesn't sound like a lot.  Isn't that close enough?  No.  Because that averages out to essentially 1 of the 4 most mediocre teams by record getting in the playoffs but missing the threshold and 1 of those 4 flipping that script.  That's lousy as a predictive indicator amongst the teams that are actually fighting for a playoff spot IMHO.  (But it gets it right for 1/2 of them.  And that's good.  Huh, huh, huh. /s)

But EVERY SINGLE TEAM since the Habs missed the dance in '70 that has reached an NHL 0.600 has gotten in.  No exceptions (to date), no rationalizations.  It just works.

As for 0.600 being too hard to calculate, go to NHL.com & the winning %age is right next to the Pts column.  Easy peazy.  And, every time you've played 10 games multiply the 10's column by 12 to see what the pace you need is:  12, 24, 36, etc.  Again, easy.  W/ DeLuca's arbitrary target, you need to either divide games played by 2 and compare it to wins or add up the other 2-3 columns (depending upon whether OTL's & SOL's are separate or combined) and compare that to the W column.  No easier, & probably tougher than figuring out the NHL 0.600.

 

 

* - the number of teams below 8th place in each conference when the season was interrupted that had a DeLuca 0.500 or better pace.  (Aka, the teams on the outside looking in in a normal year.)

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Your reading of my take is nonsense. 

I didn't presume any of the erroneous content you just laid out. 

You hit on it with the bolded - that's what I was saying. That's what I meant by trap game. 

My thought is that they were looking beyond what they consider to be an inferior opponent - human nature. It might not be accurate, but the result of the game only lends credence to what I said. Makes it more likely. 

That the Sabres "got up for", performed better in "event" games last year is a documented fact. That means they've left something in the tank during the rest, presumably. 

- - -

Called what would happen but being right isn't enough on this site, I need to explain why I was right the next day, as well. lol Have at it 

My comment wasn't directed at you specifically but rather to the general idea of a "trap game". 

If you lose 2 straight and come home and fall into a "trap" that's a huge failure of the coaching staff and/or the leadership core. There is no way this should happen. If coming off 2 wins sure, but not after two straight losses. 

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

My comment wasn't directed at you specifically but rather to the general idea of a "trap game". 

If you lose 2 straight and come home and fall into a "trap" that's a huge failure of the coaching staff and/or the leadership core. There is no way this should happen. If coming off 2 wins sure, but not after two straight losses. 

I agree with you, but we should also read the messaging the team is sending out. I've spoken of this before, without it gaining much traction - the social media enterprise of this franchise has undergone a massive shift in the last year - it's often a choreographed message and, imo, I've come to realize information can be gleaned from it. 

They want us to know *every* game the focus is on winning. A timely message to the fans, indeed.

I do not believe that to be the case - brawndo's post from a bit ago had Granato admitting to basically exactly what I am saying, it's about building a team that wins in the playoffs, winning "more" is of course desired now but it's not Priority 1. 

Event games, these vibes games, they are a different story. The team approaches them differently imo and I think the statistics from last year clearly bear that out. 

Maybe they get shellacked tomorrow but I don't think so. I think they win. 

[PerreaultForever]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I agree with you, but we should also read the messaging the team is sending out. I've spoken of this before, without it gaining much traction - the social media enterprise of this franchise has undergone a massive shift in the last year - it's often a choreographed message and, imo, I've come to realize information can be gleaned from it. 

They want us to know *every* game the focus is on winning. A timely message to the fans, indeed.

I do not believe that to be the case - brawndo's post from a bit ago had Granato admitting to basically exactly what I am saying, it's about building a team that wins in the playoffs, winning "more" is of course desired now but it's not Priority 1. 

Event games, these vibes games, they are a different story. The team approaches them differently imo and I think the statistics from last year clearly bear that out. 

Maybe they get shellacked tomorrow but I don't think so. I think they win. 

I hear this, and I've seen the messaging, but I just don't see that on the ice or in their decisions of who plays and so forth. To me it sort of looks like they don't care about winning this season at all. They will never say that, but that's just how it feels. 

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I hear this, and I've seen the messaging, but I just don't see that on the ice or in their decisions of who plays and so forth. To me it sort of looks like they don't care about winning this season at all. They will never say that, but that's just how it feels. 

We can probably allow for a situation where more than 1 thing is true: I think they care about winning, but not at the expense of definitively proving to themselves that Casey isn't part of the long-term. 

They are sacrificing performance in the now in the aid to augment the Future. Is that not a fair reading based on the ice time Mittelstadt is getting? I'm open to interpretation but I'm coming down firmly on that stance right now

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Since the last time the Sabres were in the post-season tourney, ZERO teams at an NHL 0.600 missed the playoffs.

The # of teams missing the dance w/ a DeLuca 0.500 over that same period: 2, 0, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 4*, 0, & 1.

And the number of teams making the dance but not reaching the DeLuca 0.500: 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0.

So, 13 teams in 10 years made the DeLuca 0.500 and were on the outside looking in and 7 teams missed the cut but still were good enough to be there.  (Ignoring the 70ish game season.  It bolsters the case when included.)

Well in each season having 1.3 teams reaching that threshold and not getting in & 0.7 missing it but getting in doesn't sound like a lot.  Isn't that close enough?  No.  Because that averages out to essentially 1 of the 4 most mediocre teams by record getting in the playoffs but missing the threshold and 1 of those 4 flipping that script.  That's lousy as a predictive indicator amongst the teams that are actually fighting for a playoff spot IMHO.  (But it gets it right for 1/2 of them.  And that's good.  Huh, huh, huh. /s)

But EVERY SINGLE TEAM since the Habs missed the dance in '70 that has reached an NHL 0.600 has gotten in.  No exceptions (to date), no rationalizations.  It just works.

As for 0.600 being too hard to calculate, go to NHL.com & the winning %age is right next to the Pts column.  Easy peazy.  And, every time you've played 10 games multiply the 10's column by 12 to see what the pace you need is:  12, 24, 36, etc.  Again, easy.  W/ DeLuca's arbitrary target, you need to either divide games played by 2 and compare it to wins or add up the other 2-3 columns (depending upon whether OTL's & SOL's are separate or combined) and compare that to the W column.  No easier, & probably tougher than figuring out the NHL 0.600.

 

 

* - the number of teams below 8th place in each conference when the season was interrupted that had a DeLuca 0.500 or better pace.  (Aka, the teams on the outside looking in in a normal year.)

I think you've done a good job laying out why deluca .500 USUALLY represents a good team and also why .600 always does. 

Considering how often merely okay teams reach the deluca mark but miss, I still think there's a more easily attainable record out there that identifies a good but not ready for prime time team, that one might hope we aspire to. chances are, if we hit deluca, we are well in the playoffs. Again, not for sure, but very likely. 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorner]

I wonder if a positive goal differential represents some kind of mark?

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

I wonder if a positive goal differential represents some kind of mark?

I thought there was a lot of talk about that at the beginning of the season, and that it does.

As to the “trap game”, I think the only trap was that of this five game stretch, we got sucked into believing that last night was the only one they were going to win.

[calti]

12 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

We're gonna be inconsistent. This is what learning to win looks like.

True. Its just the effort level that concerns people.

If guys are busting their assres then there is nothing to boo.

[LGR4GM]

23 minutes ago, calti said:

True. Its just the effort level that concerns people.

If guys are busting their assres then there is nothing to boo.

No team in the NHL plays hard 82 games a season. The good ones limit those slow games though. 

[PerreaultForever]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

We can probably allow for a situation where more than 1 thing is true: I think they care about winning, but not at the expense of definitively proving to themselves that Casey isn't part of the long-term. 

They are sacrificing performance in the now in the aid to augment the Future. Is that not a fair reading based on the ice time Mittelstadt is getting? I'm open to interpretation but I'm coming down firmly on that stance right now

I think that's a fair assessment of what they are doing. I'm not convinced it's the right approach though. Not at all. 

[calti]

22 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No team in the NHL plays hard 82 games a season. The good ones limit those slow games though. 

well...of course

 

I do think that hard work--in whatever you do--is habit forming.