carpandean

I doubt that they could, even if they wanted to. Compensation for players is completely controlled within the CBA, including performance bonuses. They can't just give players more money when they want to.

Very quick and dirty ...

http://www.icethetics.co/concepts/2017/3/21/superb-sabres :thumbsup:

Come on, O'Reilly, get in front of the damn man. Don't give me this ole bulls**t.

Who was our #1 center in 2006-07, Danny or Chris? If remember correctly, Chris got the matchups against other teams' #1 centers more often, but Danny led the team in EV TOI/GP and total TOI/GP. The pair were actually similar, in that Chris was better defensively and on faceoffs, so he averaged over 2 1/2 minutes more per game SH'd. However, to WildCard's point, Danny averaged more than that above Chris at EV, such that their total TOI/GP was close (Danny averaged about 1/2 minute more.)

What makes him not #1? He plays with 2 out of 3 of our top wingers (KO, being the third) and leads forwards in EVTOI/GP and PPTOI/GP. The only thing the ROR has is a huge amount of time SH, which is due to his aforementioned defensive responsibility and faceoff ability.

Hurricane-force winds at the airport. Had to make several unexpected detours going to pick my kid up from school, because there were trees across so many streets. We didn't lose power, but we did lose cable. Fortunately, we still have DSL (not sure why), so we can stream things. Had a big piece of a 100-year-old tree come down last summer, but fortunately no more of it came down yesterday. Did force the locked 8-foot gate on my wood fence open. Pulled a few screws and bent some brackets, so I could fix it pretty easily.

Makes me think of this scene: https://youtu.be/omSZ7Y0AxNk Edit: except, apparently, DiMarco is the one FB who isn't actually a fat guy.

Could have had Travis Konecny with that pick ... he had a goal and an assist for the Flyers last night.

What I "see" in draft grading and outcome is that you can, at best, put players into buckets. That is, small groups of players who have roughly the same estimated chance of performing at a particular level in the NHL. However, there is so much uncertainty in projecting that saying your rankings/ratings actually puts one player notably better than a handful of players around him is nonsense (other than those top few standouts in strong drafts.) So, yeah, if you're left with the last player from one bucket, then you go BPA, because there is a notable drop to go for need. Otherwise, you can draft for need within the current bucket (assuming that at least one choice meets that need.) These buckets will generally get larger the further back you go, but in most drafts, they start to appear even in the mid first round. Really, suggesting strict BPA implies that you can reasonably give players single-number ratings that provides some absolute ordering. The reality is that you have scouts who watch games (live/video) and use experience to project (guesstimate) where a players game will go in years to come. That would be hard enough if there were only one type of player, but there's many. Forwards vs. defensemen vs. goalies, offensive defensemen vs. stay-at-home, passer-first vs. shoot-first, etc. How can you possibly expect a true ordering? Ask 30 GMs and you'd get 30 different orderings. Some of that would be due to skill in identifying talent, but a lot of it would also be the actually uncertainty involved (the best GM in the world will just be more right, more often, but he will get plenty wrong.) Not to mention the fact that GMs don't personal watch/rate all (or even most) of the players. They can't; not enough time. They have scouts who are giving them their thoughts, which they then try to compile into one rating. I guess my point is that BPA sounds like a nice, precise science for drafting, but unfortunately is based on too much uncertainty to really be such.

No. Business, but our coursework was mostly advanced mathematics (econometrics, mathematical programming, stochastic processes, etc.) Different than physics, obviously, but probably more alike than many would expect. In fact, a lot of business systems are analyzed by approximating them as known physical systems (for example, modeling/analyzing/approximating queues using fluid dynamics.)

Congratulations and good luck! Every program is a little different, but what most have in common is that the first two years are very tough and designed to trim the group down. In addition to the original acceptance letter, there were three other letters that we received in the first two-and-a-half years that could have said "you're done."

O'Reilly was impressive in the accuracy portion. I seem to remember that during the NHL one, they said that only three players had gone 4-for-4 at an All-Star game. Obviously, more have done it at team competitions, but it's still hard to do. What was possibly more impressive was that Foligno went 3-for-3 - looked like he missed just low on the upper-right target - and finished 4-for-5. For a guy not known for his hands, that was a nice round. Jack should take the next matchup, but you never know. McCabe may have the edge in the hardest shot, but Jack does use a relative long stick for a forward and has a hard shot, so I wouldn't count on it. Jack better take the accuracy with ease. I wish I could say that Jack is good in shootouts, but he hasn't shown it yet. Jake is a relative unknown there.

Don't forget "go after (fight) anyone who takes a run at them."

Finally accepted that the wife and I wouldn't have a chance to see this together in the theater. Had the opportunity to catch it during the day, so I decided to go alone. Large reclining stadium seats with a grand total of seven people (me and three senior couples.) I had a row to myself. Just me, a bucket of popcorn and a Cherry Coke. Very nice! As for the movie, I won't go into a detailed review. It was a fun movie that got better as it went on. Had some things that annoyed me, but I got over most of them. Could have been better, but I was glad that I saw it, especially on the big screen. I'll watch it again.

Yeah, that was part of what I wanted to see in the side-by-side. I thought it seemed like Larkin started before the red line, but didn't go back to watch. Looking back at the video on Youtube now, he started just in front of the blue line, but the clock started and stopped based on the red line. I did a quick time from where he started to when he crossed the same spot and got over 13.6 seconds. McDavid started maybe two strides behind the red line compared to 5-6 strides for Larkin. They need consistent rules.

When I watched McDavid's attempt at the record, after watching the replay of Larkin's run last year, I thought "wow, he destroyed the record." Then, the time came up. I would love to see a split screen of the two runs to compare.

Can I get the CliffsNotes version? :P

I don't have specific quotes to give you, but I seem to remember some interviews near the beginning of the season where he implied otherwise, specifically about the defense. Basically, they were "I could make some moves that might help a little right now, but wouldn't help - and could hurt - them in their long-term potential (i.e., when Jack, Sam, etc, are ready to make the real push for the Cup)" type comments.

Or John Holmes. ;)

Certainly wouldn't be drafting for need, but in the (admittedly limited) games that I saw Nico Hischier play in at the WJC, he was a dominant player. He dictated play and drove hard to the net. Was the highest scoring draft-eligible player at the tournament.

Looking at the game summary, Byfuglien* officially received: 2 minutes for Cross Checking against Robin Lehner 2 minutes for Roughing against Robin Lehner 2 minutes for Unsportsmanlike Conduct against Robin Lehner 10 minute Misconduct against Robin Lehner Robin got 2 for Roughing against Byfuglien. * Could you imagine how many misspellings there would be of his last name if he were ever traded to the Sabres?! I looked like Deadpool after Negasonic Teenage Warhead pointed out that Ajax had escaped, going back-and-forth with NHL.com to get it right.

I think about this every time that I watch it.

I live. Just busy. Have read a lot more here than I have posted, of late. It's nice to be missed, though.