carpandean

Yeah, 20% McDavid, 80% Eichel sounds much better than 13.5% McDavid, 20% Eichel, 66.5% someone else. Of course, there's another big drop-off from 29th to 28th. While the chance of McDavid, specifically, doesn't fall much (11.5% vs. 13.5%), the chance of of getting either one is cut by 2/3 again: 30th: 100% chance of McDavid or Eichel 29th: 33.5% chance of McDavid or Eichel 28th: 11.5% chance of McDavid or Eichel

It was just gas. ;)

I made it, but in looking back at the original, I kinda like the bottom of the sea feel that it has.

Trying out a new version of the tank chart. Like the playoffs chart, Tank 2 is net of a position (last place). You do lose games-in-hand on the worst team (for example, Edmonton won last night, but that cannot be reflected since the Sabres' 52nd game has not been played yet), but it shows the differences better.

I didn't think that they could possibly break -30 again. We may yet see the dragon this year.

Don't laugh to hard at the Leafs ... it's still possible that the Sabres finish 29th and the Leafs win the draft Lottery. :sick:

The Leafs just fell onto the Tank chart.

Taking over as the worst record in the league and the worst Sabres record since at least the 2004-05 lockout in the very same game. Impressive.

I haven't gone back and looked, but I suspect that we have more good, young talent in the system than they did in 2009. I know that they had a couple of fun to watch, but not very effective "young kids" teams, though, so maybe I'm wrong.

He's going for the hard deck. Let's get down there first and nail him, Mav. No way, Jester, you're mine.

Welcome back to 2013-14!

The real interesting thing about the Charts right now, is that although it's clear we are a longshot for the playoffs, there's also pretty much no way we're getting back in the tank race against Edmonton and Carolina. In fact we could very easily play ourselves right off the tank chart. So 9th place here we come, right? Probably not, but we were 6/7 points below Edmonton and Carolina only 12 games ago, so you never know. The Sabres went from an 0.44 points/GP over the first 18 games to 1.50 points/GP over the last 12. Carolina has averaged 0.4 point/GP over their last 15 and Edmonton has averaged 0.45 points/GP over their last 22. Those paces put teams in the 30's over the course of the season, so it's unlikely that they will maintain them. Pretty much no way, eh? :P

I'll get right on that. :flirt:

End-of-year update. A tiny bit of life on the tank chart over the last three games, but still 7 points above Edmonton.

I don't know Eleven ... er, Santa Claus ... that playoffs chart isn't getting any better. Still 10 back and only 1 point in the two games where 8th is not yet determined.

OC, QB, O linemen. That's my Christmas list.

Probably not, but we were 6/7 points below Edmonton and Carolina only 12 games ago, so you never know. The Sabres went from an 0.44 points/GP over the first 18 games to 1.50 points/GP over the last 12. Carolina has averaged 0.4 point/GP over their last 15 and Edmonton has averaged 0.45 points/GP over their last 22. Those paces put teams in the 30's over the course of the season, so it's unlikely that they will maintain them.

OK, OK. It's there. But as I said, the Rangers and Panthers need to play more games. Through 28 GP, we can say that the Sabres were 10 points out. Depending on how the Rangers' and Panthers' 29th and 30th games go (and Capitals' 30th), they will be 6-10 points out through 30 GP. If either team picks up just one point in the two games (playing fast and loose with statistics, I'd say about a 97.5% chance), they will be no closer to the playoffs than they are to the bottom (they are 7 out of the bottom through 30 GP.)

It might be time, but the Rangers and Panthers need to play more game. Right now, 8th place is only settled through 27 games.

OK. And seven teams to jump.

The Panthers aren't even riding the short bus this season. They're tied for 15th in P/GP. Dead-middle of the league. They don't even make the cut for the Tank Chart.

(NSFW)

No agenda. I just find that reporters key in on parts of reports and twist them to make the story sound better. For example, keying in on the term "homicide" when it doesn't really mean much in terms of fault/guilt and saying things like "died of neck compression." You don't die of neck compression; you die of ____ cause by neck compression. An ME rep would know and say that, but it doesn't sound as good for the story. Google "Eric Garner heat attack" and you will find numerous sources saying that he ultimately died of a heat attack, which is something that people actually do die of and something that can be triggered by and/or contributed to by, among other things, any restriction of air flow (e.g., from a headlock or choke hold.) As weave points out, his positioning after the takedown, which was also listed (in quotes), also would have contributed to it, as well as his health issues. I don't doubt that they were all factors; I simply have doubts that the ME rep said so specifically that neck compression from a choke hold was the main/primary cause. Again, I agree that the tactics used were beyond what the crime justified. However, if the departments procedures were followed, then I can understand why he was not indicted. The procedures, themselves, would need to be addressed.

http://bigstory.ap.o...-ruled-homicide I have a problem with this sort of quoting (or not). Here's the whole section: The "killed by neck compressions from the chokehold" is not a quote, so the author has put is in his own words, which often (not necessarily here) means he put his own spin on it. He then quotes the part about chest compression and prone positioning in the same sentence. However, he separates out the medical factors to another line. This places emphasis on the first part, especially with the "killed by" part. Numerous sources state that he ultimately died of a heart attack. Perhaps, what she said was, "Mr. Garner died of heart attack brought on by the reduced flow of oxygen due to the compression of his neck, the compression of his chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police, and contributed to by his asthma, heart disease and obesity." It would basically fit what they reported, but wouldn't be quite as damning. That's why I was hoping there was actually a complete quote.

Do you have a reference with that quoted from the ME's report. What I saw were (1) articles "saying" (not quoting) that the ME ruled that the choke hold killed him, and (2) articles actually quoting that pressure on the neck was one of several contributing factors to his death (they also indicated that the windpipe and neck did not show any damage.) I'm not saying that the ME didn't conclude that, but I would like to see it actually quoted.