nfreeman

Why do you think this? I think almost everyone in the US who wants to be vaccinated will be able to do so by the summer.

I really liked 1917.

I wonder if TP meddles in her training.

NS, you know I luv ya, and I've heard that it's a great movie, but this is a bridge too far. Who is going to watch a movie in a foreign language without subtitles?

Let's hope so, although I'd vote for replacing Irwin, who has frequently looked like a train wreck IMHO, instead of Montour, who has looked pretty good.

Kinda looking forward to seeing Borgen in a game.

Both of these, plus, as a number of posters have noted, Hoop Dreams. Also: Manhattan Annie Hall Major League Broken Arrow

The Terminator Speed Animal House Caddyshack Monty Python and the Holy Grail Talladega Nights Ronin Pulp Fiction Inglorious Basterds The Matrix Full Metal Jacket LA Confidential The Man who Shot Liberty Valance Miller's Crossing True Grit Blade Runner On the Waterfront Royal Tenebaums Stand by Me

Let the record reflect that @Taro T is right — I had forgotten about games 81 and 82 and was using 96 pts as the cutoff. Having said that, this all came up in response to a different poster up thread citing NHL .500 as a meaningful status, which it simply ain’t. Certainly a 98-pt pace is meaningful.

More to the point, I think the more critical idea here is not that you are probably going to make the playoffs if you finish at DeLuca .500 -- it's that if you don't get to DeLuca .500, you are not going to make the playoffs. The key is to stay at or very close to DeLuca .500 during the season and then finish strong so you end up at least a couple of games over -- and not to delude oneself that one's team is doing fine because they are at "NHL .500".

Well, in the last 3 years, 3 teams have finished "NHL .600" or better and not made the playoffs so you, sir, are equally guilty of propounding a less-than-infallible formula. May God have mercy on your soul.

The Sabres are not a .500 team. They have won 40% of their games. If they end up the season having won 40% of their games, they will miss the playoffs by a country mile. This is a similar terminology item, but I also don't think "win percentage" is used correctly here. The Sabres, Rangers, Devils and Isles have all won less than 50% of their games (and the Caps and Pens have won exactly 50% of their games) -- so I would say 4 teams are below .500 in win percentage and only 2 teams are above .500 in win percentage. This goes back to DeLuca .500 -- i.e. a team needs to win at least 50% of its games to have a shot at the playoffs. It may seem like a silly argument over nomenclature, but the key point is that "NHL .500" -- e.g. where the Sabres are at 4-4-2 -- is a useless mirage that doesn't get you to the playoffs.

Any poster can have a voice, but each poster should communicate in a friendly and respectful fashion.

This is obnoxious.

Good.

Good.

As a scientist, you know that ya need the data before ya can come to any conclusions, innit?

I can totally see that each of these would be a logical contributing factor to the NHL having worse results than the NBA. I'm more curious as to whether the NHL in fact has worse results.

I agree that the Bruins get much more out of what they have than the Sabres do. I'm not sure I'd say they work harder, but I definitely think they know how to win and the Sabres do not. However, I think the Bruins have more talent. At this point in time, McAvoy is much better than any Sabres' defenseman. Dahlin may get there, but he's not there yet. As for the two teams' top lines, Reino and, at this point in time, Hall, are the 5th and 6th best players out of the 6, and it's fairly likely that Marchand and Pastrnak both end up having better NHL careers than Eichel will have (although to be fair you could say that is an example of the Sabres not getting the most out of their talent). And there's no question that the Bruins have more talent at goalie, where the Sabres are gasping for air. (Thanks KA!)

Serious question: is the NHL doing worse in managing the virus than the NBA is? Has anyone seen any good analysis on this? My sense without looking into it is that the 2 leagues are doing about the same, and that the NHL has more players affected mostly because it has larger rosters. If that's true, I think it's fair to note that the NBA's season has been somewhat bumpy but is overall going reasonably well, with plenty of high-level play and a number of elite teams in contention. The NHL has had a number of noteworthy hiccups but the sample size is smaller because they started 3-4 weeks later. I'd also say that there have been a number of high-level NHL games between high-end teams.

I would. I'm still looking forward to watching each game. I think they have a good shot at the playoffs and I expect them to play meaningful and exciting games fairly late into the season. Would I be stunned if that didn't happen? Of course not. But I'm far from giving up on the season.

I am 100% confident that if the Sabres grind out some wins and get to the point they are clearly in the playoff race, there will be plenty of excitement here. The angst IMHO stems from the fact that they came out listless in 2 of their first 8 games AND that there are a number of significant indicators that this will be another lost year -- and 2 regulation wins out of 10 games with losses to bad teams and a solid dose of crappy goaltending are among those indicators (and reasonably so). If they get to the 30-game mark and are plus or minus 2 points from #4 in their division, you'll see engagement, support and more than a little irrational exuberance. If they are 12-18 at the 30-game mark and 9 points out of #4, there will blood in the air.

Time to chill out a bit, please.

This, this, a thousand times this! I think it was a single decision.

If we get to the point where yet another season goes down the drain, this would make for an interesting, albeit gloomy, poll.