Thorny

We win this game. Thorny lock

What sport?

That’s still not semantics. It’s just me stupidly missing the fact the standings had changed since you posted lol derp

Succinctly put. Like I said, I get it, technically the number right now is 7: if you wanna say 7 by all means say 7. But don’t say 6 when you were already stretching to say 7 😂

Even if my intent was to argue that Adams should upgrade (it wasn’t), the conversation is essentially: “Hey, why don’t we see Scorsese’s new movie? Looks way better than Bay’s.” and then your response is, ”We can’t see Scorsese’s movie, because Transformers is the movie we are seeing today”. ”but why don’t we go see The Departed?” ”We can’t, we’re seeing Transformers.” - - - “We won’t be upgrading the goalies because UPL and Levi are the goalies.” You aren’t actually saying anything - not sure if you understand that that’s the aspect I was jesting at. - - - As for the bolded segment - it’s also unfortunately a poor representation of my stance: anyone who reads my posts can see my argument regarding KA and the goaltending is that it defies logic to suggest he couldn’t have upgraded the position within the time frame of 4 seasons: the exact argument I bust out whenever the inevitable “who even was there?!1” comes up. Indeed, I understand an in-season move is very unlikely and have constantly said as much Bizarro world Also, rough day for people correctly understanding the meaning of “semantics”

You made the point that UPL and Levi are in fact the current goalies. That’s not a point. That’s an observation lol The only way someone could not have been willing to accept that is if they literally were unaware of who was playing

It’s not semantics, it’s just raw data. If you meant real-time points, they are 7 back from a tie with Tampa for WC2. Ticky tack? Sure, but it would feel disingenuous to undersell the gap even by a little when in reality the amount of teams we need to leapfrog is the main issue, and “only 6 points back” has a connotation that completely ignores that so…7 points. A better analysis anyways would be to take into account games played and look at actual points percentage, so if you meant that, in reality we are chasing NJ and they are 5 up with 3 in hand so in essence, 8 points up. It’s certainly not semantics. But maybe you deem the difference between 6 points and 7 or 8 irrelevant. Fair game. But I wouldn’t, considering it’s the exact gap we missed the playoffs by last year

It benefits the Islanders, but there’s also something to be said for intentionally tailoring the build of your team to the format. They are in the business of achieving results after all

Quinn is a big part of it. But like you alluded to, there are other big parts at play, too. That’s sort of the point: there’s almost always multiple variables, and in fact, after so much experience watching saviours fail, you’d think people would be fully on board with the fact it usually *requires* multiple variables to get anything done. There’s no magic formula, they’re a Quiga board. There are always a multitude of things pulling in any given direction when the team amounts to a win or a loss. Or an extended stretch of such.

Don’t forget the schedule

And don’t forget the issues that often arise with drawing such a strong causation from a small sample size. Samuelsson playing last year was apparently the simple key to success

8 loser points would get us to 96 points and a likely berth. There are 8 five-game segments left, so if we go 3-1-1 every group of 5 games we’d likely make the playoffs but not for sure. 3-1-1 per 5 the rest of the way is a 115 point pace And a .700 points %

…even after which we’d need to play at a 109 point pace over final 36 to hit 94 points. It’s possible, don’t mean to be the bearer of (obvious, I’m sorry) bad news, but the math is a little more daunting than some are letting on. Another thing to keep in mind is that even math isn’t free of unconscious bias: you have to remember that if you are penciling in a 3 game win streak, that means you aren’t pencilling in a 4 game win streak, meaning you have us losing that next game. Because we need to factor that in, we’d actually be at 46 points after 47 games: which actually would need us to play at a 112 point pace after that streak and the game that ends it Otherwise, if you want math better than that, for the final 35, we actually need a *4* game win streak (or at least to lose that 4th one in OT) That the team needs to streak is only half of it, that’s the part that sometimes falls by the wayside. It’s the fact that even after you make up ground, the rest of your games have to statistically reflect the streak more so than the bulk: and that’s very mathematically unlikely. Combined with the multitude of teams you need to leapfrog in the process, it’s why you get playoff odds calculated at like 6% when you are “seemingly only” 3/4 games “out”

Good is relative and we played Ottawa so. You do the math

Aim higher Snap Well said

Because they aren’t

A+ reference

Increasingly incensed I guess, but this board is full of posters who realized exactly what we’d miss by not replacing him but overall, there’s no denying Quinn a represents a huge advantage for us going forward. Good player will, imo, be out best F

Is this AI? The opinions on this account seem to 180 daily. Actually asking

You make a good point I hadn’t considered..

Broke: Brady T. Woke: T. Brady

Good crowd here, prob a sell out

Maybe the turn around starts today. As good a time as any. Go Sabres.

Haha We want guys who want to be here