Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
StuckinFL

What do you need to see before you're totally bought in?

Recommended Posts

I wanted so badly for that doubt I had at the beginning of the season to be wrong. I sincerely hope they pull it together soon. The team expects to lose and are overthinking everything. I don't know if they can pull out of this again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three games above .500. Contending for a playoff spot. I'm still bought in. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Hank said:

Three games above .500. Contending for a playoff spot. I'm still bought in. 

Negative.  They are 13-15, i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500. 

If they get to 3 games above DeLuca .500 and can stay there (or better) into February, we'll see quite a bit more buy-in. 

  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Negative.  They are 13-15, i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500. 

If they get to 3 games above DeLuca .500 and can stay there (or better) into February, we'll see quite a bit more buy-in. 

Thanks for clarifying!

Go Sabres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Negative.  They are 13-15, i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500. 

If they get to 3 games above DeLuca .500 and can stay there (or better) into February, we'll see quite a bit more buy-in. 

Positive. They have three more wins than losses. Deluca .500 is not relevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hank said:

Positive. They have three more wins than losses. Deluca .500 is not relevant. 

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

A deluca .500 record of 42-40-0 would not get you into the playoffs. An NHL .500 record of 40-27-15 could, even though you're two games under deluca .500. Until the NHL stops awarding points for OT/SO losses deluca .500 just doesn't matter. 

But, to answer your question, no, it is not likely, but, it is possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

A team 10 games below your .500 cutoff was 1 game away from the western conference finals last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

Except that this is wholly false.  They have left the arena having lost the game 15 times, and left the arena having won the game 13 times.

As for whether or not DeLuca .500 is relevant -- do you think that teams have generally made the playoffs if they are above BS .500 but below DeLuca .500?

DeLuca is our made up BS. They have 31 points in 28 games, that's over .500 in my book. Which if followed out is on a 91 point season, which probably doesn't get them in the playoffs although right this minute it does. And that my friend is an above .500 season. 

Plus flip that coin a different way, they didn't lose 18 out of 28 games in regulation, which in my Sabres recent history is outstanding. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hank said:

A deluca .500 record of 42-40-0 would not get you into the playoffs. An NHL .500 record of 40-27-15 could, even though you're two games under deluca .500. Until the NHL stops awarding points for OT/SO losses deluca .500 just doesn't matter. 

But, to answer your question, no, it is not likely, but, it is possible. 

I like this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so we are clear:

- last year, one out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 46 wins -- i.e. 4 games over DeLuca .500.

- the year before last, zero out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 42 wins -- i.e. exactly at DeLuca .500.

- the year before that, two out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 40 wins -- i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500.

So, the literalists are correct that it is possible to make the playoffs with a sub-DeLuca .500 record, but only 1 of the last 32 playoff teams (and 3 of the last 48) was below DeLuca .500, and it hasn't happened in the EC in the last 2 years.

If you want the Sabres to be a playoff team, you should understand that they almost certainly need to win a few more games than they lose, regardless of OTLs.

 

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SwampD said:

I like this post.

how about this post?

brown-post-protector-composite-fence-pos

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nfreeman said:

Just so we are clear:

- last year, one out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 46 wins -- i.e. 4 games over DeLuca .500.

- the year before last, zero out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 42 wins -- i.e. exactly at DeLuca .500.

- the year before that, two out of 16 playoff teams was below DeLuca .500, and the lowest-ranked EC playoff team had 40 wins -- i.e. 2 games below DeLuca .500.

So, the literalists are correct that it is possible to make the playoffs with a sub-DeLuca .500 record, but only 1 of the last 32 playoff teams (and 3 of the last 48) was below DeLuca .500, and it hasn't happened in the EC in the last 2 years.

If you want the Sabres to be a playoff team, you should understand that they almost certainly need to win a few more games than they lose, regardless of OTLs.

 

It's a completely arbitrary cutoff though.  You've just shown that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  The points per game metric though, is identical to the actual standings.  The top 3 teams in each division in points per game always make the playoffs.  Then the top team in points per game out of the remaining teams in the conference also makes the playoffs.  Tie breakers will be used in rare cases, but these criteria are met 100% of the time.  So if you want to talk about literalists, points per game literally does decide who makes the playoffs.

So yeah, if you want to push for a different metric, that's fine.  But I'll stick with the one that the actual standings use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, shrader said:

It's a completely arbitrary cutoff though.  You've just shown that sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  The points per game metric though, is identical to the actual standings.  The top 3 teams in each division in points per game always make the playoffs.  Then the top team in points per game out of the remaining teams in the conference also makes the playoffs.  Tie breakers will be used in rare cases, but these criteria are met 100% of the time.  So if you want to talk about literalists, points per game literally does decide who makes the playoffs.

So yeah, if you want to push for a different metric, that's fine.  But I'll stick with the one that the actual standings use.

This is fine, and I agree that DeLuca .500 is far from scientific (although I think it's much more correlative than "sometimes they do, sometimes they don't").  But saying a 17-17-7 team is a .500 team and therefore they're doing OK, which is what some posters were saying upthread, is completely misplaced IMHO and is not what the actual standings use either.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

This is fine, and I agree that DeLuca .500 is far from scientific (although I think it's much more correlative than "sometimes they do, sometimes they don't").  But saying a 17-17-7 team is a .500 team and therefore they're doing OK, which is what some posters were saying upthread, is completely misplaced IMHO and is not what the actual standings use either.

When are the playoff teams determined?  At the end of the season.  So the only column in the standings that matters at that point is the points column (other than tie breakers).  So if one team has more points than the other, aren't they doing better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deluca .500 is just a way of translating the significance of the pre-OT NHL .500 to the modern significance and only really matters to us fans who grew up in the ‘70s when .500 meant something it no longer means.

What we old guys tend to forget that muddies the issue is that half the league misses the playoffs now, as opposed to 5 teams back in the day.

Also, Deluca .500 equates OT losses as actual losses, when actually they are ties. It’s the OT wins that actually skew things.

Translating today’s standings to Adams Division rules: Buffalo 10/10/8 for 28 points, exactly a .500 team.

Boston 18/3/7 43

Buffalo 10/10/8 28

Montreal 9/10/9 27

Tampa 10/9/6 26

Florida 8/9/10 26

Toronto 9/13/8 26

Ottawa 10/16/3 23

Detroit 6/20/4 16

Edited by dudacek
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to retire the DeLuca .500, since while it's generally indicative, it has flaws in that if completely ignores OTL points.

 

I'd like to introduce the Pi .600. A team who hits .600 PPG is a good team. You're welcome.

Edited by MattPie
  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Deluca .500 is just a way of translating the significance of the pre-OT NHL .500 to the modern significance and only really matters to us fans who grew up in the ‘70s when .500 meant something it no longer means.

What we old guys tend to forget that muddies the issue is that half the league misses the playoffs now, as opposed to 5 teams back in the day.

Also, Deluca .500 equates OT losses as actual losses, when actually they are ties. It’s the OT wins that actually skew things.

Translating today’s standings to Adams Division rules: Buffalo 10/10/8 for 28 points, exactly a .500 team.

Boston 18/3/7 43

Buffalo 10/10/8 28

Montreal 9/10/9 27

Tampa 10/9/6 26

Florida 8/9/10 26

Toronto 9/13/8 26

Ottawa 10/16/3 23

Detroit 6/20/4 16

I’ve long thought this is the best measure of how a team is really doing.  Take out the OT games.  OT/SO is a crapshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, shrader said:

When are the playoff teams determined?  At the end of the season.  So the only column in the standings that matters at that point is the points column (other than tie breakers).  So if one team has more points than the other, aren't they doing better?

Of course.  My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain troglodytes upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

  • Thanks (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MattPie said:

It's time to retire the DeLuca .500, since while it's generally indicative, it has flaws in that if completely ignores OTL points.

 

I'd like to introduce the Pi .580. A team who hits .580 PPG is a good team. You're welcome.

Except your Pi 580 (isn't that a news Radio station?) only gets a team to 95 points which can fairly often still result in a playoff miss.


Pick up 12 points every 10 games (0.600) and you sit at 96 points after 80 games which typically gets a team into the playoffs. 

IF that is still looking in from the outside that team can win up to 2 more games.  NOBODY misses when hitting 100.

In the land of the "bonus" point for not being good enough to win under the normal rules 0.600 is the benchmark.

Edited by Taro T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Of course.  My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain barbarians upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

We all get your point, it's just that some of us don't share your opinion on deluca .500, and that's okay. It's okay to disagree. 

 

 

 

Barbarian? If that's used in a derogatory way, and I'm pretty sure it is, how is that any better/worse than calling someone a snowflake? Shouldn't you be above that, being as you're a moderator who brings down the ban-hammer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hank said:

We all get your point, it's just that some of us don't share your opinion on deluca .500, and that's okay. It's okay to disagree. 

 

 

 

Barbarian? If that's used in a derogatory way, and I'm pretty sure it is, how is that any better/worse than calling someone a snowflake? Shouldn't you be above that, being as you're a moderator who brings down the ban-hammer?

I thought it was a joke.  Sarcasm.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Curt said:

I thought it was a joke.  Sarcasm.

I'm sure it was. Just taking a poke at him. All in fun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Of course.  My point was simply that ".500" as used by certain barbarians upthread (i.e. not DeLuca .500) has no meaning whatsoever, whereas DeLuca .500 is a much better indicator of making the playoffs.

You make a good point, as usual.  

May I ask that you replace the word barbarians with just about any more civil word you can think of.  Thanks.

20 minutes ago, Curt said:

I thought it was a joke.  Sarcasm.

Even if it was, which it probably was.  It's not funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, New Scotland (NS) said:

You make a good point, as usual.  

May I ask that you replace the word barbarians with just about any more civil word you can think of.  Thanks.

Even if it was, which it probably was.  It's not funny.

I would argue it's not really a good point, because NHL .500, bonus points and all, is how you make the playoffs, not deluca .500. But, I understand why people like to use it, right or wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...