TageMVP Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Thorny said: 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 % They need more loser points. They had 7 last year, which is on the low end. 2 more loser points and they're in the playoffs. They only have 4 this year, I consider that low end. Benefits teams like the Islanders who are clearly less talented than other teams but they have 10 loser points already. Also helps to have Sorokin and they do not change their structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 1 hour ago, Thorny said: Because they aren’t Semantics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 27 minutes ago, TageMVP said: They need more loser points. They had 7 last year, which is on the low end. 2 more loser points and they're in the playoffs. They only have 4 this year, I consider that low end. Benefits teams like the Islanders who are clearly less talented than other teams but they have 10 loser points already. Also helps to have Sorokin and they do not change their structure. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Norcal said: Semantics 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 Edited January 12 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 7 minutes ago, Thorny said: 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 To add, it’s not gaining an additional 7 pts, it is gaining 7 MORE points than the team in front of you, and the same for all the other teams that need to be leapfrogged. It is why standings at Christmas are so indicative of playoff representation. The hurdle becomes immense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 12 Report Share Posted January 12 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Weave said: To add, it’s not gaining an additional 7 pts, it is gaining 7 MORE points than the team in front of you, and the same for all the other teams that need to be leapfrogged. It is why standings at Christmas are so indicative of playoff representation. The hurdle becomes immense. 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 😂 Edited January 12 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norcal Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 2 hours ago, Thorny said: 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 I mean. At the time of my post they were 6 back from a tie for the second wild card. Anything that happened since then is therefore semantics or otherwise irrelevant to my original post but go ahead and type away. I'm a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day, or maybe it's just cloudy in here 🤷♂️ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorny Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Norcal said: I mean. At the time of my post they were 6 back from a tie for the second wild card. Anything that happened since then is therefore semantics or otherwise irrelevant to my original post but go ahead and type away. I'm a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day, or maybe it's just cloudy in here 🤷♂️ That’s still not semantics. It’s just me stupidly missing the fact the standings had changed since you posted lol derp Edited January 13 by Thorny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoted Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 Just saying it's nearly impossible for this team to win 3 in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthEbriate Posted January 13 Report Share Posted January 13 Cozens scored an ENG for the trio's lone goal against Ottawa this season. Otherwise, they've been a TIE fighter explosion against the Sens. Cozens 3 GP 1-2-3 -3 (and if 2 more seconds expire before he shoots the ENG it reads 0-2-2 -4) JJP 3 GP 1-0-1 -5 Quinn 2 GP 0-1-1 -5 Again, I especially didn't like the decision (with last change, mind you) after the TV timeout/ice scrape mid-3rd period to send them out against a double-shifting and buzzing Giroux-Tkachuk. Quickly turns into a Sens forecheck and a goal to make it a 4-3 game. Either the Krebs or Greenway line should have been out there to negate the top line. (Bonus note: this was after the buzzing Giroux-Tkachuk line scored against the Cozens line to make it 4-2.) Situational matchups matter, even midseason, when you're trying desperately to get back into the playoff picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.