Crazy we are in last place in the division but 6 points out of first with 2 games in hand

[Doohickie]

2 hours ago, Demoted said:

Kevin Adams should have surrounded the team with better players to offset those injuries. He had plenty of time. 

He did.  He propped up the bottom six with improved players.  He's got youth pushing up from Rochester, not because they don't have anyone else, but because they deserve their NHL shot, and they're making the most of it.

Edited 22 hours ago by Doohickie

[PromoTheRobot]

3 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

In many cases it is true:

-McDavid missed a bunch of games last year. In addition to those guys (at one point Edmonton had Draisaitl, Hopkins, Kane, Hyman, Ekholm and others out at the same time last year https://thehockeywriters.com/oilers-have-mishandled-their-injuries-2024-25/)

-Eichel missed a bunch of games his first 2 years with Vegas (and we know about the Mark Stone time missed due to injury)

-Last year Ottawa finally made the playoffs despite multi game injuries to both of their goalies, Nick Cousens, Perron, Pinto, and Tkachuk.

-New Jersey made it back to the playoffs last year with Jack Hughes, Hischier, Luke Hughes, and both goaltenders missing multiple games due to injury.

-Ovi was on a 50 goal pace and missed almost 20 games last year

-Heiskanen missed about 1/3 of the season last year. Lundkvist and Dumba also missed time on their blueline, with Hintz, Marchment, Bourque and Seguin missing multiple games up front.

-Over the last few years, Matthews in Toronto has missed some games (and played through injuries) across several seasons.

All made the playoffs, some finishing very high in the standings.

I'm sure there are other examples. I know at points the Leafs had Matthews out or playing hurt with other guys out at the same time.

Thank you for a list of random guys who missed games. But how many teams lost 4, 5 , 6 players top end players at the same time? Give me an example of a team like that that made the playoffs.

[PerreaultForever]

12 hours ago, Doohickie said:

The corollary is that it's still relatively early in the season and even an modest win streak can bump up the win % significantly.

It can, but that win streak has to happen. In this compressed schedule, relative to other teams, they are actually healthier now than some so there is a chance to move up but they have to show up every single night to have a chance at making that happen. 

Cautious optimism is the best i can do. 

[Doohickie]

3 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

It can, but that win streak has to happen. In this compressed schedule, relative to other teams, they are actually healthier now than some so there is a chance to move up but they have to show up every single night to have a chance at making that happen. 

Cautious optimism is the best i can do. 

You're steadier than I am.  I'm planning the parade with every win, ready to abandon the team with every loss.

[PerreaultForever]

Just now, Doohickie said:

You're steadier than I am.  I'm planning the parade with every win, ready to abandon the team with every loss.

I got really bandwagonesque when we had that win streak with Eichel-Skinner-Reinhart tearing it up. That was the last time. Last few years I've settled into a prove it and show me kind of view. Just don't trust this team to show up every night. It's been calming since so far it's been constant. 

[Doohickie]

Just now, PerreaultForever said:

I got really bandwagonesque when we had that win streak with Eichel-Skinner-Reinhart tearing it up. That was the last time. Last few years I've settled into a prove it and show me kind of view. Just don't trust this team to show up every night. It's been calming since so far it's been constant. 

Granted they screwed the pooch against CGY, but in general this team is bringing it more often than not.  I think the current roster is playoff-worthy, but they're in a hole.  On the other hand, more help should come when Kulich and Norris return.  And the bottom six is more effective than it's been in years.  To be honest, I'm okay with the D situation.  Bryson's been playing pretty well.  

[mjd1001]

24 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Thank you for a list of random guys who missed games. But how many teams lost 4, 5 , 6 players top end players at the same time? Give me an example of a team like that that made the playoffs.

The Edmonton example is linked in there with an article. It took me about 30 seconds to find that article.  For the rest, do your own work, the info is out there I'm not digging up anything else to justify my point (the info is out there)

The collection of those guys are certainly better than the number of games the Sabres lost with 'top guys'.

Edited 21 hours ago by mjd1001

[PerreaultForever]

56 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Granted they screwed the pooch against CGY, but in general this team is bringing it more often than not.  I think the current roster is playoff-worthy, but they're in a hole.  On the other hand, more help should come when Kulich and Norris return.  And the bottom six is more effective than it's been in years.  To be honest, I'm okay with the D situation.  Bryson's been playing pretty well.  

I don't disagree with most of that. There were a few early games that had me thinking, hmmm, are they getting it this year? But I didn't want to get too excited and then they started losing in OT etc. and things started to look the same. I still don't see enough fight on the boards and winning puck battles to take them seriously but it does look more like an actual hockey team. 

It would be nice if they could win some face offs too. 

[PromoTheRobot]

😂

[elijah]

15 hours ago, MattPie said:

At the (just past) quarter mark, the Sabres are at 0.500. to get to 0.600 over the next 20 games, they'd have to play 7-3-0 or 7-1-2 hockey for two 10-game stretches. That seems fairly unlikely. Even spreading out over the rest of the season, they'd need to play ~0.633 hockey, averaging between 6-4-0 and 6-3-1 per 10-game stretch. Maybe a switch flips and they suddenly become that team, maybe not. They're not that team now.

Too soon, lol.

To get to the .555 that’s been needed for the past 2 years (and .561 the year before), they’d have to play 6-4 over 2 10 games stretches. Even spreading out over the rest of the season, they’d need to play ~.575 averaging between 5-4-1 and 6-4. 

Stop with the negative mental gymnastics, just keep winning to make april matter and hope they take care of it then

[Sabres73]

38 minutes ago, elijah said:

To get to the .555 that’s been needed for the past 2 years (and .561 the year before), they’d have to play 6-4 over 2 10 games stretches. Even spreading out over the rest of the season, they’d need to play ~.575 averaging between 5-4-1 and 6-4. 

Stop with the negative mental gymnastics, just keep winning to make april matter and hope they take care of it then

I mean, we could be in a playoff spot by next week if we win our games.

[MattPie]

7 hours ago, elijah said:

To get to the .555 that’s been needed for the past 2 years (and .561 the year before), they’d have to play 6-4 over 2 10 games stretches. Even spreading out over the rest of the season, they’d need to play ~.575 averaging between 5-4-1 and 6-4. 

Stop with the negative mental gymnastics, just keep winning to make april matter and hope they take care of it then

Fair, I'll admit that I use 0.600 because it's easy and it's all-but guaranteed to make the playoffs and not come down to tie breakers and whatnot, but it is 3 more wins than 0.560 at the end of the season. Nonetheless, after 22 games the Sabres do not appear to be able to maintain 5-4-1 to 6-4-0 play, so something has to change.

And I'll be as negative as I want, lol.

[PromoTheRobot]

7 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

I mean, we could be in a playoff spot by next week if we win our games.

And if we lose one or two it doesn't mean the season is over. Just don't fall into a losing streak.

Since the COVID shortened season 91 (.555) points was enough to get in twice, 92 (.561) once and 100 (.610) once.

With 60 games remaining, Buffalo needs 69 points to reach 91. They need to maintain a .575 pace to achieve that. 

Edited 9 hours ago by PromoTheRobot

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

And if we lose one or two it doesn't mean the season is over. Just don't fall into a losing streak.

No doubt about it that the Sabres have to avoid extended losing streaks to become a playoff team. But even without such a streak, if this team can't play better on the road, it will be too much of a challenge to overcome. Buffalo is 8-4-2 at home and 1-5-2 on the road. That home/away disparity is simply not good enough to put this team in a position where it needs to be. Toronto's record is 8-4-3 at home and 1-6-0 on the road. Both of these team are dealing with the same road record problem. We need to get our record around .500 to put us in a position to put us in a realistic position to make the playoffs. 

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

And if we lose one or two it doesn't mean the season is over. Just don't fall into a losing streak.

Since the COVID shortened season 91 (.555) points was enough to get in twice, 92 (.561) once and 100 (.610) once.

With 60 games remaining, Buffalo needs 69 points to reach 91. They need to maintain a .575 pace to achieve that. 

100 was NOT necessary to get into the playoffs wtihout worrying about tiebreakers; it was SIGNIFICANTLY more than enough to get in the playoffs.  Provided the Caps wouldn't have dropped any points to the Aisles that they in actuality took from them, 85 points was all that was necessary to get into the playoffs that year in the East that year; and it took 95 to clinch in the West.  Even had the Caps taken all 12 points from the Aisles that year and enough of those 6 games had their results reversed to get them to within 1 point of each other, 97 points still would've absolutely guaranteed finishing in front of the 9th place team.

You don't have to beat the 8th place team to be in the playoffs.  By being the 8th place team you ARE in the playoffs.  You have to beat the NINTH place team to be in the playoffs.  And 85 points in the East and 95 points in the West guaranteed you that 8th place spot.

Btw, those other 3 years, in the East, 92, 92, and 90 was enough to get in outright.  Though 91 got you into the playoffs in 23-24, it took a tiebreaker to determine which team got in and one that reached 91 did NOT get it.

The 1970 Montreal Canadiens are still the only team since expansion, and likely ever, that got to 0.600 and didn't get in.  So, 0.600 is still the goal.  Get there and you are as close to guaranteed to be in as you can get without it being an absolute 100% certainty.

[Thorny]

16 hours ago, Doohickie said:

He did.  He propped up the bottom six with improved players.  He's got youth pushing up from Rochester, not because they don't have anyone else, but because they deserve their NHL shot, and they're making the most of it.

Legitimately had to check the standings again after reading through this thread with my coffee

we are in TWENTY-SEVENTH (27th!) place. There’s always a little bit of tongue in cheek when I say expectations have reached bottom of the barrel low, but from now on there shall be no tongue at all.

things are never going to change.

[Thorny]

15 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

The Edmonton example is linked in there with an article. It took me about 30 seconds to find that article.  For the rest, do your own work, the info is out there I'm not digging up anything else to justify my point (the info is out there)

The collection of those guys are certainly better than the number of games the Sabres lost with 'top guys'.

The response you were looking for is “what could Kevyn Adams have even done?” 

[Doohickie]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

things are never going to change.

We'll see, my friend.

[jad1]

15 hours ago, Sabres73 said:

I mean, we could be in a playoff spot by next week if we win our games.

They could have been in the playoffs each of the last 15 seasons if they won their games.