Peace Frog Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 It probably wouldn't hurt to have Nashville lose to Dallas, as well. Now, we just have to take care of business with Atlanta tomorrow night. Go Sabres! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I know your answer but I'll ask anyway. Why exactly do Anaheim and Nashville losses mean anything to us (except for when they're playing eastern conference teams)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Yeah, I am waiting for that answer. I can see Montreal's loss helping us, but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I personally would have loved it, if Anaheim kicked Carolina's ASS 10-0. I hate Laviolette, Staal, Brindamour, Commodore and every freakin' player on that team. :angry: :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Frog Posted December 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I know your answer but I'll ask anyway. Why exactly do Anaheim and Nashville losses mean anything to us (except for when they're playing eastern conference teams)? I'm talking about overall record in the NHL, not just the Eastern Conference. The President's Trophy would look really nice next to the Stanley Cup. We're trying to catch Anaheim and keep the other teams behind us like Montreal, Nashville, and Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I can't believe we are "scoreboard watching" on December 28th..... it's just mind boggling to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Frog Posted December 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I can't believe we are "scoreboard watching" on December 28th..... it's just mind boggling to me. Scoreboard watching? Hell, yeah!!! I want the Sabres to win everything this year. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two or less Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Scoreboard watching? Hell, yeah!!! I want the Sabres to win everything this year. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. :thumbsup: I personally hate scoreboard watching unless i really need to late in the season when im on my knees in front of the tv screen praying for the right results.... because i believe that everything is in our hands. We can play our game and they can play theirs, we all can keep winning, and they can even win a few more then us, but if we go 3-0-0 in the final 3 games vs. Montreal, it will be VERY difficult for them to over take us in the divison. By scoreboard watching, you're adding way too much un-needed stress in your life, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Frog Posted December 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I personally hate scoreboard watching unless i really need to late in the season when im on my knees in front of the tv screen praying for the right results.... because i believe that everything is in our hands. We can play our game and they can play theirs, we all can keep winning, and they can even win a few more then us, but if we go 3-0-0 in the final 3 games vs. Montreal, it will be VERY difficult for them to over take us in the divison. By scoreboard watching, you're adding way too much un-needed stress in your life, my friend. STRESS? I DON'T HAVE ANY STRESS!!! :wallbash: Just keeping an eye on things for my own personal enjoyment. It's never to early to start plotting out the possibilities for a record season. To me, stress would be the anxiousness one feels while wearing a thong made of a live, angry cobra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 To me, stress would be the anxiousness one feels while wearing a thong made of a live, angry cobra. ...and we all know how stressful that can be!!! :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I'm talking about overall record in the NHL, not just the Eastern Conference. The President's Trophy would look really nice next to the Stanley Cup. We're trying to catch Anaheim and keep the other teams behind us like Montreal, Nashville, and Atlanta. I don't want the President's Trophy. Stick it up your azz. It's jinxed. I don't want any part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I don't want the President's Trophy. Stick it up your azz. It's jinxed. I don't want any part of it. :doh: :) Unlike Buffalo NY Sporting History... If we are going to break the drought, why not do it in a big way? Didn't win without it last year, how about we try to win with it? EDIT: Besides, how can you not root for it? I want them to win EVERY game they play. If they do that, they win the prize. I get really riled when I read people want them to lose a game because they are getting too confident, lazy, fill in the blank... Losing begets losing. Winning begets winning.. I accept losses when they come, but I sure as hell don't root for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Frog Posted December 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I don't want the President's Trophy. Stick it up your azz. It's jinxed. I don't want any part of it. Jinked, really? Let's just take a look at some of the teams that won the President's Trophy AND the Stanley Cup in the same season... 2002 Detroit Red Wings 2001 Colorado Avalanche 1999 Dallas Stars 1994 New York Rangers 1989 Calgary Flames 1987 Edmonton Oilers That looks to be some impressive company. If you're looking to make history, why not make it with a gourmet shot? :beer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I say let's win it all too, I don't believe in jinxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Jinked, really? Let's just take a look at some of the teams that won the President's Trophy AND the Stanley Cup in the same season... 2002 Detroit Red Wings 2001 Colorado Avalanche 1999 Dallas Stars 1994 New York Rangers 1989 Calgary Flames 1987 Edmonton Oilers That looks to be some impressive company. If you're looking to make history, why not make it with a gourmet shot? :beer: What's that, six out of 20 teams? I'm with DC. I'm glad Anaheim is out front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 What's that, six out of 20 teams? I'm with DC. I'm glad Anaheim is out front. Add me to that list. While I agree that having the President's trophy next to the Eastern Conference and Stanley Cup trophies would be sweet, my main concern is getting the Cup. And those six teams you listed are the only six to pull off the double-double, according to this article from CBC Sports. On the flip side, the CBC Sports piece raises an interesting point: of the 20 President's Trophy winners, only four have not gone on to win the Cup "in the same era": While Presidents' Trophy winners may not always succeed that particular season, there is a strong correlation with Stanley Cup success within the same era, with many teams becoming the regular season champs a season or two before going all the way in the playoffs, seemingly learning from the hard knocks of previous years. Just four franchises have won el Presidente without having won the Cup within the same era: Ottawa (2003), St. Louis (2000), Chicago (1991) and Boston (1990). But , I want to win the Cup this year, not next year or the year after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blugold43 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 what is wrong with wanting to win every single game, the president's trophy, and the stanley cup? i specifically remember chris drury saying that the thing that made the avs so great when he was there was that the locker room was full of guys who were committed to winning every game and garnering both trophies. that's good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I could really care less about the presidents trophy. As miller said, its not about the shutout, its about the last 16 wins. The presidents trophy will look nice as an afterthought, everything pails to the Stanley Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 I'm sure nobody here thinks the President's trophy is worth even 1/1000th of what the Cup is worth, nobody is saying that. The issue is do you honestly think that if we do win the President's trophy, does that mean that we are actually less likely to win the Cup than if we hadn't won it? If so, how do you logically explain that? I don't think one thing has anything to do with the other, therefore I would love to see them win as many accolades/awards/trophies as they can on the road to the ultimate prize. I have yet to hear a good reason why I shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 Add me to that list. While I agree that having the President's trophy next to the Eastern Conference and Stanley Cup trophies would be sweet, my main concern is getting the Cup. And those six teams you listed are the only six to pull off the double-double, according to this article from CBC Sports. On the flip side, the CBC Sports piece raises an interesting point: of the 20 President's Trophy winners, only four have not gone on to win the Cup "in the same era": But , I want to win the Cup this year, not next year or the year after. St. Louis won it? Wow. So, is 2006 still the same "era" for the Sens? :ph34r: I'm sure nobody here thinks the President's trophy is worth even 1/1000th of what the Cup is worth, nobody is saying that. The issue is do you honestly think that if we do win the President's trophy, does that mean that we are actually less likely to win the Cup than if we hadn't won it? If so, how do you logically explain that? I don't think one thing has anything to do with the other, therefore I would love to see them win as many accolades/awards/trophies as they can on the road to the ultimate prize. I have yet to hear a good reason why I shouldn't. There has to be a reason that the ultimate regular season success doesn't translate to a Cup very often. Unless it's just a statistical fluke. Anyone want to look back before the Presidents' Trophy (say, back to the expasion of the late 60s) and see if the trend holds up? One immediate thought is that the style of play that translates into regular season victories doesn't always match the style of play you need in the playoffs. I'm a bit worried about that with our Sabres. Maybe that worry should be lessened now that we've seen that officiating standards were upheld for the most part in last year's playoffs. Besides the possibility of overconfidence, another factor is the psychological edge that the eighth seed has against the fat cats. Oftentimes that last seed is a team that has played awfully well for a long stretch just to make it, while the top seed has been coasting. Any other theories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 What's that, six out of 20 teams? I'm with DC. I'm glad Anaheim is out front. 6 out of 20 won both. Only 1 team out of 30 in any given year wins either. I have no problem with the Sabres winning both this year. 7 out of 21 sounds pretty good to me. ;) St. Louis won it? Wow. So, is 2006 still the same "era" for the Sens? :ph34r: There has to be a reason that the ultimate regular season success doesn't translate to a Cup very often. Unless it's just a statistical fluke. Anyone want to look back before the Presidents' Trophy (say, back to the expasion of the late 60s) and see if the trend holds up? One immediate thought is that the style of play that translates into regular season victories doesn't always match the style of play you need in the playoffs. I'm a bit worried about that with our Sabres. Maybe that worry should be lessened now that we've seen that officiating standards were upheld for the most part in last year's playoffs. Besides the possibility of overconfidence, another factor is the psychological edge that the eighth seed has against the fat cats. Oftentimes that last seed is a team that has played awfully well for a long stretch just to make it, while the top seed has been coasting. Any other theories? Since the league "1st" expanded, the team that had the outright best record in hockey won the SC 16 times and did not win it 18 times. On 2 occasions a team tied for best record won it and on 2 others a team that missed by 1 point won the SC. I still think it's better to be the best team heading into the tournament than a lower seed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdexchange Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 There has to be a reason that the ultimate regular season success doesn't translate to a Cup very often. I would argue that 6 out of 20 (30%) is pretty often, considering only 1 in 16 (6%) playoff teams can win. Put another way, teams that win the President's trophy are 5 times more likely to win the Cup than other teams. :thumbsup: One immediate thought is that the style of play that translates into regular season victories doesn't always match the style of play you need in the playoffs. I'm a bit worried about that with our Sabres. Maybe that worry should be lessened now that we've seen that officiating standards were upheld for the most part in last year's playoffs. Besides the possibility of overconfidence, another factor is the psychological edge that the eighth seed has against the fat cats. Oftentimes that last seed is a team that has played awfully well for a long stretch just to make it, while the top seed has been coasting. Those are all good thoughts PA, and I'm sure those factors do apply in many cases. Hopefully we won't succumb to any of that if we are in that position (and I hope we are!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetweenThePipes00 Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 What's that, six out of 20 teams? I'm with DC. I'm glad Anaheim is out front. There's a flaw in this logic ... yeah, it's only 6 out of 19 (one year no Cup)... but there are 16 slots, and the #1 spot wins 30% of the time ... so that means the other 15 spots wins 70% of the time COMBINED ... It's easy to say you want to be part of the 70%, but you only get to be one small part of that. Because I am bored, I looked it up ... 6 out of 19 is the best ANY seed did ... here are the number of Cups won by other overall seeds since 1987: 2 - 1 Cup 3 - 4 Cups 4 - 2 Cups 5 - 2 Cups 6 - 2 Cups 7 - 1 Cup 8 - 0 Cups 9 - 1 Cup 10 or lower - 0 Cups So ... You don't want to finish first overall? Pick another seed ... ANY other seed, and you are DECREASING you chances of winning it all by AT LEAST 50%, and that's for the 3 seed which has won 4 times. If you finish in ANY other spot, you are at least 3 times less likely to win. The odds of winning it all are against you no matter what. Being the one team with a 30% chance in a 16-team field is pretty damn good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffalOhio Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 There's a flaw in this logic ... yeah, it's only 6 out of 19 (one year no Cup)... but there are 16 slots, and the #1 spot wins 30% of the time ... so that means the other 15 spots wins 70% of the time COMBINED ... It's easy to say you want to be part of the 70%, but you only get to be one small part of that. Because I am bored, I looked it up ... 6 out of 19 is the best ANY seed did ... here are the number of Cups won by other overall seeds since 1987: 2 - 1 Cup 3 - 4 Cups 4 - 2 Cups 5 - 2 Cups 6 - 2 Cups 7 - 1 Cup 8 - 0 Cups 9 - 1 Cup 10 or lower - 0 Cups So ... You don't want to finish first overall? Pick another seed ... ANY other seed, and you are DECREASING you chances of winning it all by AT LEAST 50%, and that's for the 3 seed which has won 4 times. If you finish in ANY other spot, you are at least 3 times less likely to win. The odds of winning it all are against you no matter what. Being the one team with a 30% chance in a 16-team field is pretty damn good. Wow, you just blew my mind. I need a towel to clean up the brain matter that is dripping out of my nose and ears, because my brain is melting. Great post. I just happen to think that winning the President's Trophy leads to overconfidence, and makes NOT winning the Cup even more painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted December 30, 2006 Report Share Posted December 30, 2006 DC, we got schooled. I am pulling my pants up now. :) I am going to have to study all those numbers though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.