Jauronimo Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, K-9 said: Nothing against any of them, but until they DO possess the physical maturity required, I’m not expecting any of them to be top 6 contributors next season. Particularly in the case with Mitts as he’s shown absolutely NOTHING in the way of the dedication and discipline required to put in the work to achieve that change. WTF do you call this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: WTF do you call this? Man's game, beatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 55 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! The twitter responses to Paul Hamilton's absence are funny. It's good to know that he is still with WGR. I thought that he was either sick or that WGR was retrenching because of the tight business environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 The below link is an article by John Wawrow from the AP. The article deals with the issue of the team struggling and the potential for things spiraling out of control like last year. It's not going to happen with a Krueger coached team because players who falter end up watching the games from the team's suite. Whether the team is winning or losing the players are held accountable for their play. JW points out that this team has gone through three stretches: 9-2-1, 1-7-1 and 13-13-4. The last .500 stretch appears to be what this incomplete team is. https://apnews.com/d972c25cebe48be1a74d3e5559858fca?view=getnewpost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 16 hours ago, BillsFan4 said: It’s a rule in place between the NHL and CHL, basically to make sure that they have talent for their leagues. https://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2012/8/1/3213217/bruins-nhl-chl-ahl-agreement-CBA-talks-2012 So Cozens would have to go back to juniors for 1 more season if he doesn’t make the Sabres next year. Then after that, if he didn’t make the Sabres they could send him to the AHL. With certain players (like Alex Nylander for ex) whose rights are held by European clubs, they can play in the AHL right away. The only thing I can't find good details on is that part about completing 4 years in major junior. I don't know what exactly qualifies as a full year. This is Cozen's third full season in the WHL, but he as played 3 games and a full playoff schedule the year before that. I assume they don't count that as a full year, but I haven't found anything to back up that assumption. And yes @JohnC, he'll be given every chance to make the Sabres' team out of camp next year. Me personally, I don't plan on expecting a thing from him next year though. We've been burned too often by rushing these kids and I can't see him making or breaking this team next year. I lean towards the cautious approach at this point. But hey, maybe he does step up and show he's ready. I'll gladly accept that outcome if it happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 1 hour ago, JohnC said: The below link is an article by John Wawrow from the AP. The article deals with the issue of the team struggling and the potential for things spiraling out of control like last year. It's not going to happen with a Krueger coached team because players who falter end up watching the games from the team's suite. Whether the team is winning or losing the players are held accountable for their play. JW points out that this team has gone through three stretches: 9-2-1, 1-7-1 and 13-13-4. The last .500 stretch appears to be what this incomplete team is. https://apnews.com/d972c25cebe48be1a74d3e5559858fca?view=getnewpost It not just incomplete it is wildly imbalanced. The coaches job is to get the most from his players and Krueger has pretty much done that. The problem is that almost every bit of the production is from one guy. What would Krueger or anyone get out of the team if Eichel got hurt? Botts was gifted Eichel AND Dahlin and the team is still struggling. It is not ok that a GM + Eichel + Dahlin can't get past this point in three years. And 13-13-4 is NOT .500. There were 64 points awarded in those games and the Sabres got 30 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! I've said it before. They should either move Montour to forward or trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: It not just incomplete it is wildly imbalanced. The coaches job is to get the most from his players and Krueger has pretty much done that. The problem is that almost every bit of the production is from one guy. What would Krueger or anyone get out of the team if Eichel got hurt? Botts was gifted Eichel AND Dahlin and the team is still struggling. It is not ok that a GM + Eichel + Dahlin can't get past this point in three years. And 13-13-4 is NOT .500. There were 64 points awarded in those games and the Sabres got 30 of them. 13-13-4 = 30 games, 60 available points. The Sabres got 30 of those 60 points or 50%. That’s .500 and that’s how the NHL looks at it as standings are based on accumulated points and not won/lost records. What am I missing in your formula? 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! Amd just like that, Pysyk ties Evan Rodriguez for goals scored on the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, K-9 said: 13-13-4 = 30 games, 60 available points. The Sabres got 30 of those 60 points or 50%. That’s .500 and that’s how the NHL looks at it as standings are based on accumulated points and not won/lost records. What am I missing in your formula? Amd just like that, Pysyk ties Evan Rodriguez for goals scored on the season. In the Sabres 13 wins they got 26 points Inthe Sabres 13 regulation losses their opponent got 26 points In the Sabres 4 OT losses their opponent got 8 points, the Sabres got 4 for at total of 12 26+26+12=64 What is unknown is how many times the Sabres won in OT which adds to the 64. If it was 4 games then the Sabres got 30/68 I understand that the total any one team can get is 60 but a .500 team gets 50% of the awarded pints, not the available points. To simplify it, an 0-0-1 team is not a .500 team. Edited February 4, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: In the Sabres 13 wins they got 26 points Inthe Sabres 13 regulation losses their opponent got 26 points In the Sabres 4 OT losses their opponent got 8 points, the Sabres got 4 for at total of 12 26+26+12=64 What is unknown is how many times the Sabres won in OT which adds to the 64. If it was 4 games then the Sabres got 30/68 I understand that the total any one team can get is 60 but a .500 team gets 50% of the awarded pints, not the available points. To simplify it, an 0-0-1 team is not a .500 team. I appreciate the clarification and I’ve heard that argument over the years. I think it puts way too fine a point on it, though. If the NHL awarded standings placed on W/L records instead of points accumulated, I think it would be more pertinent. But as it stands, a 1-0 team has a winning record but a winless 0-0-3 team is ahead of them in the standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, K-9 said: I appreciate the clarification and I’ve heard that argument over the years. I think it puts way too fine a point on it, though. If the NHL awarded standings placed on W/L records instead of points accumulated, I think it would be more pertinent. But as it stands, a 1-0 team has a winning record but a winless 0-0-3 team is ahead of them in the standings. A team that goes 0-0-82 gets 82 points. If you add up points from all 31 teams it will invariably exceed 31*82 or 2,452 which renders that team below average. It's not really splitting heirs to call them below .500 because an overtime loss is a loss. IMO it should be that a regulation win nets 3 points which would make every game have equal value. It is odd that some games are valued higher than others in the current system. It probably evens out over time but not for every team every year. Your example isn't a good one because the 1-0 team has two games in hand. If you made them 1-2-0 then you are correct and the 1-2-0 team is at best tied with the three teams that beat the 0-0-3 team. Edited February 4, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: A team that goes 0-0-82 gets 82 points. If you add up points from all 31 teams it will invariably exceed 31*82 or 2,452 which renders that team below average. It's not really splitting heirs to call them below .500 because an overtime loss is a loss. IMO it should be that a regulation win nets 3 points which would make every game have equal value. It is odd that some games are valued higher than others in the current system. It probably evens out over time but not for every team every year. Your example isn't a good one because the 1-0 team has two games in hand. If you made them 1-2-0 then you are correct and the 1-2-0 team is at best tied with the three teams that beat the 0-0-3 team. So, is this just an exercise in new ways to say a team sucks? If I give my example team a 1-2 losing record, it wouldn’t have reflected the idea that having a winning record doesn’t necessarily get you ahead of teams with less wins. But good example or bad example, as long as the NHL awards standings based on points gained out of points available, W/L record just isn’t the final arbiter. Like I said, I can appreciate the argument, but it puts way too fine a point on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 $6 tickets on Stubhub for tonight and Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 42 minutes ago, K-9 said: I appreciate the clarification and I’ve heard that argument over the years. I think it puts way too fine a point on it, though. If the NHL awarded standings placed on W/L records instead of points accumulated, I think it would be more pertinent. But as it stands, a 1-0 team has a winning record but a winless 0-0-3 team is ahead of them in the standings. There certainly is a value to that OTL column that people like to ignore far too often. Just look at the standings. Boston has the second most points in the entire league and a big part of that is the OTL. Without it, they're not even in first place in the division, let alone second overall in the league. It will be something worth watching come playoff time, to see how that translates to post-season play, if at all. True overtime records are kind of hard to find online, short of looking through individual schedules. They have the ROW column, but that doesn't tell you how many times a team scored and won in OT, it's just shootout wins subtracted from overall wins. So looking at the standings, Boston is awful in shootouts, losing all 12 they've been it. But I can't easily see how many OT games they have won. But even that probably doesn't mean all that much. 3-on-3 hockey is not something you'll see in the playoffs (just imagine the refs calling that many penalties in OT). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 20 minutes ago, K-9 said: So, is this just an exercise in new ways to say a team sucks? If I give my example team a 1-2 losing record, it wouldn’t have reflected the idea that having a winning record doesn’t necessarily get you ahead of teams with less wins. But good example or bad example, as long as the NHL awards standings based on points gained out of points available, W/L record just isn’t the final arbiter. Like I said, I can appreciate the argument, but it puts way too fine a point on it. If you lose more games than you win you are simply not a .500 team. This is true whether you look at the record or take a percentage of awarded points. If a team is 0-0-1 they have one of two available points but only one of three awarded points. Standings are determined by awarded points. It has nothing to do with whether a team sucks or not. In the NFL a 15-0-1 team is technically undefeated. In the NHL an 81-0-1 team has been defeated. An overtime loss is a loss and a 13-13-4 team has lost 17 times. I think the .500 misperceptions goes back to when the NHL had ties and awarded 1 point each. It's an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 44 minutes ago, shrader said: There certainly is a value to that OTL column that people like to ignore far too often. Just look at the standings. Boston has the second most points in the entire league and a big part of that is the OTL. Without it, they're not even in first place in the division, let alone second overall in the league. It will be something worth watching come playoff time, to see how that translates to post-season play, if at all. True overtime records are kind of hard to find online, short of looking through individual schedules. They have the ROW column, but that doesn't tell you how many times a team scored and won in OT, it's just shootout wins subtracted from overall wins. So looking at the standings, Boston is awful in shootouts, losing all 12 they've been it. But I can't easily see how many OT games they have won. But even that probably doesn't mean all that much. 3-on-3 hockey is not something you'll see in the playoffs (just imagine the refs calling that many penalties in OT). I don’t think I’ve remotely suggested that wins aren’t important or that the better teams have far more of them than the worse teams. That’s plain to see. But points, regardless how they are acquired, are the determinant factor in the standings. If you amass half the points available, you are a .500 team and that’s how the league looks at it. But yeah, win and the points take care of themselves. Much more preferable to be sure. 38 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: If you lose more games than you win you are simply not a .500 team. This is true whether you look at the record or take a percentage of awarded points. If a team is 0-0-1 they have one of two available points but only one of three awarded points. Standings are determined by awarded points. It has nothing to do with whether a team sucks or not. In the NFL a 15-0-1 team is technically undefeated. In the NHL an 81-0-1 team has been defeated. An overtime loss is a loss and a 13-13-4 team has lost 17 times. I think the .500 misperceptions goes back to when the NHL had ties and awarded 1 point each. It's an illusion. Too fine a point, my man, too fine a point. Good point about ties though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 Shades of the Philadelphia flu tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 The below 10 min link is Sportsnets' Sam Cosentino on WGR talking about the draft. At the end of the link he talks glowingly about Cozens. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/02-04-sportsnets-sam-cosentino-with-howard-and-jeremy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 52 minutes ago, K-9 said: I don’t think I’ve remotely suggested that wins aren’t important or that the better teams have far more of them than the worse teams. That’s plain to see. But points, regardless how they are acquired, are the determinant factor in the standings. If you amass half the points available, you are a .500 team and that’s how the league looks at it. But yeah, win and the points take care of themselves. Much more preferable to be sure. I agree. Winning percentage, no matter how you want to define it is a pointless stat. Points are all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts