Not good enough - no playoffs again!

[Relapsing]

Only 6teams in the nhl last year held over a .600 winning percentage over the year and 2 of them were just at .600 Its just not done to often

I'm not a downer just a realist I do love my team but they give me heart aches and I can't bare to watch a game only highlights and box scores for me lately

And I don't think this team has ever had a meaningful stretch of games where they hit that win percentage. Going 2/3, sure. But 6/10? 12/20? No chance

 

[lunadio]

Sorry I made a mistake there were 10 teams last year withh 600 or better win percentage

 

[Big Muddy]

Only 6teams in the nhl last year held over a .600 winning percentage over the year and 2 of them were just at .600 Its just not done to often

I'm not a downer just a realist I do love my team but they give me heart aches and I can't bare to watch a game only highlights and box scores for me lately

I think most folks would agree that the Senators have a steep hill to climb and the odds are against them. I think people (myself included) are just playing around with the math trying to get the more detailed picture.

 

[lunadio]

I don't think we can play like a top 10 nhl team for the rest of the year consistently do yous?

 

[PlayOn]

Here's the kicker. If we have a high pick this year, odds are good there are changes and we have a high pick next year too. So...do we forfeit this years pick and hope for Mckenna next year? This is where we are at.

Garrioch suggested the Sens were going to request an extension and that they’d be using this pick even if they miss the playoffs.

My guess is they plan on doing a 2 year retool if we miss the playoffs again and will ask Bettman to add two years to the pick forfeiture so they can avoid giving up either pick.

 

[Loach]

Garrioch suggested the Sens were going to request an extension and that they’d be using this pick even if they miss the playoffs.

My guess is they plan on doing a 2 year retool if we miss the playoffs again and will ask Bettman to add two years to the pick forfeiture so they can avoid giving up either pick.

Where was this? On tv?

 

[PlayOn]

Where was this? On tv?

Yeah during the game Bettman was at

 

[Karterthadon]

I don't think we can play like a top 10 nhl team for the rest of the year consistently do yous?

You would need a top 10 roster in the NHL to do that and the Sens are far from that.

 

[Loach]

Yeah during the game Bettman was at

BooBoo doesn't have a clue about anything. He just did the Dark Ones bidding before. This organization doesn't leak info anymore and it won't be tolerated. You can see it everytime he asks a question.

 

[Senovision]

We are 11th in the NHL in the goals for per game at 3.11
We are tied for 10th with Detroit goals against per game at 3.21

 

[Micklebot]

Only 6teams in the nhl last year held over a .600 winning percentage over the year and 2 of them were just at .600 Its just not done to often

I'm not a downer just a realist I do love my team but they give me heart aches and I can't bare to watch a game only highlights and box scores for me lately

Right now, the final wildcard spot by pts% is held by Buf, they are on pace for 86 pts

For us to reach 87 pts, we'd need to get 70 pts in the final 63 games, or a .555 winning % which would rank 15th in the NHL right now,

We just need to be better than Buf, Bost,. Det, Mtl, NYI, Clb, Phi and the Pens at the end of the year (assuming none of the teams pacing at over 100 pts fail to maintain their play)

 

[swiftwin]

We are 11th in the NHL in the goals for per game at 3.11
We are tied for 10th with Detroit goals against per game at 3.21

We're also 5th best in the league at expected goals differential 5 on 5

It's actually our special teams letting us down right now, which is easier to correct than 5v5 play.

 

[Micklebot]

We are 11th in the NHL in the goals for per game at 3.11
We are tied for 10th with Detroit goals against per game at 3.21

We are a bit of an outlier in the standings when it comes to goal differential,

Boston, Detroit, Philly, Pens, and Mtl are all double digits in the negative, while we are -2. Even the Islanders are -8.

Actually, last year was a bit of an oddity with two teams deep in the red making the playoffs, Washington got most of the spotlight at -37 but the NYI at -17 was pretty wild too.

 

[Tuna99]

I think before the 4 game losing streaour underlying stats looked good, today they don’t, Horrid, almost the entire team is a -, bad road and home record, negative goal defferrntial, the goalies stink.

We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of bad stats soon, right now it’s just a snow bank

 

[swiftwin]

I think before the 4 game losing streaour underlying stats looked good, today they don’t, Horrid, almost the entire team is a -, bad road and home record, negative goal defferrntial, the goalies stink.

We’re going to be buried under an avalanche of bad stats soon, right now it’s just a snow bank

Huh? The underlying stats are still good. Do you have evidence showing the underlying numbers are bad?

 

[Tuna99]

Huh? The underlying stats are still good. Do you have evidence showing the underlying numbers are bad?

My dash board for playoffs looks like this and all these indicators are check engine for the sens:

Point total
Home record
Road record
Goal differential
Performance of key players
Goalies

 

[swiftwin]

My dash board for playoffs looks like this and all these indicators are check engine for the sens:

Point total
Home record
Road record
Goal differential
Performance of key players
Goalies

Point total is not a an indicator, it's literally what determines the standings. Home and away records combined also add up to your position in the standings.

All you're doing is repeating in multiple ways that we're not high enough in the standings, which we all already know. None of these are underlying numbers. They're just the results.

 

[DackellDuck]

Point total is not a an indicator, it's literally what determines the standings. Home and away records combined also add up to your position in the standings.

All you're doing is repeating in multiple ways that we're not high enough in the standings, which we all already know. None of these are underlying numbers. They're just the results.

Underlying numbers are not a predictor or indicator of what’s to come. They help explain/give context into whats already occured. They’re a different way to look at results.

Will our underlying numbers still be good at Christmas? It’s anyone’s guess.

If you have positive underlying numbers but still lose, that can be taken as a positive, or a negative

 

[swiftwin]

Underlying numbers are not a predictor or indicator of what’s to come. They help explain/give context into whats already occured. They’re a different way to look at results.

Will our underlying numbers still be good at Christmas? It’s anyone’s guess.

I would argue that previous underlying numbers are a better predictor of future results than previous results.

 

[DackellDuck]

I would argue that previous underlying numbers are a better predictor of future results than previous results.

They’re no different, really. Neither tells you, or helps tell you, what’s going to happen the rest of the way. Especially since the sample size is so small. If we had hundreds of games of data? You could spot some trends. Now? Not really.

And playing well but losing can be viewed as a negative as much as a positive.

Glass half full or glass half empty. It’s up to you to decide.

 

[Xspyrit]

This isn't meant as a troll, just bewilderment, but I don't understand why your new owner would pay almost $1 billion for a team and then cheap out on GM and head coach?

Still will make a killing if he holds onto the team for a decade, even if the Sens don’t make the playoffs

 

[swiftwin]

They’re no different, really. Neither tells you, or helps tell you, what’s going to happen the rest of the way. Especially since the sample size is so small. If we had hundreds of games of data? You could spot some trends. Now? Not really.

The small sample size argument goes both ways. You could easily argue that our current position standings is due to small sample size.

 

[DackellDuck]

The small sample size argument goes both ways. You could easily argue that our current position standings is due to small sample size.

Sure, but the goal is to get to a certain number of points (probably 94). You can bank points, you can’t bank expected wins.

It could get to a point where even if you play .625 hockey in the 2nd half of the season, you won’t get enough points to make the playoffs. So what does it matter?

The season is only 82 games. With every loss, even if you “deserved” better, the margin for error decreases. Instead of (for example) winning 45 of 82 (55%) we now have to win 37 of 64 (58%).

If playoff spots were determined by running 1000 simulations of the season on MoneyPuck? Then I’d care more about underlying numbers.

 

[Tuna99]

Yep, that’s the pint

Point total is not a an indicator, it's literally what determines the standings. Home and away records combined also add up to your position in the standings.

All you're doing is repeating in multiple ways that we're not high enough in the standings, which we all already know. None of these are underlying numbers. They're just the results.

exactly. You can’t say this is the same teams that played the first 10 games, this current team is a team that cheats, it panics, the goalies aren’t good.

See whatever stats you want, Brady cheats on the back check, the forwards aren’t hustling, the goalie let in bad goals, find whatever stats you want but that’s what’s happening on the team right now.

 

[LiseL]

Keep:

Stutzle
Batherson
Pinto
Greig
Sanderson
Kleven

Open to trading anyone else.

I'd rather keep Norris over Greig. He's good on the PK, has a great shot, plays a 200-ft game and can finish. I can't say the same for Greig. He's ceiling is bottom 6 IMO.