Nice to see the Sabres setting us all up for the traditional Buffalo late season kick in the crotch.

Also posted in the Maple Lafs thread...

Daily playoff chances as of the morning of Tuesday, April 9, 2013

East/% chance of playoffs/% chance of current seed - parenthesis is the previous day
1) Pittsburgh/In/60% (63%)
2) Montreal/100% (100)/33 (38%)
3) Washington/79.8 (79.1%)/74 (74%)
4) Boston/100 (100%)/53 (60%) increased chance of #2 seed
5) Toronto/99.8 (99.2%)/73 (63%)
6) Ottawa/94.4 (94%)/45 (38%)
7) Rangers/80.9 (87.1%)/34 (32%)
8) Islanders/65.6 (63.7%)/28 (31%)
---
9) Jets/30.1 (28.6)/ 15
10) Devils/20.3 (19)/19
11) Flyers/13.5 (12.6)/17
12) Sabres/7.6 (7)/20
13) Lightning/6.5 (6.2)/23
14) Hurricanes/1.5 (3.5)/45
15) Panthers/0.0/87

West
1) Blackhawks/In/98 (99)
2) Ducks/In(100)/95 (95)
3) Canucks/99.8 (98.9)/70 (62)
4) Kings/99.7 (99.6)/ 52 (53)
5) Wild/97.9 (97.1)/16 (13)
6) Sharks/96.8 (95.6)/25 (24)
7) Blues/96.7 (95.6)/ 24 (22)
8) Red Wangs/65.3 (58.7)/ 41 (35)
---
9) Coyotes/15.9 (24.5)/23
10) Stars (11)/ 12.5 (10.6) /20
11) Oilers (10) /9.4 (14.7)/21
12) Blue Jackets/4.3 (3.4)/23
13) Predators/1.5 (1.4)/34
14) Flames/0.0/72
15) Avalanche/0.0/87


"In" =/= 100%, as it rounds up. For instance with Anaheim they have a 100% chance of making the playoffs as its 99.999999% and rounded up. Very few permutations would see them losing all but one game and the Coyotes going 10-0


The fringe teams should be rooting for the following on Tuesday night (almost universally applies): Flyers, Sabres, Habs, Kings. the rest are toss ups/irrelevant.

Bout damn time, but the ESPN rankings are shiat.

RangerTaylor: Nice to see the Sabres setting us all up for the traditional Buffalo late season kick in the crotch.

Never fails.

Play themselves out of contention early, and then win a bunch of meaningless games down the stretch to wind up with a draft pick in the 10-13 range.

Every freaking year. Never fails.

This is the recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The Sabres will never be able to rebuild the way the Pens and Blackhawks did without getting the elite, franchise talent that only really comes in the top 3 of the draft.

Caps are on a 4 game streak, should be ranked higher, imo.

fatalvenom: Bout damn time, but the ESPN rankings are shiat.

I'll take it. Let the B's slip to 7. Let them be under the radar. They play better as un-hyped underdogs.

When they're #1, they're dropping games 5-3 to the likes of NYI and blowing three goal third-period leads. When they're under the radar, they're holding top-scoring teams to one goal against and putting up touchdowns on the Maple Leafs.

Jubeebee: Doc Daneeka: This is the recipe for perpetual mediocrity. The Sabres will never be able to rebuild the way the Pens and Blackhawks did without getting the elite, franchise talent that only really comes in the top 3 of the draft.

The Blackhawks didn't assemble their entire core at the top of the draft. Sharp and Hossa were trades. Seabrook was a mid-first rounder, Keith was a mid-second rounder. Kane and Toews were 1st and 3rd overall, respectively, but that's two out of six.

Granted, Toews is the real keystone to the team, so you're technically correct. But teams can contend without drafting high, ever. Look at the Red Wings. Haven't drafted in the top 10 for decades, and they're still winning.

And that's the point.  Obviously no team is assembled entirely out of top draft picks.

But you need at least one or two of those top picks as the core to assemble the rest of your team around (through free agency, trades, and other player development).  Top picks alone aren't sufficient, but I think they are necessary to really build a winner.  Would the Hawks have won the Cup without Toews and Kane?  I'd bet no.

The Hawks built around Toews (#3 overall) and Kane (#1 overall).

The Pens built around Crosby (#1) and Malkin (#2) and Fleury (#1) and Jordan Staal (#2).

The Bruins Cup team had Tyler Seguin (whom they selected #2 overall), the Kings Cup team had Drew Doughty (#2 overall).

The Sabres haven't drafted anyone that high in years.  The last time Buffalo had a top 3 pick was 1987 when they selected Pierre Turgeon.  In the 25 years since then, they've had only two picks in the top ten (Erik Rasmussen 7th overall in 1996 and Thomas Vanek 5th overall in 2003).  That's it.

Top picks aren't everything, but it's really hard to build a Cup contender without them.  The Red Wings are possibly the only exception, and even their good fortune in finding gems in the lower rounds can't last forever.

The Wings just pluck players from the wilds of Russia.  I think they may even have a selective breeding system in place.

Tampa Bay almost a top 25 team.

Our point is that the Sabres are doing the same thing the Bills always do.  Suck, but win just enough to get a crappy draft pick.  Perpetually stuck in the lower middle.

The alternate NHL standings through Monday's games.

If you saw them last week, I did have a "magic number" formula in there that followed baseball's commonly used model but using points. However, with the different number of games played between teams; things got farked up in a hurry so I had to kill it. The final straw was that in one of the system;, I had Pittsburgh out of reach of the 9th place team (so the magic number was 0 or less) but when I applied the formula to the 10th and 11th place teams in the East, the number went positive meaning they hadn't clinched. So fark that.

Playoff teams- of the current 16 playoff teams:
International rules- all of them still make it and all but 2 in the same position
Revised 3 pt system- 15 of the 16 get in (Winnipeg gets in, Islanders drop out)
Old NHL w/ties- see previous line

5 teams have made the projected minimum points needed to make the playoffs. Boston made it Monday joining Montreal, Anaheim and the only 2 to actually clinch a spot: Chicago and Pittsburgh.

4 teams can not make the minimum: Florida in the East, Colorado, Calgary and Nashville in the west.

Random facts:

2 teams have failed to win in OT this year: LA (0-1 with 4 shootouts) and San Jose (0-3 with a league high 10 shootouts)

3 teams have failed to win a SO this year: Toronto (0-4), Carolina (0-1) and Calgary (0-3)

Undefeated SO teams: Pittsburgh and Washington (both 3-0, but the Caps took forever to even get their 1st SO)

Undefeated OT teams: Chicago in the West (4), Pittsburgh (2), Toronto (2), Rangers (2), Winnipeg (3) and Tampa (1)

Rumor mill indicates that Carl Soderberg signed a 3 year deal with the Bruins.

Woops. Meant to add this on before.

http://www.hockeyjournal.com/blog/kirks/Source-_Soderberg_agrees_to_ te rms_with_Bruins

RangerTaylor: Our point is that the Sabres are doing the same thing the Bills always do.  Suck, but win just enough to get a crappy draft pick.  Perpetually stuck in the lower middle.

I'm hesitant about making cross-sport comparisons, but it's even worse in the Sabres case because the NHL draft is much more of a crapshoot than than the NFL draft.

A first round pick in the NFL is almost certain to play in the NFL and likely to at least have a solid career.

Once you get past the top 3-5 players in the NHL draft, it's a major crapshoot. A lot of those players never even play a game in the NHL.

The relative value of being at the top of the draft board is higher in hockey, because if your picking in the middle or lower, you have no clue if you're even getting an NHLer, much less a great player.

soopey: Rumor mill indicates that Carl Soderberg signed a 3 year deal with the Bruins.

Well, that would be cool, especially with Bergeron out.

Rev.K: But Rev.K! Shouldn't the Devils get a point for humping 10 games to overtime or a shootout?

No. This is the f*cking pros. You lose. You lose.

The OTL is kind of stupid, but the bigger problem is lack of consistency (some games being worth 3 points in the standings and others only worth 2).

Personally I'd be fine to go back to the old days of 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss.  I never had a problem with ties.  Some of the best games I went to as a kid ended as ties, and shouldn't have ended any other way.

But it doesn't look like we'll be bringing back ties anytime soon.  So I suggest:
3 points for a regulation or OT win.
2 points for a shootout win.
1 point for a shootout loss.
0 points for a regulation or OT loss.

I think that's the best solution.  And every game distributes three points in the standings, so no one gains a benefit (as the Devils in your example) simple for taking a bunch of games to overtime).

Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing, while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.

Eliminate OT.

Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing

A team that loses playing actual hockey (in OT) deserves and should get nothing.  Didn't you say so yourself?

Rev.K: while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

If the skills competition is here to stay, you have to award the winner of it more than the loser, otherwise what's the point?  Granted, it's not real hockey, so the SO winner shouldn't be awarded as much as a "real" win (ergo, 2 points instead of 3), and the SO loser shouldn't be penalized as much as a "real" loss (ergo, 1 point instead of 0).

Rev.K: That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.

I disagree.  The incentive would be to go all-out for the win in OT, since a win in OT would give you 3 points, which is a higher payoff than you can possibly get in the SO under my system (where you would get either 1 or 2 points).

IAmRight: Rev.K: I'd hate to see any system where a team that loses in overtime gets nothing, while a team that wins a shootout gets 2 points.

That would provide nothing but incentive to get to a shootout, assuming you can't win in overtime.

Eliminate OT.

Right. Straight to the shootout. Make it best of 7 rounds instead of 3.

Rev.K: Do you people actually enjoy watching shootouts?

Do you like it when clearly inferior teams climb the standings thanks to a system that hands out points like candy?

Is it fun to watch playoff spots determined by some dangling European asshole pulling a YouTube move?

Shootouts can be fun to watch but should they decide the games? Personally, I don't think so but what is the alternative?  I was always a fan of the idea that you play OT until you have a winner but in the regular season you add the twist of removing a player every 5 minutes.  OT starts 5 on 5.  At the first game break after 5 minutes have past you play 4 on 4 for the next 5 minutes until a break, then 3 on 3 and so forth.  Not many games would go past 3 on 3 and eventually you would get the occasional 1 on 1 game to decide the extra point.

//this idea is not valid in the playoffs
//I love the 5 OT game in the playoffs..nothing is more stressful

my caps may rally in the playoffs only to fail in the first round to a lower seeded team...again.

bluenote13: Not many games would go past 3 on 3 and eventually you would get the occasional 1 on 1 game to decide the extra point.

I think when you get past 3 on 3, you might as well just have a shootout, since that would be just as BS and require a lot more effort.

Tanukis_Parachute: my caps may rally in the playoffs only to fail in the first round to a lower seeded team...again.

In fairness, they're not a three-seed.  I mean, they would be, but they'd realistically have no business being such.

Rev.K: Shootout wins = 1 point
ANY loss = 0 points

That doesn't solve the fundamental problem of different games being worth different amounts of points in the standings.

You'd have some games worth 2 points and other games worth only 1 point.

Only thing I care about is the "X" next to the Penguins in the conference standings.

/hope they get the "Y" and "Z", but the "Z" might be a bit hard

If we're going with skills competitions to determine points, it should be three rounds, best of two wins:

1.) Shootout
2.) Hardest Shot
3.) Fight.

This wouldn't at all favor the Bruins.

Doc Daneeka: But it doesn't look like we'll be bringing back ties anytime soon.  So I suggest:
3 points for a regulation or OT win.
2 points for a shootout win.
1 point for a shootout loss.
0 points for a regulation or OT loss.

Hey, quit stealing my ideas!

/kidding