Working the Numbers in Ottawa's Favor

hemlock wrote:

asq2 wrote:We can't beat the Islanders.

We need to play .700 to .800 hockey to make the playoffs. I'm not even sure that we could do it if we swapped rosters with the Wings or Sharks.

I'm hoping the recent success doesn't deter Murray from fielding offers for Kuba and Neil, among others.

Me either. The last thing I want to see is more UFA's leave for nothing. Hypothetically, if Kuba leaves as a UFA for nothing, that Mezsaros trade looks like Dung then doesn't it? Picard (who is filler, let's not mix words) and what amounts to almost a 2nd rounder.

Yes it's nice to see the team playing with more passion and energy,but wins are not doing us any good. We are not making the playoffs. Spin the math however, but it's just not happening.

We've had one 4 game winning streak, which btw, is the first winning streak we've had over 2 games this season. Yes, it's a start, but hardly a barometer for the rest of the season. Even if we do make the playoffs somehow, it's a completely different game, and our lack of depth will ensure a tidy exit.

Elliot has been very good for the most part, and Clouston seems to have found a system the players will actually play, but this is a case of too little too late if you ask me. Too many teams to climb over.

If it was just a matter of bringing in a new coach (I should say the right coach), why couldn't we wait until the season was done to do this? I for one, cringe at the thought of finishing 9th or 10th. No man's land. No thanks.

The team has played with 0 confidence for over 100 games now. Now that it is coming back, you want them to lose again?

Clouston was an experiment. How would Murray know if he would be able to coach next season if he didn't try him? What if Murray gives Clouston the job in october and he is a total bust? Going for interviews again?
Clouston = Elliott = Looking at what potential is inside the organisation. And you save money at the same time.

marakh wrote:

hemlock wrote:

asq2 wrote:We can't beat the Islanders.

We need to play .700 to .800 hockey to make the playoffs. I'm not even sure that we could do it if we swapped rosters with the Wings or Sharks.

I'm hoping the recent success doesn't deter Murray from fielding offers for Kuba and Neil, among others.

Me either. The last thing I want to see is more UFA's leave for nothing. Hypothetically, if Kuba leaves as a UFA for nothing, that Mezsaros trade looks like Dung then doesn't it? Picard (who is filler, let's not mix words) and what amounts to almost a 2nd rounder.

Yes it's nice to see the team playing with more passion and energy,but wins are not doing us any good. We are not making the playoffs. Spin the math however, but it's just not happening.

We've had one 4 game winning streak, which btw, is the first winning streak we've had over 2 games this season. Yes, it's a start, but hardly a barometer for the rest of the season. Even if we do make the playoffs somehow, it's a completely different game, and our lack of depth will ensure a tidy exit.

Elliot has been very good for the most part, and Clouston seems to have found a system the players will actually play, but this is a case of too little too late if you ask me. Too many teams to climb over.

If it was just a matter of bringing in a new coach (I should say the right coach), why couldn't we wait until the season was done to do this? I for one, cringe at the thought of finishing 9th or 10th. No man's land. No thanks.

The team has played with 0 confidence for over 100 games now. Now that it is coming back, you want them to lose again?

Clouston was an experiment. How would Murray know if he would be able to coach next season if he didn't try him? What if Murray gives Clouston the job in october and he is a total bust? Going for interviews again?
Clouston = Elliott = Looking at what potential is inside the organisation. And you save money at the same time.

Saving money? Do you really think saving money is more important than hiring the right guy? Clouston was only hired because he was the quick hire. I think Hartsburg was probably fired quickly, meaning there was no time to try to line up a replacement. I'm not saying he is the wrong choice by any means, but do you really believe he would have been the choice if this had been done after the season? I don't.

At what point did I say or even suggest that I want to see this team lose it's confidence? I didn't. I am, and have only ever questioned the timing of this move. In fact, I'll say right now, the verdict isn't in. Is this a restored confidence or a team doing what it usually does, by responding to a coaching change? That first period last night was kind of telling. Those of us that were here, we saying "same old team" and things like that. Clouston isn't immune. If this team wants to be lazy, they'll do it. Plain and simple.

I only suggested that this move should have happened at the end of the year. We were playing like garbage for OVER A YEAR, so what's a few months more? You're right in that is an experiment with Clouston. What happens if the team reverts to it's old ways?

I'll gladly eat an entire humble pie if this team can get it together and play out of this world to make the playoffs, but realistically, without decent secondary scoring and the lack of a true #1 defenceman, the odds are long. I don't give two Dung who is coaching this bunch. The personnel isn't there to compete in the playoffs, much less play well enough to make them at this point. So why are we actively trying to finish in no man's land. That is just spinning our wheels if you ask me. Murray is risking alot by having us finish higher in the standings. If we aren't going to bring in playoff revenue, then finishing as low as possible is the next best thing considering the holes in our lineup.

hemlock wrote:We've had one 4 game winning streak, which btw, is the first winning streak we've had over 2 games this season.

There was a three game winning streak in there.



Hee hee.

hemlock wrote:

marakh wrote:

hemlock wrote:

asq2 wrote:We can't beat the Islanders.

We need to play .700 to .800 hockey to make the playoffs. I'm not even sure that we could do it if we swapped rosters with the Wings or Sharks.

I'm hoping the recent success doesn't deter Murray from fielding offers for Kuba and Neil, among others.

Me either. The last thing I want to see is more UFA's leave for nothing. Hypothetically, if Kuba leaves as a UFA for nothing, that Mezsaros trade looks like Dung then doesn't it? Picard (who is filler, let's not mix words) and what amounts to almost a 2nd rounder.

Yes it's nice to see the team playing with more passion and energy,but wins are not doing us any good. We are not making the playoffs. Spin the math however, but it's just not happening.

We've had one 4 game winning streak, which btw, is the first winning streak we've had over 2 games this season. Yes, it's a start, but hardly a barometer for the rest of the season. Even if we do make the playoffs somehow, it's a completely different game, and our lack of depth will ensure a tidy exit.

Elliot has been very good for the most part, and Clouston seems to have found a system the players will actually play, but this is a case of too little too late if you ask me. Too many teams to climb over.

If it was just a matter of bringing in a new coach (I should say the right coach), why couldn't we wait until the season was done to do this? I for one, cringe at the thought of finishing 9th or 10th. No man's land. No thanks.

The team has played with 0 confidence for over 100 games now. Now that it is coming back, you want them to lose again?

Clouston was an experiment. How would Murray know if he would be able to coach next season if he didn't try him? What if Murray gives Clouston the job in october and he is a total bust? Going for interviews again?
Clouston = Elliott = Looking at what potential is inside the organisation. And you save money at the same time.

Saving money? Do you really think saving money is more important than hiring the right guy? Clouston was only hired because he was the quick hire. I think Hartsburg was probably fired quickly, meaning there was no time to try to line up a replacement. I'm not saying he is the wrong choice by any means, but do you really believe he would have been the choice if this had been done after the season? I don't.

At what point did I say or even suggest that I want to see this team lose it's confidence? I didn't. I am, and have only ever questioned the timing of this move. In fact, I'll say right now, the verdict isn't in. Is this a restored confidence or a team doing what it usually does, by responding to a coaching change? That first period last night was kind of telling. Those of us that were here, we saying "same old team" and things like that. Clouston isn't immune. If this team wants to be lazy, they'll do it. Plain and simple.

I only suggested that this move should have happened at the end of the year. We were playing like garbage for OVER A YEAR, so what's a few months more? You're right in that is an experiment with Clouston. What happens if the team reverts to it's old ways?

I'll gladly eat an entire humble pie if this team can get it together and play out of this world to make the playoffs, but realistically, without decent secondary scoring and the lack of a true #1 defenceman, the odds are long. I don't give two Dung who is coaching this bunch. The personnel isn't there to compete in the playoffs, much less play well enough to make them at this point. So why are we actively trying to finish in no man's land. That is just spinning our wheels if you ask me. Murray is risking alot by having us finish higher in the standings. If we aren't going to bring in playoff revenue, then finishing as low as possible is the next best thing considering the holes in our lineup.

To be honest, I dont htink Bryan Murray has any idea anymore who the right guy is. I think he wanted to try another style of hockey, and Clouston fitted the needs. Bryan Murray needed to know, ALSO, apart from the coaching problem, if there were players he needed to trade, especially in the core. The Trade Deadline was not far, and with the way the entire team was playing, I dont think he could have identified who the problem was, if there was any, under Hartsburg. So he fixed the coaching department first, now the judgment is on the players. Another reason to fire the coach before the end of the season IMO.

Dawg's Wife wrote:

As of this morning Ottawa is 14 points out of the last playoff spot currently held by the Buffalo Sabres, and they hold 2 games in hand on the Sabres. For the sake of Math, which doesn't factor in emotion, injuries, hot streaks or scheduling, let's assume they win those 2 games in hand. They would be 10 points out of that last playoff spot.

An intriguing set of calculations to be sure.

But first off, assuming a team that hasn't played .500 hockey yet this year wins its games in hand is a stretch.

Since Cory Clouston has taken over, the Senators have gone 4-1-1, but are no closer to a playoff spot.

They were 14 points out when Hartsburg was fired, and are 14 points out as of tonight.

As standings reported by sites like NHL.com, TSN and ESPN tend to list results as stretches of a team's last ten games, let's look at the 'past ten game' records of the six teams currently battling for the last four playoff spots in the East.

Montreal 3-7-0, 56GP, 66PTS
Rangers 3-5-2, 57GP, 66PTS
Florida 7-3-0, 56GP, 64PTS
Buffalo 5-4-1, 57GP, 64PTS
Carolina 6-4-0, 57GP, 61PTS
Pittsburgh 4-5-1, 57GP, 59PTS

Compare with Toronto and Ottawa, who, mathematically, still have a shot:

Toronto 4-3-3, 56GP, 52PTS
Ottawa 5-4-1, 54GP, 50PTS

If--and this is unlikely, but nonetheless possible--the trend of the last ten games would continue for the last twenty five or so games, Montreal and the Pens could miss the playoffs, but Carolina and NYR could get in.

Extrapolating the trend, the final point totals would look something like this (and again, this is an approximate calculation, and I hope I got my math right):
FLA 100
BUF 91
CAR 91
NYR 86
PIT 84
MTL 82

But neither Toronto nor Ottawa would make up enough ground, as their point totals would look like this:
TOR 84
OTT 80

Unless Ottawa plays at least better than .600 hockey, and ALL of their playoff rivals currently trending downward continue to do so, the Senators would not realistically expect to qualify for the post season.

If Cory Clouston can get the Sens to put together a sustained 4-1-1 record over the next 28 games, that picture might change. But his first ten games will tell a more complete story.

marakh wrote:

hemlock wrote:

marakh wrote:

hemlock wrote:

asq2 wrote:We can't beat the Islanders.

We need to play .700 to .800 hockey to make the playoffs. I'm not even sure that we could do it if we swapped rosters with the Wings or Sharks.

I'm hoping the recent success doesn't deter Murray from fielding offers for Kuba and Neil, among others.

Me either. The last thing I want to see is more UFA's leave for nothing. Hypothetically, if Kuba leaves as a UFA for nothing, that Mezsaros trade looks like Dung then doesn't it? Picard (who is filler, let's not mix words) and what amounts to almost a 2nd rounder.

Yes it's nice to see the team playing with more passion and energy,but wins are not doing us any good. We are not making the playoffs. Spin the math however, but it's just not happening.

We've had one 4 game winning streak, which btw, is the first winning streak we've had over 2 games this season. Yes, it's a start, but hardly a barometer for the rest of the season. Even if we do make the playoffs somehow, it's a completely different game, and our lack of depth will ensure a tidy exit.

Elliot has been very good for the most part, and Clouston seems to have found a system the players will actually play, but this is a case of too little too late if you ask me. Too many teams to climb over.

If it was just a matter of bringing in a new coach (I should say the right coach), why couldn't we wait until the season was done to do this? I for one, cringe at the thought of finishing 9th or 10th. No man's land. No thanks.

The team has played with 0 confidence for over 100 games now. Now that it is coming back, you want them to lose again?

Clouston was an experiment. How would Murray know if he would be able to coach next season if he didn't try him? What if Murray gives Clouston the job in october and he is a total bust? Going for interviews again?
Clouston = Elliott = Looking at what potential is inside the organisation. And you save money at the same time.

Saving money? Do you really think saving money is more important than hiring the right guy? Clouston was only hired because he was the quick hire. I think Hartsburg was probably fired quickly, meaning there was no time to try to line up a replacement. I'm not saying he is the wrong choice by any means, but do you really believe he would have been the choice if this had been done after the season? I don't.

At what point did I say or even suggest that I want to see this team lose it's confidence? I didn't. I am, and have only ever questioned the timing of this move. In fact, I'll say right now, the verdict isn't in. Is this a restored confidence or a team doing what it usually does, by responding to a coaching change? That first period last night was kind of telling. Those of us that were here, we saying "same old team" and things like that. Clouston isn't immune. If this team wants to be lazy, they'll do it. Plain and simple.

I only suggested that this move should have happened at the end of the year. We were playing like garbage for OVER A YEAR, so what's a few months more? You're right in that is an experiment with Clouston. What happens if the team reverts to it's old ways?

I'll gladly eat an entire humble pie if this team can get it together and play out of this world to make the playoffs, but realistically, without decent secondary scoring and the lack of a true #1 defenceman, the odds are long. I don't give two Dung who is coaching this bunch. The personnel isn't there to compete in the playoffs, much less play well enough to make them at this point. So why are we actively trying to finish in no man's land. That is just spinning our wheels if you ask me. Murray is risking alot by having us finish higher in the standings. If we aren't going to bring in playoff revenue, then finishing as low as possible is the next best thing considering the holes in our lineup.

To be honest, I dont htink Bryan Murray has any idea anymore who the right guy is. I think he wanted to try another style of hockey, and Clouston fitted the needs. Bryan Murray needed to know, ALSO, apart from the coaching problem, if there were players he needed to trade, especially in the core. The Trade Deadline was not far, and with the way the entire team was playing, I dont think he could have identified who the problem was, if there was any, under Hartsburg. So he fixed the coaching department first, now the judgment is on the players. Another reason to fire the coach before the end of the season IMO.

I see your point, but he comes off looking like a gearbox for making the 4th coaching move in the last 1.5 years.

However, you do have a point in that now if the players are still underperforming (I'm looking right at you Dany Heatley.), then he really has to look at moving them come the deadline, or around draft day.

I don't think it's a who (singular) that's the problem. This combination of players, with their skill sets leave something lacking. We simply don't have enough skill. With a team lead by talented floaters (most of the time) like Spezza and Heatley, we cannot afford to rely on hard work to win every game. Those two play when they want, but what happens when they decide that Clouston is no good?

There are too many problems to fix in a single move, or even right away. This will take some smart asset management by Murray, once he decides who he is going to keep, as well as bringing back the right mix of players. We could certainly use a couple of entry level type bargains that produce well beyond their salary. The best way to do that is to draft them. If this team cannot, for whatever reason, attract big FA players, then really the only choice is to do it through the draft, which is why I think playing to win now with the season practically over is pointless and counterproductive. Murray should know this.

davetherave wrote:

Dawg's Wife wrote:

As of this morning Ottawa is 14 points out of the last playoff spot currently held by the Buffalo Sabres, and they hold 2 games in hand on the Sabres. For the sake of Math, which doesn't factor in emotion, injuries, hot streaks or scheduling, let's assume they win those 2 games in hand. They would be 10 points out of that last playoff spot.

An intriguing set of calculations to be sure.

But first off, assuming a team that hasn't played .500 hockey yet this year wins its games in hand is a stretch.

Since Cory Clouston has taken over, the Senators have gone 4-1-1, but are no closer to a playoff spot.

They were 14 points out when Hartsburg was fired, and are 14 points out as of tonight.

As standings reported by sites like NHL.com, TSN and ESPN tend to list results as stretches of a team's last ten games, let's look at the 'past ten game' records of the six teams currently battling for the last four playoff spots in the East.

Montreal 3-7-0, 56GP, 66PTS
Rangers 3-5-2, 57GP, 66PTS
Florida 7-3-0, 56GP, 64PTS
Buffalo 5-4-1, 57GP, 64PTS
Carolina 6-4-0, 57GP, 61PTS
Pittsburgh 4-5-1, 57GP, 59PTS

Compare with Toronto and Ottawa, who, mathematically, still have a shot:

Toronto 4-3-3, 56GP, 52PTS
Ottawa 5-4-1, 54GP, 50PTS

If--and this is unlikely, but nonetheless possible--the trend of the last ten games would continue for the last twenty five or so games, Montreal and the Pens could miss the playoffs, but Carolina and NYR could get in.

Extrapolating the trend, the final point totals would look something like this (and again, this is an approximate calculation, and I hope I got my math right):
FLA 100
BUF 91
CAR 91
NYR 86
PIT 84
MTL 82

But neither Toronto nor Ottawa would make up enough ground, as their point totals would look like this:
TOR 84
OTT 80

Unless Ottawa plays at least better than .600 hockey, and ALL of their playoff rivals currently trending downward continue to do so, the Senators would not realistically expect to qualify for the post season.

If Cory Clouston can get the Sens to put together a sustained 4-1-1 record over the next 28 games, that picture might change. But his first ten games will tell a more complete story.

Bottom line is it really has little to do with worrying about the other teams as recent history has shown that 92 or 94 points will get you into the playoffs. You don't need to worry about clouding the issue with all the permutations of what might happen with teams above us. Can Ottawa get that many points by the end of the season? Anythings possible I guess.

Also, extrapilating based on the last 10 games is not exactly the best way to go about it either. Ottawa's last ten were a mix of Clouston and Hartsburg, Pittsburgh now has a new coach and have gotten Gonchar back part way through. You also can't assume that Clouston's record of 4-1-1 will continue but if that's all you have to go on then extrapilating from that record would still leave us out of the playoffs with approximately 89 points.

It depends on a lot of things. Most importantly, we need to win pretty much all of our games vs. Eastern Conference opponents to have a real shot.

Throwing "94 points" out there and insisting that's the cutoff over and over again doesn't make it true.

Well, I think we agree that doing calculations and projections is an interesting--and fun--exercise, if nothing else.

With things like coaching changes (and it looks like there may be more to come) and possible player movement by March 4th, it's very hard to measure what a number of these teams will do in the stretch run.

Is 94, 89 or 87 the cutoff? It's really a guessing game.

All said, the Senators could still come close to a playoff spot and yet remain in the bottom five teams in the league.

SeawaySensFan wrote:It depends on a lot of things. Most importantly, we need to win pretty much all of our games vs. Eastern Conference opponents to have a real shot.

Throwing "94 points" out there and insisting that's the cutoff over and over again doesn't make it true.

I'll save this post for game 82 and we'll see just how close the actual cutoff comes to what I said which was 92 OR 94 points.

Edit: I only said it once. This is now the second time

Cap'n Clutch wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:It depends on a lot of things. Most importantly, we need to win pretty much all of our games vs. Eastern Conference opponents to have a real shot.

Throwing "94 points" out there and insisting that's the cutoff over and over again doesn't make it true.

I'll save this post for game 82 and we'll see just how close the actual cutoff comes to what I said which was 92 OR 94 points.

I wasn't talking about you but thanks.

whoa...did I miss something?

Nah, Cronie. Just me and Seaway don't see eye to eye. As usual :D.

I think people are using 94 based on last season's totals. The cut-off has shown a general "up" trend over the past few years:

2001/02: 87
2002/03: 83
2003/04: 91
2004/05: lockout
2005/06: 92
2006/07: 92
2007/08: 94
2008/09: ??

So, who knows.

shabbs wrote:I think people are using 94 based on last season's totals. The cut-off has shown a general "up" trend over the past few years:

2001/02: 87
2002/03: 83
2003/04: 91
2004/05: lockout
2005/06: 92
2006/07: 92
2007/08: 94
2008/09: ??

So, who knows.

Which is why I said it would probably take 92 or 94 points since that is what it has taken in the "new" NHL. Of course that could change but, looking at the numbers that is a safe guess IMO.

SeawaySensFan wrote:It depends on a lot of things. Most importantly, we need to win pretty much all of our games vs. Eastern Conference opponents to have a real shot.

Throwing "94 points" out there and insisting that's the cutoff over and over again doesn't make it true.

You're right, of course, but recent history would suggest that it should be somewhere in that area.

I'm still refusing to even think about the playoffs at this point.