Sens at the midpoint

I probably won't see the game until late, so I'll put this up now while I still have time. How have the Sens done against *your* expectations?

This is really hard as I have no idea how I feel about the PP. last game it seemed like it was coming together and at other times it's anemic.
Im gonna give it a B- just because it still lacks consistency.

There have been improvements but overall a B- for me as well. If they won against the Leafs, they'd still be on a playoff spot, wonder if that would have made a difference? One game shouldn't but I probably would have given them a B.

Another way of looking at this is they simply don't have the personnel. Ryan is playing nowhere near his cap hit, we have Smith (a lifetime third liner) in the top six, Pyatt (a fringe NHLer and a Euro league rescue project) who is doing better than our first rounder boy wonder (as in wonder where his offense went). And it's not like Lazar is playing great defensively. He's OK, but not more than that. Maybe playing with Kelly and Neil is cramping good style? If we had Pyatt-Smith-Lazar as our fourth line (with suitable upgrades replacing Smith and Pyatt on lines 2 and 3) I wonder how much more consistent our scoring would be.

A-. They are a fringe playoff team and have maintained that standing despite being without a top 6 forward and the #1 goalie.

So what were your expectations (a B typically means you've meet expectations).

tim1_2 wrote:A-. They are a fringe playoff team and have maintained that standing despite being without a top 6 forward and the #1 goalie.

yeah I dunno. You can say we've done well "considering" but in all honesty, every team has injuries they've had to deal with. The habs lost much better players than us and they've strung together a much better season. If you ask me it's also personnel related. Ryan isn't playing like a top 6 player and dzingel and smith shouldn't be in the top 6 either. Dzingel maybe in the future but not now.
Lazar, lets get real. Should be in the A.

We've probably been getting by thanks to "the system" but as the games start mounting up we'll see the team lose more and more games if you ask me. Other teams will get better and we'll get exposed.

At this point I'm not going to be surprised if we miss he playoffs.

But anyways, lets enjoy karlsson while we still can.

wprager wrote:So what were your expectations (a B typically means you've meet expectations).

They've exceeded my expectations considering that they've been missing .

They are better than I thought they would be. I like the D, Ceci is developing nicely and EK is now playing excellent 2 way hockey and the 3rd pair is well slotted. Up front Smith is proving he can play in the top 6 full time, Dzingel has been a surprise although Pageau Ryan and Brassard have underperformed offensively. Missing Anderson has been mitigated somewhat but they need him back soon. I expect the style of play will show better second half results as teams tighten up.

They are fighting for a playoff spot as I had expected. What wasn't expected was they'd be doing it without Anderson. I think, if Anderson continues to be out of the picture that fight is likely to end with them missing the playoffs IMHO.

Condon is 10-7-3. I don't think it's unfair or unreasonable either way to say that Anderson could have gotten us another two wins, so 12-5-3. Maybe even 12-4-4. That's still a pretty good record and gives us 3 extra points.

While that gets us (at the current time) from the outside looking in to being in 2nd place in the Division (tied with Boston, but fewer games played) it's not a huge difference.

Yes, we'd be better with Anderson, but because of how well Condon has played (against expectations) the difference would not be huge. Even with Condon in the rest of the way, I think the Sens still have a good chance of making the playoffs. Of the recent losses, they outplayed the Caps twice and the Leafs. They handled Pittsburgh (albeit a tired team).

wprager wrote:So what were your expectations (a B typically means you've meet expectations).

If someone gets a C, that tends to indicate that they've simply met expectations. As and Bs indicate degrees to which they've exceeded. At least that's the way it is in education. If you are ever having trouble sleeping, look up the rubrics that the Ministry suggests educators use. It's basically the following:
E/F: failed to meet expectations
D: Nearly meeting expectations, but some problems
C: Met expectations
B: Exceeded expectations
A: Superior work

To get an A+, your work would be either perfect or damn close. But A+ is generally reserved for exceptional work. A lot of parents get angry when their little flower doesn't get an A+, as if that's the appropriate grade for meeting expectations. I think the "participation medal movement" made it seem to a lot of people like showing up and doing the minimum is somehow the best we can expect, and they should therefore all get top marks. Unfortunately that isn't how it works.

I realize that a 'C' is seen as average but, let's face it, if you have plans to go to the post-secondary (post-season) then 'B' is where you should be starting, unless you don't care about entrance scholarships and are OK just going for an Arts degree. Sorry, not sure what analogies to suggest for those two. Sholarships = spend freely at the deadline (as opposed to "saving" your draft picks)? Arts degree = you're OK with 2 home gates and out?

You guys are giving me a headache with your letter grading. I get enough of that in my daily without having to see it in one of the only distractions I have

Maybe you have a concussion.