Let's Go Blues

cprice12 wrote: I would LOVE to see how this young team would play in the playoffs after getting swept in the first round last year. Let's see if they've learned anything.

I don't mean to sound as though I don't want to make it, I'm just not going act like the entire season is a failure if we're eliminated at any point.

Boyes, Pie and a 1st for Iginla. That guy plays teh Hokeys very good.

cprice12 wrote:

DaDitka wrote:Oshie played his ars off, Conks stood on his head, DP put it away, and


They got Berg-larized!


Great start to the road trip and now the playoff speculation actual has some legs. As I’ve stated before, I’m not overly concerned with a playoff appearance an first round bow out, but as long as we don’t loose sight of the long term goal it will do nothing but make the next 2 months more interesting and help the young players build confidence.

Making the playoffs is always, always, always, always better than finishing 9th, 10th or 11th.
I would LOVE to see how this young team would play in the playoffs after getting swept in the first round last year. Let's see if they've learned anything.

I bet this time they would lose in 5 games. PROGRESS!!!

Was not that impressed by the blues. Perron's goal was the 2nd shot of the 3rd. Come on! Granted calgary really brought it but I saw the same 3rd from the blues that I didn't want to see. This time they just did a better job of turtling and got lucky.

DaDitka wrote:

cprice12 wrote: I would LOVE to see how this young team would play in the playoffs after getting swept in the first round last year. Let's see if they've learned anything.

I don't mean to sound as though I don't want to make it, I'm just not going act like the entire season is a failure if we're eliminated at any point.

I would consider this season a failure if we fail to live up to expectations...and making the playoffs was expected.

I'd love to be excited, but since I was at the game Saturday and yesterday's game was blacked out, forgive me if it hasn't helped any.

Not making the playoffs this year has to be considered an epic failure.

cprice12 wrote:

DaDitka wrote:

cprice12 wrote: I would LOVE to see how this young team would play in the playoffs after getting swept in the first round last year. Let's see if they've learned anything.

I don't mean to sound as though I don't want to make it, I'm just not going act like the entire season is a failure if we're eliminated at any point.

I would consider this season a failure if we fail to live up to expectations...and making the playoffs was expected.

Those were YOUR expectations. (and many – many others)

My expectations were.....you saw the most offensive output you will see out of Backes and Oshie, DP is exceeding my expectations, they only ones truly letting me down (offensively) are Boyes and Bergie.

We had no business competing for a playoff spot last year (IMO), the planets aligned and now expectations are too high.

If you expected too much out of Paulie, or TJ, or Brewer, or Mason.....that's on you.

Everyone is permitted their own expectations..they are basically an opinion.


I said it at the end of last year, I said it at the beginning of the season, and I'll say it now.....making the playoffs last year was a horrible thing for this organization. Great for fans....but expectations were simply too high by media, fans, and even management.

While it isn't likely that they will make the playoffs, it's still very much possible with strong play. They have won 6 of 8 in their recent stretch, and they would have to maintain that kind of hockey to get in.

I would predict that the team would need to be at or above .500 to have a legit shot at making the postseason. I count OT losses as a loss in that calculation. The cutoff for the final spot in the west has been right on that line most years post-lockout, with teams over .500 in and teams under it out. It's not a guarantee, but it's a rough estimate of where it all ends up.

In 52 games the blues are 23-21-8, or 23-29. To hit that magic .500 level they would need to be about 18-12 or better in the final 30 games... or exactly how they have played the last 10. So they don't have to win every game or something insanely close to that, but they have a big pile of work to do if they want to slip into the playoffs again.

I'm with you. My pet peeve is when people don't consider OT losses as losses and call a team that is 10-10-4 or whatever a .500 team.

They aren't.

kodos wrote:I'm with you. My pet peeve is when people don't consider OT losses as losses and call a team that is 10-10-4 or whatever a .500 team.

They aren't.

Agreed. It's like saying that because it took you longer to lose it's not a loss

DaDitka wrote:

kodos wrote:I'm with you. My pet peeve is when people don't consider OT losses as losses and call a team that is 10-10-4 or whatever a .500 team.

They aren't.

Agreed. It's like saying that because it took you longer to lose it's not a loss

An OT loss is not a loss, it's an OTL. There is a separate stat column for it and everything. They are called different things because they are different. But yes, you lose the game in both cases.

And 10-10-4 is indeed a .500 record if you go by points, which is how the NHL determines standings.
10-10-4 means 24 games were played and 48 points were possible.
A 10-10-4 record gets you 24 of the possible 48 points, which is half...or .500.

cprice12 wrote:

DaDitka wrote:

kodos wrote:I'm with you. My pet peeve is when people don't consider OT losses as losses and call a team that is 10-10-4 or whatever a .500 team.

They aren't.

Agreed. It's like saying that because it took you longer to lose it's not a loss

An OT loss is not a loss, it's an OTL. There is a separate stat column for it and everything. They are called different things because they are different. But yes, you lose the game in both cases.

And 10-10-4 is indeed a .500 record if you go by points, which is how the NHL determines standings.
10-10-4 means 24 games were played and 48 points were possible.
A 10-10-4 record gets you 24 of the possible 48 points, which is half...or .500.

I agree. If you get a point for an OTL then it is not the same as normal loss.

I'm really liking the chemistry between McDonald and Perron lately. Hopefully Payne keeps them on a line together for a long time!

cprice12 wrote:

DaDitka wrote:

kodos wrote:I'm with you. My pet peeve is when people don't consider OT losses as losses and call a team that is 10-10-4 or whatever a .500 team.

They aren't.

Agreed. It's like saying that because it took you longer to lose it's not a loss

An OT loss is not a loss, it's an OTL. There is a separate stat column for it and everything. They are called different things because they are different. But yes, you lose the game in both cases.

And 10-10-4 is indeed a .500 record if you go by points, which is how the NHL determines standings.
10-10-4 means 24 games were played and 48 points were possible.
A 10-10-4 record gets you 24 of the possible 48 points, which is half...or .500.

Well duh, it's not the same as a regulation loss. Oh really, there's a separate column? (insert captn obvious rock pic).



The point is that if you look at the standings at the end of the year, it makes very little if any difference whether you lost in regulation or ot; teams that have more wins than total losses, with very few exceptions, make the playoffs. The odd year that a team has 12-15 otl is about the only thing that changes that number.

The main point was: the blues need about 18 wins in the next thirty games.

Here's a crazy thought- let's wait until we have to argue about whether or not the Blues are at a .650 record then have a meaningful (and much more pleasant) discussion then?

You go by points for winnings percentages when you have 1 point otls..

It isn't that difficult.

not_a_wings_fan wrote:

cprice12 wrote:

DaDitka wrote:

kodos wrote:I'm with you. My pet peeve is when people don't consider OT losses as losses and call a team that is 10-10-4 or whatever a .500 team.

They aren't.

Agreed. It's like saying that because it took you longer to lose it's not a loss

An OT loss is not a loss, it's an OTL. There is a separate stat column for it and everything. They are called different things because they are different. But yes, you lose the game in both cases.

And 10-10-4 is indeed a .500 record if you go by points, which is how the NHL determines standings.
10-10-4 means 24 games were played and 48 points were possible.
A 10-10-4 record gets you 24 of the possible 48 points, which is half...or .500.

Well duh, it's not the same as a regulation loss. Oh really, there's a separate column? (insert captn obvious rock pic).



The point is that if you look at the standings at the end of the year, it makes very little if any difference whether you lost in regulation or ot; teams that have more wins than total losses, with very few exceptions, make the playoffs. The odd year that a team has 12-15 otl is about the only thing that changes that number.

The main point was: the blues need about 18 wins in the next thirty games.

or 15 wins and 6 overtime losses.

section319 wrote:You go by points for winnings percentages when you have 1 point otls..

It isn't that difficult.

Agreed...winning percentage......points.....


A 10 - 10 - 5 teams has won 500% of their available points. But hell when you're OTL total is half your win total (or more) I believe the point total isn't exactly indicative of how the team is playing.

The way I see it…..you left the ice a winner 10 times and you left the ice a loser 15 times. I’m sure any player with any shred of a competitive nature in their body probably feels the same.

I guess you can argue that coming away with one point on the road against a better opponent or on the back side of back to back games is ‘good’ (and I agree), but I doubt it feels that way in the locker room after the game, and it’s rather tough to decipher which games in the standing were those and which were 2 goal leads in the third at home that netted you one freaking point.

My problem with 10-10-4 being considered a .500 team is having to hear Bernie Federko, Darren Pang, John Kelly, Kelly Chase, etc., say "well, even with all the problems, ups and down, injuries, etc., it's remarkable the Blues are still a .500 team," which makes it sounds like some kind of accomplishment and that the Blues are average or at least are in the middle of the pack. Problem is that with the 3 point games .500 means absolutely nothing now and 25/30 teams are usually .500 or better. Point is .600 is the new .500.