GDT: Shark Freak shirsey giveaway vs Dead Things. 7:30

[Anomie2029]

What kind of statement is 'in the grand scheme of things'?

It's simple - The aim of the regular season is to accumulate as much points as possible by winning as many games as possible. Fact is, the NHL awards points for OT/SO losses. Those points do matter.

I don't think anyone has suggested 'we need to count on them'. The point is NHL .500 hockey doesn't get you far (in fact the Sharks are still second last in the division), but it is a milestone for a team that was 4-10-1.

 

[Pavelski2112]

No, loser points don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Our goal is to win the cup. In the playoffs, there are no loser points. If we go 3-0-4 in a series, we go home.

Now I understand every team will get a few loser points and they could make the difference on getting in to the playoffs, but counting on them is dumb. If we only win 40 and get 8-10 loser points, we likely don't make it to second season. The long and short is 500 hockey is not good enough. We need the get to 600 hockey from now on to control our own destiny.

No one's saying we should count on them, but they do matter. They are a fundamental part of the points system. .500 hockey isn't good enough, that's very true, but as we talked about earlier, the Sharks are arguably not playing like a team that is generally .500 at this time of the season. They're playing better than that, and if they can keep that up, loser points won't have to be an issue.

I think we're all debating different things, but ultimately we're all generally in agreement - .500 is not good at this point in the season, and that the Sharks need to keep up a hot pace - but being .500 by winning and losing alternating games and being .500 by having a bad start and eventually getting better are two different situations.

 

[Nolan11]

What kind of statement is 'in the grand scheme of things'?

It's simple - The aim of the regular season is to accumulate as much points as possible by winning as many games as possible. Fact is, the NHL awards points for OT/SO losses. Those points do matter.

I don't think anyone has suggested 'we need to count on them'. The point is NHL .500 hockey doesn't get you far (in fact the Sharks are still second last in the division), but it is a milestone for a team that was 4-10-1.

Assume we win the next game, so 23 points through 22 games. We then go 5-4-1 for each ten games after that. We would finish the season at 89 points. This gives us a slight chance of getting to the show (I suppose).

In the grand scheme of things, 82 points (your scenario for 500 hockey) or 89 points (my scenario) just is not good enough to get us a cup. We need to have better results than a coin flip. Now, if we play some defense, we have a team that should be better than 50/50. I hope we add an impact player sooner than later, but only DW knows if that is likely.

If we don't find ways to win more than we lose, regardless of how often we push it into overtime, we have no reason to expect a cup anytime soon. That's the math of this sport.

 

[Pavelski2112]

Assume we win the next game, so 23 points through 22 games. We then go 5-4-1 for each ten games after that. We would finish the season at 89 points. This gives us a slight chance of getting to the show (I suppose).

In the grand scheme of things, 82 points (your scenario for 500 hockey) or 89 points (my scenario) just is not good enough to get us a cup. We need to have better results than a coin flip. Now, if we play some defense, we have a team that should be better than 50/50. I hope we add an impact player sooner than later, but only DW knows if that is likely.

If we don't find ways to win more than we lose, regardless of how often we push it into overtime, we have no reason to expect a cup anytime soon. That's the math of this sport.

I mean, that argument is basically: "Win more". Yea, I mean, I agree obviously. But this team isn't gonna go 71-10-1. No one's saying this team should just play well enough to get loser points or that we should resign ourselves to hoping for loser points. The ultimate point is another semantic one, that loser points do make a difference in the long term.

 

[Alwalys]

The original post you qouted said exactly what is happening. The sharks are playing .500 hockey.

There was nothing else in his/her post that could have any more context in it. The context from start to finish was the sharks are playing .500 hockey right now. That is 100% fact.

What the f*** is going on here? Has the world gone insane? Has everyone lost the ability to read?

The original post mentioned that the Sharks need to play .600 hockey from here on out. That invites a consideration of whether the Sharks are playing less than .500 hockey as they were in the early season or higher than .500 hockey as they have been playing recently to get back to .500 after a terrible start.

Replying that the sharks are playing .500 hockey because their record is .500 after the original post literally stipulated to that makes ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXTUAL SENSE.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

It's November. The season ends in April. Can we have this discussion, as silly as it is, in maybe the last week in March? Sharks are playing well right now. They have hit a peek in the whole Peeks and Valleys cliche. I hope the peak lasts a while and there are more of those than Valleys. Last night was a very good win for this team. They didn't fold under pressure and they found a way to win on a night where they had every chance to lose that game. This week should be fun with three playoff teams. I hope they can go 2-3 in this stretch but even if they get one of those wins, that's good too. The Knights have been falling back some so the Sharks are getting them at a nice time. I'm really looking forward to the Islanders game.

 

[WTFetus]

What the **** is going on here? Has the world gone insane? Has everyone lost the ability to read?

The original post mentioned that the Sharks need to play .600 hockey from here on out. That invites a consideration of whether the Sharks are playing less than .500 hockey as they were in the early season or higher than .500 hockey as they have been playing recently to get back to .500 after a terrible start.

Replying that the sharks are playing .500 hockey because their record is .500 after the original post literally stipulated to that makes ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXTUAL SENSE.

Uh, no it doesnt. The original post said
1) the sharks are one win from 500
2) they should play 600 or better from this point on to make the playoffs

Two completely different points. No "inviting consideration" or anything. Simply, "this is their record right now, and this is what they should do".

The reply was
1) the sharks record actually is 500 right now.

Zero mention or disagreement with what they have to do from this point on. Absolutely zero mention or disagreement on how they are playing right now. It was simply a correction that everyone except you could understand. You're just throwing a fit for the sake of it.

 

[Alwalys]

Uh, no it doesnt. The original post said
1) the sharks are one win from 500
2) they should play 600 or better from this point on to make the playoffs

Two completely different points. No "inviting consideration" or anything. Simply, "this is their record right now, and this is what they should do".

The reply was
1) the sharks record actually is 500 right now.

Zero mention or disagreement with what they have to do from this point on. Absolutely zero mention or disagreement on how they are playing right now. It was simply a correction that everyone except you could understand. You're just throwing a fit for the sake of it.

OK I get it.

"Playing .500 hockey" ( is absolutely in no way the same thing as "your record is currently .500". And in the CONTEXT of the post, which was forward-looking at the team needing to play .600 hockey to make the playoffs, it is completely irrelevant to point out their record is .500.

Maybe the poster is ESL, that might explain why he misspoke. But he did in fact misspeak, if that's what he meant. His clarifications didn't exactly hit the mark either (in an also ESL way). He doubled down by saying the Sharks are wildly inconsistent, which is untrue -- they were consistently bad and then consistently pretty good. So yeah, sounds like a less than capable analyst to me.

 

[LadyStanley]

How is EK playing lately?

EK9 or EK65?

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

EK9 or EK65?

For the most part they are both playing well at this point IMO.

 

[Alwalys]

For the most part they are both playing well at this point IMO.

Ek9 is all world right now

 

[WSS11]

St. Louis had 36 points at the midway point this past January. Ottawa, Detroit, and LA were the only teams with less with 35. It’s November and we’re 2 points out of a WC spot and 3 points out of a top three spot in the division. We’re in fine shape.

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

St. Louis had 36 points at the midway point this past January. Ottawa, Detroit, and LA were the only teams with less with 35. It’s November and we’re 2 points out of a WC spot and 3 points out of a top three spot in the division. We’re in fine shape.

My thought as well. They need to continue an upward swing with their play though especially defensively and in goal. I don't think they can afford another stretch like the one they started the season with. That was just about as ugly as I've seen this team play since the Al Sims days.

 

[68 Z-28]

No one's saying we should count on them, but they do matter. They are a fundamental part of the points system.

Loser points certainly do matter.

2 loser points is all that is separating the Sharks(10-10-1) and Vegas(10-9-3) and Vegas for WC2. Vegas has played an extra game.
3 loser points is all that is separating the Sharks and the Canucks(10-7-4) for 3rd in the Division.

 

[matt trick]

St. Louis had 36 points at the midway point this past January. Ottawa, Detroit, and LA were the only teams with less with 35. It’s November and we’re 2 points out of a WC spot and 3 points out of a top three spot in the division. We’re in fine shape.

Along with the Sharks going on a nice run, Vegas, Edmonton, Calgary, Anaheim, and Vancouver have been pretty poor over the last ten games. That was pretty lucky. To be 5 points out of 2nd in the division after going 4-10-1 to start is bizarre. Still need a top 6 forward, but I think the team needs a really particular skillset.

Speedy, defensively capable, playmaking, right winger. Interestingly enough, Nyquist/Donskoi are the right type of players, but the cap didn't allow for either to stay. The ideal would be a Rantanen, Wheeler, Voracek, or Giroux type, but those guys aren't going to be available. Ironically enough, Nyquist and Donskoi are pretty good fits, but we couldn't afford them.

Whatever playmaking options are out there? Tofolli, Kreider, and Hall (though he racks up lots of assists) are really more goal scorers.

 

[Nolan11]

Wow, my work went a little nuts right when I apparently started a tempest in a teapot. To all that spoke in support of looking at my original post, Thank you. To all that disagree with my world view on how to define .500 hockey, I understand your position that it is points that should be how we define .500, I just firmly disagree with your definition. As I stated, IMO it is how many wins vs losses. It may not seem it, but English is my only language, and I certainly did not misspeak in expressing my opinion.

That said, I actually appreciate the conversation that has gone on through this thread. One quarter through the season, we are at or extremely near (depending on how you measure it, points vs wins) .500 hockey. Most of the pacific is as well, so we are finally in the hunt again. It is all our hope that we find ways to win more than lose so that we can creep to the head of the pack. Hopefully we do just that. If we do go 600 from here out, we will finish with around 96 points, maybe a few more. That is likely enough to get us above the wildcard slots. Hope we start building momentum.

 

[Erep]

Vegas, Edmonton, Calgary, Anaheim, and Vancouver have been pretty poor over the last ten games. That was pretty lucky.

I don't know. I think them being poor is less lucky, and more unlucky that they started strong. Vancouver and Vegas might still be decent, but the other three I expect to continue the way they have lately more so than bounce back. (That said I would not be surprised if Vegas or Vancouver keep tanking a bit...)

 

[Pavelski2112]

I don't know. I think them being poor is less lucky, and more unlucky that they started strong. Vancouver and Vegas might still be decent, but the other three I expect to continue the way they have lately more so than bounce back. (That said I would not be surprised if Vegas or Vancouver keep tanking a bit...)

The Pacific is literal garbage this year, compared to the rest of the league.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The Pacific is literal garbage this year, compared to the rest of the league.

Every division is looking pretty trashy this year. lol

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Wings fan here...is this the jersey they gave away? That would get my vote as the Best NHL jersey AINEC, if that were the case, they should make it permanent. I want one & I'm not a Sharks fan (though I don't hate them either, like I do most teams). I suppose I could get one with "Larionov" on the back, even if the jersey doesn't match the players career. HM to Pavelski, always like him. Best of luck this year in the WC.

 

[ColdSteel2]

View attachment 279381

Am I the only one seeing the Simpsons reference here?

 

[pappaf2]

Am I the only one seeing the Simpsons reference here?

View attachment 279417

Rat Fink
Rat Fink - Wikipedia

Also

Santa Cruz skateboards

 

[Doctor Soraluce]

Ek9 is all world right now

As much as I love him it seems like he could be scoring more at evens. That has usually been his strength. Take away his PP goals and he's struggling compared to other years I think. I love his effort and game though despite the lack of even strength goals. Maybe it's a byproduct of the overall team play though.