All Activity

Benson isn't but that's a long argument so let's leave it as agree to disagree. Thompson is bad defensively but you forgive that a little. Most teams have an offensive star or two who is bad defensively. Boston's a highly structured team but Pasternak can make huge defensive gaffs and that's forgiven with offensive production. Same can hold for a few guys here like Thompson, but the rest of the team has to pick up the slack. Now look at the rest of the better defensive players you listed. Tuch, Zucker, McLeod, all developed outside the Sabres system and methods. Their defensive game was imported, which argues to my point about too much internal development and not enough veterans brought in. Our internal defensive development is not good.

Let's say Cozens is a 10% shooter, he's that because he doesn't get to the spots he needs to and takes the shot types he needs to. Now Tage is a 15% guy. So they get to point X on the ice and take a wrist shot. You're arguing that Tage will score more there because the league average is 11% and Tage shoots higher, yes. But you're looking at 4 goals on 100 shots. We also know the areas players score more from. Xgf% would not be the same because of Tage scores more from a spot than so does others, so the average goes up. If Tage prevents shots from those spots it prevents xga. Cozens would have to shoot from the same places meaning he's skilled enough to get there and defend the same shots. It's just not happening. Versus actual goals for. If I put Tage on a team with a real goalie his actual goals against goes down even if his xga stays the same. He's still giving up what xga says. It's also why on ice sv% is important. Idk, I think we just fundamentally disagree about what xgf shows and why it's better statistically than actual goals for and against. Doesn't mean they both can't tell us things.

Well yes, good coaching early on does help for sure and what happens all the way along matters. I don't think the Sabres do it right once they draft these kids. I'll go back to Granato's BS comment that defense was the easy part and they want the offense to develop first. It's the exact opposite of what most teams do with young prospects. Now he's gone, but Appert's still here and we do Rochester the same way. imo what we should have is a Rochester team employing a tough and rigid defensive first philosophy and then when kids graduate from that they can then go back to opening it up with the big club. The D first will be ingrained. We do everything backwards.

Call Adams quick. This is a game changer. Climate change is here to save the Sabres!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No xgf wouldn't be the same. You wanna know why? Good shooters get to the good shooting spots. And xgf% is also looking at the defensive side of things. You're suggesting actual goals, which are rarer than shots, measure individual players contributing to winning more but stats says they don't. Sure that noise might even out over a career for actual goals but the funny part to me is so would the xgf. The good shooters get to the good spots to shoot, that's the key.

Actually, that is my point...why do I want to evaluate an individual player based on 'league average shooting percentage', when that player may be quite a bit higher or lower? Yeah, there may be 'noise' in actual goals, but to me at least it takes into account the difference BETWEEN the league average shooting percentage and that actual player I am evaluating. That 'noise' will, statistically, likely 'even out' when you look at the actual goal numbers over a long period of time. I get looking at a partial season, or a half season, may not be helpful, but if a guy is below 50 year after year, vs a guy above 50 year after year, the trend is your friend. Again, If Cozens is, for his career, a 10% or below shooter, and a guy like Tage is 15% or higher....XGF might be the same for both of them but in reality it vastly over-rates Cozens and under-rates Thompson.

Five years ago Florida would be on every players NTC list and no player was waiving their NMC to go there, despite the cheaper taxes. Now basically every player in the league would waive to be traded to Florida. Players want to go to winning teams. It's that simple. However, I would not be opposed to a team being limited to 3 NMC and 5 NTC or something like that. However, I doubt it meaningfully changes things in terms of trades etc. It's ususally your best veteran players who get them, and those players are not often traded. Players have refused to waive for Buffalo because we've not made the playoffs in 14 years, have a reputation for an interfering owner and a small city with bad weather. I don't blame them

That's not accurate. Xgf takes into account league average sh%. The problem with actual goals for and against is all the extra noise and all the randomness. There's simply a better sample of shots. We could get into GAR and WAR but that's really complicated and the models vary a ton.

Agreed. I actually prefer ACTUAL goals for/vs against, as it takes into account shooting percentage (from what I can tell, xGF% does not, so it doesn't really take into account that a player like Tage is a 50% more accurate shooter than a guy like Cozens). Plus-minus is not a stat that can tell you everything about a player, I admit that, but it shouldn't be totally thrown away either. I think the key with the 'advanced stats' is to use them in combination with each other. A guy has a good xGF%? Well, what is the competition he faces, or is he on a line/paring with a guy who is a super accurate shooter or a terrible one? For me, you have to look at the advanced stats, all of them...if you see anything that stands out (good or bad), think to yourself...why? Is there something that accounts for this? Is this something that is a one time/one year thing or a long term thing. By using all the advanced stats in combination with each other, and asking 'why' when presenting them....you can get a somewhat more accurate guage of how good a player is rather than just using your single favorite one. Many people on here may know my favorite 'whipping boy' for Sabres problems over the years has been Cozens. And that isn't because of one or two stats. Its because many/most of his advanced stats are below average (not just one of them), AND they have been for years (even his really good year), and more often than now other players advanced stats are worse when they are playing with him and get better when they are with anyone else, AND simply watching him, the eye test backs all that up. Personally I usually use the eye test first, form an opinion of a player, and then see if the advanced stats/analytics back up that initial opinion. The only time I really work backwards (analytics first) is when the Sabres trade for someone/acquire someone that I haven't seen play all that much.

Addition by subtraction. To me its not simply taking someone away, but what you replace them with. With that said I have always thought that getting rid of Cozens fits the term 'addition by subtraction'...simply because without him at Center, The added minutes that McLeod, Krebs and Kulich got after he left served the team better than the minutes Cozens had. They 'helped' the team just about as much offensively, and they hurt the team a lot less. That is not to say Cozens doesn't have talent, but His 16-17 minutes per game going to 0 for the Sabres, and those other guys getting the extra minutes were a bonus. Basically, would I rather have Cozens getting 18 min per game, McLeod getting 12-14, Krebs getting 10, and Kulich not having a big role at all? -OR- Cozens getting zero (subtraction from the team), Mcleod getting his 16, Krebs getting 12, and Kulich getting 12-14? <--- I'll take this one. The productivity/score is just as good (last year maybe better with McLeods and Kulich's game toward the end of the season) and those guys, even Kulich as a rookie, make/made a LOT less costly mistakes than Cozens did in his minutes. I would expect that to accelerate this year with Norris getting any productivity. As for the rest of the guys, they didn't play enough of a role on the team for me to care about.

Exactly, that is why I am looking at them... I just wanna see how long a rebuild take when you have a competent FO ... Others like the Islanders, even Flyers seem to toil in no mans land... not quite as badly as us... but I would like to see what a solid plan and FO does.

Historic and recent Cup Winners, doubt they’ll have a ton of problems unless they go like Detroit. I’d limit NMCs to 30+years, so if you sign 7 years from 26 to 33, he could have clauses any year in which he’s 30 prior to the deadline.

The freedom to work where one wants to is a trade-off when a group is part of a union and collectively bargains an agreement. In exchange for that trade-off and others, players get a certain percentage of the revenue and a minimum salary that is many times more than most people will make (annually) in their lifetimes. If NMC's are hurting the competitive balance of the league, then it should be addressed in the next CBA. That said, it was pointed out above that Winnipeg and Edmonton are two of the top teams in the league and are in (arguably) not the most desirable locations. It has also been pointed out in numerous threads that winning cures everything. The Bills don't seem to have a problem attracting free agents to Buffalo, because the team is a well-run, successful franchise. The Sabres never had a problem attracting free agents or making trades when they were a winning club. Thus, although NMCs may be an issue to be corrected, I don't believe it's a great excuse for the Sabres. If the team can get its house in order, players will want to come. Buffalo has been a desirable market for hockey players in the past, given its proximity to Southern Ontario, where many players come from, and its relatively easy and laid back lifestyle. A well-paid hockey player in Buffalo can live in a big beautiful house in an area with great schools for their kids and have an easy commute down to the rink for practice and games and a short commute to the airport for road games. Players can be big fish in a small pond - local celebrities - if they so choose, but they can also stay out of the limelight if they prefer. It's extremely common for players who played for the Sabres to settle and remain in Buffalo after retirement, and it's even common for players who left Buffalo to play elsewhere to come back to the area to settle after they retire. The area is not for everybody, but certainly has a lot of appeal to many of the types of individuals who play (and coach) in the NHL. Get a competent coaching staff, a capable GM in the front office, and regularly participate in the playoffs, and the Sabres will not struggle to attract players via trade or free agency.

What would that look like?

I am looking squarely at the Boston Bruins and Penguins right now... I wanna see how long specifically it takes these teams to get back into contention.

Free agency takes care of the human perspective and I have no problem with that. Adams bath water is self induced but it would be interesting to see how long the average “ rebuild” is today versus past decades.

He's actually a good puck carrier but he's too small/weak down low

Yea xgf is a better predictor than +/- Xgf predicts goals based on shot type location and movement. It better shows what a player contributed to. Yea it's why no one serious about this stuff uses 1 stats alone.

I’m speaking in terms of player to player comparisons on different teams. Generally speaking, a sheltered offensively deployed defenceman on a good team (Gostisbehere?) is going to have good xG% and a defensively deployed defenceman getting tough minutes on a bad team (Vlasic?) is going to have bad xG%. I’ve read many posts saying Seth Jones and Bo Byram are supposed to be bad because xG, when each was demonstrably good enough to get significant minutes for Stanley Cup winning teams.

We don’t know for sure what the full reality of their Sabre play will be. That’s for sure. However, you deal with the hand you are dealt with and make the best of it. I have been a critic of KA. In this case, I believe he handled this situation well.

Agreed! Honestly, Bryson is probably one of the best skaters in the NHL, I'm not kidding but as for anything else, he's USELESS!

Could you clarify? I understand the Sabres 10-game win streak scenario where fancy stats correctly predicted the team was getting bounces and wasn’t going to sustain. But does it have any predictive qualities when it comes to individual players?

I was very much in favour of trading the reality of Peterka for the concept of Kesselring and Doan. The concept of Peterka for (what might be) the reality of of Kesselring and Doan is another story.

It's why you don't use 1 fancy stat to explain a player. It however has better predictive measures than +/- so what you say there is not correct.