carpandean

1) I have no problem with a defensive line having more than one guy who can win faceoffs. Heck, linemen throw guys out during almost every draw these days. Saying that having Ott means that we need a center who doesn't win faceoffs is like Darcy saying that they were set at scoring-line center because they had two of them. Good teams have three or four. Having an extra one playing on the wing is not a bad thing. 2) It took me five minutes after I heard about the trade to find an article in which Leino's coach in his final year in Finland credited his increase in production (basically double) with being moved to the wing. He was a mediocre player at center, then got moved to wing and earned a one-year contract with Detroit.

There are so many factors not corrected for in the analysis (as far as I've seen, anyway.) The first that I would bring in is strength of competition on FO's. Yes, the difference in top-to-bottom for team is typically ~8% and between players (who regularly take FO's) is around 15% (45-60%), but if teams send out their best FO men for most key faceoffs, then 5 or 10% overall might mean a lot more than it seems. As an overly simple example, consider two teams with 2 centers: A1, A2 vs. B1, B2. The 1's are the best at faceoffs. If the game stats look like this: A1 vs. B1: 5-5 A1 vs. B2: 4-1 A2 vs. B1: 1-4 A2 vs. B2: 5-5 Then, A1 and B1 are at 60%, while A2 and B2 are at 40%, and the teams are at 50%. However, if they replaced A1 with another A2 (call them A2a and A2b), who spit all of the faceoffs, then A2a and A2b would at 35%, B2 would be at 50% and B1 would be at 80%. Overall team are at 35% and 65%, winning 10.5 and 19.5 (on average) out of 30. Now, factor in that the big shift is in the key faceoffs (originally taken by A1.) One problem is that almost every team makes sure that they have at least one player who is strong on faceoffs. As such, you won't likely find a significant relationship with such little variation in the independent variable (overall team FO ability), given the relatively small sample size However, not being able to prove that there is an effect doesn't mean there isn't one. The Sabres are a perfect example. By using Cody - a player who is not a top FO player - in key faceoffs, they have an unusually low team FO ability, which has almost certainly had an effect on their ability to win. If they used Steve Ott, who is over 57%, for more than 16% of faceoffs, they would be closer to the normal range and likely winning more. The fact that Hodgson will take FOs on the PP even when Ott is on the ice shows me that either (a) they are relying on the same (possible flawed) overall stats, or (b) have determined that Cody's development is critically important. Another problem is that the stats may be diluted by non-critical faceoffs. Do those top guys really work hard at winning neutral-zone faceoffs? Probably not as hard as on critical ones. So, we might see something closer to 50-50 when a 1 meets a 2 above, because they usually only see each other in the neutral zone. Were they to face each other in critical draws, that % might be far more one-sided. I'd really have to see the analysis to make any real decisions about whether they matter or not.

Hearing Lindy took the job?

I can't believe that happened so quickly. I figured it would never happen, because .

None of us plays (for the Sabres, I mean) and I don't think anyone here actually expects players to tank on purpose. I expect them to try to win ... I just hope that they don't. The one exception is that, as much as you can count what Darcy does as "playing" (obvious jokes aside), I hope he doesn't "play" to win this year at the trade deadline. It's fine if a trade also helps this year, but it should be primarily about helping beyond this year. I guess, in the same light, I want Rolston to give the kids the chances to play rather that going with a vet, who may be gone soon, just to get a little bit higher chance of winning a game.

I can't imagine the embarrassment that Vancouver would feel if they traded the Sabres for their next physical forward after giving up their top prospect for their last one.

I'm so sick of Darcy Regier that I've reached the point where I'm finding it very easy to want the Sabres to lose. I wanted him fired when TPegs came in, but I still support the late push two years ago and again last year. However, each year brought a growing twinge deep down that it would be better for them to tank. This year put me over the edge. Don't get me wrong, the losses still hurt, but the big picture view is overriding that feeling. For the record, nothing would make me happier than for them to make a run right through to the Cup finals and a chance to win it all. I just don't see that as remotely possible.

Paging Mr. Ruff, Mr. Lindy Ruff, you have a call on the white courtesy phone.

Union negotiations, like politics, have become too much about not accepting what the other wants ... even if it's better for your side. "Compromise" and "working together" are seen as giving up power. We (workers, management, liberals, conservatives, etc., etc.) are all worse off for it.

She's in college (or at least was in 2011), so I think that makes her a free agent. ;)

Wait ... the stock cars aren't customized enough?

In 2006-07, they won by trading chances all game long and simply scoring on more of theirs than their opponents did on theirs (which Miller had something to do with.) It was like an old Rob Ray fight where he and the other guy just stood there punching each other in the face until one fell. Defense was almost non-existent. They were near the top of the league in shots against with a relatively low goals against for teams with similar shots against. Plus, they were second in giveaways with over 1,000! If there was ever a season that Miller was hung out to dry, it was that one. Then, they hit the playoffs, everything tightened back up, and they weren't well suited for that game. I think Miller is, at times, very good to elite, but isn't as consistent as the true top goalies (not that they don't have bad games.) I do believe that his stats have frequently been affected by the style (and/or quality) of the defense that the Sabres have used. As X.B points out, all shots are not equal. That said, I am certainly open to the possibility of the Sabres without Miller in the near future, just as long as Enroth isn't going to be the only goalie competing for the #1 spot.

If I keep Ennis and Gerbe, can I count them in one slot?

Good call. :)

That's the basic 3/2/1/0 point system described above.

That's not possible to determine since teams' in-game decisions are directly influenced by the scoring system in place. Right now, especially when playing a team that you are less concerned about (e.g., cross-conference or against a team at the top or bottom, not in the battle to make it), there is no incentive to take a risk in regulation, because a win is worth two points in either regulation or OT/SO. In fact, there is incentive to play for OT/SO, because it is weakly dominant (no difference if you win, better if you lose.) With, for example, the 3-point system that I mentioned, neither strategy is dominant (unless you factor in risk aversion.) The winner gets more in regulation than OT/SO, while the loser gets less. Even if the teams aren't on the same level, while the weaker team might still play for OT/SO, the stronger team would now push harder to win in regulation.

Might as well throw out the usual suggestion: 3 points - regulation win 2 points - OT/SO win 1 point - OT/SO loss 0 points - regulation loss Every game is worth the same (3 points), but there is still some of the extra excitement from the OT/SO.

I've been meaning to develop a fan enjoyment score for NHL teams. There would be points for regular-season performance, post-season performance and draft position. Clearly, the largest points would be for winning the Cup, but there should ould be some value in the others, too. The main driver for this is that, deep down, I know that finishing 9th in the conference is the worst thing a team can do; at least, when looking at a single season. I might modify it for runs to reflect some of what LTS has seen (a run of bottom finishes without the corresponding improvement that you'd expect from the high draft picks.) However, finishing 14-16th for a few years, stocking up on better players, followed by a period of finishing near the top should feel far better than finishing in the middle the whole time, despite the same average on the LTS scale. I suspect that the Sabres would be much lower on my scale.

Fun watching the Vancouver Millionaires play. Funny that they set a franchise record for fastest goal to start a game (0:06) while wearing another team's uni.

Added some output from my simulator. Basically, gives the estimate chance of finishing in each spot for each team, the average points earned by each team, their chances of making the playoffs and the average points for the 8th place team. Again, for now, I'm assuming 50/50 (well, 40/10/10/40.) I want to test to see what affects the win probability. I'm thinking season PPG, last 10 PPG, home/away (though, that seems to be team specific, too) and a few other things. Then, I can change the way it determines the probabilities in the simulator.

See, the issue I have with this is that there doesn't have to be a (singular) "the problem". I feel just as vindicated as someone who believed/claimed that Lindy was (at this point, with this team) a problem, but not the only one. There was still in-game mismanagement, some of which has been corrected, and Lindy was actively involved with Darcy in putting this team together. I agree with you that they still need to: before this team can finally move in a new direction under Pegula.

Now, if we can only get the Panthers to put a few wins together ...

All of them ... plus one.

Columbus with a 4-game winning streak jumps out of the cellar.