...

This is Hollywood, they butcher everything. I mean, how do you screw up The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit? Leave it to Hollywood to show you how. Personally, I don't get caught up trying to reconcile the messes they make in the story details. If I'm entertained at the end, then I'm entertained. The only outrageous moment was the Princess Leia in outer space thing. It was so bad, it distracted me from the rest of the movie. I'll watch it again before SW:RoS, and at least this time I'll be prepared for it.

Thanks for the reminder. Just bought our Christmas day tickets. The nuclear family has been going every Christmas to see these, so, have to keep up "the tradition".

I'd prefer the team be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to improving the team's potential. Any boob off the street can react to a negative trend that's been working for weeks or months. The point of paying big bucks for a GM, his staff, and scouts, is to work on the roster even while the roster isn't self-imploding. Actually, that's the ideal time to do it.

I hope not, we have a lot invested in him being around for a while. Also, that would be horribly traumatic for the kids in attendance.

Right. Just because we're 7-1-1 doesn't mean this team is anywhere near the goal. Sure, let's make it into the first round, and we all should be happy? We didn't wait this long to be 4 and out. There is always a place to upgrade and prepare for the playoffs, just ask Tampa Bay.

I could. It's a ways off, though. Ask me around the Christmas break.

This seems very right.

I would characterize your position in this thread as ambiguous. Perhaps the question should be who, now, is the weakest link among the forward lines? Assuming we have a trade-chip or two to play with from the D, how can this team be improved based on what we're seeing? That reality will be upon us at some point in this season, although as things go on, my suspicion is that we're going to hold off until the trade deadline.

I think, at this point, the argument is pretty clear that even with Vlad's best years' stats plugged into that line's overall stats, if a better player were to replace Vlad, that line would very likely have even better stats than they do now. The team's ceiling is only so high with players like a (historical) Vlad. This is elementary. I don't get the push-back on this basic point.

Tierney takes on the question at hand:

I find the xGF/60 number for the Sabres in the Team xG Rates chart a bit surprising. I think it'd be closer to 2.4, but that's going on memory.

Ah, actually, there's an arbitrary-ness almost half of the time. Especially when it comes to construction around and involving quotes. The "rules" are more styles than actual rules - as in those might be the rules of the style, but no final, absolute rule exists. @inkman did, in fact, place the question mark properly according to Strunk and White, for example (a style guide I prefer over most others).

I must not be thought of as a fancy stats person, which is fine, I don't see myself as a fancy stats person, either. However, to get to this point in the thread, you must have rolled over the one verified fancy stat dood who said you have to wait 12 more games for the numbers to mean anything. Also, note that, even though I am not a verified fancy stat guy, more of a dabbler, really, perhaps a few rungs up from a dilettante, I did provide my assessment that there is more skill and coaching going on right now than luck. I would submit, again, not being an actual fancy stat person, so I only assume, or, maybe more accurately, surmise, that your question will raise additional questions like: Different than what? What do you mean by different?

I went through this in another thread, but something like 8 of the 10 games during the streak last year were won by luck statistically. That is not the case, so far, this year.

Having more possession time, which has been my beef for many seasons now, and being more dangerous with that possession, with higher quality shots, indicates that we're on the right path at the moment. As others have noted, there isn't enough data yet to start projecting. Possession time + higher quality shots (xG) = less luck, more skill and coaching.

Despite how the first two periods looked last night, Buffalo actually did a good job and was pretty much "even" with the Sharks in play. Now, this doesn't speak about the season, obviously, but as a current measure of where the team is at, I'd say that statistically hanging with SJ is an accomplishment for a team that really just sucked last year. The shot charts from last night. xG, expected goals, are in Buffalo's favour, meaning shots of a better quality with a better chance of scoring. This same data except linearly as the game progressed. The quality of the shots on goal as the game went on. In-game Corsi For at even strength. I believe this is percentage, based on the final numbers at the end of the chart being percents, and the fact that a CF by itself doesn't tell you anything. CF% indicates possession, so, again, assuming this is percentage (do I need to give that caveat after this?), except for the middle of the first, the Sabres possessed the puck more than SJ, and combined with the other charts, indicates that the Sabres were more dangerous with the puck after right about the game's mid-mark.

We're missing some vital info here. What planet?

Missed watching a lot of third, listened on the radio while I was picking up my kid and his girlfriend. Would have like to have seen Girgensons score in real time. I'm kind of surprised at the assessments in the thread about his being a good game for the Sabres. They must have looked really good in the third.

I think Kreuger is to blame for Dahlin. There has to be some method behind it, but letting Dahlin play to his strengths, offense, makes his defense look bad. I think Dahlin is doing a good job on the PP.

It's taken Vesey some time, but he ain't lookin' too bad.

Oops! The mic was HOT right there!

Well, back to the drawing board for the PP.

Now back to Buffalo and Duff and Peters for the intermission...