...

You're in luck. I have obtained video of the people who collect stats doing the work...

You forgot to mention the Gaussian “white-noise”. I'm disappointed.

I'm sure Phil would have loved the upgraded D corp. His "system" relied on the transitions and D contributions. On the goalies, I think the answer to this is going to be in a shot chart that I can't spare the time to look up. If the improved D can allow the forwards time to come in and defend properly (which is something RK needs to address), we might very well think we gots some new goaltenders.

Pulled from another thread, background info on the RAPM charts. This describes the RAPM charts in detail: https://hockey-graphs.com/2019/01/14/reviving-regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-for-hockey/ One concern, and argument against the RAPM charts, is the effect of line-mates. This effect is built into the equations. A summary of what we're NOT looking at, in general, with these charts: And, addressing another concern, TOI:

Since this wasn't answered, yet, I will answer it. So, the 68 minute RAPM is skewed, possibly making Mitts look better. And since I'm here, let's also note this about the RAPM charts we all know and love:

You did read this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0317.pdf Right? And this: https://hockey-graphs.com/2019/01/14/reviving-regularized-adjusted-plus-minus-for-hockey/ too? Because those more aptly apply to the metrics we're discussing. You're using paper #1 to make your argument.

Are you saying Casey spent 92% of his time with Okposo and TT 92% of his time with Sobotka? Since the league is littered with pairs, are you arguing the fancy stats aren't built to account for the effect one might have on the other within a normal context?

Explain the significance of the difference between 68 minutes TOI versus 884 minutes TOI. I'll hang up and listen.

This logic is confusing. Whatever the Sabres "do" is all geared toward winning. The goal is to win a Stanley Cup. Every decision is made with this as the ultimate goal. Therefore every analysis of whatever the team does is in context of achieving the ultimate goal (winning a Cup), no matter how far off that might be.

Define "talent".

If this trade could have happened swapping TT for Nylander, it would have been better. I think with some of the additions we have, we might not see TT as much this regular season. Meanwhile, we'll finally see Nylander get some regular ice time. Still, as per the discussion about ROR, I think that it was inevitable Nylander was going to be shipped out of here due to the various cosmic and circumstantial forces that influence such things.

Yes, that's plastered all over the place since the trade. It's an interesting thought, though I think Botterill would be foolish to make that move unless the return were nothing short of stunning.

Had no idea it was there. I just looked. I'm not on it. Therefore I will not be looking again.

Sir, are you suggesting Jokiharu is not staying with the Sabres?

RAPM Jokiharu v Dahlin: And, FWIW, vs. McCabe Not bad.

On the bold - what? On the non-bold. I could cut-n-paste the page contents, but that wouldn't be cool. Additionally, you can not copy the direct URL to the reference page the way that site is set up.

Good start. It's likely to be a slow go in here until the season picks up and we really start to reference the fancy stats, so, don't get discouraged! At some point, I may contribute on RAPM. For now, Evolving Hockey has a nice reference section for those who need summer reading material: https://evolving-hockey.com/ Select the "More" tab for the references.

Can he score a clutch goal in triple overtime during game 7 of the SCFs?

I think maybe TP or KP ought to slap the contracts folder on Botterill's desk, I'd be alright with that meddling.

This is what the Sabres' bench will look like as it stands:

That's how it looks. We don't know the question that was asked, of course, or what the Sabres really intend to do, but...

If I have the time to find it, I'll look, but this or something very similar to this has been posted here before.

That reply from Graham has been posted here before.

Because, according to what was posted here (as I don't have access to the article) the inside sources didn't say anything about meddling. It reads to me like Graham is interpreting the information he has as not equaling "meddling", when, as I wrote for @TrueBlueGED, what "meddling" may be is subject to interpretation.