...

So, it seems the high-danger scoring chance/shot area is something created/defined by war-on-ice.com? Behold! A high-danger scoring chance, then, must be a shot from the blue area? All attempts at clarity seem incomplete, LIKE THIS. You advanced fancy stats folks would have made killer AD&D players.

Haven't looked at the PDF yet, but I will. A compelling study on Z's progress. I will need to find out what a "high danger scoring chance" is before I can say I see the picture with 100% accuracy. But I think you've supported your conclusion well enough for me despite my uncertainty about that particular stat. I'm not sure he is the right complimentary piece for our top 6 talent, though, unless he either gains an additional 10 lbs of muscle and the equivalence in nasty, or can increase his simple offensive output to something that is truly complimentary. Otherwise, he will get pushed down the lineup again and will, essentially, have no place to go. The third line is set, IMHO, while Gionta is still here. He's really not a fourth line guy, and he doesn't belong on the PP. All that would be left for him is the PK. The saving grace is Foligno and his growth this year. If Z can follow a similar trajectory next season I can see him sticking around, but if not, he's gone.

To be fair, he might welcome less responsibility and being in the spotlight less. Maybe that is what is causing the downturn in his numbers, aside from the leg. One could argue that he can focus more on re-acquiring his elite game if he doesn't have the pressure of being a team leader.

Murray was asking this question a few game-day interviews ago. Is that guy Ennis (I don't think so)? Z (no - and, frankly, I don't see why he's brought up at all)? I guess we'll find out his answer over the summer.

Very interesting discussion, folks. I'm looking forward to seeing those stats on Stamkos. I'm in the he's not worth $9 million camp - for the Sabres, at least. But I'm willing to change my mind based on thorough data. I guess I would like to see stats, or something, that would give insight into HOW he would fit in with Eichel, say, since he's the pairing that is mentioned all the time. Does his game fit Eichel's? Does his skill set match the game the Sabres will play in the Cup finals? It's one thing to say a person has skills, and that you can afford him, and another to determine if he actually fits in with everything else. This latter point has been made already, but it seems to get lost in the "can we afford him" debate. For example, maybe you don't want to lose someone like Kane. Who is Kane's replacement at a better price?

Zone time. Nice to see after all of these years.

That will get called back. Just because.

That was a goal. This league sucks.

Has to be.

It's a goal.

Goal!

Foligno is the man this season.

This game is a wreck.

I need to warm up the @FireDiscoDan account. The only thing this game has going for it is the fisticuffs. These lines and the experimenting are boring.

Maybe Lehner needs to rest his ankle more? Put him on IR and see what the kid can do?

I found the play for Jack's winning goal in this: Breakout Basics

I have this in the can... @FireDiscoDan Just in case I finally lose it with this guy.

I like Z, he's a fine fellow. But, what has Z done this season to earn a chance? The cut-throat in me thinks the only rational reason to put Z with Samson and Eichel is to try and increase his trade value by the end of the season. I think someone up above said something to that effect. It's a ridiculous move. You know what's going to happen? The team is going to start from square one next October. Not one line was/is allowed to develop chemistry this season. Z is a place-holder. ROR and Kane will be a brand new experiment with not enough time to produce reliable data, especially if DD keeps rotating the third man. I think a better move would be to establish permanent lines for the rest of the season, and work on refining the entries and possession. Work on the PP and D zone breakouts. Come up with an Alamo Mode that also allows for capitalizing on offensive opportunities. Or, find a way to replace Alamo Mode altogether.

Good point, and I suppose this is where Ennis and an UFA fit in to the puzzle. But I don't agree with it. Why not keep the Eichel line together to see where they take it the rest of the season? There is nothing to lose but more time IMHO. I'm ready to start the Fire Bylsma Twitter account.

Very fair point, all I am trying to argue is that everyone's development is different. I think it's safe to say that Eichel seems a more mature person than Kane...now. To me, that plays a huge factor. Once Kane's decision-making-vector matures, then so does his hockey IQ. You know, we could be discussing any other player, and I wouldn't be so adamant about the point, there's just something about the Kane narrative that makes me believe he can kick it up a notch. Again, I could be wrong, though.

Mmm. Well, I see "hockey sense" as a combination of intellect/wit, coaching/teaching, maturity/wisdom, and innate abilities. I don't disagree that he may be at his natural ability ceiling. I definitely do not think he is at his ceiling with maturity, which feeds into the remaining two factors. Yes, he may make a poor decision off the walls at times...this doesn't happen all of the time. I remember years ago after complaining about Ennis or someone like him (maybe Roy..?) that he seems to always lose the puck, and the response was that he may seem to lose the puck a lot but that's only because he's generating a lot of chances. Okay. Present day Kane could fit that description. But we have seen with out own eyes, recently, yes, that his instincts also swing the opposite way. His instincts helped make that tic-tac-toe-tic play happen. His instincts made that glorious Eichel 1-second-left goal happen. When I see stuff like that, and in Evander's case, being clearly maturity-challenged coming into the organization, but being a smart person who is, in my view, motivated to contribute positively to the team (and, by extension, his career), I see a guy whose "hockey sense" can evolve into something that utilizes his talent better. This isn't a case like Stafford, who seemed not very motivated in general, not quite as smart, and not quite as skilled, where those flashes were obvious anomalies. I believe Kane has more to give, and is willing to try and get there. Eichel makes similar "hockey sense" errors at times, yet it's said he's still "learning the game". I don't understand why Kane can't still be learning the game. Do we need to point out the elite players who make mistakes? I mean, you don't get Kane's production if he's always making "hockey sense" errors, yet, here he is, handicapped because of his hockey IQ. I believe, in the case of someone like Kane, there can be improvements to the mental game. I don't believe this would apply to everyone (like Stafford), but it can be true for some. I guess we'll see! I could be wrong.

I find your perspective perplexing, especially since, I assume, you teach adults. Do all adults stop developing skills at age 25? Also, we're talking about the NHL, where goalies aren't usually allowed on the ice until they're about 24 years old. I'm a better guitar player at 40 than I was at 25. I think I'm looking at accusing you of having an unreasonable bias here (and NO, not a color bias, for all of those knee-jerk dumb- out there). You seem more than ready to write Kane off, ostensibly due to his age, and no other factor(s). Yes/no?

What is it about Kane that makes you believe he can't or won't grow, mature, and/or evolve as a player?

There was another thread. Maybe that thread's OP deleted it?

Come on, we're more clever than this! How the REKing Crew. Or the JERKES.