dudacek

What we were taught: Terry Pegula is a true fan who will spare no resources building a team that will compete for multiple cups. Hockey heaven has arrived. What we got: a decaying arena, a broken fanbase and (consistently) the worst team in hockey over the past decade What we were taught: bottoming out and loading up on picks would bring us the elite talent that will carry us to cup glory What we got: a nasty, skilled middle-pairing defenceman with some of hockey's worst fancystats, a 50-60 point RW, a franchise centre who has played like one for exactly one season, a soft entitled W who barely played and was quickly traded, and a whole bunch of nameless, faceless picks who made no significant impact What we were taught: a charming, beloved franchise superstar was back to lead the team to glory on and off the ice What we got: a mysterious apparent rage-quit a few months into the season What we were taught: we're handing the reins over to a no-nonsense super-scout who was going to acquire the talent to complete the tank and launch us into a decade of contention What we got: some entertaining press conferences, a ton of gunslinging trades that added up to nothing, and a loose-ship culture filled with unhappy people on and off the ice What we were taught: a proven, Stanley Cup winning coach is exactly what we need to harness our burgeoning pool of talent and slingshot us into contention What we got: a lot of stretch passes that turned into icings, boring hockey, and a dressing room in open rebellion What we were taught: We were getting an emerging franchise goalie, two top 6 power forwards and maybe the best 2C in hockey to fill in the gaps around our tank fruit. What we got: A whole bunch of guaranteed SO losses from a troubled soul with addiction problems; a 25-goal 40-point douche who embarrassed the franchise multiple times off the ice and was a bad influence on our kids; a real solid person who almost died in a bizarre breakdown, while providing 3rd-line play on a 1st-line contract; and a great hockey player better known for his lost love for the game, hatred for Tim Horton's and putting us on the wrong side of one of the worst trades of all time. What we were taught: we were getting one of the top emerging AGMs in the game, a multiple cup-winner and talented administrator who would bring order and stability and finish the rebuild "the right way." What we got: a glacially-slow plodder who built a flabby organization, and left obvious on-ice holes unaddressed while making terrible value judgements on hockey talent. What we were taught: we were tapping one of the bright young assistant coaches in the game, a guru of backline offence who would implement an exciting five-man attack. And he's a beloved alumni to boot. What we got: a limp-wristed leader with a system his players couldn't implement and no ability to adjust What we were taught: we've stolen a game-breaking sniper at a bargain price in trade What we got: the worst contract in hockey, and probably for another six years. What we were taught: we were essentially packaging two 1sts and two 2nds into three trades (with more hinted at) to transform our defence into a free-flowing, attacking group at the cutting edge of the modern era What we got: three defencemen who haven't been able to stay in the lineup and have averaged less than 20 points each per season What we were taught: the 2017-19 first rounds had brought us a pair of potential top-six centres who were in the conversation for best player outside the NHL in the year following their draft years, and a defenceman many considered the best blueline prospect since Denis Potvin, 50 years ago What we got: two wingers who can't stay in the lineup yet and have combined for 7 points this year, and a really good point man on the power play who has shown flashes of good and bad elsewhere. What we were taught: we were getting a fresh, out-of-the-box hire with special leadership and communication skills, who would fix the culture and be able to motivate the modern player What we got: a great talker who seems to be well-liked, who has completely neutered a lot of productive offensive players and shot himself in the foot with stubborn lineup decisions. What we were taught: we have a solution for our longstanding 2C woes, and have added an elite winger, the best talent on the free agent market; our top six will rival the best in the league. What we got: a pale shadow of a potential hall-of-fame centre and a winger who hasn't scored in 18 games; Our top six has combined for six ES goals the entire season. Maybe Kevyn Adams can change things. Forgive us if we doubt it. Every promise goes unfulfilled. It's exhausting being a Sabres fan. We are cursed. We are broken.

Here are two more I see frequently and don’t understand when they are juxtaposed. ”He’s still creating a ton of chances so he’s playing well” “He’s not really playing well, he’s just got a high shooting percentage.” The player who got 5 goals on 80 chances is not playing better offensively than the guy who got 10 goals on 40 chances over the same 20 game stretch. I get the arguments about sustainability etcetera but it is results that count.

Do we see radical shifts in analytics when players get a new coach and system? Ristolainen’s have improved under Ralph. Skinner’s counting stats have dropped off the map, but his analytics have not. Risto’s usage has been similar if slightly reduced, Jeff’s has changed significantly. And not the first time I’ve asked this question, but I’ll give it another try: When a player travels, do his analytics generally travel with him? Analytics Jimmy Vesey was a vastly different player in Buffalo than in New York.

Expected goals is a great one for this discussion. Great tool for looking at a player and confirming that he is “doing the right things” even if it’s not showing up on the scoresheet. Frequently mistakenly used on the internet as a synonym for “he’s playing well.” First and foremost, playing well doesn't just mean attempting the right things, it means actually executing them.

Agree with this. I think where I might be going with this thread is that analytics should be used the same way and they aren’t. (Ristolainen is the worst player in the NHL! Charts!)

This thread was partially inspired by a snarky comment I made on the game day thread yesterday about a shot that Skinner made off a rush that was two feet wide. I want to remove the snark and I don’t want this to be about Skinner, but I do want to use the example to start the discussion about stats based on shot attempts. I think the situation was largely one where the defender made an excellent play to neutralize what could have been a good scoring chance, by essentially forcing Jeff to take a low percentage shot. As a coach I’d give the defender a strong pat on the back for a good play and I’d be fine with Skinner’s play selection if disappointed with his execution. Shot attempt based analytics and high danger chance analytics give Jeff pluses on that play and the defender minuses. When Colin Miller, faced on the point with a charging Scot Laughton, winds up and blindly blasts a puck into his shin pads he gets a plus on the shot attempt clock. When Rasmus Dahlin, in the same situation, spins and throws a no-look pass to Okposo on the right boards he does not. Discuss.

Thought we had a thread for this but I couldn’t find it. I remember when +/- was in vogue as a player debate tool and I remember the campaign to discredit it. “How can we put any stock Into that stat when they give Sam Reinhart a plus on a goal when all he did was hop over the boards” ”Like Lazar deserved a minus there. That stupid pass was all on Montour.” ”Of course Risto’s going to be a minus, he gets the hardest ice time on a bad team” ”Poor McCabe is a -3 because Hutton couldn’t stop a beach ball” Basically, the argument - and it’s a sound one - is that there are way too many factors going on during a hockey game to ever use +/- as a definitive indicator of how “good” a player is. I know advanced stats are an attempt to address that, but I get the sense sometimes that a similar argument can be applied to most advanced statistics. I would like to discuss that here.

You’ve been calling it for months. Ive been praying we could avoid the chance to prove you right, but deep in my heart I knew this day would come. It is the Sabres after all.

He flubbed four zone exits and turned the puck over multiple times in his past few shifts. If the analytics show he’s tilting the ice the right way this period, I’m going to stop believing analytics. Im going to stop taking about him now. Picked the wrong period to really focus on his play. Sorry for poisoning the thread.

Oh look starts on the PP and immediately turns it over.

A missed shot, but that will look good on his Corsi

That was the same shift he flubbed a good pass from Mitts and turned the puck over on another exit and on a board battle? Skinner another flubbed exit.

My god, this is bad hockey.

Considering what Reinhart got a penalty for, he has a point

What a horrible shift from Skinner. Two blown exits, and he managed to be the last one up and the last one back on every rush.

Gotta say Bryson so far is sure looking like we what hoped we were getting with Montour. Such a great skater.

It hurts listening to RJ right now. He’s a legend because of his cadence would match and amplify the flow of the game so well, but he’s a hall-of-farmer because he was so dialed in to what was happening. That’s vanished entirely. All he’s got now is the sound of his voice.

This. He’s either been completely neutered by over coaching, or he is being obstinate to prove a point, because this is easily his worst period of the year. And he is dragging Sheahan and Mittelstadt down.

Holy cow has the broadcast been awful. Staal sets up a wide-open Cozens in the slot for the Sabres best chance for the period there and neither guy even mentioned it happened. A few minutes Earlier, Eakin throws himself in front of a puck on the PK to block a shot that was headed into the open net with Hutton down and out. We get Rayzor “that was a bit of a cluster.” Bryson takes a penalty be lifting Hayes stick to save another goal and we get “Hayes missed the open net” and “Bryson clipped him with a high stick.” Call what is happening, please. They are so disengaged.

John’s had an unhealthy chip on his shoulder on here, but he seems to be a pro at his job. He seems to strike the right balance between asking the tough questions but not being an ass about it. Harrington seems to have reined himself toward that line recently after a long stretch of being a dick, although my only exposure to his work these days is recognizing his voice in a presser.

Usage and deployment colour results, they don’t dictate them. And you and I both know that Jeff Skinner was not being force fed tough defensive minutes against the other team’s best players last year. Last time I checked goals for and against is the measurement for winning hockey games. If you can produce some arcane chart that “proves” no goals, three assists and -17 over 22 games was actually good, I think you’re missing the point of hockey. Putting all your stock into theoretical measurements while dismissing actual results is the epitome of ivory tower thinking. The emperor has no clothes.

These are both spot on, IMO. Don't underestimate Krueger's clout with ownership. Also, Kevyn Adams has no allegiance to Skinner.

And I think it's obvious there is power struggle going on between Ralph and Jeff. I'm just responding to the idea the consensus around here that Ralph caused the power struggle by jerking Jeff around for no reason by providing evidence that the reason (terrible production) predated the jerking. I'm fully on board with the idea the Krueger could have and should have handled the situation better. But I am frankly shocked that I seem to be one of the few upset with Jeff's play, which has been bad for a year now.

I wouldn't argue if Okposo was sat. I would argue that Ralph is giving him the benefit of the doubt because he played well last year and he is coming back from an injury. Just like he gave Jeff the benefit of the doubt and continued to play him a lot throughout the first two months of his enormous slump last year, and kept him in the lineup even after it continued. I mean, my god, 0/3/3/-17 in 22 games? Who does that and doesn't get benched?