LTS

Tonight did happen and it had nothing to do with the coach. Delusional Lindy would have had two minutes for beating the referee about the head with a stick ruining him forever. Seriously delusional.

I would have quoted many things in what I was just reading but I feel like I would have broken the software. So I'll post this. 1. The Kulikov hit is completely clean. They called charging. It's not even remotely charging. Kulikov was gliding. It wasn't a late hit (watch how many hits occur on the boards long after that). It wasn't a head shot, he hits his chest right near the collarbone. The ref BEHIND Kulikov called the penalty. Moreover, Voracek made the pass and continued right INTO Kulikov because he had his head down. That penalty is on the officiating and nothing else. Thus you don't get that very nice PP goal. 2nd goal on the officials. 2. That is textbook goaltender interference. Once the puck was loose in the crease two Flyers players DOVE into the crease. They were not assisted in anyway. Then Schenn is holding his arm on the goaltender. The 3rd goal is on the officating as well. If you take those two items into consideration you can note that the Sabres are once again screwed by the officiating. Complaining about the team without realizing that fact shows how completely delusional you are. I've seen people wanting to take a break from this team. I think I need to take a break from this place. I can't handle the insanity anymore. The complete lack of ANY rational thought. Good night.

The Sabres have played 3 of the top team in the NHL and beat one of them. They lost to Calgary in a game that probably should have gone to a shootout except for very poor officiating. Stop being so damned pessimistic and enjoy the ride. Unfortunately that option isn't happening this season...

I'm more along the lines of getting a signed notarized consent form that includes the creation of video that will be destroyed upon completion of the act and the signing of a final consent form that states at no point was consent revoked. The notary will be the videographer. This is just in case revocation occurs. granted I would stop, but I think we should escalate to that level of protection just to be safe. :) The things people do these days to mess with other people's lives is bordering on scary.

Certainly. I am not talking about any scenario where consent is revoked during the course of action. I would say it fits into your "regret sex" category. That said, it's not so much how often it occurs, it's the capacity for it to occur that was more my point. The simple fact is that consent can be revoked after the encounter and the problems that can be caused when it happens. My point was, because of that it almost feels like you get to the point where you have to have some level of signed documentation or irrefutable proof to avoid the possibility. Again, not that is happens often. Just that it can and if you are assigning risk to situations you have to account for the possibility.

They need to win. I'm in Philly this weekend for a hockey tournament and I'd like to wear some Sabres stuff to help the hockey fans there feel poorly about themselves.

Actually, given stories of how people recant their "consent" I think there is a concern by some that you might actually need some form of undeniable proof that you actually had consent before taking any action. It's certainly not trending in the other direction nor holding even. See above. When consent can be revoked after the fact it's hard to always know. I realize you clear this up later, but you do indeed stoke the fires of this conversation by claiming the second statement. And yet you said it... so you should expect the response and it is not totally false. I have introduced myself to people at conferences, could you imagine how strange that would be if I was slapped with a harassment lawsuit for saying hello? As a hockey coach I would have already remove the guy from my program. I make it clear that parental stupidity will negatively impact their child's enjoyment of the hockey season. It's hard to enjoy the season when your family isn't allowed at the rink (including the child). Insane that people would even tolerate that. I'll argue that point. Putting your butt in yoga pants is definitely going to call it out more than say sweatpants. This is a given. It is, to a certain degree, putting it on display. The reasons behind why anyone is wearing yoga pants is not relevant. I don't care. However, they do define body shape more than other pants. Now, that said, it still doesn't mean you should be staring at the woman wearing them let alone touching her butt or anything else. I don't think there's anything wrong with noticing her butt. In some ways, at times, I wish I could let a woman know that something actually looks good on her without it being construed as creepy. But, that's the way it is. So many women face insecurities over their appearances and so many who don't fit the preconceived notion of beautiful are beautiful in their own right. It would be nice to reinforce that to them without being accused of being a sexual miscreant. I'd encourage the people who have devolved into name calling and degrading commentary to delete their posts or tune them up. Civil, intelligent discussion should not be discouraged. Also.. I read this. I didn't know what a "credit or debit" was.... it's a sad state of the world that people even consider that kind of behavior acceptable in anything but some kind of sex club where it would be anticipated. It's beyond my comprehension to do something like that. Thanks for sharing it.

You are reading his comments incorrectly. That quote is a straight "Good, now do it better." coach technique. It's funny, last year, albeit near the end of November, we had a discussion on how bad the Sabres were. I remember going back and looking at how difficult the schedule was then. This year is the same thing. Look at who the Sabres have played. They have played Montreal - 4-0-1 - first place in the Eastern Conference Edmonton - 5-1-0 - first place in the Western Conference Vancouver - 4-1-1 - third place in the Western Conference Calgary - 1-4-1 - 13th in the Western Conference They beat Edmonton. The Calgary game was an officiating comedy routine. I have no paranoia about this team. They are missing two of their top 6. Time to relax and see how a few more games shake out.

No team on Earth has ever made the playoffs when they started the season 1-2-1. It's hopeless. You should probably just stop watching the Sabres now to save yourself the misery. Its not like they've played fewer games than the rest of the conference (save Columbus) and that should they win their next two and be even in games played they would be tied for 4th in the conference. C'mon man.

Forgive me for asking this if it was covered in one of the threads regarding the Kane situations. Was there video evidence of the events that happened? I seem to recall claims that in the Evander Kane scenario there were but at the same time it's not been leaked nor has it led to his conviction. The reason I ask is that if you take Eleven's experience and you expand on it just a little bit you can get to a pretty bad place quite quickly. So, let's try this. You graze her butt. Normal escalation occurs until someone realizes who you are (or they knew already) and then decides to get a group of friends to begin escalating even further and making greater claims. Why? Well, the criminal charges aside (they don't care) they will bring a personal lawsuit and hope to shake you down for money. Don't read into this as me saying that's what happened in the Kane situations. But honestly, given what Eleven outlined is it really a stretch to believe that could happen if he were someone a bit more famous? We live in a world where people make up all kinds of stupid crap (see: Lochte, Ryan). We live in a world where people fake injury, fake handicap, and set up stupid videos (America's Funnest Videos) in an attempt to get some benefit. Are we then really saying that in this one particular situation its unquestionable? We've seen far more serious accusations be proven to be untrue. In any situation the only thing I'd want is the truth. The truth doesn't play sides. Eleven - all I know is the situation you outlined sucks. It's going to eat at you. Don't let it. Talk more hockey.

I don't always agree with that sentiment given how much pucks get cycled when in the offensive zone. But I understand where you are coming from. In other news... Not entirely certain where to ask this question so here seems like a good enough place. Is there a site on the webs that lists the shifts NHL players take in a game? Not TOI, but the actual shifts themselves along with how long they are, etc. NHL.com has TOI for a game including PP time and SH time, but I'm hoping for more details.

The problem is that for some people around here the only topping they have is "ahh nuts" and anything less than walking on water is mediocre.

Well, in his defense, he's not a winger so every wing is his off wing right?

Ahh, I'll have to remember that young players aren't perfect. I wonder if that applies to the Sabres too.

Laughable response. Because I ask you to think about solutions it's nonsense? I suppose you are only good at pointing out problems then? Is your answer "We need a coach who does everything differently than Bylsma?" Let's bring those criticisms to this forum and have a discussion then. I'm not about to scour the forums looking for your comments now that we have a thread here. Happy to debate them I debated someone's comments the other day in the Calgary thread I believe. Responding primarily to the bold part since that was your response to me. I am going to watch more closely but I'm not positive the Sabres have the talent to carry the puck in the zone right now. Part of what the team is able to do is also based on what the other team is willing to open up for you. Right now the Sabres are having a hard enough time getting out of their own end. In order to open up the attacking blue line you have to be able to move the puck with speed out of your zone. Right now the Sabres defense is not good enough to do that. AS for my sentence not being true, that's really not a valid response. There is nothing FALSE about my statement. However, as I mentioned above, being the guy who just points out problems but has no answers doesn't add much value. I wish I had a top down view of the ice surface so I could review the systems in more detail. It would be nice. As for his decision making on personnel. I have no problem with it. It's a strategy that neither hurt nor helped the team. Let's specifically discuss the 3 on 3. Starting Gorges gives him the best chance to retain control of the puck should he lose the faceoff. If he wins the faceoff then the puck moves back to Ristolainen while Gorges changes for Okposo. The Flames have to account for this change and thus it makes the game a 2 v 2 with Ristolainen and ROR versus whomever Calgary wants out there. So, who do you want in a 2 on 2 situation besides Risto and ROR? You could argue a forward for Risto but I don't think there's a huge offensive upside there at least not one large enough to warrant the defensive ability he'd give up. The Sabres don't have the talent for 2 great PP lines. So Bylsma is loading up one and letting the other be a group that will be more controlled but also less likely to score. Grant is not proving himself to be a liablity. His additional ice time also comes from the PK work. However, the ice time has to balance somewhere. For every minute Grant is not on the ice there has to be some other player out there. If ROR is already out there too much who is taking over some of those minutes?

Go to bed now.. get up early! Go Sabres! I'm in for watching most of this tonight... maybe even all of it.

Babcock clearly can't coach team defense. :w00t:

No, he doesn't need to go. This insanity is fueled by the fact the Sabres didn't get Babcock and now everyone's all a tizzy. Just remember, when you recommend that the coach should go you should also have come up with a suitable replacement option. Who would it be?

Sorry, how does that work? A penalty is committed against a player and the player is still expected to play hockey properly? Why would it be a penalty then? Isn't the point of a penalty is to prevent players from taking action that otherwise prevent hockey from being played as it was intended by the rules? Gionta has great hand-eye coordination and is excellent at tipping shots. I didn't see a problem with it. It's a strategy. You could try and use Foligno there for a bigger body and to bang home a rebound. You could do a lot of things, using Gionta is one of them. He had back spasms. It's not like he slipped a disc. You've got people on here complaining that other forwards are on the ice and at the same time people complaining that the top players are on the ice too much. A coach has to put SOMEONE on the ice. That is what EVERY player is coached to do from youth hockey on up and that should be a penalty EVERY time. You can't blame a player because a referee blows a call. Toronto reviews all goals. So they reviewed it. Why it's a goal is another story. See above. Every player from youth hockey to the NHL is coaches to protect the puck by turning their back to the defender. Reinhart did exactly what he is supposed to do and he's not supposed to get cross-checked, boarded, etc. There are a multitude of penalties that could have been called there but none were. That's solely on the referee and no one else. I would argue that most players who are fighting along the boards are not sitting 3 feet out from the boards. Most do not get cross-checked to the point where they fall down. He was in a position waiting for Monahan to move to one side or the other and then he would spin. To do that you need to have your feet even or you are favoring a particular direction. So, if his right foot is forward Monahan would see that and attack Reinhart's left side as that was the side he was favoring. Reinhart was square and Monahan choose to attack Reinhart's back rather than his left or right side.

I'm going to start off by saying I believe we are on the same page. The problem I have with the eye analogy is that everyone's eye is not equal regardless of their intent. One person may not be able to see certain nuances that another does. Statistics is not the same way when regarding a set stat. For example, Corsi. Corsi is determined by applying set measurable parameters in a defined equation that produces a predictable outcome. In short, you build the model, plug in the values of the variables and the outcome is predictable. So anyone using Corsi would have the same number. If there was a way to use Corsi to predict an outcome that did not require additional variable parameters then everyone would end up in the same place. So, stats are part of the story not the story which is all I was trying to say. The original quote was that analytics = winning and that is absolutely not true. Analytics is a factor used in the equation of winning and accounts for some measure of the success. I think statistics are held to a higher standard because the hope is to prove them reliable. People's opinions will naturally vary but math is math and you are looking to find a model that provides predictable outcomes and provides value to the situation. If I need to price widgets I can use my own method each time and look at factors and come up with a price. However, if i have to do this often then I want a model I can use that will do the work for me on a repeated basis. I have to trust it and therefore it has to prove out under scrutiny. Anyway.. stats are important and there are statistics in this game that have yet to be uncovered and they will prove insightful. I don't think they will ever be the full answer.

Your eye analogy could use more explanation. The problem with any statistical analysis is that you have to be positive in the decision making process you use to create the stat and verify why it's important. Ergo, if analytics were the answer then, in theory, any fool could use them and be equally effective as anyone else right? If you can break it all down into a statistical equation then the output would never vary as sure as 2+2 = 4. That's my point... analytics are not the answer, they are part of the answer, but they are not THE answer. So, analytics do not equal winning. They increase the chances of winning but the models aren't there yet to predict winning. If they were, everyone would use them the same.

Only on talk like a pirate day.

If analytics were the answer then everyone would be using them the same. They may increase a chance of winning but they do not equal winning. I would suspect that's what he's getting at and it aligns with how most people think. The stats are helpful but they cannot tell the whole story.

Sweet. Fancy stats tell us that? I'm in. Go Sabres. There's never a time I don't want more hockey.

This got me to thinking. Montreal used the same forecheck against the Sabres. As near as I can tell they were going 2-1-2 on the forecheck and that's designed to either pressure slow defensemen or to keep well skating D from getting up the ice too quickly. I think it worked on Edmonton quite well. They want to be up tempo and if they are pushing their forwards up the ice too early the 2-1-2 should counter that fairly well as the D won't get the puck up the ice in time. In the case of Montreal they were all over our "slow" D. Franson, Nelson, Bogo, etc. Like saying a PeeWee team could beat you? Must be his smug chin.