mjd1001

Goaltending. Had the sabers got ten the gold tenny from 2 years ago Last year they would have been in the playoffs. If I have to pick something besides goaltending... Second would be no major injuries, and third would be luck. But after last year I can't say anything else other than goaltending.

Is there a way to search this forum and gather analytics... Which month... Or better yet, week of the year, over the past 20 years, has the most and least posts and replies?

I just no longer believe in labels like "first line" or "2c". I guess I can get behind a '4th line' for the role they may have and the fact they are getting the least ice time. But beyond that, in your top 9, you play where you play the best, with who you play the best with. If that means Benson (or anyone else) plays the best with Tage, that doesn't make him your 'best' winger and therefore he should get the label as the 1st line winger. Is he a top 9 guy? Is Tuch a top 9 guy? Is ANYONE not on the 4th line getting '4th line minutes' a a top 9 guy? Yep, most of these guys will. At that point its less about slotting them as "1st line, 2nd line, etc" and more about just seeing who plays the best with who in your top 9. As far as who gets the most ice time....current play and matchups can dictate that. Benson is, and should be, a 'top 9' forward on this team. Who he plays with and how many points he gets will determine his ice time, not where he is 'slotted' on a dept chart. Personally, I would expect mid-teens in goals, close to 40 points from him. 15-16 minutes per game, without much time on the PP or PK (yet). If he gets a minute or two more, or a minute or two less, it should be more about who he is playing with and HOW that LINE is currently playing. IF he ends up playing mostly with Tage and Kulich, AND that line is as good as it was in the last 1/4 of the season....AND they stick together for most of the year, he MAY end up with 60+ points and 17 minutes of ice time per game. IF he gets moved to a different line (with McLeod as his center), he may end up with a minute or two less ice time per game and only 30-40 points. That doesn't mean he was 'demoted' or had a worse year. Its about who you play best with and situations.

For the harder core fans, you are correct. For many of the casual fans, and kids who go to the games that might be bored of staring at the action on the ice, that stuff matters. Ideally you get both. Winning is MORE improtant, but the other stuff matters to many of the casual fans.

Mcdonald's. Other than last year stopping to get one of their ice cream sundaes, I hadn't been in a McDonald's for years until a few days ago. I was driving back from work and stopped at the McDonald's in Medina, New York. First of all, the bathroom was bordering on disgusting. Next, I don't know what kind of tile floors they have, but the floor had just been mopped and it was like walking on ice. Even when I got to a dry part of the floor, Even the tiniest residual moisture on the bottom of my shoes made it where I was about ready to fall and slide again. I looked at the breakfast menu, they have combo meals that cost almost $10. Really? Finally, I'm not a big coffee drinker but the graphic they have showing their coffees looked interesting so I tried one. Some sort of iced coffee...but it was very bitter, and they put caramel syrup in it where the syrup was dripping down the inside of the cup and the outside of the cup where it was sticky when I grabbed it. Then it said at the bottom of the cup and when I had some through the straw I was getting weird chunks of caramel.. it never fully mixed with the coffee. If this is representative of what McDonald's are like these days, I can't see why they are remotely doing as well as a company as they actually are.

Good shooters get to the good spots? Good shooters also are more ACCURATE from the good spots. Every point you make, there is an equal counterpoint to. And doesn't GF% take into consideration where the shots are taken from, regardless of whether the shooter is good or not? I think so. Xgf takes into account the defensive side of things...as does GF%. I'm not arguing that xgf is a terrible stat. I'm just saying it is just one peice of the puzzle, just like gf%. I tend to SLIGHTLY like gf% over xgf% when looked at over the course of a few seasons. But again, I'm not going to evaluate a player on gf% alone, xgf% alone....I think you need to look at them with context to each other...AND the other stats, and over a course of time WITH looking at their teammates comparison. The only major problem I have with xGF% is when people just throw it out there and use it as the best stat to judge a player. When someone says "They are good because they have a better xGF% than the next guy", I tend to think that only tells 10% of the story, or less. In the past we have had some posts were people supported their opinion of whether someone was good, or not good, based on xgf% and little else.

Actually, that is my point...why do I want to evaluate an individual player based on 'league average shooting percentage', when that player may be quite a bit higher or lower? Yeah, there may be 'noise' in actual goals, but to me at least it takes into account the difference BETWEEN the league average shooting percentage and that actual player I am evaluating. That 'noise' will, statistically, likely 'even out' when you look at the actual goal numbers over a long period of time. I get looking at a partial season, or a half season, may not be helpful, but if a guy is below 50 year after year, vs a guy above 50 year after year, the trend is your friend. Again, If Cozens is, for his career, a 10% or below shooter, and a guy like Tage is 15% or higher....XGF might be the same for both of them but in reality it vastly over-rates Cozens and under-rates Thompson.

Agreed. I actually prefer ACTUAL goals for/vs against, as it takes into account shooting percentage (from what I can tell, xGF% does not take individual shooting percentage, so it doesn't really take into account that a player like Tage is a 50% more accurate shooter than a guy like Cozens). Plus-minus is not a stat that can tell you everything about a player, I admit that, but it shouldn't be totally thrown away either. I think the key with the 'advanced stats' is to use them in combination with each other. A guy has a good xGF%? Well, what is the competition he faces, or is he on a line/paring with a guy who is a super accurate shooter or a terrible one? For me, you have to look at the advanced stats, all of them...if you see anything that stands out (good or bad), think to yourself...why? Is there something that accounts for this? Is this something that is a one time/one year thing or a long term thing. By using all the advanced stats in combination with each other, and asking 'why' when presenting them....you can get a somewhat more accurate guage of how good a player is rather than just using your single favorite one. Many people on here may know my favorite 'whipping boy' for Sabres problems over the years has been Cozens. And that isn't because of one or two stats. Its because many/most of his advanced stats are below average (not just one of them), AND they have been for years (even his really good year), and more often than now other players advanced stats are worse when they are playing with him and get better when they are with anyone else, AND simply watching him, the eye test backs all that up. Personally I usually use the eye test first, form an opinion of a player, and then see if the advanced stats/analytics back up that initial opinion. The only time I really work backwards (analytics first) is when the Sabres trade for someone/acquire someone that I haven't seen play all that much.

Addition by subtraction. To me its not simply taking someone away, but what you replace them with. With that said I have always thought that getting rid of Cozens fits the term 'addition by subtraction'...simply because without him at Center, The added minutes that McLeod, Krebs and Kulich got after he left served the team better than the minutes Cozens had. They 'helped' the team just about as much offensively, and they hurt the team a lot less. That is not to say Cozens doesn't have talent, but His 16-17 minutes per game going to 0 for the Sabres, and those other guys getting the extra minutes were a bonus. Basically, would I rather have Cozens getting 18 min per game, McLeod getting 12-14, Krebs getting 10, and Kulich not having a big role at all? -OR- Cozens getting zero (subtraction from the team), Mcleod getting his 16, Krebs getting 12, and Kulich getting 12-14? <--- I'll take this one. The productivity/score is just as good (last year maybe better with McLeods and Kulich's game toward the end of the season) and those guys, even Kulich as a rookie, make/made a LOT less costly mistakes than Cozens did in his minutes. I would expect that to accelerate this year with Norris getting any productivity. As for the rest of the guys, they didn't play enough of a role on the team for me to care about.

My point was: 1.) it wasn't a failed plan 5 years in a row. 2.) UPL has only had 2 seasons as a 'starter' (more than half the games) and in terms of being very good vs. very bad, hes at 50%. I'm not saying he is going to be good, but I'm not writing him off as 100% bad. His "good" year he was just as 'good' as he was 'bad' last season.

Maybe not, but that 'strategy' in goal was pretty successful just 2 seasons ago. It has not failed 5 years in a row. UPL had a great year, and, if I remember correctly, was the best or 2nd best goalie in the league in many/most metrics the 2nd half of the season.

But you know, the only way the Sabres goaltending gets better is if we talk about in every single chance we get.

Yep. The Sabres last year ourscored the Leafs through the season. Yet Toronto finished with 108 points to Buffalo's 79. And Toronto's D-men were Morgan Reilly (who had probably his worst season of his career), Oliver Ekman Larsson (who had his game fall off a cliff over the last 3 seasons comapred to early in his career), Chris Tanev (35 years old), Jake McCabe (31 years old, given up by both Buffalo and Chicago), Simon Benoit (undrafted 26 year old who was almost a -30 2 seasons ago), and Connor Timmins (yes, the new Sabre) as their most used 6 D-men. I would venture that the Sabres allowed more 'high danger' chances because of their Defensive lapses, but overall the Leafs even allowed more total shots on goal. Its the Sabres goaltending. If UPL is even half way back to where he was the 2nd half of 2023-24, they make the playoffs.

There is a very dangerous combination that happens to some people as they age: 1.) As one ages, some lose their 'mind' a bit quicker than others, I think Jones is not 'senile' by any stretch, but he seems to be going down that path a bit quicker than some. 2.) He is, and always has been arrogant. Put those 2 things together and you have a recipe for some REALLY bad decisions/really bad chances to run your company/team poorly. I think that is where Jones and the Cowboys are right now.

The difference with Quinn is that: -He stopped going to the net. In 2022-23 Quinn had a shot from the front of the net ('high danger' area) once ever 1.7 games played. In 2023-24 Quinn had a shot from in front of the net every once every 2.25 games played. Last year, he had a shot from in front of the net once every 7.4 games played. The 1.7 and the 2.25 numbers aren't stellar (Tuch gets one about ever 1.2 games, Kulich himself once ever 1.6 games played), But the drop-off with Quinn to once every 7.4 games basically makes him the most 'perimeter' scoring forward in the league. Something happened to Quinn. Mentally? Physically? I don't know, but his game turned in such a way that was greater than almost any other player I can remember in recent memory year-over-year without much of an explanation to justify it. I can see Kulich maybe having his game slide a bit due to adjustments. I cannot see happening to him what happened to Quinn last year simply because of the above.

I have long been an advocate for keeping him and Tage together on a line. If it doesn't work after a while, make the change, but at least start with it. Why? Their production last year: -Tage was one of the best even strength goal scorers in the league last year, with him on the ice without Kulich, the team scored a goal every 20.3 minutes (pretty good). -However, when Tage and Kulich were on the ice together, the team scored a goal every 12.6 minutes. (and only allowed a goal every 18.5 minutes) -For comparison: Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner paired together had the Leafs scoring once every 17.4 minutes. -Draisaitl and McDavid together had the Oilers score once every 13.1 minutes. This also was done with a pretty decent sample size. Over 350 minutes together on the ice even strength. (over 20 games played as primary linemates) Having Tage and Kulich start out together also doesn't have to come with added pressure. They don't have to be the "#1" line. You can position them as just "one of 3 lines" that get rolled out there. Again, I have mentioned it in other posts, the numbers were SO good last year and the eye test had them playing so well together, I at least want to give that pair a shot this year and see how it goes.

A few times. The new one has kinda the same 'vibe', just not as good. Not awful, just a step down imo from the original, a few too many cameos.

-Happy Gilmore. It was entertaining, but thats it to me. Not bad, but not good. Just a decnent way to kill an evening with a few laughs. -Fantastic Four. To me, good, but not great. I was really waiting to be surprised on some way, to have something that, I don't know...meant a lot to me in a way I didn't think (if that makes sense). It was executed pretty well, but one of the most predictable and least surprising movies I've seen in a while. And the actress who played the lead roll, scale back on the fake eyelashes....they were so bad that everytime they showed a closeup of her, I couldn't stop seeing them instead of anything else in the movie. -Superman. I though the plot of the movie was just OK, but there was one reason I really enjoyed it alot. They got the Superman character right. He's a nice guy, he wants to help everyone. No brooding superman, no doubting himself. no rolling his eyes. Just he's a superhero who cares for others and is a really nice guy and that is what I loved about it.

I would THINK about, and maybe try in preseason, a line of Doan-Kulich-Tage. I think Tage can carry the line offensively and him and Kulich were one of the most dangerous combos in the league when they were together last year. That leaves Benson-Norris-Tuch....and McLeod-Quinn Zucker. I think doing that gives you 3 lines to just roll out there in any order, and the 4th line is used situationally. Which line is the official '1st' line? I don't care. Whichever line is playing the best, or the one that gives you the best matchups on a given night, they get the most minutes, that can change night-to-night though.

I agree. Look at some of the key players on this team (the guys who are most important/get the most minutes) -Tage: 8 NHL seasons (all but 1 of them playing more than half the games), going into his 9th. 450 career games played. -Tuch: 9 NHL seasons (8 realistically not counting his brief appearance his first year), 536 games played. 66 additional playoff games, 4 playoff runs including deep to the cup finals. -Dahlin: 7 Full NHL seasons so far. 509 games played. In his 7 seasons, only 7 players in the entire NHL have more total ice time than him. International tournaments. -Zucker...14, maybe 15 year vet? 770 games played. 9 different (years) playoff appearances. -McLeod. 5 years (4 full seasons) going into his 6th. Most importantly with him is 4 years in the playoffs including a full run to the cup finals. -Byram has a cup run (and one he got a lot of top minutes in) Power is still young, but even he has already over 240 games played in his career, should pass 300 this season, and is 39th out of about 250 Dmen over the last 3 years in total minutes played. This isn't even considering other older 'veterans' who will play a lesser roll but have a lot of experience like Greenway, Danforth, Timmons, Malenstyn, even Lyons. That is less than most teams sure, but its not 'nothing'. There is more than enough there, in terms of age and experience, to generate a competent leadership core.

I really think he did well in those tournaments because they are less structured. You are playing against, and with, teams that have a total of a few weeks to get to know each other and implement systems. Not only that but in the NHL, the D-partners (and lines for that matter) you are playing against sometimes have years together, know what they are supposed to do and know what each other will do. If there is any advanced scouting of opposition in those tournaments, its a fraction of what the NHL does. In short, compared to the NHL game, those 'slap the team together' tournaments are more a form of pond hockey, throw the puck out there and play some hockey! (not quite, but compared to the structure of the NHL. Cozens is going to do better in an environment where you don't get punished for mistakes as much, where positioning isn't as important. Where when he has some major holes in his game advanced scouting isn't there to drill it into the opponents head how to exploit it. I think in an NHL where your teamates were different every year (like re-draft the teams every year), there was minimal scouting, and little to no training camp/practice....in a league like that Cozens very well might be one of the top 50 or at least 100 players in the entire league. But that is not the NHL....but it is a lot more like the World championship tournament.

Maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't change the fact that Austin had a shorter, but actually higher 'peak'. I'm not trying to diminish Hogan, the WWE would likely not have gained popularity without him. However, they were already gaining popularity by the time he came around (making the production more family friendly/moving to Saturday morning and saturday niight broadcasts, etc.) and they had plenty of other stars to market that were very popular (Savage, Andre the Giant, Jesse Ventura, Roddy Piper, Brett Hart, Ultimate Warrior, and others.) Hogan was the biggest star of the 80s, but the world of wrestling was going to grow with our without him, the question is simply 'how fast'?

I don't think their drafting, especially in the first round, has been awful. Yeah, they could have made some better picks, but that is true with anyone. Its not like year after year they have been picking a player who turns out to be a bust AND in the next guy or two there is someone THAT much better. And even if there was/is someone that turns out to be better, a lot of that might be just as much development once you draft them than the wrong pick. They Nylander pick was really the only first round pick that ended up being really bad compared to what else was out there.

Apologies to anyone who is a police officer if you are offended by this (My father, uncle, and cousin were/are all officers) but there is an HOA issue at my in-laws house in Florida. They have a pretty strict HOA. The board members walk around the neighborhood once per month, write a list of 'violations' and send them out (weeds visible on your front lawn, moss/mold on the roof, not cleaning spiderwebs off of lights on the house, etc.) Once you get a notice, you have a short period of time (until they do the next walk) and if you don't fix the issues, you are fined. Well, there is ONE person in the neighborbood who is a police officer, and apparently that person never has to correct anything. More weeds on the lawn than any other house in the neighborhood, and even broken roof tiles/shingles (they have those ceramic-looking rounded ones.) They give out a newsletter and at the end of the year that they stuff in your mailbox, they somehow note who in the neighborhood has received notices (yes, they do that as a way of shaming neighbors I guess...I have seen a copy of it), and the person who is the police officer, and of course the board members of the HOA never receive any warnings or fines.

I go back and forth on this. As a kid in the 1980s, I loved it. Early to mid 90's, totally stopped watching it and thought it was one of the worst things to watch. Late 90's and early 2000's, I was watching it every single Monday night and Thursday, almost without fail and probably my favorite thing to watch. Since then? I have turned in on 5-10 times in the past 5 years or so and Just can't get into it at all. I have gone from superfan to not caring, back to superfan and now find no appeal in it. BTW, I understand the appeal of Hulk Hogan and his longevity probably puts him over the top as the most popular, but I think SC Steve Austin, during his peak, was possibly as popular or more so than Hogan at his peak....at least in the arena. Hogan probably had more action figures and saturday morning cartoons that broadened his appeal, but being in the arena to see both of them wrestle, it was deafening when Austin came out, more so than Hogan...and people acted even more crazy when the 'glass shattering' happened compared to the first few notes of 'I am a real American'.