BullBuchanan
-
Posts
56 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by BullBuchanan
-
-
1 minute ago, DarthEbriate said:
Trolling is fun, isn't it?
Malkin - Age 36 - 49 gp, 19-31-50 (linemates: Zucker - Rust); cap hit $6.1M (for a deal he signed 8 months ago, his previous more comparable cap hit was $9.5M)
Backstrom - Age 35 - 10 gp, 1-4-5 (mates: MoJo - Oshie); cap hit $9.2M
Tavares - Age 32 - 52 gp, 21-30-51 (mates: Jarnkrok - Nylander); cap hit $11M
Which of these players would you rather have than Cozens? (And Cozens will earn Selke votes starting very soon.)
not trolling at all, but ok. I figured a Cozens extension would be something like $3m per for 3-4 years. Until this season he's been an up and down bottom six guy. If I were to chart out all the #2 centers in the league I'm not sure he's in the top 2/3, let alone the $7M club.
-
15 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:
Im not really sure where you are coming from, but Horvat is overpaid by 3 mill and might never score more than 50 points in a season which is his average.
Cozens is looking like a 70-80 point player right now while carrying 2 rookies. Watch some more games first 🙂
Edit: really hope this is sarcasm xD
He's at 54 right now...
-
1 minute ago, Taro T said:
Elite & 2nd line seem contradictory terms.
Is he elite RIGHT NOW? No.
Is he a 2C right now? Yes.
Is he still crazy young with a great possibility of being a 1C? Yes.
The only disappointing part of this deal is that it isn't 8 years,
They aren't contradictory at all. You have guys like Malkin, bakstrom, Tavares that cozens is now in the same money realm as (exceeds both malkin and bakstrom). It just seems like an insane gamble to me. He would have to double his production from last year at a minimum and then hold that throughout the deal for it to be worth it.
4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:Dylan Cozens is currently projected to finish the season with 81games 28goals 43assists for 71points. All he would need to do is maintain his current rate of play, not improve, just maintain.
If he maintains for 7 years agreed. He's done it for 40 games out of a career so far. Players regress all the time after big one-off years.
-
1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:
Im not really sure where you are coming from, but Horvat is overpaid by 3 mill and might never score more than 50 points in a season which is his average.
Cozens is looking like a 70-80 point player right now while carrying 2 rookies. Watch some more games first 🙂
70-80 points!? He's at a career high with 43...What are you basing this on?
-
1
-
1
-
-
I'm really shocked everyone thinks this is a great deal. Why? The first thing I thought was that is was a gross overpayment by over double. I've always seen him as a Girgensons replacement and a 3rd liner. Now he's making Tage Thompson money. Are we really saying he's an elite 2nd line center now?
Horvat at 8.5 seems like a much better deal.-
1
-
2
-
1
-
7
-
8
-
-
What incentive does Levi have to actually come here? After this year he can go to any team in the league. We've been burned so many times on these NCAA kids already, you'd think we'd learn our lesson at some point.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, FanaticSense06 said:
So many excuses for a player we just signed to a 7 year extension for a lot of money...
TT shouldn't need everything to go right around him to be noticeable on the ice...
In 2 games he has zero points, his advanced stats are terrible and his body language is reminding me of Eichel...
I dunno what is up with him but he better get over it real quick because fans are going to jump down his throat.
It's two games. Complain in a month if it's still a problem. It would be extremely surprising if his point total didn't regress from last year, but I think he'll be fine.
-
2
-
-
18 hours ago, Thorny said:
Keeping Tuch on line 2 in an effort to balance out a top 6 doesn’t appear to be working. Thompson I think needs Tuch, and Mittelstadt leaves a lot to be desired as a 2C looking to centre a 2nd scoring line in compliment to line 1. We just don’t have the high end talent right now to balance the lines I don’t think, at least for now I’d return to a loaded up top line and hope the rest can capitalize under the shelter of a working first unit
They scored 2 and 3 goals plus 2 empty netters through 2 games. I think it's working fine.
-
1 hour ago, LabattBlue said:
Power has shown nothing nor have I seen much from Quinn. I hope DG isn’t gifting them a spot because of draft status.
I think Power looks great for 10 games of experience. He looks like a 5 year journeyman out there most of the time with the occasional offensive breakout. So much poise. I'm not sure what more you want to ask from a rookie on the 2nd pair.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Believer said:
Laughable going after Tkachuk after the game ended… We needed more clean aggressiveness during the game… Beat by an elite team…
Showed our youngsters how to play, get a lead, and finish for the win…
DG is a very good Development coach… Jury still out as a Game coach, imo…
You're acting like the Sabres have already arrived and should be beating teams loaded with proven veteran talent that have been in the cup hunt for years.
That's what the next 80 games are for. Hopefully we're where Colorado was 5 years ago by season's end. That's pretty much best case scenario.-
2
-
1
-
-
A quarter of the way through the season if the #3 team doesn't make the playoffs, that has to be a disappointment. I was thinking it was realistic for the sabres to fall back to earth early in this run. Instead they've just blown by everyone. It's been so long since they've had a game where they looked plain outmatched, that I don't think there's a team in the league they can't keep pace with this season.
The traditional powerhouses are all having down years, so it's a great time to have lightning in a bottle.
-
1
-
-
Black. The darker the roast, the better.
-
On 11/21/2018 at 1:01 PM, LTS said:
If analytics were as big back in the day... when do you think people would have predicted that Gretzky or Lemieux were never going to regress back to the mean? Some players set new norms. I know those are extremes, but the underlying point is that sometimes some factors come together that cause an outlier condition to occur.
So, while you say it absolutely WILL happen, that's not necessarily true. It is more that it's probable it will happen. However, there needs to be an allowance for what happens when certain factors combine and potentially break away from the statistical norm.
This is why arguing metrics is pointless. It's good for comparisons and projections but it does not predict the future. The shrinking of goaltender equipment could account for an increase in SH%. If it does, arguing the metrics from 3 years ago is pointless because the game has changed. Next year a change in the glove could increase SH%. Any of these factors will play into it.
Even the same player in the same situation will trend one way or another in relation to changes on the ice. So you can say it WILL happen and I think that's where people take umbrage. You say it as an absolute. It's not.
Lucky for you, that data is available. You know what's cool about them? They prove the point that players regress and rise to their mean. Kinda the opposite of what you were hoping for, so sorry about that.
https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.htmlhttps://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lemiema01.html
Gretzky's is especially beautiful, because you can see the impacts of age and experience in the data. He has 3 mean periods throughout his career. He starts his prime in only his second year, and then proceeds to carry much of that forward for the next 7 seven years. The one year he shot 14.9% during that span and hen rose right back up to his mean. After that stretch he begins a 6 year period where he enters the backside of his prime seeing all of his numbers shift a bit downward. at 31 he hits his cliff and begins his sharp but steady decline downward for the next 10 years until he retires. by the time these guys hit 26/27, their best years were already behind them. They each had good seasons afterward, but they were on a clear trend down. -
15 hours ago, LTS said:
Whatever scientific method you used to deduce my level of education was flawed. Enjoy your arrogance though. I am sure it will serve you well.
Just curious though, before I go...
If I there's a chance that I could experience a positive or negative variance over the course of my entire life, then how is it possible that I am invariably going to lose if I live long enough?
I don't want to assume that while you were filling your head with ways to put people down that you failed to study logic, but it would appear that you don't understand how it works.
Seems we have to go back to the ABCs of this. I don't know your education level, and I don't really care. You don't have to be educated to understand that if you're on the wrong side of probability that it cannot last forever. If you quit or die before a correction can take place it doesn't mean that it wouldn't have happened.
If you want to argue on the model being flawed, that's fine. It probably is, because hockey analytics are in their infancy. However to try to say that a player experiencing an extreme statistical outlier is not extremely likely to regress towards his mean, is beyond illogical. You can ask John Scott about his NHL All-star performance or any other one of hundreds of athletes over the last hundred years that had surreal seasons that they never ever came close to replicating again.
It's cool - you made up your mind before any evidence presented itself and today opinion is as good or better than facts. -
3 hours ago, LTS said:
First of all, "when calculated appropriately" is just a ridiculous political phrase to use. Is that also saying that when they don't accurately predict what happened the model was not calculated appropriately? Yes, of course it is. Of course in saying that we must also allow that when a model that usually predicts outcomes fails to predict an outcome that it should be altered. As such, no model is infallible. As such, it cannot be relied upon 100%. Data models predict probable outcomes. That's not predicting the future.
And for what it's worth.. if data could predict the future then why does it not? Don't you think we should be using that data to stop mass shootings and other atrocities?
All of that aside, what you did not address was my point that there are influences to the data points that are collected that can dramatically alter any historical context such that you must start over with defining what the new norm is. Such as, changes to goaltending equipment size.
Put another way, and to be completely stupid about it. Any model that predicts SH% would be useless if the NHL changed the net size to 7x5 tomorrow. You'd have to start over recalculating what the expected SH% would be and that would require data points so that you could run an analysis and get your norm plus your standard deviations and all that.
Sorry if being accurate is too "political" for you. In science, constraints and controls matter, so yes, when you calculate predictive outcomes you have to make sure you're taking all appropriate data into account so that you're just not seeing a correlation = causation scenario.
Re: predicting the future. Do you understand how math and probability works? I'm guessing not. Predictions are never 100% for a given scenario at a given time. That's not how math works. Probability states that over an extended or even infinite amount of time the algorithm will be true.Predicting the future happens all the time. How do you think doctors know what cancer treatments to provide, or how scientists will predict what path a hurricane will take, how a poker player determines the likelihood of a given play being successful? They use hard data and probability.
When you have a 0.0001% chance to win a lottery and you win it twice, does that make the math false? No, of course not, the math never changes. What you just experienced is called variance, commonly called luck. Could you experience positive variance or negative variance over the course of a career or even a life? Sure. The math doesn't care how old you are, it just cares what is true. Your positive variance is likely paid for by someone else's negative variance. You can beat a 95% percent terminal illness, lose an election you were favored by 80%, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme. If you bet against the odds, you are invariably going to lose if you live long enough.
Will goalie equipment affect the model? Of course. Will it change the game to a degree that a significant portion of the population will experience a disproportionate rise in their efficiency vs other equally or superior skilled opponents? Unlikely. They're all playing int he same scenario. It's effectively a control. Sure, some may benefit more than others, but it would be reasonable to assume that the majority of the population would be affected more or less equally with potential modifiers based on skill gap. Maybe Crosby benefits slightly more than Skinner, by virtue of already being better.
Don't try to preach about things you clearly don't even have the most rudimentary understanding of. -
3 hours ago, SwampD said:
Did this post actually say anything?
Apparently it's beyond your comprehension. Just ignore it, it'll be easier.
-
Haven't had this much fun watching hockey in a decade
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:
Not that we'd have any sort of context, but he strikes me as a guy you'd love to have in the playoffs because he will do all of the ugly things you need to do in those situations to win games.
Could be. Maybe we'll find out this year ?
-
I would not be in any sort of rush to extend him. A reasonable number ends at about 3.5M/per for me. He started off inconsistent, but has been very good lately. Long term, I think he's a guy you're always trying to replace and I doubt he sees the end of his contract in a Sabres sweater if they ink him for 5 or 6 years.
-
1 minute ago, Crusader1969 said:
after 5-6 years of being told how bad the idea of tanking was/is - it didn't seem like too much work at all.
We lost the tank, unless McDavid is hiding out somewhere in the locker room. Last years last place was one of the worst teams in NHL history trying their very best not to be. Dahlin was the reward for that. The Tank netted us Reinhart and Eichel, neither of which were able to pull the Sabres out of the basement until Skinner and Hutton got here. This team was fixed through FA, not the draft.
-
6 minutes ago, Crusader1969 said:
I realize this post was written at a really dark time but winning is now tainted because of the "Tank"? Do "anti tankers" still believe that the losing culture will "haunt" the team for years?
I'm probably coming across as a pompous jerk but there has to be a little bit of vindication for us "pro tankers" who took so much abuse over the years. Then again, maybe its way too early to be saying "told you so" as its only 20 games in to the season?
Jesus, how much effort did you put into resurrecting this?
-
15 minutes ago, LTS said:
If analytics were as big back in the day... when do you think people would have predicted that Gretzky or Lemieux were never going to regress back to the mean? Some players set new norms. I know those are extremes, but the underlying point is that sometimes some factors come together that cause an outlier condition to occur.
So, while you say it absolutely WILL happen, that's not necessarily true. It is more that it's probable it will happen. However, there needs to be an allowance for what happens when certain factors combine and potentially break away from the statistical norm.
This is why arguing metrics is pointless. It's good for comparisons and projections but it does not predict the future. The shrinking of goaltender equipment could account for an increase in SH%. If it does, arguing the metrics from 3 years ago is pointless because the game has changed. Next year a change in the glove could increase SH%. Any of these factors will play into it.
Even the same player in the same situation will trend one way or another in relation to changes on the ice. So you can say it WILL happen and I think that's where people take umbrage. You say it as an absolute. It's not.
When calculated appropriately, that's precisely what they do. What we're currently experiencing is variance, or deviation from the norm. This is also baked into advanced analytics in fields that aren't new to using them. Sports are still in the infant stages of using data to make predictions, so this isn't necessarily true in the hockey context, but it is globally.
You can argue the specific merits of a given metric and be completely valid, but to say data cannot predict the future is completely false. You usually can't predict what will happen next Tuesday, but you can accurately predict long-term results provided enough insights. -
4 minutes ago, I Remember Imlach said:
I'm just curious as someone who attended the first Sabre home game in '70 (we lost to Montreal): how many posters here in the Aud Club remember going to a game in the Aud?
I remember going to the Aud as a kid, but don't remember the game. Probably around '94. We were sitting a couple rows from the top, and I remember being terrified of that near vertical climb.
-
8 minutes ago, SwampD said:
He absolutely will. Unless you can tell me it will be next week or two years from now, it's irrelevant.
I can tell you it definitely won't extend past the season, which also happens to be when his contract is up.
2 minutes ago, dudacek said:90-plus point pace, leading a resilient top-5 team isn’t good enough?
No.
Cozens Contract Extension Announced, 7 years 7.1 Million AAV
in The Aud Club
Posted
The difference is Horvat has a body of work. Cozens is having a career year on the #1 scoring offense in the league while previously looking like a bit of a disappointment based his draft stock. I REALLY hope this proves to be a great contract, I'm just super skeptical that all of these kids just suddenly became elite level players overnight and that they'll be able to hold it.