Marvin
-
Posts
5,067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Marvin
-
-
1 hour ago, PerreaultForever said:
only because they were playing against other team's 4th liners.
This is so demonstrably false that I have to ask if you are like my wife, who never misses a second of action, but almost never watches the games critically. We had this discussion in early November, so we watched games in analysis mode until the All-Star Break so that she could see what I did.
To disabuse you of your perception, I recommend that you start with the player on-ice charts which are available for each game of the season at nhl.com. Aggregates can be found at numerous raw and fancy stats sites.
9 minutes ago, dudacek said:If the other things were consistently trotting their 4th liners out their for all those O-Zone faceoffs against our 4th line, then other coaches are even dumber than Housley.
Thank you.
-
1
-
-
Oh, heck. My point of logging in.
I like the signing. Of course, anything that makes it more likely that Vladimir Putin^H^H^H^H^H Sobotka is not in the line-up was going to make me happy.
Try this line-up out:
Skinner-Eichel-Vesey
Rodrigues-Mittlestadt-Reinhart
Olofsson-Johansson-Asplund
Girgensons-Larsson-Okposo
Ruotsalainen-Smith-Nylander
I protected Mittlestadt with a pair of 2-way players who can also play some Centre. I put a couple of young guys with Johansson to learn and allow both wingers to transition to Centre. I think the Eichel line will have great chemistry. I kept the 4th line together. I demoted Sheary based upon his play at the end of the season. The idea is to get 4 functioning lines and to clear out dead weight.
I suddenly feel badly for Housley.
-
Should we create a fancy stats reference thread? It should have the stat name and a reference to click on. (Among other things, it would have made @pi2000's TRpm easier to find.) IMHO, nothing more should be required of the poster: we are all "extra effort" fans; let us learn together what these stats are and develop our own evaluation of their quality. We can even nominate what we think are the really good stats for an official @Randall Flagg seal of approval.
If I were the first person to use a stat, I personally would take my initial use and work through it for people to follow what it is. It's the Math Professor in me. (Sorry, no Math Ginger or Math Mary Ann.)
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, pi2000 said:
Can you define adjusted plus minus?
TRpm's...
Reinhart +5
Eichel +4
Dahlin +3
Larsson +2
Girgensons -2
You mentioned shooting percentage... Do you know their high danger shooting%? I'm curious because, yes they work hard, but my eyes tell me they see quite a few high danger chances but rarely convert... missing the net entirely on a many shots in tight. I'd like to see what % of their attempts hit the net vs other 4th liners around the league.
Adjusted +/- = player's +/- minus team average +/-. I used the estimate of the aggregate +/- of -259 and divided it by 18 skaters per game to get an estimate of -14. That makes Reinhart +4, Eichel +3, Larsson +6, Girgensons +3, and Dahlin +1. I start from here.
You and I have everyone hovering around 0, so we seem to be talking the same language family, albeit maybe not the same language and certainly not the same dialect. As such, I suspect that TRpm is probably a solid overall measure of 2-way play.
I should mention that I agree with you that Larsson and Girgensons don't cash in enough on glorious chances. They are pretty typical, but definitely a bit more frustrating than the rest of the Mike Ryans and Jiri Novotnys of the league. But I see enough of other 3rd and 4th liners to say that they do more than well enough. IMHO, If Okposo is with them all year, I can see the line hitting 30 ES goals, even with 80+% DZS.
I found that the zone face-off stat is a decent, but non-linear proxy for zone starts. The biggest thing that these 5 have that is much tougher than the rest of the team is that the other lines were often terrible. The must get the puck from the opposition, clear the zone, get to the offensive zone, and have possession there. The 4th line usually has to deal with the top line of the opposition while the top line has to deal with the best checkers and top D pair.
The hardest part is determining their defencive worth concretely. I have a calculation where I measured the opposition players' seconds between goal against the defenders versus their norms and then correcting for zone starts, game situations, etc. Girgensons-Larsson-Okposo very well here.
The one thing you probably won't like is that I adjust for go-ahead and tying goals more heavily (depending on game situation, up to 10%) and I slightly devalue empty-netters. This gives a huge extra plus for the protectors of the lead and those who tie or win games late. There are other weights to game situations that I won't trouble you with. I also like using a lot of different measure to tease out the nuances of a player's effectiveness.
Oh, I should mention that, like math contests, chess tournament analyses, and music structure, I do this for fun and have put an inordinate amount of thought and time into it since I first saw the column, "For Arguments' Sake" in _The Hockey News_ back in the 1980s.
-
Among other things, I have been using adjust plus-minus since 1989 as a start for analysing skaters. I have been doing adjustments to its output with zone starts, game situation, situational quality of opponents and teammates, crucial situations, and the like. I used this along with some operations research and what we now call predictive analytics to derive raw statistics and adjustments based on my initial data mining and revision in 1992. These are easily quantifiable and have rigourous definitions that allow us to verify their accuracy. I did this enough from 1992-2002 that I largely trust the typical numbers.
Example: in 2001, the Buffalo Sabres were the only non-Cup winner to correlate strongly positively against every statistic that is predictive of a Cup winner for collection of statistically similar years over the entire history of the franchise. However, in each era, they had a glaring defect that would correlate to being a disappointment. (1970's - goaltending; early 1990's - injuries; late 1990's - scoring balance.)
As you noted, from a raw statistical perspective, Dahlin,Girgensons, Larsson, Eichel, and Reinhart all had raw adjusted plus-minus in the neighbourhood of 0. In theory, if we had exchanged their total ice time with better raw performers, such as Bogosian, Pominville, and Elie, the team would have improved. (I am looking at the raw stats. This is 100% accurate.)
The problem is that these 5 players were used to perform one of the highest leverage, highest difficulty tasks: flipping the ice at even strength; i.e., getting the puck away from the opposition in the defencive zone and transitioning to have possession in the offensive zone. After we adjust for this factor, all 5 player shoot from about team-average raw to about 0.5 to 1.0 standard deviations above average adjusted. (As a contrast, Skinner starts at the top and these guys close the gap a LOT.) Hands down, they also tended to face the toughest opposition because Housley rightly did not trust the middle 6. (Of course, he was the lunatic who gave hours of ice time to Vladimir Sobotka.) This is balanced out by their quality of teammate for this task.
As such, I am quite confident in the usage adjustments and my evaluations of them as maybe the best 4th-liners in the NHL.
Aside: because of my background, I strongly disagree that only measurements based upon or derived from adjusted plus-minus mean anything. Other numbers can be and are both well-defined (in a mathematical sense) and properly posed; they then make a very good raw stat like adjusted plus-minus even better for both past analysis and future performance. These kinds of adjustments are used all the time in situations of controlled chaos; they allow the number cruncher to be able to perform useful analyses and make statistically accurate predictions.
-
2 minutes ago, pi2000 said:
They don't deserve roster spots just because they can get the puck out of our zone. That's setting the bar way way way too low. You need players who can play a 200ft game and chip in offensively. Girgensons and Larsson simply lack the skill required to be an effective contributor on an NHL roster. Package them together with picks or prospects or whatever and upgrade those bottom 6 positions.... It's not rocket science.
Would they have that low scoring if they didn't have 85% DZS? Let's see what others in this exact role with other teams have:
Here is the complete list of people who scored more than Zemgus or Larry in this role with comparable defence:
- Marcel Kruger (Chi 2013-4 [8 + 19 = 27, 79.1% DZS])
- Brandon Sutter (Van 2017-8 [11 + 11 = 22, 77.4% DZS])
- Manny Malhotra (Van 2010-1 [7 + 15 = 22, 75.7% DZS])
- Maxim Lapierre (Van 2011-2 [9 + 10 = 19, 77.7% DZS])
- Zemgus Girgensons (Buf 2018-9 [5 + 14 = 19, 84.9% DZS])
- Manny Malhotra (Van 2011-2 [7 + 11 = 18, 87.1% DZS])
- Marcus Kruger (Chi 2014-5 [6 + 10 = 16, 75.9% DZS])
- Matt Cullen (Pit 2018-9 [5 + 11 = 16, 80.7% DZS])
- Scottie Upshall (StL 2016-7 [7 + 8 = 15, 76.7% DZS])
- Boyd Gordon (Edm 2013-4 [6 + 9 = 15, 80.4% DZS])
- Dominic Moore (NYR 2013-4 [5 + 10 = 15, 75.5% DZS])
- Matt Hendricks (Edm 2013-4 [7 + 7 = 14, 76.0% DZS])
- Brandon Bollig (Chi 2013-4 [7 + 7 = 14, 81.8% DZS])
- Brian Boyle (NYR 2013-4 [5 + 9 = 14, 77.0% DZS])
- Paul Gaustad (Nsh 2014-5 [4 + 10 = 14, 88.3% DZS])
- Johan Larsson (Buf 2018-9 [5 + 8 = 13, 84.4% DZS])
I have arranged the players in decreasing order of points to maximally be unfair to Zemgus and Larry. Almost all of the top scorers were from playoff teams; the only exceptions are Matt Hendricks and Boyd Gordon in 2013-4 for Edmonton and Brandon Sutter for Vancouver in 2017-8. Most of these guys are no longer in the NHL. Only two editions of Paul Gaustad and one of Manny Malhotra had a higher DZS percentage than Zemgus and Larry. NONE of them had better Corsi or Fenwick, raw or relative.
Now, I am sure there are better scoring 4th liners, and I do wish they could score more. But how many of their peers are even in this ballpark of defencive zone play? The total number of players in this ballpark from 2007-present (12 seasons) is 37. That is not a typo - thirty-seven. You need guys like this to kill penalties, turn momentum, finish checks, and defend leads.
Conclusion: based on these numbers and numerous other metrics (like, how horrible Sobotka, Thompson, and Mittlestadt were for much of the year), Zemgus and Larry may be the best 4th liners in the NHL. Indeed, if I were GM and they asked me for 5 years @ $2M AAV, I would give them a contract so fast it would make your head spin.
-
3
-
A debate about the sabres #2C potentially not being up to the task and the GM does not seem to have a back-up plan? Let me check my command history.
$ cd /opt/sabres/
$ vim sabres_centre_debates.2009
:%s/Owner B. Thomas Golisano/Owner Terry and Kim Pegula/g
:1
:%s/GM Darcy Regier/GM Jason Botterill/g
:1
:%s/2C 19 Tim Connolly/2C 37 Casey Mittlestadt/g
:wq
$ diff -w sabres_centre_debates.2009 sabres_centre_debates.2019
$
-
1 minute ago, apuszczalowski said:
When do we stop building for the future and start building for now? Are 4 20+ picks really worth saving for players who will probably never be as good as Marner? At some point they need to make moves to make the team better now. They have enough youth right now, and it's not like they are going to get older by brining in a player like Marner, they will still be a very young team.
If we were going to be picking 20+, I would agree with you. I think "20+" has an extra digit for where I think we pick even with Marner. Not a #1/2 Centre => Not right now. Point, on the other hand, would be perfect.
-
How was the team chemistry last year? I am wondering if there are any patterns to the acquisitions to try and get over the 1st round hump.
-
33 minutes ago, pi2000 said:
Good thing they keep hanging on to guys like Zemgus and Larry while launching the Kane's and O'Reilly's.
There's a saying in Tennessee....
First, please explain your last sentence because I have no idea what you are talking about. (If it helps you any, my college experience is like the early episodes of "The Big Bang Theory". So everyone else might get it, but I sure as heck don't.)
Kane and O'Reilly are already gone. Maybe they should have been kept instead of Zemgus and Larry, but it's too late now. The question should be what should be done with Zemgus and Larry.
You correctly perceive that the Sabres became worse because of the Kane trade and especially the O'Reilly trade. (Aside: I would argue that moving Kane was better for the long-run, but we are years away from testing that hypothesis. Obviously, the fleecing from the O'Reilly trade pissed virtually all of us off.) However, I think that not holding on to Zemgus and Larry just compounds the offence. I don't see anyone (and I mean anyone) available in FA for their cost who could do their jobs half as well as they do. Like it or not, if you don't hold on to them now, we only know of 1 line capable of clearing the zone on the roster. And if you let these guys go, you look like you are guaranteeing spots to two of Remi Elie, Tage Thompson, and Vladimir Sobotka.
Please explain to me why this is better.
-
50 minutes ago, Thorny said:
If Botterill doesn't have a 2c going into his third season and we miss the playoffs, he needs to be fired. Like 100%
Like Commissioner James Gordon in the 1967 Batman movie, I have a thought so terrible that I daren't give it utterance. Even worse than Mittlestadt and Turris.
"Holy nightmare!"
-
I have to ask -- did anyone questioning why Girgensons and Larsson were good for the team last year actually watch the games? Besides Skinner-Eichel-Reinhart, Girgensons-Larsson-Berglund/Rodrigues/Okposo was the only other line that could get out of the D-Zone with anything that vaguely approached regularity.
Last year, Zemgus and Larry had 84.7% and 84.4% DZS respectively. The number of times a player has had a less favourable split since the lockout is 3 - #1 and 2 are Paul Gaustad in Nashville; #3 was Manny Malhotra in Vancouver. They were on every PK and had no PP time except when changing at the end of the 2nd shift. Moreover, they drove the top lines in the league bonkers. They were tenacious checkers and hit well. They were always out there when the Sabres were trying to protect a lead. What more do you want out of your 4th line?
-
4
-
-
14 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:
Since he will be an UFA we should get his best effort for this year and if it's another crap year we can ditch him at the deadline for a pick (probably a low one). Honestly, who cares.
As we had 2 lines worse than his all last year, I need to see the Sabres have 4 functioning lines before I get this nonchalant about Zemgus. (And Larry, for that matter.) Besides, his presence is a roster spot that does not go to Sobotka.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Dzingel and Bjugstad are the only 2 I think are reasonable ideas from the outside. Boyle could work if we just need a competent NHL-level presence. Either that or we try something like
Skinner-Mittlestadt-Reinhart
Olofsson-Eichel-Vesey
Sheary-Asplund-Rodrigues
Girgensons-Larsson-Okposo
Wilson-Smith-Nylander
Elie-Sobotka-Thompson
I think this is 4 competent NHL lines that can makes the playoffs if the can stay healthy, but the margin is slim.
-
On 7/3/2019 at 7:19 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:
He rode a Blazing Saddle...,
A man to light the way -- with advanced stats.
-
57 minutes ago, Tondas said:
Go back to Royal Blue unis with white skates!
Please, God, no white skates. Have a look at the 1974-5 Crapitals and the 1972-3 Meals. Just ghastly.
-
10 hours ago, sweetlou said:
back to the topic at hand, and who fills the #2 center position.
I believe Buffalo will give Okposo one more year and try and play him with Jack and Skinner. He protects the puck well and is good in the corners.
I liked Okposo with Larsson and Girgensons. They drove Pastrnak-Bergeron-Marchand nuts in Boston. If they do that kind of work against the top line in the game on the road, I can live with their low scoring numbers in the 80% DZS. JMO.
-
2 hours ago, darksabre said:
That's the big question mark in all this. There are schools of thought that say Risto is better than all these charts and graphs indicate. And there are GMs out there that probably abide by that school of thought.
I call the mentality of, "yeah, but I can turn __________ around" the "Mighty Mouse Syndrome" -- "Here I come to save the day!" The narcissistic egomania you need to be a coach makes this thought process ubiquitous.
-
Thanks for the points of view. As you both said, we don't see things the same way and don't have the same perception of what was correct for JBot to do.
I see that we are getting on @spndnchz's nerves, so I will just say it was a nice discussion and that you both gave me some extra food for thought.
-
3 hours ago, spndnchz said:
Many words?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LTS said:
Love your arguments, I honestly do. There is a ton of thought put into them and they are laid out very well.
Through all of your writings, you appear to presume that Botterill is being held to the standard of win now. I think that's the primary failing. I don't believe the plan is or ever was, win now. I believe the plan is, build the team for sustained playoff appearances. As such, the same reasons you provide for Botterill being a poor manager could also be used to provide support for him complying with the plan.
On pure execution, Botterill did not secure the appropriate roster resources to provide better success, even within the framework of long term, sustained success. However, it does not mean he did not attempt to make other trades that simply did not pan out.
Thank you very much. And thank you for your civility and thoughtfulness.
I don't believe that Pegula required Botterill to "win now" last year. However, I believe that when the team proved that they could play with anyone and then had a 10 game regulation unbeaten streak, then he should have reset his expectations and adapt. I firmly believe that he owed it to the players, the coach, the fans, and the rest of the franchise to do so. Among other things, it makes the players more likely to do that little extra in practises to improve and grow, make them more committed in games to digging a little deeper, and instills more confidence in them. That makes for 3 obvious options:
1. A late 1st for a decent centre to allow the youngsters to experience positive re-enforcement seems obvious to me. That was the price put on Eric Staal, among others.
2. Reshuffling who was in the NHL to get 4 lines working where none of them get caved in every single time they hit the ice.
3. Trades on the order of a 7th for Tsyplakov to get to 4 passable lines.
In any event, that press conference where he undermined his dressing room by saying that their good play was a mirage was a BAD, BAD, BAD idea.
2 hours ago, LTS said:The bottom line through all of this is whether or not you will accept the possibility that there are unknown factors (unknown to the public) that are dictating what might appear to head scratching results. Ultimately, it then boils down to, do you believe Jason Botterill is competent at his job or not. If you accept the possibility that there are influencing factors that might be leading to some of the head scratching decisions, then you don't necessarily presume he is a poor manager or incompetent. You simply do not know.
This is where I am at. I allow for the possibility that there are some influences that come from above and some longer term goals (regardless of fan angst) that can lead to a reasonable level of support for the seemingly head scratching decisions.
It is not unprecedented that a person would make decisions that appear extremely ignorant to those outside of the situation.
Personally, I was fired from a VP position, because I refused to continue to play along with the directives of the CEO and finally questioned him. Similarly, I was told yesterday that I needed to move something forward that, in my opinion, was an incredibly stupid thing to do. However, given that the decision likely came from an SVP who would not take kindly to me calling it incredibly stupid, I moved it forward. Why? Because I need to remain employed at the moment. This, coupled with other things, may lead me to seek alternate employment, but that's not always accomplished overnight. Now, that might be an isolated incident. I've already been questioned as to why I put this item forward and I have to toe the line. It makes me appear like an idiot. I don't like it. However, I do enjoy receiving a paycheck.
...
Final caveat: I think that the ultimatum is out now. Pegula has said that it's time to start winning. I actually believe that was the public statement that removes Pegula from the situation and puts it all on Botterill and his coaching staff. There are a few remnants from prior management, but indications are that they are likely to be moved out. So, the clock might be ticking now on Botterill and that he will need to show remarkable improvement this season, although I don't think he's fired this season. I think that remains a 2020-2021 decision.
I have been in very bad management situations. I can fully empathise with what you are saying. I also assume that a lot of things happen for reasons that are not immediately apparent. In particular, I think that the Pegulas are less knowledgeable, less sophisticated, and more, um, naively enthusiastic than virtually everyone who has ever posted on this site with hockey strategy, tactics, and management. Thus, I think JBot's job is harder than it should be.
My problem with JBot is that his messages, which I like, are often contradicted by his actions.
First, where his message jives with his actions: he clearly has emphasised improving from the ground up and is executing that plan fairly well. I need to see if he changes the mix of player types, skills, etc. to adapt to what he has seen in two years. So far, his drafting and signings of non-NHL players has been very good.
However...
A meritocracy requires discipline and making tough decisions. That means that even people you like have to be canned, demoted, etc. if they are either a performance problem (Sobotka, Thompson) or an attitude problem (Sobotka again) because they make your team worse. By midseason, he and Housley had to face facts and replace Thompson and Sobotka with competent NHLers, even if it necessitates a revolving door from Rochester to try people out. I can't think of even a plausible-if-bad reason for them to have been on the team past 1/1/2019.
The results? Keeping clearly incompetent players on the big club undermines any "culture change" JBot et al. are purporting to make. This was the second year that JBot made it impossible for Housley to ice 4 competent NHL lines, even by accident. This makes any long-term positive goal harder to achieve or at least delays it because he sent a message to the core players that it is OK to waste a substantial part of their careers.
If you want to pin the terrible roster completely on Housley, that's fine. I just think that's impossible. He scratched Tage Thompson a lot early in the season. I don't know how much more loudly Housley could have said, "Tage isn't ready, Jason," without going public. And if you think that Housley was OK with only two lines that could clear the zone, that's fine, but I don't know of a coach who doesn't belong at 400 Forest who wants to set himself up to lose. And if Housley needed to go to Arkham, then replace him with someone who went through The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether
3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:Thanks for the drawn out reply. I respectfully disagree with the overall assessment, but I’m just going to focus on a few points:
You are welcome. And thank you for your civility and thoughtful answers.
3 hours ago, triumph_communes said:1). There are many interviews where Botterill has stated that his relationship with the coach is to suggest players for the main squad, but he has repeatedly said final decision on which league a player is in is on the coach. Yes, the GM obviously has the power to trump this line if needed, but Botterill lets the coach have reign. This is the sort of leash that helps him attract guys like Krueger in the future— most coaches have a bit of an ego and don’t want to fight their GM. Look at Toronto this off season and all that messy noise..
2) Thompson was never meant as some 1 for 1 replacement for ROR. At most he was a half replacement, in the future. That’s some incredible pressure to put on the kid. His role is to be a large body finisher on a team that has plenty of playmakers. This team needs RWs and unfortunately he didn’t develop right away and that’s why we ended up with Vesey as a stop gap for the upcoming season.
3) On the trade deadline Botterill made it clear- the team was in no position to hedge the future just to make the playoffs last season (with a coach he already gave up on). He also didn’t sell everything for spare parts either. Montour was the perfect balance there and was a great trade. Again though, if you think he failed at acquiring a 2C mid season, I will reiterate that statistically the team was getting very lucky bounces and was bound to regress to a mean unless Housley changed something (and he didn’t). Also, you don’t often see trades mid season for 2Cs like that. The better deals were this offseason that he is yet to make.
4) The Montour trade was as much positive endorsement the GM could realistically give on a team that was already playing with no heart. I believe they gave up on the coach who couldn’t figure out how to teach his system to the players on the team who were struggling to learn it. Housley’s failures appear to be on communication more than anything.
1. I will take your word for it. I have interpreted his exact same words differently.
2. If JBot did not want us to think of Thompson as an ROR replacement, then he played his hand almost as badly as possible. Having him in Buffalo all year undermined his development and put him into an impossible situation. Then, when it was immediately obvious that he did not belong, forcing him to stay up here just exacerbated the situation.
I should be clear here: I want Thompson to succeed. I believe that the way JBot has handled him could screw him up the way Zemgus, Larry, Risto, et al. were undermined by the tank and by being in the NHL too soon. And if this keeps up, he won't even end up being that good.
3-4. As I said above, the very least he could have done was got to Skinner-Eichel-Reinhart followed by a trio of 4th lines who would be no worse than 45-55 zone time. A #2C from a bottom-feeder was preferable, mind you, but this variation does not mortgage the future for the benefit of the present. In the 1999-2000 season, the spiral was arrested after Darcy traded a 7th for Vladimir Tsyplakov. The team was noticeably better the second he hit the ice -- particularly Mike Peca.
From my angle, you appear to put 100% of the blame last year on Housley. I can't do that. Because of the experience I have as in management and my analyses of the team, I believe Botterill should take a majority of the blame.
ASIDE: How obvious was it that Sobotka was bad? Have a look at these. They are why I am impatient to get rid of him.
@Randall Flagg Please teach me how to be as erudite as you are.
-
30 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:
I work under the premise that Krueger was Botterill’s coaching target all along, and the only reason we didn’t get him instead of Housley originally is because he refused to abandon Southampton until his stint was naturally over. Botterill was operating under a premise that if Housley couldn’t motivate the boys then he was gone
FYI: I believe Krueger was contractually obligated to stay in Southampton.
I think there is strong evidence for this as well.
31 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:I also take Botterill’s words at face value that he has repeatedly stated that all roster decisions were the coach’s final decision to make. And that it was Housley, not Botterill’s doing that Sobotka had the time on the ice last year he did. Remember, even then Sobotka was eventually scratched in the end of last season beyond the injuries sustained
Several things:
The final roster, who belongs in the NHL and who does not, is in the hands of the GM. The game-to-game roster is in the hands of the coach. They should communicate, but that is the traditional division of labour and I see no reason to believe Botterill and Housley were any different.
When the GM has incontrovertible proof that a player is underperforming or undermining the team, it is his job to move said player off the team, whether it be to the minors or the KHL. And if Housley overplays Sobotka, it is Botterill's job to get him out of the locker room. Period. I view Sobotka's mere presence in the media guide at the start of training camp as rank incompetence, no if's, and's, or but's. If Tage Thompson is the only person in the league whose analytics are in the same neighbourhood as Sobotka's, it is Botterill's job to send him down immediately.
Even when people were reporting that Sobotka was terrible in training camp, I read several reporters' articles that said that Sobotka, Thompson, and Berglund were staying here for the year, period. I wish I could recall who listed all of them on the team while jokingly putting Eichel, Reinhart, and Skinner in Rochester just to make sure the point got across because I swore out loud at work when I read it. Then I showed the article to everyone and then they swore together. The inference we all drew was this was so that he could justify the O'Reilly trade; to whom is beyond me.
42 minutes ago, triumph_communes said:The reason Botterill stood pat is that he saw the underlying analytics behind the ten game run and saw how it was cardiac kid luck, not sustainable success that was occurring. And it’s not like Botterill did nothing, he went out and acquired Montour without taking anything away from the current roster, yet Housley couldn’t inspire a fly to get out of the way of a slap back into reality.
Let us look at their records at various points in the season:
- 11/27/2018 (last game of streak): 17-6-2
- 12/22/2018 (last game before Christmas Break): 21-11-5
- 1/18/2019 (Last game before All-Star Break): 24-18-6
- 2/23/2019 (Last game before TDL; Montour acquired): 29-24-8
- 3/5/2019 (Day of Botterill's interview): 30-28-9
- 4/2/2019 (Before last 2 games): 31-39-10
You can see the team getting progressively worse as the season goes on. Why can't Botterill's inertia take any of the blame? I personally believe that, "good teams find a way to win; bad teams find a way to lose." I don't believe that a team can have a 10 game regulation unbeaten streak by accident. Blame the 1972-3 Sabres' October for that.
Montour was added, which I did like. Why could we not have traded with a bottom feeder at the time, like St. Louis or Minnesota? Why not trade a late 1st for 1 year of a clear 2C or even a high-end 3C before we fell out of 8th? The message that sends your team is that you believe in them and maybe they keep it up; they certainly don't crash and burn like they did in March. In St. Louis's case, their GM was ready to pack it in. If we had offered that for someone like Tyler Bozak or even Alex Steen (clear overpayment), they might have folded even if they all sing "Gloria."
After JBot's terrible press conference, the team didn't quit on Housley - they quit on Botterill because Botterill had already quit on them. They didn't believe in themselves anymore because Botterill never believed in them in the first place. Exactly how the **** could any coach pull them out of the funk then? That, bluntly, is bad management.
1 hour ago, triumph_communes said:Tage has a chance, absolutely. I also see what Botterill did to Moulson and know if the coach has no interest, Botterill has no problem making someone disappear.
Then why didn't Tage disappear? IMHO, because Tage is supposed to replace and surpass Ryan O'Reilly.
Why didn't Sobotka disappear? IMHO, because Sobotka is supposed to replace and surpass Ryan O'Reilly until Tage is ready.
1 hour ago, triumph_communes said:If you look at Krueger’s history as an NHL coach, he played rookies more often than not. He would set them up for success, something I don’t think Mittelstadt ever once was put in the situation of last year. Krueger made Yakupov look like a rising star— I am really excited to see what magic he can do here.
I largely agree with you with Krueger.
IMHO, though, unless Mittlestadt's wingers were Skinner and Reinhart, he was necessarily going to be excessively sheltered because he really wasn't ready for that level of responsibility. That would put Eichel with Rodrigues and either Sheary or Pominville. (Please, God, Forgive me for typing this.) Unless, of course, the best course was for Housley to have Eichel with Thompson and Sobotka to protect the rest of the team.
1 hour ago, triumph_communes said:I understand the Housley love of Sobotka, but I don’t think Krueger is that dumb. I think Mittelstadt can play the sheltered 2C type minutes as long as we have Erod holding down a 3rd line that maybe dos some more lifting that other teams do. But we have an amazing shutdown duo in Larsson and Girgensons (that honestly Vesey is a perfect compliment for, given Vesey likes to take the puck right to the net while the other two will cycle ad infinitum) and if they are used properly, can shelter Mittelstadt some. Sheary-Mittelstadt-Reinhart in their short time last year was dangerous, and as long as Kruger watches the tape from those games, I foresee him putting that forward next season.
Plus Oloffson as a LH RW on Eichels side is what Eichel needs. We all wanted a better player there like Nyquist or Zucc, but those players chose not to sign here. Oloffson will be a gem to help spread the rest of the talent elsewhere in the line up.
Note: the "smoke signals" are based on my presumption that the WGR hosts and guests are softening us up for what JBot will do before training camp.
If I am reading the smoke signals properly, Vesey is here for Eichel's wing. Assuming that Girgensons and Larsson are here, you need to have Okposo with them because that is the only line where he was truly effective last year and, frankly, we are stuck with him. Honestly, if they don't need to have 80% DZS to protect the middle 6, I bet they total 40 goals. (On the other hand, the smoke signals look like they are gone and Sobotka is staying.)
I agree with Oloffson with Eichel. I think those two will have great chemistry.
I will assume you mean that Mittlestadt will be the #2 offencive centre because, IMHO, a centre who needs to be sheltered is not a #2.
In sum:
Housley earnt his firing. Even if the GM saddles you with Thompson and Sobotka, you don't have to dress them if you have 8 defencemen available. Even if you have to dress them, there is no excuse in the universe for Sobotka being 4th among the forwards in ice time until Bill Hoppe, John Vogl, and everyone else write those scathing analyses of Sobotka. He should not have given hours of ice time to the Scandella-Ristolainen pairing. In particular, I can't think of a good reason to play Scandella over Pilut.
We also learnt that to run Housley's system, you need either 6 Norris-calibre defencemen and/or a Vezina-calibre goaltender and/or 4 complete lines of quality depth (2005-6 Sabres level). This killed Lindy Ruff in Dallas, Housley here, Toronto under Babcock, and Nashville in some of their playoff series over the years. In fact, the more I have analysed their system, the more I lean towards "and". And I LIKED the way the team looked when they executed his system well.
Even so, I put about 2/3 of the blame this year on Botterill. IMHO, he was an incompetent manager by failing to help his subordinates when they clearly needed a psychological push. He then undermined them with his press conference on 5 March.
Even if I forgive him the O'Reilly trade, he failed last off-season by gifting positions to Sobotka and Thompson. He also failed last off-season by not having a back-up plan in case Mittlestadt was not ready for #2C.
He also failed in-season as a GM by failing to address clear personnel deficiencies in Thompson and Sobotka. He failed as an overall GM by never getting a competent #2C and by never having 12 NHL-quality forwards available for Housley to dress the entire season. IMHO, if he just does this, which is the bare minimum we should expect from him, the Sabres make the playoffs last season anyway. I would have had patience if he had done either this or traded for a #2C and the Sabres still missed the playoffs.
But RHIP. Assuming no disasters, the bare minimum I expect out of this team is the playoffs. I believe that the expectations for this team this year should be like the Leafs 2 years ago. Nothing less is acceptable. Failing that, Botterill should be canned.
-
Good for all of you on how you for taking the extra time to do this for your children. I am also glad that USAH is doing its part as well.
As an addendum, I spoke with several friends of mine who officiate various children's and beer leagues around the country. They told me there has been and will be more extra training and such for officials this year to keep the games safe, in part over the liability issue.
-
1 hour ago, triumph_communes said:
Theres 18 forwards who could easily take one of the 13 slots. There’s at least 12 defenders for 7-8 slots. If that’s not competition I’m not sure what is.
If if you’re afraid Sobotka wasn’t pre-relegated, I don’t think you understand what meritocracy means. A lot of these guys will get new leashes under a new coach.
I will accept your premise and analyse it. You will find that I am strong believer in negative inference.
I. In a meritocracy, when you find out at the All-Star break, that the two guys on the roster that you acquired from an unpopular trade are literally the two worst players (not just forwards, but players) in the league in numerous statistical analyses, do you leave them around in the status quo,?
II. As a good manager, when your subordinates suddenly start wildly exceeding expectations, do you do nothing as they start to slide and justify it by saying that their good performance was a mirage?
III. In a meritocracy, when you have two lines in the NHL who regularly can not clear the zone for minutes on end, do you just tell your better performers in the AHL that there is no reason for them to think they could help in the NHL by doing nothing?
IV. As a good GM, when your coach is giving the worst player in the league -- whom you acquired -- the 4th most minutes, do you not do anything even when a flurry of news articles and blogs point out how badly he is playing at the expense of better performers?
V. As a good manager, do you blame your subordinates for all of the shortcomings your team had for the business year when you did nothing to help them when the situation was worsening?
Now, let us look at your line-up from another thread. Because of what transpired and failed to transpire last season and so far this offseason, I will ice lines that reflect what I think is the reality.
-
Forwards
- Skinner-Eichel-Vesey
- Rodrigues-Mittelstadt-Reinhart
- Shear-Sobotka-Thompson
- Girgensons-Larsson-Okposo
- Olofsson-Ruotsalainen-Nylander
- Elie-Smith-Wilson
-
Defence
- Dahlin-Montour
- McCabe-Miller
- Scandella-Ristolainen
- Pilut-Nelson
- Hunwick-Bogosian
- Borgen-Fitzgerald
IMHO, it would be somewhere between intellectually dishonest and delusional to assume that Sobotka and Thompson will not be on the Sabres all year unless there is incontrovertible evidence otherwise. Neither were good enough last year; yet everyone at training camp knew they would be here for the year.
If you think I am wrong, I suggest you take up the same challenge that several professional hockey people took up with my friends and relatives to defend Botterill: I expect a proof with the Paul Erdos level of accuracy to justify their places on the team last year using EXACTLY your arguments of a meritocracy with OBJECTIVE measurements -- no feelings, rationalisations, or anything subjective allowed. If you have trouble writing proofs, I suggest you go the two-column, statement-reason format. (Hint: they all lost and now argue my point of view.)
Yes, this is very arrogant of me. I have a long track record debating this stuff in public that you might know about. A few of the better known from which you can identify me with absolute certainty:
- Countering Viacom/Nickelodeon trolls defences of Dan Schneider and his production teams against rumoured accusations from the casts.
- Arguing that Rose Tyler is a Mary Sue / Gary Stu for Russell T. Davies from the crush he had on Tom Baker; based upon the wish-fulfilment-romance fiction he wrote for the fanzine The Annals of Sarah Jane Smith.
- Debating that Donald Trump's flaws are just Bill Clinton's writ large on numerous political fora. ("Writ large" is what gives me away.)
- Being the only person in 1987 who argued that ST:TNG is inferior to the original Star Trek.
-
Arguing that everyone who admits they are from Buffalo is not intrinsically a loser who deserves to be unemployed an homeless.
- Several regulars got me kicked out of the Columbus (Ohio) Bridge Center for this. And they wondered why I wouldn't go back after these people had allegedly calmed down.
If you want to debate, all I can say is, "come and get me."
-
Forwards
Sabres Signing Marcus Johansson 2 years 4.5 Million AAV
in The Aud Club
Posted
One first line, two fourth lines, and a sixth.
<sarcasm>See, we we had 4 top-6 lines.</sarcasm>