RochesterExpat

The goaltending is better and the defense is worse. It's an 11 goal GSAx swing to the positive (better goaltending) and a 6 goal increase in xGA (worse defense). It's interesting to note that the number of shots blocked is up, but as are the total number of shots (382 this season vs 356 last season). The increase in total shot volume is ~7%, but the increase in xGA is ~18%, suggesting the increase is not proportional and consists of higher danger chances from last season. But this doesn't match the eye test for me. I don't think the Sabres are a particularly good team--and the analytics largely back this--but I don't believe the defense is worse (the goaltending is absolutely better). So down the rabbit hole... Across the full season last year compared to the full season this year, the xGA for Buffalo is higher this season--but this is also true for the league. So what about goals vs xGA for low danger shot attempts? Turns out, Buffalo is pretty good this season--way better than league average--at stopping low danger chances. However, they were actually not terrible last season either (better than average, but not as good as this season). What about medium danger goals vs xGA? Well, turns out last season Buffalo was terrible. Absolutely terrible. This season? Well, basically the same. And high danger goals vs xGA? Buffalo is doing well this season vs being near the bottom last season. Last season, xGA per 60 make up was .93 low, 1.04 medium, 1.41 high. This season it's .89 low, 1.06 medium, and 1.59 high--again, suggesting the defense is worse and the goaltenders are simply stopping high danger chances. Now, if we accept that Buffalo is facing (and stopping) more high danger chances, it again suggests defense declined YoY, so why does the defense at least appear to look better? I think it's because high danger attempts come in clusters courtesy of rebounds and scrambles. If the puck goes in the net on the first try, there's no subsequent "inflation" of the total xGA--and this also explains why there are more shots this season. The goalies are stopping the initial shot this season and that's the difference. Side note, since the mention of the PK being much improved, the actual number of penalty minutes is roughly equal through the first 12 (100 this season vs 105 last season), so that's likely to be genuine improvement and not a statistical outlier caused by differences in sample size.

The below are the numbers that I see: xGA 24-25 through first 12: 33.83 GSAx 24-25 through first 12: -6.17 xGA 25-26 through first 12: 39.8 GSAx 25-26 through first 12: +4.83 Also I see 40 goals against in the first 12 last season and 35 this season. Not sure why those numbers don't line up with above.

That would make a lot of sense. Thank you.

I’m not trying to derail the conversation, but was the ice condition tonight really poor or something? Did anyone else notice this? Lots of players losing edges and pucks bouncing wildly? It’s not an excuse either. It affected both teams noticeably.

Minor nitpicking, but you can't patent math. I'm going to assume we're talking about some kind of novel mathematical method as a tool. Source: software engineer with patents that I would argue are fundamentally "math" but the Patent Office would argue otherwise.

I don’t understand why he was given the start unless the staff doesn’t trust Ellis for some reason. To the point about trusting Ellis: It’s impossible to trust any of our goaltenders at this point. I don’t trust Lyon to handle a starter workload. While I recognize he has so far been a bright spot, he’s never played a 50+ game season in net. He played 44 two years ago in the NHL and then you need to rewind to 16-17 for the last time he even played over 40 (47 in the AHL). He might be able to do it, but I don’t trust that he can. Colten Ellis has played one NHL game. Granted, I thought he looked good and, despite being very active in terms of motion, he was seemingly controlled in all of his movements and his positioning looked excellent—a promising sign considering his rookie status. That being said, I would have made the same statement after Levi’s first few games at the end of 22-23. Ellis is simply an unknown. It’s not even just one NHL game. He’s only played one full season as an AHL starter. So who knows? UPL can’t be trusted. It’s impossible to know which version is going to walk out of the locker room for the game. Even worse, it’s impossible to know which version we’ll get from one period to the next. When UPL is good, he’s properly good, but he then turns around and looks awful for no apparent reason right after. It has to be mental. I have no other explanation.

Weird bit of trivia: in most cases a broken wrist is better than a sprained wrist when it comes to professional athletes.

I don't think he's worse than Georgiev. I'm not convinced he is better than Ellis or Levi. I believe Lyon is better. So he's somewhere 2nd through 4th in my eyes. At what point do you do this though? If it's when UPL's conditioning stint ends, Ellis will have played one more game. That's not a large sample size to measure against and will be potentially complicated if UPL is playing well in the AHL. I would almost want UPL to get NHL games this season to see if he's going to perform or not.

I get the intent of this thread and Alex Lyon is the clear #1 goalie right now, but (as others have pointed out) it's still early and the Sabres are asking a lot from him. My attitude is to ride the hot hand which is clearly Lyon at the moment. At the same time, Buffalo needs to be ready to pivot if/when the hand goes cold; unfortunately, the pivot plan right now is concerning. Reality is that Alex Lyon is 33 in two months, went undrafted, and has seen glimpses of the NHL over 9 seasons but regressed in stats since 2022-2023 for a total of 117 games. The most games he every played in a season was two years ago at 44--a season he stole the starting net from Vile Husso (helped by Vile Husso getting injured/COVID and Detroit limiting James Reimer's minutes). The likelihood that Alex Lyon can actually run a 50-60 game load is very low. Especially with Buffalo's play through the first four games. It's so low, it would make him a statistical unicorn. So what happens when Lyon falters? Are you going to pivot to UPL who has played 20 minutes of pre-season hockey, or to the NHL-untested waiver claim in Ellis? I suspect what will happen is: Lyon plays the majority of games (assuming he continues to perform). Ellis will get the Wings @ Sabres on 10/22 so he has some playing time before the first back-to-back (10/24 & 10/25) against the Leafs. Ellis will get the Sabres @ Leafs on 10/25. If (maybe when?) UPL returns from injury, he will be sent to Rochester for a conditioning stint and he will be kept for the full 14 days (again, assuming Lyon continues to perform and Ellis proves serviceable). This is going to be his "pre-season." The next back-to-back is not until 11/12 (Mammoth) and 11/13 (Avs). Realistically, UPL is back by then since he is already practicing. That gives Ellis two games if Lyon continues to play well. The schedule is relatively favorable to a single goalie for October/November. Ellis might get one of Capitals @ Sabres (11/1) or Blues @ Sabres (11/6). If he gets one or both (the latter requires UPL's conditioning stint to start after 10/23 which seems unlikely since he is practicing), then we might have an idea of what approach Buffalo is taking. Basically, I'm guessing if Ellis gets more than two games between now and the end of UPL's conditioning stint, it's because Buffalo is trying to keep him. Now we have a three-headed monster. As much as people want to move on from UPL, they aren't going to do it unless Ellis plays lights out and UPL performs poorly in the AHL. And, if that's the case, we're then banking on Lyon to be the starter and maintain a pace of play I don't believe is realistic. It's a mess and this is 100% on the GM. The most likely outcome is that Lyon is the starter until he falters and UPL takes over. Ellis is waived.

I really like Josh Doan.

I forgot about (maybe repressed is more accurate) the mockery of a coaching search. It really is the exclamation point to it all.

This is my view from 15 years of playing hockey (not counting beer league) and a dozen years of coaching youth hockey--and just generally being a rink rat: Granato was in over his head, but he had the locker room behind him (until the end when it was apparent he was not coming back) and managed to get the most out of every player on the ice as a result. Lindy has the experience, but I don't think he has the buy-in and he is not getting nearly 100% from the majority of players. Granato was not a good strategist. His game management and inflexibility toward trying new lines (or anything new, frankly) being two notable shortcomings that no rose-tinted glasses will favorably color. His line deployments were, at least at times, best described as "questionable." Yet the team consistently outperformed--or, as you pointed out, at least 'met'--expectations. That's because he was the motivator that Ralph Krueger was supposed to be. The problem is that Granato was simply over his head at the NHL level. And this is where it gets most frustrating for me. As time has passed, it's become abundantly obvious that Granato was a good coach--just not at the NHL head coach level. Firing Granato and bringing in Ruff was a nostalgia-driven attempt at bringing in an NHL-level coach, but it ignored the consequences from the team morale side. The roster construction has improved since the time of Granato, but the team itself hasn't because Ruff doesn't connect with the players the way Granato did. I firmly believe if Granato had the current defense--and I'll even take the goaltending tandem of Lyon and completely-unproven-Ellis with it--he could get the Sabres into the playoffs. While we have 100 different things to scream about over the last decade and a half, one continuous tie-in is the assistant coaching. Granato might have succeeded as a head coach even in spite of the roster construction if he had a "game" coach on the bench with him who could have directed/advised him on strategy--even Mike Peca could have probably filled this role despite him also being a relative rookie. Granato needed someone to help fill in the strategy side for him. Shockingly, the powerplay extraordinaire, Matty Ellis, wasn't able to do that. I mean, ideally, Granato would have been an assistant coach and Buffalo would have hired a serious head coach, but that would be asking too much. Thing is, and to circle back to your closing point, I don't think replacing Granato was itself a bad move because, much like everything else, it's just a small part of the bigger issue. Granato wasn't an NHL-caliber coach, but he might have become one if he was given the support he needed and he'd have done it with (or in spite of?) the "in-house" roster Adams constructed. It's the same reason why so many of our players find success elsewhere. The organization doesn't understand support.

If that was our beer league goalie I would not want to go anywhere near him between periods because he’d be pissed.

That wasn’t his fault at all.

What was that defense? Who didn’t cycle to the man?

Yes, the franchise is sent to Atlanta.

He looked good in game one too until 4 minutes left in the game with that second goal. Overall he still played well.

What was that center reset? Timmins out positioned Pasta on that one although we should talk about what led to it…

I would put Johnson with Power only because Timmins and Samuelsson worked well enough last game to give it another chance. It was the first game in a long time where I didn't want to rant about Samuelsson after. That alone is worth keeping the pairing intact in the short-term. Especially since Kesselring will eventually return to partner with Power.

It’s odd and makes me wonder about predisposition (similar injury to last year) or strength and conditioning issues (the team overall)—the latter being really concerning because it extends beyond Norris. As my doctor explained to me for my situation, I had gone to the gym that morning, came home, and was outside moving logs and bags of animal feed around. I over worked myself without realizing it (granted, I’m mid-30s and certainly not an elite athlete so it doesn’t take much). I was just sore and I ignored it like a normal person. Anyway, I took a break for lunch and while cooking onions I sneezed. The sudden contraction of the muscles while sneezing caused the damage and it was sufficient to double me over. I could not stand up at all. I was basically immobilized. It was crazy. Is it the same/similar situation for him where the twisting motion from the face off brought him to his knees because he was overworked? No clue. But if it is, I should point out it was also entirely preventable when it happened to me and I should have known better. A professional athlete with access to team trainers, doctors, nutritionists—you name it—should absolutely know better. It’s very strange.

I had a partial tear of an ab from sneezing too hard (yes, seriously, I know it sounds dumb). It was excruciatingly painful and took weeks to heal. I can’t imagine that as a professional athlete because it’s totally immobilizing for a while. Conditioning has to take a massive hit.

It might work better than the 10 game win streak.

A prophet.

Okay so new strategy: Lyons gets two periods and Ellis gets the third. Treat every game as preseason.

Putting Bryson on the ice is one thing. Pairing him with Johnson is just ridiculous. I get he’s a “veteran” but Johnson needs to get a fair shot and this isn’t it.