That Aud Smell

Do I correctly recall that the Sens did not sell out their early games against the Rangers? Tsk-tsk. That seems a bit ... much.

Does JBOT share his predecessor's possibly irrational love of large goalies?

Haha - nice as an alternative nickname. But yeah - I think it's JBOT.

there it is.

Good find. Connolly at the height of his powers -- and the league at the peak of its no-clutch, no-grab episode -- was spectacular.

Ew. Double ew.

Because cohesion. It's the new buzzword at PSE. Jason Botterill. Jas Botter Ja Bott J Bot. JBOT.

Definitely some embellishment there.

Welcome, JBOT.

It'll be today. Pittsburgh paper reporting it as a done deal this morning.

I think that had been widely reported as the reason for his initial absence from the lineup. The hospitalization was reportedly tied to an adverse reaction to a medication he took for the concussion.

I always thought his 42-save* performance against Belgium played a role for many. You? * An estimate.

What's his cap hit? I had agreed a while ago that I had no problem with him as a 3rd pairing guy.

Great handle there, 1974. Now, your task is to select a 1974-related Sabre image as your avatar. Welcome!

That's funny. Was just talking with someone at the office about how the relevance of #fancystats (btw, more and more, Corsi/Fenwick are essentially ridiculed by people who actually use advanced stats (no better than +/- apparently (hi, pi!))) tends to diminish when you're down to something like a Game 7. Sure, advanced analytics will help a team ice a team that has the best chance of taking 100 points over an 80-game stretch. But in a single Game 7? Puck luck. Score effects. All those #fancystat hedges start getting thrown around. SPORTS!

Good fortune. Everyone on the same page, embracing their roles. Getting hot at the right time. Chris Neil. Sports are a funny thing sometimes.

Chris Neil effects.

Neil with :23 in TOI. Solid. Neil and lucky socks are likewise placebo effects. Prove it, I say. (Spoiler alert: I don't think it's susceptible to proof.)

I'm not so sure those two things are on par with one another. In fact, I think they're not. I submit that Chris Neil - as big a POS as I think he is - is uniquely situated to be the currently rostered player who can embolden this Sens team, stiffen their resolve, etc. Also, I just can't get down with potshots at the Senators' current roster, and such. They're on the verge of the conference finals. They're good enough, apparently. NFW Phaneuf is doing something similar for anyone.

I think there is something to this. And it dovetails with an axiom to which I subscribe: Hockey players (and perhaps pro athletes generally) are not complicated people. And is that player currently rostered to the Sens?

Not a Sabre, but, sure, why not:

Is that the feared end game for advanced stats in sports? You get your stats gurus, and I'll get mine, and, pursuant to certain rules and parameters, they'll each assemble a roster of theoretical players, and then those teams will play each other in 10,000 simulations to determine supremacy?

Hmm. Thing is: If your team is on the verge of advancing to the conference finals, your team is pretty good. I can't get on board with the idea that there must be something "very wrong" with that squad, based on where they are right now. Touche'!

Lotsa chatter out on Twitter about whether it's valid for the Senators players to be talking (and they are talking) about how it was critical for the coach to dress Chris Neil in the last game (his TOI was less than 3:00) and how Neil may have been the most important player in the lineup for that game. More talk from the Sens players about how Neil being dressed makes the entire team play a game that's harder, braver. Most analytic types are pooh-poohing that sort of talk. Because numbers? But what do we think? It's a pretty interesting point of debate for the old schoolers and the new schoolers.