IKnowPhysics

That is pretty funny. Warning: dark humor: Eight guys dead and Skinner still forced to ride bitch by RK's proxy coach. RK layin' dyin' in the hospital on a ventilator, gasping his last breath. He holds Steve Smith close and whispers his last wish in his ear: "don't you *****in' do it."

Hopefully. It's a benevolent sign that, at least this morning, no new infections were detected. I'm glad some players get to keep in game(ish) shape. Do I want to hurry back into games because spreading COVID? Nope. Do I want to hurry back into games because we're now short a ridiculous number of players? Nope. As @Brawndo put it yesterday: Let's look past health and safety for a moment (which I sincerely do care about very much). How the ***** you gonna put that roster on the ice? In a tight division in a shortened season, every point counts more than ever. Losing any one of those players for three-plus games could jimmy the final standings out of our favor. The league ***** us and now they can un-***** us by letting us get back to at least close to 100% before resuming games. If we have to jump back in with anything close to that roster and face other teams at 100%, we might as well end the season now and save the risk.

He strongly believes the Sabres players and staff are being diligent about following personal protocol, which implicitly points the finger of blame at the league for their outbreak. Came right out of the gate with that. He also noted that every outbreak is a learning opportunity for the league, noting that everyone wants the league to be safe, but the protocol will likely be adapted based on new information. When asked about whether the league now has information on on-ice transmission, that lead to the "connect the dots" quote above. Beat reporters asked several questions on the COVID topic, and KA mentioned several times that he's been reminded by others that "he's not a doctor" recently. It sounds like the league is pressuring team officials that talk to the press to refrain from giving insight into the rationale for different parts of the protocol and decisions made within the protocol because "they're not doctors." It also sounds like KA genuinely cares about safety of the people around him and wants to be cautious (like not brining RK back too early and making sure Don Granato [who could be high risk after his health issues] stays safe), but he's not being given all the information all of the time by the league, most decisions are somewhat out of his hands (they're being dictated by protocol and "experts"), and he's being pressed about what he can comment on.

There were many points that were simply amazing on and off the ice. But the on-ice performance of the team was never better than 2005-2007, a sentiment agreed upon by RJ. When Drury lines up against Nylander with 15 seconds left, down 1-0 to the Rangers in game 5 of the 2007 conference semifinals, the entire world knew we were going to score. We were simply unstoppable.

I'll take good news where we can get it.

Is UPL starting tonight?

Jesus *****. I was scared to seek out the league-wode total. Now I'm just angry.

Every time I see Bill Daly or the NHLPA state that they do not currently have evidence of cross-team transmission, I throw up in my mouth and wonder how the ***** they claim ignorance to the well-known hockey outbreak documented by the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6941a4.htm They know cross-team transmission exists and it's revolting that they willfully and obviously ignore its existence while simultaneously claiming to have experts guiding protocol. I'm starting to believe this is a legal consideration (and potentially a financial consideration) for both the NHL and NHLPA and not only a health consideration. They're not interested in acknowledging transmission during games. Maybe they're worried government guidelines and regulations won't allow them to play games if they acknowledge that games can spread the virus? Maybe they're worried players and staff who get infected could sue? Maybe they're worried that fan support of a season could wane if games are acknowledged as unsafe? The NHL needs to prevent infected players and players exposed to infected players from playing in games because games spread the virus.

Definitely isn't. We all lived through these events and we're living with the result day-to-day and year-to-year. Why make a pissing contest about what was truly more awful? Sabres fandom is defined by our dimly lit candle of hope and threads like this are a stiff breeze.

First, this thread is a terrible idea: let's relive every bad decision that's been made over the worst period of the franchise and then spend a few weeks gut punching each other about what move was worse. Bonus: let's do it when there are zero games to distract us because apparently half the team got Rona from New Jersey resulting from a questuonable move by the NHL. It's going to be a cesspool that only scatophages would enjoy. Second, are voters to review these blunders from the point of view at the time they were made? Or do voters use all of the hindsight in the known universe to judge situational decisions? This drastically affects how bad some of these moves were/are. Third, if you lump in hiring decisions, like hiring a GM, does that automatically include all of their decisions? It's difficult to separate. I think you want to evaluate individual transactions. Fourth, there are some honorable mention transactions missing. Okposo contract, drafting Nylander, and probably others.

Boooooo This sucks.

Lol, not even top 10.

PP1 has been 1-3-1, Dahlin at the top, Eichel on the left, Hall in the middle, Olofsson on the right, and Reinhart/Ristolainen screening. Then the following occurs: Zone entry. Establish 1-3-1 positioning. Establish possession at the point, working 3-on-2 or 3-on-1 at the top to evade the high defender(s). Execute high danger chances, one of a couple options: Priority option: cross-ice passes among Dahlin/Eichel/Olofsson to generate perfect one timers. Eichel and Olofsson are positioned on their stick sides so as not to shoot across their bodies. This gets the goalie moving and gets open shot lanes. The screen is set. If the one-timer pass isn't *perfect* on the tape, the recipient simply collects the pass and checks options. This selectivity is why we see lots of puck movement at the top and few shots. Secondary option: Pass to middle for one-timer. Same as above, but the pass looks for Hall (and on PP2 Cozens) for the one-timer. If Hall doesn't have good body/stick position for the shot, he can opt to redistribute to whom he has a good passing lane and is open, which is usually several options. Tertiary option: Work low. In this case, the puck is with Eichel or Olofsson on the side boards and there is intentionally or unintentionally two high defenders, usually one of which is preventing the pass to the point. This means that there is a 3-on-2 down low, created by the wing, the middle, and the screen on the two defensemen. The middle ties up or draws a defender high, now creating a 2-on-1 down low. The screen breaks off the crease to the back door expecting a pass or rebound. The wing closes the distance to the net and shoots or passes back door. 1-3-1 is effective because it's resilient to several types of common penalty kills (box, diamond), typically gives the puck carrier lots of pass options to maintain team possession under defender pressure, and lets the players be creative on on options. It's better than 3-2 umbrella, because more pass lanes are open AND upon the instance of pass disruption (especially in the middle), you already have a player positioned to battle for the puck. The shortcoming of 1-3-1 is that upon turn over, if a forward doesn't backcheck, you're usually pressured with an odd-man rush against your lone point man. An effective way to defend 1-3-1 (besides disrupting zone entry) is to apply high pressure to the near side wing and the point to prevent the high 3-on-2 from getting established, BUT if the pressure fails, you expose the 3-on-2 against you down low. PP2 has been operating the same way, but seems to have a harder time with zone entry and executing when pressured.

12:50pm EST, after warmups had started. 1:01pm EST, after the nominal puck drop time of 1:00pm EST.

I do not believe this to be true. I do not feel this way.

It's unfortunately excellent for the virus and bad for people. It seems to have everything to do with infected persons breathing very heavily while playing, creating lots of airborne droplets, and air ventilation systems generally designed to isolate the ice surface and keep it cold, suspending those droplets where other players breathe heavily. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/12/04/hockey-covid-transmission-outbreaks/ The CDC recorded a single game during which one infected person was able to infect 14 of 22 players and one staff member: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6941a4.htm It's actually pretty hard to find events and activities that are worse, transmission wise, than indoor ice hockey. It's one of the reasons that the playoffs last year was a miracle.

I'd tell the NHL to bring out the ***** stick of justice, but they're complicit.

***** you, New Jersey Devils. ***** you, NHL.

I was sort of thinking this too. But let's look. If you define PP1 to be whichever PP line has Eichel on it (vs Staal), then you can uses WOWY with Eichel/Staal to examine PP1 success. Eichel (no Staal) and Reinhart (no Ristolainen) - 29:07 - 10.3 GF/60 - 22.67 HDCF/60 - OnIceSH% 13.89 Eichel (no Staal) and RIstolainen (no Reinhart) - 4:31 - 26.57 GF/60 - 32.14 HDCF/60 - OnIceSH% 22.22 The sample sizes are small, but at face value, EIchel's PP1 line is measurably more productive with Risto on it than Sam with higher scoring rates, higher high danger Corsi for rates, and higher team shooting percentage. Is it enough to not put Reinhart back on the PP? Nah, but it's interesting.

To be honest, I'm not usually a hater, and if I am hating, I'm usually attributing failure to the GM for not getting the right personnel or to the coach for poor motivation, tactics, usage, or matchups. I got nothing against Matt Irwin the person. I'm not even mad that he had the stats he had previously and he was able to get paid to play in the NHL this season. My ire is that he was a known quantity in this league and we were the ones to give him ice time. It's a hard pill to swallow that we somehow didn't know better. And giving him ice time needs to stop.

Side note: Rutherford's contract was through 2021-22. Theoretically, the Penguins have the right to decline permission to other teams to talk to him until then. It'll be interesting to see if the Pens grant permission, as it was Rutherford who resigned and not the Pens who terminated him. That said, would the Pens look good jerking around a late-career HOF GM? No. On our end, I think when the Pegulas got started, they sought lots of advice from league advisors and it burned them. They became obsessed with trying capture elements of Pittsburgh's success and they're mad it got them no where for years. Craig Patrick, Dan Bylsma, Jason Botterill all had significant success there and failed miserably here. The rumors are that the Pegulas are tired of listening to "league experts" and they've started to trust their own instincts on organization and culture building to produce something more organic, similar to the success of Brandon Beane and Sean McDermott. But that all said, they would be the first to admit that someone with Rutherford's resume would likely find some ways to contribute. I don't think the Pegulas execute yet another re-org, fresh off a GM hire and one year removed from a coach hire, to put Rutherford in charge of the circus. And I don't think Jim Rutherford would be interested in merely being a "senior advisor," even if PIT granted permission.

Some of Ullmark's numbers last year weren't that bad. And Hutton had the eye thing. It's entirely possible that Kevyn Adams thought or was being told that Ullmark and Hutton would certainly improve. But we haven't seen that yet.

Good data point. Shift chart confirms this.