Miller Signs 5 year extension

[spndnchz]

3/4 of another Roy ????

 

You should be aware that we have lost a number of top players on money issues.

I find it strange that they lose all these skill players then make nothing of overpaying a 3rd line luch pail player.

And beyond that sell the idea of this being a core player to the unwitting fans.

 

There's no need to go into how to allocate that money if they didn't overpay on Gaustad, because there are far too many options.

There's Stafford , Spacek just as 2 examples.

 

The fans don't seem very particular about the product on the ice.

They watch the Sabres lose Drury Breire Dumont Cambell.

Then these same fans absent mindedly react to Gaustad's deal by saying...so what who is the team going to spend it on anyways.

LOL

I guess it is getting to that point , they lost so many top players that they just might have room under the cap to throw an extra million at Goose just for the hell of it.

I'm going to close my eyes and when I wake up I'll see it's all been a dream, a nightmare to be specific. "I'll take 3/4 of a roy, 23 Vanek's", I need to walk away. I'm not playing your silly game. When I started here I heard of "censorship" of posters" I thought it to be a bad idea back then. I lived thru Momma but your retentive nature has me sore. Do you think posters here have no idea what goes on? Pick a stat, it till it bleeds blue and gold? Maybe when your gone, or opening night I'll be back.

[SabresFan526]

I'd love to see some validation for that stat because its full of flaws. I'm not even going to start with possible interpretations of that stat and the holes that lie in that, but look at how little variation there is in those figures. Gaustad is as close to the top of the roster as he is to the bottom.

Actually, I really cannot understand at all what that stat even means and where this arbitrary number comes from. First, what goes into the ranking of the competition? I'm not sure we've seen any indication of what goes behind that stat. Second, considering MacArthur and Gragnani rank #1 and 2 on that list even though their "Corsi" ratings are abysmal compared to the rest of the team. Is the Quality of Competition stat based on the person's skill level as well as who they are facing? If so, then it would make a lot of sense for Gragnani's to be extremely high as he sucks, so no matter who he goes up against relative to his skillset they will dominate him. What does that prove? Also, what do we make of this statistic for guys like Ovechkin and Crosby? Since these two are almost guaranteed to be better than every single line matchup they face, their stats will inevitably negative. So with regard to Gaustad, could the statistic be interpreted as he's that damn good of a player that he will always be better than the guys he matches up against and hence a negative score? This stat seems kind of stupid because it seems like players are punished for being better than their opponents. I don't get how this proves anything with regard to Gaustad.

 

Since the Sabres did not make the playoffs all this stat could prove is that Lindy does not match up his lines during the regular season and seemingly just rolls all four of his lines. It could also mean that Lindy is a genius at line matching and Gaustad is usually facing other team's checking lines and hence his number would be low giving more space for guys like Vanek and Roy and Hecht and Pominville. Also, this stat does not seem to account for when the Sabres are on the road and do not get the last line change and hence other coaches are not putting their top line against Gaustad specifically for this reason. There are so many inherent flaws in this statistic, I would love to see how this can be reconciled for the "thinking fan" as this website likes to call it.

 

Also, the people who created this stat also indicate there is a flaw to their methodology. Given that there is an admitted flaw to their methodology, I'm not sure how much value it provides.

Quality of Competition' is a flawed statistic because it penalizes good players who play against other good players.

 

This is definitely a flaw in a "first-order" Quality of Competition calculation. When people calculate Power Rankings in football (or Chess ratings) they run a recursive algorithm so that good players or teams aren't penalized when they play against others with the same skill level. We could calculate a recursive version of Quality of Competition that would solve this problem, but it's computationally cumbersome. Quality of Competition still gives us a lot of insight, particularly into the NHL's few checking lines.

 

Whatever, I'm not sure what this stat proves or what this guy's crusade against the Sabres is all about. If this guy is not a Sabres fan, why is he here in the first place? If he is simply here to insult other Sabres fan, then mission accomplished, but I'm not sure what it proves beyond the fact that he's just a jacka$$. Instead of The Brain, seems like The Jacka$$ is a more appropriate handle.

[carpandean]

The Sabres... always responding. Why?

They'd do it more but they just remember how it was "expensive for Gaustad!"

[shrader]

...

 

There was an explanation somewhere in the site. Long story short, I'm not buying it.

[X. Benedict]

There was an explanation somewhere in the site. Long story short, I'm not buying it.

 

all skating opponents +/- while on the ice minus all opponent's team +/- while off the ice

 

 

 

What does it mean? Who knows? It means to measure the quality of the opponents on the ice relative to their teamates. I can see some value in it, but what it really tells is how well, or inefficiently your coach is substituting you, esp. if you are a scorer. IE, if you are coaching Danny Briere you want the opp. score to be neg. to maximize his scoring chances.

[The Brain]

all skating opponents +/- while on the ice minus all opponent's team +/- while off the ice

What does it mean? Who knows? It means to measure the quality of the opponents on the ice relative to their teamates. I can see some value in it, but what it really tells is how well, or inefficiently your coach is substituting you, esp. if you are a scorer. IE, if you are coaching Danny Briere you want the opp. score to be neg. to maximize his scoring chances.

Yes that is a fairly good decsription of what it is .

And guess what ?

That was the exact conversation.....

 

Is Goose out there vs top line?

Answer : NO

Case Closed

 

It's that simple.

They don't used him that way.

 

Whatever is said about this not being a perfect method it is at least approaching a reliable measure and for the most part (not 100%) reflects actual play.

Anyone that watches the Sabres (and knows hockey , that's the key , they need hockey knowledge) knows that Pomenville

and Hecht are the two forwards trusted to play against opponents best lines.

They are also the two best penalty killers.

And this method results in them near the top for the Sabres, this is for me a good indicator for this method.

 

Goose vs top lines is a myth cooked up by the Goose fan club to offset his lack of any offense threat

[The Brain]

There was an explanation somewhere in the site. Long story short, I'm not buying it.

Of course not to believe that Goose was matched up against top lines classifies a person as being one who believes what they want to believe regardless of what is actual.

 

I go by actual.

You go by belief on this.

 

Belief and fact are two different animals altogether.

You can believe in Santa Claus if you want.

[The Brain]

I am acutely aware of the players we have lost. I have criticized the FO quite a bit here for last summer's CF regarding Drury, Briere and Soupy. However, we should remember that Gaustad's deal is a fraction of what those guys got. One thing really has nothing to do with the other.

 

Now I'm starting to question your credibility.

Every contract impacts what they are able to assemble as a team.

There is a $56 million cap $8 million + for Miller and Goose is very substantial.

Overpaying Goose by a million is substantial.

They better be key players .

 

Beyond just eating away at the cap , once you pay a player like Goose $2.5 million you open a can of worms negotiating with other players.

Remember Quinn is the very same clown that lead the Sabres down the path of no negotiating until a player's contract runs out and the Sabres are in a bidding war with 29 other teams.

He thought that was a good idea.

You still trust his wisdom ?

I never did , I already knew he was a moron after the first time he was involved with the team.

 

 

I am also aware that even having lost these players, we were still 4th in scoring in the league last year (7 goals out of 1st place), and were #1 for a while with a few weeks to go in the season. I am further aware that what this team was missing last year was NOT scoring or skill. e of them knows anything about hockey.

 

You opened another topic that shows a lack of hockey knowledge by many fans parotting this rhetoric.

Comparing Buffalo's scoring to ALL teams is like comparing apple to oranges.

Buffalo plays a 5 man attack.

Half the league plays a variation of the trap.

They're supposed to outscore traps teams by a large margin.

 

Now lets look at reality.

They scored 53 less goals that the previous season !

Were you aware of that ?

The true stat is really how many more than the average did they score.

 

The margin between top scoring teams and average was far smaller than in previous seasons spelling trouble for Buffalo, because they needed to play a 5 man attack to get there.

 

Buffalo's defense let in no more goals than the previous season.

They fell off the map because their offense fell way off.

 

They were thin ,very thin up front.

I forcasted on the LGS forum that if Roy goes down they are in deep sh*t.

It proved how thin they were up front.

 

What is a good number of goals for a team playing an attack system ?

Answer: It isn't 242 that is for damned sure

 

Want further proof ?

Ottawa another attack team :261 goals

 

Previous seasons:

2006/2007

Buffalo 308

Otawa 288

 

2005/2006

Buffalo 281

Ottawa 314

 

See what happens to Buffalo and Ottawa when they fail to put a large enough gap between their scoring and the scoring by trap teams ?

You starting to get the picture ?

 

I hope that dispells this most coomon myth that by the way is sourced from you guessed it LARRY QUINN OF ALL PEOPLE !

Yes YOU are now parroting LARRY QUINN along with thousands of other Sabres fans

The sheep variety fan.

 

Learn this ...if Buffalo plays a 5 man attack in 2008/2009 and ONLY scores 242 goals they WILL be on the outside looking in.

And that is dispite any rhetoric put out by Quinn.

He wants you to believe that losing Drury/Breire/Dumont had no impact, that the problem was defense. LOL

It's the company line.

 

 

As for Stafford and Spacek: what, exactly, has Stafford done that makes you think he's worth $3 million? Or, for that matter, $1.5 million? He was as lousy as anyone on the team last year. I like Spacek but he's had one lousy year and one decent year here, both injury-marred.

 

Wow, he was lousy and can't hit the broad side of a barn Gaustad was great . LOL

Again this makes me question how good your hockey eye is.

Stafford for a player with 1.5 NHL seasons is on a fast curve.

Baring injury he will take another big step this year.

 

On the LGS forum I had this same argument regarding Roy at this time last year.

The word from those fans was he hasn't done much yet and he is not worth $2 million.

When I resurrected those posts they promptly deleted them from archives, forums don't permit the ...I told you so.

 

He is not worth $1.5 milion ?

You sure you want to sign onto that comment in regard to a player that will have 30+ goal scoring seasons in his career ?

I'll be quoting you on this one .

 

Currently here are Buffalo's top 4 forwards

Roy

Pomenville

Vanek

Stafford

(Not in any order.)

[X. Benedict]

Yes that is a fairly good decsription of what it is .

And guess what ?

That was the exact conversation.....

 

Is Goose out there vs top line?

Answer : NO

Case Closed

Are you really saying that plus/minus relative to team establishes a top line.

We thought we were getting a scientific Brain.

 

The Brain Farts again.

[The Brain]

Are you really saying that plus/minus relative to team establishes a top line.

We thought we were getting a scientific Brain.

 

The Brain Farts again.

You don't have a complete definition of what the rating is.

It just might be over your head.

 

I think the thing for you to do is keep on claiming that Gooser defends against the top lines for the Sabres if it makes you feel better.

Forget reality.

It provides an excuse fans need to prop Gaustad up to a core player level.

[X. Benedict]

You don't have a complete definition of what the rating is.

It just might be over your head.

 

I think the thing for you to do is keep on claiming that Gooser defends against the top lines for the Sabres if it makes you feel better.

Forget reality.

It provides an excuse fans need to prop Gaustad up to a core player level.

 

What? Is cognitive flatulence preventing you from seizing the data?

Are gassy clouds in your reticular formation?

 

You have not demonstrated that Gaustad has not had TOI against top players.

Only that his time on ice correlates to an on/off ice +/- scale.

 

We were hoping for some better logic from you. That's okay, not everyone has it.

Your correlations are flawed. Sad, but if logic is not your strong point, I don't think

you should feel so bad. It is not for everyone. Feelings and logic are often independent,

and it will still be possible for you to have a happy day.

[That Aud Smell]

The Sabres... always responding. Why?

i understand that frustration. and while i know many called it gutless, i was always amused and quietly delighted with

to that same incident. i'm not proud of it, mind you (the response or my affection for it) -- just sayin'.

 

p.s. can anyone instruct me on how to embed the video into the thread? thx.

 

I forcasted on the LGS forum ...

 

On the LGS forum I had this same argument regarding Roy at this time last year.

i'm sure they'd love to have you back on an exclusive basis, boss. there's clearly nothing for you to learn from this community. for our own part, i see now that there is no one here who can possibly comprehend the greatness of your hockey intellect. we are unworthy of you. really.

[The Brain]

What? Is cognitive flatulence preventing you from seizing the data?

Are gassy clouds in your reticular formation?

 

You have not demonstrated that Gaustad has not had TOI against top players.

Only that his time on ice correlates to an on/off ice +/- scale.

 

We were hoping for some better logic from you. That's okay, not everyone has it.

Your correlations are flawed. Sad, but if logic is not your strong point, I don't think

you should feel so bad. It is not for everyone. Feelings and logic are often independent,

and it will still be possible for you to have a happy day.

Wrong again .

The link is a site to a statistical analysis that is obviously over your head.

 

But that is no reason for you to start in with name calling and your weak insults.

Your father should teach you that adults can say..I stand corrected.

 

Somehow you believe that Gaustad plays against top line unless someone proves he doesn't.

You even believe that no proof of him playing against top line trumps proof that he doesn't

 

And you probably believe in the tooth fairy , the easter bunny and santa.

From your end proof itn't required.

And if I tell you they don't exist you'll say prove it.

[The Brain]

I'm going to close my eyes and when I wake up I'll see it's all been a dream, a nightmare to be specific. "I'll take 3/4 of a roy, 23 Vanek's", I need to walk away. I'm not playing your silly game. When I started here I heard of "censorship" of posters" I thought it to be a bad idea back then. I lived thru Momma but your retentive nature has me sore. Do you think posters here have no idea what goes on? Pick a stat, it till it bleeds blue and gold? Maybe when your gone, or opening night I'll be back.

I get the impression that you might just be the type that has a good reason to be sore there.

[The Brain]

What? Is cognitive flatulence preventing you from seizing the data?

Are gassy clouds in your reticular formation?

 

You have not demonstrated that Gaustad has not had TOI against top players.

Only that his time on ice correlates to an on/off ice +/- scale.

 

We were hoping for some better logic from you. That's okay, not everyone has it.

Your correlations are flawed. Sad, but if logic is not your strong point, I don't think

you should feel so bad. It is not for everyone. Feelings and logic are often independent,

and it will still be possible for you to have a happy day.

You seem to have an affinity for flatulence and the cavity it comes from.

 

Beyond that you have proven nothing, you show zero proof that Gaustad plays against the top lines.

[nucci]

You seem to have an afinity for flatulence and the cavity it comes from.

Please go away. We try to discuss hockey on a fairly rational level here. People do disagree on occasion and that is why this board is so good. If you can not handle someone not agreeing with everything you say maybe you should go somewhere else.

[SwampD]

What? Is cognitive flatulence preventing you from seizing the data?

Are gassy clouds in your reticular formation?

 

You have not demonstrated that Gaustad has not had TOI against top players.

Only that his time on ice correlates to an on/off ice +/- scale.

 

We were hoping for some better logic from you. That's okay, not everyone has it.

Your correlations are flawed. Sad, but if logic is not your strong point, I don't think

you should feel so bad. It is not for everyone. Feelings and logic are often independent,

and it will still be possible for you to have a happy day.

Doubt it.

[The Brain]

Please go away. We try to discuss hockey on a fairly rational level here. People do disagree on occasion and that is why this board is so good. If you can not handle someone not agreeing with everything you say maybe you should go somewhere else.

What are you an elderly woman prying into an exchange of words that doesn't involve you ?

 

Listen so when someone insults you , you handle it as you choose.

When it invovles me I handle it , you mind your own business.

 

You are one of the clowns that think they have the right to decide who can throw insults and who can't .

Guess again.

[SwampD]

What are you an elderly woman prying into an exchange of words that doesn't involve you ?

 

Listen so when someone insults you , you handle it as you choose.

When it invovles me I handle it , you mind your own business.

 

You are one of the clowns that think they have the right to decide who can throw insults and who can't .

Guess again.

Funny, you seemed to have pried yourself right in here. I guess you're the only clown that can throw insults around here. Sorry.

[nucci]

What are you an elderly woman prying into an exchange of words that doesn't involve you ?

 

Listen so when someone insults you , you handle it as you choose.

When it invovles me I handle it , you mind your own business.

 

You are one of the clowns that think they have the right to decide who can throw insults and who can't .

Guess again.

I see. You are one of those people with internet muscles. Would love to have you call me a clown to my face.

[X. Benedict]

You seem to have an affinity for flatulence and the cavity it comes from.

 

Beyond that you have proven nothing, you show zero proof that Gaustad plays against the top lines.

 

It has already been established by the links to the NYR and Atlanta games that in those instances at least, he has.

 

The burden of proof is on you.

 

I've provided a Wiki link to get you started.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_pro...ogical_fallacy)

 

There must be some undifferentiated gray matter in that frontal lobe that you could put to good use.

 

The only thing you have proved is that your contribution is not very interesting yet.

I agree to refrain from 2nd and 1st person pronouns if you do.

[The Brain]

I see. You are one of those people with internet muscles. Would love to have you call me a clown to my face.

You're having delusions I have no problem saying anything to you in any situation.

[tom webster]

You're having delusions I have no problem saying anything to you in any situation.

 

So we know you think you are one bad ass with supreme hockey knowledge and a belief that $8.5 million is too much to pay for Miller and Gaustad. Why don't you enlighten us with your complete analysis of the team and where they are headed. By the way, archives normally don't disappear hear, the crash notwithstanding, so put it in writing big guy.

[The Brain]

It has already been established by the links to the NYR and Atlanta games that in those instances at least, he has.

 

The burden of proof is on you.

 

I've provided a Wiki link to get you started.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_pro...ogical_fallacy)

 

There must be some undifferentiated gray matter in that frontal lobe that you could put to good use.

 

The only thing you have proved is that your contribution is not very interesting yet.

I agree to refrain from 2nd and 1st person pronouns if you do.

You have proven only that he play with Pomenville and Hecht for one game in an 82 game season vs a top line .

The stats I have shown you are from an independent source covering the entire season and they show that overall he played against weak competition.

 

The ball is in your court , you made the claim that he is matched against the top lines.

Time for you to start showing some proof instead of hiding behind one game where he rode the coattails of Hecht and Pomenville.

[The Brain]

So we know you think you are one bad ass with supreme hockey knowledge and a belief that $8.5 million is too much to pay for Miller and Gaustad. Why don't you enlighten us with your complete analysis of the team and where they are headed. By the way, archives normally don't disappear hear, the crash notwithstanding, so put it in writing big guy.

What is it that you think you know ?

And what is it that you want to ask me ?

Because your question isn't very specific.