Players not listening to Dan?

[Doohickie]

It seems like the Sabres have trouble getting changes in during the 2nd, get a little winded, then get pinned into their own zone.  Why can't Dan orchestrate better line changes when they have the long change?  I think that's the problem with the 2nd.

[darksabre]

Someone mentioned that they wanted proof that DD is a good coach.  Besides DD being the youngest coach to win a cup, being the fastest to 250 wins and having the highest winning % of active coaches, the Sabres now have 7 come from behind 3rd period wins this season.  Tied for the NHL lead with Montreal and Pitt.

 

I read this as the kids, when the follow the system and play hard, have the talent to win.  Unfortunately as kids they don't always do as their told and sometimes think they know better.  This was on display as well in the 2nd period when Lehner got peppered with 14 straight shots.  If the Ottawa games wasn't a microcosm of this season I don't know what is.   

I love that this stat is getting trotted out now as if it means anything. Ah, so they've won a few games this season from being down by 2 after 2. Is that significant in any way at all? What are we comparing it with?

 

Do we come back in the 3rd more often than we don't?

 

What's our record when leading by 2 after 2? 

 

What's our record when losing by 2 after 1?

 

What's our record when the moon is full?

 

What's our record when Lehner takes a dump during the 1st intermission?

[dudacek]

Sabres are 7/20/3 when trailing after two, eighth best winning percentage in the league.

Pens at 7/11/3 are the best

 

All the stuff is here, even the Lehner dump quotient.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=leadingtrailing&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=winPctgAfterTrail2p

Edited February 15, 2017 by dudacek

[WildCard]

Sabres are 7/20/3 when trailing after two, eighth best winning percentage in the league.

Pens at 7/11/3 are the best

 

All the stuff is here, even the Lehner dump quotient.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=leadingtrailing&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=winPctgAfterTrail2p

There it is. We have the most chances to come back after two periods so no wonder we have the most comebacks. We've played 30 games where we've trailed entering the 3rd period. That is pathetic

[Scottysabres]

I love that this stat is getting trotted out now as if it means anything. Ah, so they've won a few games this season from being down by 2 after 2. Is that significant in any way at all? What are we comparing it with?

Do we come back in the 3rd more often than we don't?

What's our record when leading by 2 after 2? 

What's our record when losing by 2 after 1?

What's our record when the moon is full?

What's our record when Lehner takes a dump during the 1st intermission?

I think the full moon and Lehner's bowel movement questions are valid queries.

The shifting of the tides, both from the moon and Lehner flushing the toilet could hinder the opposition from getting fresh water.

I wonder if Lehner does it pre game in the visitor locker room so one of them have to plunge the toilet.

[Randall Flagg]

There it is. We have the most chances to come back after two periods so no wonder we have the most comebacks. We've played 30 games where we've trailed entering the 3rd period. That is pathetic

It's not that bad, is it? Aren't we very close to 60 games already? It seems to be slightly below average

[darksabre]

Sabres are 7/20/3 when trailing after two, eighth best winning percentage in the league.

Pens at 7/11/3 are the best

 

All the stuff is here, even the Lehner dump quotient.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/team?aggregate=0&gameType=2&report=leadingtrailing&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20162017&seasonTo=20162017&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=winPctgAfterTrail2p

 

Oh neat. Thanks. 

 

Also,  :sick: 

 

There it is. We have the most chances to come back after two periods so no wonder we have the most comebacks. We've played 30 games where we've trailed entering the 3rd period. That is pathetic

That's what I suspected. 

[Drunkard]

I think the full moon and Lehner's bowel movement questions are valid queries.

The shifting of the tides, both from the moon and Lehner flushing the toilet could hinder the opposition from getting fresh water.

I wonder if Lehner does it pre game in the visitor locker room so one of them have to plunge the toilet.

 

I think Lehner is an upper decker type of guy.

[darksabre]

I think the full moon and Lehner's bowel movement questions are valid queries.

The shifting of the tides, both from the moon and Lehner flushing the toilet could hinder the opposition from getting fresh water.

I wonder if Lehner does it pre game in the visitor locker room so one of them have to plunge the toilet.

 

 

I think Lehner is an upper decker type of guy.

:w00t:

[nfreeman]

Well, I was leaning toward giving yse's theory some credit -- but then:

 

There it is. We have the most chances to come back after two periods so no wonder we have the most comebacks. We've played 30 games where we've trailed entering the 3rd period. That is pathetic

 

Verdict:  WC wins the point.

 

(Although there is some mild consolation in the number of comebacks, since it means that at least they aren't quitting every time.)

[That Aud Smell]

Well, I was leaning toward giving yse's theory some credit -- but then:

 

 

Verdict:  WC wins the point.

 

(Although there is some mild consolation in the number of comebacks, since it means that at least they aren't quitting every time.)

 

I think it's a sight more than that.

[SwampD]

Well, I was leaning toward giving yse's theory some credit -- but then:

 

 

Verdict:  WC wins the point.

 

(Although there is some mild consolation in the number of comebacks, since it means that at least they aren't quitting every time.)

When, to be fair, the Canucks and the Jets ave had the same number of opportunities and the Canadiens have had four more.

But far be it from me to get in the way of a misguided rant.

[darksabre]

When, to be fair, the Canucks and the Jets ave had the same number of opportunities and the Canadiens have had four more.

 

But far be it from me to get in the way of a misguided rant.

That's kinda the point though isn't it? Going into the third period without the lead frequently, and coming back to win more frequently than other teams, really isn't an indicator of...anything?

[That Aud Smell]

Going into the third period without the lead frequently, and coming back to win more frequently than other teams, really isn't an indicator of...anything?

 

It indicates at least two things to me: (1) The need to secure more leads or tied scores headed into the third (playing better in the second, maybe, for starters) and (2) the team's ability to surmount third-period deficits (which is a good thing, for a host of reasons).

 

It strikes me as a weird take to say that having a lot of third period comebacks is indicative of nothing.

[darksabre]

It indicates at least two things to me: (1) The need to secure more leads or tied scores headed into the third (playing better in the second, maybe, for starters) and (2) the team's ability to surmount third-period deficits (which is a good thing, for a host of reasons).

 

It strikes me as a weird take to say that having a lot of third period comebacks is indicative of nothing.

It's not really "a lot" though. It's very few. More than other teams perhaps, but not by any substantial margin. It could be explained by puck luck alone.

[SwampD]

That's kinda the point though isn't it? Going into the third period without the lead frequently, and coming back to win more frequently than other teams, really isn't an indicator of...anything?

What it tells me is that our bench is still shorter than other teams, and because he can't play our good players only for the entire game, once DDB shortens it we are good enough to compete and actually win.

Edited February 15, 2017 by SwampD

[That Aud Smell]

It's not really "a lot" though. It's very few. More than other teams perhaps, but not by any substantial margin. It could be explained by puck luck alone.

 

Ah, gotcha. Not statistically significant, or something like that. Well - maybe. 

 

I'll take what I can get though: The comeback kids!

 

What it tells me is that our bench is still shorter than other teams, and because he can't play our good players only for the entire game, once DDB shortens it we are good enough to compete and actually win.

 

Interesting.

[GASabresIUFAN]

It's an indicator that the team isn't quitting on themselves or the coaches. It's also an indication of growth and maturity. This is the attitude we want in our team, that they can continue to play hard and good things will happen.

 

I've said this 1000 times, but we really can't judge this team, DD or rebuild until we have a better bottom 6 and better D group. Hopefully help is on the way for both; be it Bailey and Carrier continuing their development, Guhle making the team and an impact and or players from other organizations.

 

Some here have dismissed DD's accomplishments with Pitt with the excuse that he had a great roster. Just to clarify, the year he won the Jack Adams (2010-2011), Pitts top 3 centers and arguably 3 best forwards Crosby, Malkin and Staal missed 41, 39, and 40 games with injury and the team still won 49 games. That's great coaching.

[Taro T]

Someone mentioned that they wanted proof that DD is a good coach. Besides DD being the youngest coach to win a cup, being the fastest to 250 wins and having the highest winning % of active coaches, the Sabres now have 7 come from behind 3rd period wins this season. Tied for the NHL lead with Montreal and Pitt.

 

I read this as the kids, when the follow the system and play hard, have the talent to win. Unfortunately as kids they don't always do as their told and sometimes think they know better. This was on display as well in the 2nd period when Lehner got peppered with 14 straight shots. If the Ottawa games wasn't a microcosm of this season I don't know what is.

 

So, until he had a ~1-15 season w/ Carolina, you'd've considered George Siefert a great football coach? His #'s were comparable(in a relative way) until he no longer had any horses. Then his true colors came out. Edited February 15, 2017 by Taro T

[darksabre]

What it tells me is that our bench is still shorter than other teams, and because he can't play our good players only for the entire game, once DDB shortens it we are good enough to compete and actually win.

I still don't think I agree with this. The sample size just doesn't speak to us being magically better in the third. We could just be lucky. The numbers are close enough for that to be a possibility. I'm more interested in our failure to have leads going into the third. Why not shorten the bench in the second, build a lead, then try to sit on it with a longer bench in the third? That's what teams who win might be doing. And I say might because I don't know.

It's an indicator that the team isn't quitting on themselves or the coaches. It's also an indication of growth and maturity. This is the attitude we want in our team, that they can continue to play hard and good things will happen.

 

I've said this 1000 times, but we really can't judge this team, DD or rebuild until we have a better bottom 6 and better D group. Hopefully help is on the way for both; be it Bailey and Carrier continuing their development, Guhle making the team and an impact and or players from other organizations.

 

Some here have dismissed DD's accomplishments with Pitt with the excuse that he had a great roster. Just to clarify, the year he won the Jack Adams (2010-2011), Pitts top 3 centers and arguably 3 best forwards Crosby, Malkin and Staal missed 41, 39, and 40 games with injury and the team still won 49 games. That's great coaching.

I'm not buying the maturation argument at all. I would expect an inexperienced team to blow leads in the third, not be suddenly turning it on then. You'd think if maturity was the issue they'd be maturing into a team that plays better to start games, not at then end of them.

[nfreeman]

I think it's a sight more than that.

 

 

I appreciate your generosity of spirit towards my favorite hockey team.

 

But I have a hard time getting really excited about a 7-23 record, even though that record was assembled under difficult circumstances and even though it's better than most other teams' records under similar circumstances.

 

When, to be fair, the Canucks and the Jets ave had the same number of opportunities and the Canadiens have had four more.

But far be it from me to get in the way of a misguided rant.

 

I said "WC wins the point." 

 

Where is the rant?

[SwampD]

I appreciate your generosity of spirit towards my favorite hockey team.

 

But I have a hard time getting really excited about a 7-23 record, even though that record was assembled under difficult circumstances and even though it's better than most other teams' records under similar circumstances.

 

 

I said "WC wins the point." 

 

Where is the rant?

I was talking about WC.

I still don't think I agree with this. The sample size just doesn't speak to us being magically better in the third. We could just be lucky. The numbers are close enough for that to be a possibility. I'm more interested in our failure to have leads going into the third. Why not shorten the bench in the second, build a lead, then try to sit on it with a longer bench in the third? That's what teams who win might be doing. And I say might because I don't know.

 

Maybe in the playoffs, but think that is unsustainable for 82 games. And as we experienced in '06-'07, it was unsustainable in the playoffs as well.

[That Aud Smell]

I appreciate your generosity of spirit towards my favorite hockey team.

 

(occurs to me: you're totally the hoff there.)

[darksabre]

I was talking about WC.

Maybe in the playoffs, but think that is unsustainable for 82 games. And as we experienced in '06-'07, it was unsustainable in the playoffs as well.

I might be mis-remembering, but wasn't the 06-07 team notorious for having to come back late in games, especially in the first half of the season? I don't think 06-07 was when the "Alamo mode" was coined. I think that came later. 

And to add to the notion of the team having a couple more comeback wins in the 3rd being an indicator of "becoming more mature", I would argue that this really should not be what we want as evidence of a team that is maturing. A team that is maturing might blow games in the third, but if they're waiting for the 3rd period to try to mount comebacks in almost half their games, they're not maturing. Rather, I would argue that this is indicative of a team that is stagnating. 

[TrueBlueGED]

What we really need is somebody (see: not me) to convert the come from behinds to a percentage. Sure we have the most, but if we only pull it off 30% of the time, while another team does it 50% of the time...

 

Then we need someone to look at the strength of the teams every team is trailing against heading into the 3rd, and how that affects (if at all) each team's propensity to pull off the comeback.

 

For some reason, I don't see this little project getting done :lol: