Sabres Prospects 2017-2018

[WildCard]

That is spot on. The Corsi people are nuts, but unfortunately, I believe Botterill is one of them, so only Kim Pegula can save us now.

What makes you think Botterill is like that?

 

I can't tell if this post is sarcasm or not

[DarthEbriate]

 I’m talking specifically about any sports statistical analysis that gives absolutes, especially within a game situation.

Only Sith sports statisticians deal in absolutes.

[North Buffalo]

Stats are not about absolutes, though people misinterpret them as such. Again they are a useful tool in predicting likely outcomes. Though not a be all end all. A savy GM knows how to combine both eye test drive and character with stats. Still using quality combined stats can help avoid blantant mistakes and show holes in the eye test.

[LGR4GM]

Stats are not about absolutes, though people misinterpret them as such. Again they are a useful tool in predicting likely outcomes. Though not a be all end all. A savy GM knows how to combine both eye test drive and character with stats. Still using quality combined stats can help avoid blantant mistakes and show holes in the eye test.

It works both ways. Take Logan Stanley for instance. Watching him in juniors he looked like a beast. Probably because he was 6'7" and just physically able to dominate other players. Now look at his stats. 17 points in his draft year is very questionable and if I were scouting him I would want to know why those two things didn't match up better. 

 

Sean Monahan for example. Eye test says he is great. Then you look at his stats and they too show that he somehow just manages to produce despite tough matchups.  He helped or scored something like 45% of his teams goals his draft year. Here the eye test and the stats confirm it.

 

I would say think of it like looking at a diamond. You can get the Cut, Clarity, Color, and Karat. Let's say goals, assists, ppg, and size.  Now you then need to go see if that is really how it looks to you the judge.  Logan Stanley may look like a nice diamond at first but when you start reviewing his stats, not so much, the blemishes start to appear. Sean Monahan may have a slightly lower grade but when you look at him you can't tell the difference between him and a higher grade.  At least this is how I think it should work. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by LGR4GM

[North Buffalo]

It works both ways. Take Logan Stanley for instance. Watching him in juniors he looked like a beast. Probably because he was 6'7" and just physically able to dominate other players. Now look at his stats. 17 points in his draft year is very questionable and if I were scouting him I would want to know why those two things didn't match up better.

 

Sean Monahan for example. Eye test says he is great. Then you look at his stats and they too show that he somehow just manages to produce despite tough matchups. He helped or scored something like 45% of his teams goals his draft year. Here the eye test and the stats confirm it.

 

I would say think of it like looking at a diamond. You can get the Cut, Clarity, Color, and Karat. Let's say goals, assists, ppg, and size. Now you then need to go see if that is really how it looks to you the judge. Logan Stanley may look like a nice diamond at first but when you start reviewing his stats, not so much, the blemishes start to appear. Sean Monahan may have a slightly lower grade but when you look at him you can't tell the difference between him and a higher grade. At least this is how I think it should work.

 

Agree and that is why the eye test is important, it can help figure out which guys are still developing and which guys have reached a ceiling. Where the holes are physically mentally and maturity wise are hard to quantify by stats. Edited December 5, 2017 by North Buffalo

[rakish]

What makes you think Botterill is like that?

 

I can't tell if this post is sarcasm or not

 

Totally serious. For me, the Sabres are trying to increase their number of shots, under the mistaken belief that shot differential correlates to winning. WC, last week you posted a chart claiming 'Things are better, shots are up, we're on the cusp of a cusp.'  If Botterill viewed the underlying math like me, he would have never hired Housley, but if he looks at the underlying math like you, Blue, Brawndo, QWK, the Sabres are much better now, for you, Housley's not the problem, it's something else. I've been harassing PA, because ownership meddling is the only solution, Botterill will never understand the problem.

 

Bylsma had a lot of bad coaching in him, and not enough talent to work with, but at least he understood that the PDO rankings relate to wins, since what you are trying to do is win the shooting percentage battle. I don't know how many times over the summer someone said 'Lehner's numbers are going to get much worse', and yeah, they did. It's one of the reasons the Sabres are worse.

 

I've stopped watching the Sabres, been watching the Hurricane play. The Hurricane outshoot their opponents by wide margins, but they lose because every shot is a low percentage shot. In the defensive zone they employ strategies that limit shots, but those shots are high quality shots.

 

I might be wrong about Botterill, (although he does understand the whole college development thing), but my guess is only Kim can save us.

[WildCard]

Totally serious. For me, the Sabres are trying to increase their number of shots, under the mistaken belief that shot differential correlates to winning. WC, last week you posted a chart claiming 'Things are better, shots are up, we're on the cusp of a cusp.'  If Botterill viewed the underlying math like me, he would have never hired Housley, but if he looks at the underlying math like you, Blue, Brawndo, QWK, the Sabres are much better now, for you, Housley's not the problem, it's something else. I've been harassing PA, because ownership meddling is the only solution, Botterill will never understand the problem.

 

Bylsma had a lot of bad coaching in him, and not enough talent to work with, but at least he understood that the PDO rankings relate to wins, since what you are trying to do is win the shooting percentage battle. I don't know how many times over the summer someone said 'Lehner's numbers are going to get much worse', and yeah, they did. It's one of the reasons the Sabres are worse.

 

I've stopped watching the Sabres, been watching the Hurricane play. The Hurricane outshoot their opponents by wide margins, but they lose because every shot is a low percentage shot. In the defensive zone they employ strategies that limit shots, but those shots are high quality shots.

 

I might be wrong about Botterill, (although he does understand the whole college development thing), but my guess is only Kim can save us.

I understand that, but with WAR on ICE gone, there's nowhere for us to just get that information in charts for our team that says X amount of shots are taken from high danger areas. Me, qwk, Brawndo, Blue, Flagg...we fully understand that where the shots are coming from is just as important as outshooting your opponent. We've posted those charts before. But with WAR gone, all we have left is Corsi and other stats like it

 

I don't get this sentence at all. Byslma understood that being lucky relates to wins, so try and put yourself in the best position to be lucky?

Edited December 5, 2017 by WildCard

[darksabre]

Shot differential should equate to winning if your shooters are any good.

The problem is our shooters are total garbage. Nobody finishes. 

[rakish]

Shot differential should equate to winning if your shooters are any good.

 

The problem is our shooters are total garbage. Nobody finishes. 

 

No, the puck needs to cross in front of the goaltender to make the goaltender move. The Hurricane never get the other goaltender to move.

 

The second sentence I agree with mainly because I believe you need to value scoring more highly when you draft. Murray thought he could watch hockey and know who's good, but this for me, is why scouting fails and has such terrible results.

[GASabresIUFAN]

At the pro level, I tend to worry less about coaching and more about rosters. Good coaches can make a talented team better, but no amount of coaching can fix a terrible roster.

 

Our roster isn’t terrible, but it has some serious flaws. Like with DD before him, I don’t know if Phil is the problem here. He certainly isn’t helping. Duda and I had a long discussion regarding our bottom 6 forwards to start the season. We were, along with many others, really worried about that part of the team. So far those fears have been realized. Also the injuries on D to start the year really killed the opportunity to get the season off on the right foot. It’s hard with limited practice time to build a cohesive group back there even with eveyone now healthy.

 

We also don’t have the roster with the skills necessary to execute Phil/Jbot’s vision for the offense especially on the back end. Our D groups’ ZERO goals for the season make that very clear.

 

All that said, there is to much talent on this team to be this bad. The PP going from first to worst is a coaching issue. The real question going forward is whether we have enough talent coming up to solve the talent issues on the Sabres roster over the next 2-3 years. I think potentially we do, at least up front.

 

I’m going to assume Jack, KO, Risto, Scandella and ROR survive the Jbot roster purge that is coming.

This means I need 9 forwards, and 4 D to complete this roster long-term.

 

Forwards: I think we have most of what we need in Asplund, Pu, Baptiste, Bailey, Smith, Nylander, Mittelstud, Fasching and maybe someone like Cornel, Malone or Olofsson emerges. If just 6 of the first 8 guys work out, we will be much improved up front especially if Jbot can sprinkle in a few solid vets from winning organizations.

 

Defense: We are missing 2/3 of a good D group. I don’t think Risto and Scandella are top line D, but both could be with the right partner. Guhle is our only legit D prospect right now. He looks like a potential top 4 guy. So Jbot’s mission is to find the other 3 players. If we get lucky and win the lottery, problem likely solved, but...... This is where the trades of Reinhart and/or Kane must bear fruit. We need another top 4 type guy (or two) in this pipeline.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

You lost me at hello.

 

:lol:

 

I just don't understand this analytics stuff atoll.

[North Buffalo]

At the pro level, I tend to worry less about coaching and more about rosters. Good coaches can make a talented team better, but no amount of coaching can fix a terrible roster.

Our roster isn’t terrible, but it has some serious flaws. Like with DD before him, I don’t know if Phil is the problem here. He certainly isn’t helping. Duda and I had a long discussion regarding our bottom 6 forwards to start the season. We were, along with many others, really worried about that part of the team. So far those fears have been realized. Also the injuries on D to start the year really killed the opportunity to get the season off on the right foot. It’s hard with limited practice time to build a cohesive group back there even with eveyone now healthy.

We also don’t have the roster with the skills necessary to execute Phil/Jbot’s vision for the offense especially on the back end. Our D groups’ ZERO goals for the season make that very clear.

All that said, there is to much talent on this team to be this bad. The PP going from first to worst is a coaching issue. The real question going forward is whether we have enough talent coming up to solve the talent issues on the Sabres roster over the next 2-3 years. I think potentially we do, at least up front.

I’m going to assume Jack, KO, Risto, Scandella and ROR survive the Jbot roster purge that is coming.

This means I need 9 forwards, and 4 D to complete this roster long-term.

Forwards: I think we have most of what we need in Asplund, Pu, Baptiste, Bailey, Smith, Nylander, Mittelstud, Fasching and maybe someone like Cornel, Malone or Olofsson emerges. If just 6 of the first 8 guys work out, we will be much improved up front especially if Jbot can sprinkle in a few solid vets from winning organizations.

Defense: We are missing 2/3 of a good D group. I don’t think Risto and Scandella are top line D, but both could be with the right partner. Guhle is our only legit D prospect right now. He looks like a potential top 4 guy. So Jbot’s mission is to find the other 3 players. If we get lucky and win the lottery, problem likely solved, but...... This is where the trades of Reinhart and/or Kane must bear fruit. We need another top 4 type guy (or two) in this pipeline.

. If we get one more in top of draft this year, trade for one I think McCabe and Antpin can be serviceable bottom 2 so really all that is needed is pipeline and a top starter in a trade though may be hard to find one in a trade..

[MattPie]

:lol:

 

I just don't understand this analytics stuff atoll.

 

Here, try this on. Analytics are an effort to take raw stats and refine more meaningful data out of them. Here's an example, hits. Eye test says: man, that guy is great, he hits a lot. Analytics says when that guy is on the ice, his team takes 50% fewer shots per minute than the game average. Conclusion: that guy is probably a detriment as his team; you can't score if you don't shoot, and you can't shoot if you don't have the puck. If you're looking at two guys, this guy and that guy, both have the same number of hits, but this guy's team shoots average or more shots per minute while he's out there, you take this guy even if his traditional stats are identical (goals, points, hits, shots, etc.).

 

Just keep layering factors on to try to compensate for other factors and that's what they're doing. We're in the birth of this for hockey, there are going to be wrong assumptions and bad data as things work out, but in the long run I'm betting on analytics. Even if there are players that look great and the analytics are terrible, it's entirely possible the analytics just haven't caught up to an edge case or the formulas need to be changed. It's directly akin to science; you observe, try to model and see if it works. If the model seems to work, go with it until some new observation blows it up and you start over with this new knowledge and build a better model.

Edited December 5, 2017 by MattPie

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Sorry, Matt.

 

I do appreciate the effort, but you lost me at ... Here, try this on ...

[North Buffalo]

Matt I get it and wonder if you have a sense of what stats or ratio of stats make for better predictors. Are there certain minimal standards that predict whether a prospect can reach the next level or are we not that far a long in determining them. i.e., number of shots and number of hits combined make a better player?

[LGR4GM]

now this is a fun hockey discussion

[MattPie]

Matt I get it and wonder if you have a sense of what stats or ratio of stats make for better predictors. Are there certain minimal standards that predict whether a prospect can reach the next level or are we not that far a long in determining them. i.e., number of shots and number of hits combined make a better player?

 

I'm no expert, I'm not really fluent with the actual stats, just the high-level concept. In the example above where a big dude is dominating in junior, you could sprinkle in some height-weight above league average stat to discount some of the numbers and see if it correlates. For instance, straight up "player points /  HWaLA" would tell you if a player is 10% larger than the league average, maybe he should be scoring 10% more points.

 

NS, one more try. You're an accountant, right? So basic stats (goals, hits, +-, etc.) are like the raw taxes, assets, etc. an entity has. Analytics is saying, we'll, it's OK if you paying $4M/yr in takes if you're gross income is $16M, but not good if you're only making $8M, you should convert capital into assets so you can write off depreciation and reduce your tax burden (I am absolutely not an accountant, I hope some of that makes sense). You look past the raw numbers and mash them together to get more important data.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Converting capital into assets, eh?

 

Isn't that what they tried at Enron?  And that weasel Rigas, sort of?

[North Buffalo]

Darn use to do this stuff for USDA fcic but been outta practice for 10 years.

[GASabresIUFAN]

http://buffalonews.com/2017/12/08/inside-the-sabres-next-chapter-is-scary-story/

 

Bad drafting and development at it’s finest, except when you realize that Ullmark, Compher, Lemieux, Pysyk, Armia, and Zadorov are very serviceable depth for a team lacking any depth.

 

What he also should have mentioned was the flyer they sent out listing all the draft picks acquired to rebuild with and how they all got flittered away through more bad drafting, bad trades and bad asset management.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Georgia Flakt

[Brawndo]

I saw this a few days ago, but I was too depressed after reading it to post it.

[North Buffalo]

Ollofson 2 goals and assist in first game back since hip scope!

[LGR4GM]

Olofsson (SHL) with 15g, 9a, 24pts in 24games. To help put that in perspective, his previous season high in goals was 14 and his high in points is 29 in 49games

 

Mittelstadt: 5g, 12a, 19games (NCAA)

 

Asplund: 5g, 12a, 26games (SHL)

 

Pu: 14g, 26a, 30games (OHL)

 

Davidsson: 2g, 7a, 23games (SHL)

 

CJ Smith: 8g, 17a, 25games (AHL)

 

Alex Nylander: 1g, 3a, 11games (AHL)

 

 

 

*Keep in mind that Davidsson is playing in a men's league and just turned 19. 

** Nylander is coming off of injury and is also 19 in a men's league. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by LGR4GM

[WildCard]

Olofsson with 15g, 9a, 24pts in 24games. To help put that in perspective, his previous season high in goals was 14 and his high in points is 29 in 49games

Mittelstadt: 5g, 12a, 19games

 

Asplund: 5g, 12a, 26games 

 

Pu: 14g, 26a, 30games

 

Davidsson: 2g, 7a, 23games

 

CJ Smith: 8g, 17a, 25games

He's already 22. Time to get him in the AHL and moving towards the big league

 

Can you rank them in terms of likelihood of success? And maybe put what they're projected to be? Lot of work I know

Edited December 13, 2017 by Jokertecken

[LGR4GM]

He's already 22. Time to get him in the AHL and moving towards the big league

 

Can you rank them in terms of likelihood of success? And maybe put what they're projected to be? Lot of work I know

Feel like Rakish could do it better but sure I will give it a shot. Just know I am guessing and could be off. 

 

Mittelstadt: 5g, 12a, 19games - Projects out as a top 6 forward, well rounded but everyone should understand CURRENTLY, he is not on Jack Eichel's level at the same age. 

 

CJ Smith: 8g, 17a, 25games - could be top 6 if his early season success isn't a mirage and it translates to the NHL level. Winger

 

Olofsson with 15g, 9a, 24pts in 24games. - Projects out as a 2nd line winger, trigger man. Will be interesting to see how his game translates to NA. 

 

Asplund: 5g, 12a, 26games - Projects out to a middle 6 center, well rounded. Expect him in NA next season

 

Pu: 14g, 26a, 30games - hard to project with him, but I would say middle 6 winger. Slow start but back on track. His high numbers are great but he's an overager (this is really his 4th OHL season) now in a kids league so good but still long way to go.

 

Davidsson: 2g, 7a, 23games - middle 6 but currently hard to predict. Could be a good 3rd line player down the road.

 

Alex Nylander: 1g, 3a, 11games - top 6 winger, lots of needed development but he is only 19. I put Nylander this low because he needs to start showing improvement. Coming off that injury though this year started behind the 8 ball so to speak. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by LGR4GM