GDT: Dallas visits Buffalo Sabres Oct. 14th, 3pm ET, MSG and WGR550

[...]

7 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Let me know what you need. 

Well, I like the RAPM charts, but maybe the data for this season isn't in there yet. Although he does say on the home page RAPM is patrons only.

[...]

BTW, I'm not arguing that this is the new normal, just saying that there is nothing to indicate a journey through a deep, dark, and long valley is ahead.  IOW, it's too early to tell for sure what we have here, good or bad.  

[Brawndo]

9 minutes ago, ... said:

Well, I like the RAPM charts, but maybe the data for this season isn't in there yet. Although he does say on the home page RAPM is patrons only.

Not enough data for this season’s RAPM Charts yet, I will let you know when they are ready 

[...]

So, if you look at the 10-game streak last year 8/10 of those games, by using the the EH Expected goals charts to indicate "luck", were won by luck. Whereas, this season so far, only the Florida game stands out as lucky. 

So the luck involved in their success, so far has gone from 80% (4/5) at their best last season to 16.67% (1/6) for whatever you want to call this current season.  If you want to be critical of the Montreal game (I am not, they clearly played well in third), luck is still only 33.33% (1/3) part of their game.

[TheAud]

1 hour ago, ... said:

 

The challenge I'm having here, intellectually, is how "sustain" and its variants are being used.  

I'm not leaning into you, @Sakman, just having a conversation, so hopefully you dig that and don't get (too) riled, but obviously the PDO and SV% will regress, and so, obviously the numbers today are not sustainable over the course of a regular season.  Tampa Bay did not sustain numbers like that last season, and their regular season last year I would consider a modern benchmark for elite performance.  This is fundamental, though, to statistics.  

The word "sustainable" in this instance, I would argue, implies that the level of play, or the caliber of the Sabres' game, would drop as well.  In other words, by using the word "sustainable" (and I did it myself sometime around game 3), we're invoking the notion that @dudacek and @That Aud Smell explore above - that the Sabres are experiencing outcomes that exceed what they're putting into the games.  

Last year it was obvious to the eye and there were some metrics that told a dire story of impending reality.  This year, there really isn't anything whacky about the metrics other than they're based on such a small sample size.  Unless you measure player performance individually against last year (and, thus, in a near-vacuum), the better results and the causality of those results are in relative alignment.  But if you do want to measure player performance individually, you can't ignore the facts that Vlad, at more than one point in his career, was perfectly capable of registering numbers that befit his role now (albeit on the low side for a higher performing team), and that someone like KO and, egad, Sheary, have been able to hang with the level the team is playing at now.

PDO and SV% are the type of stats that, as they go down, might make someone believe the Sabres are regressing in play (and therefore their level of play is "unsustainable") when in reality the numbers are adjusting to the sample size.  Of course they're going to lose a game, but that doesn't mean the higher level of play suffers over the long term.

I guess I'm wary of suggesting that this is a blip along the season (which it is, but...) and that bad things are coming.  Not that I've dug into every hole there is or looked at each player's numerous charts, but the ones I have dug into look "sustainable" over a long period, and I simply can't buy that PDO and SV% this early in the season mean anything relative to how they're generating those numbers. 

 

 

I'm not really disagreeing with you, I think. We're into semantics here. The team clearly appears to be a fundamentally better team than last year. They never looked so good for a 6 game stretch, even during the streak.  My definition of 'unsustainable' may be too dry and analytical to be of any actual use in conversation. That may be the real issue.... 

[...]

17 minutes ago, Sakman said:

I'm not really disagreeing with you, I think. We're into semantics here. The team clearly appears to be a fundamentally better team than last year. They never looked so good for a 6 game stretch, even during the streak.  My definition of 'unsustainable' may be too dry and analytical to be of any actual use in conversation. That may be the real issue.... 

Well, it just gave me a reason to explore the idea of "unsustainable" and verify some of the things I have seen/heard in passing.

[Taro T]

1 hour ago, ... said:

So, if you look at the 10-game streak last year 8/10 of those games, by using the the EH Expected goals charts to indicate "luck", were won by luck. Whereas, this season so far, only the Florida game stands out as lucky.

So the luck involved in their success, so far has gone from 80% (4/5) at their best last season to 16.67% (1/6) for whatever you want to call this current season.  If you want to be critical of the Montreal game (I am not, they clearly played well in third), luck is still only 33.33% (1/3) part of their game.

And yet, had Florida not been lucky enough to break Larsson's stick, they probably lose in regulation.

[Brawndo]

8 hours ago, Taro T said:

And yet, had Florida not been lucky enough to break Larsson's stick, they probably lose in regulation.

Or if Barkov gets a penalty  for holding Risto’s Stick