Buffalo Sabres Training Camp (2020/21)

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I said when we acquired Miller that he was a liability in his own zone.  I thought at the time that he acquired Miller as a 3rd line pairing player, 2nd PP guy and expansion bait.  Jbot wasn’t sure that Joker was NHL ready and would effectively supplant Miller in camp.  Our top 4 last year were same top 4 heading into this season.  I never understood RK’s decision to move Montour to the left which made his top 4 weaker.  

To the bolded, you and me both.

But IMHO Miller was brought in to be the spare D-man filling Bogosian's role until he was healed up from the hip surgery rather than top 6 & he was presumably the designated Seattle-bait.  When Bogosian & Montour both were out to start the year, it opened the door to Jokiharju and he absolutely ran with that opportunity when paired with Scandella.

So, then Miller played poorly at LD after Scandella was dealt & apparently never really got over being behind a gimp (Bogosian) & a rook (Joki) on the right side & was scratched more often than not.

Figured the Montour shift was made out of perceived necessity: Ristolainen has shown no ability to play on his off-side, Joki's a kid, & Millervwas a mess there.  Montour wasn't good there, but he wasn't bad either.  Really wanted Montour w/ Dahlin last year but because he wasvon the left side, it wasn't an option.  Glad that's finally happening. 

But mildly surprised Miller's getting another shot on the left; but Krueger is a leader & giving folks a 2nd chance is what leaders do.  (No idea what's going on w/ Skinner.) That's why my expectation was Irwin would be the 3rd LD; the top 4 makes too much sense not to start with and thought Ralphnwould rather run w/ Irwin at LD than Miller.  Glad that's not the case. 

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya, and the checking line was the 3rd line last year, too. Is anyone else still somewhat worried that Krueger may attempt to use the checking line like he did last year?

We've all been kinda assuming it will change but what if it's really as simple as, Larsson's brother was right and the Sabres just didn't want him. They think he's easily replaced. That the line with Eakin can take on the same matchups as Larsson's did, and do better?

That we can get away with a low-ceiling mish-mash 4th line of Skinner and the Lazars of the world because we have a Top 9?

Checking line was the 2nd line in some respects, though always listed as the 4th line, and agree that the most accurate description was as 3rd line. 

Were Girgensons healthy, expect they were planning on using Eichel's line against the other team's top line; the Eakin line against the other team's 2nd line; letting Staal's line go against the checking line; and throwing the 4th line out against the other team's 4th line.  (And setting up the 4th line to either be offensive or defensive depending on opponent & being home or away.)  Expecting each of those top 3 lines to at minimum break even realizing that on the road that Eakin line or Staal line will have to hold up against the top line until they can swap out.  That could've worked.  But without Z, that 3rd line becomes more of a shutdown line w/ less offensive counterpunch (regardless of how many goals Rieder put past Hutton; we're talking Hutton) and isn't as good at shutting down because Eakin isn't as good at that as Larsson was.

My preference is still to have Lazar centering the checking line & giving Eakin the 3rd scoring line regardless of wingers; but until the offensive kids earn 3rd line minutes, Ralph won't alter that deployment.  (Will be interesting to see if he sticks to his guns if Thompson stays top 9 & either Mittelstadt or Cozens earns top 9 time as well.)

[Thorny]

18 minutes ago, LTS said:

Those words say everything I need to know about Skinner right now.  Yes, the owners allowed the large contract, so be it. They aren't going to let his $9M contract dictate the team. It's clear that's the message being sent. There doesn't appear to be any players too concerned about where Skinner is at in the lineup. I think the team is on board with where things are and Skinner will have to face the facts soon. 

His contract is big, no doubt, but as we've said, good GMs find a way.

I was going to ask in seriousness what we are going to do when the old dog reveals himself to be the same player he always has, but is the bold an allusion to the idea that answer is a trade?

[LabattBlue]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I was going to ask in seriousness what we are going to do when the old dog reveals himself to be the same player he always has, but is the bold an allusion to the idea that answer is a trade?

I can't even begin to guess what the Sabres would have to ADD in order to get a team to take on Skinner and his contract.  

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, LabattBlue said:

I can't even begin to guess what the Sabres would have to ADD in order to get a team to take on Skinner and his contract.  

Seattle and Botterill, right? Expansion draft. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Sheahan and Lazar have crap impacts compared to Larsson. Larsson drove play against some of the toughest matchups in the league. To my mind, we are mixing up stylistic similarity with aptitude, here. 

Everyone's mileage will vary with advanced metrics I guess but I think it's pretty clearly established I myself put stock in them and thus they inform my viewpoint heavily in this case. Lazar and Sheahan spend more time losing matchups than winning, Larsson spent more time winning than losing. With tougher competition. 

Fair.

Personally, I think possession metrics are a way of removing some of the "luck" factor from +/- by increasing the sample size, but both measure the same thing, with the same flaw: how well a player did in the situations he was used in. I've yet to see a clear demonstration that there is a correlation with how they will perform in a different environment.

For example, didn't Larsson's metrics improve dramatically on the LOG line in Krueger's system than they did in Housley's system?

I'm very interested to see how effective Larsson is in Arizona, and KO is without him (although there remains the Zemgus factor).

I'm curious to see whether Rieder, Eakin and Sheahan can improve their metrics, considering the former two at least seemed to have been handpicked to play specific roles within this system and have all showed significantly higher levels of play in other situations than where they were last year.

[freester]

Just now, LabattBlue said:

I can't even begin to guess what the Sabres would have to ADD in order to get a team to take on Skinner and his contract.  

Skinner for MAF and we retain 2 million a year 

[Thorny]

13 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Fair.

Personally, I think possession metrics are a way of removing some of the "luck" factor from +/- by increasing the sample size, but both measure the same thing, with the same flaw: how well a player did in the situations he was used in. I've yet to see a clear demonstration that there is a correlation with how they will perform in a different environment.

For example, didn't Larsson's metrics improve dramatically on the LOG line in Krueger's system than they did in Housley's system?

I'm very interested to see how effective Larsson is in Arizona, and KO is without him (although there remains the Zemgus factor).

I'm curious to see whether Rieder, Eakin and Sheahan can improve their metrics, considering the former two at least seemed to have been handpicked to play specific roles within this system and have all showed significantly higher levels of play in other situations than where they were last year.

The bolded, I don't believe so but someone can correct me if I am wrong. 

I don't really think they are measuring the same thing, though. Plus minus doesn't attempt to measure anything - it factually details whether or not a player was on the ice for a goal for or against. 

That the advanced seek to explain is that they seek to predict - a massive difference. I agree they attempt to remove the luck factor, that's a good way of putting it, but to me that's a substantial substantial difference. 

Especially when we start getting into the fact they attempt to account for quality of competition - no where to be found on a plus minus sheet.

The advanced metrics are inarguably a more potentially impactful source of information than an *inherently* flawed stat like plus minus. But advanced stats incorporate subjectivity in the application to such a high degree that divisiveness arises in the discussion regardless. 

It's a double edged sword. You need a skilled wielder.  But if you have a skilled wielder, you absolutely want the more dangerous metric. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Thorny

[Curt]

10 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The bolded, I don't believe so but someone can correct me if I am wrong. 

I don't really think they are measuring the same thing, though. Plus minus doesn't attempt to measure anything - it factually details whether or not a player was on the ice for a goal for or against. 

That the advanced seek to explain is that they seek to predict - a massive difference. I agree they attempt to remove the luck factor, that's a good way of putting it, but to me that's a substantial substantial difference. 

Especially when we start getting into the fact they attempt to account for quality of competition - no where to be found on a plus minus sheet.

The advanced metrics are inarguably a more potentially impactful source of information than an *inherently* flawed stat like plus minus. But advanced stats incorporate subjectivity in the application to such a high degree that divisiveness arises in the discussion regardless. 

It's a double edged sword. You need a skilled wielder.  

It depends on what “advanced” stats you are talking about.  The most commonly used possession metrics are also just measurements of things that actually happened.  Shots for/against in this case.

It kind of removes the goalie performance from +/-.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

It depends on what “advanced” stats you are talking about.  The most commonly used possession metrics are also just measurements of things that actually happened.  Shots for/against in this case.

It kind of removes the goalie performance from +/-.

Ya those metrics stink. 

[Curt]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Ya those metrics stink. 

Yeah, in a similar way to how +/- stinks.  It tells you a little bit, but only a fraction of the whole story.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Curt said:

Yeah, in a similar way to how +/- stinks.  It tells you a little bit, but only a fraction of the whole story.

Right but there are better metrics out there. 

People that are using Corsi and Fenwick for example might as well just use an abacus. Or plus minus. 

Edited January 10, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Ya those metrics stink. 

 

7 minutes ago, Curt said:

Yeah, in a similar way to how +/- stinks.  It tells you a little bit, but only a fraction of the whole story.

 

6 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Right but there are better metrics out there. 

People that are using Corsi and Fenwick for example might as well just use an abacus. Or plus minus. 

I was specifically referring to Corsi and Fenwick in my post.

[PerreaultForever]

47 minutes ago, Taro T said:

To the bolded, you and me both.

But IMHO Miller was brought in to be the spare D-man filling Bogosian's role until he was healed up from the hip surgery rather than top 6 & he was presumably the designated Seattle-bait.  When Bogosian & Montour both were out to start the year, it opened the door to Jokiharju and he absolutely ran with that opportunity when paired with Scandella.

So, then Miller played poorly at LD after Scandella was dealt & apparently never really got over being behind a gimp (Bogosian) & a rook (Joki) on the right side & was scratched more often than not.

I think a lot of this is speculative and likely not true.

imo the Miller situation isn't all that complicated. He was not brought in as a spare but as a top 6 maybe even top 4 until the younger guys took over. Maybe he was seen as Seattle bait, I'd agree there, but the plan was likely a few decent years out of him first.

Jokiharju surprised everyone (probably Chicago most of all) and upset the plan. I'm pretty sure when he was acquired JBot thought he'd be in Rochester and then competing for a job this year, not taking one last year. 

As for Miller not getting over being behind a "gimp and a rook" I think that is pure speculation and I doubt it. Fact is Miller was over valued by JBot. He's never been all that good he just fit in well with Vegas' system for a while but really he's never been anything more than a bottom pairing guy. Kreuger sat him over his play, not his attitude. 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

 

 

I was specifically referring to Corsi and Fenwick in my post.

Ah ok, I wasn't sure because you just said "possession metrics". 

https://www.amazon.ca/Chinese-Soroban-Arithmetic-Calculating-Colorful/dp/B0130KX4X6/ref=sr_1_4_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=abacus&qid=1610321501&sr=8-4-spons&psc=1&smid=A1BL1ZX8MAER20&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEyODlCU04wM1hKNU4zJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwOTYxNDE3SEZKOUhTT1pGTFpNJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTA3NzkyOTg3TUUyNUtWWlE3TzAmd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3RMb2dDbGljaz10cnVl

[PerreaultForever]

34 minutes ago, LabattBlue said:

I can't even begin to guess what the Sabres would have to ADD in order to get a team to take on Skinner and his contract.  

I would definitely leave him unprotected and Seattle can have him if they want. They'd likely pass on the contract too, but protecting him would be foolish. 

[dudacek]

As far as Larsson goes, it was a two-year hike that was dramatic.

42.5 to 48.8 to 50.1 Fenwick.

[Curt]

1 minute ago, PerreaultForever said:

I would definitely leave him unprotected and Seattle can have him if they want. They'd likely pass on the contract too, but protecting him would be foolish. 

Can’t even do that, unless he waives his NMC.  He has to be protected.

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

As far as Larsson goes, it was a two-year hike that was dramatic.

42.5 to 48.8 to 50.1 Fenwick.

Times up real nice with when Jack became Jack and he had a bonafide top C to play behind. 

Just now, Curt said:

Can’t even do that, unless he waives his NMC.  He has to be protected.

Continue playing him with Lazar and I doubt it'd be a problem. 

[PerreaultForever]

9 minutes ago, Curt said:

Can’t even do that, unless he waives his NMC.  He has to be protected.

Didn't realize or simply forgot he had a NMC, Makes the contract even stupider. 

[LabattBlue]

9 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Continue playing him with Lazar and I doubt it'd be a problem. 

😂

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

I think a lot of this is speculative and likely not true.

imo the Miller situation isn't all that complicated. He was not brought in as a spare but as a top 6 maybe even top 4 until the younger guys took over. Maybe he was seen as Seattle bait, I'd agree there, but the plan was likely a few decent years out of him first.

Jokiharju surprised everyone (probably Chicago most of all) and upset the plan. I'm pretty sure when he was acquired JBot thought he'd be in Rochester and then competing for a job this year, not taking one last year. 

As for Miller not getting over being behind a "gimp and a rook" I think that is pure speculation and I doubt it. Fact is Miller was over valued by JBot. He's never been all that good he just fit in well with Vegas' system for a while but really he's never been anything more than a bottom pairing guy. Kreuger sat him over his play, not his attitude. 

Krueger was on record when camp opened this year saying Miller was still longing for Vegas or something to that effect and that Miller's bought in this year.  To me, that's saying he had attitude issues.

But, really not sure how you say he wasn't brought in to be a spare unless you believe that Botterill was going to move somebody to create a space for him & fix the C depth.   (Which is a fair assumption, but as we all saw, EXTREMELY misguided.  😉 )  They already had a top 6 better than him when he was brought in though Bogosian was likely going to miss some time in October.  Who was he brought in to be ahead of?

And Jokiharju definitely hurt Miller's stock, but even w/out him; if everybody's healthy he's 7. And, you seem to be taking contradictory views as you say "really he's never been more than a bottom pairing guy" but also say "he was ... brought in as ... a top 6 maybe even top 4."  Those positions don't mesh especially w/ 6 guys who'd all been top 4's already here ahead of him.  

[Brawndo]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Fair.

Personally, I think possession metrics are a way of removing some of the "luck" factor from +/- by increasing the sample size, but both measure the same thing, with the same flaw: how well a player did in the situations he was used in. I've yet to see a clear demonstration that there is a correlation with how they will perform in a different environment.

For example, didn't Larsson's metrics improve dramatically on the LOG line in Krueger's system than they did in Housley's system?

I'm very interested to see how effective Larsson is in Arizona, and KO is without him (although there remains the Zemgus factor).

I'm curious to see whether Rieder, Eakin and Sheahan can improve their metrics, considering the former two at least seemed to have been handpicked to play specific roles within this system and have all showed significantly higher levels of play in other situations than where they were last year.

Defensive Metrics stayed the same. However with more offensive zone starts Larsson’s Offensive Metrics did improve.

 

However Ralph did say they managed to keep all the UFAs they wanted to this off-season, leading to questioning Ralph’s Player Assessment. 

 

 

[Brawndo]

Another point regarding Skinner he has a full NMC/NTC and seven years remaining on His Current Deal. There is a very good chance Skinner outlasts Krueger’s Time in Buffalo behind the bench. 
 

Historically Skinner requires a good center to be productive, He had that in year one with Eichel and did not have that last season, His Goal Totals show the difference.  How soon before fans turn on him this season? 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, Brawndo said:

Another point regarding Skinner he has a full NMC/NTC and seven years remaining on His Current Deal. There is a very good chance Skinner outlasts Krueger’s Time in Buffalo behind the bench. 
 

Historically Skinner requires a good center to be productive, He had that in year one with Eichel and did not have that last season, His Goal Totals show the difference.  How soon before fans turn on him this season? 

IMO that's already the case. I mean at least those that are expecting really good things this season - I think many are in the "too bad, Jeff! Got Synergy?" mode until they're shown, this season, they should feel different. I get that. If we are a winning team, people will continue to feel that way and those backing him now will stop caring. 

But if we start losing, Skinner's the good guy again, I think. If he's not in a top 6 role he's like the Backup QB behind a struggling starter - fans like those guys. 

[erickompositör72]

Skinner was lighting it up early last year playing with Johansson and Sobotka. I think there is a potential for a line to be constructed outside the top 2 where he succeeds.