Tage Thompson is a super star

[jad1]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Two points from last in the toughest division. But also 5-3-2 in their last 10 games and 7 points out of a playoff berth with 53 games to play.

I also said that I thought they would improve in the standings, but they haven't done it yet. 

The point was that if Eichel's leadership was the anchor that some have claimed it was, getting rid of him should have resulted in an immediate and impressive improvement in the standings. It hasn't.

It doesn't mean that the Sabres haven't improved in certain areas, because they have.  It doesn't mean that they won't improve.  It just means reasons they will improve will have nothing to do with Eichel's leaving, and more on the emergence of players like Thompson, Cozens, Dahlin, Quinn, and the rest.

 

[Doohickie]

22 minutes ago, K-9 said:

The point is he lied about the advice he was given by the medical staff.

Did he?  I've forgotten a lot of that he said-she said.

[K-9]

52 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Did he?  I've forgotten a lot of that he said-she said.

Yes, he did. He was on Chris Weidman’s podcast this past summer and while he was ranting about the injustice of it all, he said that the Sabres medical staff told him he could have the replacement surgery and then abruptly changed their minds. That was never the case. 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, jad1 said:

I also said that I thought they would improve in the standings, but they haven't done it yet. 

The point was that if Eichel's leadership was the anchor that some have claimed it was, getting rid of him should have resulted in an immediate and impressive improvement in the standings. It hasn't.

It doesn't mean that the Sabres haven't improved in certain areas, because they have.  It doesn't mean that they won't improve.  It just means reasons they will improve will have nothing to do with Eichel's leaving, and more on the emergence of players like Thompson, Cozens, Dahlin, Quinn, and the rest.

 

Spin is spin. You prefer to spin downward. I spin upward.

As for the standings, they have been playing at well above .600 outside of the 8-game losing streak. In fact if they had gone 4-4, instead of 0-8 they would be in the first wild card spot now.  Four games: the difference between a playoff berth and 2 points from last (in the division. The Sabres are actually 22nd overall in the league.)

[JohnC]

5 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Coaching and management play a role too. Eichel was inevitable the way he was anointed the savior. You have a player who's been "the guy" his entire life. How else does someone like that act?

This Sabres roster is the complete opposite of that dynamic.

 

Good for him and good for us. Not all divorces are tragedies.

That's an excellent way of putting it. 

[mjd1001]

58 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Spin is spin. You prefer to spin downward. I spin upward.

As for the standings, they have been playing at well above .600 outside of the 8-game losing streak. In fact if they had gone 4-4, instead of 0-8 they would be in the first wild card spot now.  Four games: the difference between a playoff berth and 2 points from last (in the division. The Sabres are actually 22nd overall in the league.)

Goal differential to me shows they are getting better.  In the long run, it might be the single most predictive stat of how good a team is outside of record.  The 'standings' dont' show an improvement, but goal differential sure does, and that is a team stat I like.

[Refuting]

15 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

Goal differential to me shows they are getting better.  In the long run, it might be the single most predictive stat of how good a team is outside of record.  The 'standings' dont' show an improvement, but goal differential sure does, and that is a team stat I like.

Not always. During the 07-08 season the Sabres were 4th in the league in scoring and had a plus goal differential and still didn't make the playoffs 

And they played very similar to these Sabres 

 

[mjd1001]

7 minutes ago, Refuting said:

Not always. During the 07-08 season the Sabres were 4th in the league in scoring and had a plus goal differential and still didn't make the playoffs 

And they played very similar to these Sabres 

 

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule..but the rule is very strong.

-Last year in the East, every team that was positive made the playoffs. Every team that was negative missed

-Last year in the West, 9 teams were positive, 7 of them made the playoffs.  7 teams were negative, 6 missed the playoffs.

-If you go back to the last time we had a full season, 2018-2019, things are similar

--Then in the East 9 teams were positive. The top 8 of those made the playoffs.  All negative teams missed the playoffs.

--In the west, every single positive team made the playoffs, every single negative team missed.

So is it a perfect predictor? No, but if you are positive at goal differential, odds are GREAT you make the playoffs, if you are negative odds are you miss, and it is overall a good predictor of just how good a team is in the long run.

[Thorny]

7 hours ago, JohnC said:

He wanted out and the new GM wanted him out. He ended up in Vegas, got the surgery he wanted and regained his health and form. Now he is the best player on a cup contending team. It worked out well for all the parties involved. 

Borderline blasphemous 

[SDS]

5 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Borderline blasphemous 

Going into the season what sort of money would you have bet that the Sabres would have not only one, but two players with higher point totals than Jack at this point in the season?

[sabresparaavida]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

Going into the season what sort of money would you have bet that the Sabres would have not only one, but two players with higher point totals than Jack at this point in the season?

You mean 5 right?

[shrader]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

Going into the season what sort of money would you have bet that the Sabres would have not only one, but two players with higher point totals than Jack at this point in the season?

When I find this person who is making bets on how a team will be doing after 29 games, I will immediately wish him/her well with the future bankruptcy. 

[Thorny]

7 hours ago, jad1 said:

The Sabres posted 75 points last season, their 4th best season total since 2015.  They are currently two points ahead of last place in the division. 

No doubt several of their young players are developing.  And the fancy stats do suggest optimism.  But the overall team progress in the standings does not suggest a team that has greatly improved since trading Eichel.

I believe that the Sabres will eventually improve in the standings.  But the gap in the timeline between Eichel leaving and the climb in the standings will suggest that the reason will have little to do with Eichel's leadership or lack thereof.

The Sabres *could* have built around Eichel, successfully. 

The Sabres *did not* build around Jack successfully.

It reached a point where, from all reasonable accounts, the Sabres could *no longer* feasibly build around Eichel, successfully. Eichel is *not* blameless in this and it became an untenable situation, for both parties. It’s Kudos to KA on making that decision.

In a vacuum I’d prefer he was still here. Seeing the way the *intrinsic* logic of Adams’ plan has borne out, I wouldn’t reverse the trade if able to, and at this stage wouldn’t consider it. As always that’s a sliding scale and can be revisited.

6 hours ago, jad1 said:

I also said that I thought they would improve in the standings, but they haven't done it yet. 

The point was that if Eichel's leadership was the anchor that some have claimed it was, getting rid of him should have resulted in an immediate and impressive improvement in the standings. It hasn't.

It doesn't mean that the Sabres haven't improved in certain areas, because they have.  It doesn't mean that they won't improve.  It just means reasons they will improve will have nothing to do with Eichel's leaving, and more on the emergence of players like Thompson, Cozens, Dahlin, Quinn, and the rest.

 

It was never “addition by subtraction”. 

It was “addition made possible by necessary subtraction” 

a distinction.

Edited December 14, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorny]

12 minutes ago, SDS said:

Going into the season what sort of money would you have bet that the Sabres would have not only one, but two players with higher point totals than Jack at this point in the season?

Probably about as much as I’d have on Jack being a front runner for Selke. 

And I’d be sitting at a push currently for my “Eichel top 10 in MVP race” bet 

- - - 

Eichel leads his team in points. He’s the only player above point a game on his team. He’s a plus 17 (for those who care. Pi - he’s #1 team relative), 21 of his 29 points are ES, and he has ZERO penalty minutes, all with excellent advanced numbers on a team at the top of the league

If you think my view on Jack have been proven anything but MORE accurate this season, you are barking up the wrong tree. Unless I missed the part where I said Jack’s talents are nullified in totality by the mere occurrence of Jeff Skinner having more pointz.

Particularly when this is the only time you ever quote me 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Thorny

[SDS]

10 minutes ago, shrader said:

When I find this person who is making bets on how a team will be doing after 29 games, I will immediately wish him/her well with the future bankruptcy. 

No one said anything about the team. And I would love to project what’s going to happen in the future. But that’s not today. 

[nfreeman]

45 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The Sabres *could* have built around Eichel, successfully. 

The Sabres *did not* build around Jack successfully.

The bolded is a theory, not a fact, and it's not a theory that's supported by his success to date in Vegas, as that team was not built around Eichel.

It is entirely possible that Eichel is the kind of guy that a good team cannot be built around, while still being the kind of guy that can be a member of a good team.

[thewookie1]

6 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

The bolded is a theory, not a fact, and it's not a theory that's supported by his success to date in Vegas, as that team was not built around Eichel.

It is entirely possible that Eichel is the kind of guy that a good team cannot be built around, while still being the kind of guy that can be a member of a good team.

This is likely the case; Eichel is a great player that can be many things for a team but cannot be your apparent cornerstone piece as it seemed to get to his head. Vegas sees him as the piece that will put them over the top where as Buffalo looked for him to rise them to the top.

[Dr. Who]

51 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The Sabres *could* have built around Eichel, successfully. 

The Sabres *did not* build around Jack successfully.

It reached a point where, from all reasonable accounts, the Sabres could *no longer* feasibly build around Eichel, successfully. Eichel is *not* blameless in this and it became an untenable situation, for both parties. It’s Kudos to KA on making that decision.

In a vacuum I’d prefer he was still here. Seeing the way the *intrinsic* logic of Adams’ plan has borne out, I wouldn’t reverse the trade if able to, and at this stage wouldn’t consider it. As always that’s a sliding scale and can be revisited.

It was never “addition by subtraction”. 

It was “addition made possible by necessary subtraction” 

a distinction.

This is a correct analysis, though I still reserve the right to rag on Eichel and his Boston attitude, irrational or not.

[Zamboni]

Yea I don’t think you can successfully build a great team around Eichel. I think Eichel can be a significant piece on a great team if it’s built well already. Glad I don’t have to worry or concern myself with that “personality”. I just couldn’t care less if he does or does not succeed in Vegas. Good for him either way.

[Second Line Center]

TT had only 3 points in the first 7 games.  
 

So he has 41 points in the last 22 games.  

[Thorny]

5 hours ago, nfreeman said:

The bolded is a theory, not a fact, and it's not a theory that's supported by his success to date in Vegas, as that team was not built around Eichel.

It is entirely possible that Eichel is the kind of guy that a good team cannot be built around, while still being the kind of guy that can be a member of a good team.

This is semantics, though. 

I wasn’t using “around” in the manner you took it - it wasn’t a comment about whether he can, to a certainty, “start” as the focal point - in the manner we saw them place the franchise focus on him. It’s “around the concept of Eichel being the best player on said team” not necessarily that he’s the ideal starting point. I think in the right situation it would defy logic to think that was *impossible* but truthfully I’m not interested in arguing that, really. Too much unknown. The way the Sabres structured around Jack clearly did not work. But what about, if they hadn’t tanked to get him? Or if they made ROR captain? If the Sabres centred their entire build focus around Jack to the detriment of the rest of the roster, there’s plenty of blame on the organization for doing that, not just Jack. They had to cave to the 18 year old’s demands? 

Eichel is capable of being the best player on a good team. This is the point of what I was saying. Your contention is about when that player can be added to the fold. We can’t know whether based on the data, a good team can be built up around Eichel, from a starting point of “bad” - all I know is that the Sabres build, around Eichel, didn’t work. But that’s already apparently obvious. With only one failure to build around him from the staring point of bad team, where there are *myriad* of variables present, it can’t be suggested to be already proven that it cannot be done.

If anyone wants to claim to a certainty that the Sabres were doomed from the beginning and even with a proper GM, COULD NOT possibly have built a good team, once Jack was here, have at it, I guess.

Who knows. I’m content in the point I’m making that Eichel is capable of being the best player on a good team. That the Sabres, too, could have so too built a good team, with a Jack in the fold, up to and including him being the best player on said team. The way in which they anointed him as the saviour and stripped away everything to get him, and so placed the franchise on his shoulders from the beginning, clearly did not. How exactly that team needs to be constructed in terms of the order of addition is anyone’s guess and to think there would be an full-stop rule rather than a myriad of potential scenarios based on fit would be exceptionally dicey imo

Edited December 15, 2022 by Thorny

[Thorny]

56 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

This is likely the case; Eichel is a great player that can be many things for a team but cannot be your apparent cornerstone piece as it seemed to get to his head. Vegas sees him as the piece that will put them over the top where as Buffalo looked for him to rise them to the top.

He’s their MVP, by far. He’s not their tipping point piece 

Regardless of when he was granted/he assumed the role 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Thorny

[Taro T]

9 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Coaching and management play a role too. Eichel was inevitable the way he was anointed the savior. You have a player who's been "the guy" his entire life. How else does someone like that act?

This Sabres roster is the complete opposite of that dynamic.

 

Good for him and good for us. Not all divorces are tragedies.

Like Dahlin?

[Taro T]

8 hours ago, jad1 said:

I also said that I thought they would improve in the standings, but they haven't done it yet. 

The point was that if Eichel's leadership was the anchor that some have claimed it was, getting rid of him should have resulted in an immediate and impressive improvement in the standings. It hasn't.

It doesn't mean that the Sabres haven't improved in certain areas, because they have.  It doesn't mean that they won't improve.  It just means reasons they will improve will have nothing to do with Eichel's leaving, and more on the emergence of players like Thompson, Cozens, Dahlin, Quinn, and the rest.

 

But, and granted now Eichel missed much of that season, but in Jack's last season playing for the Sabres the team was on pace for 54 points.  Pretty sure there WAS an immediate & impressive improvement.  😉

[Taro T]

4 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule..but the rule is very strong.

-Last year in the East, every team that was positive made the playoffs. Every team that was negative missed

-Last year in the West, 9 teams were positive, 7 of them made the playoffs.  7 teams were negative, 6 missed the playoffs.

-If you go back to the last time we had a full season, 2018-2019, things are similar

--Then in the East 9 teams were positive. The top 8 of those made the playoffs.  All negative teams missed the playoffs.

--In the west, every single positive team made the playoffs, every single negative team missed.

So is it a perfect predictor? No, but if you are positive at goal differential, odds are GREAT you make the playoffs, if you are negative odds are you miss, and it is overall a good predictor of just how good a team is in the long run.

But were they DeLuca 0.500?  That's what REALLY matters.  🙃