The offseason so far - Are the Sabres better?

[dudacek]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Oh ok so it’s their own scale/assigned ratings, thanks. Kinda cool

where does the other +7 come from, after subtracting Peterka’s 4 from Kesselrings’s 6? 

In: Josh Doan, Justin Danforth, Michael Kesselring, Conor Timmins, Alex Lyon
Out: JJ Peterka, Sam Lafferty, Connor Clifton, Jacob Bernard-Docker
 

First group minus the second, at least that’s how I read it

Edited 6 hours ago by dudacek

[thewookie1]

Frankly didn’t want Joshua at his cap hit, he’s just Greenway more or less.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

In: Josh Doan, Justin Danforth, Michael Kesselring, Conor Timmins, Alex Lyon
Out: JJ Peterka, Sam Lafferty, Connor Clifton, Jacob Bernard-Docker
 

First group minus the second, at least that’s how I read it

Right 

candidly i don’t think +impact on the fridges will translate to much of anything at all, as is usually the case. I don’t think 20 Nickels makes a dollar in the nhl, is what I’m saying.

More less to me still looks like my “willing to write off JJ / Kesselring as a wash” to my eye when digging in a bit (with of course them actually preferring Kesselring by a non-negligible margin)

if that’s the case we could very well be at a “probably a little bit improved, likely not enough” take you see floating around from liger and others 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Anyways; if you are right it means we needed to improve by 35 goals. Have we done that? 

Yes.  We have improved scoring by 64 goals from 21/22 to 22/23 (differential went from -58 to -4) and we improved our GA from 22/23 to 23/24 by 50+(but our GF also dropped 49 goals - differential +1). Unfortunately we've never done it at the same time.  

The key to this season is to keep our offense at around 260 (265 GF last year) while decreasing our goals against by about .5 goals per game.  

PS I find differential is a easier way to compare what teams need to do each season to make the playoffs. In the last 4 years, every team with a +9 or better differential in the East made the playoffs.  

 

 

[Thorny]

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

Yes.  We have improved scoring by 64 goals from 21/22 to 22/23 (differential went from -58 to -4) and we improved our GA from 22/23 to 23/24 by 50+(but our GF also dropped 49 goals - differential +1). Unfortunately we've never done it at the same time.  

The key to this season is to keep our offense at around 260 (265 GF last year) while decreasing our goals against by about .5 goals per game.  

PS I find differential is a easier way to compare what teams need to do each season to make the playoffs. In the last 4 years, every team with a +9 or better differential in the East made the playoffs.  

 

 

Sorry i didn’t mean ever I meant this offseason 

You listed a 54 goal improvement above something like that would certainly qualify 

[GASabresIUFAN]

17 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Anyways; if you are right it means we needed to improve by 35 goals. Have we done that? 

 

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Sorry i didn’t mean ever I meant this offseason 

You listed a 54 goal improvement above something like that would certainly qualify 

That's the $ Billion question isn't it.  It's impossible to know until you seem the team play, but on paper we haven't come close to doing it.  I project our scoring at 254 and I'm not sure how to project GA, except to say I think Kesselring and Timmins could be worth 10 goals saved over the course of the season.  That would still leave us at a -20 differential.  If the 2 new D save us 20 goals over the 289 allowed last year, this is a marginally improved non-playoff team.  

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Right 

candidly i don’t think +impact on the fridges will translate to much of anything at all, as is usually the case. I don’t think 20 Nickels makes a dollar in the nhl, is what I’m saying.

More less to me still looks like my “willing to write off JJ / Kesselring as a wash” to my eye when digging in a bit (with of course them actually preferring Kesselring by a non-negligible margin)

if that’s the case we could very well be at a “probably a little bit improved, likely not enough” take you see floating around from liger and others 

Yeah, I mean it’s just an honest attempt to quantify evergreen hockey questions like who is more valuable: JJ Peterka or Bowen Byram? (They’re both +4)

And it completely ignore the pertinent question of the whole not equaling the sum of its parts.

For a decent reference point +9 would have been the equivalent of the Sabres losing no one and adding one good player, like a FilipnForsberg or a Noah Hanifan.

Good conversation fodder, but that’s about it.

[Thorny]

Just now, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

That's the $ Billion question isn't it.  It's impossible to know until you seem the team play, but on paper we haven't come close to doing it.  I project our scoring at 254 and I'm not sure how to project GA, except to say I think Kesselring and Timmins could be worth 10 goals saved over the course of the season.  That would still leave us at a -20 differential.  If the 2 new D save us 20 goals over the 289 allowed last year, this is a marginally improved non-playoff team.  

With our internal cap it’s actually the ~750m  dollar question 

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

With our internal cap it’s actually the ~750m  dollar question 

I guess to depends on the value of the franchise if they make the playoffs.

[Thorny]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

For a decent reference point +9 would have been the equivalent of the Sabres losing no one and adding one good player, like a FilipnForsberg or a Noah Hanifan.

Good conversation fodder, but that’s about it.

Agree, but interesting also in terms of the mechanics of how a breakdown like that translates. Cause it’s obv not an exact comp - whatever number you a lot to McDavid, say, +20 you aren’t getting equivalent value from 20, +1 players. 

I don’t necessarily see a +9 accumulated majorly on the fringes as equivalent to adding a +9 to your top six 

[dudacek]

12 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Right 

candidly i don’t think +impact on the fridges will translate to much of anything at all, as is usually the case. I don’t think 20 Nickels makes a dollar in the nhl, is what I’m saying.

More less to me still looks like my “willing to write off JJ / Kesselring as a wash” to my eye when digging in a bit (with of course them actually preferring Kesselring by a non-negligible margin)

if that’s the case we could very well be at a “probably a little bit improved, likely not enough” take you see floating around from liger and others 

The model does seem to assign far greater variation to the good players.

Dahlin is worth Thompson and Tuch together, Tuch is worth Byram and Peterka together.

And it recognizes that guys like Clifton and Bryson are actually negatives but not to the same degree Dahlin is a positive. I assume usage and ice time are factors

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Agree, but interesting also in terms of the mechanics of how a breakdown like that translates. Cause it’s obv not an exact comp - whatever number you a lot to McDavid, say, +20 you aren’t getting equivalent value from 20, +1 players. 

I don’t necessarily see a +9 accumulated majorly on the fringes as equivalent to adding a +9 to your top six 

What I tired to say with the previous post is a think the model actually does try to account for that

[Thorny]

6 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

 

That's the $ Billion question isn't it.  It's impossible to know until you seem the team play, but on paper we haven't come close to doing it.  I project our scoring at 254 and I'm not sure how to project GA, except to say I think Kesselring and Timmins could be worth 10 goals saved over the course of the season.  That would still leave us at a -20 differential.  If the 2 new D save us 20 goals over the 289 allowed last year, this is a marginally improved non-playoff team.  

Well if we score 254 (269 last year) and save 10 more extra, we’ll go from a -20 to a -25. If we score 254 and the D save us 20, we’ll get to -15

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Agree, but interesting also in terms of the mechanics of how a breakdown like that translates. Cause it’s obv not an exact comp - whatever number you a lot to McDavid, say, +20 you aren’t getting equivalent value from 20, +1 players. 

I don’t necessarily see a +9 accumulated majorly on the fringes as equivalent to adding a +9 to your top six 

The model says a 21 and 19 1s is literally twice as good a team as 20 1s, 1 player can make a huge difference.

[Thorny]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The model does seem to assign far greater variation to the good players.

Dahlin is worth Thompson and Tuch together, Tuch is worth Byram and Peterka together.

And it recognizes that guys like Clifton and Bryson are actually negatives but not to the same degree Dahlin is a positive. I assume usage and ice time are factors

What I tired to say with the previous post is a think the model actually does try to account for that

As a matter of practicality I don’t see how the model *can* account for it - my point is  a function of team building not raw value comp. 

Let’s see if I can actually convey this- 

Even if the model has accurately figured out the ratio and a hypothetical +1 is exactly 1/7th the on ice value of a +7, a team won’t get as much value from the 7 pieces as the 1 due to dominance of role 

if you could figure out EXACTLY what McDavid’s talent was and you divided it among 23 players, which do you take? McDavid or the 23? 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The model says a 21 and 19 1s is literally twice as good a team as 20 1s, 1 player can make a huge difference.

That seems logical to me 

edit: actually, does it? 

this bears thinking about. Probably need to let this tumble dry for a bit 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

Has Benson ever played centre?

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Thorny

[HumanSlinky39]

22 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Has Benson ever played centre?

 

I think he played a little Center in Juniors. 

[pi2000]

On 7/15/2025 at 6:13 AM, LGR4GM said:

Question. JJ Peterka was -1 on the season but Zach Benson was -2... who's a better defensive forward?

My point was that trading Peterka is not going to help resolve the goals against issue.  

Quinn, Cozens, Malenstyn, Lafferty, Power, Clifton, Bryson.. those guys were the problem, and as you mentioned, some of them are gone. 

We'll see if their replacements are any better, but the guys that are still here, notably Quinn and Power, two guys who we can expect to see non-trivial amounts of ice time at even strength.... need to improve. 

Kesselring was a +4 (+6 team relative)
Danforth a -6 (-8 team relative)
TImmins +9 (+13 team relative) in 17 games with PIT

Edited 4 hours ago by pi2000

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

Has Benson ever played centre?

 

Has he? Yes, he played limited centre minutes in Jr's. Fairly certain in his draft year he got some time at centre but, Benson is a winger. This lineup doesn't make sense. 

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

 

if you could figure out EXACTLY what McDavid’s talent was and you divided it among 23 players, which do you take? McDavid or the 23? 

Can I have all 23 on the ice at the same time?

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

As a matter of practicality I don’t see how the model *can* account for it - my point is  a function of team building not raw value comp. 

Let’s see if I can actually convey this- 

Even if the model has accurately figured out the ratio and a hypothetical +1 is exactly 1/7th the on ice value of a +7, a team won’t get as much value from the 7 pieces as the 1 due to dominance of role 

if you could figure out EXACTLY what McDavid’s talent was and you divided it among 23 players, which do you take? McDavid or the 23? 

On the offhand chance the question wasn't rhetorical, you obviously take McDavid.  Because as long as the others are in any way positives you necessarily end up with more value.

[Thorny]

35 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Has he? Yes, he played limited centre minutes in Jr's. Fairly certain in his draft year he got some time at centre but, Benson is a winger. This lineup doesn't make sense. 

I was just asking if he could play C - the lineup would, if he could 

if you actually read my tweet you’d see it was more so a thought experiment - I find my perception almost changes when I can identify a solid 1C

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

On the offhand chance the question wasn't rhetorical, you obviously take McDavid.  Because as long as the others are in any way positives you necessarily end up with more value.

It was absolutely not rhetorical 

22 minutes ago, Weave said:

Can I have all 23 on the ice at the same time?

[thewookie1]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

I was just asking if he could play C - the lineup would, if he could 

if you actually read my tweet you’d see it was more so a thought experiment - I find my perception almost changes when I can identify a solid 1C

It was absolutely not rhetorical 

Could he learn center; yes

Would it be wise to; probably not

He certainly brings the defensive competence that great centers have and is a sneaky good playmakers 

[LGR4GM]

No idea if he could play nhl C. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

Wasn't Savoie his center most of his Jr career?