NHL.com work-up on the Sabres

[7+6=13]

17 hours ago, dudacek said:

It seems like you did. Basically I'm just comparing the 2023 team with the guy who took his roster spot and/or role.

Incrementally, we got harder in most positions. it's not much on a player for player level, but across half a team its significant.

(incidentally, I neglected Benson. Asplund and or Hinostroza were the next two for the 23 team in terms of games played)

I think I may have been thrown off by you using the word spectrum.  

I think we agree there's little doubt we should be more physical and harder to push around.  The question mark, for me is, will they fill out the other definitions of being tougher.  Will they play for each other, stand up for each other, protect a lead, go to the net, etc.

I think they will and if they do, will more than make up for Pererka's goals.

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Goals allowed, with rank in league and goal differential shown

2024-25   287   (29th)     -22
2023-24   243   (11th)      +1
2022-23   297   (26th)     -4
2021-22    287   (25th)     -58
2020-21    196   (T-29th)  -62 
2019-20    215   (T-20th) with EDM  -22   (EDM was +8)

Okay but if that stats explains it why'd they not make the playoffs in 2023-24?

[DarthEbriate]

34 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

Okay but if that stats explains it why'd they not make the playoffs in 2023-24?

Well, +1 is the very least you can be over even. They weren't outscoring the opposition. Just like this past season where they had a top offense 5-on-5 but still finished the year with a negative differential. Terrible defense outdoes good offense.

 

In the case of 2023-24, though, it looks like the underlying concern is loser points. The two teams that made the playoffs as wild cards were the Islanders and Capitals. Experienced defense-first grinding teams that scored less, but got to overtime. That season, the Sabres picked up 6 loser points (and missed the playoffs by 8).

Detroit (+4 goal differential) also didn't make it and had 9 loser points, losing the tiebreaker with WSH.

Isles -17 goals, but nabbed 16 loser points and the Caps at a gaudy -37 goal differential !!! snuck into the final WC spot tied with Detroit but won the breaker -- had 11 loser points. They had two losses that got them past Detroit. The Sabres had the same number of regulation wins as the Isles and finished 10 points back in the standings.

Because of the scoring system, if you keep the game 1-1 it's more advantageous over the length of the season than trying to run-and-gun to 5 goals. If you lose, lose big -- and in all other games, grind it out.

[PerreaultForever]

1 hour ago, DarthEbriate said:

Well, +1 is the very least you can be over even. They weren't outscoring the opposition. Just like this past season where they had a top offense 5-on-5 but still finished the year with a negative differential. Terrible defense outdoes good offense.

 

In the case of 2023-24, though, it looks like the underlying concern is loser points. The two teams that made the playoffs as wild cards were the Islanders and Capitals. Experienced defense-first grinding teams that scored less, but got to overtime. That season, the Sabres picked up 6 loser points (and missed the playoffs by 8).

Detroit (+4 goal differential) also didn't make it and had 9 loser points, losing the tiebreaker with WSH.

Isles -17 goals, but nabbed 16 loser points and the Caps at a gaudy -37 goal differential !!! snuck into the final WC spot tied with Detroit but won the breaker -- had 11 loser points. They had two losses that got them past Detroit. The Sabres had the same number of regulation wins as the Isles and finished 10 points back in the standings.

Because of the scoring system, if you keep the game 1-1 it's more advantageous over the length of the season than trying to run-and-gun to 5 goals. If you lose, lose big -- and in all other games, grind it out.

Well some of these stats argue against them being decisive then right? Who picks up the most loser points might be more significant. 

[Big Guava]

On 8/3/2025 at 5:15 PM, dudacek said:

Thanks for posting.

Goaltending is far and away the number one question mark for me although I believe it is tied to reducing the excess of Grade A chances.

We’ve hashed the JJP numbers pretty thoroughly; not seeing ES scoring as an issue with this roster and the PP already sucked with him.

The McLeod thing is an interesting take. Most of us agree Norris and Kulich come with question marks. We’ve kinda accepted McLeod might slip but he’s still a good 3. The idea that he could take another step is not one that I’ve seen get any traction. But really, is a 60-point McLeod any harder to foresee than a  60-point Norris or Kulich?

 

Meh...UPL was just really bad last year, that's really all there is to it. He was unfocused game to game and was out of position far too often. Way too many "AHL" level goals against him last year.

Did they allow too many chances, sure, but they did the year before too when he was far better. It's not like they went from being the Great Wall Of China on D to a sieve.

[7+6=13]

1 hour ago, Big Guava said:

 

Meh...UPL was just really bad last year, that's really all there is to it. He was unfocused game to game and was out of position far too often. Way too many "AHL" level goals against him last year.

Did they allow too many chances, sure, but they did the year before too when he was far better. It's not like they went from being the Great Wall Of China on D to a sieve.

I agree with this assessment.  I don't really blame UPL, because I just don't think he's the type of talent that can year over year face a lot of high danger shots.  Our team defense has sucked and we do easily allow the type of players that want to, get great position in front of the net.  

I think we have an opportunity to be better defensively because I like the additions.  I really dislike our coaching and think they're the largest problem. UPL can also be a little better if the defense is.  I just think that's the thing with him.

[dudacek]

32 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I agree with this assessment.  I don't really blame UPL, because I just don't think he's the type of talent that can year over year face a lot of high danger shots.  Our team defense has sucked and we do easily allow the type of players that want to, get great position in front of the net.  

I think we have an opportunity to be better defensively because I like the additions.  I really dislike our coaching and think they're the largest problem. UPL can also be a little better if the defense is.  I just think that's the thing with him.

The numbers say UPL is demonstrably better in low and medium chance situations than in high danger ones.

[Taro T]

31 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The numbers say UPL is demonstrably better in low and medium chance situations than in high danger ones.

Umm, isn't that an almost tautological statement?

(Presuming you mean relative to his peers.  But just the way that was written, it kind of seems to be a "no Schlitz, Sherlock" sort of statistic.)

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Umm, isn't that an almost tautological statement?

(Presuming you mean relative to his peers.  But just the way that was written, it kind of seems to be a "no Schlitz, Sherlock" sort of statistic.)

NHL.com breaks goalie save percentages down into three categories. 
Too lazy to look up the numbers again, but my memory is telling me UPL ranked in the 30s among 60ish NHL goalies in sv% the “easier” situations and nearly at the bottom in the toughest situations.