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.

 

[triumph_communes]

I think there’s plenty of offense to be given from Dahlin if he is given a real partner for once and is unlocked 

[Big Guava]

10 hours 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.

My problem with UPL is that he seems to only really be focused when he has something to play for personally.

He was really good when he was trying to earn a role on the Sabres full time, and he was really good when he was in a contract year.

Outside of that he has been pretty bad, and to me that just says he only really puts in the work when he has something to play for, which is not what I expect from a professional who should want to be their best every game. 

But this isn't all that uncommon...a lot of players treat it like a job more than something they actually love and only seem to really focus and put the extra work in when they have something to lose or gain personally.

Edited 9 hours ago by Big Guava

[JP51]

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?

agree here... I think statistically that Goaltending, Defensive improvement and the development of our younger players (Benson, Kulick,Norris, Kesselring, even Krebs, Doan) rings very important here... I think the one intangible thing that is hard to mention, how will this new mix of players gel... with the be a two way team with grit and not get run over night in and night out by teams who are focused and play 60 minutes... sick and tired of the we need 60 minutes excuse...  Lindy seems to understand this but was at a clear loss at getting his team to understand this... does the new mix of players allow him to have a greater effect in the locker room... so to me all this stuff is valuable... and important... but the most important thing to me is the will of the team... to quote Zach "sometimes you just have to cross check somebody in the head"  not trying to be an old school ogre here... but lets face is hockey is a physical sport that attempts to intimidate... we almost never were the intimidators... and all to often the intimidatees... its not 60 minutes a night... that is an excuse... it is not taking a skate when the puck is in the corner... it being willing to initiate or take contact to control a puck... its your team mates knowing that you are jumping in when its tough and people wont easily take liberties... and to me until that dynamic changes... nothing changes... Talent will carry this team close to .500 (82pt pace) ... the above will get them in the playoffs... 

[Broken Ankles]

9 hours ago, dudacek said:

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.

 

Isn’t that a bigger problem?  Hopefully a change in personnel coupled with improvement with age/experience can reduce some high danger chances, but if you’re ranked 30 something at the basics of the position, then it’s a lost cause, no? 

[GoPuckYourself]

Adams makes no sense at all, he tries to upgrade the defense by getting tougher and by getting more on the defensive side yet does nothing to actually improve at goalie, he picks up a backup journeyman to go along with what should be our backup goalie in UPL. This season will most likely be over in November like usual.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Big Guava said:

My problem with UPL is that he seems to only really be focused when he has something to play for personally.

He was really good when he was trying to earn a role on the Sabres full time, and he was really good when he was in a contract year.

Outside of that he has been pretty bad, and to me that just says he only really puts in the work when he has something to play for, which is not what I expect from a professional who should want to be their best every game. 

But this isn't all that uncommon...a lot of players treat it like a job more than something they actually love and only seem to really focus and put the extra work in when they have something to lose or gain personally.

Personally, expect you're misreading UPL.  He's a guy that needs to know everybody on the team believes in him in order to believe in himself fully AND when things start to go bad he hasn't figured out how to get out of his own head.

That year he finally showed that he could be what he was in Juniors prior to the hip surgeries, he did 2 things he hadn't consistently done as a pro.  He kept himself more upright in his butterfly taking away the top of the net like big goalies are expected to do.  AND he moved post to post explosively and didn't overshoot the far post which personally hadn't seen him do at all as a pro.  (He mght've done it on occassion, but not when this kid was watching.)

As he continued to do those things, the crease was his and his play was on a positive feedback loop.

Near the time that Levi's college season was coming to an end, he started to falter some, and by the time the season had ended he'd played himself back into the #3 role and didn't move back up from there on his own merit, rather he got the starter's job back by default.  And about the time Levi got some starts again in the NHL, UPL's play started to tail off again.

IMHO, UPL's issues are primarily between the ears.  And won't expect him to figure them out for good until he demonstrates he's actually figured them out for good.  But IF he does do that, the team probably is good enough in front of him to make the playoffs with that.  Even with the same awful coaching we've watched for so many years.

[JohnC]

39 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Personally, expect you're misreading UPL.  He's a guy that needs to know everybody on the team believes in him in order to believe in himself fully AND when things start to go bad he hasn't figured out how to get out of his own head.

That year he finally showed that he could be what he was in Juniors prior to the hip surgeries, he did 2 things he hadn't consistently done as a pro.  He kept himself more upright in his butterfly taking away the top of the net like big goalies are expected to do.  AND he moved post to post explosively and didn't overshoot the far post which personally hadn't seen him do at all as a pro.  (He mght've done it on occassion, but not when this kid was watching.)

As he continued to do those things, the crease was his and his play was on a positive feedback loop.

Near the time that Levi's college season was coming to an end, he started to falter some, and by the time the season had ended he'd played himself back into the #3 role and didn't move back up from there on his own merit, rather he got the starter's job back by default.  And about the time Levi got some starts again in the NHL, UPL's play started to tail off again.

IMHO, UPL's issues are primarily between the ears.  And won't expect him to figure them out for good until he demonstrates he's actually figured them out for good.  But IF he does do that, the team probably is good enough in front of him to make the playoffs with that.  Even with the same awful coaching we've watched for so many years.

What bothers me about UPL in your excellent description of his game is his mental fragility. The critical trait for goalies is the ability to handle adversity.

There is no question that our overall defense was inadequate, lacking structure that included too many lapses. He reacted to the poor defense in front of him by getting into bad habits, such as lunging and flailing when the play was scrambling around him. As you noted, when he plays a more composed game with an economy of movement, he is very effective.

Entering this season, I consider him to be the most important player that will determine how the season will play out.

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

Isn’t that a bigger problem?  Hopefully a change in personnel coupled with improvement with age/experience can reduce some high danger chances, but if you’re ranked 30 something at the basics of the position, then it’s a lost cause, no? 

A rank in 30s would just mean you're average. I think the problem is how badly things fell off across the board.

He went from slightly above average to very good in most categories last year to below average in everything.

I've dug up some actual numbers:

• 24/25 Games started SV% > .900: 45.5% (Below 50th percentile)
• 23/24 Games started SV% > .900: 64.7% (90th)
• 24/25 Save percentage: .887 (Below 50th)
• 23/24 Save percentage: .910 (70th)
• 24/25 High danger save percentage: .769 (Below 50th)
• 23/24 High danger save percentage: .830 (86th)
• 24/25 Mid-range save percentage: .873 (Below 50th)
• 23/24 Mid-range save percentage: .893 (52nd)

I mean someone could run the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if he put up his 2023/24 numbers last year, the Sabres are in the playoff mix. Now I recognize that's not all on him, but it's pretty hard to underestimate the impact good goaltending would have on this team.

The over/under .900 number is huge. James Reimer had 8 games over .900 down the stretch and just 3 under. Not coincidentally, the Sabres went 1-2 in the unders and 7-1 in the overs.

Edited 5 hours ago by dudacek

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Broken Ankles said:

Isn’t that a bigger problem?  Hopefully a change in personnel coupled with improvement with age/experience can reduce some high danger chances, but if you’re ranked 30 something at the basics of the position, then it’s a lost cause, no? 

These are the numbers I was referring to earlier:

https://moneypuck.com/goalies.htm

It's interesting that UPL generally also ranked low in the "above expected" categories, meaning that even with the poor defence factored in, he's not making enough saves.

Edited 5 hours ago by dudacek

[Thorny]

On 8/3/2025 at 5:11 PM, PerreaultForever said:

If you live in the world of stats and analytics, the Sabres are almost always exciting.

If you watch hockey, they are not. 

Very salient tbh. You can find a stat for any opinion you want to have. This thread is evidence enough.

I very nearly just dropped a poop emoji in the name of balancing things out - that seems most fair and the closest I could get to accurately displaying how ridiculously one sided the vision gets - but I’ll settle for this 

[Thorny]

On 8/4/2025 at 9:58 AM, GASabresIUFAN said:

That goes to the question of whether the 5 on 5 scoring is sustainable. 

The blurb is missing some context.  The article says they scored 90 mid range goals.  Ok, but how is that defined. They also said the forwards scored 7 long range goals.  That leaves 168 goals un-accounted for.  Assuming some are long range D goals, that leaves about 160-165 goals scoring close in.  How does that rank in the NHL?  Top 5, Top 10?  How do all these stats compare with teams like Florida or Edm?

Assuming we scored 160+ close in, my guess is going to the net might not be as big as an issue as we thought.  We also have a roster full of talented shooters like Thompson, Norris and others so maybe the mid range shooting is ideal.   I honestly don’t know and wish the article gave better context.

 

 

I’ve also seen statistics outlining the fact the sabres have been significant front runners. A lot of their goals are garbage time, in essence 

the 23rd place the Sabre finished in goals 2 years ago is for me as accurate as their placement last year, then add in the fact we lost Peterka 

Edited 3 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

On 8/4/2025 at 2:21 PM, PerreaultForever said:

Okay in all seriousness, to the stats people, we all see the periodic stats about goals in first periods and 5v5 this and that and above expected here and there and all the rest BUT,

what is the stat or stats that explains analytically, why Sabres always lose on the season and miss the playoffs? What's the strictly analytical explanation?

We’ve averaged 78 points the duration of Adams tenure 

those are the points the league uses to measure teams relative to eachother, as opposed to the numbers we select that paint the team in a good light. If advanced stats tantamount to offsetting the good ones, to the tune of a balance sitting around 26th place aren’t being shown to you, rest assured they are still there 

- - - 

WARNING 

*deep snark ahead. Proceed with caution and be quick with a chuckle*

you need to be cognizant of framing. For example: remember, we are only replacing Peterka’s goals. His other offensive attributes aren’t something we need to worry about. You can’t forget that if he tabulates a significant amount of secondary assists, we can write off his high assist totals that lead the forward group in *totality* - that’s the key to the framing.

you have to work the little tricks - we should be and do shape ourselves by the principles being used to construct the team. You know, that plausibly deniability they institute every year to explain why they just couldn’t find a way to spend.
 

You take a point of logic, a reasonable thing that DOES have basis in fact like “we need to deal with the Byram situation”, but extrapolate that to, “and that’s why we couldn’t make other moves of note or find a way to spend to the cap.”

JJ has a high secondary assist total - that’s the good initial fact here, but don’t forget to warp it to “we only need to replace his goals”

it’s the little cuts on the margins. The EEE. You need to work the efficiency into your actual arguments if you want to make sense of their vision - once you ignore a whole bunch of seemingly small things like that, but do it ROUTINELY like they always do (hope for best etc) it’s quite easy to see how they all add up together to a missed playoffs 

- - -

TLDR (but still snarky, it’s been at least a week I’m sorry) 

*plausible deniability*

Remember. It’s not about building a playoff team. It’s about crafting a team and arguments to ensure why, and explain why, it wasn’t and isn’t strictly *impossible* to do so.

”prove the team Adams built COULDN’T make the playoffs. Go on, prove to me things can’t all go right.” 

It doesn’t escape me that this is the mindset more less expected of fans if we are being honest. I think the reason it grinds my gears so thoroughly when I read it is because it’s not supposed to line up in a near complete circle Venn diagram when compared with the logic of the organization!!

Edited 2 hours ago by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

46 minutes ago, Thorny said:

We’ve averaged 78 points the duration of Adams tenure 

those are the points the league uses to measure teams relative to eachother, as opposed to the numbers we select that paint the team in a good light. If advanced stats tantamount to offsetting the good ones, to the tune of a balance sitting around 26th place aren’t being shown to you, rest assured they are still there 

- - - 

WARNING 

*deep snark ahead. Proceed with caution and be quick with a chuckle*

you need to be cognizant of framing. For example: remember, we are only replacing Peterka’s goals. His other offensive attributes aren’t something we need to worry about. You can’t forget that if he tabulates a significant amount of secondary assists, we can write off his high assist totals that lead the forward group in *totality* - that’s the key to the framing.

you have to work the little tricks - we should be and do shape ourselves by the principles being used to construct the team. You know, that plausibly deniability they institute every year to explain why they just couldn’t find a way to spend.
 

You take a point of logic, a reasonable thing that DOES have basis in fact like “we need to deal with the Byram situation”, but extrapolate that to, “and that’s why we couldn’t make other moves of note or find a way to spend to the cap.”

JJ has a high secondary assist total - that’s the good initial fact here, but don’t forget to warp it to “we only need to replace his goals”

it’s the little cuts on the margins. The EEE. You need to work the efficiency into your actual arguments if you want to make sense of their vision - once you ignore a whole bunch of seemingly small things like that, but do it ROUTINELY like they always do (hope for best etc) it’s quite easy to see how they all add up together to a missed playoffs 

- - -

TLDR (but still snarky, it’s been at least a week I’m sorry) 

*plausible deniability*

Remember. It’s not about building a playoff team. It’s about crafting a team and arguments to ensure why, and explain why, it wasn’t and isn’t strictly *impossible* to do so.

”prove the team Adams built COULDN’T make the playoffs. Go on, prove to me things can’t all go right.” 

It doesn’t escape me that this is the mindset more less expected of fans if we are being honest. I think the reason it grinds my gears so thoroughly when I read it is because it’s not supposed to line up in a near complete circle Venn diagram when compared with the logic of the organization!!

A real gm could have made the playoffs. Adams is a failure and the Sabres have mediocre to bad stats across the board. 

Peterkas 2nd assists are a function of him playing with Tage Thompson. If you feel Tage can't score without Peterka carrying pucks in or shooting them in, then say so. Fancy stats tell us how Peterka scores. The question is what does removing that mean for everyone else. 

[Broken Ankles]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

A rank in 30s would just mean you're average. I think the problem is how badly things fell off across the board.

He went from slightly above average to very good in most categories last year to below average in everything.

I've dug up some actual numbers:

• 24/25 Games started SV% > .900: 45.5% (Below 50th percentile)
• 23/24 Games started SV% > .900: 64.7% (90th)
• 24/25 Save percentage: .887 (Below 50th)
• 23/24 Save percentage: .910 (70th)
• 24/25 High danger save percentage: .769 (Below 50th)
• 23/24 High danger save percentage: .830 (86th)
• 24/25 Mid-range save percentage: .873 (Below 50th)
• 23/24 Mid-range save percentage: .893 (52nd)

I mean someone could run the actual numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if he put up his 2023/24 numbers last year, the Sabres are in the playoff mix. Now I recognize that's not all on him, but it's pretty hard to underestimate the impact good goaltending would have on this team.

The over/under .900 number is huge. James Reimer had 8 games over .900 down the stretch and just 3 under. Not coincidentally, the Sabres went 1-2 in the unders and 7-1 in the overs.

You are using 30 as average (based on games played and most likely a two man rotation at the position * teams) and I would consider 15-20 to be average. My definition is his rank amongst other “starting players”.  I guess some teams have embarrassments of riches in the position (2 inside top 30)  and others teams have  better defensive structure that can place two goalies inside the top 30-35.  But if your starting goalie is ranked below others second string net-minders, I consider that player below average.   

[Thorny]

12 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

A real gm could have made the playoffs. Adams is a failure and the Sabres have mediocre to bad stats across the board. 

Peterkas 2nd assists are a function of him playing with Tage Thompson. If you feel Tage can't score without Peterka carrying pucks in or shooting them in, then say so. Fancy stats tell us how Peterka scores. The question is what does removing that mean for everyone else. 

I’ll always leave the nitty gritty to the smarter folk like you 

all I am presenting to the board is the idea that I believe what JJ contributed on the playmaking front deserves some consideration rather than nothing at all: and I do not see it being considered when it’s routinely oversimplified to “goals.” There is certainly also a playmaking and offence facilitating production gap between Peterka and Doan that also needs to be accounted for

i do not believe the apt consideration would be “replacement level” re: JJ’s playmaking. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Thorny

[Thorny]

Yes, Tage will still score some. But I would wager my house that Peterka’s assists being completely removed knocks down at least a few of the goal columns of other players 

It is only Peterka’s goals being removed in our calculations. None of his teammates are having his goals taken away. You don’t need to remove one for every assist, but we are removing zero 

Equally erroneous 

It goes both ways - Peterka’s goals were indeed aided by the assists he was the benefactor of, too: but I don’t see a reason to suspect Peterka’s offence was any more empty-calorie than than the majority of our forwards 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Thorny