NHL.com work-up on the Sabres

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

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 

How is leading the NHL in 1st period goals garbage time?  Front running is valid, but garbage time would be leading the league in 3rd period scoring and still have a losing record.  

The Sabres scored 92, 84 & 86 by period.  Those are fairly consistent numbers.  They dominated the 1st with a differential of +24 (68 goals allowed).  Where they failed is when the game's intensity picked up in the 2nd period, the defense and goaltending collapsed.  They allowed an NHL worst 214  goals in the 2nd and 3rd period (107 each period).  

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

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 

We're also giving all that Peterka playing time to others. You're saying none of them are as good of a playmaker. If you're not saying that outright, you're heavily implying it. 

[Thorny]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

How is leading the NHL in 1st period goals garbage time?  Front running is valid, but garbage time would be leading the league in 3rd period scoring and still have a losing record.  

The Sabres scored 92, 84 & 86 by period.  Those are fairly consistent numbers.  They dominated the 1st with a differential of +24 (68 goals allowed).  Where they failed is when the game's intensity picked up in the 2nd period, the defense and goaltending collapsed.  They allowed an NHL worst 214  goals in the 2nd and 3rd period (107 each period).  

These are great numbers

But I was referring to front runners though in the sense that we tended to win by a lot, and lose by less. Ie a lot of the goals came in games we didn’t technically need them

whether struggling in tighter games is a negative stat has always been an interesting point of discussion. The way we’ve seen the offense move around year over year combined with the overall result lands my bias firmly at “area of concern”.

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

We're also giving all that Peterka playing time to others. You're saying none of them are as good of a playmaker. If you're not saying that outright, you're heavily implying it. 

No I am saying it outright - I don’t think anyone in line to replace him will be as good of a playmaker. Certainly the forward additions we made won’t be 

I’m not interested in delving into our “we can expect improvement” stock when considering the loss of Peterka. When we are a 79 point team - we need all of that we can get allotted to simply the improvement we *already needed* 

That’s *had we kept* Peterka 

It’s not only frivolous because it’s counting on a maybe, it’s frivolous because we are assigning “internal improvement” to so many places we’ve forgotten we are only about to win fraud bingo 

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

No I am saying it outright - I don’t think anyone in line to replace him will be as good of a playmaker. Certainly the forward additions we made won’t be 

I’m not interested in delving into our “we can expect improvement” stock when considering the loss of Peterka. When we are a 79 point team - we need all of that we can get allotted to simply the improvement we *already needed* 

That’s *had we kept* Peterka 

It’s not only frivolous because it’s counting on a maybe, it’s frivolous because we are assigning “internal improvement” to so many places we’ve forgotten we are only about to win fraud bingo 

Peterka wasn't a good playmaker, he was a good rush creator. I think that's different. 

You also don't account for any regression in Peterka. His 2nd assist rate matters. 

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Peterka wasn't a good playmaker, he was a good rush creator. I think that's different. 

Which new player that we added at F is as good of a rush creator, and which F that we added is as good as he is at playmaking, whatever level you’ve determined that to be?

Is Peterka’s playmaking regimen replacement level?

Is his playmaking “not as good as the numbers might suggest”, or is it “replacement level and thus negligible to the success of the team”. 

this is the discrepancy I see 

Edited 1 hour ago by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Which new player that we added at F is as good of a rush creator, and which F that we added is as good as he is at playmaking, whatever level you’ve determined that to be?

Is Peterka’s playmaking regimen replacement level? 

I think if you feed Benson the minutes Peterka got, he'll reproduce that playmaking. 

I think Buffalo doesn't need to replace the rush offense. They to have another style to play. 

[Thorny]

4 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think if you feed Benson the minutes Peterka got, he'll reproduce that playmaking. 

I think Buffalo doesn't need to replace the rush offense. They to have another style to play. 

For the sake of argument let’s say Benson’s offence drops off precisely zero when compared to JJ’s. Goals, assists, all of it. Benson steps in and *is* JJ at F, with the same old good D he provided last year 

who did we add that is the new Benson? Or rather, provides what Benson did last year? We can’t use him twice in the calc: remember, Benson is Peterka’s offence now. We didn’t lose Benson’s D, either.

But we need to replace Bensons O now 

Edited 1 hour ago by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

For the sake of argument let’s say Benson’s offence drops off precisely zero when compared to JJ’s. Goals, assists, all of it. Benson steps in and *is* JJ at F, with the same old good D he provided last year 

who did we add that is the new Benson? Or rather, provides what Benson did last year? We can’t use him twice in the calc: remember, Benson is Peterka’s offence now. We didn’t lose Benson’s D, either.

But we need to replace Bensons O now 

Doan

[Thorny]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Doan

I rest my case

i’ll let your fantastic posts re: what Benson contributed last year as my evidence for why this is unlikely and a poor way to contract a team with an eye on securing winning 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, Broken Ankles said:

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.   

I totally get what you're saying, but the stat isn't presented that way.

They weigh the save percentage equally whether its over 20 games or 60 on NHLedge.

 

You'd have to see if there's some way you could filter it to only include "starting" goalies.

 

Edited 49 minutes ago by dudacek

[dudacek]

Moneypuck however, allows you to do that if you want to play around.

https://www.moneypuck.com/goalies.htm

UPL ranks 21 out of the 30 goalies who played 40 games in low range shots, 26 on medium and 29th on high-danger

The previous year he was 24, 5th and 19th out of 34 qualifiers.

Edited 44 minutes ago by dudacek

[Broken Ankles]

11 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Moneypuck however, allows you to do that if you want to play around.

https://www.moneypuck.com/goalies.htm

UPL ranks 21 out of the 30 goalies who played 40 games in low range shots, 26 on medium and 29th on high-danger

The previous year he was 24, 5th and 19th out of 34 qualifiers.

Thank you for sharing. 21 out of 30 is below average (which we all might have assumed and meets the eye test).  But your larger point about medium and high danger being an even bigger struggle is validated by the 40 game filter.  26 and 29 is just plain unacceptable.  Perhaps his percentages in medium/high danger areas improve slightly, but the only sure fire way to improve the numerator (high danger goals) seems to be to reduce the denominator ( HD chances).  These underlying numbers you shared make me feel more and more like the season rests on a strong start by Six-K.  
 

 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

How is leading the NHL in 1st period goals garbage time?  Front running is valid, but garbage time would be leading the league in 3rd period scoring and still have a losing record.  

The Sabres scored 92, 84 & 86 by period.  Those are fairly consistent numbers.  They dominated the 1st with a differential of +24 (68 goals allowed).  Where they failed is when the game's intensity picked up in the 2nd period, the defense and goaltending collapsed.  They allowed an NHL worst 214  goals in the 2nd and 3rd period (107 each period).  

This is what Lindy has pinpointed as the Sabres biggest problem and you've heard many players talk around.

As far as they coach is concerned it boils down to players not understanding how to manage games. it's not so much about structure and effort, its about making safe, boring decisions when you've got the lead: not cheating on offence, not turning pucks over at the bluelines, getting it deep and getting off. Not forcing your goalie to get into hero puck mode.

Cozens, Quinn, Samuelsson and Clifton IMO were the worst offenders. Two of them are gone. Peterka and Power were good players that needed to improve in this area, Lafferty and Malenstyn bad players who needed the same. Two more gone.

Will the changes be enough to reach critical mass for the team as a whole? Will the critical mass be enough to get the goalie back on track?

To me, those are the questions that will make or break the season.

Edited 21 minutes ago by dudacek