Addition by Subtraction

[JoeSchmoe]

I know it's been touched on many times as part of other threads, but I wanted a full discussion on the addition by subtraction for next year's roster. We dropped quite a four boat anchors and by my math we picked up one.

Clifton

Lafferty

Cozens

Gilbert

I feel like Danforth is the only new guy we got that will be drag on the team (I've got no idea what they were thinking with him). 

How much does losing these guys improve our goal differential? 

[PerreaultForever]

Can't agree with the depiction of these players as anchors. 

Lafferty and Gilbert were exactly what they were. Bottom players and extras. Expecting more was stupid.

Clifton lost his game playing in an unstructured system. I said this might happen when we signed him. He always had the tendency to run around and try to over step and then get caught out of position. In this chaotic system he ended up floundering. We broke him. 

Cozens? An anchor? Let's see how Ottawa goes. Quinn's still an anchor until he isn't. Same for Samuelsson. 

[JoeSchmoe]

7 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Can't agree with the depiction of these players as anchors. 

Lafferty and Gilbert were exactly what they were. Bottom players and extras. Expecting more was stupid.

Clifton lost his game playing in an unstructured system. I said this might happen when we signed him. He always had the tendency to run around and try to over step and then get caught out of position. In this chaotic system he ended up floundering. We broke him. 

Cozens? An anchor? Let's see how Ottawa goes. Quinn's still an anchor until he isn't. Same for Samuelsson. 

Even in their limited roles against limited competition, Lafferty and Gilbert were two of our worst statistical players. Clifton was less sheltered but was still our worst defensemen next to Bryson.

The guys we got to replace them are pretty decent in similar roles.

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Even in their limited roles against limited competition, Lafferty and Gilbert were two of our worst statistical players. Clifton was less sheltered but was still our worst defensemen next to Bryson.

The guys we got to replace them are pretty decent in similar roles.

The crazy part is they brought back Bryson. 

I think the Sabres looked at some stats and decided to upgrade, I think without better gt, it won't be enough. 

[JP51]

8 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Can't agree with the depiction of these players as anchors. 

Lafferty and Gilbert were exactly what they were. Bottom players and extras. Expecting more was stupid.

Clifton lost his game playing in an unstructured system. I said this might happen when we signed him. He always had the tendency to run around and try to over step and then get caught out of position. In this chaotic system he ended up floundering. We broke him. 

Cozens? An anchor? Let's see how Ottawa goes. Quinn's still an anchor until he isn't. Same for Samuelsson. 

Yeah, I think Muel based on his minutes is a major anchor... Gilbert was just an 8th d who was a C minus fighter that was willing... just an Adams failed nod to you need someone to respond.... here lets throw this cannon fodder out there to get beat... cause I know he will jump in when no one else will... 

Cozens I agree.. as unpopular as this may be I think we see Cozens mature over the years and will become a player that people will want... right now he is just too much of a spaz and head case to be an effective player and leader night in and night out...  but in the right situation I think he develops into a guy that will score 25-30 for 50-60 points... and can play two way minutes...  and no, I didnt say now... (especially the 2 way minute part) but if he settles down and develops I believe he can be a taller version of a poor mans Mike Peca or a higher scoring Gaustad 

 

[LGR4GM]

Specifically, the Sabres moved away from a bunch of guys with bad xgf%. Whether that's deliberate or just more dart throwing, idk. The other issue is better coached teams have better xgf% overall. So we'll see what happens. 

Xgf% is impacted by how teams play. Buffalo plays or played a very rush oriented attack with limited ability to cycle, so they don't get a bunch of chances. On the inverse they were mediocre shot getting pucks out so that all comes together. 

Edited 3 hours ago by LGR4GM

[Pimlach]

9 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Can't agree with the depiction of these players as anchors. 

Lafferty and Gilbert were exactly what they were. Bottom players and extras. Expecting more was stupid.

Clifton lost his game playing in an unstructured system. I said this might happen when we signed him. He always had the tendency to run around and try to over step and then get caught out of position. In this chaotic system he ended up floundering. We broke him. 

Cozens? An anchor? Let's see how Ottawa goes. Quinn's still an anchor until he isn't. Same for Samuelsson. 

You told us what to expect on Clifton.   In his interview with Jon Scott he talked about the first season in Buffalo, playing on his wrong side, and how he had trouble the adjusting to Granato's system.  He did recover that first season and ended with a +12 after a horrendous start.  He was accountable for his performance though and made no excuses.  

Everything about Clifton's game declined under Lindy which surprised me.  He even had less PIMs and less fights, and he saw very limited action at the end of the season.   It was time for both parties to move on.

I have some big concerns about how the players reacted to Lindy.  The team play declined overall, and the Athletic had that players survey (limited to 111 players) that was not complimentary to Lindy at all.  

Big year coming for both Adams and Lindy.   

Cozens - you have to admit he really struggled again.   I don't understand how he got the "A" and lets face it, he was handed the 2C job years ago.  Cozens  (and others such as Quinn and Peterka) were allowed to play a one-way game in their first few seasons.  

Edited 2 hours ago by Pimlach

[steveoath]

Is complete fantasy, but would have been good to see TP go after Pete DeBoer. 

[DarthEbriate]

54 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Big year coming for both Adams and Lindy.   

But it's not, really, is it?

It's Lindy's final season as a coach. He could step into the front office, I suppose, as an advisor? But he's not coaching anywhere else in the NHL and Appert is already slotted to take over.

Adams could get fired if they're a trainwreck, but... he listens to the owner. Jarmo is there, but is he really a threat if he doesn't go full ingratiation mode? Would he want to do that? The Bills are still good and building a stadium and therefore command the attention. It's status quo and trades are hard and why goaltend until Levi is ready for Adams.

[Pimlach]

11 minutes ago, DarthEbriate said:

But it's not, really, is it?

It's Lindy's final season as a coach. He could step into the front office, I suppose, as an advisor? But he's not coaching anywhere else in the NHL and Appert is already slotted to take over.

Adams could get fired if they're a trainwreck, but... he listens to the owner. Jarmo is there, but is he really a threat if he doesn't go full ingratiation mode? Would he want to do that? The Bills are still good and building a stadium and therefore command the attention. It's status quo and trades are hard and why goaltend until Levi is ready for Adams.

You are probably correct.  I keep thinking like the 31 other teams.  

Edited 1 hour ago by Pimlach

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Specifically, the Sabres moved away from a bunch of guys with bad xgf%. Whether that's deliberate or just more dart throwing, idk. The other issue is better coached teams have better xgf% overall. So we'll see what happens. 

Xgf% is impacted by how teams play. Buffalo plays or played a very rush oriented attack with limited ability to cycle, so they don't get a bunch of chances. On the inverse they were mediocre shot getting pucks out so that all comes together. 

Chicken or egg, half the D were a terrible match for the system last year.

People talk a lot about how Byram’s fancy stats got inflated by Dahlin.

They don’t talk about how they got deflated by the other guys.

Clifton, Bryson and Samuelsson were truly awful in Lindy’s system. As in 208, 202 and 223 out of 240 D who played 300 minutes last year.

 

[dudacek]

Dahlin was 50th, 1 slot behind Kesselring, who led Utah.

But Utah overall was very good at that particular stat, with 5 D in the top 79.

It remains to be seen if he (and Timmins, who also is good at this stat) can elevate Byram and Power (165 and 168) at all, or if they get pulled toward the bottom in Buffalo.

[dudacek]

xGF% is an interesting stat.

It gets thrown out in some quarters as the defining characteristic of how good a player is, but it’s really just a measurement of high danger chances allowed versus created that is heavily influenced by team factors such as system, deployment and teammates.

It has all the same inherent weaknesses as plus/minus when it comes to player comparisons.

Or do we really believe Jordan Spence, Shayne Gostisbehere and Nate Schmidt are elite players (ranked 2, 3 and 4), while Brock Faber (169), Brandon Montour (177) and Seth Jones (209) are terrible?

[LGR4GM]

17 minutes ago, dudacek said:

xGF% is an interesting stat.

It gets thrown out in some quarters as the defining characteristic of how good a player is, but it’s really just a measurement of high danger chances allowed versus created that is heavily influenced by team factors such as system, deployment and teammates.

It has all the same inherent weaknesses as plus/minus when it comes to player comparisons.

Or do we really believe Jordan Spence, Shayne Gostisbehere and Nate Schmidt are elite players (ranked 2, 3 and 4), while Brock Faber (169), Brandon Montour (177) and Seth Jones (209) are terrible?

It's why you don't use 1 fancy stat to explain a player. It however has better predictive measures than +/- so what you say there is not correct. 

[dudacek]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It's why you don't use 1 fancy stat to explain a player. It however has better predictive measures than +/- so what you say there is not correct. 

Could you clarify?

I understand the Sabres 10-game win streak scenario where fancy stats correctly predicted the team was getting bounces and wasn’t going to sustain.

But does it have any predictive qualities when it comes to individual players?

[Hawerchuk]

2 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

The crazy part is they brought back Bryson. 

 

Agreed! Honestly, Bryson is probably one of the best skaters in the NHL, I'm not kidding but as for anything else, he's USELESS!

[dudacek]

15 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

It's why you don't use 1 fancy stat to explain a player. It however has better predictive measures than +/- so what you say there is not correct. 

I’m speaking in terms of player to player comparisons on different teams.

Generally speaking, a sheltered offensively deployed defenceman on a good team (Gostisbehere?) is going to have good xG% and a defensively deployed defenceman getting tough minutes on a bad team (Vlasic?) is going to have bad xG%.

I’ve read many posts saying Seth Jones and Bo Byram are supposed to be bad because xG, when each was demonstrably good enough to get significant minutes for Stanley Cup winning teams.

Edited 34 minutes ago by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Could you clarify?

I understand the Sabres 10-game win streak scenario where fancy stats correctly predicted the team was getting bounces and wasn’t going to sustain.

But does it have any predictive qualities when it comes to individual players?

Yea xgf is a better predictor than +/- 

Xgf predicts goals based on shot type location and movement. It better shows what a player contributed to. 

Just now, dudacek said:

I’m speaking in terms of player to player comparisons on different teams.

Generally speaking, a sheltered offensively deployed defenceman on a good team (Gostisbehere?) is going to have good xG% and a defensively deployed defenceman getting tough minutes on a bad team (Vlasic?) is going to have bad xG%.

Yea it's why no one serious about this stuff uses 1 stats alone. 

[LGR4GM]

18 minutes ago, Hawerchuk said:

Agreed! Honestly, Bryson is probably one of the best skaters in the NHL, I'm not kidding but as for anything else, he's USELESS!

He's actually a good puck carrier but he's too small/weak down low