Doan > Peterka?

[SabresBaltimore]

The time code in the notes is wrong. He starts at the 8m mark from what I saw, and he starts with talking about his kid at the 8:45 mark:

 

17 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Spittin Chiclets podcast. Papa Shane Doan interviewed, talks some about son Josh and the Sabres. :38 minute mark.  | 

https://www.podbean.com/ea/dir-nextb-2844bd5b

 

[SHAAAUGHT!!!]

On 10/22/2025 at 3:56 PM, GASabresIUFAN said:

This thread is very funny.  Talk about a little premature

There is a joke here somewhere but I'm to exhausted to giv'r a proper go.  "Yada yada yada.... it takes one to know one."  Or something along those lines. 

I'll see myself out.... 

[PromoTheRobot]

12 minutes ago, SabresBaltimore said:

The time code in the notes is wrong. He starts at the 8m mark from what I saw, and he starts with talking about his kid at the 8:45 mark:

 

 

I went by what the Podbean page said. Thanks for fixing it.

[SabresBaltimore]

11 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I went by what the Podbean page said. Thanks for fixing it.

Yeah, I started listening and they were talking about video review so I was confused and I checked the time code and it matched their notes, so I figured it was something like that.

I'm still listening right now. He's been mostly talking about Josh for the 10+ minutes. Still going at the 23m mark. It's interesting to hear his thoughts, especially on his development.

 

Edit: Just finished, ends around the 28m mark. So roughly 19m

Edited Friday at 01:13 PM by SabresBaltimore
adding end timecode

[mjd1001]

26 minutes ago, JohnC said:

With respect to this particular trade, it was a fair-value trade for the respective clubs. I respectfully  disagree on how you are considering this trade by going beyond the specific deal by framing the assessment of it in “tribalism” evaluation terms.

I’m not part of any “anti” club. Our GM made a good deal in this case. On the other hand, even with this transaction in the fold I consider KA to be a less than mediocre GM. That’s not an evaluation based on “tribalism”—-it’s an evaluation based on his extended overall record.

I'm referring to a lot of posters, referenced by the post I was responding to, which do not evaluate things that way.

There are posters that do very close to exactly what I described.

[LTS]

9 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

And if you got better, you won the trade.  There's just too many posters that refuse to say anything positive, even when they're trying to attempt to.  It's like a phobia.

So, using your logic, if both teams got better, then who won the trade? Both of them? Can you have two winners in such a finite contest?

So, if the Sabres won, who did they win over? Utah?  But, if Utah got better who did they win over? Buffalo?

And if one says both teams improved, is that not a positive statement... about two teams in fact?  I'm confused.

[Weave]

7 minutes ago, LTS said:

So, using your logic, if both teams got better, then who won the trade? Both of them? Can you have two winners in such a finite contest?

So, if the Sabres won, who did they win over? Utah?  But, if Utah got better who did they win over? Buffalo?

And if one says both teams improved, is that not a positive statement... about two teams in fact?  I'm confused.

Everyone wins a trade!

[LTS]

3 minutes ago, Weave said:

Everyone wins a trade!

Oprah, is that you? 🙂

[7+6=13]

8 hours ago, LTS said:

So, using your logic, if both teams got better, then who won the trade? Both of them? Can you have two winners in such a finite contest?

So, if the Sabres won, who did they win over? Utah?  But, if Utah got better who did they win over? Buffalo?

And if one says both teams improved, is that not a positive statement... about two teams in fact?  I'm confused.

I'm confused too.  This isn't difficult if you don't change the discussion.  Are you saying every trade is even if both teams got better?  How would you measure if both teams got equally better.  Wouldn't it be scarce to say both teams got equally better?

The math has to be on the side that one team got better than the other. Or as I'd call it, won the trade.  That's what I think is so difficult for some posters to even suggest.

[shrader]

10 hours ago, LTS said:

So, using your logic, if both teams got better, then who won the trade? Both of them? Can you have two winners in such a finite contest?

So, if the Sabres won, who did they win over? Utah?  But, if Utah got better who did they win over? Buffalo?

And if one says both teams improved, is that not a positive statement... about two teams in fact?  I'm confused.

Who wins?

Dallas: Joe Nieuwendyk

Calgary: Corey Millen, Jerome Iginla

[Brawndo]

Pretty, pretty good 

 

[GASabresIUFAN]

7 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

Pretty, pretty good 

 

Impressive.  

[Brawndo]

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Both teams won IMHO. Peterka wanted out and we got someone that brings what we needed. Peterka got his new home and contract. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, Brawndo said:

I think it depends on what your team needs. If you need a good shooting puck rusher with some limited defense, Peterka is great. If you need a dig out of corners, checking, okay shooter who can be counted on to cycle pucks, Doan.

[...]

1 minute ago, Brawndo said:

Those charts have no labels, no key, no context. How do expect anyone to understand what you're trying to communicate?

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, ... said:

Those charts have no labels, no key, no context. How do expect anyone to understand what you're trying to communicate?

You're looking at standard deviations above or below replacement. A replacement level player is an average 3rd liner or there about. You have goals for per 60 min, xgf, cf, xga, and ca all per 60. So a mix of shots and shot quality. 

Edited 4 hours ago by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

12 minutes ago, Brawndo said:

So what we are seeing is that Doan is driving shots and quality shots more than Peterka but Peterka is getting more goals (he's a better shooter) and they are about the same on the defense in terms of shots. I'd guess Peterka has a better line than Doan, probably because of Doans center being either Kulich,  McLeod or Östlund. Zone faceoffs can impact these numbers a bit more early as well. 

Short version, Peterka and Doan are both doing good things. 

[Pimlach]

12 minutes ago, ... said:

Those charts have no labels, no key, no context. How do expect anyone to understand what you're trying to communicate?

This is how the DoD looks at metrics:

big stacks good, little stacks bad 

red bad, yellow caution, green meets the spec, blue even better

[_Q_]

On 10/24/2025 at 5:39 PM, 7+6=13 said:

I'm confused too.  This isn't difficult if you don't change the discussion.  Are you saying every trade is even if both teams got better?  How would you measure if both teams got equally better.  Wouldn't it be scarce to say both teams got equally better?

The math has to be on the side that one team got better than the other. Or as I'd call it, won the trade.  That's what I think is so difficult for some posters to even suggest.

That is not how math works.  It *could be on the side that one team won the trade.  Not has to be.   Oh the irony of your user name!

[inkman]

36 minutes ago, WhenWillItEnd66 said:

Both teams won IMHO. Peterka wanted out and we got someone that brings what we needed. Peterka got his new home and contract. 

And the centerpiece of the trade hasn’t suited up yet for the Sabres.  

[WhenWillItEnd66]

8 minutes ago, inkman said:

And the centerpiece of the trade hasn’t suited up yet for the Sabres.  

I loved this trade from the get go. If Doan can grow and loves to be here, he is going to cement us winning this trade if the centerpiece plays as advertised

[That Aud Smell]

On 10/23/2025 at 9:27 AM, The Jokeman said:

Maybe it's the hair but are we sure, he's a he? 

 

Looks like he could be the grandson of Dorothy Hammill -- strong skater, I presume.