Dom's fancy stats of The Atlantic: Sabres having least best offseason in NHL so far

[PASabreFan]

https://sabrenoise.com/nhl-analyst-projects-buffalo-sabres-are-having-league-s-worst-offseason-01kxne7jc838

Edited July 17 by PASabreFan

[Archie Lee]

The Byram trade, all things considered, I can find nothing to be critical with. All indications are that he was not extending with us, and I can't imagine our collective reaction if he had extended with the Sabres at a $12 million AAV.

Letting Tuch go for nothing, might well be an unforced error.  Tuch at $10.5 would fit under the cap if we just traded Zucker and replaced Lyon with Levi in the goalie rotation (as examples only, choose your own preferred $6.25 million of salary to move out). And nothing about keeping Tuch would have then prevented us from packaging a combo for Hellebuyck or Larkin, or both actually (Hellebuyck, Larkin, Kulich, Helenius = $19 million; Norris, McLeod, Danforth, UPL = $19.5 million).

[Nacho Libre]

“The Sabres will probably be worse next season, but it may not be as much as this estimation indicates.”

lol yay. At least there’s that 

Don’t worry, I’m definitely thrilled with the estimate. I don’t want to get scolded, I understand as a sabres fan it’s always about patience and re-setting expectations. The long game. Would be greedy to ask for simply not getting worse immediately after finally taking steps forward to relevancy. Let alone getting better, imagine. We did snag a playoff berth, that should hold us for a few more years 

- - - 

Anyways, in seriousness he’s more less saying what we are, well what some are: worse on paper, probably worse on ice, but with the young potential to extent that we might not get a TON worse, while hopefully improving the future 

BUT frankly I don’t feel need to shy away from fact that immediately returning to prioritizing the long game upon tasting our first real success in decades come off like a resounding wet fart. Like for anyone who’s interested in a little more than Online GM Mode ‘27

Edited July 16 by Nacho Libre

[#freejame]

Genuine question—is it important to people to have more than 109 points or to win the division again? 

[Scottysabres]

Just now, #freejame said:

Genuine question—is it important to people to have more than 109 points or to win the division again? 

Win the division.

But most importantly above that……

Make the Playoffs…..

Win Lord Stanley’s Cup!!!

[transient]

3 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Genuine question—is it important to people to have more than 109 points or to win the division again? 

I don't think this is the same scenario as we had coming out of the lockout in 2004-2005. Making the playoffs next season and going on a run, hopefully with more consistent goaltending in the playoffs, is much more important to me than replicating last regular season's success outright. I think there was some element of the perfect storm to last season's regular season success.

Edited July 16 by transient

[#freejame]

Just now, Scottysabres said:

Win the division.

But most importantly above that……

Make the Playoffs…..

Win Lord Stanley’s Cup!!!

Playoffs is obviously the first goal but I wasn’t convinced that home ice did anything for us. Maybe that changes this season with more familiarity. I think there’s a world where we put up fewer regular season points while being a more complete playoff team, similar to the Panthers when they went from 1 to 8 and won the cup. 

[Brawndo]

From the article 
 

This is not an exact science, nor is it a list of how good each team is expected to be next season — just how much they’ve changed. A great team with a poor offseason can still be a great team next season. But it is worth noting some of last year’s most and least improved teams did end up trending in that exact direction.

32. Buffalo Sabres

Net Rating added: -15
In: Olen Zellweger, Louis Crevier
Out: Alex Tuch, Bowen Byram, Michael Kesselring

Let’s start here: The Sabres are very well-situated to rise above losing the offseason. On paper, the Sabres lost the most value — Tuch and Byram are very good players — but they’re also one of the best-equipped teams to solve those problems internally. 

Up front, there are a plethora of options poised to take a step that can absorb most of Tuch’s loss. Zach Benson, Josh Doan, Noah Östlund, Konsta Helenius and Jack Quinn all figure to improve, and if they can all jump a goal or two, the Sabres will be OK. The return of Jiri Kulich can’t be ignored either.

As for Byram, a lot will ride on whether Zellweger can step into a top-four role and whether there’s more growth coming for Owen Power. Both seem perfectly plausible.

The Sabres will probably be worse next season, but it may not be as much as this estimation indicates. Even without Tuch and Byram, Buffalo is still a strong playoff bet for next season.

[Nacho Libre]

Just now, #freejame said:

Playoffs is obviously the first goal but I wasn’t convinced that home ice did anything for us. Maybe that changes this season with more familiarity. I think there’s a world where we put up fewer regular season points while being a more complete playoff team, similar to the Panthers when they went from 1 to 8 and won the cup. 

Panthers won from the 3rd seed and 5th. They went up from 8

[Taro T]

8 minutes ago, #freejame said:

Genuine question—is it important to people to have more than 109 points or to win the division again? 

Make the playoffs.  Win at least 1 round.

Ideally land Hellebucyk so that those end up step goals.

[Nacho Libre]

Is it worth at least exploring the possibility in discussion that the numbers that indicate we’ll be worse next season will lead to us being worse? And what we think about the pros and cons of prioritizing the future over the looming season?

Or is the only topic of merit, “worse next year as a means to actually being BETTER next year.”  Actually asking - cause you know that old improv rule where you don’t say “no” cause it limits discussion? I see this as already sort of morphing into a rejection of the thread premise 

not trying to position it as positive V negative. Merely trying to avoid the same old extremities it usually devolves into and compare two sides that may not be as black and white. It doesn’t seem to be “well hmm we might take a step back, but improve the future, thoughts?” type of exercise as a have your cake and eat it too wish fulfilment: “well maybe we’ll do better next year by doing this AND long term.”

I mean like ya maybe 

Edited July 16 by Nacho Libre

[#freejame]

8 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

Panthers won from the 3rd seed and 5th. They went up from 8

Huh. I thought they went from President’s Trophy to 8th and that’s when they won. 

[CallawaySabres]

We know more about this team than these idiots do. The pipeline is full and people are ready to step into roles. There were also trades involved that could work out pretty well in teh end.

[#freejame]

11 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

Is it worth at least exploring the possibility in discussion that the numbers that indicate we’ll be worse next season will lead to us being worse? And what we think about the pros and cons of prioritizing the future over the looming season?

Or is the only topic of merit, “worse next year as a means to actually being BETTER next year.”  Actually asking - cause you know that old improv rule where you don’t say “no” cause it limits discussion? I see this as already sort of morphing into a rejection of the thread premise 

not trying to position it as positive V negative. Merely trying to avoid the same old extremities it usually devolves into and compare two sides that may not be as black and white. It doesn’t seem to be “well hmm we might take a step back, but improve the future, thoughts?” type of exercise as a have your cake and eat it too wish fulfilment: “well maybe we’ll do better next year by doing this AND long term.”

I mean like ya maybe 

I think once you’re a good team, which I think we are, staying good is a priority. With that comes balancing the now with the later. It took Carolina 8 tries to get over the hump. They were afforded 8 tries because they continuously put themselves in a place to be competitive long term. 

Thats essentially what I was getting at with my question. I don’t care if we don’t get to 109 points or win the division. Nor do I think we will be better if we do/don’t do those things. Get to the playoffs and anything can happen. But I do think there’s people who if we don’t improve on last years number they will view it as a step back. 

I don’t even know if I answered what you’re asking but hey whatever. 

Edited July 16 by #freejame

[Big Guava]

40 minutes ago, Archie Lee said:

The Byram trade, all things considered, I can find nothing to be critical with. All indications are that he was not extending with us, and I can't imagine our collective reaction if he had extended with the Sabres at a $12 million AAV.

Letting Tuch go for nothing, might well be an unforced error.  Tuch at $10.5 would fit under the cap if we just traded Zucker and replaced Lyon with Levi in the goalie rotation (as examples only, choose your own preferred $6.25 million of salary to move out). And nothing about keeping Tuch would have then prevented us from packaging a combo for Hellebuyck or Larkin, or both actually (Hellebuyck, Larkin, Kulich, Helenius = $19 million; Norris, McLeod, Danforth, UPL = $19.5 million).

 

Sorry but I am not giving a 30 year old and 8 year contract where we have to buy out the last 4 years due to him not living up to it anymore.

Never pay for past performance.

[tom webster]

This is perfect example of social media posting. The article is actually more optimistic than the headline. The article was also “least improved.” I’m not sure that equates to worst off season. There are literally two teams in our conference that I think are substantially better.

Also, what exactly did Montreal do to be that high? Did I miss something?

[Brawndo]

Just now, tom webster said:

This is perfect example of social media posting. The article is actually more optimistic than the headline. The article was also “least improved.” I’m not sure that equates to worst off season. There are literally two teams in our conference that I think are substantially better.

Also, what exactly did Montreal do to be that high? Did I miss something?

With regards to Montreal, it’s the fact they did not lose any major pieces off their roster this summer and his model rates their existing roster high 

[PromoTheRobot]

56 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

https://sabrenoise.com/nhl-analyst-projects-buffalo-sabres-are-having-league-s-worst-offseason-01kxne7jc838

[JP51]

To me on paper we net lose at this point... but from my perspective the point is not that, its our up and coming folks... we have righted the cap a bit, if moves include 1 or 2 of Zucker, McLeod, maybe Quinn etc... and their replacements Kulick, Helenius, Ostland etc... prove to be the upgrades ultimately we are hoping for, Benson progress into a bigger role etc... there is no reason we are not moving in the right direction ... Now, that is a lot of ifs and things going right.  But incorporating young talent that has solid cap hits, significant upside potential etc... is not an absurd strategy as long as it is balanced...  So, I am reserving further judgement until I see this play out... I also think there may be more to come here... 

[dudacek]

27 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

Is it worth at least exploring the possibility in discussion that the numbers that indicate we’ll be worse next season will lead to us being worse? And what we think about the pros and cons of prioritizing the future over the looming season?

Or is the only topic of merit, “worse next year as a means to actually being BETTER next year.”  Actually asking - cause you know that old improv rule where you don’t say “no” cause it limits discussion? I see this as already sort of morphing into a rejection of the thread premise 

not trying to position it as positive V negative. Merely trying to avoid the same old extremities it usually devolves into and compare two sides that may not be as black and white. It doesn’t seem to be “well hmm we might take a step back, but improve the future, thoughts?” type of exercise as a have your cake and eat it too wish fulfilment: “well maybe we’ll do better next year by doing this AND long term.”

I mean like ya maybe 

I’m a little confused by this.

Jarmo wanted to re-sign Byram. The feeling wasn’t mutual, so he traded him and backfilled with Crevier and Zellweger. The board is talking about this.

Jarmo was willing to re-sign Tuch but not for what Tuch wanted. He seems to be OK with backfilling from within. The board is talking about this.

Jarmo appears to be working toward improving the team right now through talks with Kane and Winnipeg and has so far failed. The board is talking about this.

The overall net effect appears to be the Sabres seem to be worse this year. The board is talking about this.

Is your concern that most of the board seems to be looking at the summer in context? And you want to see it framed as a more purely philosophical discussion?

Edited July 16 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, Nacho Libre said:

Is it worth at least exploring the possibility in discussion that the numbers that indicate we’ll be worse next season will lead to us being worse? And what we think about the pros and cons of prioritizing the future over the looming season?

Or is the only topic of merit, “worse next year as a means to actually being BETTER next year.”  Actually asking - cause you know that old improv rule where you don’t say “no” cause it limits discussion? I see this as already sort of morphing into a rejection of the thread premise 

not trying to position it as positive V negative. Merely trying to avoid the same old extremities it usually devolves into and compare two sides that may not be as black and white. It doesn’t seem to be “well hmm we might take a step back, but improve the future, thoughts?” type of exercise as a have your cake and eat it too wish fulfilment: “well maybe we’ll do better next year by doing this AND long term.”

I mean like ya maybe 

There's a very real chance the Sabres are worse next year. Their chance generation versus chance suppression still ranks in the mediocre region of the league. The Sabres "got away with it" this season by having above average goalies and by being a very good shooting team. Part of that good shooting involves Alex Tuch and his 16.9% shooting, which now has to be replaced. Unlike when we dealt JJP, I worry greatly about the teams ability to replace Tuch's scoring. When we talk about doing it in the aggregate you start running into math issues, namely ice time. 1.3/g60 for Alex Tuch need replacing and that is no small task. The idea that we can just replace it in the aggregate relies on the idea that we can add .2 to Benson and .1 to Doan, and .4 to Östlund or whatever but eventually, we run out of Tuch's ice time to dish out. They have to be able to score more but also more efficiently. If I give Benson an extra 3mins of time on ice, sure he will score more but if it is the same rate he has now, we are not replacing what Tuch did, we are just spinning wheels. Tuch ran at 19mins a game, how will Benson or Doan handle those extra shifts over an 84game season? 

The metrics from the article are flawed because they don't have an accurate measure for Doan, Benson, Östlund, Kulich, Helenius due to them not being in the league long enough for the maths to level off. That is why we appear to have lost so much value on paper, you are trading statistically stable and known Tuch and Byram for unstable and unknown Zellweger, Crevier, and the others. Byram going does not worry me as much because I think the Sabres D is especially adapted to absorb the loss. Tuch leaving without any replacement but internal hope is a bigger gamble. 

The pros of their approach is their core is signed for roughly 4 more years before we need to re-sign any of the big names. They are also this side of 30, so they have a little time before declines become a big problem. By not signing Tuch, they saved a massive 8yr 10.5mil caphit from their books on a player that will probably start to decline in 2027. They have the ability to ride out this year while the forwards grow and also know that defensive reinforcements are in-bound as soon as late March. There is a lot of young talent and a good mix of veteran players in a locker room that seems to have finally figured out their culture. 

The cons are they might end up on the outside looking in this year. The forward group is certainly less and even if I feel okay with the defense, they are less too. We don't know if the youngins can pick up the slack. For all I know Kulich drops 25g, 25a when he comes back and Östlund has a 45pt season or something, Benson figures out his shooting and gets in the 60s. That could all easily happen but until it does, the con is they are worse on paper than they were on June 1. Burning a year for young guys to grow into roles they might not is a risky strategy that hurt multiple rebuilds over the years. In the end though, I haven't seen any high end forwards get traded outside of maybe McTavish (jury is out and so he's in that young and ? pile). Seems to me the league isn't ready to move these high end guys and the Sabres aren't willing to meet whatever the pricing is. 

In the end, I think the defense will be fine in part because I think even without Tuch, the forwards know their jobs in rotation and the defense as a whole is actually slightly improved in the bottom 4. Offensively, I don't see how they match some of their shooting metrics from last year especially without Tuch around. Kulich coming off a lost season is a long bet to get you 25+ goals. Samuelsson shot at 11.9% which is DOUBLE his career sh%. I just think there is going to be some regression in the shooting and in the goalies. They will have to play a bit less river hockey if they want to make the playoffs. How much have they learned after 13 games of post season play? How much have they learned after their torrid pace from December to April? I guess we shall see. 

[ponokasabre]

Ya I forsure can see how fancy stats would say that.

We are hoping that we are better, and I think we will be but i could see the stats not taking that into context

Is Crevier the top 4 D man poised to break out like Sammy?

Is Zellweger have a Byram type next level he can get to?

How do Helenius, Kulich and Östlund affect the roster?

What next level can Benson, Quinn and Doan get to?

Will the goalies regress or continue there strong regular season play? And is Ellis the next great one?

 

The big one for me is injuries. We started the year with Benson and Norris injured and that really through everything off, Benson especially, if he is healthy to start the year then we are flying right off the jump

Dahlin having his fiance healthy and home is huge for him too, he started the year slow. There is a real chance he has a full Norris winning season this year.

 

And this is if nothing further is done to this roster.......which it almost forsure will be

[Nacho Libre]

Just now, dudacek said:

I’m a little confused by this.

Jarmo wanted to re-sign Byram. The feeling wasn’t mutual, so he traded him and backfilled with Crevier and Zellweger. The board is talking about this.

Jarmo was willing to re-sign Tuch but not for what Tuch wanted. He seems to be OK with backfilling from within. The board is talking about this.

Jarmo appears to be working toward improving the team right now through talks with Kane and Winnipeg and has so far failed. The board is talking about this.

The overall net effect appears to be the Sabres seem to be worse this year. The board is talking about this.

Is your concern that most of the board seems to be looking at the summer in context?

No, it’s that the defining take away is that we’ll only be worse by way of a regular season point total and not when it actually counts. As opposed to just, potentially worse, as the thread topic seems to indicate (PA can correct me if need be).

sometimes I don’t know why I bother when people don’t pay attention to the context by which I am responding. You get that I was having a discussion with someone who had presented the theory, because of something Florida didn’t do, that we may see greater success in playoffs despite falling point total in regular season? 

this is what I was fairly obviously alluding to. The idea being presented that it’s not actually worse next year, it’s actually better. Lower regular season point total is a straw man no one cares about. Obv everyone is measuring by playoff success 

[LGR4GM]

Quote

9. San Jose Sharks

Net Rating added: +3
In: Mason Marchment, Darnell Nurse, Michael Kesselring, Jacob Trouba
Out: William Eklund, Philipp Kurashev, John Klingberg, Mario Ferraro, Vincent Desharnais, Shakir Mukhamadullin

I want you all to think about how the math works in an article like this. Here is SJS at 9 and their big moves are Nurse, Kesselring and Trouba on the defense. Out of those 3 additions, which ones do you want on Buffalo? Kesselring v. Crevier is interesting if both are healthy. Zellweger v Trouba? I guess is the closest, who do you want there? You want Nurse or Power? They are getting credit because their defense last year was AWFUL and they added guys on paper that math wise are better. Buffalo on the other hand subtracted 1 guy who was math-d as good (Byram) and I think they probably are also losing in the Kesselring for Crevier swap even though Kesselring was BAD here last year. What I am trying to say is some teams had far more room to improve than others. 

[Nacho Libre]

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

There's a very real chance the Sabres are worse next year. Their chance generation versus chance suppression still ranks in the mediocre region of the league. The Sabres "got away with it" this season by having above average goalies and by being a very good shooting team. Part of that good shooting involves Alex Tuch and his 16.9% shooting, which now has to be replaced. Unlike when we dealt JJP, I worry greatly about the teams ability to replace Tuch's scoring. When we talk about doing it in the aggregate you start running into math issues, namely ice time. 1.3/g60 for Alex Tuch need replacing and that is no small task. The idea that we can just replace it in the aggregate relies on the idea that we can add .2 to Benson and .1 to Doan, and .4 to Östlund or whatever but eventually, we run out of Tuch's ice time to dish out. They have to be able to score more but also more efficiently. If I give Benson an extra 3mins of time on ice, sure he will score more but if it is the same rate he has now, we are not replacing what Tuch did, we are just spinning wheels. Tuch ran at 19mins a game, how will Benson or Doan handle those extra shifts over an 84game season? 

The metrics from the article are flawed because they don't have an accurate measure for Doan, Benson, Östlund, Kulich, Helenius due to them not being in the league long enough for the maths to level off. That is why we appear to have lost so much value on paper, you are trading statistically stable and known Tuch and Byram for unstable and unknown Zellweger, Crevier, and the others. Byram going does not worry me as much because I think the Sabres D is especially adapted to absorb the loss. Tuch leaving without any replacement but internal hope is a bigger gamble. 

The pros of their approach is their core is signed for roughly 4 more years before we need to re-sign any of the big names. They are also this side of 30, so they have a little time before declines become a big problem. By not signing Tuch, they saved a massive 8yr 10.5mil caphit from their books on a player that will probably start to decline in 2027. They have the ability to ride out this year while the forwards grow and also know that defensive reinforcements are in-bound as soon as late March. There is a lot of young talent and a good mix of veteran players in a locker room that seems to have finally figured out their culture. 

The cons are they might end up on the outside looking in this year. The forward group is certainly less and even if I feel okay with the defense, they are less too. We don't know if the youngins can pick up the slack. For all I know Kulich drops 25g, 25a when he comes back and Östlund has a 45pt season or something, Benson figures out his shooting and gets in the 60s. That could all easily happen but until it does, the con is they are worse on paper than they were on June 1. Burning a year for young guys to grow into roles they might not is a risky strategy that hurt multiple rebuilds over the years. In the end though, I haven't seen any high end forwards get traded outside of maybe McTavish (jury is out and so he's in that young and ? pile). Seems to me the league isn't ready to move these high end guys and the Sabres aren't willing to meet whatever the pricing is. 

In the end, I think the defense will be fine in part because I think even without Tuch, the forwards know their jobs in rotation and the defense as a whole is actually slightly improved in the bottom 4. Offensively, I don't see how they match some of their shooting metrics from last year especially without Tuch around. Kulich coming off a lost season is a long bet to get you 25+ goals. Samuelsson shot at 11.9% which is DOUBLE his career sh%. I just think there is going to be some regression in the shooting and in the goalies. They will have to play a bit less river hockey if they want to make the playoffs. How much have they learned after 13 games of post season play? How much have they learned after their torrid pace from December to April? I guess we shall see. 

Great post.

re: the bold. 

how would you feel about the strategy if we DO miss the playoffs next year? Is it a “we can take a step back as long as we make the playoffs” type equation for you personally or are you even open to the idea that the prudent offseason could even lead to a miss outright and the strategy still be a reasonable one?