dudacek

I think that even if he finishes the year with 10 goals and 40 points, GMs around the league will still consider him JACK EICHEL, top 10 talent, and enough of them will bid accordingly. I also don't buy the Krueger excuse. Jack likes Krueger, just had his best season ever under Krueger, and won't get better deployment than what Krueger gives him. My whole premise is that if you wait another year of mopey Jack, the number of all-in bidders shrinks, Jack's power to turn this into a Rick Nash situation grows, and you put off the possibility a good Buffalo Sabres team by yet another year. I agree with your case based on the premise Jack's soul can be saved in Buffalo. I'm just not sure I buy that premise, and I am sure the return will be better in the next six months than it will be by waiting another year. Check the market. See what kind of return is available. Don't be afraid of an aggressive move. Don't go Botterilling the whole situation by waiting for a train that never comes.

To be more precise, pretty everyone except Ullmark and maybe Reinhart has been mediocre to terrible post-COVID. Let's put the analytics aside for a moment and talk about simple goals for and against, and expectations, over the season. For the purposes of this discussion, I've defined top 6 as the guys you expect to score, and bottom six as the guys you don't, and left out Cozens as a guy who could arguably fit with either group and doesn't really have a huge impact on the numbers. Personally, I'd expect Asplund, Eakin, Okposo, Sheahan, Lazar and Reider to have combined for 10-12 goals by now while holding their own five-on-five. Not counting the PP, they have 11 goals and have, collectively, been outscored by 15 goals. They are on the ice about 19 ES minutes a game. Personally, I'd expect Eichel, Hall, Skinner, Reinhart, Olofsson and Staal to have combined for 30-35 goals by now while holding their own five-on-five. Not counting the PP, they have 6 goals and have, collectively, been outscored by 52. They are on the ice about 30 ES minutes a game. Their work on the PP partially compensates, but on the scoresheet, it is a horribly non-productive top six, not a mediocre bottom six, that is killing us.

Again, compare his approach out of the gate to that of other longtime vets like Sam, Risto, Jake and Linus. Jack seemingly* entered the season having already decided the team wasn't good enough, and that is not acceptable from your captain, whether it's justified or not. *(it's absolutely possible other things were affecting his play) *** Also, the play of the bottom six has not been this team's weakness at all, our top six is very clearly our weakness

Josh Allen won over the fan base by winning games. Jack Eichel, well you know the rest.

I'm not blaming Jack Eichel for the state of the franchise, just offering what I see. I think the Jack we see today is a creation of the incompetence of the franchise. But I also think this season he's somehow returned the favour. I can hammer Adams for not acquiring a goalie, but the bottom line is he tried harder than any GM since Tim Murray to improve the roster for this season. And long-suffering players like McCabe, and Risto and Reinhart and Ullmark saw that, and responded by playing their ***** off. The captain did not. And within a few weeks the team has bought in to what Jack has been selling. There is too much under the bridge. Mommy and Daddy are good people, they're just not good together anymore. It feels like it's over.

Is Beane McD’s boss, or vice-versa? Or are they relative equals? That’s what I mean by flat. Same question with Ralph and Kevyn.

Today is the first time I’d consider testing the market. Franchise centre is the hardest thing to acquire and I don’t believe it makes sense to trade one when you got one. Thing is, it doesn’t seem like we have one. I don’t know if Jack is injured, or out of shape, or is going through something off the ice, or just numb like so many fans, but I don’t see the passion for the sweater, or the city, or his teammates or even himself any more and it translates on the ice. I’d rather fix what is wrong and bring back the Jack we had for much of last year, but I think that is what they tried to do this year and failed. We cannot have a captain who has given up on the franchise: what he projects feeds everyone and everything around him. A top 10 talent locked up on a fair deal at 25 never goes on the market. The interest will be considerable and so will the return. It will never equal Jack but the space created may allow something better to grow. This isn’t what I want, and it pains me to say it, but a trade just seems inevitable. See what’s out there. Seize control of the situation and roll the dice for a win rather than retreating into a corner and minimizing your losses. Really, what do we have to lose?

Agreed. Firing Ralph is a Terry decision and it won’t come easily as long as Ralph continues to be a class act and a good soldier. Terry’s ego would be naturally resistant to making the move.

No evidence, but my impression is that Adams and Ralph each run their own portion of the hockey department as partners, with the Pegulas involved in any major decisions and arbiting anything that needs arbiting. I base this on the “flat structure” Terry has advocated in the past and my impression of how the successful Bills operate, reinforced by Ralph’s presence during the Botterill bloodbath and the less-than-forthright answers given by all three parties about this around that time.

I don't know if this is a good idea. I'm pretty sure Michael is @pi2000 😜

What we were taught: Terry Pegula is a true fan who will spare no resources building a team that will compete for multiple cups. Hockey heaven has arrived. What we got: a decaying arena, a broken fanbase and (consistently) the worst team in hockey over the past decade What we were taught: bottoming out and loading up on picks would bring us the elite talent that will carry us to cup glory What we got: a nasty, skilled middle-pairing defenceman with some of hockey's worst fancystats, a 50-60 point RW, a franchise centre who has played like one for exactly one season, a soft entitled W who barely played and was quickly traded, and a whole bunch of nameless, faceless picks who made no significant impact What we were taught: a charming, beloved franchise superstar was back to lead the team to glory on and off the ice What we got: a mysterious apparent rage-quit a few months into the season What we were taught: we're handing the reins over to a no-nonsense super-scout who was going to acquire the talent to complete the tank and launch us into a decade of contention What we got: some entertaining press conferences, a ton of gunslinging trades that added up to nothing, and a loose-ship culture filled with unhappy people on and off the ice What we were taught: a proven, Stanley Cup winning coach is exactly what we need to harness our burgeoning pool of talent and slingshot us into contention What we got: a lot of stretch passes that turned into icings, boring hockey, and a dressing room in open rebellion What we were taught: We were getting an emerging franchise goalie, two top 6 power forwards and maybe the best 2C in hockey to fill in the gaps around our tank fruit. What we got: A whole bunch of guaranteed SO losses from a troubled soul with addiction problems; a 25-goal 40-point douche who embarrassed the franchise multiple times off the ice and was a bad influence on our kids; a real solid person who almost died in a bizarre breakdown, while providing 3rd-line play on a 1st-line contract; and a great hockey player better known for his lost love for the game, hatred for Tim Horton's and putting us on the wrong side of one of the worst trades of all time. What we were taught: we were getting one of the top emerging AGMs in the game, a multiple cup-winner and talented administrator who would bring order and stability and finish the rebuild "the right way." What we got: a glacially-slow plodder who built a flabby organization, and left obvious on-ice holes unaddressed while making terrible value judgements on hockey talent. What we were taught: we were tapping one of the bright young assistant coaches in the game, a guru of backline offence who would implement an exciting five-man attack. And he's a beloved alumni to boot. What we got: a limp-wristed leader with a system his players couldn't implement and no ability to adjust What we were taught: we've stolen a game-breaking sniper at a bargain price in trade What we got: the worst contract in hockey, and probably for another six years. What we were taught: we were essentially packaging two 1sts and two 2nds into three trades (with more hinted at) to transform our defence into a free-flowing, attacking group at the cutting edge of the modern era What we got: three defencemen who haven't been able to stay in the lineup and have averaged less than 20 points each per season What we were taught: the 2017-19 first rounds had brought us a pair of potential top-six centres who were in the conversation for best player outside the NHL in the year following their draft years, and a defenceman many considered the best blueline prospect since Denis Potvin, 50 years ago What we got: two wingers who can't stay in the lineup yet and have combined for 7 points this year, and a really good point man on the power play who has shown flashes of good and bad elsewhere. What we were taught: we were getting a fresh, out-of-the-box hire with special leadership and communication skills, who would fix the culture and be able to motivate the modern player What we got: a great talker who seems to be well-liked, who has completely neutered a lot of productive offensive players and shot himself in the foot with stubborn lineup decisions. What we were taught: we have a solution for our longstanding 2C woes, and have added an elite winger, the best talent on the free agent market; our top six will rival the best in the league. What we got: a pale shadow of a potential hall-of-fame centre and a winger who hasn't scored in 18 games; Our top six has combined for six ES goals the entire season. Maybe Kevyn Adams can change things. Forgive us if we doubt it. Every promise goes unfulfilled. It's exhausting being a Sabres fan. We are cursed. We are broken.

Here are two more I see frequently and don’t understand when they are juxtaposed. ”He’s still creating a ton of chances so he’s playing well” “He’s not really playing well, he’s just got a high shooting percentage.” The player who got 5 goals on 80 chances is not playing better offensively than the guy who got 10 goals on 40 chances over the same 20 game stretch. I get the arguments about sustainability etcetera but it is results that count.

Do we see radical shifts in analytics when players get a new coach and system? Ristolainen’s have improved under Ralph. Skinner’s counting stats have dropped off the map, but his analytics have not. Risto’s usage has been similar if slightly reduced, Jeff’s has changed significantly. And not the first time I’ve asked this question, but I’ll give it another try: When a player travels, do his analytics generally travel with him? Analytics Jimmy Vesey was a vastly different player in Buffalo than in New York.

Expected goals is a great one for this discussion. Great tool for looking at a player and confirming that he is “doing the right things” even if it’s not showing up on the scoresheet. Frequently mistakenly used on the internet as a synonym for “he’s playing well.” First and foremost, playing well doesn't just mean attempting the right things, it means actually executing them.

Agree with this. I think where I might be going with this thread is that analytics should be used the same way and they aren’t. (Ristolainen is the worst player in the NHL! Charts!)

This thread was partially inspired by a snarky comment I made on the game day thread yesterday about a shot that Skinner made off a rush that was two feet wide. I want to remove the snark and I don’t want this to be about Skinner, but I do want to use the example to start the discussion about stats based on shot attempts. I think the situation was largely one where the defender made an excellent play to neutralize what could have been a good scoring chance, by essentially forcing Jeff to take a low percentage shot. As a coach I’d give the defender a strong pat on the back for a good play and I’d be fine with Skinner’s play selection if disappointed with his execution. Shot attempt based analytics and high danger chance analytics give Jeff pluses on that play and the defender minuses. When Colin Miller, faced on the point with a charging Scot Laughton, winds up and blindly blasts a puck into his shin pads he gets a plus on the shot attempt clock. When Rasmus Dahlin, in the same situation, spins and throws a no-look pass to Okposo on the right boards he does not. Discuss.

Thought we had a thread for this but I couldn’t find it. I remember when +/- was in vogue as a player debate tool and I remember the campaign to discredit it. “How can we put any stock Into that stat when they give Sam Reinhart a plus on a goal when all he did was hop over the boards” ”Like Lazar deserved a minus there. That stupid pass was all on Montour.” ”Of course Risto’s going to be a minus, he gets the hardest ice time on a bad team” ”Poor McCabe is a -3 because Hutton couldn’t stop a beach ball” Basically, the argument - and it’s a sound one - is that there are way too many factors going on during a hockey game to ever use +/- as a definitive indicator of how “good” a player is. I know advanced stats are an attempt to address that, but I get the sense sometimes that a similar argument can be applied to most advanced statistics. I would like to discuss that here.

You’ve been calling it for months. Ive been praying we could avoid the chance to prove you right, but deep in my heart I knew this day would come. It is the Sabres after all.

He flubbed four zone exits and turned the puck over multiple times in his past few shifts. If the analytics show he’s tilting the ice the right way this period, I’m going to stop believing analytics. Im going to stop taking about him now. Picked the wrong period to really focus on his play. Sorry for poisoning the thread.

Oh look starts on the PP and immediately turns it over.

A missed shot, but that will look good on his Corsi

That was the same shift he flubbed a good pass from Mitts and turned the puck over on another exit and on a board battle? Skinner another flubbed exit.

My god, this is bad hockey.

Considering what Reinhart got a penalty for, he has a point