LGR4GM

I don't agree. +/- only tells us that players even strength goal differential. I think within a team it can tell you some things but I don't think he tells us how successful a player was. If I take Zach Benson and deploy him with Bryson and Samuelsson and he gets UPL being a sieve every night, his +/- is going to be ***** regardless of what he does. In the end, I think ppl will use the stats they like and I can't really argue with that. I use xgf% because it helps be contextualize both offense and defense.

Zach Benson is the best defensive player on the team. But you're right, he imported that himself. It's why I want Wilford gone and why they need to understand drafting better.

Let's say Cozens is a 10% shooter, he's that because he doesn't get to the spots he needs to and takes the shot types he needs to. Now Tage is a 15% guy. So they get to point X on the ice and take a wrist shot. You're arguing that Tage will score more there because the league average is 11% and Tage shoots higher, yes. But you're looking at 4 goals on 100 shots. We also know the areas players score more from. Xgf% would not be the same because of Tage scores more from a spot than so does others, so the average goes up. If Tage prevents shots from those spots it prevents xga. Cozens would have to shoot from the same places meaning he's skilled enough to get there and defend the same shots. It's just not happening. Versus actual goals for. If I put Tage on a team with a real goalie his actual goals against goes down even if his xga stays the same. He's still giving up what xga says. It's also why on ice sv% is important. Idk, I think we just fundamentally disagree about what xgf shows and why it's better statistically than actual goals for and against. Doesn't mean they both can't tell us things.

No xgf wouldn't be the same. You wanna know why? Good shooters get to the good shooting spots. And xgf% is also looking at the defensive side of things. You're suggesting actual goals, which are rarer than shots, measure individual players contributing to winning more but stats says they don't. Sure that noise might even out over a career for actual goals but the funny part to me is so would the xgf. The good shooters get to the good spots to shoot, that's the key.

That's not accurate. Xgf takes into account league average sh%. The problem with actual goals for and against is all the extra noise and all the randomness. There's simply a better sample of shots. We could get into GAR and WAR but that's really complicated and the models vary a ton.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

But the offense is experienced. Benson, Tuch, Zucker, McLeod, and evert Thompson know how to play on both sides of the puck. Norris could be included too. It's really only Kulich and potentially Tage who aren't stout defensively. The defense on the other hand lacks experience all over. Dahlin is the only defender with 300+ games.

It's primarily goaltending and an inexperienced defense.

I don't know what case you're making. I think Buffalo will end up with a similar goals for or slightly lower this upcoming season. I'm more worried about goals against. I don't think Adams is a good team builder. You're focused on Peterka almost exclusively. I guess we'll see what happens.

Doan

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.

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.

@Hank eye roll away, doesn't change the fact DOGE is and was a scam.

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.

The problem isn't the youth in the top 6 forwards. Zucker, McLeod, both might end up with Top 6 minutes. Benson might be the only one under 200 games. It's the inexperience in the top 6 defenders. They by their very construction will have only 1 guy with 300+ games played.

Upl had 1 good year in 5. Bet accordingly.

A real gm could have made the playoffs. Adams is a failure and the Sabres have mediocre to bad stats across the board. Peterkas 2nd assists are a function of him playing with Tage Thompson. If you feel Tage can't score without Peterka carrying pucks in or shooting them in, then say so. Fancy stats tell us how Peterka scores. The question is what does removing that mean for everyone else.

How quickly we all forgot how good Samson Reinhart was on both sides of the puck. Truly one of the dumbest trades of Adams illustrious career.

Do you think Buffalo will score 30 less goals this season because Peterka is not here? Or even 20 less goals, let's go with that. They scored 269 last year, do you think Buffalo will score 249 goals this year?

The Sabres have to remove 17% of their goals against. There offensive output is borderline irrelevant without that change. Getting just average gt brings you down to only needing 10% goal reduction. That's how bad UPL and Levi were last year.

Sam Reinhart has only scored over 40 once, twice if we want to count the 39 he had last year. He also shoots at 15.9% on average and manages 224 shots a year on average over the last 3 years. Peterka shoots at a career of 12.7% and was at 15.6% this past year. He only averages 199 shots over the last 2years. So Peterka will have to add 25 shots on average to his total and maintain his current peak of 15.6% just to get into the realm of Reinhart. Sam has had 4 30+ goal seasons. Peterka would have to go wild to get to 50. Can Peterka be a consistent 30g scorer, maybe. He will need to develop more than just his rush game. Can he hit 40 consistently, idk, I am not sold on that at all.