mjd1001

I don't understand going after Krebs for that hit. First of all, I think its dumb that players have to answer for legal hits. 2nd, that wasn't even that big of a hit. I dont' get it.

Peterka's usage is interesting. 7 times this season he has had under 14 minutes of ice time for Utah. That's 3rd, almost 4th line ice time in those games. His overall ice time is the lowest also since his rookie year in Buffalo. He's 5th among their forwards in overall ice time, but they certainly aren't pushing him to get a ton of ice time, thats for sure. Interestingly, he's only 6th among their forwards in PP ice time per game. I don't think they are upset with his play, I just figured he'd be on the first PP unit, and probabably getting closer to 17-18 minutes of ice time per game...which he is doing neither yet.

17 wins, 10 losses....as per NHL.com so far through 2 periods.

So, 3 pretty balanced lines you can just roll out there one after the other.... And then a real traditional 4th line.

I'd be good with Kozak on that 4th line taking the spot of Greenway. Kozak, Krebs, Malenstyn would be a good 4th line to me. I don't care who plays center or Wing. Krebs or Kozak, whatever. I'm surprised they are starting him on that top line. I would think being his first game back with live action, you give him 3rd line minutes +PP time. Once he gets used to the conditioning/speed of the actual game...after a game or two, move him up to the first line with the additional minutes then.

I can see it both ways. I have a stronger feeling about start times on Saturdays though. I love Saturday afternoon games...yet at the same time I wouldn't want to give up Saturday night games. In a perfect world, I'd love the Sabres to play a ton of home games on Saturdays....alternating between 1pm afternoon starts where the building is usually pretty full with kids and families...and then in between have the 7:00 or 7:30 Saturday night game.

A turnover that results in an uncontested shot from the front of the net that becomes a goal is counted the same as a non-turnover but bad positioning that eventually results in an uncontested shot from the front of the net that becomes a goal. If the Xga number is good, but there are a lot of turnovers that result in good scoring chances, that means that there is probably really, really good overall play to make up for those turnovers that result in that good xga number. I want that xga number low. If someone said I could reduce the number of turnovers by the D-men by 5 per week, but in return I have to add from other places 10 shots from the slot due to bad positioning, therefore raising that xga number....I'll take the turnovers with the overall lower xga.

If I'm not mistaken, those great chances from defensive giveaways are factored into the high danger chances allowed.

To me its not unexpected at all. zero is neutral obviously...3 teams at at zero. Of who is left...14 are positive, 15 are negative. That is about as close to even as I would expect.

They have been playing well lately, in the past 2 weeks, there have been multiple games they looked like the best line for the Sabres on the ice. Malenstyn has been interesting for me this season. He's not making a huge impact on the team playing the 4th line and getting less than 10 minutes per game even strenght ice time. I thought he started the season "OK", then had a stretch where he played really, REALLY bad, and now he is actually playing his role very well.

I'll take Ellis with those numbers that are heavily influenced by one Really bad game but a bunch of good games... Rather than somebody else who has similar numbers but it's nothing but a bunch of mediocrity. When evaluating a goaltender, I would much rather look at what percentage of their games are they even or positive on the goals allowed versus expected goals allowed... Rather than raw numbers averaged together.

In the last 4 periods the Sabres: -have 20 high danger scoring chances to the opponents 9 -have 4.59 expected goals vs the opponents 2.48 -have 1 goal to the opponents 7

Going by the numbers, this may be a good reason why Byram isn't as good as people say. Its not just the actual goals you mentioned, its 'expected goals' which represents the quality of shots you are getting vs getting: In terms of XG% this year... Timmins numbers are lower when playing with Bryam than with everyone else. Dahlin is lower with Bryam than with everyone else. Kesserling is lower with Byram than with everyone else. Power IS better with Bryam, but its a very small sample size (only about 53 total minute together) If Bryam is so good..or even good at all, he should be 'bringing up' the performance, and numbers of most of the guys he plays with, not the other way around.

And...the team you play tomorrow is on a 7 game win streak, has 19 of the last 20 points, and just took down Colorado. Things are not looking up...

Moving Connor Timmins doesn't turn this team around though. Even without him and his worst games, this team isn't much different. The failures this year are about Dahlin morphing into a turnover machine (at least it seems like it), Byram getting top minutes but not being close enough to deserve them, Tuch's forchecking and backchecking disappearing to the point he is a liability without the puck, average-to-below average goaltending, McLeod taking a major step back (in terms of HIS play without the puck), a lot of injuires...and other things. Timmins to me is WAY down the list of problems this team has.