mjd1001

If you look 2 -3 posts below my post about this game's analytics, you can see the analytics on them are even worse for the last few games they have been together. I usually don't go to the analtyics first. My "eyes" tell me Quinn has been invisible the entire year outside of the offensive zone. I go to the analytics to see if the numbers back that up. They do. When he is on the ice, the other team dominates the puck. Its been like that all year, with various linemates for him. To me, Quinn doesn't make as many 'mistakes' as Cozens, the bad giveaways, the awful decisions. Its just he...I don't want to use the same words but nothting else works, he is invisible, he's a non factor in the neutral zone and D-zone. He doesn't even break up any passes, get many loose pucks. Its almost like when he is on the ice, the other team is on a PP. I'm not rooting against Quinn, not at all, but I'm desperate to see him contribute in other ways than scoring. I'm looking for it, i'm looking hard for it, but I'm not seeing it yet.

They were the worst line analytically this game, as I posted above. Postionally for the year, that line is AWFUL in only 90 minutes together as a line: -Corsi -56 (61 for, 117 against) -Fenwick -34 (50 for, 84 against) -Shots -22 (30 for, 52 against) -scoring chances -36 (26 for 62 against) For only playing together for 90 minutes, this number is HISTORICALLY bad -High danger chances -23 (7 for, 30 allowed), see above, this is beyond bad, this is monumentally bad. Quinn is the factor there. Without Quinn, Peterk and Mcleod together have decent numbers. When you add Quinn to them, they numbers nose dive. If Quinn isn't scoring, he's a problem. His numbers playing with Cozens were near the bottom of the league in terms of chances allowed against when he was on the ice. Now Cozens is gone and he's dragging down McLeod. He really needs to work on his game outside of when puck is on his stick if he is going to stick around.

Early look at the advanced stats for the forward lines: Kulich-Benson-Thompson. Great: +8 differential on Corsi, +7 Fenwick, +7 shots (7 for, 0 allowed), +3 scoring chances, +2 high danger chances. Malenstyne-Östlund-Lafferty: Pretty good: +2 Corsi, +2 Fenwick, +2 shots, +2 scoring chances, even high danger chances. Zucker-Krebs-Tuch. "OK": even Corsi, +2 Fenwick, +1 shots, -3 scoring chances, -1 high danger chances. Peterka-McLeod-Quinn. Pretty bad: -7 Corsi, -5 Fenwick, -4 shots, -4 scoring chances, -5 high danger chances (zero high danger for, 5 against, that is bad) On Defense, Bernard-Docker has his best analytical game of the season for Buffalo: +8 Corsi, +7 Fenwick, +6 shots, +2 scoring chances, -1 high danger chances.

I still don't like the McLeod-Quinn-Peterka line. Quinn I still think is the worst Forward on this team in terms of defensive coverage. Peterka is a bit better but not much. You are taking a pretty good/responsible center and giving him 2 of the worst wingers on the team (in terms of positioning and coverage). He is not lifting them up, rather those 2 are bringing him down. I don't think you can have both Quinn AND Peterka on the same line, they simply put too much pressure on their own D-men.

I'm still totally happy with the trade. Why? I don't think there was much of a market for Cozens. Norris appears to be a very good player who has some injury issues. A lottery ticket in a way. I'm more than happy to exchange Cozens for a lotter ticket. There always seemed to be rumors about other teams being interested in Cozens, but they were only rumors, and no concrete offers really came out of them, my guess is because there weren't any. This may very well have been the best offer out there.

In almost every 'sports' transaction involving money, (tv contracts, ticket prices...almost anything)...there are 3 parties involved in the end. The Owners, the Players, and the Fans. Nothing profound here, but the Fans are the ones with the least voice that they use, and they are always the group that is taken advantage of (Owners and players argue amongst themselves about who can take the most money from the Fans).

Ok, we don't go to concerts that much anymore. Maybe 1 or 2 at an arena every 5 years, and on average 1 to 2 per year at Artpark. But I have this argument with my wife all the time. She insists on recording as much of the concert on her phone as possible. I mean its not a big argument, she can do what she wants, but I always ask her why? There are hundreds, maybe thousands of other people who record the concerts and post them you can watch online, and more importantly many professionals with better locations record the bands we are seeing that, when she watches them after are much better than her recording. I want to know from her, isn't the point of going to the concert to see and hear it live...to have the memory of that? not the memory of watching it through your phone screen? The kicker is, I don't think she ever re-watches any of them. She downloads the clips from her phone to her computer, transfers them to a portable hard drive, and those drives are packed away in a closet someplace. I guess to each their own. And as far as your point about not being able to get away from the phone, an examples were were talking about: -We have season tickets to Sheas for the musicals/plays. I go to some of them with my wife (some we give the tickets to family members) and I noticed last weekend that so many people are on their phones leading up to the show starting, and then when it starts, there are still some people that have to finish that text, have to read that social, have to finish that game that they have their phone open a minute or so into the show. Then intermission, those who don't get up to take a walk (like me) or go to the restroom, I'd say more than 50% are on their phones. When I got back from my walk, just the 2 rows in front of us, there were people my age (middle age), a younger couple, and a LOT of senior citizens. More than half on their phone. Even the 80+ year old woman, she's on her phone, not talking to the people she is with but scrolling away. Again, to each their own.

First, is the jump in the cap for the next couple of years that already including these numbers? Maybe not totally, but is some of the increase in revenue already 'baked in?" Beyond that, the old deal averaged $375m per year. This new deal averages $916m per year. That is an increase of $541m per year. Divide that among 32 teams and you get $16.9m per year. Now about half of that goes to the cap, half goes to the owners, so the 1/2 of that going to the cap is $8.45m per year. That isn't $8.45 one year, and then another $8.45m the next...that is $8.45m per year on AVERAGE over the next 12 years. So I'm pretty sure they will 'pro-rate' the increase. I think the cap goes up because of this, but I don't think we are going to see massive, year-over-year increases.

I like the move. Rochester is making the playoffs, if they lose a game or two extra and move up or down a spot in the standings so be it. I am one who thinks its good to 1.) Reward some of the young guys in Rochester, even for a game or two, with a few games with the big club. 2.) Give them a taste of the NHL, remind them what they are working for, See for yourself how they fit in (even in a short stint) and let them see for themselves how close/far away their game is by playing against NHL players. I'd rather have him not slotted on a 4th line, but you still accomplish the above with him there.

I don't know how much your daughter follows the team and how she feels about it. But, I'm guessing there is a chance she doesn't feel the emotional lows with the losses after losses that a lot of us do. Many of us had our 'fandom' grow in the past attending games. Sure, I mostly watched on TV, but as a little kid I went to many games at the Aud growing up, and while I did follow the standings, the product on the ice that particular night was more important to me than the standings.

Yep, if your daughter wants to go with you, then go and enjoy it (or hope she enjoys it).

Checking in on a former Sabre....Mittlestadt is having a rough year, and its gotten worse on Boston. Since he got to Boston, they are 2-9, with those 9 losses being the last 9 in a row. He has 2 goals and 2 assists, is a -11 in those 11 games (82 game pace of 15 goals, 15 assists, -82) Colorado moved him pretty quick after signing him, and now he is even worse in Boston. Is there something going on with him? Or was he just worse a player even here than we gave him credit for?

This is getting somewhat political so I tread lightly, but to try to keep direct politics out of this.... The current leadership is doing, for the most part, what they said they would do when they campaigned. Not much is happening that wasn't eluded to, or said outright that it would be done. And, the country voted for this, so the country is getting exactly what it voted for. You can say the choices weren't that great, but again, at least for the winning party, the candidate was chosen by voters. We (the nation as a whole) are getting pretty much what we chose. (and often times what we choose is not what is best for us or anyone else, but rather we choose to 'own the other side', and we seem to, more and more, want things that will make someone else mad who you disagree with)

If you were ever going to overpay compared to everyone else for a player, Marner would be it for me. Open up the checkbook.

It kinda is my argument, but the short point of my long post is...how many minutes do you want him to play? If you want him to play only 15 minutes (give or take) then he is your 3C. If you want him to play 17+ minutes, that is your 2C...as very few 3C's get considerably less minutes. So, 2C, 3C, its a matter of semantics. Is who you label a 2C or a 3C a matter of their assigned role on the team (who you think is better) or who plays in more situations (who gets more ice time). I guess my point is tell me how many minutes you expect him to play, or want him to average, and I'll tell you then whether I consider that a 2C or a 3C.

Most obvious answer....Not sure. Even if I wanted to say yes, Its hard for me right now. In his spot duty with this team, I haven't seen much of anything to show me he is going to be good in the NHL. He might be, goalies tend to get better with expereince and age. But right now, I'm not confident.

The only issue with NHL.com is that they list a lot of players as centers that aren't actively playing center. I just took a quick look at the site, anyone who has played 35 games (half the season): 104 left wingers, 92 Right wingers, 204 listed as center. So while all forwards should have one primary position, 33.3% as LW, 33.3% as C and 33.3% as right wing.....NHL.com has 51% of forwards that have played half the season or more listed as a center. So its hard to break things down, but I would think his numbers among true centers would rank closer to 40th overall in goals, 36th in points, and 38th in P/GP. (to get from the NHL.com 51% of centers down to the 33.3%, you need to multiply by a factory of .65. If you apply that factor to your points above, that is what you get). Again, without having an accurate breakdown of players who play most of their minutes at Center, that is what the best 'math guestimate' gives us. Or Break it down among all forwards on NHL.com. Again, 400 total fowards have played 35 games or more. Statistically, the 'top 100' could be 1st liners, the 2nd 100 can be 2nd liners...all the way down to 4th liners being ranked 301-400. So in terms of production, a 2nd liner would be ranked from 101-200, and a 3rd liner ranked from201-300.... McLeod among forwards in goals ranks 126th (toward the top of 2nd line status). In points he ranks tied for 98th (at the bottom of 1st line territory/the top 25%), in G/GP tied for 116th, and P/GP tied for 105th overall. So, this year, his production in terms of pure points and in terms of points per game puts him in 2nd line territory (2nd 25%), but on the upper end of that. Oh, and +/- is an imperfect stat, but it does have meaning. After all, it shows how many goals you were on the ice for against vs for....if you want to use that as the most basic overview of his defensive play without going too deep into the analytics...he is tied for 41st among 400 forwards, for sure deep into the very first quarter of all forwards. He is doing the above tied for 150th overall in ice time per game. So all of his production numbers exceed where he should rank based on his ice time. I know just numbers, but then again....numbers! Here is the bottom line. My definition of a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th liner is simply who gets used the most. My first line center gets the most minutes, 2nd line center the 2nd most, etc. In the NHL, first liners get 18 minutes and up on average 2nd liners get 15 1/2 up to 18 minutes (Sabres 2nd line gets 16-17 minutes) 3rd liners get about 13 minutes to 15 1/2 minutes (Sabres 3rd line gets 14.5 to 15 minutes) 4th liners average under 13 minutes. If McLeod plays the 2 way game he does, I do not want him only playing 13 to 15 1/2 minutes like a typical 3rd liner. I want him with more minutes than that...in the Sabres case their 2nd line gets 16-17 minutes...That is the number of minutes I want him playing. If you want to bring in someone who puts up more points and 'call that person the 2nd center, and call McLeod the 3rd center', fine. But to me if McLeod plays 16+ minutes per game, to ME that is a 2C. So here is the question I'd like others to answer (no sarcasm at all I'm really curious): If a 1C on this team gets about 18-19 minutes per game... and a 2C on the Sabres gets 16-17 minutes and a 3C gets about 14.5 minutes and a 4C gets a lot less....... Who are your 4 primary centers next year...and how do you position them in terms of ice time? Maybe you go 1C=18m, 2C=17m, 3C=16m and 4C=9? No way you could keep things to plan over whole season. In that case I don't think you have a !c, 2C, and 3C..you simply have an interchangeable top 3Cs.

Deliberatley obfuscated the numbers? Really, c'mon now, I NEVER type in a bad number unless its by mistake. I typed 15 goals instead of 14 goals, ands that is the point you are going to make? that is deliberately obvuscating the numbers? Thats a joke. Its called a MISTAKE and it was by one goal and STILL did not change the results of my argument. You want to keep telling me I'm wrong, or saying ONE mistake I made by ONE goal is DELIBERATELY OBFUSCATING the numbers? You bet I'll call you a schill for your argument and probably a lot more. You throwing out numbers that you choose does not make you correct. Its also a joke that since I value different numbers, you come at me and just say what I say is "incorrect". And the teammate argument? I can say, and somewhat believe that the 3rd line is the EASIEST line to play on. Kulich playing with Tage usually means he is playing against the other teams best shutdown guys. The lines Benson is on...usually means he is NOT given the 4th line assignment of shutting down the opposing teams top line, but neither is he facing the other teams top shut down guys. Again, You may disagree with me thats fine. But its a bit juvenile coming back at someone and jumping all over a 1 goal error or saying its incorrect or wrong because I am judging people on using different metrics than you. I'm ALL for using advanced stats to support an argument, but I never use them as the end-all-be-all of winning my argument, apparently you do. Whatever I guess. You think Benson is a better player right now. I think Kulich is. Fine, just stop escalating your rhetoric at me about it...we disagree, get over it.

Yes it is. Goal scoring to me is production. Assists are secondary to goals, and secondary assists are often times 'statistical noise'. 12.0 to 9.7% over a season, is a sizable difference to me. You want to carry the water for Benson and be a schill for his gameplay fine. I'm not saying he is bad. Just don't go and tell me what the 'truths' are of who is better or more productive based on YOUR definition of it. In no world of mine is the goals Benson has equal to the 'production' of Kulich. Not even mentioning the fact that Kulich has a few multi-goal games and/or game winners. Meaning I have some memory of some of his goals being important with respect to winning games. I don't have that with Benson yet.

As i explained in the above post, I do think he has been a better player than Benson. And I think expected goals can be useful, but that is not the end-all-be-all of stats to show it. His possession numbers may not be as good, but his production is much better, and at this point in their careers, they still have a chance to 'learn' the overall game, but I want to see production. Benson's underlying metrics are pretty good, maybe really good for someone his age and the team he is on. I just see Kulich making plays and scoring goals to actively help this team win. I need to see more of that from Benson.

Of course its correct, no idea why you are making this more complicated than I meant it to be, as I was referring to him being the better scorer, which in part leads me to him being the better player (he is playing with better linemates, but the matchups he is facing are a lot worse than what Benson is facing). Kulich has 15 goals in 54 games and is shooting over 12% Benson has 10 goals in 67 games and is shooting in the single digits. This year Kulich is the better goal scorer, and from what I see a player contributing to wins overall better than Benson.

That would be an excellent #2 center on a playoff team. For some reason people think 20 goals is third line territory. This was posted in another thread with links to the data, but an average 2ND line center is right around 20 goals (actually a bit less). If you think he is good defensively (many do)...and above average defensive player with 20 goals is actually a good 2nd line center. Maybe not the best 2nd line center in the league, but there are playoff teams that don't get that production, at least not with good defensive responsibility going with it. Now, if someone wants to say they don't want to rely on him to get 20 goals ever year....if someone says he is a 3C because they only expected 10-15 goals out of him..then sure, he is a 3C. But if you think you can get 20+ goals out of him with good defensive play...then you want that guy on the ice for 17+ minutes per game. Guess what? 3rd line centers don't get 17+ minutes per game, that is what 2nd line players get.

No proof for this, but I'll throw it out there... As a 4th line center, you aren't going to 'pass up' a great scoring chance if its there, but you might not work hard to try to get it. Your game, your job might simply be keep the puck in the offensive zone. Work it into the corners. Basically, run time/kill time while McDavid and/or Draisaitl get a rest. Again, that might be an oversimplification...but my point is he may not have 'worked' as hard for prime scoring chances as he is allowed to do now. Of course NHL edge stats say otherwise. Last year with Edmonton, he had more 'high danger' chances per game than he does this year with the Sabres. Last year he had 42 "high danger" shots in 81 games, this year he has 29 in 71 games. So maybe the above point isn't even true. Then again, their definition of a high danger chance is just how close to the net are you....last year he could have just been whacking away at loose pucks in front of the net where this year he is actually trying to legit score. I'm not sure.

I'm going to agree with you on most, but I'd say Kulich is the one I am most encouraged by. Cozens and Quinn have actually hurt the team when they are on the ice....Benson might be very good eventually, but I think this board (in general) drastically over-rates his play. Kulich....For a first year NHL player, he is scoring goals at a better than 1 game in 4 pace. Now, will he improve on that? I don't know. But this year, among all the guys you listed (Even Cozens) I think he has clearly been the best overall player to me.

Adams brought in both McLeod and Bryam. With that said, despite Bryams pedigree, that he had a big cup run, that he was a very high draft pick...and McLeod has 'less of a pedigree', I think McLeod is more valuable right now, and even looking forward. I think Bryam is "OK", but I think his game went from 'good' when he got there and has slid into "just OK". At least at this moment, McLeod is more valuable to this team.