Thorner

Pretty much. There’s sort of 2 different conversations going on here. “You are what your record says” isn’t supposed to be a comment on the process, that’s not the proper context of that phrase. The context for that phrase is generally as a comment on results-to-date. Whether a team has been “hard done by” by external factors up to and including luck - ie “did this roster, in those 25 games, deserve a better fate?” or is our record this season reflective of the roster we committed to ice.

No one is saying that what our record says we are, today, is necessarily indicative of what it will be in the future: you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is that, the record that we can look to, that is indeed indicative of the standings placement we truly are deserving of, today (ie: an accurate reflection of the results of our team, as assembled, thus far this season), will continue to be reflective of what we have justly achieved and assembled, going forward, at whichever point we choose to read it: it’s always reflective, but not necessarily predictive. What is does point to is that, should the aspects that led to said record not change, it’s unlikely the record would. That’s where your analogy misses the mark: should the practices that made said person healthy, to that point, continue forward, it’s unlikely they become unhealthy in any sort of immediate timeframe. The fact it would take a result as unlikely as the one you describe, tripping over a cat and dying, is exactly the point. The Sabres are deserving of the record they’ve committed to record this season: I don’t think saying that is mutually exclusive from the idea that there are factors that point to that record potentially being on the upswing moving forward. When that time comes, and our record changes: yes, we will still be what our record says - at that point in time. - - - When people say “you are what your record says you are” they are referring to it being an accurate representation of what the team in question has deserved and achieved to date, not that it will necessarily be what it deserves moving forward.

Especially a basket as relatively-for-the-NHL small as Levi‘s. Have faith in the kid but the current landscape re:NHL starters for desired landing ground for a G of that size currently begins and ends at Juuse Saros - who is indeed my hope for Levi’s upside Even a quick perusal of the goalie ranks again this season shows only 1 goalie among the top 20 in wins, below 6’1: Saros, of course. There’s a handful at ~6’2 and the majority are 6’3 or larger.

Couple of noteworthy Sabres mentions in this thread, an early season stats-based awards take. Dahlin 4th mention for Norris Quinn 1st mention for Calder Peterka 4th mention for Calder

Judge paid

Will have to stay out of this one once it gets going to avoid spoilers. The now 11-year climb to get back to a sustained record above nhl .500 resumes it’s chase tonight - not since 2012 have we finished above .500. Merely reaching and finishing at a .500 mark, on the nose, would match the finish of 10 years ago (2013 season).

Fair enough, but I remember Mitch in particular blocking a big shot to lock up a playoff dub a couple years back - so the Leafs thing could be narrative, at least when it comes to some players within that core

So blocked shots are like hits? You want them if you aren’t good but if you are good you don’t rely on them? Ie you are less frequently at the disadvantaged position favourable to racking up those tallies?

I’m going to give Thompson some props here, as well. I always wanted to build a legitimate second line behind a star 1C, and it appears we’ve finally done it. For me, Thompson gets some acknowledgement because, aside from that second line being populated by talented players with good chemistry, I think a small portion of the reason we have a 2nd line performing like a 1st line is because of the attention our first line, on paper, is drawing. Same reason I expect Savoie, or Kulich, or whoever shakes out ends up being an excellent 3C: the shelter 2 bonafide top 6 C’s provide Every piece we add from here on in fits easier because the shape it needs to take is so much more identifiable due to the other filled in variables. It’s also where more must be expected of the GM - because it’s the tweaks from that point on that separate the good from the great, and while, as mentioned, more information is available at this point to make sound moves, you are competing against GMs league wide, in the same place, also making the informed decisions their filled in rosters provide.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2d708b2e-f845-4fc6-92a8-8efab35e58ef

The guy left his hairline back in Winnipeg. We’ll be ok. - - - Are we in line for another back-up?

Not so fast...their core is getting up there in age, no? I got a funny feeling a big second half drop off is coming. Mark mah werds!

I’d probably rather not. Win the battle lose the war type stuff w/injuries, potentially. Playoffs come ‘round all bets are off. For now I’d rather achieve improved results through a dialed in system and goaltending / depth D improvements

The key with being a deluca .500 team isn’t just about your wins being equal to total losses, it’s achieving that feat *while also* ensuring a fair few in the loss column fall into the OT Loss side: as I was pointing out earlier this season - there is generally one anomalific (yes, I invented this word) team, every season, that achieves deluca .500 but falls short of playoffs because too many of the losses are in regulation. Where deluca .500 generally has value re: correlation is that the large, large majority of teams reaching the mark DO make the playoffs as losing so few in OT is a relative anomaly - the standings bear that out as generally only 1 or 2 deluca .500 teams miss each year Would be remiss to not mention - that “one team” is shaping up to very well be us this season

Looking at their mid-pack records, I wouldn’t call Edmonton and Calgary upper echelon

Not worried about Matt Savoie in the least. He’s going to be good and we are loaded at C - he’ll definitely carve out a useful NHL role for us + upside.

While not mathematically eliminated, by any stretch of the imagination, it would be a significantly uphill battle at this point given it doesn’t appear to be their focus: which I’d guess would be a requirement for achieving a goal that challenging.

Honestly, I have no idea. A not-insignificant number, though, I’d imagine - and especially given our documented ability to score goals, it’s not a number we want to underestimate. It’s not like in years past where hypothetical good goaltending would just result in closer losses. The bold: I mean, ya, but that’s kinda the obvious part, no? I think the point being made is that there’s a school of thought that says it’s ok to vary how you approach the addressing of each individual position, depending on their varying needs. Clearly, goalie was a need more so than at F. Perhaps he could have varied his approach - particularly in light of losing out on retaining a goalie he himself seemed to think we could really use. I agree with the rest, though. At the end of the day I think it comes down to a difference of opinion on how highly to prioritize GT for this season and last: ultimately I see it like you and have mentioned before that there’s some cap space dry to take a bigger swing at a G in the case that Levi doesn’t pan out. Levi timeline still makes the most sense. Though I truly hope the expectation next season is playoffs.

I think there’s a very real possibility the types of goalie adds Adams has been making, if par for the course moving forward, do end up being some sort of version of “good enough” considering the apparent looming depth of the other positions. But I have a funny feeling if we do get good enough, to make a run, we’ll be left wanting and needing better than good enough, in net. Maybe Adams really doesn’t have any choice at this point but to hope Levi is that guy while focusing on building an overall team with the ability to mask a good enough option in net while they take swings at buy low aim high moneyball options or whatever. It makes the Ullmark failure worse but I know that’s not supposed to be mentioned

No? I wasn’t really sure. My first thought was the implication was we may not even need a roster addition at the position potentially. The replies on the tweet seem to take it that way too, that’s part of the confusion on my end. Ie “we aren’t a goalie away, we just need to develop the system more!” It certainly frames the “we give up a lot of chances” thing under the goalie conversation. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t making any assertion about goalie at all, or else why frame it that way

When choosing-your-own-board-adventure, if you find you’ve reached the common “what could Kevyn Adams have even done?” brick-wall ending, you need to start over 😉 - - - Kevyn Adams has done a promising job thus far in my estimation: full stop. I think the distinction you’ll find at large is that it’s supposed he simply *could not* have done a better one. I don’t think there’s an environment present here that facilitates discussion on those topics: you’ll either get the “you are just one of those fans that can’t see the bigger picture” refrain or the altogether more common favourite designation of being a whiner who just wants to complain and focus on the negative (like the “you’ll just shift to saying playoffs isn’t enough once we make it!” talking points being dished at @PerreaultForeverin the other thread.) If the perception is that we are on the right track, any deviation from what we’ve actually seen Adams do is dismissed/can be dismissed on its face under the basis of “couldn’t have been wise as then it would have been in the plan”. I don’t believe the position that you can take issue with individual aspects of the plan while still having an appreciation for the overall totality of it is considered an allowable one.

Oh so Adams has just been acquiring goalies for the system we’ll one day have, instead of the one we have now. Or is it just that no goalie could have worked in this system, until perfected, and that we won’t be seeing any roster additions to the position, going forward, beyond the fringe options expected to carry the load ala the Carolina system back in the day? Is the point of the tweet that we don’t actually need to acquire goaltending or that it’s going to be incorporated in time?

Someone who’ll be more ready to contribute towards winning would be my play And im a big Savoie guy and not one of those down on his pedestrian numbers this season

Eichel / Reinhart / Ullmark