Thorner

Re: accounting for assists, too: I *believe* liger’s chart, due to the “impact on” verbiage does include/allow for assist creation for expected impacts, but waiting on confirmation. The biggest difference re: looking at the chart or just pulling raw stats off the scoring leaders chart is the “expected” and “per 60” designations. Ie it’s attempting the usual “advanced” component of advanced stats with the “expected” component ie levelling the playing field by accounting for things like randomness/luck where the shots are being taken from/ teammate/opponent etc etc. Then it adds the further component of the per 60 designation, supposing to again balance for production differences due merely to ice time. Even a cursory analysis of why per 60 might represent a meaningful distinction yields a readily apparent justification: it stands to follow that the players being paid the most will get the most ice time and the opportunity to produce that comes with it, logically stands to follow that breaking production down to a per-minute basis lends a more level playing field for analysis. Its another valuable way of looking at the numbers, raw totals will also always provide value

I believe Quinn has actually been lining up on the right and JJ on the left of late, but otherwise, this is accurate I think

I don’t want to post the video cause it just feels wrong to do so but, there is documented social media video of his significant other talking about how much disappointment there was in going to Rochester. He definitely asked out. It’s not a big deal. He’s an older dog. Edit nm the video was already posted lol

Wayne did?

Any idea if the curves change when looking at expected goals FOR and not just expected goals? The current chart is using just individual expected, correct? And it also includes PP mins in the per 60, correct? Edit: actually, it says “impact on” so perhaps this is representative of expected goals for and not just individual expected goals. I feel like sometimes people are a bit loosey goosey with the terminology which leads to confusion

The chart is saying that prime offensive output is 23 By expected goals for It’s not that confusing of a chart

Wait , we’re still counting Mitts as a “1st equivalent”?

The game is obviously leaning younger over time so it’s important to remember things like, just because Tage is putting up a 40 goal pace now at 25 doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be putting it up in 3 years once Levi is finally ready. Also fits the idea it’s better to pay early rather than for past performance. Of course plenty round out their full games to a greater degree at a later age, hopefully those are the guys who could be available at a slight shave of cost do to declining raw production The very best of the best I think are in their primes a bit later. Crosby became a truly elite, top 10 worthy all time player later in his career when the production technically wasn’t as high. But your average guy peaks a bit earlier.

That’s why I said prime offensive output lol

I agree with the bold, as most players do not have no trade clauses, but what will be said is that KA is artificially granting one to all who speak up re: wanting guys who are dying to be Buffalo Sabres

Very interesting and definitely lines up with the word nowadays that on average, offensive prime output comes at a much earlier age than often thought. Win when your guys are young

Do we legitimately face more back-up goalies than starters? Needs to be a consideration when we try to map out expected improvement moving forward

Don’t think he forfeits the $

We’re always pulling fast ones on GM’s eh, it’s true. It’s cause we all know more than they do, duh hopefully there isn’t a GM reading this RIGHT NOW

^ that’s why I’m thinking. Sheehan probably thought he’d be playing more and prob asked to explore options elsewhere. Granted.

@Buffalonill in this thread

This is a whole lot of nothing he’s saying here, but frankly it’s just really positive to me they are seriously considering the improvement. At THIS stage. An overall unwillingness to deal and supplement because you want to manage expectations for now, and potentially going forward, hoarding picks and prospects in the name of endless development years is one thing, but determining the deal to be an unreasonable value proposition and declining for that reason is obviously the right call. I hope it gets done but the rumours themselves create a good connotation in my mind for where KA’s mindset is at

We have a lot of F prospects so I’d be comfortable dealing Rosen, Ryan Johnson isn’t a lock to sign anyways and we’re talking a real player here in Chychrun so I’d be ok with that too, and I don’t want to give up Kulich or Savoie or something if that’s what they mean. So instead, the 1st is 2024 hopefully, right? Let it be unprotected and maybe that gets the deal done.

Agree. Not waiting around until the end of the season would be a welcome and unexpected change - it’s not something we’ve seen in a while. If we are dealing 1sts it’s definitely a sign the priorities are shifting. Hope it’s actually true.

That we’re looking to make a move like this is ridiculously positive news

most excellent It would be quite unusual but I don’t see why it can’t work. edit: I should add - provided there’s another player comfortable on their off hand. We know Dahlin is. Has Power established he is? Not familiar as to whether Chychrun has.

I am le bored - - - Skinner (30) - Thompson (25) - Tuch (26) Peterka (20) - Cozens (21) - Quinn (21) Olofsson - Mittelstadt - Hinostroza Girgensons - Jost - Okposo Samuelsson (22) - Dahlin (22) Power (20) - Jokijarju (23) Fitzgerald - Lyubushkin Anderson Comrie ... 10 of the 20 regular roster spots of the Sabres team we ice, when we finally make the playoffs are (conceivably) set, who says no? - - - the top line is a bonafide, playoffs-worth top line: I think the statistics bear that out at this point. Thompson is a top 11 scorer right now league wide, if he ends up ~ there at season's end, I think it's fair to say he's arrived as a top-level 1C. The rub, maybe, is that it's a playoffs-worthy line *right now*. The ages in brackets w/those 3 players are the only ages that give me a bit of pause, here: will they still be this good, when we DO make the playoffs? There's evidence of a smart build here, though, which may address that point, moving on to: That second line might have the chops to be a first line. It's about balance here - or, rather, on balance, I think things look stable - potential regression from the top line has a reasonable likelihood of being offset by the growth of line 2. Maybe the top line *is* at it's best, right now, but if it drops off a bit, I don't think it drops below good *second* line (and, who knows, Tage may be in his prime for a good long while still.) There were posters that said the build was going to be excruciatingly long, largely because of the idea we need to insulate our youth with quality vets, with the key (and tough to hear) argument, or "catch", being that we need to grow our own vets. That attempting to bring them in from outside would be an inferior strategy. Well, this might be exactly what we are seeing. Maybe the current top line being the "veterans", and not the upswing-trajectory component of the F group, is exactly the plan - that Adams willingly understands that we *might* not (fully) capitalize on their primes, that that is a sacrifice necessary/part and parcel with the organic development he seeks. Could be. I don't really think about Jokijarju that much due to the stand-out nature of the other 3 d-men in the top 4, but here's one area of the team where rose-coloured glasses simply need not apply. The D is going to be good. Scary good. Just fill out the bottom pair. One of Dahlin or Power on the ice for the majority of every playoff game is...formidable. Goalies? Who needs 'em. Right? ...right? - - - Most likely potential in-system upgrades for "non-set" spots, w/consideration for timeline: Olofsson/Girgensons, 3/4 LW : Rosén, Rousek Mittelstadt/Jost, 3/4 C : Krebs, Asplund, Savoie, Kulich, Östlund Hinostroza/Okposo 3/4 RW : Poltapov *Fitzgerald/Lyubushin 5/6 D : Johnson, Lindgren (system really lacks RHD imo) *Anderson/Comrie 1/2 G : Levi (Got a feeling Portillo is gonzo) (Disclaimer: don't get mad at me if I left off your favourite Weissbach or whatever, everyone of course loves all the prospects until they are suspects, I know, these are just the guys I think have the best shot LT. That we have 8 forwards in bold here is pretty good imo) - - - * represent the spots where I think trade is the most likely avenue for reasonable improvement - Who knows if Johnson signs or if Lindgren amounts to anything, I really think a deal for vet d-men, or two, of more so the stay-at-home variety is in order, here, as soon as right now. - We'll need to use some of our abundance of cap space and picks (in addition to a deep prospect system, we have a full compliment of draft picks moving forward, including an extra 2nd in 2023, and a further 2nd in 2023, in place of/upgraded from a 3rd) to pay the price to acquire an established quality starter should Levi not pan out almost immediately upon arrival. And if he does, probably still looking for a back-up via trade. Comrie or UPL could work out as a backup, but, I'm not counting on it. - We likely end up fortifying the bottom 6 with an outside addition or two when Adams determines the time is now to compete, even though, as listed above, we have several reasonably likely options for in-system replacements down the line to the F group. This is where our system has the most depth by far, particular at C, which is a very nice change from even recent times. - - - In conclusion, and serving as a TLDR for this post or as a reward for anyone that got all the way through this rambling: here is a picture of 22 year old Mattias Samuelsson to remind everyone that age, as always, is clearly just a number

The Good - The Sabres are 15th in goal differential through ~ a quarter season The Bad - The Sabres are in 25th place, pacing for 70 points, and (surprise) the 8th overall pick in the looming draft Do some of the more positive markers a little below the surface, like goal differential, start to bear out in our record, allowing us to surpass the 2015-16 total of 81 points? Or are we what our record says right now, and we finish with a disappointing-for-this-stage in the rebuild total in the 70s? I could see it going either way. My heart says they'll surpass the 81 from 7 years ago.

All the juice just seemed to require a more significant degree of squeezing. Beating the Rangers 4 games to 2, we were a couple seconds from being down 2-3 in that series headed on the road.

Dahlin will have a long prime but it does look like he’s now entered it. Probably just depends on how dialled in one wants that period to be: It will be a period with plenty of years, him being in his prime right now doesn’t mean we are seeing his absolute best season, just one that could easily be in a block with his other best. Makar was in his 3rd nhl season by experience and 5th post draft when he won the conn smythe, Dahlin is in his 5th for both. Considering statistical prime for offensive output is age 22-26, I think it’s possible he has arguably just entered it given his start. If he’s putting up ~ point a game this year after all is said and done, and we are seeing a Norris nom, id be comfortable saying we are dealing with prime Dahlin. He’d be good enough to be the 1D if not best player on a cup team if he’s putting up Makar like results - since we saw Makar do it Just my definition